DOCSLIB.ORG

ABSTRACT Where Is Socrates Going? the Philosophy Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ABSTRACT Where Is Socrates Going? the Philosophy Of ABSTRACT Where is Socrates Going? The Philosophy of Conversion in Plato’s Euthydemus Richard T. Whittington, Ph.D. Committee Chairperson: Anne Marie Bowery, Ph.D. This work examines the aim of Socratic philosophy in Plato’s Euthydemus. To understand the conflict that occurs in the dialogue between Socrates and his sophistic rivals, Euthydemus and Dionysodorus, one must evaluate Socrates’ overarching goal and its divergence from sophistry. The author argues, however, that a sound analysis of this dialogue must go further and understand Socrates’ quarrel with Euthydemus and Dionysodorus as part of a larger quarrel between philosophy and the competitive values of Greek society. The two sophists in this dialogue hardly merit serious, sustained attention. They make no serious arguments and do not seem clever enough to conceal the speciousness of their method. They practice eristic controversy for only one purpose: to refute their interlocutor and move quickly to the next refutation before anyone has time to scrutinize the soundness of their frequently absurd argument. Indeed, one might wonder why Plato spends his energy trying to discredit this absurdly clownish pair. The author argues that the brothers do not seem terribly threatening or important, but Plato’s critique does not stop with them. Rather, he uses them as a caricature of Greek culture and its cult of victory and violence. In opposition to the culture’s celebration of competitive values, he articulates a model of philosophical cooperation or (put differently) protreptic dialogue. Instead of aiming to win a dispute, he uses dialogue to convert his interlocutor to philosophy, a goal that diverges radically from sophistry. In this way, Socrates engages his interlocutor an intimate way, leading him patiently toward philosophy. At the same time, Socrates does not speak only to his interlocutor; he offers protreptic dialogue as a public model of discourse and an implicit critique of the city’s obsession with competition and victory. Finally, the author contends that one cannot understand Socrates’ philosophical goal (namely, exhorting his interlocutor to love wisdom) without understanding his sense of divine mission. In the Euthydemus Socrates begins with the divine sign, which sustains his sense of mission and purpose even when his protreptic dialogues terminate in aporia. Where is Socrates Going? The Philosophy of Conversion in Plato’s Euthydemus by Richard T. Whittington, M.A. A Dissertation Approved by the Department of Philosophy ___________________________________ Michael D. Beaty, Ph.D., Chairperson Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Baylor University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Approved by the Dissertation Committee ___________________________________ Anne-Marie Bowery, Ph.D., Chairperson ___________________________________ Robert C. Miner, Ph.D. ___________________________________ J. Lenore Wright, Ph.D. ___________________________________ David E. Corey, Ph.D. ___________________________________ Stuart E. Rosenbaum, Ph.D. Accepted by the Graduate School August 2008 ___________________________________ J. Larry Lyon, Ph.D., Dean Page bearing signatures is kept on file in the Graduate School. Copyright ©2008 by Richard T. Whittington All rights reserved TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface I. Summary of Dialogue v II. The Argument xii Acknowledgments xxii Dedication xxiii Chapter One Eristic Competition and the City 1 I. Aretê and Sophistry 1 II. Meeting the Brothers 6 III. Back to Crito 58 Chapter Two Philosophy and the Public 62 I. What is Enlightenment? 62 II. What is Philosophy? 64 III. Philosophy and the Public 69 IV. The Divine Sign 102 Chapter Three Protreptic and the Divine Sign 105 I. Enlightenment and the Daimonion 105 II. Where is Socrates Going? 110 III. Reason and Divine Sanction 116 IV. The Socratic Beginning 132 iii Chapter Four Conclusion 139 I. The Larger Context 139 II. Tradition and Sophistry 145 Bibliography 157 iv PREFACE I. Summary of dialogue The Euthydemus remains unfamiliar to many readers, even those familiar with many of Plato’s other dialogues. For that reason a brief introduction to the dialogue should seems necessary to clarify the themes I explore in this dissertation and provide a context for its central argument. The Euthydemus belongs to Plato’s narrated dialogues. Speaking to Crito, Socrates narrates his encounter with two foreign sophists, Euthydemus and Dionysodorus, and occasionally interrupts the narrative to converse directly with Crito. Crito himself initiates the narrative; he had recently observed (without overhearing) an encounter between Socrates and Euthydemus at the Lyceum and would like to know more about him. He has a personal interest in the