Euthydemus Has

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

F OCUS P HILOSOPHICAL L IBRARY PLATO From the Introduction: “Neglected for ages by Plato scholars, the Euthydemus has in recent years attracted renewed attention. The dialogue, in Euthydemus which Socrates converses with two sophists whose techniques of verbal manipulation utterly disengage language from any grounding in stable meaning or reality, is in many ways a dialogue for our times. Contemporary questions of language and power permeate the speech and action of the dialogue. The two sophists—Euthydemus and his brother Dionysodorus— explicitly question whether speech has any connection to truth and specifically whether anything can be said about justice and nobility that cannot also be said about their opposites.” — Denise Schaeffer McBrayer, Nichols, Mary P. Nichols is the Professor of Political Science at Baylor University. She studies the history of political thought, especially Greek political theory; politics and literature; and politics and film. Her publications range from studies of Plato and Aristotle to film directors such as Woody Allen, John Ford, and Alfred Hitchcock. Gregory A. McBrayer is Senior Editor at PEGS (Political Economy of the Good Society) and visiting professor at Gettysburg College. and PLATO He received his Ph.D. from the Department of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland. His dissertation examined Schaeffer Aristotle’s treatment of the Socratic paradox that no one does wrong voluntarily. Euthydemus Denise Schaeffer is Associate Professor of Political Science at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts. She has published numerous articles in the history of political thought, from Plato and Aristotle to Rousseau and Nietzsche. She is currently working on a book on freedom and judgment in Rousseau’s Emile. Translated by Gregory A. McBrayer and Mary P. Nichols with an Interpretive Essay by Focus Publishing R. Pullins Company ISBN 978-1-58510-305-8 Mary P. Nichols and Denise Schaeffer PO Box 369 and an Introduction by Denise Schaeffer Newburyport, MA 01950 www.pullins.com 9 781585 103058 Focus Philosophy | History & Surveys | Ancient & Classical.

Copy Link

Recommended publications

The Roles of Solon in Plato's Dialogues
The Roles of Solon in Plato’s Dialogues Dissertation Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Samuel Ortencio Flores, M.A. Graduate Program in Greek and Latin The Ohio State University 2013 Dissertation Committee: Bruce Heiden, Advisor Anthony Kaldellis Richard Fletcher Greg Anderson Copyrighy by Samuel Ortencio Flores 2013 Abstract This dissertation is a study of Plato’s use and adaptation of an earlier model and tradition of wisdom based on the thought and legacy of the sixth-century archon, legislator, and poet Solon. Solon is cited and/or quoted thirty-four times in Plato’s dialogues, and alluded to many more times. My study shows that these references and allusions have deeper meaning when contextualized within the reception of Solon in the classical period. For Plato, Solon is a rhetorically powerful figure in advancing the relatively new practice of philosophy in Athens. While Solon himself did not adequately establish justice in the city, his legacy provided a model upon which Platonic philosophy could improve. Chapter One surveys the passing references to Solon in the dialogues as an introduction to my chapters on the dialogues in which Solon is a very prominent figure, Timaeus- Critias, Republic, and Laws. Chapter Two examines Critias’ use of his ancestor Solon to establish his own philosophic credentials. Chapter Three suggests that Socrates re- appropriates the aims and themes of Solon’s political poetry for Socratic philosophy. Chapter Four suggests that Solon provides a legislative model which Plato reconstructs in the Laws for the philosopher to supplant the role of legislator in Greek thought.
