The Uses of Refutation and the Postulation of Unhypothetical Principles in Republic VI-VII and the Sophist
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249X_32_13Keywords:
methodology, refutation, unhypothetical, Republic, SophistAbstract
Following the proposal of interpreters who deal with the continuity of Plato’s methodology throughout his work, this paper will consider the Sophist dialogue as a convergence point for the Socratic refutation and for the hypothetical method displayed in Republic. Specifically, we will try to identify in this dialogue the highest point of the said method, i.e. the non-hypothetical principle mentioned by Socrates. In addition, this task will lead us to consider, on one hand, the relationship between Plato and his master and, on the other, the place the Sophist and his main interlocutor, the Eleatic Stranger, deserve within the framework of Plato’s philosophical project.Downloads
References
ACKRILL, J. (1957). Plato and the Copula: Sophist 251-259. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 77, p. 1-7.
ADAM, J. (1902). The Republic of Plato, 2 vols. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
ÁLVAREZ, L. (2016). La función propedéutica del sofista y la emergencia del filósofo. División, dialéctica y paradigmas en el diálogo Sofista. Areté 28, n. 2, p. 337-366.
AMBUEL, D. (2007). Image and Paradigm in Plato’s Sophist. Las Vegas, Parmenides Publishing.
ANNAS, J. (1981). An Introduction to Plato’s Republic. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
BAILEY, D. (2006). Plato and Aristotle on the Unhypothetical. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy XXX, p. 101-26.
BALTZLY, D. (1996). ‘To an Unhypothetical First Principle’ in Plato’s Republic. History of Philosophy Quarterly 13, p. 149-65.
BALTZLY, D. (1999). Aristotle and Platonic Dialectic in Metaphysics IV 4. Apeiron 32, p. 171-202.
BEDU-ADDO, J. (1978). Mathematics, Dialectic and the Good in the Republic VI-VII. Platon 30, p. 111-27.
BENSON, H. (2015). Clitophon’s Challenge. Dialectic in Plato’s Meno, Phaedo, and Republic. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
BLUCK, R. (1975). Plato’s Sophist, Manchester, Manchester University Press.
BOERI, M. (2017). Dialéctica, pensamiento ‘intuitivo’ y ‘discursivo’ en Platón. Tópicos 52, p. 11-42.
BROWN, L. (2011). The Sophist on statements, predication, and falsehood. In: FINE, G. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Plato. Oxford, OUP, p. 437-62.
CASTAGNOLI, J. (2010). Ancient Self-Refutation: The Logic and History of the Self-Refutation Argument from Democritus to Augustine, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
COOPER, N. (1966). The Importance of Dianoia in Plato’s Theory of Forms. Classical Quarterly 16, p. 65-69.
CORDERO, N. (ed.) (1988): Platón. El Sofista. Madrid, Gredos.
Cordero, N. (2016). Platón contra Platón. La autocrítica del Parménides y la ontología del Sofista. Buenos Aires, Editorial Biblos.
CORNFORD, F. (1935). Plato's Theory of Knowledge, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul (citamos según trad. esp. de CORDERO, N.; LIGATTO, M. [2007]. La teoría platónica del conocimiento, Buenos Aires, Paidós).
CRIVELLI, P. (2012). Plato's Account of Falsehood: A Study of the Sophist, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
CROSS, R.; WOOZLEY, A. (1964). Plato’s Republic: A Philosophical Commentary, London, Macmillan.
DENYER, N. (2007). Sun and Line: The Role of the Good. In: FERRARI, G. (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Plato’s Republic. New York, CUP, p. 284-309.
DIVENOSA, M.; MÁRSICO, C. (eds.) (2005). Platón. República. Buenos Aires, Losada.
DIXSAUT, M. (2001). Métamorphoses de la dialectique dans les dialogues de Platon, Paris, Vrin.
EGGERS LAN, C. (ed.) (1993). Platón. Fedón. Buenos Aires, Eudeba.
FINE, G. (1990). Knowledge and Belief in Republic V-VII. In: Everson, S. (ed.). Epistemology. Cambridge, CUP, p. 85-115.
FRONTEROTTA, F. (ed.) (2007). Platone. Sofista. Milano, Biblioteca Universale Rizzoli.
GILL, M. (2012). Philosophos. Plato’s Missing Dialogue. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
GÓMEZ-LOBO, A. (1977). Plato’s Description of Dialectic in the Sophist 253d1-e2. Phronesis 22, n. 1, p. 29-47.
GONZALEZ, F. (1998). Dialectic and Dialogue. Plato’s practice of Philosophical Inquiry. Evanston, Northwestern University Press.
GUTHRIE, W. (1978). A history of greek philosophy. Volume V. The later Plato and The Academy. Cambridge, CUP (citamos según trad. esp. de: Medina González, A. [1992]. Historia de la filosofía griega V. Platón. Segunda época y la Academia. Madrid, Gredos).