itinerant teachers because he seeks a qualified educator for his son, Critobulus. Initially he only mentions one sophist (whom Socrates recognizes as Euthydemus), apparently unaware of the other sophist present at the Lyceum. Socrates calls attention to Dionysodorus, Euthydemus’ brother and the other half of the sophistic team. After correcting Crito’s mistake, Socrates goes on to describe the brothers’ current occupation as well as the trajectory of their joint career. They come rather late to the practice of sophistry. Before embracing eristic argumentation (their sophistic specialty), they fought on the battlefield, argued in the courts and imparted their skill to others for a fee (272a). The brothers have not abandoned aggressive activities like warfare and legal debate, which divide the world v into enemies and competitors. Far from retiring to a life of private, leisured conversation, they have extended their skill in pancration—or “all-round fighting”—to a different type of combat. According to Socrates “not a single man can stand up to them, they have become so skilled in fighting in arguments and in refuting whatever may be said, no matter whether it is true or false” (272). Briefly stated, the brothers aim at refuting arguments regardless of their actual merits; as teachers they impart this skill to their students. Practitioners of eristic regard their interlocutors as foes, not people who can shed light on genuine perplexities. They have no interest in critiquing flawed arguments or seeking better alternatives; their method of controversy can make any argument seem false. Conversely, eristic also constructs elaborate arguments to defend patent falsehoods, a habit that becomes increasingly comical and strange as the dialogue progresses. Socrates conveys this information with mock admiration. He even tells Crito that he intends to “hand myself over to these men, since they say that they can make any other person clever at the same things in a short time” (272b). He invites Crito to participate in this odd endeavor, apparently forgetting that Crito does not seek an educator for himself; he seeks someone qualified to educate his son, still young enough to participate in higher education without violating convention.1 Still, Crito claims to have “no objections…if you really think well of their plan” (272d) but insists on hearing “what we are going to learn (272d) in greater detail. Socrates honors Crito’s request with a narrative. 1Athenian convention had entered a stage of transition at this time, extending education beyond the traditional span .See C.C.W. Taylor’s Introduction to the Protagoras: “The demand for success in forensic and political oratory, fostered by the increase in participatory democracy which was a feature of political life, led to the development of specialized techniques of persuasion and argument, associated in particular with the names of Gorgias and Protagoras.” C.C.W. Taylor, Introduction (in Plato’s Protagoras), Oxford University Press, 1996. P. x. ] vi Socrates’ narrative begins with the divine sign. Socrates tells Crito that he was preparing to leave the Lyceum when the sign “put in an appearance” (273a), telling him remain. Socrates obediently resumes his place. Shortly thereafter the brothers enter the building and walk around the cloister a few times before Clinias enters the room and catches their attention. Clinias notices Socrates and sits down at his right; at this point the brothers notice Clinias and also gravitate in Socrates’ direction. Given this conjunction of events, the purpose of the sign’s command seems obvious, although Socrates does not say so explicitly. The sign prevented Socrates’ departure because he needs to intervene between Clinias and the brothers, who have cast their predatory eyes on the young Athenian. “I was keeping a good eye on them” Socrates tells Crito, clearly wary of their interest in Clinias. The narrative thus begins on a serious note; the sign sets a solemn tone for a dialogue that oscillates wildly between gravity and farce. A hint of menace marks the opening of Socrates’ narrative. The brothers’ interest in Clinias does not seem benign; for that reason, Socrates assumes a protective role, a role the divine sign perhaps intended for him when it forbade him to leave the Lyceum. Since the sign does state its intentions, Socrates must interpret its messages. Here the mission he needs to fulfill seems rather obvious, especially as the encounter with Euthydemus and Dionysodorus unfurls. He must test the brothers to judge whether or not they threaten Clinias. After mentioning his encounter with the sign, Socrates describes the other people who attended the event. He notices Ctesippus, “a well-bred fellow except for a certain youthful brashness,” and a group of
Load more

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]
  • Teachers' Pay in Ancient Greece
