DOCSLIB.ORG

APEIRON a Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
APEIRON a Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science APEIRON a journal for ancient philosophy and science CONTENTS VOlUME XXXVIII No. 1 MARCH 2005 Page 1 Euthyphro 10a2-11b1: David Wolfsdorf A Study in Platonic Metaphysics and its Reception Since 1960 73 Virtue and Pleasure in Plato's Laws John Mouracade No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior written pennission of the publisher or, in case ofphotocopying or other reprographic copying, a license from CANCOPY (Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency) 1 Yonge 5t., 5te 1900, Toronto, ON M5E 1E5, FAX (416) 868-1621. Aucune portion de cette publication ne peut etre reproduite, entreposee dans un systeme de recuperation au transmise, saus quelque forme au par quelques moyens que ce soit sans Ie consentement prealable, par ecrit, de l'editeur OU, dans les cas d'une photocopie au tout autre reprographie, une license de CANCOPY (Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency) 1 Yonge St., 5le 1900, Toronto, ON MSE 1E5, FAX (416) 868-1621. M"ilpc! in Anril ?OO<; Euthyphro 10a2-11b1: A Study in Platonic Metaphysics and its Reception Since 1960 David Wolfsdorf I Introduction I i The Elenchos at Euthyphro lOa2-11bl: Outline AtEuthyphro lOa2-11b1Socrates criticizes the third account of thatwhich is holy qua holy ('to oO"wv). The critique is more complex than many of Socrates' elenchoi in response to proposed definitions among the early definitional dialogues. Basically, the response has the following form. Original disjunction Socrates presents Euthyphro a set of two alternatives: (1) That which is holy is loved by the gods because it is holy. (2) That which is holy is holy because it is loved by the gods. First epagoge Euthyphro fails to understand the alternatives, and Socrates proceeds to explain himself through two epagogai. In the first, he introduces the distinction between agent and patient by means of three examples: something carrying and something being carried, something leading and something being led, and something seeing and something being seen. In view of these, he distinguishes between something loving and something being loved. 2 David Wolfsdorf Platonic Metaphysics 3 Second epagoge That which is god-beloved is such as to be loved (oloY qnAEta8at) Given the agent-patient distinction, Socrates suggests, through develop- because it is loved, whereas that which is holy is loved by the gods ment of the three examples employed in the first epagoge, that patients because it is such as to be beloved. have affections (that is, patient conditions) because they are acted upon, rather than that patients are acted upon because they have affections. For Second clarification example, something carried has the affection of being carried because it is carried, that is, because something carries it, rather than that some- Socrates then explains that by identifying that which is holy qua holy thing carried is carried because it has the affection of being carried. with that which is god-beloved qua god-beloved, Euthyphro identified Socrates expresses this as a general principle (P), which he then applies an affection (1tCleo~) of that which is holy, not the being or essence (oucrtu) to something being loved; and he presents Euthyphro with a second set of that which is holy. of alternatives: (3) That which is god-beloved is god-loved because it is loved by I ii Notes on the Outline of the Elenchos the gods. The elenchos is difficult to interpret, and the articulation of the outline (4) That which is god-beloved is loved by the gods because it is itself involves a number of controversial positions: god-beloved. (i) Itis unclear how to interpret the phrases formed from the neuter Euthyphro agrees that (3) is true and (4) is false. definite article and adjective, for example, '1:0 ocrtOV'. I call these On the basis of the two epagogai, Euthyphro more clearly understands '1:0 phrases'. the original disjunction, and he accepts (1) and rejects (2). (ii) It is unclear what Socrates' 'What-is-F?' question seeks. Argument Socrates now argues against the identity of that which is holy qua holy (iii) The nature of the distinction in the first epagoge is controversial. (that is, holiness) and that which is god-beloved qua god-beloved (that is, god-belovedness) using a reductio and a pre-theoretical ancestor of (iv) It is unclear how to interpret the because-clauses, specifically in Leibniz' Law (precisely, the indiscernibility of identicals in its contrapo- (1)-(4). Accordingly, the meaning of (P) in the second epagoge is sitive formulation, the distinctness ofdiscernibles). Assume that holiness also controversial. and god-belovedness are identical. Then, if (1) that which is holy were loved by the gods because itis holy, (4) that which is god-beloved would (v) It is unclear how the epagogai clarify the original disjunction. be loved by the gods because it is