ἀπόλλυται
whooper: I take it you’re aware that the Clitophron is a highly problematic dialogue that some scholars think is not genuine Plato–maybe a parody of Plato; others that it is a draft that was never completed; and in general everyone who thinks it’s genuine seems to have difficulty fitting this dialogue within the framework of Platonic thought.
Also, there’s a passage in the Republic that seems to have some relation to the passage you quoted (1.336c-d). Thrasymachus is challenging Socrates’ method for figuring out what τὸ δίκαιον is:
ἀλλ᾽ εἴπερ ὡς ἀληθῶς βούλει εἰδέναι τὸ δίκαιον ὅτι ἔστι, μὴ μόνον ἐρώτα μηδὲ φιλοτιμοῦ ἐλέγχων ἐπειδάν τίς τι ἀποκρίνηται, ἐγνωκὼς τοῦτο, ὅτι ῥᾷον ἐρωτᾶν ἢ ἀποκρίνεσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸς ἀπόκριναι καὶ εἰπὲ τί φῂς εἶναι τὸ δίκαιον. > καὶ ὅπως μοι μὴ ἐρεῖς ὅτι τὸ δέον ἐστὶν μηδ᾽ ὅτι τὸ ὠφέλιμον μηδ᾽ ὅτι τὸ λυσιτελοῦν μηδ᾽ ὅτι τὸ κερδαλέον μηδ᾽ ὅτι τὸ συμφέρον, > ἀλλὰ σαφῶς μοι καὶ ἀκριβῶς λέγε ὅτι ἂν λέγῃς: ὡς ἐγὼ οὐκ ἀποδέξομαι ἐὰν ὕθλους τοιούτους λέγῃς.
Perseus translation: But if you really wish, Socrates, to know what the just is, don’t merely ask questions or plume yourself upon controverting any answer that anyone gives—since your acumen has perceived that it is easier to ask questions than to answer them, but do you yourself answer and tell what you say the just is. > And don’t you be telling me that it is that which ought to be, or the beneficial or the profitable or the gainful or the advantageous, > but express clearly and precisely whatever you say.
I have no idea exactly what the connection between this passage and the passage from Clitophron that you quoted is. But I thought it was worth pointing it out to you in case you aren’t aware of it already.
τὸ δέον – what ought to be
τὸ λυσιτελοῦν – what is profitable
When it comes to traslating ancient greek i am certainly incompetent, but what i explained above is that does not really make me a “fool”, a fool is an incompetent person with confidence! the mark of the fool, for example, is his inability to notice what is going on over the course of an argument, because he clings hold of what he wants to believe instead of noticing how he has been refuted or left behind.
If you think this why did you change mwh’s post.
I think you are being provocative and you will find that such an approach wins no allies here and posts tend to be ignored after the initial excitement has died down.
To be clear, whooper, what I wrote was in response to seneca, not to you. I thought of you more as an incompetent (in Greek) than as a fool. I don’t want to make a big deal out of this, I just didn’t want anyone reading your “quote” of me to go thinking that that was what I’d written (or what I’d meant).
whooper: I take it you’re aware that the Clitophron is a highly problematic dialogue that some scholars think is not genuine Plato–maybe a parody of Plato; others that it is a draft that was never completed; and in general everyone who thinks it’s genuine seems to have difficulty fitting this dialogue within the framework of Platonic thought.
Of course, but obvioisly I claim to know better, it makes perfect sense to me, did you read what i said about it? eg:
The Clitophon would be a terrible indictment of Plato’s writing were it not some sort of joke. Clearly what Plato must be doing in the Clitophon is showing that Socrates did give some sort of instruction, but it somehow went over Clitophon’s head. Since the dialogue is extremely short, there are only a few sentences in which Plato could be demonstrating the sorts of things Socrates taught, and this is one of them. Thus this short passage must be extremely instructive.
But of course you have read and understood because you have picked up the ball! The passage you quoted from the Republic is just one of many in which you see these four strange words that get so hopelessly lost in translation used in relation to virtue!
Do you understand then what I am saying, and see how compelling it is even to someone who has not studied Plato as much as someone like me? Have you read about the famous Prodicus divisions of concepts such as pleasure into linguistic “numbers”? Did you understand that earlier post of mine?
In summary my claim is that these are Platonic Key words arranged in an Aristotelian Four Causes type setup. The four causes are not understood today, Aristotle also cloaks his work using confusing examples, thinking about this example is helpful to figuring them out.
Thank you hylander for picking up on what I am saying, you are clearly a switched on reader with serious thoughts coming to mind!