Many of our most urgent contemporary issues-demagoguery, disinformation, white ethno-nationalism-compel us to take opinions seriously. And social media has taught us that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But what constitutes an opinion, and how do those definitions change? In "Entitled Opinions: Doxa After Digitality," Caddie Alford has fashioned an expansive and affirmative theory of opinions for the age of social media. To address these issues, "Entitled Opinions" recuperates the ancient Greek term for opinion: (...) class='Hi'>doxa. While doxa is often translated as "opinion" or "belief," the term originally harbored many other connotations, such as fame, reputation, and expectations. These shadings complicate simplistic notions of what opinions are and what they can do. Just as digitality has transformed what constitutes "truth," so too has social media transformed the very notion of opinions. In the context of social media, opinions are now seen as ill-informed preferences that divide people from one another. "Doxa" and its interpretive contexts help shed some of the baggage associated with opinions while signaling more useful lines of inquiry. Repurposing "doxa" recovers the nuance and rhetorical utility of opinions while attempting to make sense of how opinions are trafficked in social media. Commonplace imperatives such as "he tells it like it is" or newer, digital imperatives such as #BlackLivesMatter may seem straightforward on the surface, but haptics, emoji, and "like" buttons betray and lay bare collective assumptions about how opinions in the digital realm function. "Entitled Opinions" argues that because doxa are the virtual tickets to participation in online culture and politics more broadly, social media and opinion have become synonymous. Thus, it is all the more crucial that we scrutinize the interfaces, platforms, coding, syntax, and network architecture that determine how persuasion operates, how reputations sway, and what moments are deemed Instaworthy or worth remembering. In a world that says, "don't read the comments," this book reads the comments, so to speak, taking content that could be thrown away for any number of reasons and alchemizing judgments into implications. Each chapter in the book draws together key rhetorical concepts, current scholarship on opinions, and digital media entanglements. The first chapter lays out one of the book's more critical takeaways: while "opinion" gets reflexively figured in an opinion/fact binary, social media has shown that it is imperative to think and operate in terms of a spectrum of opinions, from reputable to less reputable. These gradations are multifaceted and susceptible to interventions-in the past, those interventions were experts; today, those interventions are algorithms. Each subsequent chapter illuminates opinions in terms of humanistic inquiries that speak to a diverse range of audiences: sociality; infrastructure; bodies; time; and, finally, invention. These chapters put opinions into conversation with algorithms, infrastructure, the rise of digital illiteracy, virality, and digital activism to highlight the digital constraints placed on opinions as well as the creative and evasive ways opinions exceed those constraints. Social media tricks us into thinking opinions are straightforward, isolating, and universal. "Entitled Opinions," however, suggests ways for social media users recuperate and reclaim the place of opinions in the digital sphere. (shrink)

In this paper, I discuss the new edition of Y. Lafrance’s La théorie platonicienne de la Doxa (first edition 1981), trying to examine the Author’s reconstruction and interpretation of Plato’s conception of δόξα in the dialogues.

As its title indicates, our work deals with two motifs which, in the end, flow together. The first has to do with the confrontation (long a subject of philosophical discussion) between the Lebenswelt and its mathematization at the hands of the sciences. Mathematics, according to Husserl, is a science whose contents – axioms, laws, geometric solids – are ideas. Idealization, as practiced by Husserl, consists in adopting and adapting Kant’s interpretation of ‘the idea’, and in designating both mathematical exactitude and (...) the thing in its totality as ‘ideas in the Kantian sense’. The second motif examines Husserl’s attempt to identify the Lebenswelt with Plato’s ‘mere opinion’ (doxa as opposed to episteme). Husserl mounts a defense of doxa, granting it a value as high as, or even higher than, that of episteme. We want to show what this higher value of doxa consists in. Thus, we enter into the problem of measurement, a phenomenon which, beginning as an estimative, pre-geometrical operation, leads to exactitude. In this context, we propose the following thesis: measurement, thanks to the idealization of ‘the thing’ which makes it possible, is the foundation of mathematical exactitude. However, things themselves are given only in gradations, fragments, sides – in other words, they are given perspectivally. Hence, propositions about them can at first only be subjective, private opinions (in the sense of doxa). (shrink)

