Leo Catana, Thomas Taylor’s dissent from some 18th-century views on Platonic philosophy': The ethical and theological context
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Leo Catana, Thomas Taylor’s dissent from some 18th-century views on Platonic philosophy' : The ethical and theological context. / Catana, Leo.
In: International Journal of the Platonic Tradition, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2013, p. 180-220.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Leo Catana, Thomas Taylor’s dissent from some 18th-century views on Platonic philosophy'
T2 - The ethical and theological context
AU - Catana, Leo
PY - 2013
Y1 - 2013
N2 - Thomas Taylor’s interpretation of Plato’s works in 1804 was condemned as guilty by association immediately after its publication. Taylor’s 1804 and 1809 reviewer thus made a hasty generalisation in which the qualities of Neoplatonism, assumed to be negative, were transferred to Taylor’s own interpretation, which made use of Neoplatonist thinkers. For this reason, Taylor has typically been marginalised as an interpreter of Plato. This article does not deny the association between Taylor and Neoplatonism. Instead, it examines the historical and historiographical reasons for the reviewer’s assumption that Neoplatonic readings of Plato are erroneous by definition. In particular, it argues that the reviewer relied on, and tacitly accepted, ethical and theological premises going back to the historiography of philosophy developed by Jacob Brucker in his Historia critica philosophiae (1742-44). These premises were an integral part of Brucker’s Lutheran religiosity and thus theologically and ethically biased. If these premises are identified, articulated and discussed critically — which they have not been so far in connection with Taylor’s reception — it becomes less obvious that the reviewer was justified in his assumption that the Neoplatonic reading was erroneous by definition. This, in turn, leaves Taylor’s Plato interpretation in a more respectable position
AB - Thomas Taylor’s interpretation of Plato’s works in 1804 was condemned as guilty by association immediately after its publication. Taylor’s 1804 and 1809 reviewer thus made a hasty generalisation in which the qualities of Neoplatonism, assumed to be negative, were transferred to Taylor’s own interpretation, which made use of Neoplatonist thinkers. For this reason, Taylor has typically been marginalised as an interpreter of Plato. This article does not deny the association between Taylor and Neoplatonism. Instead, it examines the historical and historiographical reasons for the reviewer’s assumption that Neoplatonic readings of Plato are erroneous by definition. In particular, it argues that the reviewer relied on, and tacitly accepted, ethical and theological premises going back to the historiography of philosophy developed by Jacob Brucker in his Historia critica philosophiae (1742-44). These premises were an integral part of Brucker’s Lutheran religiosity and thus theologically and ethically biased. If these premises are identified, articulated and discussed critically — which they have not been so far in connection with Taylor’s reception — it becomes less obvious that the reviewer was justified in his assumption that the Neoplatonic reading was erroneous by definition. This, in turn, leaves Taylor’s Plato interpretation in a more respectable position
U2 - 10.1163/18725473-12341262
DO - 10.1163/18725473-12341262
M3 - Journal article
VL - 7
SP - 180
EP - 220
JO - International Journal of Platonic Tradition
JF - International Journal of Platonic Tradition
SN - 1872-5082
IS - 2
ER -
ID: 45805150