The paper explores Plato’s Statesman in the perspective of its philosophical unity and autonomy. The relevance of this approach arises from the problem posed by the traditional readings of the Statesman – the developmental and unitarian. Both methods interpret the Statesman in the context of Plato’s major political dialogues of, the Republic and the Laws, thus preventing the exposing of the internal theoretical coherence of the dialogue. Hence this paper focuses on the analysis of the main political themes of the (...) dialogue – conflict, statesmanship, and political knowledge – and their relations to each other. By discussing the emergence of the political and its importance for conceptualizing political practice, as well as by indicating the structural elements of statesmanship, the author of the paper argues that the Statesman contains a coherent and internally completed political theory. (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)

The present chapter investigates Heidegger's early understanding of Platonic dialectic in its contrast to sophistry as this comes to expression in his lectures on Plato's Sophist.

Plato's entire body of work has survived intact to this day, decisively influencing Western culture. For Plato, dialogue is the only tool capable of highlighting the research character of philosophy, the key element of his thinking. Certainly the written word is more precise and in-depth than the oral one, but the oral discourse allows an immediate exchange of views on the subject under discussion. The main protagonist of the dialogues is Socrates, except for the last dialogues where he is assigned (...) a secondary role, disappearing completely in Laws and Epinomis. Platonic dialogues have been grouped by many commentators in various classifications. According to some, a classification would be chronological: the first dialogues would be characterized by the strong influence of Socrates, those of maturity in which he would have developed the theory of ideas, and the last period in which he felt the need to defend his own conception from attacks on the address of his philosophy, realizing a deep self-criticism of the theory of Ideas. -/- DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27508.01922. (shrink)

Plato’s dialogues can be regarded as the most important documents of the extraordinary mimetic power of visual writing, i.e., writing capable of “showing” and “drawing images” by using words only. Thanks to the great lesson of the Attic theater, Plato makes his readers see: when reading the dialogues, they see not only the characters talking but owing to the visual power of mimetic writing, they also see that which the characters are actually talking about. There are numerous rhetorical devices employed (...) by Plato the writer that make this visual rendering of philosophy possible. In this text, I would like to bring an example from the Meno that illustrates the visual power of an implicit comparison. By “implicit comparison”, I mean the special kind of comparison that is not presented explicitly and fully in the text but that the text merely evokes and that, once evoked, contributes to determining the formation of the image. (shrink)

The text of Sophist 237-9 is aporetic and shares with many other dialogues this structure: A question is asked and an answer, given in a single sentence, is reached and accepted by the interlocutor. The the interlocutor is examined further and his assent undermined. I argue that the Stranger does not share Theaetetus' perplexity and holds the rejected answer. I explain the Stranger's behavior by appealing to his pedagogy.

Cette étude tâche de dégager la double signification de la philosophie socratique comprise comme philosophie politique à l’aide d’une interprétation des Amoureux rivaux. Le refus d’accorder à ce court dialogue socratique une affiliation au corpus platonicien a jeté injustement de l’ombre sur la pertinence de son contenu : le discrédit des Amoureux rivaux a quelques limites qu’il est bon de montrer. La structure soignée du dialogue, qu’il est possible de mettre en lumière au moyen du Phèdre, invite à une interprétation (...) attentive de cette architecture. Une telle lecture permet d’expliciter la parenté entre la philosophie et la politique dans la philosophie socratique. Les Amoureux rivaux présente deux dimensions politiques de la philosophie : une philosophie qui s’oppose à la philosophie physiologique en constituant plutôt un questionnement sur l’homme qui s’exprime dans un mode de vie réflexif, de même qu’une politique du dialogue, c’est-à-dire une bonne gouverne de la communauté dialectique. (shrink)