Cephalus, the Myth of Er, and Remaining Virtuous in Unvirtuous Times PAUL DIRADO | 65
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The Phaedo by Plato
Selections from The Phaedo by Plato The Death of Scorates, David, 1787. [The Phaedo tells the story of Socrates’ final moments spent, as one would expect, in philosophical dialogue with his friends. The main subject of the dialogue is the immortality of the soul. The Phaedo is one of Plato’s middle period dialogues and, as such, reveals much of Plato’s own philosophy. In the arguments Socrates puts forth for the immortality of the soul we find a clear exposition of both Plato’s metaphysics as well as his epistemology. In the first section we find Socrates explaining to his friends why a true philosopher does not fear death. Philosophy is here described as a preparation for death.] ECHECRATES: Were you there with Socrates yourself, Phaedo, when he was executed, or 57 did you hear about it from somebody else? PHAEDO: No, I was there myself, Echecrates. ECHECRATES: Then what did the master say before he died, and how did he meet his end? I should very much like to know. None of the people in Phlius go to Athens much in these days, and it is a long time since we had any visitor from there who could give us any definite b information, except that he was executed by drinking hemlock. Nobody could tell us anything more than that. PHAEDO: Then haven't you even heard how his trial went? 58 ECHECRATES: Yes, someone told us about that, and we were surprised because there was obviously a long interval between it and the execution. How was that, Phaedo? PHAEDO: A fortunate coincidence, Echecrates. -
The Theodicy of Plato's Timaeus
Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Philosophy Theses Department of Philosophy 8-10-2021 Reincarnation and Rehabilitation: the Theodicy of Plato's Timaeus John Garrett Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/philosophy_theses Recommended Citation Garrett, John, "Reincarnation and Rehabilitation: the Theodicy of Plato's Timaeus." Thesis, Georgia State University, 2021. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/philosophy_theses/298 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Philosophy at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. REINCARNATION AND REHABILITATION: THE THEODICY OF PLATO’S TIMAEUS by JOHN GARRETT Under the Direction of Timothy O’Keefe, PhD A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the College of Arts and Sciences Georgia State University 2021 ABSTRACT Plato wonders why a good God might allow the existence of evil. This problem is especially pertinent to his dialogue Timaeus, in which Plato describes the creation of the cosmos by a benevolent divine craftsman called the Demiurge. A justification for why God allows evil to exist is called a theodicy. Readers of the Timaeus have interpreted the theodicy of this dialogue in many ways. After showing the shortcomings of some common interpretations, I offer a largely original interpretation of the theodicy of the Timaeus. I claim that in the Timaeus evil is caused by conflict between souls, and this conflict is something that the good (but not omnipotent) Demiurge could not avoid. -
Killing of Eratosthenes Between Reality and Mime (Or, Was Lysias 1 Really Pronounced?)
GRAECO-LATINA BRUNENSIA 18, 2013, 1 PAVEL NÝVLT (CHARLES UNIVERSITY, PRAGUE) KILLING OF ERATOSTHENES BETWEEN REALITY AND MIME (OR, WAS LYSIAS 1 REALLY PRONOUNCED?) Lysias’ speech On the Murder of Eratosthenes deals with a case of a husband (named Euphiletus) who caught an adulterer (called Eratosthenes) in flagrante delicto with his wife, killed him and pleaded before a court that what he had done was in keeping with law. In a stimulating article written in 1997, J. R. Porter pointed out many parallels with plots of mimes and adduced some additional arguments from comparison with other Athenian court speeches, which led him to suggest that the speech has never been pronounced and is actu‑ ally a rhetorical exhibition, made by Lysias in order to advertise his skill. The main purpose of this paper is to challenge this assumption. Further, a tentative suggestion concerning the date of the speech’s composition is made. A problem of a familiarity of average Athenian with mimic productions is raised, too. Key words: Lysias, ancient Greek oratory, ancient Greek mime, Athens. Lysias, son of Cephalus, an elder contemporary of Plato, was ranked among the ten canonical Attic orators by the Alexandrine scholars and was famous for lucidity of his style and vividness of his characterisation (etho‑ poiia).1 It is commonly held2 that he began his literary career in 403 BCE, after his family’s prospering weaponry manufacture had been confiscat- ed by an oligarchic régime of Thirty tyrants. Lysias then became a log‑ ographos, that is, a man who was writing court speeches for others.3 Of 1 For the precise meaning of the term which implies rather an active creation of char- acter than its precise description, see, e. -
