DOCSLIB.ORG

(Getting Rid of the «Presocratics»), In: Philosophy in the Dialogue of Cultures

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(Getting Rid of the «Presocratics»), In: Philosophy in the Dialogue of Cultures Andrei V. Lebedev, Izbavliaias’ ot «dosokratikov» (Getting rid of the «Presocratics»), in: Philosophy in the dialogue of cultures. Materials of the World Philosophy Day (Moscow - St. Petersburg, November 16 -19, 2009), p. 177 - 183 (in Russian). Translated into English by the author. This paper was delivered in the Institute of philosophy of the Russian Academy of sciences at the Round Table «Getting rid of stereotypes in the history of philosophy». Some explanatory remarks that have been added in the English translation are placed in square brackets. In 1903 the Weidmann Publishing House in Berlin published the first edition of Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker by the distinguished German classical scholar Hermann Diels which still remains the most complete single edition of the fragments of the Early Greek philosophers (of the VI - V centuries B.C.). In the first edition it started with Thales and ended with «Anhang» that contained pre-philosophical tradition (cosmogonic poetry and prose, the sayings of the Seven Sages) as well as the fragments of the Sophists. After Diels’s death (1922) his disciple Walter Kranz in the last 5th edition (1934) gave it its present structure by dividing the whole text into three parts: A) Anfänge (pre-philosophical tradition), B) Fragments of the Greek Philosophers of the 6th and 5th centuries and their immediate followers and C) Sophists. There are all in all 90 chapters, in which about 400 names are mentioned, of which 235 derive from Jamblichus’ Catalogue of Pythagoreans. Diels himself explained in the preface to the first edition that he included in his collection also some mathematicians and a selection of non-Hippocratic doctors. As a result of this the collection of Diels has assembled quite heterogeneous authors. Besides well known real philosophers (like Heraclitus and Parmenides) and naturalists (physiologoi), we encounter here mythical singers Orpheus and Musaios (chapters 1-2), an epic poet Hesiod (chapter 4), a soothsayer, wonders-worker and root-cutter (rhizotomos) Epimenides of Crete (3), a comic poet Epicharmus of Syracuse (23), a tragic poet Ion of 1 Chios (36), architects and urban planners Thaleas and Hippodamus (39), a sculptor Polykleitos (40), geometers Hippocrates of Chios (42) and Theodoros (43) etc. The diversity of genres of the texts included is also wide: besides cosmogonic and metaphysical works, the Vorsokratiker accomodate a cook- book by Epicharmus (23 B 63), magical-eschatological texts on golden plates excavated by archeologists from graves (something like Vademecum of the netherworld for the souls of the dead, 1 B 17 ff.), a navigational astronomy attributed to Thales (11 B 1) and paignia of the Sophist Gorgias (82 B 11) etc. The canon of authors included by Diels in «Vorsokratiker» raises some questions. On the ground of which criteria all these authors who wrote on a variety of different subjects - religious, mythological, scientific, philosophical, technological (and even mythical persons among them) should be united under the same category of «Pre-Socratics», and in which sense exactly did they «precede» Socrates or were his « precursors»? This is far from clear. 2. Chronological incongruities make the artificial character of the collection even more problematic. Why on earth the sophists of the second half of the 5th century most of whom were contemporaries of Socrates (469 -399 B.C.) depicted in Plato’s dialogues as his opponents, should be classed with «Presocratics»? Diels’s VS includes even a whole philosophical school, the school of Abdera or the Atomists (chapters 69-78), not a single member of which can be regarded as «Presocratic» from the chronological point of view. Even the oldest of them, Democritus (we do not believe in the historicity of «Leucippus») was almost 10 years younger than Socrates (born 460 B.C.) and he outlived Socrates by decades (he died at the age of 104 according to Lucian). In other words, Democritus was an elder contemporary of Plato. It follows that Socrates was «Predemocritic» rather than Democritus was «Presocratic». Not to mention those later members of the School of Abdera who were contemporary with Alexander the Great, like Anaxarchus (ch. 72), Hecataeus of Abdera (ch. 73), Pyrrho’s disciple Nausiphanes (ch. 75), and even an Egyptian alchemist of the Hellenistic period Bolus of Mendes (c.78). 