The nature of the communication between philosophers constitutes an enormous part of the history of philosophy. In the case of philosophers who lived in the same period, there is the possibility of direct contact, of exchanging letters, of mutual replies. However, when centuries and changed circumstances intervene, the issue becomes complicated. As a result, accusations such as distorting the philosopher, making him say what he did not say, being loyal to him or not, are the things that every thinker who engages with the history of philosophy has to face. In this paper, we will argue that strict adherence to a philosopher and engaging in dialogue with him/her are two different things, that the latter does not completely exclude the former, rather it is the authentic form of philosophical loyalty in contrast to what it might seem at first glance. For this purpose, we will compare two contemporary thinkers, Alain Badiou and Gilles Deleuze. After discussing Badiou's dialogue with Plato in the context of The Republic, we will touch upon Deleuze's reading of Henri Bergson and clarify our argument.
Özlem Öztürk (Wed,) studied this question.