god-beloved. And if (3) that which is god-beloved were god-beloved because it is loved by the gods, (2) that (vi) It is controversial whether the argument is for the non-identity which is holy would be holy because it is loved by the gods. But (4) and of holiness and god-belovedness. (2) are false. Therefore, holiness and god-belovedness are not identical. (vii) It is unclear what principle of (non-)identity the argument em- . First clarification ploys. In the wake of the argument, Socrates clarifies the distinction between (viii) It is controversial how the phrase 'otOY q>tA£lcrem' in the first •holiJ;J.ess and god-belovedness in two ways. First, he states that: clarification is to be understood. (ix) It is controversial what Socrates means by the distinction be- tween 7taeO~ and oucrtu in the second clarification. 4 David Wolfsdorf Platonic Metaphysics 5 The aim ofthis paper is to resolve these nine problems. The discussion II ii To Phrases divides into five sections, (I) Introduction, (V) conclusion, and three Throughout the elenchos Socrates uses phrases composed of the neuter sections that constitute the body of the argument: (II) The 'What-is-F?' singular definite article 'to' and a neuter singular adjective; for example, Question, (III) na8o~ and the Epagogai, and (IV) Plato's Aetiology and the 'to DO"lOV' and 'to eEOqnA,£~'. I call these expressions 'to phrases'. to Argument of Euthyphro 10a9-lle4. Subsection I ii ii addresses problem phrases may be used in at least two ways, as quantifier phrases or as (i). Section IT addresses (ii). Subsections III ii-iii address (iii) and (iv). referring expressions. As quantifier phrases, the definite article functions Subsections IV i-iv address (v)-(viii). Section III ii addresses (ix). like a universal quantifier ranging over all entities of the kind charac- With slight modifications, each of the three main sections arguably terized by the adjectival expressions. For example, 'to uya80v EO"tt KaA.OV' could stand as an independent paper. But since the aim is to interpret may be translated as 'that which is good is beautiful'. But, of course, the elenchos at Euthyphro lOa2-llbl as a whole, their compresence is Socrates also and distinctively uses to phrases to refer to Forms. So the necessary. And since this compresence also interilluminates the various sentence 'to uya80v EO"ft KaA,OV' could also be translated as 'the Form of problems of the elenchos as well as the scholarly controversies from the the good (or goodness) is beautiful'. This ambiguity of the to phrase is '60s to the presentsurrounding these problems, the interpretation of the noteworthy since one of the central objectives of Euthyphro is to distin- elenchos as a whole is desirable. guish the Form F fromfinstances or, asI prefer to call them,Jparticipants. Throughout the elenchos Socrates uses to phrases in both ways, al- though mainly as quantifier phrases. However, since he is not arguing II i Note on Translation and Notation that the sets of holy and god-beloved participants are not identical, but that holiness and god-belovedness are not identical, he must employ to The adjective 'oO"toV' is translated by both 'pious' and 'holy'. The two phrases to designate these entities at least twice in the argument, as in English words are used under different conditions. Something that is the following: 'But, if, Euthyphro, my friend, to 8EOqnA,£C; and to GO"toV were same ... ,2 pious has or is related to a particular psychological state - for instance, a pious person or action performed by such a person. Something that is The bivocal use of the to phrase runs through the entire investigation holy need not have or be related to such a psychological state - for of the identity of to Dmov in Euthyphro. When he initially formulates the example, holy site or holy water, whereas the phrases 'piOUS water' or 'What-is-F?' question, Socrates attempts to clarify that he is seeking to 'pious location' are nonsensical. In Euthyphro Socrates and Euthyphro omov insofar as it is Dmov, that is to say, that which is holy insofar as it is holy. He employs the emphatic pronoun 'auto' to make this restricting are mainly concerned with people and their actions. But since the adjec- 3 tive 'oO"toV' is in fact used in Greek in conjunction with artifacts and qualification, as I call it: to Dmov auto. In defining the opposite Form of unholiness, he uses the restricting qualification 'Kata tilv uvomotllta' for places, throughout I translate 'OO"lOV' and its cognates by 'holy' and its 4 .cognates. the same purpose. However, Socrates does not always employ a restrict- ing qualification when he uses the to phrase to designate a Form, and In certain passages of the paper I also employ an idiosyncratic nota- throughout his elenchos to the third definition he does not.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MONEY and the EARLY GREEK MIND: Homer, Philosophy, Tragedy
