The framework of this paper is a defence of Burnet's construal ofApology30b 2-4. Socrates does not claim, as he is standardly translated, that virtue makes you rich, but that virtue makes money and everything else good for you. This view of the relation between virtue and wealth is paralleled in dialogues of every period, and a sophisticated development of it appears in Aristotle. My philological defence of the philosophically preferable translation extends recent scholarly work on εἶναι in Plato and Aristotle (...) to γίγνεσθαι, which is the main verb in the disputed sentence. When attached to a subject, both verbs make a complete statement on their own, but a statement that is further completableby adding a complement. The important point is that the addition of a complement does not change the meaning of the verb from existence to the copula. Proving this is a lengthy task which takes me into some of the deeper reaches of Platonic and Aristotelian ontology, and into discussion of whether Greek ever acquired a verb that corresponds to modern verbs of existence. I conclude that even when later authors such as Philo Judaeus, Sextus Empiricus and Plotinus debate what we naturally translate as issues of existence, none of the verbs they use can be said to have existential meaning. (shrink)

There seems to be tension between portrayals of Socrates as both a committed philosopher and a pious man. For instance, one might doubt Socrates’ commitment to philosophy since he seems to irrationally defer to a daimonion. On the other hand, the fact that he challenges messages from Oracles and the gods’ role concerning the origin of the pious draws into question Socrates’ piety. In this paper, I argue that Socratic piety and rationality are not only compatible, but they are also (...) symbiotic. Socrates could not be rational without being pious, nor could he be pious without being rational because, for him, care and curiosity are intimately intertwined. In this regard, Socrates’ epistemology, when applied, resembles Karl Popper’s falsificationism. For Socrates, maintaining human wisdom amounts to regular purification of one’s belief-system. In addition, this maintenance is functionally identical to caring for one’s soul, which is morally imperative. (shrink)

How is a legislator to harness the positive cohesive power of religion without falling prey to a charge of hypocrisy? As with so many theoretical puzzles, it was Plato who first recognized this paradox of civil religion. Consequently, the multi-tiered religion he proposes in the Laws should be understood as western thought’s first attempt to solve this problem. At the centre of the Laws stands a single icon – the sun – that fits within both the Olympian schema of polis-religion (...) and a naturalistic, rationalist account persuasive to the more philosophically minded. Using the language and imagery of solar worship, Plato designed a shared ‘civil religion’, that can reasonably claim to link the social forms of political life to the higher truths of reason, even if not all the city’s citizens will mean the same thing when they speak of the god and his rites. (shrink)

This article argues for two theses: first, that Plato’s Apology is not directed to the Athenian public in general, but to an elite audience. Second, that because of this fact, the argument advanced by Vlastos that the Apology must be close to the historical defence of Socrates, because Plato could not present a fictional Socrates to his compatriots, is not compelling. The paper looks at the way Plato’s Socrates responds to the religious charges and concludes that he successfully refutes the (...) charge of atheism but evades the charge of heterodoxy. Although sufficient from a legal point of view and from the perspective of a highly educated audience, Socrates’ defence against the religious charges is actually ineffective from the point of view of the average Athenian. Burnyeat is therefore right to say that the Athenians correctly convicted Socrates of heterodoxy. This fact, along with Ledger’s recent stylometric evidence which places the Apology in 387 BC, effectively making it a middle dialogue, indicates that the work may never have been meant as a reasonably close reiteration of what Socrates said in his trial. On the question of the historicity of the Apology, then, the only reasonable response is to remain agnostic. (shrink)

Socrates was convicted of corrupting the youth and of not believing in the city’s gods. Scholars disagree about whether the main problem was religion or politics and, if religion, whether it was heterodoxy or heteropraxy, atheism or heresy. This paper focuses on an aspect of this debate, namely, the controversy about whether Socrates’ moral theology was a significant factor in the trial. It argues that while Vlastos and Burnyeat fail to show that Socrates’moral theology was a factor, the arguments for (...) the opposing side are problematic as well. While the belief inmoral gods in itself probably was not sufficiently disturbing to result in a trial, its implications for patriotism and for divine power over humans could have been troubling enough to contribute to Socrates being brought to trial. (shrink)

The paper proposes rethinking our understanding of God and divinity by reflecting on Socrates' and Martin Heidegger's understanding of what is divine.

