The article discusses two passages,Republic IX 571d6–572b1, andTimaeus71a3–72b5, where Plato does not use dream as a metaphor for the soul’s deficit in knowledge but, instead, focuses on the actual process of dreaming during sleep, and the origin and nature of the images involved. In both texts, Plato’s account is closely connected to the soul’s tripartition, with the resulting emphasis on reason’s capacity to control, and even to create, the dream images that influence the lower parts of the soul. While taking (...) a closer look at the differences between the two accounts (and, therefore, at the physiology of dreaming described only in theTimaeus), the article concludes that, despite these differences, both dialogues agree on the possible alliance between reason and dreaming, an alliance that presupposes a virtuous character and further reinforces the reason’s dominance over appetite.Republic IX and theTimaeusthus converge on the idea that dreams, in virtue of their continuity with waking thoughts, can convey and fortify a certain kind of knowledge, and especially self-knowledge, which is of an ethical rather than strictly epistemic relevance. This is also why Plato’s two accounts of rational dreaming anticipate the issue of our moral responsibility for the content of our dreams. (shrink)

In the tripartite psychology of the Republic, Plato characterizes the “spirited” part of the soul as the “ally of reason”: like the auxiliaries of the just city, whose distinctive job is to support the policies and judgments passed down by the rulers, spirit’s distinctive “job” in the soul is to support and defend the practical decisions and commands of the reasoning part. This is to include not only defense against external enemies who might interfere with those commands, but also, and (...) most importantly, defense against unruly appetites within the individual’s own soul.1 Spirit, according to this picture, is by nature reason’s faithful auxiliary in the soul, while appetite is always a potential enemy to be watched .. (shrink)

Una de las cuestiones más discutidas en el debate contemporáneo sobre el Filebo de Platón, es sin duda la de la posibilidad de los placeres falsos. En el contexto de esta discusión ha sido el pasaje 36c-41b, referido en particular a la falsedad de los placeres de expectativa, el que ha suscitado la mayor controversia y una gran variedad de interpretaciones. Las distintas posiciones se distinguen según hagan uso del criterio de verdad “ontológico”, “epistemológico” o “moral” para la comprensión de (...) la falsedad de las expectativas. En este trabajo intento mostrar que una comprensión correcta de los placeres de expectativa debe considerar la interacción de los distintos criterios de verdad y no hacer uso exclusivamente de uno de éstos. Mientras que la verdad ontológica de los placeres sirve a la determinación del contenido de las expectativas, la verdad epistemológica y la verdad moral confluyen en el tipo de verdad específico de este tipo de placeres. Para explicar este concepto de verdad consideraré como modelo la “verdad práctica” de Aristóteles. (shrink)

It seems an odd claim that knowing could be itself of intrinsic worth. Knowledge appears heavily, perhaps entirely reliant for its worth on the value of the objects known and the value of the ends...

This paper puts forward a new interpretation of the argument at Philebus 36c–40d that pleasures can be false. Protarchus raises an objection at 37e–38a, and in response Socrates presents the elaborate painter-scribe analogy. Most previous interpretations do not explain how the analogy answers Protarchus’ objection. On my account, Protarchus’ objection relies on the plausible intuition that pleasure is simply not in the business of assessing the world, and so it cannot be charged with doing so incorrectly. Socrates responds by demonstrating (...) that pleasure can be mistaken about the world, despite not making an independent assessment of it. The painter-scribe analogy demonstrates how pleasure comes to be mistaken about the world by reproducing the mistake of a judgment. Socrates persuades Protarchus that pleasure can be mistaken in part by preserving his intuition that pleasure itself is not the source of the mistake. (shrink)

RESUMEN En este trabajo defendemos la siguiente tesis: la argumentación dada en el Filebo sobre los placeres falsos está fundamentada en la exposición de una fisiología ad hoc del alma. Para desarrollar tal idea realizamos el siguiente recorrido. Primero, exponemos dos definiciones de placer y dolor. Luego pasamos al estudio de los conceptos de memoria, sensación y deseo. Como tercer punto, por una parte, analizamos tres argumentos: el de la semejanza entre placer y opinión, el de los placeres falsos por (...) anticipación y el de los placeres falsos por apariencia sobreestimada. Por otra parte, analizamos, partiendo de la exposición precedente, las definiciones ya dadas de las afecciones psíquicas y las relaciones que tienen entre sí, entendiendo estas definiciones y relaciones como la fisiología del alma. Terminamos explicando qué lugar ocupa esta fisiología dentro del objetivo general del diálogo. ABSTRACT In the present work, we defend the following idea: the argument given in Philebus on false pleasures is based on an ad hoc physiology of the soul. To develop this idea, we proceed as follows: first, we introduce two definitions on pleasure and pain ; after that, we study the concepts of memory, perception, and desire ; thirdly, on one hand, we analyze three arguments: the relation between opinion and pleasure, false pleasures by anticipation, and false pleasures by an overestimated appearance ; on the other hand, we analyze, based on the preceding points, the definitions already given on psychic affections and the relations between them, understanding this definitions and relations as the soul's physiology. We end explaining the place given to this physiology in the dialogue's general frame. (shrink)