    This page intentionally left blank MONEY AND THE EARLY GREEK MIND How were the Greeks of the sixth century bc able to invent philosophy and tragedy? In this book Richard Seaford argues that a large part of the answer can be found in another momentous development, the invention and rapid spread of coinage, which produced the first ever thoroughly monetised society. By transforming social relations, monetisation contributed to the ideas of the universe as an impersonal system (presocratic philosophy) and of the individual alienated from his own kin and from the gods (in tragedy). Seaford argues that an important precondition for this monetisation was the Greek practice of animal sacrifice, as represented in Homeric epic, which describes a premonetary world on the point of producing money. This book combines social history, economic anthropology, numismatics and the close reading of literary, inscriptional, and philosophical texts. Questioning the origins and shaping force of Greek philosophy, this is a major book with wide appeal. richard seaford is Professor of Greek Literature at the University of Exeter. He is the author of commentaries on Euripides’ Cyclops (1984) and Bacchae (1996) and of Reciprocity and Ritual: Homer and Tragedy in the Developing City-State (1994). MONEY AND THE EARLY GREEK MIND Homer, Philosophy, Tragedy RICHARD SEAFORD cambridge university press Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521832281 © Richard Seaford 2004 This publication is in copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • Days Without End —Mortality and Immortality of Life Cycle— Kumi Ohno
    （83） Days Without End —Mortality and Immortality of Life Cycle— Kumi Ohno Introduction Eugene O’Neill’s Days Without End (herein referred to as “Days” ) was premiered on December 27th, 1933 at Plymouth Theatre in Boston. The play consists of four acts and six scenes. The author tried to excavate the “crisis awareness” against an intrinsic nature of mankind through this play. In Dynamo which was written in 1929, O’Neill introduced four gods: “Puritan god”, “electricity god”, “Dynamo” and “the real god representing the eternal life”. In the story, however, Ruben, the main character, who seeks the salvation from these gods, is unable to find the true answer and commits suicide. In Days, the main character barely but successfully finds out the religious significance of the purpose of life and continues to have hope and the will to live, which is quite different from other O’Neill’s plays. This play was written in 1930s during the great economic depres sion and the anxiety of the people described in Dynamo is inherited by this play, although the subject is dug from the different aspect. However, as seen from the author’s efforts of rewriting the script several times, his attempts to reach the final conclusion was not successful for many years. The play was finally published after rewriting eight times during the period between 1931–1934.1 Days is considered to be the worst play of Eugene O’Neill. Ah, Wilderness!, which was highly acclaimed by the critics and which ran 289 performances, was written almost in the same 1 Doris V.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Athenian Democracy.Pdf
    Rethinking Athenian Democracy A dissertation presented by Daniela Louise Cammack to The Department of Government in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of Political Science Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts January 2013 © 2013 Daniela Cammack All rights reserved. Professor Richard Tuck Daniela Cammack Abstract Conventional accounts of classical Athenian democracy represent the assembly as the primary democratic institution in the Athenian political system. This looks reasonable in the light of modern democracy, which has typically developed through the democratization of legislative assemblies. Yet it conflicts with the evidence at our disposal. Our ancient sources suggest that the most significant and distinctively democratic institution in Athens was the courts, where decisions were made by large panels of randomly selected ordinary citizens with no possibility of appeal. This dissertation reinterprets Athenian democracy as “dikastic democracy” (from the Greek dikastēs, “judge”), defined as a mode of government in which ordinary citizens rule principally through their control of the administration of justice. It begins by casting doubt on two major planks in the modern interpretation of Athenian democracy: first, that it rested on a conception of the “wisdom of the multitude” akin to that advanced by epistemic democrats today, and second that it was “deliberative,” meaning that mass discussion of political matters played a defining role. The first plank rests largely on an argument made by Aristotle in support of mass political participation, which I show has been comprehensively misunderstood. The second rests on the interpretation of the verb “bouleuomai” as indicating speech, but I suggest that it meant internal reflection in both the courts and the assembly.