3. The term «Presocratics» is of German, not of Greek origin (German 2 Vorsokratiker). 1 It became widespread in the 19th century in the epoch of «academic classicism» when only works of the classical period were regarded as classical in the sense of exemplary, whereas all that preceded or came after that was regarded as either not-yet-exemplary or not-exemplary- anymore. Exemplary «classical» philosophers were Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. All philosophy before that was only a «preparation» of the classical akme, «Vorsokratisches», and all that came after was already a decay, «Nacharistotelisches». Today no one would refer to Hellenistic philosophy as «Post-Aristotelian». [But «Presocratic» is a relic of the same conceptual scheme.] And we all still remember the official Soviet division of philosophy into «Marxist» and «Pre-Marxist» or «Bourgeois». 4. There is a subtle linguistic difference between the terms Vorsokratische (Philosophie or Philosophen) and Vorsokratiker. The first term derives from the prefix Vor- and the name of Socrates. It has purely chronological meaning, i.e. refers to philosophers who lived and philosophized before Socrates (vor Sokrates). Now, the second term derives not exactly from the name of Socrates, but from its derivative Sokratiker, i.e. the followers of Socrates or Socratic schools (note that in Russian the correct adjective from Dosokratiki «Presocratics» should be «dosokraticheskii» - preceding Socratics, not «dosokratovskii» - preceding Socrates). In classical Greek the suffix -ικοι was regularly used for the philosophical schools being added either to the name of a place (or city) where the school was located or to the name of the Founder: Greek Megarikoi - German Megariker Greek Kyrenaikoi - German Kyrenaiker Greek Platonikoi - German Platoniker etc. As a result of this, because of the association of the suffix -ikoi/-iker with the notion of school (hairesis), Greek philosophers and other writers of the 6th and 5th centuries included in Diels’s VS, whose only common feature is that 1 Hegel in his “History of philosophy” does not use it yet. Zeller in his “History of Greek philosophy” (3rd edition, 1869) uses the term “Vorsokratische Philosophie” (the 1st period which ends with the Sophists), but not Vorsokratiker. 3 they lived before the 4th century, have been conceived as a kind of a special philosophical school, or, at least, as a certain theoretical school of thought which in fact is as chimerical as the alleged Founder of this school «Presocrates». And indeed, if Platonikoi (Platoniker) are the followers of Plato, then the Presocratics (Vorsokratiker) must be followers of a certain Presocrates... In this connection it would be not irrelevant to refer to the recent observation of Nelli Motroshilova [at the Round Table] that stereotypes in the history of philosophy may arise from the ontologization of the relative. Professor A.F.Losev In his «History of Ancient Aesthetics» even introduces the term «dosokratika» (a substantive, feminine) by which he means a certain type of philosophizing or a complex of related ideas. Needless to say, such school of thought has never existed. 5. Although the term «Presocratics» is of modern origin, the stereotypes with which it is laden go back to Plato and Aristotle. In the philosophical autobiography of Socrates in Plato’s Phaedo (96 a 6 sq.), Socrates the moral philosopher is presented in a sharp contrast and as an antithesis to all preceding «physikoi». But let us not forget that Plato’s negative attitude towards all natural science is characteristic of early and middle dialogues (to which «Phaedo» belongs). Exactly and only at this moment in the Academy an illusion could arise that the age of physics had passed, and a new age of ethics had begun. In his later dialogues (Timaeus) Plato himself reconsidered the value of the philosophy of nature (teleologically reinterpreted, of course), whereas in the Corpus Aristotelicum ta physika (in broad sense) have a lion’s share. And just as physics did not die with Socrates, so ethics was not born with him. The physicalist myth about «Presocratics» also owes a lot to the Alpha of «Metaphysics» of Aristotle where most of the early philosophers are presented as cosmologists and «materialists». Aristotle regularly refers to early philosophers as physiologoi or those who produced theories peri physeos. In this case we should take into account Aristotle’s tendency to «physicalize» the first principles of the first philosophy [I mean that both «Physics» and «Metaphysics» have