Retomo, en este artículo, la conocida distinción platónica entre doxa y epistêmê, hecha principalmente en el Menón y la República. Pero subrayo con énfasis particular la diferencia de criterios, de un diálogo a otro. Mientras que en el primero predomina el criterio lógico de la estabilidad de epistêmê y la inestabilidad dóxa, debida respectivamente a la concatenación (desmós) y la falta de concatenación de sus elementos, el segundo enfatiza el criterio ontológico de los objetos:la misma cosa no puede ser (...) aprehendida por la ciencia y la opinión, pues la primera concierne al ser absoluto, identificado con las Formas platónicas, y la segunda a algo que es intermedio entre el ser absoluto y el no-ser absoluto. Después de objetar que Platón no logra demostrar su división tripartita de la realidad, sostengo que la diferencia de criterios aquí analizada se debe a la ausencia de la Teoría Platónica de las Formas en el Menón. Palabras clave: Platón; Doxa; Epistêmê; Distinción; CriteriosI return in this paper to the well-known Platonic distinction between doxa and episteme, drawn mainly in Meno and Republic. However, I stress now the difference in criteria from one dialogue to the other. While in the first prevails the logical criterion of stability of epistêmê and unstableness of dóxa, owing respectively to the concatenation (desmós) and the lack of concatenation of their elements, the second emphasizes the ontological criterion of objects: the same thing cannot be apprehended by science and opinion, for the former concerns to absolute being, identified with Platonic Ideas, while the latter to something which is halfway between absolute being and absolute not-being. After objecting that Plato fails to demonstrate his tripartite division of reality, I claim that the difference of criteria hereby analyzed is due to the absence of Plato’s Theory of Ideas in Meno. KeyWords: Plato; Doxa; Epistêmê; Distinction; Criteria. (shrink)

