For the lack of forty-nine drachmas Socrates was unable to attend the costly epideixis of Prodicus from which he would have learnt the truth about correct use of words. From Prodicus' ὥραι Socrates could also have learnt the concepts and characteristic words associated with arete and kakia: these compete in that work for the allegiance of Heracles, parading their respective characteristics. Thanks to Professor Arthur Adkins we have had for the past decade a book which not only confronts arete (...) and kakia, but also analyses the meaning and usage of many Greek words for the evaluation of action from Homer to Aristotle. The importance of this book is generally acknowledged but it has not received the detailed discussion it deserves. Professor Adkins finds the social structure of ancient Greece inimical to the development of an adequate concept of moral responsibility. He shows, in a most interesting manner, how Greek values changed as the needs of society changed. (shrink)

Aristotle says little about moral badness [kakia], but his four central claims about it su????ce to entail a rich and plausible account. Badness is the disposition opposed to virtue, and so symmetrical with it in various ways; it is acquired by habituation; it is unlike akrasia in that the bad person’s reason endorses his wrong actions; and this endorsement involves the exercise of a corrupted reason. The activity of corrupted reason must be a kind of (as we now say) (...) motivated reasoning—rationalization, denial and the like—which serves to conceal the correct ends of action from the corrupt person and to sustain their habitual bad behaviour. Although badness is located in the non-rational soul, it is this corruption of reason which turns it into a stable disposition. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Against the Ethicists (Adversus Mathematicos XI) by Sextus EmpiricusJohn Christian LaursenSextus Empiricus. Against the Ethicists (Adversus Mathematicos XI). Translation, Commentary, and Introduction by Richard Bett. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Pp. xxxiv + 302. NP.Sesto Empirico. Contro gli etici. Introduction, Editing, Translation, and Commentary by Emidio Spinelli. Naples: Bibliopolis, 1995. Pp. 450. NP.Joining the rising tide of scholarly literature that says that skeptics can indeed live their skepticism, and (...) that it is not necessarily a bad life, are these two fine translations of Book XI of Sextus Empiricus’s Against the Mathematicians (known as MXI), the most important for ethics and politics. Considering that the length of Sextus’s text is only 39 pages (in the English version), the length of these two volumes alone indicates that a great deal of philosophical and philological scholarship will be found in them. Both authors do an excellent job of tracking down Sextus’s sources and his targets.Spinelli accepts the traditional position (Janacek’s) that MXI was written after Sextus’s Outlines of Pyrrhonism, although he is aware of the minority position that it was the other way around. Bett makes a convincing case for the minority position, including a substantial appendix comparing passages from the two works which suggest that Outlines polishes MXI. This has the merit of explaining Sextus’s apparent “negative dogmatism” in MXI as part of early skepticism and a phase on the way to the more refined and more thoroughly undogmatic skepticism of the Outlines. However, Bett himself mentions counterevidence to his thesis, so it cannot be considered decisively established. Spinelli explains the apparent dogmatism on the assumption that Outlines came first: the usual skeptical reservations set forth in that book should be understood as implied (165–66, 169). Other explanations are that apparent affirmations are ad hominem polemic “inside” Stoic theory (240ff.) or merely relative and with no ontological status (291).Bett divides the text into part A (1–167) and part B (168–end), arguing for compilation of the two parts of the book from different sources with different purposes. Spinelli writes that the often-denigrated 168–end “has a precise function in the internal compositional strategy” of the book (339).English speakers have had to rely too long on the Loeb translation by” B. Bury. Bett questions many of his renderings. For example, Bury translated kakon and kakia as “evil,” with connotations of intentionality, and at MXI 121 even supplied a footnote to Genesis! Bett prefers the less-loaded “bad” and “vice.” Spinelli usually translates kakon with “mali” but uses the loaded “malvagità” for kakia at MXI 121, where Bett would have suggested “vizio.” Bury translated alogon and alogois with “irrational” which Bett corrects to “non-rational” at MXI 143, 148, and 161 to capture the point that what is in question is neither rational nor irrational, but rather “sensory happenings” which have [End Page 313] nothing to do with reasoning (161). Spinelli renders alogon as “irrazionale” at MXI 143 and alogois as “sottrati al ragionamento” at MXI 148 and 161.Spinelli’s is a much more useful and substantial volume than the previous Italian translation. The only thing that might keep Bett’s volume from replacing the Loeb edition is that it does not supply the Greek text on facing pages. Spinelli does.The exhaustive and careful analyses of Spinelli and Bett allow them to disagree in important ways with parts of the substantial recent work on ancient skepticism by Hankinson, McPherran, Annas, Nussbaum, Striker, and Decleva Caizzi (cited as Caizzi by Bett), not to mention the older work of Janacek and the debates from the early 1980s (now dated) among Frede, Burnyeat, and Barnes. Although they do not find Sextus’s work to be flawless by any means, it is clear that we are long past the point at which his work could be dismissed as silly or merely derivative.On the test case of the treatment of Sextus’s example of the tyrant (MXI 166), both Spinelli and Bett point in the right direction. Spinelli sees that “the Pyrrhonist can live easily” (330) and that MXI 165–67 provides “a new key to understanding the ‘moral skepticism... (shrink)

