Midterm: when in Rome, do as Plato did

The diagram above shows influences, arranged by movement and/or time-period.  Theorists progress clockwise in approximate chronological order.  I've listed some key ideas, as well, in order to make some of the green arrows (i.e. influence) more discernible.  In reverse order of appearance (with some interspersed):

Lacan is taking Saussure's semiotic approach and applying it to Freud's concept of the mind.  Freud is strongly influenced by Nietzsche's distinction between the Apollonian and the Dionysian parts of the mind; he associates the Dionysian with our primal, subconscious desires (id) and the Apollonian with our rational, perceived self (ego).  Freud conceives the superego (i.e. the constructed self) by taking Marx's notion of the economic superstructure (i.e. ideological constructs used to maintain the economic status quo) and applying it to the individual mind.  In addition, Freud's beliefs concerning the hiddenness of the inner mind correspond with Maimonides's belief that obscure matters of Scripture ought to be simultaneously disclosed and concealed.  Saussure takes Nietzsche's (and Plato's, to an extent) view of language: namely, that all language is relative and arbitrary; and applies it to Augustine's early conception of semiotics.  Barthes takes Saussure's view of language and applies them to a larger science of signs in culture.  In a sense, Barthes bases his semiotic method of criticism of Horkheimer and Adorno's cultural critiques of capitalism.

Horkheimer and Adorno are using Marx's theories to demonstrate the extent of the master/slave dialectic.  Althusser is also drawing upon Marx; his ISAs and RSAs are essentially a top-down analysis of the economic superstructure--further illustrating Hegel's master/slave dialectic.  Marx is applying Hegel's dialectical view of history and applying it to economics.  In addition, he is also taking Hegel's master/slave dialectic and using it as a model for capitalistic hegemony.

Nietzsche derived his Apollonian/Dionysian distinction from Plato, who had previously drawn very similar distinction between the mind and the psyche.  Nietzsche is reacting to Aristotle's notion of tragedy when he elevates the significance of freedom and individual character, rather than necessity and plot.  In addition, Nietzsche is attacking Kant's concept of the subjective universal, and especially his valuing of aesthetic distance.  Nietzsche also rejects Hegel's view that art is part of a linear historical progression, as well as his subjugation of the individual for the good of Spirit and of the State.  Emerson, in contrast, derives his notions of national and aesthetic progress from Hegel's concept of Spirit (itself derived from Plato's eidos) and historical dialectic.  Both Wordsworth and Coleridge are heavily influenced by the Kantian idea of aesthetic distance, as well as his focus on rationality.  Kant himself is responding to Hume's attack on Plato, in which Hume states that ideas (eidos) are merely less-forceful impressions.  Kant is also reacting against the Humean ideas that art involves a passionate interest, and that the beautiful is that which is commonly preferable; like Plato, Kant believes that a standard of taste should be recognized by reason, not by experience.  Kant also develops notions of the sublime, which he inherited from Burke and Longinus (who is attacking Plato's belief that only the beautiful is relevant in art); he also believed that the sublime was linked to catharsis, which he borrowed from Aristotle.  Wollstonecraft builds on Pizan's feminist critique, which is in itself a response to Plato in that, like Plato's Republic, Pizan's ideal city is governed by four (female) personified virtues.  Like Plato with the poets, de Pizan also kicks out the male writers that have refused to recognize the virtues of reason.  Schleiermacher's textual analysis is very similar to that of Maimonides, and in turn, that of Augustine's.  He also draws from Aristotle when he says that the idea (i.e. eidos, or Form) "of the work can only be understood in terms of the "convergence of the basic material and the peculiarity of its developments" (536); i.e. that the eidos is within the work, not outside of it.  Schleiermacher also anticipates Freud's psychoanalytic theory with his belief that through analysis, the reader can reconstruct authorial intent.

Sidney is largely responding to the challenge that Plato poses at the end of his Republic: namely, whether poetry possesses social or personal utility.  Sidney is also synthesizing a number of earlier thinkers, including Horace, Longinus, and Plato.  Maimonides is drawing from Plato; as well as Aquinas (though we didn't cover him), who is in turn basing his thought on Augustine and Aristotle.  Maimonides is also influenced by Aquinas's idea that Scripture can have more than one meaning.  Augustine is largely drawing from Plato, and draws especially on Plato's notion of the arbitrariness of language, which led to Augustine's belief that Scriptural passages can have multiple meanings.  Aristotle is responding directly to Plato in that he is trying to establish a social and personal value for poetry; catharsis is meant to explain how people won't imitate the bad things that they experience in art objects and performances.  Aristotle tries to develop a notion of how expressing and feeling emotion might have value for both the state and the individual.

Plato, of course, is doing whatever he feels like.