Diversos tratadistas del siglo XX han reconocido el importante papel cognoscitivo que Aristóteles le concedió a la opinión en la construcción del saber. Se mostrará que las diversas interpretaciones propuestas giran en torno a la discusión sobre cómo se entiende la relación o la posible identificación entre opinión (doxa) y apariencia (phainomena). A partir de dichas nociones se propone ver de qué manera Aristóteles las integra a su teoría sobre la retórica. Mediante el ejercicio retórico los miembros de una (...) determinada comunidad deliberan, juzgan o reconocen lo que se considera justo, conveniente o digno, cuando examinan determinados casos que se les presentan a su consideración. La retórica se presenta como un arte en el que se conjugan opinión y apariencia. Mediante éste se persuade y se construye experiencia común (formas de ver, actuar y sentir) y de esta manera se hace polis. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Isocrates' Use of doxaTakis PoulakosEven though Isocrates presents Antidosis as a thorough defense of his educational program, he says very little about it, choosing instead to offer lavish portraits of his own earlier writings, elaborate arguments in defense of his reputation, and painstaking attacks against his competitors. One of the few passages where he speaks directly and explicitly about his educational views concerns the type of teaching of which (...) he approved. "[T]eachers of philosophy," he remarks in an obvious reference to his own instruction, begin their students' training by acquainting them with "all the forms of discourse in which the mind expresses itself." Past this type of training, he goes on to say,when they have made them familiar and thoroughly conversant with these lessons, they set them at exercises, habituate them to work, and require them to combine in practice the particular things which they have learned, in order that they may grasp them more firmly and bring their theories into closer touch with the occasions for applying them —I say "theories," for no system of knowledge can possibly cover these occasions, since in all cases they elude our science. Yet those who most apply their minds to them and are able to discern the consequences which for the most part grow out of them, will most often meet these occasions in the right way. (184)The passage is important for a number of reasons. First, it makes clear that Isocrates conceives learning not so much in terms of possessing a specialized body of knowledge as in knowing how to apply principles to specific situations. Students will be educated in the art of logos, not only when they have become familiar with "all the forms of discourse,," but, more importantly, when they have learned how to apply principles of the art to practical situations. Second, the passage also makes clear that the proper site for applying the principles of the art of logos is the domain of politics. [End Page 61] Teachers of "philosophy" will guide students to apply their knowledge of the art of logos, not in every situation, but in those situations that deal with contingencies and that call for decisions about future courses of action, whose outcome is unknown and whose consequences are unforeseen. Along with many other sections throughout his writings, the passage above offers one more indication that Isocrates' educational program focuses principally on instruction in political or symbouleutic speaking, political discourse or logos politikos. Finally, as the passage states, the domain of situations addressed by his instruction is on the level of contingency and kairos, a domain belonging to the order of doxa, not the order of epistēmē. His teaching of political discourse relies on a method of adjusting opinions and conjectures to specific cases, on bringing doxa in closer proximity to kairos.The passage above, then, sets the conceptual stage for the type of civic education with which Isocrates associates his teaching throughout the Antidosis: the teaching of logos politicos, not for its own sake, but for the purpose of citizenship and statesmanship, an education in speaking well for the purposes of citizenship and statesmanship. By guiding students in how to apply rhetorical principles to practical situations, how to make choices about future courses of action with an eye to potential consequences, and how to adjust choices made to the demands of changing circumstances, he is in fact preparing students to participate in their city's deliberations as citizens. Should they rise to the occasion and be prepared to address the city's problems by submitting the judgments they formulate to the principles of contingency and timeliness, they may very well become leaders of the city one day, capable statesmen or celebrated citizens of the polis.But the passage also leaves several questions unanswered. To begin with, there is the question of the label "philosophy." Does Isocrates use the term philosophia to "denote his rhetoric" (Too 1995, 193) or to suggest an "implicit denial of rhetoric" (Cahn 1989, 134)? Is this label meant to be an act of "appropriating the term 'philosophy'" (Nehamas 1990, 5) or of positing "a contrasting definition of philosophy" (Timmerman 1998, 157)? Can the... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Isocrates' Use of doxaTakis PoulakosEven though Isocrates presents Antidosis as a thorough defense of his educational program, he says very little about it, choosing instead to offer lavish portraits of his own earlier writings, elaborate arguments in defense of his reputation, and painstaking attacks against his competitors. One of the few passages where he speaks directly and explicitly about his educational views concerns the type of teaching of which (...) he approved. "[T]eachers of philosophy," he remarks in an obvious reference to his own instruction, begin their students' training by acquainting them with "all the forms of discourse in which the mind expresses itself." Past this type of training, he goes on to say,when they have made them familiar and thoroughly conversant with these lessons, they set them at exercises, habituate them to work, and require them to combine in practice the particular things which they have learned, in order that they may grasp them more firmly and bring their theories into closer touch with the occasions for applying them —I say "theories," for no system of knowledge can possibly cover these occasions, since in all cases they elude our science. Yet those who most apply their minds to them and are able to discern the consequences which for the most part grow out of them, will most often meet these occasions in the right way. (184)The passage is important for a number of reasons. First, it makes clear that Isocrates conceives learning not so much in terms of possessing a specialized body of knowledge as in knowing how to apply principles to specific situations. Students will be educated in the art of logos, not only when they have become familiar with "all the forms of discourse,," but, more importantly, when they have learned how to apply principles of the art to practical situations. Second, the passage also makes clear that the proper site for applying the principles of the art of logos is the domain of politics. [End Page 61] Teachers of "philosophy" will guide students to apply their knowledge of the art of logos, not in every situation, but in those situations that deal with contingencies and that call for decisions about future courses of action, whose outcome is unknown and whose consequences are unforeseen. Along with many other sections throughout his writings, the passage above offers one more indication that Isocrates' educational program focuses principally on instruction in political or symbouleutic speaking, political discourse or logos politikos. Finally, as the passage states, the domain of situations addressed by his instruction is on the level of contingency and kairos, a domain belonging to the order of doxa, not the order of epistēmē. His teaching of political discourse relies on a method of adjusting opinions and conjectures to specific cases, on bringing doxa in closer proximity to kairos.The passage above, then, sets the conceptual stage for the type of civic education with which Isocrates associates his teaching throughout the Antidosis: the teaching of logos politicos, not for its own sake, but for the purpose of citizenship and statesmanship, an education in speaking well for the purposes of citizenship and statesmanship. By guiding students in how to apply rhetorical principles to practical situations, how to make choices about future courses of action with an eye to potential consequences, and how to adjust choices made to the demands of changing circumstances, he is in fact preparing students to participate in their city's deliberations as citizens. Should they rise to the occasion and be prepared to address the city's problems by submitting the judgments they formulate to the principles of contingency and timeliness, they may very well become leaders of the city one day, capable statesmen or celebrated citizens of the polis.But the passage also leaves several questions unanswered. To begin with, there is the question of the label "philosophy." Does Isocrates use the term philosophia to "denote his rhetoric" (Too 1995, 193) or to suggest an "implicit denial of rhetoric" (Cahn 1989, 134)? Is this label meant to be an act of "appropriating the term 'philosophy'" (Nehamas 1990, 5) or of positing "a contrasting definition of philosophy" (Timmerman 1998, 157)? Can the... (shrink)

