{"id":136,"date":"2016-03-10T22:08:29","date_gmt":"2016-03-11T04:08:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/benardetearchive.org\/dir\/?page_id=136"},"modified":"2021-01-16T11:27:04","modified_gmt":"2021-01-16T17:27:04","slug":"new-school-courses","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/benardetearchive.org\/dir\/new-school-courses","title":{"rendered":"New School Courses in Greek Philosophy"},"content":{"rendered":"

Seth Benardete\u2019s Courses at the New School \u2014 1964 to 2001<\/b><\/p>\n

Benardete\u2019s lectures at the New School Graduate Faculty included the pre-Socratic thinkers and Aristotle, while covering almost the entire corpus of Platonic dialogues. For more information on these courses, see The Seth Benardete Papers Collection Guide<\/a>\u00a0(.pdf).<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t
Semester<\/th>Description<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Fall 1964<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Republic<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fall 1965<\/td>Aristotle\u2019s\u00a0Physics<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Spr. 1966<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Laws<\/em>, Part II
\n[Substituted mid-term for Howard White]<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fall 1966<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Sophist<\/em>\u00a0
\nAn examination of the non-Socratic dialogue\u00a0Sophist<\/em>,\u00a0where the question of being and non-being arises in the course of tracking down the elusive sophist.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Spr. 1967<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Statesman<\/em>
\nA continuation of the prior course, where the\u00a0Sophist\u2019s companion dialogue\u00a0Politicus<\/em>,\u00a0or\u00a0Statesman<\/em>,\u00a0is considered. It is thus to be hoped that the two dialogues will illuminate each other, and unravel the ontological ground of politics and political foreground of ontology.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fall 1967<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Philebus<\/em>
\nAn attempt will be made to understand something of the\u00a0Philebus,<\/em>\u00a0perhaps the most difficult of Plato\u2019s dialogues. Pleasure is there the center of a discussion of \u201cmatter\u201d and the infinite.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Spr. 1968<\/td>Aristotle\u2019s\u00a0Metaphysics<\/em>\u00a0
\nThe hope is entertained that most of the questions that Aristotle lists in B as belonging to \u201cfirst philosophy\u201d will be discussed, along with their Aristotelian and Platonic solutions, during the term.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fall 1968<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Phaedrus<\/em>\u00a0
\nA study of philosophical eros<\/em> as sober madness and of Socratic rhetoric as an indispensable complement of Socratic dialectic.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Spr. 1969<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Charmides<\/em>
\nA study of moderation (sophrosyne<\/em>) and the possible unity underlying the variety of its manifestations.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fall 1969<\/td>Aristotle\u2019s\u00a0De Anima<\/em>
\nAn examination of Aristotle\u2019s psychology. The treatises that comprise his\u00a0Parva Naturalia<\/em>\u00a0will also be considered.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Spr. 1970<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Timaeus<\/em>
\nAn examination of Plato\u2019s cosmology and its relation to his psychology and politics.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fall 1970<\/td>Parmenides\u00a0I
\nThe first semester of a year\u2019s course devoted entirely to a study of Plato\u2019s\u00a0Parmenides<\/em>\u00a0and the fragments of\u00a0Parmenides.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Spr. 1971<\/td>Parmenides\u00a0II
\nContinuation of course from previous semester.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Spr. 1973<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Cratylus<\/em>
\nThe\u00a0Cratylus<\/em>\u00a0forms a pair with the\u00a0Parmenides<\/em>,\u00a0for it is concerned with Heraclitus, who was furthest removed in thought from Parmenides; but in another sense it stands with inspired dialogues like the\u00a0Phaedrus<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Symposium<\/em>,\u00a0for the problems of\u00a0eros<\/em>\u00a0and Socratic rhetoric are deeply rooted in the distinction between nature and convention, a distinction that in turn involves the problem of language.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fall 1973<\/td>Aristotle\u2019s\u00a0Metaphysics<\/em>
\nFirst philosophy: the principles of being and the principles of knowledge according to Aristotle.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Spr. 1974<\/td>Plato\u2019s Philebus<\/em>
\nSocrates\u2019 discussion of pleasure in light of the human good.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fall 1974<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Gorgias<\/em>
