Hipparchus (dialogue)

Hipparchus ( ancient Greek Ἵππαρχος Hípparchos ) is an ancient literary dialogue, which supposedly comes from Plato, but is held in the research mostly spurious. Reproduced is a fictional conversation between the philosopher Socrates and an unnamed friend. The dialogue is named after the 514 BC murdered tyrant Hipparchus, whose bygone reign is discussed. An alternative title is "Winning lovers ". The two parties go to the question of what the pursuit of profit actually aims and how it is to be assessed philosophically.

Content

The date and reason for this interview is not indicated. A clue provides only the fact that Socrates, who died in 399 BC, when he was seventy, describes himself as old.

The dialogue begins abruptly with the question of Socrates to his young friend, what is meant by profit and profit- loving (or greedy ) people (the Greek word philokerdḗs "Winning loving" implies not necessarily like the German "hooked " a negative rating ). The friend who condemned the profit motive basically says, were mercenary those who want to pull out the worthless a profit. Although them was actually the worthlessness of striven clear, but because of their bad character, they were unable to draw conclusions from this knowledge, consequences, and to overcome their addiction. In contrast, Socrates argues that no expert (such as a farmer, horse breeder or helmsman ) in his professional products ( seed, feed, sailing and tax) used, their unfitness was known to him. Thus, since no one from the worthless profit expect when he knew about the worthlessness, no one is under the proposed definition of mercenary. Socrates argues that a misguided pursuit of profit must be based on ignorance about the lack of value of the striven for. The desire it 'll always considered a good thing. But the good thing was striving each. Every human Seen thus be mercenary. The friend tries to avoid this train of thought by determining lucre than pursuit of dishonest gain. Such profit suffered a loss in reality.

Socrates shows that this objection does not invalidate his argument to the effect that any profit is a good principle and is loved as such and seeks what the friend has already acknowledged. Then he accused the friend that he wanted to trick him with refined debating. By contrast, Socrates secures with longer explanations about the late Hipparchus, who was a wise ruler and have met beneficent measures. Hipparchus had his subjects down the rule to heart, that one should not deceive a friend. He, Socrates, to take hold of this commandment. The exaggerated acting praise that gives Socrates the wisdom of the tyrant Hipparchus, has an ironic aspect.

Then they turn back to the original topic. Socrates examines the assumption that there bad profit to refute them. He insists on his thesis profit of any kind is always a good and loss is always an evil. Therefore, all righteous people are profit -loving, because their desire is directed to the acquisition of the good and thus - just like the poor people - at a profit. Whether it is in fact a profit in the individual case, it is clear from the real value of the respective possessions and from the ratio of expenses to earnings. Although the real value of the sought things had been different, but this does not change the fact that each what it vorkomme good, would win. Thus, the gain love is a characteristic of all human and no one is entitled to make accuse another. The friend can oppose nothing to the arguments of Socrates. He professes to be still not convinced that any kind of profit is good.

Author, date of origin and sources

The majority of modern scholars of antiquity assumes that Hipparchus was not written by Plato, but by an unknown writer, who imitated the style of Plato's dialogues. Against the authenticity of features such as the anonymity of Socrates ' interlocutors and the abruptness of the beginning as well as linguistic and literary detail deficiencies are out in the field. In addition, none of the genuine dialogues of Plato is named after a person who does not participate in the conversation. The researchers, who hold the genuineness possible or plausible, try the various arguments to prove unfounded. Joachim Dalfen believes that the Hipparchus and other spurious dialogues are working with their production Plato instructed his first students. This hypothesis explains Dalfen the proximity of these plants to Plato's early writings and the lack of elements that are typical of the later real dialogues.

It is undisputed in the recent research that the work came to Plato's lifetime. The anonymous author apparently belonged to the Platonic Academy. As a probable time of origin applies for stylistic and substantive reasons, the early 4th century.

Points of contact with the early dialogues of Plato suggest that the author of the Hipparchus was already present work of Plato was familiar with. He also knew the historical work of Thucydides, whose representation of Hipparchus ' life and death, he has reshaped literary.

Reception

In the tetralogy order, which was apparently introduced in the 1st century BC, the Hipparchus belongs to the fourth tetralogy. The Diogenes Laertius Doxograph leads him among the genuine works of Plato. He calls him one of the " ethical " dialogs and calls the Alternative title " The gain Lovers ", which is also attested in the manuscript tradition of the work. Here, Diogenes Laertius refers to a now lost copy of the Mittelplatonikers Thrasyllos. Only very occasionally is from the ancient world to doubt the authenticity of the work handed: Aelian ended his representation of Hipparchus ' educational pursuits with the words: "This report Plato, provided that the Hipparchus really comes from Plato ."

In the Arabic-speaking world of Hipparchus in the Middle Ages was not entirely unknown; the philosopher al -Farabi wrote a book on the philosophy of Plato, in which he summarized the theme of the dialogue scarce.

The humanist Marsilio Ficino held the Hipparchus for genuine and translated it into Latin. The translation he published in 1484 in Florence in the complete edition of his Latin translations of Plato. The first edition of the Greek text appeared in 1513 with Aldo Manuzio in Venice, one prepared by the humanist Etienne Dolet French translation in 1544 in Lyon.

In the 19th century, August Boeckh spoke first in 1806 for the inauthenticity of Hipparchus from; his assessment was followed by Friedrich Schleiermacher and other scholars of antiquity. The classification under the pseudo- Platonic writings prevailed in modern research, although the opposite minority opinion has repeatedly found in the 20th century followers.

Editions and translations

• Antonio Carlini (ed.): Platone: Alcibiade, Alcibiade secondo, Ipparco, rivalry. Boringhieri, Torino 1964, pp. 322-359 ( critical edition with Italian translation )
• Domenico Massaro, Laura Tusa Massaro (Ed.): Platone: Ipparco. Rusconi, Milano 1997, ISBN 88-18-70188-6 ( Introduction, Greek Text after the edition of John Burnet, without the critical apparatus, Italian translation, comment )
• Joseph Souilhe (ed.): Plato: Oeuvres completes, Volume 13 Part 2: Dialogues suspects. Les Belles Lettres, Paris 1930, pp. 44-71 ( critical edition with French translation )
• Franz Susemihl (translator ): Hipparchus. In: Erich Loewenthal (ed.): Plato: Complete Works in three volumes, Vol 1, unchanged reprint of the eighth, looked through edition, University Press, Darmstadt 2004, ISBN 3-534-17918-8, pp. 872-883 ( translation only )