El objetivo de este artículo es examinar el papel de la imagen y de la imaginación desde la perspectiva del proceso ternario místico basado en la tradición del Pseudo Dionisio Areopagita. Destaco en este proceso la etapa primera relacionada con la teología simbólica y la experiencia exterior y sensorial; la etapa intermedia relacionada con el conocimiento racional y con la experiencia interior; la etapa tercera relacionada con la teología mística, esto es con la experiencia sobrenatural. Llego a la conclusión de (...) que en la primera etapa la imaginación sobrepasa lo exterior y lo superficial que se le atribuía tradicionalmente, porque varios autores metafísicos y místicos introducen en su contexto un momento de la comprensión intuitiva. En la segunda etapa la imaginación no sólo es un fundamento del pensamiento discursivo, sino que también constituye un ejercicio espiritual que ha de intensificar el proceso pensativo. En la tercera etapa la imagen y la imaginación son un medio que ayuda a vencer la inefabilidad de la experiencia mística. The objective of the article is to examine the role of the image and imagination from the perspective of the tripartite mystical process based on the tradition of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. I distinguish in the first stage of this process the symbolical theology related to the external and sensuous experience; in the second stage the rational cognition and internal experience; in the last stage the mystical theology related to the supranatural experience. I arrive at a conclusion that in the first stage the imagination exceed the exterior and superficial character which was attributed traditionally to it, because various metaphysical and mystical authors introduce in the context of it a moment of a intuitive comprehension. In the second stage it is not only a basis of discursive thinking but it constitutes spiritual exercise which should intensify the process of thinking. In the third stage the image and imagination are a medium which help to overcome the ineffability of the mystical experience. (shrink)

What role, if any, does dialectic play in Aristotle’s epistemology in the Topics? In this paper I argue that it does play a role, but a role that is independent of endoxa. In the first section, I sketch the case for thinking that dialectic plays a distinctively epistemological role—not just a methodological role, or a merely instrumental role in getting episteme. In the second section, I consider three ways it could play that role, on two of which endoxa play at (...) least a co-starring role. But in the third section, I argue that endoxa don’t play that co-starring role, by arguing for a deflationary account of what endoxa are. For that reason, the third view emerges as the most plausible; but the third view is, I’ll suggest, Platonic. (shrink)

Au début du Sophiste, Socrate demande au visiteur éléate ce qu’ont pensé des genres philosophe, sophiste et politique, « ceux » qui sont de ce lieu-là ». L’article a pour but d’éclairer cette dernière expression et en particulier son mot clef « topos ». Il est montré que les significations de ce terme, dans son contexte, sont multiples et que cette diversité, loin d’apporter la confusion, permet au contraire et précisément d’ouvrir les diverses perspectives du dialogue. At the beginning of (...) the Sophist, Socrates asks the Eleatic Visitor how the three kinds Philosopher, Sophist and Statesman, have been understood by “those who are in this place”. The purpose of this paper is to enlighten this periphrasis and specially its key-word “topos”. We have showed that, in its context, this word has four main meanings, and that this diversity, far from causing confusion, opens up the dialogue to various perspectives. (shrink)

The Parmenides poses the question for what entities there are Forms, and the criticism of Forms it contains is commonly supposed to document an ontological reorientation in Plato. According to this reading, Forms no longer express the excellence of a given entity and a Socratic, ethical perspective on life, but come to resemble concepts, or what concepts designate, and are meant to explain nature as a whole. Plato’s conception of dialectic, it is further suggested, consequently changes into a value-neutral method (...) directed at tracing the interrelation of such Forms, an outlook supposedly documented in certain passages on method from the Sophist and the Statesman as well. -/- The article urges that this reading is untenable. For in the Parmenides the question for what entities one should posit Forms is left open, and the passages on method from the Sophist and Statesman neither encourage a non-normative ontology nor a value-neutral method of inquiry. What the three dialogues encourage us to do is rather to set common opinions about the relative worth and value of things aside when conducting ontological inquiries; and this attitude, the article concludes, demonstrates a close kinship, rather than a significant difference, between Plato’s Socrates and his Eleatic philosophers. (shrink)

The aim of the present paper is to determine the Platonic treatment of image. For this purpose, the most relevant sections of four dialogues Republic, Sophist, Cratyilus and Phaedo are analyzed. Textual examination has contributed to detect a distinction that operates in Platonic treatment, namely the difference between 'appearance' and 'image'. While the former is an ontologically loss-making illusion, the latter assumes the role of sensible instantiation of the ideal-intelligible realities. Based on this second kind, Plato has conceived the possibility (...) of an ideal mimesis and a comeback to the knowledge of forms. (shrink)