Peitho. Examina Antiqua
Not a member yet
232 research outputs found
Sort by
On the Standard Aversion to the Agrapha Dogmata
No full textThe present paper deals with eight charges that are frequently leveled against any research that focuses on the agrapha dogmata. The charges are demonstrated to be completely unfounded and, therefore, duly dismissed. In particular, it is argued here that the phrase ta legomena (so‑called) is by no means to be understood as ironic. Consequently, the article rejects the very common picture of Plato as some sort of dogmatist and author of a fixed philosophical system. However, Plato’s philosophy is presented as rather ‘overt’ and ‘straightforward’ in its nature. With the situation being as it is, thorough knowledge of the agrapha dogmata is shown to be an absolute prerequisite for understanding Plato’s dialogues. The paper concludes with an observation that while investigating the issue is completely warranted and does not in any way entail any devaluation of the dialogues, Aristotle’s testimony must also be taken into account.The present paper deals with eight charges that are frequently leveled against any research that focuses on the agrapha dogmata. The charges are demonstrated to be completely unfounded and, therefore, duly dismissed. In particular, it is argued here that the phrase ta legomena (so‑called) is by no means to be understood as ironic. Consequently, the article rejects the very common picture of Plato as some sort of dogma‑ tist and author of a fixed philosophical system. However, Plato’s philoso‑ phy is presented as rather ‘overt’ and ‘straightforward’ in its nature. With the situation being as it is, thorough knowledge of the agrapha dogmata is shown to be an absolute prerequisite for understanding Plato’s dialogues. The paper concludes with an observation that while investigating the issue is completely warranted and does not in any way entail any devaluation of the dialogues, Aristotle’s testimony must also be taken into account
Why Is Poetry More Philosophical Than History? Some Remarks On Aristotle’s Poetics
No full textAristotle’s statement that — in terms of philosophy — poetry is superior to history can be understood better, when analysed in the context of the Stagirite’s epistemology, ontology, and eudaimonic ethics. Both poetry and history deal with numerous contingent and chaotic events, but while history is only reconstructive, poetry reworks its matter more thoroughly. History attempts to recount all events and does it in accord with their contingent and chaotic nature, whereas poetry implies certain choices. By doing so, it introduces uniformity and coherence thus providing a different ontic status than the one that reigned originally. Consequently, the cognitive result of poetry can be compared to the beatific value of conceptual knowledge in philosophy
The Legal, Political, Philosophical and Religious Dimension of Socrates’ Trial and Execution
No full textThe article deals with the legal, political, philosophical and religious dimensions of Socrates’ trial and execution. It considers the issue in five separate aspects: 1) the validity of charging Socrates with impiety and corrupting the youth of the Athens; 2) the legal basis of the philosopher’s indictment; 3) the then manner of conducting a legal trial in the Athens; 4) the extent to which Socrates’ conviction can ultimately be characterized as unjust and — finally — 5) the cultural ramifications of the philosopher’s trial and execution.The article deals with the legal, political, philosophical and religious dimensions of Socrates’ trial and execution. It considers the issue in five separate aspects: 1) the validity of charging Socrates with impiety and corrupting the youth of the Athens; 2) the legal basis of the philosopher’s indictment; 3) the then manner of conducting a legal trial in the Athens; 4) the extent to which Socrates’ conviction can ultimately be characterized as unjust and — finally — 5) the cultural ramifications of the philosopher’s trial and execution
Michael Psellos’ ‘Arrangement’ of Hermias’ Commentary on Plato’s Phaedrus
