Paul Natorp on Plato’s Ideas
- 作者: Soboleva M.E.1
-
隶属关系:
- Philipps University of Marburg
- 期: 卷 29, 编号 1 (2025): THE PHILOSOPHY OF PAUL NATORP
- 页面: 41-56
- 栏目: THE PHILOSOPHY OF PAUL NATORP
- URL: https://journal-vniispk.ru/2313-2302/article/view/325358
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2302-2025-29-1-41-56
- EDN: https://elibrary.ru/EKVQJN
- ID: 325358
如何引用文章
全文:
详细
The research is focused on the analysis of Paul Natorp’s work Plato’s Doctrine of Ideas . The paper consists of three sections: 1) a definition of Platonic idea; 2) an analysis of the dialogue Parmenides ; and 3) a commentary on Natorp’s interpretation of Parmenides . The first section discusses Natorp’s transcendental method, which he uses as a critical approach to philosophical problems. The application of this method to the history of philosophy is examined, and it is shown that, thanks to Natorp, transcendentalism finds its history beginning with Plato and leading through Descartes and Kant to Cohen and the Marburg School of Neo-Kantianism. According to this method, the core of Plato’s doctrine is idealism. Natorp’s definition of the Platonic idea is examined. Parmenides dialogue, in which Plato attempts to formulate his concept of the idea. The analysis focuses on the problem of the scope of ideas, the interaction between ideas and things, and the relationship between empirical and pure ideas. It traces some of Natorp’s steps in defending his thesis that ideas are methods of apprehending the object of knowledge. The third section questions the adequacy of Natorp’s proposed epistemological treatment of Plato’s concept of idea. A counterargument to each of Natorp’s main arguments is presented in turn. Finally, with reference to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason , an alternative interpretation of the discussion between Socrates and Parmenides in the dialogue is given. Its essence, in contrast to Natorp’s affirmative interpretation, which presents Parmenides’ deductions as a development of Plato’s theory, is summed up in the fact that this dialogue represents Plato’s criticism of Parmenides’ approach of taking the ultimate pure concepts as essences and then, on this basis, developing his doctrine of being based, as it were, on the internal logic of these essences themselves. The paper concludes with a discussion of Natorp’s historical-philosophical method, which predetermined his interpretation of Plato’s concept of idea.
关键词
作者简介
Maja Soboleva
Philipps University of Marburg
编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: sobolme63@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5904-8701
SPIN 代码: 7397-2924
DSc in Philosophy, Professor
6 B Wilhelm-Roepker-St., Marburg, 35032, Germany参考
- Natorp P. Kant and Marburg School. In: Selected Works. Moscow: Territoriya budushchego publ.; 2006. P. 119–144. (In Russian).
- Kim A. Plato in Germany: Kant – Natorp – Heidegger. Sankt Augustin: Academia; 2010.
- Natorp P. Platos Ideenlehre. Eine Einführung in den Idealismus. Leipzig: Felix Meiner; 1921.
- Gessen SI. Paul Natorp. Kantian Journal. 2014;33(1):87–102. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2014-1-7
- Losev АF. Essays on ancient symbolism and mythology. Moscow: Myslʼ publ.; 1993. (In Russian).
- Plato. Parmenides. In: Collection of works in four volumes. Vol. 2. Moscow: Myslʼ publ.; 1993. P. 346–412. (In Russian).
- Laks A. Plato Between Cohen and Natorp: Aspects of the neo-Kantian Interpretation of the Platonic Ideas. In: Natorp P. Plato’s Theory of Ideas. Sankt Augustin: Academia; 2004. Р. 453–483.
- Kant I. Critique of pure reason. In: Works in Russian and German languages. Vol. 2. Moscow: Nauka publ.; 2006. (In Russian).
- Apelt O. Inhalt und Gliederung des Dialogs. In: Platon. Sämtliche Dialoge. Bd. 4. Parmenides. Hamburg: Meine; 1988. P. 48–50.
- Lembeck K-H. Plato-Reception in the Marburg School. In: Kim A. editor. Brill’s Companion to German Platonism. Leiden/Boston: Brill; 2019. Р. 217–248.
- Lembeck K-H. Platon in Marburg: Platon-Rezeption und Philosophiegeschichtsphilosophie bei Cohen und Natorp. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann; 1994.
- Zenkovsky VV. Plato in P. Natorpʼs Interpretation. Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii. 1908;(95):588–619. (In Russian).
补充文件
