Xenophon’s conception of the dialectical method shares many similarities with Antisthenes’ point of view regarding the relation between language and reality. The key element supporting this reading is the parallel between Xenophon’s method of dialegein kata genē and Antisthenes’ method of episkepsis tōn onomatōn. In this paper, I claim that a correct understanding of both methods yields a clear structural proximity between the two Socratics on the issue of dialectics. Although they present some significant differences, which I will also explore, (...) I will argue that both variants express a single Socratic motive with regard to dialectics. That is that dialectics, in its basic structure, consists of organizing reality through discourse in order to make it comprehensible. In particular, this is done through establishing unified instances capable of comprehending a multiplicity. This nuclear position could also be extended to include middle Plato’s concept of dialectics. This concurrence takes up different forms in Plato, Xenophon and Antisthenes. Nevertheless, they share the same structure, which indicates quite plausibly a major characteristic of Socratic philosophies, as opposed to previous attempts by the Presocratics and the Sophists. (shrink)

Bryson of Heraclea and Polyxenus have received little attention from scholars. Sources on these philosophers are few and difficult to interpret. However, they present interesting dialectical arguments that concern some of Plato’s and Aristotle’s most important theoretical elaborations: Bryson’s arguments on the issue of semantic ambiguity were explicitly discussed by Aristotle, and Polyxenus is credited with a particular version of the Third Man argument. My purpose in this paper is to reconstruct the historical background of these two philosophers and to (...) analyze the philosophical implications of the arguments that the ancient tradition ascribes to them. (shrink)

Martin Heidegger’s influence over the contemporary philosophical landscape is indisputable. However, it is not always clear what the point is in his understanding of philosophy as ontology, namely, as a question about the being. In order to clarify this, and mostly by using a vocabulary different from Heidegger’s, in this paper I offer my interpretation of his philosophy as a non-positive form of ontological investigation. That is to say, as a question about the being that rejects any attempt of an (...) answer. In order to achieve this goal, I consider two structural aspects of Heidegger’s thinking: its object, and its condition. (shrink)