DSpace-CRIS

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3

Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
La figure d'Ulysse chez les Socratiques: Socrate polutropos
(Brill, 2005)
Lévystone, David
At the end of the fifth century B.C.E., the character of Odysseus was scorned by most of the Athenians: he illustrated the archetype of the demagogic, unscrupulous and ambitious politicians that had led Athens to its doom. Against this common doxa, the most important disciples of Socrates (Antisthenes, Plato, Xenophon) rehabilitate the hero and admire his temperance and his courage. But it is most surprising to see that, in spite of Odysseus' lies and deceit, these philosophers, who condemn steadfastly the sophists' deceptions, praise his rhetorical ability, his polutropia. The word polutropia is ambiguous: for Antisthenes, it means either "diversity of styles and discourses" or "diversity of dispositions, characters, or souls". It is argued that the same distinction is implicitly at work in Plato's Hippias Minor, where Socrates defends Odysseus' polutropia against the pseudo "simplicity" of Hippias' favourite hero, Achilles. However, whereas Antisthenes tries to clarify these different meanings, Plato's Socrates exploits the ambiguity to confuse his interlocutor. Such a distinction sheds a new light on the Hippias Minor: Odysseus is polutropos in the first (positive) sense, while the simplicity of Achilles should be understood as a bad kind of polutropia. It provides an explanation for the first paradoxical thesis of the dialogue which many commentators do not admit as an expression of the true Socratic view, on the ground of its supposed immorality: that he who voluntary deceives is better than he who errs, for falsehood is, in one case, only in words, while in the other, it is falsehood in the soul itself. It is thus proposed that Odysseus' skill in adapting his logos to his hearers was probably a model for Socrates himself. The analogy between the hero and Socrates is especially clear in Plato's dialogues, which show the philosopher in an Odyssey for knowledge. ©Brill ©The author
Scopus© Citations 34 11 1
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Le courage et les mots de la peur dans le Lachès et le Protagoras
(Classical Association of Canada, 2006)
Lévystone, David
The amount of attention that Plato gives to the virtue of courage can be interpreted as a symptom of the difficulties he faced in integrating it into his virtue science theory. His answers are never exactly the same, even in two dialogues of youth, the Laches and Protagoras, which are supposed to give a more accurate picture of the teaching of Socrates himself. Through an analysis of the terminology of fear in these two texts, it becomes clear that Plato, in distinguishing phobos from deos, implicitly agrees with the impossibility of simply reducing courage to science. This perspective is likely to modify our comprehension of the intellectualist theory of Socrates himself, at least with regard to courage. ©The author ©Classical Association of Canada
9 1
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Averroes a-t-il inventé une théorie des deux sujets de la pensée?
(Universidad Panamericana. Facultad de Filosofía, 2005)
Brenet, Jean Baptiste
De acuerdo con Tomás de Aquino, la filosofía de la mente de Averroes se caracteriza por la doctrina del «doble sujeto», la cual se encuentra en su Largo Comentario al De Anima. Como es bien sabido, Averroes afirma que de los inteligibles en acto o de los inteligibles teoréticos puede decirse que tienen dos sujetos (duo subiecta): el intelecto material y la imagen de la potencia cogitativa, cuya conexión permite a los humanos individuales el pensar. Aquí tratamos de saber si propiamente es una “teoría” producida por Averroes. Al analizar todos los textos que tratan de esto, intentamos justificar el uso del término “subiectum” aplicado a la imagen y pretendemos mostrar que la expresión “duo subiecta”, aunque equívoca desde un punto de vista léxico, es totalmente clara desde el punto de vista conceptual. La doctrina del doble sujeto ciertamente es una tesis de Averroes que es consecuente con la última etapa de su filosofía y su nueva enseñanza sobre el intelecto material, pero no es, contrario a la interpretación de sus oponentes latinos, la doctrina de los dos “sustratos”, misma que haría al hombre el segundo lugar del inteligible en acto.
26 77

CRIS

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results