[Show full text]
Plato's Euthydemus
PLATO’S EUTHYDEMUS: A STUDY ON THE RELATIONS BETWEEN LOGIC AND EDUCATION Plato’s Euthydemus is an unlucky dialogue. Few dealt with it in its own right, not just as part of a wider discussion of Plato, and fewer still saw in it more than a topic of sophistic fallacies. Some, of course, paid attention to the constructive sections of the dialogue, but only rarely do we come across a real attempt to unify its different aspects.1 In this paper I propose to show how, in the Euthydemus, Plato tries to distinguish between the Socratic and the Sophistic conceptions of education, by tracing them to their roots in the opposing views of the Sophists — and especially those of the second generation — and of Socrates about truth and about the role of logic. And although the eristic techniques of Euthydemus and Dionysodorus are obviously fallacious, they turn out to be developments of Protagoras’ views and follow from philosophical positions worthy of serious examination. The Euthydemus is a caricature, to be sure. But, as all good caricature, it has a serious intent. It sketches the degeneration of the Sophistic approach to education, in some of its aspects. More important ly, it distinguishes Socratic education from the methods and effects of its Sophistic counterpart. Euthydemus and Dionysodorus, the two sophist brothers, are reminis cent of the great Sophists of the Protagoras in more than one way. They are polymaths like Hippias, and at one time or another have taught a variety of arts, from forensic rhetoric to armed combat. Also, they have Prodicus’ penchant for linguistic analysis.
[Show full text]
On the Arrangement of the Platonic Dialogues
Ryan C. Fowler 25th Hour On the Arrangement of the Platonic Dialogues I. Thrasyllus a. Diogenes Laertius (D.L.), Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers 3.56: “But, just as long ago in tragedy the chorus was the only actor, and afterwards, in order to give the chorus breathing space, Thespis devised a single actor, Aeschylus a second, Sophocles a third, and thus tragedy was completed, so too with philosophy: in early times it discoursed on one subject only, namely physics, then Socrates added the second subject, ethics, and Plato the third, dialectics, and so brought philosophy to perfection. Thrasyllus says that he [Plato] published his dialogues in tetralogies, like those of the tragic poets. Thus they contended with four plays at the Dionysia, the Lenaea, the Panathenaea and the festival of Chytri. Of the four plays the last was a satiric drama; and the four together were called a tetralogy.” b. Characters or types of dialogues (D.L. 3.49): 1. instructive (ὑφηγητικός) A. theoretical (θεωρηµατικόν) a. physical (φυσικόν) b. logical (λογικόν) B. practical (πρακτικόν) a. ethical (ἠθικόν) b. political (πολιτικόν) 2. investigative (ζητητικός) A. training the mind (γυµναστικός) a. obstetrical (µαιευτικός) b. tentative (πειραστικός) B. victory in controversy (ἀγωνιστικός) a. critical (ἐνδεικτικός) b. subversive (ἀνατρεπτικός) c. Thrasyllan categories of the dialogues (D.L. 3.50-1): Physics: Timaeus Logic: Statesman, Cratylus, Parmenides, and Sophist Ethics: Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Symposium, Menexenus, Clitophon, the Letters, Philebus, Hipparchus, Rivals Politics: Republic, the Laws, Minos, Epinomis, Atlantis Obstetrics: Alcibiades 1 and 2, Theages, Lysis, Laches Tentative: Euthyphro, Meno, Io, Charmides and Theaetetus Critical: Protagoras Subversive: Euthydemus, Gorgias, and Hippias 1 and 2 :1 d.
[Show full text]
False Pleasures, Appearance and Imagination in the "Philebus" Author(S): Sylvain Delcomminette Source: Phronesis, Vol
False Pleasures, Appearance and Imagination in the "Philebus" Author(s): Sylvain Delcomminette Source: Phronesis, Vol. 48, No. 3 (2003), pp. 215-237 Published by: BRILL Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4182729 Accessed: 21-03-2015 17:53 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Phronesis. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 159.149.103.9 on Sat, 21 Mar 2015 17:53:03 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions False Pleasures, Appearance and Imagination in the Philebus SYLVAIN DELCOMMINETTE ABSTRACT This paper examines the discussion about false pleasures in the Philebus (36 c3- 44 al ). After stressing the crucial importanceof this discussion in the economy of the dialogue, it attempts to identify the problematiclocus of the possibility of true or false pleasures. Socrates points to it by means of an analogy between pleasure and doxa. Against traditional interpretations,which reduce the distinc- tion drawn in this passage to a distinction between doxa and pleasure on the one hand and their object on the other, it is argued that, rather,Socrates distinguishes between the mere fact of having a doxa or a pleasure, on the one hand, and the content of these acts, on the other hand.
