Phronesis 49 (2):143-168 (2004)
|Abstract||Laches' first definition is rejected because it is somehow formally inadequate, but it is not clear exactly how this is so. On my interpretation, the failure of this definition cannot be explained by reference to the distinction between universals and particulars. Rather, it provides a paradigm of courage, which is inadequate because it fails to make clear how it is to be projected into other, non-paradigmatic cases. The definition is interesting because it articulates essential elements of the dominant moral tradition, including both its normative content (it is is too conservative and aristocratic) and its form (it is sustained by a certain limited canon of ideals, idols, and images of excellence). Socrates' elenchus of this definition thus amounts to a challenge to this tradition|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Phillip E. Devine (1986). On the Definition of “Religion”. Faith and Philosophy 3 (3):270-284.
David Charles (ed.) (2010). Definition in Greek Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
Gregory Vlastos (1971). The Philosophy of Socrates. Garden City, N.Y.,Anchor Books.
Gregory Vlastos (1980). The Philosophy of Socrates: A Collection of Critical Essays. University of Notre Dame Press.
Jeffrey Gold (1984). Socratic Definition. Philosophy Research Archives 10:573-588.
Øyvind Rabbås (2004). Definitions and Paradigms: Laches' First Definition. Phronesis 49 (2):143-168.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #146,993 of 556,772 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #38,924 of 556,772 )
How can I increase my downloads?