No full textThe Byzantine philosopher Michael Psellos (11th century) wrote a brief treatise entitled An Explanation of the Drive of the Soul Chariot and the Army of Gods According to Plato in the Phaedrus. The treatise consists of a compilation of excerpts from Hermias’ commentary on the Phaedrus. Psellos does not mention Hermias’ name but rather traces the origins of the treatise back to some “Greek theologians”. Psellos’ text presents a great interpretative challenge: the order of the myths about the charioteer and the parade of gods is reversed so that the former explicates the latter in such a way that the whole Platonic argument is dismissed as “absurd”. The Phaedrus in the Neo ‑Platonic tradition (in Iamblichus in particular) is considered to be a strictly theological dialogue. Yet, Psellos’ arrangement shows that he was not interested in the mythographical or allegorical dimension of the excerpts. He rather focused on the epistemic problem, i.e., a reduction of the trichotomy of the soul into a duality of principles. Thus, he followed certain Aristotelian commentators. Psellos suggests a reduction that is subjectivist or individualist in its nature and he refuses to identify individual intellect with any particular piety.The Byzantine philosopher Michael Psellos (11th century) wrote a brief treatise entitled An Explanation of the Drive of the Soul Chariot and the Army of Gods According to Plato in the Phaedrus. The treatise consists of a compilation of excerpts from Hermias’ commentary on the Phaedrus. Psellos does not mention Hermias’ name but rather traces the origins of the treatise back to some “Greek theologians”. Psellos’ text presents a great interpretative challenge: the order of the myths about the charioteer and the parade of gods is reversed so that the former explicates the latter in such a way that the whole Platonic argument is dismissed as “absurd”. The Phaedrus in the Neo‑Platonic tradition (in Iamblichus in particular) is considered to be a strictly theological dialogue. Yet, Psellos’ arrangement shows that he was not interested in the mythographical or allegorical dimension of the excerpts. He rath‑ er focused on the epistemic problem, i.e., a reduction of the trichotomy of the soul into a duality of principles. Thus, he followed certain Aristo‑ telian commentators. Psellos suggests a reduction that is subjectivist or individualist in its nature and he refuses to identify individual intellect with any particular piety
Socrate, questo sconosciuto
Get PDFoai:ojs.pressto.amu.edu.pl:article/7692The first part of the present paper argues against any attempts to find a set of fixed points of a doctrine that could be ascribed to Socrates. The main thesis of the article has it that Socrates was part of a cultural movement that was marked by a tendency to rather raise questions than merely provide answers and boast about having a number of doctrines or doxai of their own. The second part of the paper concentrates on a number of memorable innovations that eventually constituted Greek culture, e.g., the idea that it is possible and desirable to be in full control of oneself and, consequently, to shoulder responsibility for one’s deeds rather than merely avoid and deny it. Thus, Socrates and ancient Socratic literature are shown here to be a probable source of numerous ideas that the western civilization has built on for centuries, these being, for instance, the idea of the limits of our powers. Hence, the conclusion of the article is that it would be a serious mistake to exclude Socrates from this major cultural development, even though the thinker did produce neither a theory nor a body of theories.The first part of the present paper argues against any attempts to find a set of fixed points of a doctrine that could be ascribed to Socrates. The main thesis of the article has it that Socrates was part of a cultural movement that was marked by a tendency to rather raise questions than merely provide answers and boast about having a number of doctrines or doxai of their own. The second part of the paper concentrates on a number of memorable innovations that eventually constituted Greek culture, e.g., the idea that it is possible and desirable to be in full control of oneself and, consequently, to shoulder responsibility for one’s deeds rather than merely avoid and deny it. Thus, Socrates and ancient Socratic literature are shown here to be a probable source of numerous ideas that the western civilization has built on for centuries, these being, for instance, the idea of the limits of our powers. Hence, the conclusion of the article is that it would be a serious mistake to exclude Socrates from this major cultural development, even though the thinker did produce neither a theory nor a body of theories.Mentre la prima rivista polacca di filosofia antica inizia le pubblicazioni, è per me unonore e una sfida riprendere, sulle sue pagine, il tema Socrate e fare ancora un tentativoper capire chi realmente egli fu. Quaranta anni di studi sull’argomento mi hanno, invero,fornito molteplici stimoli e strumenti per indagare e cercar di capire qualcosa intornoa un personaggio comunemente ritenuto sfuggente come pochi. In questo contributo,partendo dalle considerazioni proposte in un altro articolo recente1, provo a individuaredue facce del personaggio: da un lato il suo dialogare e il senso che questo suo dialogarepoté avere nell’orizzonte delle invenzioni letterarie del V secolo, dall’altro le potentiinnovazioni di cui Socrate sembra essere stato portatore nel campo dello stile di vita,dell’ottimismo etico e dell’impegno. Il titolo del mio scritto è provocatorio, ma quantomenoaderisce alla convinzione che la sua figura abbia bisogno di essere profondamenteripensata
