This paper focuses on a neglected portion of Plato’s Gorgias from 506c to 513d during Socrates’s discussion with Callicles. I claim that Callicles adopts the view that virtue lies in self-preservation in this part of the dialogue. Such a position allows him to assert the value of rhetoric in civic life by appealing not to the goodness of acting unjustly with impunity, but to the badness of suffering unjustly without remedy. On this view, the benefits of the life of (...) rhetoric depend on the idea that virtue consists in the power to protect oneself from the predations of others. I argue that by challenging this understanding of virtue as self-preservation, Socrates both deprives Callicles of any remaining justification for the rhetorical life in the Gorgias and, at the same time, makes room for his own defense of the life of philosophy. (shrink)

Les Socrate(s) de Platon; le Socrate de Hegel, de Kierkegaard et de Nietzsche.

Nietzsche’s encounter with Socrates is examined in all of the relevant passages in the former’s writings. Dannhauser depicts this encounter as a quarrel between a modern and an ancient that runs through all the stages of Nietzsche’s intellectual development. The ambiguous, not to say ambivalent, nature of Nietzsche’s "view" of Socrates as a man and thinker is carefully shown even though it does not appear that any depth interpretation of this issue actually emerges. It is pointed out that, (...) for the most part, Nietzsche sees Socrates as a turning-point in Western history, as the arch-rationalist, the dialectician who advocates the supremacy of morality over all else, a decadent personality, and the enemy of instinctive life. (shrink)

Review of Socrates, Philosophy in Plato's Early Dialogues, by Gerasimos X. Santas.

Socrates wrote nothing; Plato's accounts of Socrates helped to establish western politics, ethics, and metaphysics. Both have played crucial and dramatically changing roles in western culture. In the last two centuries, the triumph of democracy has led many to side with the Athenians against a Socrates whom they were right to kill. Meanwhile the Cold War gave us polar images of Plato as both a dangerous totalitarian and an escapist intellectual. And visions of Plato have proliferated at (...) the heart of postmodern critiques of the very idea of metaphysics and politics. Plato's Progeny begins with an account of modern responses to the trial of Socrates and the controversial question of Socrates' relation to Plato. At its centre are two chapters exploring the idea of Platonic origins in and for philosophy, and of Platonic foundations for philosophical politics. Exploring unfamiliar as well as familiar invocations of Plato, Melissa Lane argues that twentieth-century ideological battles have obscured the importance of Socratic individualism, the nature of Platonic ethics, and the value of Platonic politics. Succinct and clearly written, this is an ideal guide for everyone interested in the way philosophers are still writing footnotes to Plato. (shrink)

The present paper discusses Grosseteste’s reception of Proclus’ Elements of Physics (EP) in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics VI. In the first section I examine the method with which Grosseteste reconstructs Aristotelian texts. The second section initiates a study of the way Grosseteste evaluates Proclus’ EP on the basis of this method. Thus, the third section brings out Grosseteste’s moderate criticism of Proclus’ treatment of certain Aristotelian conclusiones and assumptions. The fourth section extends this study to the conceptual relation between (...) contiguity, continuity and succession. Finally, Grosseteste’s evaluation of Proclus’ tendency to omit, divide and merge Aristotelian conclusiones is studied in the fifth section. I conclude that Grosseteste is a careful and moderately critical reader of Proclus. He aptly grasps the dependence of the EP on Physics VI and conceives of Proclus’ EP as a forerunner of his own method of reconstructing Aristotelian texts. (shrink)

Plato’s Protagoras is famous for Protagoras’s defense of the public practice of sophistry and his great myth, which contains his account of the origins of political life, as well as for Hippias’s rejection of the tyranny of nomos in the name of the natural kinship of the wise. What is perplexing is that Socrates makes no explicit response to these arguments. This essay argues that Socrates’s indirect response is actually contained in his otherwise unmotivated interpretation of the poem (...) of Simonides, where his description of “laconic philosophy” is in fact an indirect description of his own philosophical practice. While the sophists reject nomos without recognizing their own dependence on its stabilizing force, Socrates argues that genuine philosophers, recognizing at once the necessity as well as the defectiveness of nomos, must “unwillingly praise” convention and only present their criticisms indirectly. Socrates’s interpretation of Simonides, then, points the way to his own understanding of the tension between, but also the interdependence of, nomos and physis. (shrink)