O problema do bem agir e a reflexão sobre a virtude (areté) e o vício (kakía) são presenças marcantes na filosofia de Platão. No Timeu e nas Leis as questões do mal e da ação má recebem uma atenção especial, seja em meio àquela narrativa cosmológica, seja no debate sobre a injustiça, os crimes e as melhores leis para uma cidade. Propomos apresentar a nossa leitura do tema nesses Diálogos, bem como a nossa hipótese sobre a origem do mal em (...) Platão, ambas decorrentes de nossas pesquisas sobre o texto platônico e sua literatura. Platão situa no interior do próprio homem a fonte potencial do mal moral, resultante de má educação e má disposição da alma, no Timeu. Nas Leis, detalha o modo pelo qual uma ação injusta e má é gestada: a formação de um mau caráter (tirania de elementos internos à alma, pela má educação) e de modos de agir mal (consentidos, deliberados). Defendemos que, em Leis IX, Platão realiza uma reformulação do paradigma socrático do mal inconsentido, admitindo que o homem que age de um modo consentido e mal possui tanto o caráter como o modo de agir injusto e mau (861e-862c4). Palavras-chave: Mal; Injustiça; Ética platônica. Plato and the problem of evil, from the Timaeus to the refutation of the Socratic paradigm of not consented-evil in the Laws: there are ways of consentingly acting unfair and evils. Abstract: The problem of doing the right thing and reflecting on virtue (areté) and vice (kakía) are striking presences in Plato's philosophy. In the Timaeus and Laws, the issues of evil and evil action receive special attention, whether in the midst of that cosmological narrative or the debate about injustice, crimes, and the best laws for a city. We propose to present our reading of the theme in these Dialogues and our hypothesis about the genesis of evil in Plato, both arising from our research on the Platonic text and its literature. Plato locates within man himself the potential source of moral evil, resulting from lousy education and nasty disposition of the soul, in the Timaeus. In the Laws, he details how an unjust and bad action is fathered: the formation of an evil character (tyranny of elements internal to the soul, by bad education) and ways of misbehaving (consented, deliberate). We argue that, in Laws IX, Plato performs a reformulation of the Socratic paradigm of not consented evil, admitting that the man who acts in a consenting and evil way possesses both the character and the way of acting unjust and evil (861e-862c4). Key-words: Evil; Injustice; Platonic ethics. Platon et le problème du mal, du Timée à la réfutation du paradigme socratique du mal pas consenti dans les Lois : il y a des manières d'agir, avec consentement, injustes et mauvaises. Résumé : Le problème du bien agir et la réflexion sur la vertu (areté) et le vice (kakía) sont des présences fortes dans la philosophie de Platon. Dans le Timée et dans les Lois, les problèmes du mal et de la mauvaise action reçoivent une attention particulière, soit dans le récit cosmologique, soit dans le débat sur l'injustice, les crimes et les meilleures lois pour une ville. On propose de présenter notre lecture du thème dans ces Dialogues, ainsi que notre hypothèse sur l'origine du mal chez Platon, les deux venues de nos recherches sur le texte platonicien et sa littérature. Dans le Timée, Platon situe la source potentielle du mal moral, résultant d'une mauvaise éducation et d'une mauvaise disposition de l'âme, dans l'homme lui-même. Dans les Lois, il détaille comment une action injuste ou mauvaise est effectuée : la formation d'un mauvais caractère (tyrannie d'éléments internes à l'âme, due à une mauvaise éducation) et de mauvaises manières d'agir (consenties, délibérées). On soutient que, dans les Lois IX, Platon reformule le paradigme socratique du mal pas consenti, en admettant que l'homme qui agit d’une manière consentie et mauvaise a non seulement le caractère, mais aussi la manière d'agir injuste et mauvaise (861e-862c4). Mots clés : Mal ; Injustice ; Éthique platonicienne. Data de registro: 02/08/2023 Data de aceite: 12/06/2024. (shrink)

프로디코스는 자신의 『시기들』이라는 글에서 인간이라면 마땅히 취해야 하는 인간적 삶의 방향을 제안한다. 그 글 안에서 아레테와 카키아라는 두 신적인 존재가 등장하여 헤라클레스에게 각각 자신이 제안하는 삶의 길을 따르라고 요청한다. 아레테가 제안하는 길은 노고 및 땀으로 이루어진 삶인 반면, 카키아가 제안하는 길은 즐거움과 함께 하는 쉬운 삶이며, 둘 모두 궁극적으로는 자신들의 길을 통해 행복(eudaimonia)에 이르리라 약속한다. 그리고 헤라클레스는 아레테의 길을 선택한다. 이러한 내용으로 인해 프로디코스의『시기들』은 인간의 자제력(enkrateia)을 중요시하며, 이를 통해 탁월함(덕)에 이를 수 있다는 인본주의적 성격을 담고 있다고 이해되어 왔다. 전통적 신관과는 (...) 달리, 프로디코스는 인간의 생존에 유익함을 보장하는 것들을, 예를 들어 음식과 음료 그리고 해와 달 등을, 신으로 강조하는 논의를 펼쳤다고 전해진다. 이와 함께 그는 ‘용어의 옳음’(orthoepeia)이라 알려진 언어론적 입장 또한 고수했다고 알려지고 있다. 그의 언어론에 따를 경우, 가령 ‘플레그마’(phlegma: 점액)는 본성상 그 의미가 ‘페플레크타이’(pephlechthai: 끓는)인 대상에 부응하고 그 대상으로부터 어원의 형태가 일관되기에 옳다는 논의처럼, 각 용어는 그것이 가리키는 대상과 의미에서 본성적 일관성을 유지해야 하며 동시에 용어 자체의 형태에서도 일관성이 갖추어진 경우에만 옳다. 이와 같은 프로디코스의 신론적 및 언어론적 입장을 고려할 경우, 두 신적인 존재가 행복으로서의 ‘즐거움’을 다루는 『시기들』에 담지된 인본주의적 성격은 인간 한정적 유익함으로서의 탁월함 완수가 곧 결과론적 즐거움으로서의 행복이라는 내용으로 보다 구체화될 수 있다. (shrink)