    [Show full text]
  • From Logos to Bios: Hellenic Philosophy and Evolutionary Biology
    From Logos to Bios: Hellenic Philosophy and Evolutionary Biology by Wynand Albertus de Beer submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of D Litt et Phil in the subject Religious Studies at the University of South Africa Supervisor: Prof Danie Goosen February 2015 Dedicated with grateful acknowledgements to my supervisor, Professor Danie Goosen, for his wise and patient guidance and encouragement throughout my doctoral research, and to the examiners of my thesis for their helpful comments and suggestions. From Logos to Bios: Hellenic Philosophy and Evolutionary Biology by W.A. de Beer Degree: D Litt et Phil Subject: Religious Studies Supervisor: Prof Danie Goosen Summary: This thesis deals with the relation of Hellenic philosophy to evolutionary biology. The first part entails an explication of Hellenic cosmology and metaphysics in its traditional understanding, as the Western component of classical Indo-European philosophy. It includes an overview of the relevant contributions by the Presocratics, Plato, Aristotle, and the Neoplatonists, focussing on the structure and origin of both the intelligible and sensible worlds. Salient aspects thereof are the movement from the transcendent Principle into the realm of Manifestation by means of the interaction between Essence and Substance; the role of the Logos, being the equivalent of Plato’s Demiurge and Aristotle’s Prime Mover, in the cosmogonic process; the interaction between Intellect and Necessity in the formation of the cosmos; the various kinds of causality contributing to the establishment of physical reality; and the priority of being over becoming, which in the case of living organisms entails the primacy of soul over body.
    [Show full text]
  • Myth and Origins: Men Want to Know
    Journal of Literature and Art Studies, October 2015, Vol. 5, No. 10, 930-945 doi: 10.17265/2159-5836/2015.10.013 D DAVID PUBLISHING Myth and Origins: Men Want to Know José Manuel Losada Université Complutense, Madrid, Spain Starting with a personal definition of “myth”, this paper seeks to substantiate the claim that every myth is essentially etiological, in the sense that myths somehow express a cosmogony or an eschatology, whether particular or universal. In order to do that, this study reassesses Classical and Judeo-Christian mythologies to revisit and contrast the narratives of origin—of the cosmos, of the gods and of men—found in ancient polytheism and in Judeo-Christian monotheism. Taking into consideration how these general and particular cosmogonies convey a specific understanding of the passage of time, this article does not merely recount the cosmogonies, theogonies, and anthropogonies found in the Bible and in the works of authors from Classical Antiquity, but it also incorporates a critical commentary on pieces of art and literature that have reinterpreted such mythical tales in more recent times. The result of the research is the disclosure of a sort of universal etiology that may be found in mythology which, as argued, explains the origins of the world, of the gods, and of men so as to satisfy humankind’s ambition to unveil the mysteries of the cosmos. Myth thus functions in these cases as a vehicle that makes it possible for man to return the fullness of a primordial age, abandoning the fleeting time that entraps him and entering a time still absolute.
    [Show full text]
  • Ebook Download Apeiron Anaximander on Generation And
    APEIRON ANAXIMANDER ON GENERATION AND DESTRUCTION 1ST EDITION PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Radim Kočandrle | 9783319497532 | | | | | Apeiron Anaximander on Generation and Destruction 1st edition PDF Book The relative English word arrogance claim as one's own without justification; Latin : arrogare , is very close to the original meaning of the aphorism: "Nothing in excess. Back cover copy This book offers an innovative analysis of the Greek philosopher Anaximander's work. In particular, it presents a completely new interpretation of the key word Apeiron, or boundless, offering readers a deeper understanding of his seminal cosmology and, with it, his unique conception of the origin of the universe. Astronomy and Space Quiz. Chronos in Aristotle's Physics Chelsea C. Brand new: Lowest price The lowest-priced brand-new, unused, unopened, undamaged item in its original packaging where packaging is applicable. For Anaxagoras , the initial apeiron had begun to rotate rapidly under the control of a godlike Nous Mind , and the great speed of the rotation caused the universe to break up into many fragments. From the few existing fragments, we learn that he believed the beginning or ultimate reality arche is eternal and infinite, or boundless apeiron , subject to neither old age nor decay, which perpetually yields fresh materials from which everything we can perceive is derived. In his opinion the origin should be indefinite and indeterminate. Hesiod made an abstraction, because his original chaos is a void, something completely indefinite. Chapter 5. A Ritual Basis for Hesiod's Theogony. A fragment from Xenophanes 6th century BC [16] shows the transition from chaos to apeiron : "The upper limit of earth borders on air.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae
    CHRISTIAN WILDBERG Department of Classics | Program in Classical Philosophy Princeton University | 147 East Pyne | Princeton, NJ 08544 (609) 258 3958 (office) | (609) 258 1943 (fax) [email protected] _______________________________________________________________________ Curriculum vitae SPECIAL INTERESTS History of Western Philosophy from the Beginning to Late Antiquity; Neoplatonism; Early Christian Philosophy; Ancient Science; Ancient Greek Religion; Tragedy; Moral Philosophy (Problem of Evil) EDUCATION University of Cambridge, England, 1979–84 1984 Ph.D. (Cantab.) in Classics. Dissertation entitled: John Philoponus’ Criticism of Aristotle’s Theory of Ether. 2 Vols. Dissertation advisors: G.E.L. Owen and G.E.R. Lloyd; examiners: David Sedley and Richard Sorabji. Philipps-Universität Marburg, Germany, 1976–79 and 1984–85 1985 Mag.Theol. (Marburg). Masters thesis entitled: Ursprung, Inhalt und Funktion der Weisheit bei Jesus Sirach und in den Sentenzen des Menander. Thesis advisor: Otto Kaiser. PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT Professor of Classics, Princeton University, 2003–present Director of the Seeger Program for Hellenic Studies, 2011–present Master of Forbes College, Princeton University, 2006–2010 Associate Professor of Classics, Princeton University, 1996–2003 Junior Fellow, Center for Hellenic Studies, Washington, 1995–96 Assistant Professor, Seminar für Klassische Philologie, Freie Universität Berlin, 1988–94 Visiting Lecturer, Dept of Classics & Dept of Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin, 1987–88 Research Fellow, Gonville
    [Show full text]
  • Thermodynamics, the Tricarboxylic Acid Cycle, and the Apeiron
    Thermodynamics, the Tricarboxylic Acid Cycle, and the Apeiron Michelle Johnson What is life, and what makes it? Where does it come from? Where does everything go to? These questions bridge not only subjects such as chemistry, physics and biology, but subjects such as philosophy as well. In the early days of philosophy, philosophers strived to answer this question by trying to understand what the most basic unit of life is. That is, what is it that makes everything else up? They felt, as do most scientists now, that only by understanding this, could we understand the nature of the world, and how we fit into it. Different disciplines of science have come up with different answers to this based off of their own focus, varying from the concept of energy itself, to various cycles within all types of cells. This question has not been left alone to modern science however, with thoughts and opinions on the subject being recorded on a semi-regular basis since ancient times. The most notable of these thoughts from ancient Greece are thought experiments done by Anaximander of Miletus. Anaximander arrived at the conclusion that all things were made of, or were part of, the “apeiron”. This essay aims to address how modern understandings of the world and what makes it, in physical terms as well as biological, would agree with the concept of the apeiron as we can best determine Anaximander himself described it. This will be done by first determining how the apeiron was defined, and then looking at examples of this in biology.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematical Infinity and the Presocratic Apeiron Austin Heath
    59 Mathematical Infinity and the Presocratic Apeiron Austin Heath Abstract: The Presocratic notion of apeiron, often translated as “unbounded,” has been the subject of interest in classical philosophy. Despite apparent similarities between apeiron and infinity, classicists have typically been reluctant to equate the two, citing the mathematically precise nature of infinity. This paper aims to demonstrate that the properties that Anaximander, Zeno, and Anaxagoras attach to apeiron are not fundamentally different from the characteristics that constitute mathematical infinity. Because the sufficient explanatory mathematical tools had not yet been developed, however, their quantitative reasoning remains implicit. Consequentially, the relationship between infinity and apeiron is much closer than classical scholarship commonly suggests. The ἄπειρον1 or apeiron, a recurring theme in the history of Greek philosophy, is first mentioned in fragments of Anaximander, whose abstract characterization of the word has been the source of some contention in Presocratic scholarship. Ostensibly, the word is taken to mean “unbounded,” “unlimited,” or “unfinished,” and, in accordance with the variety of translations, the word is put to a variety of uses within the interpretation of its function in Presocratic philosophy. In its earliest observable form, the word appears in context of cosmogony, but it is clear that since its historical origin, the Unbounded has played many philosophic roles—as a divine progenitor, fundamental substance, or quantitative entity, to name a few—for many different philosophers in the progression of Greek thought. As such, this paper will focus on an examination of several 1 Perseus Digital Library, s.v. “ἄπειρον,” ed. Gregory R. Crane, Tufts University, accessed January 15, 2014, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/ hopper/morph?l=a%29/peiros&la=greek&prior=pe/ras&d=Perseus:tex- t:1999.04.0057:entry=a%29pei/rwn2&i=1#lexicon.