[Show full text]
Socrates and Plato
M01_JOHN0380_04_SE_C01.qxd 1/7/11 5:05 PM Page 17 1 Socrates and Plato Time Line for Socrates 470 BC Is born in Athens, Greece, the son of Sophroniscus, a stonemason, and Phaenarete, a midwife. 470–400 Grows up during the “golden age” of Greece—his father, an intimate friend of the son of Aristides the Just, provides Socrates an acquaintanceship with the members of the Pericles circle. Serves with valor in the Peloponnesian War. Marries Xanthippe. They have seven or eight children. Is declared the wisest man by the Oracle at Delphi. Is put on trial for corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens. 399 Is found guilty and forced to drink hemlock. Socrates wrote nothing. All that we know of him is from the writings of Aristophenes (The Clouds), Plato, and Xenophon. Time Line for Plato 427 BC Is born in Athens, Greece, to a prominent family. Following his father’s death, his mother marries Pyrilampes, a close friend of Pericles. 405–400 Studies with Socrates. 399 Attends the trial and execution of Socrates. 387 Establishes the Academy. Later, Eudoxius, respected mathematician, unites his school, located at Cyzicus, with the Academy. 367 Accepts Aristotle into the Academy. 347 Dies in Athens. Although scholars continue to debate the time frame of Plato’s writings, the following are generally attributed to each period: Early Period Works, usually referred to as Socratic dialogues, focus on ethics. Included in this period are Apology, Crito, Charmides, Laches, Euthyphro, Euthydemus, Cratylus, Protagoras, and Gorgias. 17 M01_JOHN0380_04_SE_C01.qxd 1/7/11 5:05 PM Page 18 18 Chapter 1 • Socrates and Plato Middle Period Works focus on theory of ideas and metaphysical doctrines.
[Show full text]
The Republic of Plato
THE REPUBLIC OF PLATO 'I'IlANSLATBD WInI INTJtODUCTlON AND NOTES BY FRANCIS MACDONALD CORNFORD LrrrD., F.B.A. Fellow of Trinity CoI1ege, Cambric:Igc OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON OXFORD NEW YORK OXFORD UN IVERSITY PRESS Oxford london New York Glasgow Toronto Melbourne Wellington Cape Town Salisbury Ibadan Nairobi lusaka Addis Ababa Bombay Calcutta Madras Karachi lahore Dacca Kuala lumpur Hong Kong Tokyo First published by Oxford University Press, london, 1941 First issued as an Oxford University Press paperback, 1945 This reprint, 1970-3 Printed in the United States of America CONTENTS Page xv PART I (Book I). SOME CURRENT VIEWS OF JUSTICE CHAP. I (i. 32?-33I D). Cephalus. Justice as Honesty in word and darl 2 II (331 E-336 A). Polemarchus. Justice as Helping Friends and Harming Enemies • 7 III (336 B-347 E). Thrasymachus. Justice as the Interest of the Stronger 14 IV (347 E-354 c). Thrasymachus. Is Injustice more profitable than Justice? 30 PART II (Books II-IV, 445 B). JUSTICE IN THE STATE AND IN THE INDIVIDUAL V (ii. 357 A-367 E). The Problem stated 41 VI (367 E-372 A). The Rudiments of Social Organization 53 VII (372 A-374 E). The Luxurious State 59 VIII (375 A-376 E). The Guardian's Temperament 63 IX (376 E-iii. 412 B). Primary Education of the Guardians 66 § 1 (376 E-iii. 392 c). Censorship of Literature for School Use 67 § 2 (392 c-398 B). The Influence of Dramatic Recitation 80 § 3 (398 c-4°O c). Musical Accompaniment and Metre 85 § 4 ("00 c-403 c).