Is the holy holy because the gods love it or do the gods love it because it is holy? On the basis of this dilemma Plato works out the manifold and complex relationship between God and Morality in his dialogue Euthyphro. This dialogue not only plays a central role within Plato’s work on the question of the relationship between ethics and religion, but it also represents the starting point of the entire further Western debate about God and Morality. This article (...) gives a basic interpretation of the text, situates the dilemma within the dialogue, traces its character, intention, and structure, unfolds the course of the argument, and offers a brief outlook on its reception. (shrink)

It has been an interpretative dogma to condemn Euthyphro's attempt to account for piety in terms of the gods' wishes as one totally repudiated by Socrates, and in itself untenable. Still at 15c8-9 Socrates expresses some scepticism about whether his refutation of Euthyphro's original account of piety in terms of what the gods love has established that it must be abandoned altogether. He then goes on to say that he and Euthyphro ought to investigate again (πάλιν σ[unrepresentable symbol]επτέον), from the (...) beginning (ἀξ ἀρχ[unrepresentable symbol]ς), what piety is (15c11-12), which may be taken to imply that Euthyphro's original account should be revisited. Interpreting Socrates' refutation of that account as having shown that it is one he rejects completely implies that no weight should be attached to Socrates' later reservations, even though he exhibits considerable care in expressing them. Unfortunately, as I argue, this interpretative stand has not brought us any closer to understanding the conception of piety Plato may be attributing to Socrates. If only for the purpose of interpretative completeness, we owe it to Plato actually to do as Socrates suggests at the end of the dialogue that one ought to, and revisit Euthyphro's thesis. In this paper, I propose to break ranks with the dogma. Instead, I follow Socrates' recommendation at 15c11 that we should look into what piety is from the beginning, simply to examine whether there are any insights that might be uncovered by doing so. (shrink)

Series of articles about Plato's dialogue "Theaetetus".

Normal 0 21 false false false PT-BR X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Le concept de loi socratique a depuis toujours été l´objet decontroverses, principalement en raison des tentatives pour expliquerson attitude lors de son jugement, son emprisonnementet son exécution. Toute la difficulté de concilier entreeux les différents textes sur la philosophie et la vie de Socrate,naturellement ressort à propos des circonstances de sa condamnationet de sa mort. Si, dans l´état actuel de notre documentation,il paraît impossible d´apporter une solution définitive,néanmoins une possibilité d´en (...) atténuer les contradictions résidedans l´examen du fonctionnement de la méthode socratiqueà partir de ses fondements: le dialogue comme moyend´un accord, non seulement entre les citoyens d´Athènes,mais entre ceux-ci et le propre ordre universel, lequel se dessineda la recherche humaine de la justice et du bien commun. (shrink)

El choque entre el éthos cívico y las tendencias individuales de los ciudadanos en la Atenas clásica muestra cómo la ciudad hizo frente al reto que suponían algunas opiniones individuales en relación con la cohesión cívica. Mi análisis pretende ilustrar este enfrentamiento tomando como referencia la figura que de Sócrates establece la Apología de Platón; en concreto, su comportamiento ante el tribunal puede arrojar luz sobre cuál podía ser el efecto de ciertas actitudes individuales en el seno del éthos ateniense. (...) El presente estudio no pretende alcanzar un conocimiento en profundidad de la vida política en la pólis ateniense sino más bien ofrecer una reflexión sobre la compleja relación existente entre el individuo y el estado. (shrink)