In Ancient Greece, the relation between war and peace used to have an ambiguous meaning. War was considered as a normal state and peace was seen only as an exception or a temporary truce during a long lasting conflict. But peace and political stability were also valued: the aim of war was never the total annihilation of the opponent. Besides this opposition, there was a balance between war and peace during these times and this conception, inherited from the heroic times, (...) lasted until the beginning of the Peloponnesian War. This event redefined the relation between war and peace. The meaning of conflict moved from polemos, as codified conflict between cities, to stasis, as civil war. War was less perceived as something positive and more people valued peace and stability. Plato’s political thought was developed in this context as a potential answer to this redefinition of conflict as well as the threat of an excessive and radical conception of war. However, Plato had to face an exigent challenge. No political regime was able to establish peace anymore, so Plato needed to create a brand new political system to solve the problems raised by the Peloponnesian War. The goal of this paper will be to present Plato’s response to these political challenges by showing that his response is deeply innovative for his time but also profoundly rooted in a traditional conception of conflict that was already obsolete when he wrote his masterpieces. (shrink)

L'ambition de cet ouvrage est d'illustrer à la fois comment la philosophie conceptualise le conflit et comment elle s'efforce d'en résoudre les dangers inhérents. Plutôt que de proposer un aperçu purement abstrait de la notion de « conflit », l'ensemble des travaux se focalise sur la confrontation des philosophes à des problèmes historiques tels que la guerre, la dissension sociale, la tyrannie, ou encore le sport. -/- .