\nIntensive study of the dialogue.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Spr. 1975<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Greater Hippias<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Lesser Hippias<\/em>
\nOf these twin dialogues, the former asks what is the beautiful, the latter discusses lying. Together they form an introduction to the problem of the noble lie.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fall 1979<\/td>Aristotle\u2019s\u00a0Politics<\/em>
\nA study of Aristotle\u2019s\u00a0Politics<\/em>\u00a0along with its problematic relations with his\u00a0Ethics<\/em>\u00a0and the\u00a0Poetics<\/em>.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Spr. 1980<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Phaedo<\/em>
\n[This course was taught by Professor Benardete but not listed in the Bulletin of the Graduate Faculty.]<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fall 1980<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Phaedrus<\/em>
\nA study of philosophical\u00a0eros<\/em>\u00a0as sober madness and of Socratic rhetoric as an indispensable complement of Socratic dialectic.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fall 1981<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Timaeus<\/em>
\nAn examination of the Platonic understanding of the possibility of any physics in light of the parallel difficulties of translating the best city in speech into the best city in deed.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Spr. 1982<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Laws<\/em>
\nThe problematic relations between the rational and the lawful, divine codes and human life, and religion and the city will be discussed.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fall 1982<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Republic<\/em>,\u00a0Part I
\nThis is planned as a year\u2019s course devoted to a close reading of Plato\u2019s\u00a0Republic<\/em>\u00a0in which the relation between political philosophy and first philosophy or metaphysics will be examined.\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fall 1982<\/td>Logos<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Physis<\/em>\u00a0in Aristotle
\nThis course is an examination of what Aristotle understands by science (episteme<\/em>). Aristotle may be said to be the discoverer of the metaphysics of science, i.e., its foundations and its problems. The course will examine primarily the\u00a0Posterior Analytics<\/em>\u00a0and the\u00a0Physics<\/em>.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Spr. 1983<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Republic<\/em>,\u00a0Part II
\nContinuation of course begun in Fall, 1982.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fall 1983<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Republic<\/em>,\u00a0Part III
\nThe last part of a three-semester course devoted to a close reading of Plato\u2019s\u00a0Republic<\/em>,\u00a0in which the relation between political philosophy and first philosophy or metaphysics will be examined.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Spr. 1984<\/td>Aristotle\u2019s\u00a0Metaphysics<\/em>\u00a0I
\nIn the\u00a0Metaphysics<\/em>,\u00a0Aristotle tries to show the inner unity of the science of being with the science of the highest being.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fall 1984<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Charmides<\/em>
\nA close reading of the text.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fall 1985<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Symposium<\/em>
\nA careful reading of the text (the translation of the instructor will be used).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fall 1986<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Gorgias<\/em>
\nA careful reading of the text.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fall 1987<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Protagoras<\/em>
\nA close reading of the text.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fall 1988<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Philebus<\/em>
\nAn examination of pleasure and its highest representations in comedy and philosophy.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fall 1989<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Parmenides<\/em>
\nPlato gives us Socrates\u2019 youthful version of the theory of ideas and Parmenides\u2019 devastating critique of it, followed by a \u201cgymnastic\u201d of ten categories in relation to the \u201cOne.\u201d The connection between these two parts of the dialogue will be our main concern.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fall 1990<\/td>Plato and Thucydides: Plato\u2019s\u00a0Menexenus<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Laches<\/em>
