tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post7599807605071935026..comments2023-11-16T07:12:40.867-05:00Comments on Dissoi Blogoi: Plus ça ChangeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-52848157861563775942007-02-12T10:25:00.000-05:002007-02-12T10:25:00.000-05:00Dear Stephen,Thank you for your comment.Graham wri...Dear Stephen,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your comment.<BR/><BR/>Graham writes, "Marcovich (1967) has succeeded in showing* how a misreading of B12 could lead to an interpretation such as that embodied in A6".<BR/><BR/>I took him to mean that Plato in A6 was paraphrasing (or misquoting) the 'one genuine river fragment' so loosely, that it counted as an interpretation.<BR/><BR/>Suppose we accept that the second half of A6 (even though presented as a quotation) is some kind of heavily interpreted recounting of B12.<BR/><BR/>Wouldn't that still leave the point that A6 contains, apparently, two distinct references to Heraclitean text? The first reference, so different in wording, and clearly presented as distinct, would not be well accounted for as a mistaken reference to B12.<BR/><BR/>But I'm worried that I'm misunderstanding your point, so easy to do in these matters. <BR/><BR/>Michael <BR/><BR/><BR/>*I should add that I'm uneasy with the language of 'show'. Similarly Kirk: "Karl Rheinhardt has shown...", to which Kirk appends the footnote: "Most clearly in <I>Hermes</I>, 77 (1942)..."--as if one could 'show' something <I>less</I> clearly!Michael Pakalukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00233648836210188722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-48489354999666222592007-02-11T15:59:00.000-05:002007-02-11T15:59:00.000-05:00Dear Michael,As far as I can see Graham is saying ...Dear Michael,<BR/><BR/>As far as I can see Graham is saying that *neither* phrase is a quotation from Heraclitus, that both are Platonic interpretations based on B12, which he seems to take to be the only authentic "river fragment."<BR/><BR/> Stephen MennAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-65567710415341305142007-02-11T15:45:00.000-05:002007-02-11T15:45:00.000-05:00I'm wondering whether there's a difference between...I'm wondering whether there's a difference between "panta chorei" and "panta rhei". I mean, oughtn't the translation to be "everything gives way and nothing remains"?<BR/><BR/>It seems to me this is nicely ambiguous, and one should retain the ambiguity (even language gives way and nothing remains...).<BR/>CatherineCatherine Rowetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15356313351798903675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-88707892067772250072007-02-10T13:53:00.000-05:002007-02-10T13:53:00.000-05:00Dear James,Thanks for the lead. I can get that bo...Dear James,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the lead. I can get that book here ... it will take a couple of days. <BR/><BR/>I went back and found this paragraph in the BMCR discussion of the book:<BR/><BR/><I>Three articles explore the interpretation and use of the Presocratics by Plato and Aristotle. Mantas Adomenas ("The Fluctuating Fortunes of Heraclitus in Plato") looks at Plato's ascription of the idea of "flux" to Heraclitus. This is usually thought to contradict Heraclitus' belief in the unity of opposites, but Adomenas attempts to resolve this contradiction by reinterpreting what Plato means by flux. Rather than seeing it as meaning that all things are constantly changing in every respect, Adomenas sees Plato as referring to the fact that the properties in the world of appearances are constantly changing (i.e. an object is constantly fluctuating between smaller and larger depending on what it is compared to). Adomenas spends far more time discussing Plato's ideas than Heraclitus', but he does provide a way of eliminating Plato's troubling testimonium.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, yes, that would be the <I>next</I> step, as I see it, viz. to discuss how "everything flows" would of course need to be nuanced.<BR/><BR/>MMichael Pakalukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00233648836210188722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-77786189401385908452007-02-10T13:31:00.000-05:002007-02-10T13:31:00.000-05:00Hi MichaelThe most recent discussion I know of Pla...Hi Michael<BR/>The most recent discussion I know of Plato's reception of Heraclitus is Adomenas in André Laks, Claire Louguet, Qu'est-ce que la Philosophie Présocratique? Cahiers de Philologie vol. 20. Villeneuve d'Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, 2002. Pp. 550. ISBN 2-85939-740-X. EUR 29.00. Not sure if he discusses this bit (I don't have the volume to hand here, but I'd be surprised if he didn't.)James Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02262258553733864003noreply@blogger.com