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Papers from the University Studies series (The University of Nebraska) University Studies of the University of Nebraska 5-1942 Teachers' Pay In Ancient Greece Clarence A. Forbes Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/univstudiespapers Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University Studies of the University of Nebraska at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Papers from the University Studies series (The University of Nebraska) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Teachers' Pay In Ancient Greece * * * * * CLARENCE A. FORBES UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA STUDIES Ma y 1942 STUDIES IN THE HUMANITIES NO.2 Note to Cataloger UNDER a new plan the volume number as well as the copy number of the University of Nebraska Studies was discontinued and only the numbering of the subseries carried on, distinguished by the month and the year of pu blica tion. Thus the present paper continues the subseries "Studies in the Humanities" begun with "University of Nebraska Studies, Volume 41, Number 2, August 1941." The other subseries of the University of Nebraska Studies, "Studies in Science and Technology," and "Studies in Social Science," are continued according to the above plan. Publications in all three subseries will be supplied to recipients of the "University Studies" series. Corre­ spondence and orders should be addressed to the Uni­ versity Editor, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. University of Nebraska Studies May 1942 TEACHERS' PAY IN ANCIENT GREECE * * * CLARENCE A.
    [Show full text]
  • Agorapicbk-17.Pdf
    Excavations of the Athenian Agora Picture Book No. 17 Prepared by Mabel L. Lang Dedicated to Eugene Vanderpool o American School of Classical Studies at Athens ISBN 87661-617-1 Produced by the Meriden Gravure Company Meriden, Connecticut COVER: Bone figure of Socrates TITLE PAGE: Hemlock SOCRATES IN THE AGORA AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 1978 ‘Everything combines to make our knowledge of Socrates himself a subject of Socratic irony. The only thing we know definitely about him is that we know nothing.’ -L. Brunschvicg As FAR AS we know Socrates himselfwrote nothing, yet not only were his life and words given dramatic attention in his own time in the Clouds of Ar- istophanes, but they have also become the subject of many others’ writing in the centuries since his death. Fourth-century B.C. writers who had first-hand knowledge of him composed either dialogues in which he was the dominant figure (Plato and Aeschines) or memories of his teaching and activities (Xe- nophon). Later authors down even to the present day have written numerous biographies based on these early sources and considering this most protean of philosophers from every possible point of view except perhaps the topograph- ical one which is attempted here. Instead of putting Socrates in the context of 5th-century B.C. philosophy, politics, ethics or rhetoric, we shall look to find him in the material world and physical surroundings of his favorite stamping- grounds, the Athenian Agora. Just as ‘agora’ in its original sense meant ‘gathering place’ but came in time to mean ‘market place’, so the agora itself was originally a gathering place I.
    [Show full text]
  • Citations in Classics and Ancient History
    Citations in Classics and Ancient History The most common style in use in the field of Classical Studies is the author-date style, also known as Chicago 2, but MLA is also quite common and perfectly acceptable. Quick guides for each of MLA and Chicago 2 are readily available as PDF downloads. The Chicago Manual of Style Online offers a guide on their web-page: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html The Modern Language Association (MLA) does not, but many educational institutions post an MLA guide for free access. While a specific citation style should be followed carefully, none take into account the specific practices of Classical Studies. They are all (Chicago, MLA and others) perfectly suitable for citing most resources, but should not be followed for citing ancient Greek and Latin primary source material, including primary sources in translation. Citing Primary Sources: Every ancient text has its own unique system for locating content by numbers. For example, Homer's Iliad is divided into 24 Books (what we might now call chapters) and the lines of each Book are numbered from line 1. Herodotus' Histories is divided into nine Books and each of these Books is divided into Chapters and each chapter into line numbers. The purpose of such a system is that the Iliad, or any primary source, can be cited in any language and from any publication and always refer to the same passage. That is why we do not cite Herodotus page 66. Page 66 in what publication, in what edition? Very early in your textbook, Apodexis Historia, a passage from Herodotus is reproduced.
