This study draws upon the Platonic dialogue tradition as a background for interpreting the conversation between More and his daughter Margaret Roper, as depicted in Margaret’s letter to Alice Alington. With an eye to the famously ironic Socrates, this article will propose the interpretation of a puzzling statement regarding More’s apparent good faith in the sincerity of others who have reversed their positions regarding the problematic oath. Is More expressing ironic distance or straightforward charity in his ambiguous language? The argument is that More, utilizing his legal and literary skills, carefully crafts a rhetoric that paradoxically joins remarkable charity with worldly-wise irony.
This paper will elaborate the different Platonic elements of dialogue as philosophical basis for Gadamerian hermeneutical structures. The intersubjective cross-examination found in Plato’s Dialogue shows that the real meaning comes from the real encounters between speakers; or in Gadamer’s term: encounters between text and the reader. For Gadamer, it is always important in this pursuit of meaning and truth that we examine our own prejudice. Cross-examining our own claim of truth and belief is an essential element in Gadamer’s hermeneutics. I argue that we can see how the Platonic model of dialogue is easily aligned with the Gadamerian positive approach towards ‘traditions.’ There is a constant dialogue at work in interpretation, a dialogue between the past and the present, between different traditions and points of view. Dialogue is an important keyword for both Plato and Gadamer in their efforts to their existential quest of wisdom.
The paper examines the various usages of the Attic particle μήν and proposes a unified analysis of its main function. I argue that the prevalent analysis of Wakker (1997) needs some important reconsideration when instances of μήν in Platonic dialogue are concerned. First, the particle can target not only the propositional content of a discourse act, but also its illocution (felicity conditions). Second, I propose ‘countering expectations or assumptions of the addressee’ as the basic value of the particle. Functions in terms of commitment are better seen as secondary side effects. Third, I argue that differences in the origin of the countered assumptions or expectations are a natural basis for distinguishing between attitudinal μήν (extra-linguistic context and/or previous words of the addressee) and discourse connective μήν (previous words of the same speaker). It follows from my analysis that strict categorical boundaries between these usages are not to be expected.
PLATONIC DIALOGUE AND GADAMERIAN HERMENEUTICS