On the Hosiotes in Plato's Crito
PEITHO / EXAMINA ANTIQUA 1 ( 2 ) / 2011 Why Not Escape? On the Hosiotes in Plato’s Crito JOANNA KOMOROWSKA / Warsaw / 1. The swarm of questions Why does Socrates drink his hemlock? What motivates his rejection of Crito’s proposal to escape? These and similar questions concerning the decision made by the philoso- pher gave rise to a considerable number of scholarly inquiries as well as to a whole array of answers. Thus, Greenberg (1965) sought the explanation in Socrates’ “heroic temper”, while Barker (1977) argued for the decisive role of the philosopher’s elevated moral awareness. Importantly, a great deal of scholarly discussion builds on the appar- ent incompatibility of two accounts of civil duties in the Apology and Crito. In the Apol- ogy (29 c–d), we see Socrates challenge his audience and, in fact, the judges with the declaration that he will under no circumstances renounce philosophy, and that he will continue his instructing the Athenians. In the Crito, the philosopher chooses to reject his friend’s offer of help, and, when doing so, he implicitly accepts the death sentence.1 Whilst the two dialogues are often regarded as inconsistent, various attempts to explain- ing the inconsistency resulted in an impressive number of publications devoted to the 1 Quotations from the Apology and Crito in C.D.C. Reeve’s (2005) translation. Other works quoted as they appear on the Perseus Project database. 170 Joanna Komorowska / Warsaw / issue.2 The present paper will seek to contribute to this line of inquiry. When trying to ascertain why Socrates chooses to die, the article will suggest that taking into account the then Athenian customs and rituals may contribute to a better understanding of the dialogue. -
Freedom and Responsibility in the Myth of Er
Freedom and responsibility in the myth of Er Author: Marina McCoy Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/3019 This work is posted on eScholarship@BC, Boston College University Libraries. Published in Ideas y valores: Revista Colombiana de Filosofia, vol. 61, no. 149, pp. 125-141, September 2012 These materials are made available for use in research, teaching and private study, pursuant to U.S. Copyright Law. The user must assume full responsibility for any use of the materials, including but not limited to, infringement of copyright and publication rights of reproduced materials. Any materials used for academic research or otherwise should be fully credited with the source. The publisher or original authors may retain copyright to the materials. Freedom and Responsibility in the Myth of Er Libertad y responsabilidad en el mito de Er Marina Berzins McCoy* Boston College - USA Abstract Plato uses the myth of Er in the Republic in order to carve out space for political freedom and responsibility for human freedom in the ordinary polis. While much of the Republic concentrates on the development of an ideal city in speech, that city is fundamentally a mythos presented in order for Socrates and his friends to learn something about political and individual virtue. The city in which Socrates and his friends exist is an imperfect city and myth of Er is intended for those audience members. Its emphasis on the necessity for personal responsibility in the midst of freedom can be understood as a political claim about the place of individual choice in a world that is constrained by both political and cosmic “necessity”. -
The Influence of Plato's Crito and Phaedo on Xenophon's Apology of Socrates
Kentron Revue pluridisciplinaire du monde antique 31 | 2015 Les Socratica de Xénophon The influence of Plato’s Crito and Phaedo on Xenophon’s Apology of Socrates Boris Hogenmüller Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/kentron/347 DOI: 10.4000/kentron.347 ISSN: 2264-1459 Publisher Presses universitaires de Caen Printed version Date of publication: 1 November 2015 Number of pages: 127-138 ISBN: 978-2-84133-747-7 ISSN: 0765-0590 Electronic reference Boris Hogenmüller, « The influence of Plato’s Crito and Phaedo on Xenophon’s Apology of Socrates », Kentron [Online], 31 | 2015, Online since 19 October 2016, connection on 17 November 2020. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/kentron/347 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/kentron.347 Kentron is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 International License. The inFluence OF Plato’S CRITO and PHAEDO Hauteur 1 du rectangle d’empagement on Xenophon’S APOLOGY OF SOCRATES T_3_Article The relationship between Plato and Xenophon has been the subject of research for many years. During the late 19th and early 20th century, the result of this research, especially in terms of the ‘Sokratesbild’, was always the same, and Xenophon’s dependence on the logoi Sokratikoi written by Plato and Antisthenes has always been quite obvious 2. In the middle of the 20th century, however, new studies have given rise to another opinion 3, which made the case for dependence of Xenophon on other Socratics. Thus L.-A. Dorion’s statement (« Xénophon dépend des autres Socratiques : il ne constitue pas une source indépendante » 4), although he attempts to refute it 5, seems more appropriate today than ever before. -