\nPlato\u2019s\u00a0Menexenus<\/em>\u00a0presents Socrates reciting a funeral speech composed, he claims, by Pericles\u2019 mistress Aspasia; it is supposed to match in some way Pericles\u2019 own funeral speech in Thucydides. In the\u00a0Laches<\/em>,\u00a0Socrates discusses courage with Laches and Nicias; and Nicias looms almost as large in the second half of Thucydides\u2019 work as Pericles does in the first. It is proposed to look at Plato\u2019s possible interpretation of Thucydides in light of these two dialogues on war and death in battle.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fall 1991<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Sophist<\/em>
\nIn this dialogue a student of Parmenides attempts to determine the being of Socrates in relation, on the one hand, to the contemporary sophists and, on the other, to all philosophers prior to Socrates. Socrates\u2019 life in the marketplace looks like a marketing of philosophy and not at all like the speculative practice of the past. The possibility, or rather the necessity, of mistaking Socrates puts the question of likeness at the center of the problem of being and truth. The being and nonbeing of the image involves as well the issue of Plato\u2019s representation of Socrates.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fall 1993<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Lysis<\/em>
\nThe theme of this dialogue is friendship, but its frame is determined by\u00a0eros<\/em>.\u00a0The double way in which philosophy can be understood, through either eros<\/em>\u00a0or literally through the\u00a0philia<\/em>\u00a0in its name, determines this presentation by Socrates. Its connection with the\u00a0Symposium<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Phaedrus<\/em>,\u00a0as well as with Aristotle\u2019s double treatment of friendship in the\u00a0Nichomachean Ethics<\/em>\u00a0will be explored.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Spr. 1993<\/td>Aristotle\u2019s\u00a0De Anima<\/em>
\nThe course examines how Aristotle\u2019s treatise On the Soul<\/em> binds together his other two most important theoretical writings, the\u00a0Physics<\/em>\u00a0and Metaphysics<\/em>.\u00a0It also attempts to treat how Aristotle keeps together the two primary functions of soul, motion and cognition.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Spr. 1995<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Theaetetus<\/em>
\nJust before his condemnation, Socrates raises the question, What is knowledge?, before two mathematicians. No satisfactory answer is reached. Since on the next day the Eleatic Stranger seems to be more successful, one wonders whether we are given the philosophic grounds for Socrates\u2019 condemnation in the\u00a0Theatetus<\/em>.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Spr. 1996<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Laws<\/em>, Part I
\nPlato\u2019s\u00a0Laws<\/em>\u00a0was once thought to be the book on revelation. This course treats Plato\u2019s\u00a0Laws<\/em>\u00a0in three sections, each to be given in the Spring of successive years. The first section deals with Books I-IV. It covers the determination of the structure of law in light of the four psychic and corporeal virtues the law is meant to inculcate and regulate. Its deeper theme is the impossibility of its fulfilling its purpose and the consequences to be drawn from that impossibility. The changing relations between the Athenian stranger and the Spartan Megillus and the Cretan Clinias form a large part of the argument of the\u00a0Laws<\/em>.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Spr. 1997<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Laws<\/em>, Part II
\nThis is the second part of a three-part course on Plato\u2019s\u00a0Laws.\u00a0We plan to cover Books IV-VIII, the heart of the legislative program. The primary question for us is: What does a philosopher, even a political philosopher, have to do with such things? The third part of this course will be offered in Spring 1998 [but see the following].<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fall 1997<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Laws<\/em>, Part III
\n[This third part of course on Plato\u2019s Laws<\/em> was not officially scheduled by the New School but was taught informally.]<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Spr. 1998<\/td>Heraclitus
\nThe fragments of Heraclitus are read separately and together as closely as possible in order to be able to come to some understanding of the relation between\u00a0logos<\/em>\u00a0and fire, which in modern terms looks like the relation between equations and the natural elements of matter. Heraclitus thus looks to us as the founder of mathematical physics. Our first question, then, is how to understand a founder who precedes any available mathematics and any available physics that would make such a founding possible or plausible. The second question is how Heraclitus might understand the relation of logos<\/em>\u00a0and fire in light of his teaching about the one. All other questions follow from these two.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Spr. 1999<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Timaeus<\/em>