In this article I investigate D. H. Lawrence's influence on the development of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari's aesthetics, by focusing on the notion of doxa and its relation to art. Deleuze and Guattari's understanding of art as a struggle against opinion emerges from their engagement with Lawrence and gives rise to a form of cultural elitism dating back to Plato. After historically contextualizing their negative attitude toward doxa, I identify a different, Aristotelian tradition, which stresses the (...) positive functions of doxa and offers more nuanced understandings of art, as well as opportunities for the formation of a more inclusive canon. (shrink)

The word δξα is used frequently by Plato and with the many shades of meaning that it had in the idiomatic Greek of his time. References to all its occurrences and to those of δοξζω in the Platonic corpus Lafrance gives in an appendix to his book ; and from these in his first chapter he selects typical cases to exemplify a score or more of what he calls “literary” meanings, which he divides into two main groups, the objective sense, (...) “appearance”, and the subjective, “opinion”. By eliminating the occurrences of doxa in these colloquial or “literary” senses he restricts his investigation to Plato's philosophical uses of the term, disregarding even the occurrences of these in what he deems to be merely repetitious or undeveloped passages and subjecting to minute analysis only the most fully developed and consequently most significant philosophical passages concerned with doxa. This is the fourth of the four methodological principles that are formulated by Lafrance to govern his investigation and read in the light of which the dialogues, he believes, reveal an intelligibly coherent theory of doxa. According to the first of these principles in the reading of any Platonic text there must be borne in mind the period of Plato's intellectual evolution in which it was written and the nature of his epistemological notions at that moment; according to the second, Platonic dialogues being genuine philosophical dramas, it is always as fulfilling a function in a definite dramatic situation that Plato discloses his thought to the precise extent that he has decided to do so, and consequently any passage on doxa, to which as such no dialogue is devoted, must be understood in the light of the context in which the question of doxa has arisen. According to the third principle the understanding of a Platonic text requires that account be taken of the scholarly literature dealing with it. (shrink)

Philosophical interests of Joseph Życiński in the domain of the philosophy of science were focused on the debate concerning the nature of science and philosophy of science that followed the Einstein-Planck revolution in science. The unexpected discovery of the philosophical, extra-scientific presuppositions in science, as well as of the extra-rational factors determining the way these presuppositions are accepted in science were to be explained within the meta-scientific framework. It is the aim of this paper to present ˙ Życiński’s diagnosis of (...) this post-revolutionary situation in the philosophy of science as well as his critique of the metascientific answers to this challenge. The reasons will be given why all those answers are put under two dichotomous rubrics of _internalism_ and _externalism_. It will be also explained how Życiński intends to supersede this false in his opinion opposition with a new concept of the doxatic rationality. However, the details of the metascientific proposal of Życiński will be given only in the subsequent paper. In order to perform the aim of the paper the metatheoretic tools set out by Popper will be used. (shrink)