THE PASSAGE CITED IN THE TITLE IS commonly said to deal with puzzles or paradoxes about size and other measurable attributes of bodies. Nearly all recent commentators seek to interpret this portion of the dialogue as supporting or otherwise cohering with the Protagorean position Socrates expounds in the Theaetetus. On the present analysis, however, the support or harmony is mere appearance. The puzzles Socrates brings up are indeed associated with entities rejected by Protagoras. Socrates certainly uses the (...) puzzles to foster Theaetetus's trust in Protagorean doctrine. All the same, Socrates' procedure should not be taken at face value. The passage, which is an important digression, is fundamentally quite critical of the Protagorean position. (shrink)

Introduction: Socratic divagation/divination -- The holy -- On the sign of Socrates -- Divine madness -- Banishing the poets -- Conclusion: the multiplicity of voices.

The central argument in the Euthyphro is the one Socrates advances against the definition of piety as "what all the gods love." The argument turns on establishing that a loved thing (philoumenon) is 1) a loved thing because it is loved (phileitai), not 2) loved because it is a loved thing. I suggest that this claim can be understood and found acceptable if we take "because" to be used equivocally in it. Despite the equivocation, Socrates' argument is valid, (...) showing that Euthyphro cannot offer this definition consistently with his view that the gods have as a reason for loving pious things that they are pious things. (shrink)

윤리학과 종교는 각각 독자적인 방식으로 인간의 삶에 규범을 제시한다. 일반적으로 윤리학이 제시하는 규범은 이성에 토대를 두고 있고, 종교는 신앙에 토대를 둔 규범을 제시하는 것으로 알려져 있다. 그러나 도덕적 규범과 종교적 규범이 항상 일치하는 것은 아니다. 심지어 어떤 경우에는 동일한 상황에서 정반대의 규범을 제시하기도 한다. 윤리학과 종교, 이성과 신앙의 갈등 혹은 대립은 비단 윤리학자들뿐만 아니라 일반인들을 오랫동안 괴롭혀온 문제라고 할 수 있다. 소크라테스는 『에우튀프론』에서 최초로 이 문제를 검토한다. 소크라테스와 에우튀프론은 경건함이 무엇인지를 두고 열띤 논쟁을 펼친다. 에우튀프론의 경건함의 정의는 규범윤리이론으로서 신명론을 함축하고 (...) 있다. 소크라테스는 에우튀프론의 경건함의 정의를 논박함으로써 에우튀프론의 신명론의 한계를 드러낸다. 하지만 소크라테스의 반론이 신의 존재를 완전히 부정하거나 신이 도덕적 선, 정의와 무관하다는 것을 주장하는 것은 아니라는 점이 주목되어야 한다. 왜냐하면 『에우튀프론』에서 뿐만 아니라 『변론』에서도 알 수 있듯이 소크라테스는 누구보다도 신의 존재를 확신하고, 자신의 도덕적 가르침이 신의 명령에 부합한다고 믿고 있기 때문이다. 이것은 에우튀프론의 신명론과는 다른 독특한 소크라테스의 신명론의 가능성을 열어 놓게 된다. (shrink)

The debate over Socrates’s claim in the Apology to have practiced philosophy as a divinely ordained mission is almost as old as this claim itself. Yet scholars remain divided over the issue because of the extraordinary difficulty of understanding how Socrates interpreted the negative proclamation of the oracle as providing a positive prescription for a way of life. Finding this difficultly insurmountable, many authors have denied the coherence of Socrates’s account. In this essay, I argue that the (...) debate can be resolved by revisiting the interpretation of human wisdom offered in the Apology. Demonstrating that Socrates understands human wisdom to be structurally incompatible with the claim to possess it, I show that he is thereby prevented from ever simply affirming the truth of the oracle and that this, in turn, establishes his philosophical practice as a lifelong mission. (shrink)