the same theory of first principles] - which 4 can be best explained in the context of his theoretical polemics against Platonic dualism of two worlds; the fact that «most» of the preceding philosophers (allegedly) investigated the physical cosmos only and did not recognize «separate» mental world served as a dialectical argument e consensu omnium against Plato. But in fact pure physikoi were only the Ionians (and not all of them: Heraclitus was a moral and religious philosopher). The Western Greek philosophers, the Pythagoreans and Eleatics, from the start accepted anti-naturalistic dualistic metaphysics; the aims of this philosophy were ethical, political and theological, not scientific. But let us also be fair to Aristotlle: unlike the mainstream modern English speaking history of Greek philosophy, which does not recognize the fundamental difference between the Ionians and Eleatics [by viewing them all as «Presocratics»], Aristotle does counterpose them sharply and calls the latter στασιώτας τῆς φύσεως καὶ ἀφυσίκους (ap. Sext.Emp. 10.46). 6. The ancient histories of Greek philosophy of the Διαδοχαί type (diachronical histories of philosophical schools) do not mention the «Presocratics» invented in the 19th century.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Taking Sides and the Prehistory of Impartiality
    1. PREHISTORIES OF IMPARTIALITY TAKING SIDES AND THE PREHISTORY OF IMPARTIALITY Anita Traninger 1. Introduction: Taking Sides In his article “Taking Sides in Philosophy”, Gilbert Ryle inveighs against the ‘party-labels’ commonly awarded in philosophy. He impugns in partic- ular the conventional requirement to declare to what school one belongs because ‘[t]here is no place for “isms” in philosophy’.1 In concluding, how- ever, he is prepared to make ‘a few concessions’: Although, as I think, the motive of allegiance to a school or a leader is a non- philosophic and often an anti-philosophic motive, it may have some good results. Partisanship does generate zeal, combativeness, and team-spirit. [. .] Pedagogically, there is some utility in the superstition that philosophers are divided into Whigs and Tories. For we can work on the match-winning propensities of the young, and trick them into philosophizing by encourag- ing them to try to “dish” the Rationalists, or “scupper” the Hedonists.2 Even though Ryle chooses to reduce the value of taking sides to a propae- deutic set-up as a helpmeet for the young to come up with striking argu- ments, what he describes is precisely the modus operandi of dialectics, which had since antiquity been the methodological basis of philosophy. Dialectics conceived of thinking as a dialogue, and an agonistic one at that: it consisted in propounding a thesis and attacking it through questions. Problems were conceived of as being a choice between two positions, whence the name the procedure received in Roman times: in utramque partem disserere, arguing both sides of a question or arguing pro and con- tra.
    [Show full text]
  • ARISTOXENUS of TARENTUM Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities
    ARISTOXENUS OF TARENTUM Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities Series Editor: David C. Mirhady Advisory Board: William W. Fortenbaugh Dimitri Gutas Pamela M. Huby Timothy C. Powers Eckart Schütrumpf On Stoic and Peripatetic Ethics: The Work of Arius Didymus I Theophrastus of Eresus: On His Life and Work II Theophrastean Studies: On Natural Science, Physics and Metaphysics, Ethics, Religion and Rhetoric III Cicero’s Knowledge of the Peripatos IV 7KHRSKUDVWXV+LV3V\FKRORJLFDO'R[RJUDSKLFDODQG6FLHQWLÀF Writings V Peripatetic Rhetoric after Aristotle VI The Passionate Intellect: Essays on the Transformation of Classical Traditions presented to Professor I.G. Kidd VII Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources VIII Demetrius of Phalerum: Text, Translation and Discussion IX Dicaearchus of Messana: Text, Translation and Discussion X Eudemus of Rhodes XI Lyco of Troas and Hieronymus of Rhodes XII Aristo of Ceos: Text, Translation and Discussion XIII Heraclides of Pontus: Text and Translation XIV Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion XV Strato of Lampsacus: Text, Translation and Discussion XVI ARISTO XENUS OF TARENTUM DISCUSSION RUTGERS UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN CLASSICAL HUMANITIES VOLUMEXVU EDITED BY eARL A. HUFFMAN First published 2012 by Transaction Publishers Published 2017 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright © 2012 by Taylor & Francis. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The Liar Paradox As a Reductio Ad Absurdum Argument