En términos de la filosofía socrática, la doxa u opinión representa un principio vago debido a sus alcances limitados en la construcción de un conocimiento bien establecido. Sin embargo, debido a conveniencias como su facilidad de manejo, la opinión se ha extendido como mecanismo epistémico en espacios como las redes sociales, donde su uso se fomenta a través de objetos virtuales como el meme, de tal forma que se vuelve necesaria una evaluación filosófica para las nuevas formas de expresión (...) doxástica por medio del juicio y de la crítica como los procedimientos filosóficos más adecuados para confrontar sus repercusiones. (shrink)

Recognizing that probability (the Greek doxa) was understood in pre-modern theories as the polar opposite of certainty (episteme), the author of this study elaborates the forms which these polar opposites have taken in some twentieth century writers and then, in greater detail, in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. Profiting from subsequent more sophisticated theories of probability, he examines how Aquinas’s judgments about everything from God to gossip depend on schematizations of the polarity between the systematic and the non-systematic: revelation/reason, (...) science/opinion, saints/philosophers, Aristotle/others. Post-medieval developments have provided the means to discern within Thomas’s thought both a logical theory and a kind of relative frequency theory of probability. The former depends on Aristotle’s theory of demonstration, the latter on his theory of an orderly cosmos; but each as used by Thomas lead to convictions that are sometimes naive, sometimes amusing or even terrifying. (shrink)

This paper argues for a view that maximizes in the Stoics' epistemology the starkness and clarity characteristic of other parts of their philosophy. I reconsider our evidence concerning doxa (opinion/belief): should we really take the Stoics to define it as assent to the incognitive, so that it does not include the assent of ordinary people to their kataleptic impressions, and is thus actually inferior to agnoia (ignorance)? I argue against this, and for the simple view that in Stoicism (...) assent is either, in the case of the fool, doxa = agnoia, or alternatively, in that of the sage, epistêmê (knowledge). This view, together with reflection on the appropriate sense of "between" in the relevant reports of SE and Cicero, yields a sympathetic reading of an otherwise problematic challenge Sextus reports Arcesilaus as having prepared for the Stoic claim that katalêpsis, which is the criterion of truth, is between knowledge and opinion; on my view each side is proceeding in a philosophically legitimate way. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to suggest a possible way of understanding Parmenides' so-called doxa, starting from the clear and lucid formulation of the problem which is offered to us in some recent writings of N.-L. Cordero. We agree with Cordero (and some others) on the need to distinguish between the "opinions of mortals" and Parmenides' own physical theories, usually confused under the label of the doxa or "way of opinion" (I-II); not so with his proposal (...) to insert the 'scientific' fragments into the discourse on Truth, which seems rather incompatible with the sources (III) and ultimately grounded on the confusion –shared by most interpreters– of the ordering of the parts of the Poem, enounced at the end of fr. 1 (IV), with the "ways of inquiry" of frs. 2 and 6-7 (V). This is followed by an outline of a tentative reconstruction of Parmenides' polemics against the beliefs of mortals (VI-VIII). The guiding principle of Parmenides' physics is the mixture and interpenetration of the apparent opposites separated by mortals (VI), beginning with the antithesis 'light' / 'darkness', i. e. 'life' / 'death', the dominions of Zeus and of Hades in the traditional world vision which is refuted by the new cosmology of Parmenides (VII). But even so, the new cosmos is in its own way a "deceptive order" as well: since what-is is continuous and homogeneous, the entities postulated by the physical theory have to be necessarily fictitious or conventional; only the explicit acknowledgement of this status prevents the theory from the error of mortals, which consists in taking linguistic convention for the true being of things (VIII). (shrink)

