Plato and Frankfurt: Two Theories of the Relations Between Love and Living Well

This thesis provides a comparison of the ideas of caring and love as they appear in the works of Plato and Frankfurt. Frankfurt, a contemporary philosopher, maintains that an individual arrives at the most meaningful life through understanding what it is that heor she cares about the most. Interestingly, the instances of eros in Plato's Symposium and Phaedrus resonate with this idea. We see throughout these erotic dialogues similarities to Frankfurt's notions of care and love.Throughout his many works, Frankfurt provides us with several distinct features of care and love. This thesis offers an in depth discussion of each of these features andalso provides commentary from other contemporary philosophers who are familiar with Frankfurt's work. In addition, this thesis applies these features of care and love to Plato's erotic dialogues, and emphasizes areas in which Plato and Frankfurt agree and those inwhich they disagree. In essence, it becomes apparent that while there are many similarities between the ideas of these two prominent thinkers, Plato and Frankfurt do not agree about what constitutes the best human life. Plato maintains that the best life is onespent dedicated to philosophy and in pursuit of the 'good'. Frankfurt, on the other hand,imposes no such limitations on what we should consider the best life because people are likely to have different life experiences that lead them to care about and love different things. Instead he suggests that the best or most meaningful human life is one in which a person spends his or her life caring about the things he or she does, indeed, care aboutand loving those things he or she does, indeed, love.

Plato's Doctrine Of Forms: Modern Misunderstandings

Among the philosophical ideas of Plato, perhaps the most famous is his doctrine of forms. This doctrine has faced harsh criticism due, in large part, to the interpretations of this position by modern philosophers such as René Descartes, John Locke, and Immanuel Kant. For example, Plato has been interpreted as presenting a ¿two-worlds¿ approach to form and thing and as advancing a rationalist approach to epistemology. His forms have often been interpreted as ideas and as perfect copies of the things of the visible world. In this thesis, I argue that these, along with other interpretations of Plato presented by the moderns, are based on misunderstandings of Plato¿s overall philosophy. In so doing, I attempt to show that the doctrine of forms cannot be directly interpreted into the language of Cartesian, Lockean, and Kantian metaphysics and epistemology, and thus should not be prematurely dismissed because of these modern Platonic interpretations. By analyzing the Platonic dialogues beside the writings of the modern philosophers, I conclude that three of the most prominent modern philosophers, as representatives of their respective philosophical frameworks, have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of Plato¿s famous doctrine of forms. This could have significant implications for the future of metaphysics and epistemology by providing an interpretation of Plato which adds to, instead of contradicts, the developments of modern philosophy.

Fantasy Making the Invisible Visible: Liminality in Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere and American Gods

The purpose of this thesis was to examine the ways in which the fantasy genre is ideally positioned for discussing social issues, such as invisibility and liminality. Elements associated with invisibility, such as poverty, homelessness, and alienation, were explored within two novels by Neil Gaiman: Neverwhere and American Gods. Gaiman's application of these elements within the fantasy genre were juxtaposed with samples from other genres, including Plato's 'Parable of the Cave' and Jennifer Toth's The Mole People. Another aim was to contrast Gaiman's use of the 'beast in the sewer' metaphor with previous renditions of the myth, demonstrating how fantasy, paradoxically, offers a unique and privileged view of reality.

Form as Three Questions

Emmanuel Levinas once stated that his “project” was “the deformalization of time.” Jacques Derrida, too, laid out a framework of thinking about time that dismissed the relevance of the past and the future and even belittled the significance of/or ourability to know anything about the “present.” Both of these thinkers discussed such notions of time in the context of complex theories of representation—or of the “relationship” between signifier and signified. This thesis considers the connection between theories of time and conceptions of the “relationship” between signifier andsignified to ask how Hamlet’s role as the agent of the plot in Hamlet relates to his own consideration of his “relationship” to the ghost as a potentially empty signifier.