Scholarship on the Euthydemus has largely focused on the protreptic character of the Euthydemus—that is, the manner by which Socrates attempts to turn the young Cleinias toward philosophy. By focusing on the dramatic structure of the text, and above all its comic tenor, this article argues that it is Crito—he to whom Socrates tells his hilarious story of his encounter with the two sophist-brothers—who is the real object of Socrates’s protreptic speech.

Before we take up the arguments directly, there is one general point about Socrates' position that he considered essential to everything he said in the Crito. Also, he thought that this point was easily missed. He calls it his "starting point." It is that "we ought neither to requite wrong with wrong nor to do evil to anyone, no matter what he may have done to us." And Socrates warns Crito not to accept this position too quickly or (...) without full consideration, "for I know that there are few who believe or ever will believe this". Yet this moral principle is so essential to his arguments that "those who believe this, and those who do not, have no common ground of discussion, but they must necessarily, in view of their opinions, despise one another". This position, never to harm others in any circumstance, is "the starting point of our discussion...". (shrink)

Although John Black Grant (1890-1962) is well known among historians of public health and an older generation of public health practitioners, he has not received the wider recognition that he deserves, especially as the solutions that he proposed to public health problems some 70 to 80 years ago still apply. Several factors inhibited Grant from being recognized as a public health leader. To begin with, the general policy of the Rockefeller Foundation's International Health Division (IHD), where he worked for more (...) than 40 years (1917-62), was that its employees should keep a low profile and not advertise their accomplishments. More importantly, the Foundation itself was unsure of Grant's place in their history, as .. (shrink)

Mountains of books have been written about the life of the great sage Socrates, his philosophy, his condemnation by an Athenian court, and his execution. Nonetheless, one of the most erudite experts on ancient culture and philosophy, A.F. Losev, wrote: "Socrates is one of the most difficult problems in all ancient philosophy…. And it is now by no means an easy matter to discern the true Socrates" . This judgment of Losev's is all the more true in (...) view of the fact that Socrates did not write any philosophical works and we have to get all our information about his personality and philosophy from the more or less reliable reminiscences of his pupils and followers, first of all Plato and Xenophon. (shrink)

In The Religion of Socrates, Mark McPherran offers an extended discussion of selected evidence about Socrates’s philosophy of religion. Relevant passages from Plato’s Euthyphro and Apology are taken to be authentic reports of Socrates’s own thinking, and are commented on at considerable length. The interpretation that emerges is supplemented by evidence from other works by Plato and from Xenophon’s Memorabilia. The ten-page bibliography is useful, and the index of passages is especially valuable. But McPherran’s evidence is tendentiously (...) selected, and so his depiction cannot be trusted as a portrayal of Socrates himself. (shrink)

Plato's Euthyrphro, Apology, andCrito portray Socrates' words and deeds during his trial for disbelieving in the Gods of Athens and corrupting the Athenian youth, and constitute a defense of the man Socrates and of his way of life, the philosophic life. The twelve essays in the volume, written by leading classical philosophers, investigate various aspects of these works of Plato, including the significance of Plato's characters, Socrates's revolutionary religious ideas, and the relationship between historical events and Plato's (...) texts. (shrink)

Stern uses a very thorough analysis of Plato's Phaedo as a means of attacking the traditional understanding of the Platonic-Socratic view of both the method and the results of philosophy that is found in the middle dialogues. Stern means by "political philosophy" the study of human affairs in general, and he sees Socrates' study of human affairs as described in the Phaedo as involving a type of rationalism that does not rest on a dogmatic assertion about the existence of (...) a transcendent realm of Ideas supplying a clear and unambiguous explanation of things. On the contrary, Socratic rationalism is grounded in an awareness of the limits of human understanding and consists in the critical examination of human discourse as our means of discovering what can be known about the world we live in and the irreducible heterogeneity and irreconcilable conflicts that characterize it. Neither the soul nor the Ideas can be understood apart from their involvement in this world, and both are connected with logos and with heterogeneity in a critical way. (shrink)