Sokrates und die deliberative Demokratie. Zum sokratischen Politikverständnis in Platons Apologie, Kriton und Gorgias
No full textThe position of Socrates in Plato’s earlier dialogues is often seen as an anticipation of contemporary political theories. This article takes issue with the claim that Socrates anticipated modern theories of deliberative democracy. It examines three early Platonic dialogues (the Apology, the Crito and the Gorgias) and argues that the Socrates presented in the dialogues is actually far more dogmatic in ethical as well as religious matters than such annexations of Socrates can acknowledge. Furthermore, Socrates does not develop a theory that would support Athenian democracy. Although politically inactive within the Athenian political framework, Socrates is nonetheless depicted in the Gorgias as formulating an “ethical” view of politics. According to this conception, true politics is always virtue‑oriented. It is a matter of improving the characters of one’s fellow citizens, and is detached from the question of how political power should be distributed. Socrates’ political outlook is echoed in several Hellenistic philosophical schools, the Stoics in particular.The position of Socrates in Plato’s earlier dialogues is often seen as an anticipation of contemporary political theories. This article takes issue with the claim that Socrates anticipated modern theories of deliberative democracy. It examines three early Platonic dialogues (the Apology, the Crito and the Gorgias) and argues that the Socrates presented in the dialogues is actually far more dogmatic in ethical as well as religious matters than such annexations of Socrates can acknowledge. Furthermore, Socrates does not develop a theory that would support Athenian democracy. Although politically inactive within the Athenian political framework, Socrates is nonetheless depicted in the Gorgias as formulating an “ethical” view of politics. According to this conception, true politics is always virtue‑ oriented. It is a matter of improving the characters of one’s fellow citizens, and is detached from the question of how political power should be distributed. Socrates’ political outlook is echoed in several Hellenistic philosophical schools, the Stoics in particular.Die Figur des Sokrates, die uns in den frühen platonischen Dialogen entgegentritt, wird für eine Vielzahl heutiger politischer Theorien als Ahnherr reklamiert. Das Problem bei solchen Vereinnahmungsversuchen ist, dass sie den Blick auf das Sperrige, historisch Besondere und gar nicht zu unseren Erwartungen Passende des sokratischen Denkens verstellen. In diesem Artikel wende ich mich exemplarisch einer solchen Vereinnahmung von Sokrates für heutige politische Theorien zu, nämlich Versuchen, Sokrates zum Ahnherrn heutiger “deliberativer” Demokratiekonzeptionen zu erklären. Ich werde mithilfe einer stark kontextualisierenden Interpretation von drei frühen Platondialogen — der Apologie, dem Kriton und dem Gorgias — zeigen, dass solche Vereinnahmungsversuche den spezifischen religiösen Charakter von Sokrates’ “Berufung” aus dem Auge verlieren. Es ist diese religiöse Berufung, die Sokrates davon abhält, sich in einer für den athenischen “Mainstream” akzeptablen Weise in politische Diskurse einzubringen. Es wäre allerdings auch verkehrt, Sokrates zu einem im Grunde unpolitischen Denker zu erklären.1 Ich werde zeigen, dass Sokrates’ Haltung durchaus politisch zu verstehen ist. Sie repräsentiert eine Strömung im antiken griechischen politischen Denken, die der Perfektion der persönlichen ethischen Haltung einen absoluten Primat einräumt. Dabei gehe ich wie folgt vor: Im ersten Abschnitt zeige ich kurz, auf welche Weise Sokrates für verschiedene deliberative Demokratiekonzeptionen vereinnahmt worden ist. Im zweiten Abschnitt biete ich eine Interpretation der Apologie, des Kriton und des Gorgias. Im dritten Abschnitt analysiere ich zusammenfassend das sokratische Politikverständnis
Protagoras wydobyty z Teajteta
Get PDFZbigniew Nerczuk, Miarą jest każdy z nas. Projekt zwolenników zmienności rzeczy w Platońskim „Teajtecie” na tle myśli sofistycznej, Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK, Toruń 2009, ss. 205
A Historical Outline of Byzantine Philosophy and Its Basic Subjects