Notes and Discussions Philodoxy: Mere Opinion and Question of History the "Philosophy as... rigorous science-- the dream is over." Edmund Husserl 1. MERE OPINION From the beginning philosophy has not only had a love affair with wisdom but also a special claim on truth and a concomitant contempt for mere opinion. Parmenides left a poem in which he contrasted the "way of truth," which was the path taken by Plato and his followers, with the "way of (...) class='Hi'>opinion," which was paved with falsehood and deceit.' Arcesilaus defended opinion in the sense that he refused to concede certain truth to any ideas2 On such grounds Cicero concluded that the wise man should hold no opinions.s In the self-constituting canon of philosophy "opinion" has always been a pejorative term, designating an inferior sort of knowledge based not on demon- stration but on belief and associated in particular with the much-maligned Sophists, who languished under a "dark shadow" for centu- ries.4 As Macrobius wrote: "Opinion is born of failure of memory," meaning the preexistent form of knowledge -- ideas -- which was Platonic recollection;5 and for Aquinas, "opinion is knowledge of those things about which we do not have certain knowledge. ''6 In general, questions of "opinion" or "prejudice" have seldom been posed by 'Jonathan Barnes, The Presocratic Philosophers , 156. See also T. Sprute, Der Begriff der doxa in der platonische.. (shrink)

Notes and Discussions Philodoxy: Mere Opinion and Question of History the "Philosophy as... rigorous science-- the dream is over." Edmund Husserl 1. MERE OPINION From the beginning philosophy has not only had a love affair with wisdom but also a special claim on truth and a concomitant contempt for mere opinion. Parmenides left a poem in which he contrasted the "way of truth," which was the path taken by Plato and his followers, with the "way of (...) class='Hi'>opinion," which was paved with falsehood and deceit.' Arcesilaus defended opinion in the sense that he refused to concede certain truth to any ideas2 On such grounds Cicero concluded that the wise man should hold no opinions.s In the self-constituting canon of philosophy "opinion" has always been a pejorative term, designating an inferior sort of knowledge based not on demon- stration but on belief and associated in particular with the much-maligned Sophists, who languished under a "dark shadow" for centu- ries.4 As Macrobius wrote: "Opinion is born of failure of memory," meaning the preexistent form of knowledge -- ideas -- which was Platonic recollection;5 and for Aquinas, "opinion is knowledge of those things about which we do not have certain knowledge. ''6 In general, questions of "opinion" or "prejudice" have seldom been posed by 'Jonathan Barnes, The Presocratic Philosophers, 156. See also T. Sprute, Der Begriff der doxa in der platonische... (shrink)

In philosophy and political theory, the term paradox is often used synonymously with antinomy, contradiction and aporia. This article clarifies the meaning of these terms through tracing their respective etymology. We see that antinomy denotes a deep-seated conceptual opposition, whereas contradiction and aporia represent alternative responses to antinomy. The former presents the antinomy as potentially resolvable at some future time, and the latter sees the antinomy instead as a constitutive impasse. By way of contrast, para doxa originally referred to (...) a statement that is ‘contrary to received opinion’, but this idea has generally been subsumed – both in philosophy and more common place understandings – under the notion of aporia. This conceptual recovery enables a better understanding of key traditions in social and political theory, notably post-structuralism and Habermasian critical theory, which can be demarcated through their respective responses to the emergence of ‘paradoxes’. However, the article also demonstrates the material significance of these philosophical categories through their application to contemporary democratic politics. I analyse the constitutive tension between liberalism and democracy as well as the emergence of populism and show how these conceptual tools provide new insights for understanding these most pressing political developments of our time. (shrink)

