I argue that Diogenes and early Cynicism can be understood in an explicitly social and political context, where Cynic praxis, performative public action, can be seen to make visible oppositions inherent to the polity. In doing so, Diogenes’ praxis should be understood as a form of immanent critique, one that demonstrates, for example, that nature and custom are interrelated oppositions in the polis. Cynicism here is understood as a form of immanent critique because Diogenes challenges the social norms of the (...) polis without endorsing external universal standards or predetermined models, but from illuminating dynamics from within the polis and polity. (shrink)

This commentary examines several key points in David Horan’s paper “The Argu­mentative Unity of Plato’s Parmenides.” First, I discuss the general view of the paper, which engages with the first two hypotheses and in particular, the thought experiment passage in hypothesis 2 that is seen as a key to resolving the dilemma of participation. I consider the proposed view that hypothesis 1 takes up from its premise a strictly unitary, or non-multiple “one,” and hypothesis 2 takes up from its premise (...) a one that admits of multiplicity, not a non-multiple “one.” I argue for an alternative reading whereby the premise of hypothesis 1 is not “if one is one” and hypothesis 2 is “if one is not one,” but rather that both hypotheses fall under the premise “if one is.”. (shrink)