Epistemoloji alanında bilginin iki temel düşünce üzerinden günümüze kadar geldiği bilinen bir husustur. Bu düşüncelerden ilkini ve en önemlisini oluşturan Platon felsefesi, mutlakçı kanadı temsil edenken Protagoras felsefesi rölativist bir yapıyı dillendirir. Her iki yapı arasındaki karşılaştırmanın birbirinden bağımsız kaynaklardan hareketle yapılamaması, Protagoras felsefesinin açık bir şekilde anlaşılmasını engellemektedir. Çünkü bu felsefenin anlaşılması, muhalif kanatta yer alan Platon’un eserlerinden hareketle gerçekleştirilmektedir. Bu durum, Platon’un hangi Protagoras’ı eserlerinde işlediği sorusunu gündeme getirir. Bu sorunun yanlış anlama veya yanlış aktarma şeklinde iki temel (...) problem üzerinden işlenmesi her iki düşüncenin hem Platon’un eserlerinde hem de söz konusu aktarımların dışında nasıl bir çerçeveye sahip olduğunu tartışmaya açar. Bu çalışmamızın amacı da Platon’un Theaetetus diyalogunda ele aldığı Protagoras felsefesinin tarihsel açıdan gerçek Protagoras’ın düşüncelerine karşılık gelip gelmediğini incelemek ve her iki filozofun ayrıştığı noktaları ön plana çıkarmaktır. Bu noktada temel ayrımın bilgi ve algı kavramları üzerinden ortaya çıktığı ve bu durumun mutlakçı ve rölativist yaklaşımlarla doğrudan ilişkili olduğu belirtilmelidir. (shrink)

Series of articles about Plato's dialogue "Theaetetus".

Protagoras beansprucht, die Jugend erziehen zu können. Warum nicht? Wenn «Mensch Maß aller Dinge» ist, kann jeder jeden ‘besser’ machen… Für Plato geht das nicht auf. Was fehlt? Was ist das Maß des Menschen, wenn der Mensch Maß sein soll? Protagoras claims to be able to educate the young. Why not? If «Man is Measure of Everything», anybody can make everybody ‘better’… To Plato, this doesn't add up. What's lacking? What is the measure of Man, if Man be measure?

In several late dialogues, Plato uses the paradeigma of the letters to illustrate the methods of dialectics. This study examines why letters in particular represent suitable models, and explores important themes of Plato's late ontology and epistemology from this viewpoint. The author thereby reveals the nature of the paradeigma and its central role as a method.