Florida State University Libraries
)ORULGD6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\/LEUDULHV 2020 Not a Tale of Alcinous: A Reading of the Myth of Er Jacob Dvorak Follow this and additional works at DigiNole: FSU's Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES NOT A TALE OF ALCINOUS: A READING OF THE MYTH OF ER By JACOB DVORAK A Thesis submitted to the Department of Classics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with Honors in the Major Degree Awarded: Spring, 2020 Dvorak 2 The members of the Defense Committee approve the thesis of Jacob Dvorak defended on March 30th, 2020. ______________________________ Associate Professor Svetla Slaveva-Griffin Thesis Director ______________________________ Associate Professor Nathanael Stein Outside Committee Member ______________________________ Assistant Professor Virginia Lewis Committee Member *Signatures on file with the Honors Program Office* Dvorak 3 Table of Contents Iὀtὄὁἶuἵtiὁὀμ “ἦhἷ ἦalἷ ὁf a Stὄὁὀg εaὀ” ...................................................................................... 4 I. Reading the Myth of Er: Political, Mythological, and Allegorical ............................................... 8 IIέ ἦhἷ Juἶgmἷὀt ὁf Sὁulὅμ ἑἷὂhaluὅ’ ἔἷaὄ, ἕlauἵὁὀ’ὅ ἑhallἷὀgἷ, aὀἶ χἶἷimaὀtuὅ’ ἤἷὃuἷὅt ........16 Cephalus’ Fear and the Non-Philosopher’s View of Justice ......................................................16 Glaucon’s Challenge and Adeimantus’ Request ........................................................................20 What Should -
The Myth of Er As a Rationalizing Recording Device Michael Weinman Bard College Berlin, Germany [email protected]
Volume 12, No 2, Fall 2017 ISSN 1932-1066 The Myth of Er as a Rationalizing Recording Device Michael Weinman Bard College Berlin, Germany [email protected] Abstract: This essay introduces the idea of a rationalizing recording device, a mechanism by which the thoughts and actions of one or more persons are both preserved and made more accessible to reason. Plato's Myth of Er is depicted as being such a device, since its story is cinematic in the contemporary sense. Just as films can affect viewers by making one aware of thoughts that cannot be carried in the medium of the moving image itself, so too does Plato express his thoughts about the telos of the cosmos and the moral judgment one must make when confronted with choosing how to live through the external medium of a moving image. Keywords: Plato; Er; myth; dialectic; poetry; narrative; film-philosophy; representation. Poetry, Myth, and Philosophy moments of Er's tale show how a soul's salvation can be achieved through the recording and reproduction Plato's Myth of Er is best understood as a rationalizing of lives and show what makes this experience recording device, by which I mean a form of recording cinematic in a contemporary sense of the term that is technology that both preserves some person, place, not anachronistic and not metaphorical. The argument or activity and does so in such a way that makes that here rests on an understanding of the cinematic as an person, place, or activity accessible to reason.1 The affection of the soul that is integral to understanding essential character of this kind of recording technology Er's story as expressive of Plato's commitment to the resembles cinematic imagery in the contemporary independent resourcefulness of myth as a form of sense; which does not mean that its formal features poetic, productive discourse that is irreducible to logical are like film but that the experience of the myth is expression, and for this reason carries the distinctive like the experience of film. -
The Piety of Thought in Plato's Republic, Book 1 Author(S): Darrell Dobbs Source: the American Political Science Review, Vol
The Piety of Thought in Plato's Republic, Book 1 Author(s): Darrell Dobbs Source: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 88, No. 3 (Sep., 1994), pp. 668-683 Published by: American Political Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2944802 Accessed: 10/12/2010 23:53 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=apsa. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. 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]. American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Political Science Review. http://www.jstor.org American Political Science Review Vol. -
Necessity and Form-Copies: Republic, Timaeus, and Laws [Abstract] Plato's Metaphysics Employs Three Distinct Ontological State