\nAn attempt is made to interpret the enigmatic speech of\u00a0Timaeus\u00a0in light of its setting: Socrates\u2019 abbreviated account of the best city in speech (presumably of the\u00a0Republic<\/em>) and Critias\u2019 summary of the best city at war \u2014 to have been filled out in the incomplete\u00a0Critias<\/em>. Why is so elaborate a cosmology set among political considerations? What bearing does this have on Socrates\u2019 noncosmological account of the whole in the Republic<\/em> and his playful version of a cosmology in the\u00a0Philebus<\/em>? Why does Timaeus split his account in such a way that its two parts connot be put together? This difficulty leads directly into the problem of time that in itself represents the Platonic perplexity \u2014 the relation of soul and mind.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Spr. 2000<\/td>Parmenides
\nThis course looks at the fragments of Parmenides\u2019 poem as well as at Plato\u2019s\u00a0Parmenides<\/em>.\u00a0It tries to come to grips with this first formulation of the problem of being and Plato\u2019s representation of Socrates\u2019 youthful way out of the problem. The latter project entails an examination of Plato\u2019s\u00a0Sophist<\/em>,where the old Socrates listens to an ex-Parmenidean.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Spr. 2001<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Parmenides<\/em>
\nPlato gives us Socrates\u2019 youthful version of the theory of ideas and Parmenides\u2019 devastating critique of it, followed by a \u201cgymnastic\u201d of 10 categories in relation to the \u201cOne.\u201d The connection between these two parts of the dialogue will be our main concern.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Spr. 2002<\/td>Plato\u2019s\u00a0Euthydemus<\/em>
\n[This course was scheduled but not taught because of Professor Benardete\u2019s untimely death.] The\u00a0Euthydemus<\/em>\u00a0is concerned with boundaries, primarily between the political and the philosophical. Through Socrates\u2019 conversation with two sophists who are brothers, it alternates very rapidly between the philosophic and the political without resting in one or the other for very long. It thus mixes the totally absurd and the rational in a wholly irrational manner. The attempt will be to sort out the two aspects and try to understand why they must always be together.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n
\n

Note:<\/i> Most of the preceding list has been excerpted from the New School\u2019s course bulletins. Some students have reported that the actual content of a few of the courses may have differed from these descriptions. Chronological problems have also been noted. Benardete was hired by The New School in 1964. It is believed that he taught the Republic<\/i> in 1964 and the Physics<\/i> in the fall of 1965, and that in the spring of 1966 he substituted for Howard White in the middle of the second semester of a course on Plato\u2019s Laws<\/i>.<\/p>\n

Also at issue are the spring 1970 course on the Timaeus<\/i> (said to have focused on the Theaetetus<\/i> instead), and the fall 1990 course, which is said to have treated the Menexenus<\/i> only briefly. Please write us at contact [at]<\/i> benardetearchive.org if you can confirm or correct any of these items.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Seth Benardete\u2019s Courses at the New School \u2014 1964 to 2001 Benardete\u2019s lectures at the New School Graduate Faculty included the pre-Socratic thinkers and Aristotle, while covering almost the entire corpus of Platonic dialogues. For more information on these courses, see The Seth Benardete Papers Collection Guide\u00a0(.pdf). Note: Most of the preceding list has been excerpted from the New School\u2019s course bulletins. Some students have reported that the actual content of a few of … Read more New School Courses in Greek Philosophy<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-136","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/benardetearchive.org\/dir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/136","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/benardetearchive.org\/dir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/benardetearchive.org\/dir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/benardetearchive.org\/dir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/benardetearchive.org\/dir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=136"}],"version-history":[{"count":19,"href":"https:\/\/benardetearchive.org\/dir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/136\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":660,"href":"https:\/\/benardetearchive.org\/dir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/136\/revisions\/660"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/benardetearchive.org\/dir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/benardetearchive.org\/dir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/benardetearchive.org\/dir\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}