Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 6

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Alcibiades
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
Peitho. Examina Antiqua
|
2017
|
vol. 8
|
issue 1
225-236
EN
Several key lines concerning the relationship between Socrates and Alcibiades, extracted from the Symposium and the Alcibiades 1, are discussed for the purpose of detecting the epistemic value that Plato attributed to eros in his new model of education. As result of this analysis, I argue for the philosophical significance of the relationship between Socrates and Alcibiades as a clear example – even when failed – of the epistemic role of eros in the dialogically extended knowledge.
EN
Plato and the Platonists presented different positions on philosophical education. This paper explores the views of Olympiodorus, a 6th-century AD Platonist, on education and the role of a teacher. Olympiodorus’ approach to the conception of philosophical authority provides a new perspective for re-evaluating the significance of his philosophy.
EN
In the Symposium, there are two revelations: one is that of the woman of Mantinea, the other that of Alcibiades. The former (201d 1–212e 3) proposes a Socrates reshaped by Plato, but what Socrates does the latter (216a 6–217a 3) express? Can the praise for Socrates contained in the latter also be considered a tribute by Plato to his teacher? The opinions are divided. I looked at two scholars: Michel Narcy (2008) and Bruno Centrone (20142), whose judgments, as they are set out and argued, are irreconcilable. The contrast may be determined by a certain ambiguity in Plato’s attitude towards Alcibiades. Part One – In order to clarify this ambiguity and to overcome the contrast between the two scholars I have tried to show how in the praise of Alcibiades there overlap different portraits of Socrates that refer to the tradition, to different experiences of various Socratics and of Plato himself in Apologia, and how this differs from the others and from himself by proposing a whole new portrait of Socrates as a representative of an Eros megas daimōn, revealed by the woman of Mantinea, in contrast to an Eros megas theos. Part Two – As instead regards the accusation of hybris, the hypothesis is this: for Plato his colleagues, and especially Antisthenes and Xenophon, offering an image of Socrates founded exclusively on his way of life and not also on the erotic aspects alluding to the super-sensible world, seem to end up arousing laughter and looking like “fools” (nēpioi), like Alcibiades, who at the end of his speech, after making the audience laugh, is unmasked by Socrates for his clumsy attempt to impart a “life lesson” to Agathon, which he did not need at all, paying at his own expenses for his ignorance of the revelation through arriving late at the party.
IT
In the Symposium, there are two revelations: one is that of the woman of Mantinea, the other that of Alcibiades. The former (201d 1–212e 3) proposes a Socrates reshaped by Plato, but what Socrates does the latter (216a 6–217a 3) express? Can the praise for Socrates contained in the latter also be considered a tribute by Plato to his teacher? The opinions are divided. I looked at two scholars: Michel Narcy (2008) and Bruno Centrone (20142 ), whose judgments, as they are set out and argued, are irreconcilable. The contrast may be determined by a certain ambiguity in Plato’s attitude towards Alcibiades. Part One – In order to clarify this ambiguity and to overcome the contrast between the two scholars I have tried to show how in the praise of Alcibiades there overlap different portraits of Socrates that refer to the tradition, to different experiences of various Socratics and of Plato himself in Apologia, and how this differs from the others and from himself by proposing a whole new portrait of Socrates as a representative of an Eros megas daimōn, revealed by the woman of Mantinea, in contrast to an Eros megas theos. Part Two – As instead regards the accusation of hybris, the hypothesis is this: for Plato his colleagues, and especially Antisthenes and Xenophon, offering an image of Socrates founded exclusively on his way of life and not also on the erotic aspects alluding to the supersensible world, seem to end up arousing laughter and looking like “fools” (nēpioi), like Alcibiades, who at the end of his speech, after making the audience laugh, is unmasked by Socrates for his clumsy attempt to impart a “life lesson” to Agathon, which he did not need at all, paying at his own expenses for his ignorance of the revelation through arriving late at the party.
Peitho. Examina Antiqua
|
2017
|
vol. 8
|
issue 1
213-224
EN
Argument and literary form, and how they both relate to each other, are crucial aspects of any interpretation of the Platonic dialogues. Plato the author and Plato the philosopher always work hand in hand in that Plato the author tries to serve Plato the philosopher. It is, therefore, an appropriate principle for approaching the study of Plato’s philosophy to take into account the literary aspects of the dialogues and to ask how Plato’s literary art of writing could possibly support his philosophical message and, for instance, to consider what this relation means in the context of the debate about developementalism versus unitarianism in Plato’s philosophy. In the present paper , I argue that the performance of the characters plays an important role in this context. I discuss various passages in the Laws which analyse the weakness of the will and I compare what Plato says there with the performance of Alcibiades in the Symposium. I conclude that the passages in the Laws can be read as a kind of commentary on Alcibiades’ behavior and I consider what this relation means in the context of the debate about developementalism versus unitarianism in Plato’s philosophy.