    University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 3 May 15th, 9:00 AM - May 17th, 5:00 PM The Liar Paradox as a reductio ad absurdum argument Menashe Schwed Ashkelon Academic College Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive Part of the Philosophy Commons Schwed, Menashe, "The Liar Paradox as a reductio ad absurdum argument" (1999). OSSA Conference Archive. 48. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA3/papersandcommentaries/48 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences and Conference Proceedings at Scholarship at UWindsor. It has been accepted for inclusion in OSSA Conference Archive by an authorized conference organizer of Scholarship at UWindsor. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Title: The Liar Paradox as a Reductio ad Absurdum Author: Menashe Schwed Response to this paper by: Lawrence Powers (c)2000 Menashe Schwed 1. Introduction The paper discusses two seemingly separated topics: the origin and function of the Liar Paradox in ancient Greek philosophy and the Reduction ad absurdum mode of argumentation. Its goal is to show how the two topics fit together and why they are closely connected. The accepted tradition is that Eubulides of Miletos was the first to formulate the Liar Paradox correctly and that the paradox was part of the philosophical discussion of the Megarian School. Which version of the paradox was formulated by Eubulides is unknown, but according to some hints given by Aristotle and an incorrect version given by Cicero1, the version was probably as follows: The paradox is created from the Liar sentence ‘I am lying’.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 ETHNICITY and JEWISH IDENTITY in JOSEPHUS by DAVID
    ETHNICITY AND JEWISH IDENTITY IN JOSEPHUS By DAVID McCLISTER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008 1 © 2008 David McClister 2 To the memory of my father, Dorval L. McClister, who instilled in me a love of learning; to the memory of Dr. Phil Roberts, my esteemed colleague; and to my wife, Lisa, without whose support this dissertation, or much else that I do, would not have been possible. 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I gladly recognize my supervisory committee chair (Dr. Konstantinos Kapparis, Associate Professor in the Classics Department at the University of Florida). I also wish to thank the other supervisory commiteee members (Dr. Jennifer Rea, Dr. Gareth Schmeling, and Dr. Gwynn Kessler as a reader from the Religious Studies Department). It is an honor to have their contributions and to work under their guidance. I also wish to thank the library staff at the University of Florida and at Florida College (especially Ashley Barlar) who did their work so well and retrieved the research materials necessary for this project. I also wish to thank my family for their patient indulgence as I have robbed them of time to give attention to the work necessary to pursue my academic interests. BWGRKL [Greek] Postscript® Type 1 and TrueTypeT font Copyright © 1994-2006 BibleWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. These Biblical Greek and Hebrew fonts are used with permission and are from BibleWorks, software for Biblical
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Greek Physicians
    Ancient Greek physicians Abascantus Acesias Acron Acumenus Adamantius Aegimus Aelianus Meccius Aelius Promotus Aeschines (physician) Aeschrion of Pergamon Agapetus (physician) Agathinus Agnodice Alcmaeon of Croton Alexander of Tralles Alexander Philalethes Epipodius and Alexander Alexias Alexion Alexippus Amentes Ammonius Lithotomos Anaxilaus Andreas (physician) Androcydes (physician) Andromachus Andromachus (physician) Andron (physician) Andronicus (physician) Anicia Anonymus Londinensis Antaeus (physician) Antigenes Antigonus (physician) Antiochis Antiochus (physician) Antiochus Philometor Antipater (1st-century BC physician) Antipater (2nd-century physician) Antiphanes of Delos Antonius (herbalist) Antyllus Apollodorus (physician) Apollonides (physician) Apollonides of Cos Apollonios of Kition Apollonius (physician) Archigenes Aretaeus of Cappadocia Aristogenes (physician) Aristoxenus (physician) Asclepiades of Bithynia Asclepiades Pharmacion Aspasia the Physician Athenaeus of Attalia Athryilatus B Bacchius of Tanagra Bolus of Mendes C Calliphon of Croton Chrysippus of Cnidos Claudius Agathemerus Criton of Heraclea Ctesias D Damocrates Democedes Demosthenes Philalethes Dexippus of Cos Dieuches Diocles of Carystus Pedanius Dioscorides Diphilus (physician) Draco (physician) E Epicles Erasistratus Eudemus (physician) Eudoxus of Cnidus Euphorbus (physician) Euryphon Evenor G Galen Glaucias (physician, 3rd century BC) Glaucias (physician, 4th century BC)