HESTIR, B. (2016). Plato on the Metaphysical Foundation of Meaning and Truth. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
KAHN, C. (1996). Plato and The Socratic Dialogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MARCOS, G. (1993). Symploké en el Sofista de Platón. Su posibilidad y alcance. Cuadernos de Filosofía 39, p. 55-71.
MARCOS, G. (2017). Lenguaje y ser en Platón. Sobre cómo refutar a un adversario radical. Hypnos 39, n. 2, p. 141-159.
MARCOS, G. (2020). La crítica de Platón a los matemáticos que toman las hipótesis por principios (República VI-VII). Una interpretación a la luz de la metáfora del sueño. Plato Journal 20, p. 65-78.
MARCOS, G. (2022). Dialectic and Refutation in Plato. On the Role of Refutation in the Search for Truth. Archai 32.
MÁRSICO, C.; DIVENOSA, M. (2003). Platón. Alegorías del sol, la línea y la caverna. Buenos Aires, Losada.
MIGLIORI, M. (2009). El esquema ontoepistemológico de la Línea. Areté XXI, n. 1, p. 197-219.
MOVIA, G. (1991). Apparenze, essere e verità. Comentario storico-filosofico al Sofista di Platone. Milano, Vita e Pensiero.
MUELLER, I. (1992). Mathematical Method and Philosophical Truth. In: KRAUT, R. (ed.). The Cambridge Campanion to Plato. Cambridge, CUP, p. 170–99.
MURPHY, N. (1951). The Interpretation of Plato’s Republic. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
NORIEGA-OLMOS, S. (2012). Plato’s Sophist 259E4-6. Journal of Ancient Philosophy VI, n. 2, p. 1-35.
NOTOMI, N. (1999). The unity of Plato’s Sophist. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
PALUMBO, L. (1994). Il non essere e l’aparenza. Sul Sofista di Platone. Napoli, Loffredo Editore.
PECK, A. (1962). Plato’s Sophist: The συμπλοκὴ τῶν εἰδῶν. Phronesis 7, n. 1, p. 46–66.
REEVE, C. (1988). Philosopher-Kings: The Argument of Plato’s Republic. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
REEVE, C. (2001). The Role of TEXNH in Plato’s Conception of Philosophy. Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy. Leiden, Brill, p. 207-22.
REPELLINI, F. (2003). La linea e la caverna. In: VEGETTI, M. (ed.). Platone. La Reppubblica. Vol. V. Libro VI-VII. Napoli, Bibliopolis, p. 355-404.
ROBINSON, R. (1953). Plato’s Earlier Dialectic. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
ROSEN, S. (1983). Plato’s Sophist. The Dream of Original and Image. Londres, New Haven.
ROWE, C. (2007). Plato and the Art of Philosophical Writing. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
SASSO, G. (1991). L'essere e la differenze. Sul Sofista di Platone. Bologna, Il Mulino
SAYRE, K. (1995). Plato's Literary Garden. How to read a platonic dialogue. Indiana, Notre Dame Press.
SAYRE, K. (2016). Dialectic in Plato’s Late Dialogues. Plato Journal 16, p. 81-9.
SELIGMAN, P. (1974). Being and Not-Being. An Introduction to Plato's Sophist. The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff.
SPANGENBERG, P. (2018). Antecedentes de algunos lineamientos de la estrategia de Aristóteles frente al negador del Principio de no Contradicción en el Sofista de Platón. Elenchos 38, p. 83-105.
STENZEL, J. (1931). Studien zur Entwicklung der platonischen Dialektik von Sokrates zu Aristoteles. Stuttgart, Teubner.
VALLEJO CAMPOS, Á. (2018). Adonde nos lleve el lógos. Para leer la República de Platón. Madrid, Trotta.
VEGETTI, M. (2003a). Dialettica. In: VEGETTI, M. (ed.): Platone. La Repubblica. Vol. V. Napoli, Bibliopolis, p. 405-34.
VEGETTI, M. (2003b). Quindici lezioni su Platone. Torino, Einaudi.
VEGETTI, M. (ed.) (2018). Platone. La Repubblica. Milano, Bur.
ZACKS, N. (2018). Socratic Elenchus in the Sophist. Apeiron 51, p. 1-20.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Lucas Álvarez
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Given the public access policy of the journal, the use of the published texts is free, with the obligation of recognizing the original authorship and the first publication in this journal. The authors of the published contributions are entirely and exclusively responsible for their contents.
1. The authors authorize the publication of the article in this journal.
2. The authors guarantee that the contribution is original, and take full responsibility for its content in case of impugnation by third parties.
3. The authors guarantee that the contribution is not under evaluation in another journal.
4. The authors keep the copyright and convey to the journal the right of first publication, the work being licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License-BY.
5. The authors are allowed and stimulated to publicize and distribute their work on-line after the publication in the journal.
6. The authors of the approved works authorize the journal to distribute their content, after publication, for reproduction in content indexes, virtual libraries and similars.
7. The editors reserve the right to make adjustments to the text and to adequate the article to the editorial rules of the journal.