[Show full text]
Plato's Introduction of Forms
This page intentionally left blank PLATO’S INTRODUCTION OF FORMS Scholars of Plato are divided between those who emphasize the liter- ature of the dialogues and those who emphasize the argument of the dialogues, and between those who see a development in the thought of the dialogues and those who do not. In this important book, Russell Dancy focuses on the arguments and defends a developmental pic- ture. He explains the Theory of Forms of the Phaedo and Symposium as an outgrowth of the quest for definitions canvased in the Socratic dialogues, by constructing a Theory of Definition for the Socratic dialogues based on the refutations of definitions in those dialogues, and showing how that theory is mirrored in the Theory of Forms. His discussion, notable for both its clarity and its meticulous schol- arship, ranges in detail over a number of Plato’s early and middle dialogues, and will be of interest to readers in Plato studies and in ancient philosophy more generally. r. m. dancy is Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University. He is the author of Sense and Contradiction: A Study in Aristotle (1975) and TwoStudies in the Early Academy (1991), and editor of Kant and Critique (1993). PLATO’S INTRODUCTION OF FORMS R. M. DANCY Florida State University, Tallahassee Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge , UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521838016 © R. M. Dancy 2004 This publication is in copyright.
[Show full text]
Plato-Euthydemus-689.Pdf
Euthydemus Written in 380 B.C. by Plato (428-347 B.C.) This version originally published in 2005 by Infomotions, Inc. It originated with from an etext archive of Virginia Tech's. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. This document is distributed under the GNU Public License. Persons of the dialogue: Socrates, Who Is The Narrator; Crito; Cleinias; Euthydemus; Dionysodorus; Ctesippus. Scene: The Lyceum Crito. Who was the person, Socrates, with whom you were talking yesterday at the Lyceum? There was such a crowd around you that I could not get within hearing, but I caught a sight of him over their heads, and I made out, as I thought, that he was a stranger with whom you were talking: who was he? Socrates. There were two, Crito; which of them do you mean? Cri. The one whom I mean was seated second from you on the right-hand side. In the middle was Cleinias the young son of Axiochus, who has wonderfully grown; he is only about the age of my own Critobulus, but he is much forwarder and very good-looking: the other is thin and looks younger than he is. Soc. He whom you mean, Crito, is Euthydemus; and on my left hand there was his brother Dionysodorus, who also took part in the conversation. Cri. Neither of them are known to me, Socrates; they are a new 1 importation of Sophists, as I should imagine. Of what country are they, and what is their line of wisdom? Soc. As to their origin, I believe that they are natives of this part of the world, and have migrated from Chios to Thurii; they were driven out of Thurii, and have been living for many years past in these regions.
[Show full text]
Wisdom and Happiness in Euthydemus 278–282
Philosophers’ volume 13, no. 14 1. Introduction Imprint july 2013 There is perhaps no philosophical thesis that has more often been thought to be most central to or most distinctive of the philosophy of Socrates in Plato’s dialogues1 than the thesis that wisdom is sufficient for happiness. The sufficiency thesis amounts to the claim that no matter how things go in your life, if you are wise, then you are happy, either because being wise somehow infallibly gives you the resources Wisdom and Happiness to become happy or because happiness just amounts to being wise. Hence its centrality for Socrates: The sufficiency thesis explains why Socrates is so interested in wisdom (which is the same as being in- terested in virtue, according to Socrates) and why he is always trying in Euthydemus 278–282 to acquire it and always trying to persuade others to acquire it, too. But the sufficiency thesis is a deeply counterintuitive one. Aristotle famously wrote that no one would maintain it unless defending a “philosopher’s paradox”.2 Hence its distinctiveness for Socrates: Few others have been willing to go so far. This common portrait of Socrates is appealing but false. The locus classicus for attributing the sufficiency thesis to Socrates is Euthydemus 278–282.3 The interpretation I will challenge is a long-standing one, 1. And this is the philosophy I am interested in in this paper, the philosophy expressed by the character named Socrates who appears in Plato’s dialogues, and particularly in the Euthydemus. 2. Nicomachean Ethics 1095b31–1096a2. I borrow ‘philosopher’s paradox’ from Terence Irwin’s translation of ‘θέσιν’.