    [Show full text]
  • The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism
    Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum Studies and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity Herausgeber/Editor: CHRISTOPH MARKSCHIES (Berlin) Beirat/Advisory Board HUBERT CANCIK (Berlin) • GIOVANNI CASADIO (Salerno) SUSANNA ELM (Berkeley) • JOHANNES HAHN (Münster) JÖRG RÜPKE (Erfurt) 23 John Granger Cook The Interprétation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism Mohr Siebeck JOHN GRANGER COOK, born 1955; 1976 B.A. in Philosophy, Davidson College; 1979 M. Div., Union Theological Seminary (VA); 1982-83 Doctoral research at the University of Gottin- gen; 1985 Ph.D. at Emory University; 1985-91 Pastor at Reems Creek Presbyterian Parish in Weaverville, NC/USA; 1991-94 post doctoral studies at Emory University; since 1994 Associate Professor of Religion and Philosophy at LaGrange College, GA/USA. ISBN 3-16-148474-6 ISSN 1436-3003 (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum) Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.ddb.de. © 2004 by Mohr Siebeck,Tübingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Guide-Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Held in Rottenburg. Printed in Germany. For my doctoral fathers, Prof. David Hellholm and the late Prof. William Beardslee, with heartfelt gratitude Table of Contents Introduction 1 0.1 Hecataeus of Abdera (ca 300 B.C.E.) 4 0.2 Manetho (III B.C.E.) 6 0.3 Ocellus Lucanus (II B.C.E.) 8 0.4 Lysimachus 9 0.5 Apollonius Molon (I B.C.E.) 11 0.6 Alexander Polyhistor (ca 105-35 B.C.E.) 13 0.7 Diodorus Siculus (I B.C.E.) 16 0.8 Nicolaus of Damascus 19 0.9 Strabo (ca 64 B.C.E.
    [Show full text]
  • False Dilemma Wikipedia Contents
    False dilemma Wikipedia Contents 1 False dilemma 1 1.1 Examples ............................................... 1 1.1.1 Morton's fork ......................................... 1 1.1.2 False choice .......................................... 2 1.1.3 Black-and-white thinking ................................... 2 1.2 See also ................................................ 2 1.3 References ............................................... 3 1.4 External links ............................................. 3 2 Affirmative action 4 2.1 Origins ................................................. 4 2.2 Women ................................................ 4 2.3 Quotas ................................................. 5 2.4 National approaches .......................................... 5 2.4.1 Africa ............................................ 5 2.4.2 Asia .............................................. 7 2.4.3 Europe ............................................ 8 2.4.4 North America ........................................ 10 2.4.5 Oceania ............................................ 11 2.4.6 South America ........................................ 11 2.5 International organizations ...................................... 11 2.5.1 United Nations ........................................ 12 2.6 Support ................................................ 12 2.6.1 Polls .............................................. 12 2.7 Criticism ............................................... 12 2.7.1 Mismatching ......................................... 13 2.8 See also
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of Chemistry, Integrated Science 2, 144 Author Index
    Author Index A Brahe, Tycho, 65 Abegg, Richard, 118 Bunsen, Robert Wilhelm Eberhard, 113 Alexander the Great, 32 Butlerov, Aleksandr Mihajlovič, 89 Alkindus, al-Sabah, 40 Al-Ihmimi, 40 C Al-Razi, Abu Bekr Muhammad ibn Zakariyya, Cannizzaro, Stanislao, 111 42 Carnap, Rudolf, 10 Al-Sabah, Abu Jusuf Jakub ibn Ishak, Cartesius, René Descartes, 48 Alkindus, 40 Carus, Titus, Lucretius, 27 Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, 24 Cavendish, Henry, 59 Anaximander of Miletus, 21 Cimabue (painter), 25 Anaximenes of Miletus, 21 Cleopatra of Alexandria, 35 Angelico, Beato, Fra. Angelico, 25, 26 Comarius, 33 Aquinas, St. Thomas, 25, 43 Comenius, Jan Amoš Komenski, 52 Aristotle of Stagira, 22 Comte, Auguste, 10 Arrhenius, Svante August, 109 Copernicus, Nicolaus, 11 Averroes, Ibn-Ružd, 40 Cosimo il Vecchio, 48 Avicena, Ibn-Sina, 40 Couper, Archibald Scott, 89 Avogadro, Amedeo, 111 Cram, Donald James, 133 Crum