Necessity and Form-Copies: Republic, Timaeus, and Laws [Abstract] Plato’s metaphysics employs three distinct ontological states: Forms, particulars, and form-copies. Fundamentally, Forms are static beings; particulars are dynamic non-beings; form- copies are dynamic instances of being(s). Plato’s metaphysics is met with difficulty when we start to question how exactly form-copies, mixtures of two seemingly incompatible ontological states (Forms and particulars), come into existence. In this paper, I offer an analysis concerning the relationship between Plato’s two cosmological causes (i.e. Reason and Necessity) and form- copy generation. I am chiefly interested in what finalizes the union between particulars and Forms to generate form-copies. I refer to this finalizing agent as the “form-copy agent.” Plato puts forth two causes: Reason and Necessity. Both Reason and Necessity possess operative limits (authority) defined by causal capabilities. The abstract parts and machinery are subsumed under Reason, while Necessity is broadly associated with physical reality. The causal role of Reason is to define all being. Necessity’s causal role, on the other hand, remains somewhat obscure. If Reason defines being, what does Necessity accomplish as a cause? Plato’s metaphysics needs a catalyzing agent that can account for particulars’ transition into form- copies. Necessity, I argue, is this agent. 1 Introduction In Plato’s first real attempts to outline the theory of Forms (Phaedo), two principal modes of being are posited: being (οὐσία) and participation (μετέχειν). These two modes of being give rise to three definitive ontological states: Forms, particulars, and form-copies. Forms are defined by being (οὐσία). -
1 Ordinary Language, Cephalus and a Deflationary Account of the Forms Joshua Anderson Draft; Do Not Cite Final Version of Recor
1 Ordinary Language, Cephalus and a Deflationary Account of the Forms Joshua Anderson Draft; do not cite Final Version of Record: Humanities Bulletin 3.1 (2020): 17-29 Available at: https://www.journals.lapub.co.uk/index.php/HB/article/view/1521/1270 Abstract: In this article I seek to come to some understanding of the interlocutors in the first book of Plato’s Republic, particularly Cephalus. A more complete view of Cephalus not only provides some interesting ways to think about Plato and the Republic, but also suggests an interesting alternative to Plato’s view of justice. The article will progress as follows: First, I discuss Plato’s allegory of the cave. I, then, critique the cave allegory by applying the same kind of reasoning that O. K. Bouwsma used to criticize Descartes’ evil genius. Next, I present what I think is a fruitful way to understand Cephalus. Finally, I draw some important conclusions regarding justice and offer some interesting critiques of Plato and Platonism. Keywords: Allegory of the Cave, O.K Bouwsma, Cephalus, Ordinary Language, Plato Plato’s dialogues present one with a unique way of engaging deep and important philosophical issues. The dialogue format draws the reader in in a way that a more formal and analytic essay does not. Instead of just critically engaging the text one becomes part of the conversation. It is not surprising, then, that throughout the history of philosophy other philosophers have also presented their ideas in a dialogical form—a notable example is Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. However, too often it seems that Socrates’ interlocutors are not engaged as fully as they might be. -
Bulfinch's Mythology
Bulfinch's Mythology Thomas Bulfinch Bulfinch's Mythology Table of Contents Bulfinch's Mythology..........................................................................................................................................1 Thomas Bulfinch......................................................................................................................................1 PUBLISHERS' PREFACE......................................................................................................................3 AUTHOR'S PREFACE...........................................................................................................................4 STORIES OF GODS AND HEROES..................................................................................................................7 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................7 CHAPTER II. PROMETHEUS AND PANDORA...............................................................................13 CHAPTER III. APOLLO AND DAPHNEPYRAMUS AND THISBE CEPHALUS AND PROCRIS7 CHAPTER IV. JUNO AND HER RIVALS, IO AND CALLISTODIANA AND ACTAEONLATONA2 AND THE RUSTICS CHAPTER V. PHAETON.....................................................................................................................27 CHAPTER VI. MIDASBAUCIS AND PHILEMON........................................................................31 CHAPTER VII. PROSERPINEGLAUCUS AND SCYLLA............................................................34