The inclusion of De astrologia in the Lucianic corpus has been disputed for centuries since it appears to defend astrological practices that Lucian elsewhere undercuts. This paper argues for Lucian’s authorship by illustrating its masterful subversion of a captatio benevolentiae and subtle rejection of Stoic astrological practices. The narrator begins the text by blaming phony astrologers and their erroneous predictions for inciting others to “denounce the stars and hate astrology” (ἄστρων τε κατηγοροῦσιν καὶ αὐτὴν ἀστρολογίην μισέουσιν, 2). The narrator assures (...) readers that he, the knowledgeable astrologer, will correct for the “stupidity and laziness” (ἀμαθίῃ καὶ ῥαθυμίῃ, ibid.) that bring about false predictions. The narrator’s credibility quickly decays when he attempts to recast Orpheus, Bellerophon, Icarus, Daedalus, and a host of other mythological figures as Greek astrologers. Lucian’s audience would expect such far-fetched interpretations of myth from the stereotypical Stoic philosopher, a character lampooned elsewhere in the Lucianic corpus. (shrink)

In the Theaetetus Socrates provides an elaboration and discussion of Protagoras’ measure doctrine, grounding it in a “secret doctrine” of flux. This paper argues that the anthropology of the myth in the Protagoras provides an earlier, very different way to explain the measure doctrine, focusing on its application to civic values, such as “just,” “fine,” and “pious.” The paper shows that Protagoras’ explanation of the dual etiology of virtue – that it is acquired both by nature and by nurture – (...) tracks the two meanings of “anthropos” in his formulation of the measure doctrine, as “humankind” and “individual human.” On Protagoras’ account, humankind’s survival can be explained by the fact that humans share shame and justice, which enables them to live together in cities. (shrink)

Epistemoloji alanında bilginin iki temel düşünce üzerinden günümüze kadar geldiği bilinen bir husustur. Bu düşüncelerden ilkini ve en önemlisini oluşturan Platon felsefesi, mutlakçı kanadı temsil edenken Protagoras felsefesi rölativist bir yapıyı dillendirir. Her iki yapı arasındaki karşılaştırmanın birbirinden bağımsız kaynaklardan hareketle yapılamaması, Protagoras felsefesinin açık bir şekilde anlaşılmasını engellemektedir. Çünkü bu felsefenin anlaşılması, muhalif kanatta yer alan Platon’un eserlerinden hareketle gerçekleştirilmektedir. Bu durum, Platon’un hangi Protagoras’ı eserlerinde işlediği sorusunu gündeme getirir. Bu sorunun yanlış anlama veya yanlış aktarma şeklinde iki temel (...) problem üzerinden işlenmesi her iki düşüncenin hem Platon’un eserlerinde hem de söz konusu aktarımların dışında nasıl bir çerçeveye sahip olduğunu tartışmaya açar. Bu çalışmamızın amacı da Platon’un Theaetetus diyalogunda ele aldığı Protagoras felsefesinin tarihsel açıdan gerçek Protagoras’ın düşüncelerine karşılık gelip gelmediğini incelemek ve her iki filozofun ayrıştığı noktaları ön plana çıkarmaktır. Bu noktada temel ayrımın bilgi ve algı kavramları üzerinden ortaya çıktığı ve bu durumun mutlakçı ve rölativist yaklaşımlarla doğrudan ilişkili olduğu belirtilmelidir. (shrink)

The great speech of the Protagoras still leaves many questions open. Particularly striking is the presence of doctrines that later on will be taken up and further developed by Plato in such dialogues as the Politicus, the Timaeus and the Laws. For this reason, many scholars tend to think that the words of Protagoras are just a product of Plato’s invention that bear no relation to Protagoras’ actual doctrines. Nevertheless, it is possible to propose a different interpretation. At the beginning (...) of the Protagoras, Socrates develops the image of the sophist as the merchant of various μαθήματα: to sell his products, the sophist praises them all indiscriminately without knowing which of them are useful and which are harmful. But he who has the ability to make this distinction can still purchase the μαθήματα from Protagoras or anyone else. Through the dialectic, Plato is able to examine them without any danger in the Protagoras and then take them up and further develop in new ways in his later dialogues. (shrink)

This catalogue is divided into two parts. Part 1 presents basic bibliographical information on books and journal issues that consist exclusively or in large part in papers devoted to the Presocratics and the Sophists. Part 2 lists the papers on Presocratic and Sophistic topics found in the volumes, providing name of author, title, and page numbers, and in the case of reprinted papers, the year of original publication. In some cases Part 2 lists the complete contents of volumes, not only (...) the Presocratic and Sophistic-related papers. Annual updates are submitted as additional files below. (shrink)

En el presente trabajo intentaremos poner en evidencia un singular enfoque sobre la pólis ateniense ofrecido por Protágoras en el diálogo platónico que lleva su nombre. Dicho enfoque, soslayado por los intérpretes, hace hincapié en la dimensión visual de la praxis política de los ciudadanos y es coherente con los posicionamientos ontológicos que emergen de los fragmentos del sofista.