Brown, Alexander, 90 B Bacon, Roger, Doctor Mirabilis, 43 D Balaban, Alexandru, 114 Dalton, John, 74 Bayen, Pierre, 57 Davy, Humphry, 85 Bellosztenecz, Ivan, 27 Democritus of Abdera, 24 Berthollet, Claude Louis, 69, 75 de Morveau, Louis-Bernard Guyton, 69 Berzelius, Jöns Jacob, 28, 81 Descartes, René, Cartesius, 48 Biot, Jean Baptist, 105 Döbereiner, Johan, 97 Black, Joseph, 59 Doctor Mirabilis, Roger Bacon, 43 Boerhaave, Hermann, 49 Duhem, Pierre, 11, 12 Bohr, Niels, 118 Dumas, Jean Baptiste Andre, 85 Bolus of Mendes, 35 Born, Max, 108 E Bošković, Rugjer Josip, 50 Eco, Umberto, 41 Boyle, Robert, 53, 60 Empedocles of Akragas (Agrigento), 21 Bragg, Sir William Henry, 114 Epicurus of Samos, 26 Bragg, Sir William Lawrence, 114 Euler, Leonhard, 103 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer 143 Nature Switzerland AG 2021 H.
    [Show full text]
  • Explorations in Ancient and Modern Philosophy: Volume 1 M
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-75072-1 - Explorations in Ancient and Modern Philosophy: Volume 1 M. F. Burnyeat Frontmatter More information EXPLORATIONS IN ANCIENT AND MODERN PHILOSOPHY M. F. Burnyeat taught for fourteen years in the Philosophy Depart- ment of University College London, and then for eighteen years in the Classics Faculty at Cambridge, twelve of them as the Laurence Professor of Ancient Philosophy, before migrating to Oxford in 1996 to become a Senior Research Fellow in Philosophy at All Souls Col- lege. The studies, articles and reviews collected in these two volumes of Explorations in Ancient and Modern Philosophy were all written, and all but two published, before that decisive change. Whether designed for a scholarly audience or for a wider public, they range from the Presocratics to Augustine, from Descartes and Bishop Berkeley to Wittgenstein and G. E. Moore. Their subject- matter falls under four main headings: ‘Logic and Dialectic’, and ‘Scepticism Ancient and Modern’, which are contained in this first volume; ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Philosophy and the Good Life’ make up the second volume. The title ‘Explorations’ well expresses Burnyeat’s ability to discover new aspects of familiar texts, new ways of solving old problems. In his hands the history of philosophy becomes itself a philosophical activity. m. f. burnyeat is an Honorary Fellow of Robinson College, Cambridge, and an Emeritus Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford. He is also a Fellow of the British Academy and a Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and was awarded a CBE for his services to scholarship in 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • Dissoi Logoi: Neosophistic Rhetoric and the Possibility of Critical Pedagogy
    CHAPTER ONE Dissoi Logoi: Neosophistic Rhetoric and the Possibility of Critical Pedagogy Some say that the good is one thing and the bad the other, but others say that they are the same, and that a thing might be good for some persons but bad for oth- ers, or at one time good and at another time bad for the same person. —Sprague (279)1 The title of this chapter is taken directly from an anonymous sophistic treatise called Dissoi Logoi, or Dialexeis, and is traced back to the subsequent end of the Peloponnesian War (Sprague 279). I use this treatise as a convenient means to segue into my discussion of the infusion of sophistic rhetorical practices and the- ory into rhetoric and composition. The anonymous author of this treatise articulates the notion of contradiction as an inevitable consequence of discourse, and such notions of inherent contra- dictions have become standard rhetoric, the accepted a priori assumptions of postmodern discourses—an understanding that 1 2 Emancipatory Movements in Composition truth and knowledge are contingent upon circumstance and lan- guage. “Truth,” Richard Rorty writes, “cannot be out there— cannot exist independently of the human mind—because sen- tences cannot so exist or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not”(5). This chapter will explore how the convergence of sophistic rhetoric with contemporary composition theory helps us to envision an alternate discourse model, based on notions of logos, antilogike, mythos, and ethos. Let me begin with a disclaimer about my employment of sophistic rhetoric as a springboard for discussion about cultural studies, feminism, postcolonial studies, and composition: as Edward Schiappa has pointed out, scholars do not know exactly who the sophists were nor what unified their particular rhetoric as specifically “sophistic” (“Sophistic” 5).