    [Show full text]
  • Putting the Philebus's Indispensable Method To
    PUTTING THE PHILEBUS’S INDISPENSABLE METHOD TO USE ABSTRACT: The Philebus presents a comprehensive epistemological and metaphysical view in two of that dialogue’s most difficult passages (15b-18c, and 23c-28c). In particular, the method described in the first passage is used in the second passage to do metaphysics; and the metaphysical picture it uncovers is precisely the one needed to support the epistemological presumptions of the first passage. This ‘circularity’ is not vicious, but elegant; seeing it so reveals most about Socrates’ preferred candidate for the (cause of) good in human life. There is considerable perplexity around the methodological discussion of the Philebus 16a ff. Quite apart from the vexed issues of what the method is, and what it is for, there is the awkward puzzle over why Socrates bothers bringing it up at all. As he introduces it, Socrates claims that this is a “gift from the gods to men...hurled down from heaven” (16c5) and that “everything in any field of art that has ever been discovered has come to light because of this” (16c2-3).1 This gift is recommended not merely as a useful tool, but as a necessary one: no knowledge except by observing this procedure. Thus, I shall argue, the claim at the heart of this god-given method of inquiry is an epistemological one: knowledge is that state which results from observing these recommendations for inquiry. Less than a page later, however, and as soon as his interlocutors indicate they have grasped the basic points, Socrates declares that the Divine Method, with its demand for an analysis of pleasure and knowledge, is not necessary after all.
    [Show full text]
  • Anthropogony, Myth and Gender: Athenian Autochthony As a Case Study
    Anthropogony, Myth and Gender: Athenian Autochthony as a Case Study Di Yan Faculty of Classics University of Cambridge Murray Edwards College November 2018 This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Preface Declaration This dissertation is the result of my own worK and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. I further state that no substantial part of my dissertation has already been submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It does not exceed the prescribed word limit for the relevant Degree Committee. Di Yan November 12, 2018 III Abstract This thesis, with its reflections on previous myth theories, especially structuralism in the 20th century and post-structuralist readings in recent decades, suggests a new approach for understanding GreeK mythology. TaKing Athenian autochthony as a case study, it argues that, instead of regarding GreeK myth as either a narrative system with one universal logic (structuralist reading) or as an ever-changing corpus without a unified concern (post-structuralist reading), it is more plausible to understand various myths as a dynamic system of social conversation, where individual authors and different genres respond to, argue with, or even compete against one another concerning core issues for a compelling explanation and understanding of the world.
    [Show full text]
  • [Apeiron: a Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science, 2012 (Vol
    1 [Apeiron: a Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science, 2012 (Vol. 45), 1-31; penultimate draft] Next to Godliness: Pleasure and Assimilation to God in the Philebus Suzanne Obdrzalek 1 Introduction Plato’s description of the philosopher in the Theaetetus confirms, for many, the suspicion that philosophers are an incompetent breed (172c4-6a1). The philosopher doesn’t know how to make his bed or cook a decent meal, isn’t sure whether his neighbor is a man or a beast, and is so caught up in heavenly speculation that he finds himself falling into wells. One of Plato’s depictions of the philosopher’s otherworldly nature stands in an intriguing contrast to the Philebus. The philosopher, he writes, does not know his way to the marketplace (173c9-d2); compare this to the concession in the Philebus that the inexact sciences ought to be included in the best human life, lest we not know our way home (62b8-9). The otherworldly focus of the Theaetetus appears opposed to the decidedly this-worldly, pragmatic focus of the Philebus. While the Theaetetus urges us to flee this world so that we can reside among the gods, the Philebus repeatedly eschews a life which it describes as god-like, the life of pure knowledge, devoid of pleasure. In the Theaetetus, Plato identifies the escape from this world to the divine realm with homoiōsis theōi (assimilation to god); this passage serves as the basis for middle Platonists’ claims that homoiōsis theōi was the telos (end) of the Platonic system.1 Plato, in fact, 1 E.g., Alcinous, Didaskalikos, 28 1.
    [Show full text]