eng URI http://hdl.handle.net/10795/3542 philosophy philosophy of science history First I argue that Arcesilaus was a natural choice as scholarch. If Crates had intended to groom Socratides for this role, he had too short a time. However, Arcesilaus was already one of four principal Academics when Crantor was alive, in some sense inheriting the role of Crantor (perhaps ‘possessor of the books'); The scholarchs themselves engaged less with Platonic literature than expected. Arcesilaus as scholarch did not directly promote Platonic doctrine or writings, but that was not the scholarch's role. Second I want to argue that the Academy of Polemon was already Socratic in two respects, in concentrating upon ethics and in adopting some kind of ideal of Socratic love. I think it is clear that the Alcibiades I, assuming it was not a product of Polemon's (and Crantor's) Academy, was at least an important influence at that time. (Harold Tarrant, University of Newcastle, Australia) LOMv1.0 creator LOMv1.0 Project Final Beneficiary LOMv1.0 Project Executing Organisation 2012-12-14 Digital Library of the Operational Programme "Education and Lifelong Learning" abstract types Text Plato's Academy Ancient Athens Ancient Greece Philosophical and scientific thought History of Philosophy History of Science 456338 application/pdf http://repository.edulll.gr/edulll/bitstream/10795/3542/2/3542_TarrantP.pdf URI http://hdl.handle.net/10795/3542 LOMv1.0creator 2016-06-02T09:33:50Z LOMv1.0validator 2016-06-02T09:33:50Z LOMv1.0 gre no no Copyright EYD-EPEDBM (Operational Programme "Education and Lifelong Learning")