This work articulates two thesis: one Socratic and one Platonic; and displays how the first one is heir of the second. The Socratic one is called the principle of priority of definition; the Platonic one is the Recollection theory. The articulation between both theses is possible due to the Meno’s paradox, which makes a criticism on the first thesis, but it is solved with the second one. The consequence of this articulation is a new interpretation of the Recollection theory, as (...) a theory of knowledge acquisition that depends, mainly, on a distinction between knowledge and true opinion. To conclude, a new interpretation of the knowledge/true opinion distinction is displayed –not in the traditional fashion, evaluating the propositions one by one, and in an atomic way–, but as big blocks or chains of propositions shaping knowledge through explanatory reasoning (aitías logismós). (shrink)

ABSTRACT: I argue that Socrates employs both elenchus and the method of hypothesis in the examination of the slave. I show that the elenchus is a necessary step of the inquiry. Being reduced to ignorance, Socrates tacitly uses the method of hypothesis to move the slave from ignorance to correct opinion. I tease this out from the questions Socrates asks. Although the method of hypothesis begins from a question distinct from elenchus, the solution to the problem leads the slave to (...) answer the original question. The examination shows that the two methods can be employed in a sustained inquiry. (shrink)

Recollection is central to the epistemology of Plato’sMeno. After all, the character Socrates claims that recollection is the process whereby embodied human souls bind down true opinions (doxai) and acquire knowledge (epistêmê). This paper examines the exchange between Socrates and Meno’s slave to determine (1) what steps on the path to acquiring knowledge are part of the process of recollection and (2) what is required for a subject to count as having recollected something. I argue that the key to answering (...) these questions is to get clear on the kind of process recollection is supposed to be. In particular, I argue that recollection is a process akin to the kind of process Aristotle calls “changes” (kinêseisor incompleteenergeiai). The key feature of such processes is that they aim at an end beyond themselves and are not complete until that end comes about. In the case of recollection, the end is knowledge, but inferior mental states, such as false opinion, puzzlement (aporia), and true opinion can come about because of a process of recollection without making it the case that the subject has recollected anything. I argue that this interpretation provides a textually supported and philosophically coherent understanding of Socrates’ conception of recollection. (shrink)

Starohelenska etika nosila je u svom predanju protivrjecan odnos u razumjevanju vrline kao kljucnog pojma na kojem se zasniva polis i politika. Na izostravanju i objelodanjavanju ove protivrjecnosti umnogome je doprinjela sofistika koja je mjerilom racionalnosti uocavala ona filosofski nedovoljno razjasnjena mjesta u starohelenskoj slici svijeta. Da bi razrjesio protivrjecnost nastalu iz nacelnog tradicionalnog stava da se vrlina ne moze nauciti i stava da je vrlina povezana sa znanjem, Platon uvodi u razmatranje pojam sjecanja. Sjecanje postaje sredisnja tacka u Platonovom (...) prevazilazenju navedene protivrjecnosti. Razmatraju se dva oblika sjecanja, ono koje je univerzalno ali i time samo potencijalno dato, i ono koje je djelatno i koje vodi do teorije ideja koja odredjuje sta jeste vrlina. PR Projekat Ministarstva nauke Republike Srbije, br. 179049. (shrink)