[Show full text]
Euthydemus by Plato
Euthydemus by Plato 1 Introduction. The Euthydemus, though apt to be regarded by us only as an elaborate jest, has also a very serious purpose. It may fairly claim to be the oldest treatise on logic; for that science originates in the misunderstandings which necessarily accompany the first efforts of speculation. Several of the fallacies which are satirized in it reappear in the Sophistici Elenchi of Aristotle and are retained at the end of our manuals of logic. But if the order of history were followed, they should be placed not at the end but at the beginning of them; for they belong to the age in which the human mind was first making the attempt to distinguish thought from sense, and to separate the universal from the particular or individual. How to put together words or ideas, how to escape ambiguities in the meaning of terms or in the structure of propositions, how to resist the fixed impression of an 'eternal being' or 'perpetual flux,' how to distinguish between words and things--these were problems not easy of solution in the infancy of philosophy. They presented the same kind of difficulty to the half- educated man which spelling or arithmetic do to the mind of a child. It was long before the new world of ideas which had been sought after with such passionate yearning was set in order and made ready for use. To us the fallacies which arise in the pre-Socratic philosophy are trivial and obsolete because we are no longer liable to fall into the errors which are expressed by them.
[Show full text]
The Unity of the Philebus: Continuity in Plato’S Philosophy
Distribution Agreement In presenting this thesis or dissertation as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree from Emory University, I hereby grant to Emory University and its agents the non-exclusive license to archive, make accessible, and display my thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known, including display on the world wide web. I understand that I may select some access restrictions as part of the online submission of the thesis or dissertation. I retain all ownership rights to the copyright of the thesis or dissertation. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. Signature: _________________________ ___________________ Jong Hwan Lee Date The Unity of the Philebus: Continuity in Plato’s Philosophy By Jong Hwan Lee Doctor of Philosophy Philosophy ___________________________________ Dr. Richard Patterson Advisor ___________________________________ Dr. Ann Hartle Committee Member ___________________________________ Dr. Richard D. Parry Committee Member Accepted: ___________________________________ Lisa A. Tedesco, Ph. D. Dean of the James T. Laney School of Graduate Studies ______________ Date The Unity of the Philebus: Continuity in Plato’s Philosophy By Jong Hwan Lee B.A., Seoul National University, 2002 M.A., Seoul National University, 2005 M.A., Emory University, 2010 Advisor: Dr. Richard Patterson, Ph.D. An abstract of A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the James T. Laney School of Graduate Studies of Emory University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy 2013 Abstract The Unity of the Philebus: Continuity in Plato’s Philosophy By Jong Hwan Lee The Philebus is Plato’s answer to the question what the human good is.
[Show full text]
The Republic by Plato
The Republic By Plato http://www.idph.net 18 de maio de 2002 2 IDPH Sumário INTRODUCTION AND ANALYSIS 5 BOOK I 177 BOOK II 211 BOOK III 239 BOOK IV 275 BOOK V 305 BOOK VI 343 BOOK VII 373 BOOK VIII 401 BOOK IX 431 BOOK X 457 3 4 IDPH http://www.idph.net INTRODUCTION AND ANALYSIS The Republic of Plato is the longest of his works with the exception of the Laws, and is certainly the greatest of them. There are nearer approaches to modern metaphysics in the Philebus and in the Sophist; the Politicus or Statesman is more ideal; the form and institutions of the State are more clearly drawn out in the Laws; as works of art, the Symposium and the Protagoras are of higher excellence. But no other Dialogue of Plato has the same largeness of view and the same perfection of style; no other shows an equal knowledge of the world, or contains more of those thoughts which are new as well as old, and not of one age only but of all. Nowhere in Plato is there a deeper irony or a greater wealth of humour or imagery, or more dramatic power. Nor in any other of his writings is the attempt made to interweave life and speculation, or to connect politics with philosophy. The Republic is the centre around which the other Di- alogues may be grouped; here philosophy reaches the highest point (cp, especi- ally in Books V,VI, VII) to which ancient thinkers ever attained. Plato among the Greeks, like Bacon among the moderns, was the ﬁrst who conceived a method of knowledge, although neither of them always distinguished the bare outline or form from the substance of truth; and both of them had to be content with an abstraction of science which was not yet realized.
[Show full text]