    [Show full text]
  • The Family Connection of Alcibiades and Axiochus , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:2 (1986:Summer) P.173
    STANLEY, PHILLIP V., The Family Connection of Alcibiades and Axiochus , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:2 (1986:Summer) p.173 The Family Connection of Alcibiades and Axiochus Phillip V. Stanley LTHOUGH THE ANCESTRY of the Athenian general Alcibiades A III remains obscure for the sixth century, his genealogy is as­ sumed to be secure for the fifth. The descent of the family from Alcibiades I to Alcibiades IV has been reconstructed by Vander­ pool in the following way:l Alcibiades J2 I Cleinias I I Alcibiades II I I Axiochus Cleinias II I I I I Cleinias III Alcibiades III Cleinias IV I Alcibiades IV I E. Vanderpool, "The Ostracism of the Elder Alcibiades," Hesperia 21 (I952) 1-8, esp. 6. Cr. M. B. Wallace, "Early Greek Proxenoi," Phoenix 24 (I 970) 196f; 1. K. DAVIES, Athenian Propertied Families (Oxford 1971 [hereafter APF)) 10-12. According to Isoc. 16.25f (delivered by Alcibiades IV, son of the general), Alcibiades I, the ally of Cleisthenes when he expelled Hippias from Athens, was the great-grandfather (1TpO- 1Ta1T1To~) of Alcibiades III. The general difficulty stems from the apparent need to reduce the number of generations separating Alcibiades I from Alcibiades III, believed to be five: if the number is not reduced, Alcibiades I would actually be the great-great­ grandfather of the general. 2 Roman numerals are those assigned in PA and APF. These numerals will continue to be used even when homonyms are added to the family's genealogy. In order to avoid the confusion that might result if a major overhaul of the numerical system for this family were attempted, and to preserve the numerical descent established for the branch of the family to which Alcibiades III belongs, the newly identified individual will be assigned the next available Roman numeral, even though he may be earlier than an individual with the same name whose number is lower.
    [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]
  • The Birth of Rhetoric: Gorgias, Plato and Their Successors
    THE BIRTH OF RHETORIC ISSUES IN ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY General editor: Malcolm Schofield GOD IN GREEK PHILOSOPHY Studies in the early history of natural theology L.P.Gerson ANCIENT CONCEPTS OF PHILOSOPHY William Jordan LANGUAGE, THOUGHT AND FALSEHOOD IN ANCIENT GREEK PHILOSOPHY Nicholas Denyer MENTAL CONFLICT Anthony Price THE BIRTH OF RHETORIC Gorgias, Plato and their successors Robert Wardy London and New York First published 1996 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 First published in paperback 1998 © 1996 Robert Wardy All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data Wardy, Robert. The birth of rhetoric: Gorgias, Plato, and their successors/ Robert Wardy. p. cm.—(Issues in ancient philsophy) Includes bibliographical rerferences (p. ) and index. 1. Plato. Gorgias. 2. Rhetoric, Ancient.