This excellent book consists of a translation of Plato's Euthyphro, plus "interspersed comment" intended "partly as a help to the Greekless reader in finding his way, and partly as a means of embedding the discussion of the earlier theory of Forms which follows it." That subsequent discussion is a series of sections aimed at establishing "that there is an earlier theory of Forms, found in the Euthyphro and other early dialogues as an essential adjunct of Socratic dialect" and that it (...) is not the same as the theory of Forms found in the Phaedo, Republic and other middle dialogues. In the Euthyphro Socrates' question of what holiness is assumes that there is a Form of holiness, "that this Form is a universal, the same in all holy things;... that that Form may be used as a standard, by which to judge what things are holy and what are not...; that it is an essence, by which or in virtue of which holy things are holy." As essences Forms are causes--formal, not efficient. They are "causes in the sense that they are that by which things are what they are. They therefore affect the career of the world, in that if they did not exist, the world would not be what it is." They "are not identical with their instances and [are] prior to their instances" and, hence, they are not in their instances. In fact, "Forms are as 'separate' from their instances in the early dialogues as they are" in the later ones. Do they not differ, then, from these latter Forms? Yes, because "of the way in which separation is conceived." In the Phaedo and other middle dialogues separation "involves something more than... nonidentity, independence, or priority. It involves the claim that instances of Forms are deficient imitations or resemblances of Forms.... To that theory was later conjoined, as a natural corollary, the theory that sensibles and Forms differ in their degree of reality, that Forms are more real than their instances." There are, in fact, "Two Worlds, Visible and Invisible.... The objects of the Visible World... are in a perpetually changing mortal realm, never the same with respect to each other or themselves. By contrast, Forms, the reality of whose existence we render an account in questioning and answering, exist always in the same way with respect to the same things, single in nature, alone by themselves, never in any way under any circumstances admitting alteration." This contrast between the Two Worlds is not drawn in the Euthyphro and earlier writings. Hence, between them and the middle dialogues there is a development in the theory of Forms. Of course, there also is "a unity to Plato's thought; but it is not the unity of a monument. It is the unity of growth and development, the unity of life." In these splendid pages one point remains unclear: how can a Form be universal and thus distinct from its instances and yet be their formal cause? Allen leaves no doubt that this is his position: "In Plato's early dialogues Forms are not the being of that of which they are Forms. A universal, being one, cannot constitute the being of a plurality--precisely why Aristotle was led to distinguish substantial form from universal. The Euthyphro does not imply that holiness is the being of any given holy thing or action as holy; it implies only that holiness is that by which holy things are holy. It implies, to borrow another bit of Aristotelian vocabulary, that holiness is a cause." But precisely in what way is a Form "that by which" something is what it is? Plato subsequently answers by distinguishing the Form itself, its character as participated by a particular thing, and the participant : the Form is that by which some thing is what it is through the participated character which the thing has. Is this answer implied in the Euthyphro? Or in what sense is a Form distinct from particular things? In what sense a formal cause? That puzzlement, though, is minor in the context of the entire book, which is valuable not only for the interpretation Allen gives of the early and middle dialogues but also for all sorts of unexpected bonuses. These are points either newly made or brilliantly reiterated--for example, the influence of Anaxagoras on Plato re the notion of essence and in philosophical vocabulary; Aristotle's abandonment of the contrast made in the Categories between primary and secondary substance; the crucial difference between genus/species in Aristotle and in Plato (enriched/impoverished; the analogy of a Platonic definition to mapping a field; the evaluation of Aristotle's interpretation of Plato's Forms, of his report on the "unwritten doctrines," of esoteric and exoteric teachings. This last culminates in a paragraph which all students of Plato should reflect upon constantly: "It is possible to treat Plato's text, not as evidence for something else, but as itself the primary object of historical understanding. The aim of the inquiry is then to interpret a set of literary documents, not to fathom the entertained beliefs of their author. It is reasonable, of course, to assume that the documents are a reliable index to the beliefs; but the connection, after all, is contingent, and as far as interpretation is concerned, unimportant. If Plato, in his heart of hearts, had been a nominalist, an atheist, a sceptic about immortality, and a hedonist, and had yet gone on to write the dialogues which he wrote for some obscure motive now unknown, this would not change the proper interpretation of what he wrote and privately disbelieved by one iota: when a man says what he does not believe, we may still perfectly well understand what it is he has said. The question, then, of whether Plato had beliefs he did not express, or beliefs contrary to what he did express, may be left to those with skill in the arts of divination; the historian may more reasonably limit himself to the study of texts and their meaning. If inquiry is construed in this way, it is self-referentially inconsistent to prefer the testimony of Aristotle to the evidence of Plato's text in the interpretation of Plato."--L. S. (shrink)