No full textThe article seeks to present an overview of the history of Byzantine philosophy. It takes its point of departure in the most important factors that influenced and shaped the Patristic thought. Subsequently, the paper considers the relative autonomy of Byzantine philosophy and offers a brief profile of major philosophers that contributed to the stream in the period from 9th to 15th century. From the numerous subjects that were taken into account by the most prominent Byzantine philosophers, the article discusses such issues as: the view of God, the problem of ‘conceptual realism’, the relationship between such ‘disci plines’ as logic, metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics and philosophical anthro pology. Furthermore, such questions as the place of man in the world, the scope of their freedom and the problem of evil are also touched upon here. The paper concludes with some remarks on the develop ment of Byzantine philosophy after the fall of Byzantium.The article seeks to present an overview of the history of Byzantine philosophy. It takes its point of departure in the most important factors that influenced and shaped the Patristic thought. Subsequently, the paper considers the relative autonomy of Byzantine philosophy and offers a brief profile of major philosophers that contributed to the stream in the period from 9th to 15th century. From the numerous subjects that were taken into account by the most prominent Byzantine philosophers, the article discusses such issues as: the view of God, the problem of ‘conceptual realism’, the relationship between such ‘disci‑ plines’ as logic, metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics and philosophical anthro‑ pology. Furthermore, such questions as the place of man in the world, the scope of their freedom and the problem of evil are also touched upon here. The paper concludes with some remarks on the develop‑ ment of Byzantine philosophy after the fall of Byzantium
De Cicerone poeta — sine ira et studio
Get PDF[K. Marciniak, Pro Cicerone poeta. Poezja Marka Tulliusza Cycerona na przestrzeni stuleci, Warszawa 2008]Katarzyna Marciniak, Pro Cicerone poeta. Poezja Marka Tulliusza Cycerona na przestrzeni stuleci, Instytut Badań Interdyscyplinarnych Artes Liberales, Uniwersytet Warszawski, Warszawa 2008, ss. 428
Controversy over the Power Between the Papacy and the Empire in the light of Marsilius’ of Padua Defensor pacis
No full textThe most famous medieval controversy over the power and the temporal dominion took place between the papacy and the empire. One of the greatest advocates of the imperial domination was Marsilius of Padua, the author of an original work that demonstrated the advantage of acknowledging the emperor’s superiority over the Pope’s. The Defensor pacis, written between 1319 and 1324, was devoted to the dispute on such sovereignty issues as proving that the Pope should be subordinate to the Emperor, and not vice versa. The Defensor pacis takes issue with numerous arguments and views uttered by the papal camp and uses the appropriate quotations from the Bible and Aristotle to show their weakness and inconsistency. The work comprises three parts. The first part is a description of the ideal system, i.e., an elective monarchy, with the specified role of a ruler and a clear indication of the sovereignty of the people. The second and third parts present a challenge to the arguments of the papal camp (including the famous argument of the “power keys”) and analyze the general situation of the Church, suggesting the necessary reforms. Thus, the whole work becomes a compendium of knowledge on appropriate governance.The most famous medieval controversy over the power and the tempo‑ ral dominion took place between the papacy and the empire. One of the greatest advocates of the imperial domination was Marsilius of Padua, the author of an original work that demonstrated the advantage of acknowledging the emperor’s superiority over the Pope’s. The Defensor pacis, written between 1319 and 1324, was devoted to the dispute on such sovereignty issues as proving that the Pope should be subordinate to the Emperor, and not vice versa. The Defensor pacis takes issue with numerous arguments and views uttered by the papal camp and uses the appropriate quotations from the Bible and Aristotle to show their weak‑ ness and inconsistency. The work comprises three parts. The first part is a description of the ideal system, i.e., an elective monarchy, with the specified role of a ruler and a clear indication of the sovereignty of the people. The second and third parts present a challenge to the arguments of the papal camp (including the famous argument of the “power keys”) and analyze the general situation of the Church, suggesting the neces‑ sary reforms. Thus, the whole work becomes a compendium of knowl‑ edge on appropriate governance