    [Show full text]
  • A Political Interpretation of Plato's Protagoras and Gorgias
    THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA Self-Deception and the City: A Political Interpretation of Plato’s Protagoras and Gorgias A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Philosophy Of The Catholic University of America In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by Mary Elizabeth Halper Washington, D.C. 2019 Self-Deception and the City: A Political Interpretation of Plato’s Protagoras and Gorgias Mary Elizabeth Halper, Ph.D. Director: V. Bradley Lewis, Ph.D. Sophistry and rhetoric possess the disturbing power to appear to be precisely what they under- mine. Sophistry passes itself off as education even as it subverts genuine ethical and intellectual formation; rhetoric looks like a particularly compelling form of communication even as it sub- verts the possibility of seeking truth in speech. This dissertation begins with the claim that Plato wrote his Protagoras and Gorgias to treat of this disturbing power and its political consequences. I argue that the Protagoras and the Gorgias, as representative treatments of sophistry and rhetoric, should be read together in order to gain insight into the genuine art of politics, of which sophistry and rhetoric together form a subversive imitation. First I undertake an exegesis of the Protagoras and the Gorgias, both as individual dialogues and as a composite whole. Then I present systematic and philosophical arguments to support my central thesis, which emerges from my interpreta- tions and is supported by my thematic investigations. This thesis asserts that self-deception isan inherent feature of political communities, whereby political communities both must rely on the efficacy of appearance and cannot acknowledge this very reliance.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Argumentation in the Framework of Deliberation
    1 ARGUMENTATION IN THE FRAMEWORK OF DELIBERATION DIALOGUE Douglas Walton, Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon, Adam Wyner and Dan Cartwright According to argumentation theory, reasoning takes place in different types of dialogue: persuasion dialogue, negotiation, deliberation, information-seeking dialogue, inquiry, and eristic dialogue. These different dialogue types may be nested within one another. Current research in artificial intelligence is building formal models corresponding to each of these types of dialogue and showing how they can be implemented in, for example, multi-agent communications systems. In this paper, we (1) clarify the distinction between deliberation dialogue and persuasion dialogue, (2) survey some recent research in artificial intelligence studying formal properties of deliberation dialogue, (3) present a model of argumentation in deliberation dialogue that has proved to be useful in electronic democracy, and (4) argue that this model provides an attractive alternative to the dominant cost-benefit model of rational argumentation traditionally accepted in economics and other fields as the basis for evaluating argumentation of the kind used in policy decision making. One of the most important lessons of argumentation theory has been that arguments need to be analyzed and evaluated not only by identifying the logical form of an argument in abstraction from its context of use, but also by paying attention to the purpose for which an argument was supposedly used in a conversational setting. In particular, as we will show in this paper, it is vitally important to distinguish between two different types of conversational frameworks called persuasion dialogue and deliberation dialogue. As we will show, logical fallacies can easily be committed in the most common kinds of everyday reasoning by failing to take this distinction into account.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading the Proemium of Plato's Theaetetus: Euclides in Action
    Reading the Proemium of Plato’s Theaetetus: Euclides in Action Eleni Kaklamanou and Maria Pavlou HE FRAMES of the Platonic dialogues constitute a vexed and contentious issue and have been variously treated T by students of Plato throughout the centuries. Proclus classified Plato’s ancient commentators as those who pay little or no attention to the prefatory parts, those who acknowledge their moral aspect but deem them irrelevant to a dialogue’s subject-matter, and those who contend that they have a bear- ing on the main philosophical discussion.1 Modern scholars have adopted a similar stance: while some either completely ignore or attribute little philosophical significance to the proemia, others consider them to be an integral part of the dialogues and not merely ‘trimmings’ or decorative literary devices.2 This paper focuses on the opening of the Theaetetus, one of the most peculiar and paradoxical of the Platonic proemia.3 Two friends, the Megarians Euclides and Terpsion, acci- 1 Proclus In Prm. 658–659 (I 46 Steel); for comments see G. R. Morrow and J. M. Dillon, Proclus Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides (Princeton 1987) 11 and 47 n.40. For ancient views on the importance of Plato’s prologues in general see H. Tarrant, Plato’s First Interpreters (Cornell 2000) 39–40. 2 See e.g. D. Clay, “Plato’s First Words,” in F. M. Dunn and T. Cole (eds.), Beginnings in Classical Literature (Cambridge 1992) 115: “to write com- petently about the beginning of [any] Platonic Dialogue is to understand the other extremity of the dialogue, its middle, and the unity of the dialogue as a whole.” For further bibliography see W.
    [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]