The Clitophon, a dialogue generally ascribed to Plato, is significant for focusing on Socrates' role as an exhorter of other people to engage in philosophy. It was almost certainly intended to bear closely on Plato's Republic and is a fascinating specimen of the philosophical protreptic, an important genre very fashionable at the time. This 1999 volume is a critical edition of this dialogue, in which Professor Slings provides a text based on an examination of all relevant manuscripts and accompanies (...) it with a translation. His extensive introduction studies philosophical exhortation in the classical era, and tries to account for Plato's dialogues in general as a special type of exhortation. The Clitophon is seen as a defence of the Platonic dialogue. The commentary elucidates the Greek and discusses many passages where the meaning is not entirely clear. (shrink)

Who is Socrates? While most readers know him as the central figure in Plato's work, he is hard to characterize. In this book, S. Montgomery Ewegen opens this long-standing and difficult question once again. Reading Socrates against a number of Platonic texts, Ewegen sets out to understand the way of Socrates. Taking on the nuances and contours of the Socrates that emerges from the dramatic and philosophical contexts of Plato's works, Ewegen considers questions of withdrawal, retreat, (...) powerlessness, poverty, concealment, and release and how they construct a new view of Socrates. For Ewegen, Socrates is a powerful but strange and uncanny figure. Ewegen's withdrawn Socrates forever evades rigid interpretation and must instead remain a deep and insoluble question. (shrink)

Il s'est passé quelque chose avec notre corps dont nous n'avons pas encore pris toute la mesure. Il était le "tombeau de l'âme" pour Socrate, la source du péché pour les chrétiens, ce dont il fallait apprendre à se détacher parce qu'il nous voue à la souffrance, à la maladie et à la mort. Ayant gagné quarante ans d'espérance de vie en un siècle, nous voyons au contraire dans le corps le lieu de notre salut. Il n'est plus notre ennemi, (...) mais notre double : nous l'écoutons, nous le consultons, nous demandons à la science et aux technologies, mais aussi au droit et à la politique, de l'entretenir et de le protéger, au sport d'augmenter sa puissance, à la mode de l'embellir, au cinéma de le glorifier... Notre époque aurait-elle accompli la "divinisation du corps" que Nietzsche appelait de ses voeux? Cet essai intempestif, nourri d'une très intime fréquentation de l'oeuvre nietzschéenne et portant un regard aiguisé sur les transformations de notre sensibilité, soutient que le corps est bien plutôt devenu une nouvelle idole, un fétiche idéalisé en regard duquel notre corps réel, fini, souffrant, multiple et obscur, se sent toujours en défaut, inaccompli, coupable même. Reste alors à imaginer, au-delà de tout moralisme, ce que serait l'existence d'un individu qui se conformerait vraiment à la formule de Zarathoustra: "Je suis corps tout entier et rien d'autre.". (shrink)