This essay explicates the primary interpretative import of B1: 31-32 in Parmenides poem (On Nature)—lines which have radical implications for the overall argument, and which the traditional arrangement forces into an irreconcilable dilemma. I argue that the “negative” reading of lines 31-32 is preferable, even on the traditional arrangement. This negative reading denies that a third thing is to be taught to the reader by the goddess—a positive account of how the apparent world is to be “acceptably” understood. I then (...) suggest that a rearrangement of the fragments would make more sense overall, while further supporting the “negative” reading as more natural and coherent. In particular, the rearrangement dispels the objection that, “if mortal opinions were not true, why would Parmenides include such a lengthy false account of the apparent world--an account which explicitly denies the conclusions of the earlier section, Truth?”. (shrink)

Diogène de Sinope se donne comme principe de falsifier les valeurs et d’aller à contre-courant de ses contemporains. Dès lors, on pourrait croire qu’il revendique dans sa conduite le paradoxe au sens de ce qui heurte l’opinion ; pourtant, il réfute cette qualification, afin d’insister sur l’adéquation entre son discours et son mode de vie, dans la continuité de Socrate, dont il ne reprend pas pleinement à son compte, néanmoins, les paradoxes sur la vertu. Avec le cynisme, le paradoxe (...) ne se présente plus tant sous une forme propositionnelle que comme une attitude qui se traduit par des gestes à l’encontre des opinions : c’est son corps même que le cynique oppose à la doxa. (shrink)

Il s’agit d’explorer la notion politique de « lien » (desmos) chez Platon et de déterminer son rapport avec la philia (amitié) des citoyens entre eux, condition sine qua non de la cité, et que l’on peut identifier à ce que nous appelons « le lien social ». Deux textes sont examinés dans cette perspective : Les Lois, VII, 793a-d et Le Politique, 305e et suiv. Bien que le terme soit pris dans chacun d’entre eux selon un point de vue (...) différent (objectif dans les Lois, où il désigne les coutumes qui lissent et solidifient l’édifice législatif ; subjectif dans le Politique, où il désigne l’opinion vraie présente dans les âmes, grâce à laquelle celles-ci harmonisent leurs conceptions et donc leurs actions), il s’avère que le desmos est à chaque fois constitué par les manières de faire communes, lesquelles reposent sur des opinions communes. Fruit de l’éducation, œuvre politique essentielle et première, il est ce sans quoi la philia (le lien social, donc) n’est pas possible, ni par conséquent la cité comprise comme unité d’une multiplicité. (shrink)

At Sophist 260e3-261a2, the Eleatic Stranger claims that in order to demonstrate that falsehood is, he and Theaetetus must first track down what speech (logos), opinion (doxa), and appearance (phantasia) are, and then observe the communion (koinōnia) that speech, opinion, and appearance have with non-being. The Stranger, however, never explicitly discusses the communion of speech, opinion, and appearance with non-being. Yet presumably their communion is implicit in his account of falsehood, given his claim that observing that (...) communion is needed in order to demonstrate that falsehood is (260e5-a2). This essay seeks to make the communion that speech has with non-being explicit. I argue that speech has communion with non-being in that the things and actions speech combines together by means of nouns and verbs need not be combined in a way that reveals how the being a given speech is about combines ontologically with other beings. (shrink)

In his Encomium of Helen and On Not Being, Gorgias of Leontinoi discusses the nature and function of speech more extensively than any other surviving author before Plato. His discussions are not only surprising in the way they characterize the power of logos and its effects on a listener but also in how the two descriptions of speech seem to contradict one another. In the Helen, Gorgias claims that logos is a very powerful entity, capable of affecting a listener in (...) whatever way it wants. In On Not-Being, he makes the very different (but no less exaggerated) claim that logos is a non-entity, incapable of referring to anything other than itself. In this essay I show how these apparently contradictory accounts might be brought into harmony with one another.2 In the first part I address some of the interpretive difficulties with the text of Gorgias’s On Not Being (henceforth ONB) and the role that irony plays in the work. In particular I argue (as others have before) that Gorgias’s remarks about the impotency of speech are not meant to be taken seriously. Instead, they are aimed more squarely at raising questions about how exactly speech is thought to function and, more specifically, how linguistic reference works—i.e., how words somehow correspond to things, on one level, and to our ideas about things, on another. In the second and third parts of this paper, I illustrate how Gorgias’s concern with linguistic reference in ONB goes on to inform his notion of logos in the Encomium of Helen. I point specifically to evidence found in an important and often overlooked exit clause at the close of ONB regarding the difference between words and things. There, Gorgias insists that if words manifest meaning at all, they must appeal to their own sort of sense organ. In the Helen, he draws on the concepts of soul (psychē) and opinion (doxa) in order to construct this alternative, psychagogic account in which utterances are actually apprehended in ways akin to sense perception. Whether or not one is convinced by Gorgias’s alternative account of how speech works, the description he gives of logos does notionally circumvent the problem of linguistic reference and, in doing so, pushes one to think beyond the potentially constrictive framework of nomen et nominatum. I argue that, when read in this way, these two early discussions of logos represent a unified progression of serious thought about how speech works. (shrink)