1. Bd. Theaitetos. Der Sophist. Der Staatsmann. Kratylos.--2. Bd. Philebos. Parmenides. Timalos. Kritias.

Blandt de værker, der er overleveret under Platons navn, er den forholdsvis ukendte Theages. Det er en ganske kort dialog, som ikke desto mindre behandler et kernespørgsmål i Platons forfatterskab: Hvordan opnår man visdom? Den har tydelige referencer til en række kendte passager i Platons værk, fx iForsvarstalen, Symposion, Staten og Theaitetos. Desuden viser den nogle af de berømteste sider af Platons Sokrates: Hans guddommelige tegn, hans særlige ironi, hans forhold til sofisterne og til de mennesker, der vil følge (...) ham. Dialogen er både filosofisk og litterært vanskelig at fortolke og er ofte blevet anset for uægte. Den platoniske dialog Theages giver en oversættelse af dialogen, gennemgår dens forskningshistorie og fortolker den gennem en omhyggelig læsning og en diskussion af dens vigtigste temaer. Bogen viser, hvordan de sidste århundreders forskning direkte eller indirekte har været afhængig af spørgsmålet om ægthed. I modsætning hertil argumenterer forfatteren for, at den rette forståelse af dialogen bedst findes på baggrund af Platons samlede værk, uafhængigt af forfatterspørgsmålet. Således giver bogen også et overblik over den nyere Platon-forskning og en indføring i en række væsentlige temaer hos Platon. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Commentary on “Multiple Personality and Moral Responsibility”Stephen R. L. Clark (bio)Theaitetos sleeping is not quite “the same” as Theaitetos waking, any more than Alcibiades drunk is Alcibiades sober. Nor am I, at fifty, quite “the same” as Stephen was when he was five. In one way, my sober fifty-year-old waking self can reasonably disclaim responsibility for what Stephen did or seemed to do when he was dreaming, (...) drunk, or five years old. Those other Stephens were not “fully responsible,” were not doing what they freely chose because they chose it—though it would be odd to deny that they were acting willingly. Nor am I now very likely to do the things that—drunk, asleep, or five years old—“I” did: in that sense I can disown those actions and never fully “owned” them anyway. Maybe now I can even disown such actions as I once really owned: once I thought them the right thing, and now I do not.On the other hand, as Stephen Braude says, even children (even, he might have added, dogs) are treated “as if” they are “responsible”: as if, that is, they know what they were doing and may be deterred from doing it again. Should Alcibiades sober be made accountable for what “he” did when drunk? Why not, if this deters him from getting drunk again? Perhaps, as Aristotle suggested, those who do wrong when they are drunk should be fined double the amount. Perhaps those who find it difficult not to drink habitually should be fined ten times the amount. What matters is the amount of money that will put them off, that will force them to “take responsibility” for their own future lives. People who know that they can’t trust themselves when they are drunk, sexually excited, or driving a fast car must put it out of their own power to be in those positions—and if they can’t do that, then others must do it for them. Free men and women “take responsibility,” take charge of their own lives, and wish to be held responsible for what they do and have done. Those who cannot “take control” must, technically, be slaves.There is no point expecting “natural slaves” to take control of their own lives; to measure what they want against what is allowed by society. Such “slaves,” at best, can be controlled by an immediate threat or prize. In a way, it is pointless to punish them, though it may be necessary to imprison, maim, or kill them. Much the same thing may be said of some who are not, strictly, slavish. Should eighty-year-olds be “held responsible” for what they did in their forgotten youth, a world away? They will not be doing it again, and may not, even now, have any greater understanding than the rest of us as to why they did it in the past. “Punishment” in such a case can only [End Page 55] be used to deter others who might follow the same path, to help them to control their lives in ways that do not injure others. Otherwise, we are not strictly speaking of “punishment” at all: perhaps more often than we like to admit, public condemnation, incarceration, or execution is a symbolic elimination of a perceived evil, whether or not we think, or have good grounds for thinking, that the victim is really guilty. The sacrificial victim carries away our anger or unhappiness.Pragmatically, in other words, we punish people for things that—even at the time of the action—they did not control, or which they have long forgotten. For punishment to deter them, they must understand what they are being punished for. For it to reform them, they must accept that the punishment inflicted is just. Those who neither understand nor accept punishment may still be treated harshly, for the sake of others—maimed, or killed, or simply (if we choose to be humane) imprisoned. There are some acts, so Aristotle said, below the level of humanity: such bestiality cannot be punished. It does not follow that the perpetrators should be “free.” Pragmatism permits us to retain the rites of sacrifice, even... (shrink)

--2. Bd. Des Sokrates Apologie. Kriton. Euthydemos. Menexenos. Gorgias. Menon. Bearb. von H. Hofmann.--3. Bd. Phaidon. Das Gastmahl. Kratylos. Bearb. von D. Kurz.--4. Bd. Politeia. Der Staat. Bearb. von D. Kurz.--5. Bd. Phaidros. Parmenides. Briefe. Bearb. von D. Kurz.--6. Bd. Theaitetos. Der Sophist. Der Staatsmann. Bearb. von P. Staudacher.--7. Bd. Timaios, Kritias. Philebos. Bearb. von K. Widdra.--8. Bd. Nomōn. Gesetze. Bearb. von K. Schöpsdau. 2 v.

Protagoras u Sekstusa Empiryka (PH I 216) a platoński Teajtet Dzieła Sekstusa Empiryka stanowią ważne źródło doksograficzne, zawierając m. in. fragmenty i przekazy poświęcone sofistyce. Są wśród nich omówienia poglądów Protagorasa. W świetle problemów, jakie stwarza rekonstrukcja myśli tego sofisty, warto poddać badaniu źródła i perspektywę Sekstusa, zwracając szczególną uwagę na krótkie przedstawienie tez Protagorasa zawarte w Zarysach Pyrrońskich (PH I 216). Porównując omówienie Sekstusa i przedstawienie Platona w Teajtecie, dostrzec możemy podobieństwo prezentowanych poglądów. W przekazie Seksusa podobnie jak w (...) Teajtecie główny akcent położony jest na tezę homo-mensura, z którą wiąże się dwa inne podstawowe dla platońskiego dialogu wątki: zmienności rzeczy oraz "prywatności" spostrzeżeń. Mimo charakterystycznej dla sceptycyzmu modyfikacji strony pojęciowej, nadinterpretacji oraz wyrwania tez z dialogowego kontekstu przedstawienia obu wątków wykazują daleko idące paralele z Teajtetem. Bez względu na to, czy omówienie to jest dziełem samego Sekstusa, czy zaczerpnięte zostało z jakiegoś wcześniejszego źródła mającego charakter sceptycznej "ściągawki", możemy na jego podstawie wnioskować, że dialog Teajtet uważany był w późnej starożytności za wiarygodne źródło informacji na temat poglądów Protagorasa. Należy jednak podkreślić, że przekaz Sekstusa stanowi jedynie interpretację treści zawartych w platońskim Teajtecie i – wbrew praktyce wielu uczonych - nie może być brany pod uwagę jako niezależne źródło wiedzy o myśli Protagorasa. (shrink)