DE
Argument and literary form, and how they both relate to each other, are crucial aspects of any interpretation of the Platonic dialogues. Plato the author and Plato the philosopher always work hand in hand in that Plato the author tries to serve Plato the philosopher. It is, therefore, an appropriate principle for approaching the study of Plato’s philosophy to take into account the literary aspects of the dialogues and to ask how Plato’s literary art of writing could possibly support his philosophical message and, for instance, to consider what this relation means in the context of the debate about developementalism versus unitarianism in Plato’s philosophy. In the present paper , I argue that the performance of the characters plays an important role in this context. I discuss various passages in the Laws which analyse the weakness of the will and I compare what Plato says there with the performance of Alcibiades in the Symposium. I conclude that the passages in the Laws can be read as a kind of commentary on Alcibiades’ behavior and I consider what this relation means in the context of the debate about developementalism versus unitarianism in Plato’s philosophy
PL
A tripartite approach is proposed in order to get hold of the complex phenomenon of trust and perfidy in classical literature. In a first part two cases of political treason are discussed: the most prominent victim of treason, Julius Caesar, who was very much surprised when he saw Brutus among his assassins, and the greatest traitor in antiquity ever, Alcibiades. Protean perfidy, however, is a gender-crossing issue, and a second part is dedicated to literary figures, in particular to women. Aeschylus’ Clytemnestra is an outstanding example of a perfidious character. Finally, a third part is concerned with words, for πίστις and fides have attracted the attention of classical scholars and structural linguists alike. At the beginning, however, Hamlet is introduced, an expert both in trust and perfidy as well as in classical literature.
EN
The defeat of the Hellenes in the Peloponnesian war in the 5th century B. C. happened a number of centuries after a deathly silence following the Trojan War and so called dark ages (lasting three centuries) as well as after popular stories on heroes of Mycenae and after poetic (Homer) times of storytelling. Those stories created an idea organizing a new world of archaic Greeks. The Peloponnesian events closed – in a way again – the certain order; this time it was the order of democrats characterized by the hubris of aristocracy (Athens) and the order of oligarchs characterized by the arrogance of democrats (Sparta). While the Trojan war prepared the fall of king Agamemnon, the Athens’ war prepared the king’s come back, this time the Macedonian one, who – craving for the fame of an Achaean hero -followed the path of a Mycenae ruler. Finally, the Peloponnesian war did not bring success of some Greek poleis or the whole Greece. Results of this war are expressed by a conclusion on the common Peloponnesian failure. It was a clash of interests of oligarchic order with democracy. What is important, a serious conflict arose: populist (majority) democracy against law and justice. This conflict was possible due to the lack of any institution of a public arbiter or moral authority, which could prevent a fall of moderation as an essential (sine qua non) feature of democracy (Solon). There is no democracy without moderation and self-resistance.
PL
Klęska Hellenów w wojnie peloponeskiej V w. p.n.e nastąpiła po wielu wiekach od zaistnienia martwej ciszy po wojnie trojańskiej i po trwających później trzy stulecia tzw. wiekach ciemnych oraz opowieściach ludowych o mykeńskich herosach, po poetyckich (Homer) czasach opowieści, które zbudowały ideę organizującą nowy świat Hellenów. Wydarzenia peloponeskie zamknęły – niejako ponownie – pewien ład; tym razem był to porządek demokratów cechujących się pychą arystokratów (Ateny) i porządek oligarchów o bucie demokratów (Sparta). Ale też, o ile wojna pod Troją przygotowała upadek króla (Agamemnon), to wojna pod Atenami przygotowała powrót króla, tym razem Macedońskiego, który złakniony pysznej sławy bohatera achajskiego, podążył drogą mykeńskiego władcy. Wojna peloponeska ostatecznie nie skończyła się sukcesem jakichś sprawiedliwych poleis greckich czy całej Grecji. Rezultaty owej wojny wyraża myśl mówiąca o powszechnej klęsce peloponeskiej. Walczyły między sobą interesy ustroju oligarchicznego i demokratycznego. Co jednak niezwykle ważne, pojawił się poważny konflikt: demokracja populistyczna (większościowa) przeciw prawu i sprawiedliwości. Ów konflikt okazał się możliwy z powodu braku jakiejś instytucji publicznego arbitra czy moralnego autorytetu, które zapobiegłyby upadkowi umiarkowania, będącego konstytutywną (sine qua non) cechą demokracji (Solon). Bez umiarkowania nie ma demokracji.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.