    [Show full text]
  • Early Greek Ethics
    Comp. by: SatchitananthaSivam Stage : Proof ChapterID: 0004760437 Date:25/2/20 Time:13:07:47 Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0004760437.3D Dictionary : NOAD_USDictionary 3 OUP UNCORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FIRST PROOF, 25/2/2020, SPi Early Greek Ethics Edited by DAVID CONAN WOLFSDORF 1 Comp. by: SatchitananthaSivam Stage : Proof ChapterID: 0004760437 Date:25/2/20 Time:13:07:47 Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0004760437.3D Dictionary : NOAD_USDictionary 5 OUP UNCORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FIRST PROOF, 25/2/2020, SPi Table of Contents Abbreviations ix Chapter Abstracts and Contributor Information xiii Introduction xxvii David Conan Wolfsdorf PART I INDIVIDUALS AND TEXTS 1. The Pythagorean Acusmata 3 Johan C. Thom 2. Xenophanes on the Ethics and Epistemology of Arrogance 19 Shaul Tor 3. On the Ethical Dimension of Heraclitus’ Thought 37 Mark A. Johnstone 4. Ethics and Natural Philosophy in Empedocles 54 John Palmer 5. The Ethical Life of a Fragment: Three Readings of Protagoras’ Man Measure Statement 74 Tazuko A. van Berkel 6. The Logos of Ethics in Gorgias’ Palamedes, On What is Not, and Helen 110 Kurt Lampe 7. Responsibility Rationalized: Action and Pollution in Antiphon’s Tetralogies 132 Joel E. Mann 8. Ethical and Political Thought in Antiphon’s Truth and Concord 149 Mauro Bonazzi 9. The Ethical Philosophy of the Historical Socrates 169 David Conan Wolfsdorf 10. Prodicus on the Choice of Heracles, Language, and Religion 195 Richard Bett 11. The Ethical Maxims of Democritus of Abdera 211 Monte Ransome Johnson 12. The Sophrosynē of Critias: Aristocratic Ethics after the Thirty Tyrants 243 Alex Gottesman Comp. by: SatchitananthaSivam Stage : Proof ChapterID: 0004760437 Date:25/2/20 Time:13:07:48 Filepath:d:/womat-filecopy/0004760437.3D Dictionary : NOAD_USDictionary 6 OUP UNCORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FIRST PROOF, 25/2/2020, SPi vi 13.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Groningen Moses/Musaeus/Mochos and His
    University of Groningen Moses/Musaeus/Mochos and his God Yahweh, Iao, and Sabaoth, seen from a Graeco- Roman perspective van Kooten, G.H. Published in: The revelation of the name YHWH to Moses IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2006 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): van Kooten, G. H. (2006). Moses/Musaeus/Mochos and his God Yahweh, Iao, and Sabaoth, seen from a Graeco-Roman perspective. In G. H. V. Kooten (Ed.), The revelation of the name YHWH to Moses: Perspectives from Judaism, the pagan Graeco-Roman world, and early christianity (pp. 107-138). (Themes in Biblical Narrative; No. 9). Brill. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license. More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne- amendment. Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
    [Show full text]