This page is dedicated to an analysis of the first section of Parmenides' Poem, the Way of Truth, with a selection of critical judgments by the most important commentators and critics. In the Annotated Bibliography I list the main critical editions (from the first printed edition of 1573 to present days) and the translations in English, French, German, Italian and Spanish, with a selection of studies on Parmenides; in future, a section will be dedicated to an examination of some critical (...) variants of the Greek text, with particular attention to corrections to the Diels-Kranz (abbreviated DK) edition of the Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. The fragments of Parmenides' Poem are cited according to Diels-Kranz numbering system as adopted in the 6th edition, Berlin 1952; the Poem is divided into three parts: the Proem fr. I, 1-32; the Way of Truth (Alethéia) from fr. II to VIII, 49, and the Way of Mortal Opinion (Doxa) fr. VIII, 50 to XIX, 3. (shrink)

Alrededor del «año cero» de la era cristiana se cruzaron en la cosmopolita ciudad de Alejandría (Alexandria ad Aegiptum) las ideas de Necesidad (ananké), de tradición griega, y de Dios Creador, de tradición hebrea. Aquí tuvo lugar lo que consideramos «la primera gran revolución filosófica» sobre el modelo socrático platónico y que configuró una matriz para desarrollar la filosofía que llega hasta nuestra época: no se comienza por la opinión (doxa), sino por el Libro, lugar de la revelación de (...) Dios, que, a lo largo de los siglos, se irá sustituyendo por otro tipo de libros: constituciones, declaraciones de Derechos Humanos, historia, literatura patriótica, etc.; la riqueza desbordante del Libro se despliega a través del Logos en sus múltiples dimensiones (de especial relevancia es la figura de la Trinidad); un Logos mediador entre el Libro y la totalidad del Mundo y de las cosas. (shrink)

In most African cultures, there is a definite and clear quest for truth through a critical method. Truth is a key value. It has moral, philosophical and social significance. One can subject an interlocutor's statements to methodic doubt and questioning. However, in some African cultures, the human intellect alone is not capable of understanding certain truth data thereby permitting the practice of divination. Nevertheless, most African cultures distinguish opinion (doxa) from (alatheia); emphasis is on objectivity rather than subjectivity. (...) The methods of arriving at the truth by most African cultures correspond basically to the correspondence and pragmatic theories of truth. (shrink)

Cet article propose une interprétation de la relation entre l’aletheia et la doxa dans le poème de Parménide sur la base d’une analyse du voyage relaté dans le proème. À partir d’un examen précis du texte parménidien, il établit que l’hypothèse selon laquelle la citadelle de la nuit est la destination finale du voyage rend bien mieux compte de celui‑ci que l’hypothèse longtemps admise selon laquelle il s’agirait de la lumière. Cette lecture du proème permet non seulement d’établir un (...) certain nombre de parallèles avec d’autres œuvres poétiques qui décrivent le trajet du Soleil, mais surtout de mettre au jour une analogie entre le récit de voyage et la partition en deux du poème parménidien : notre monde, où alternent le jour et la nuit, représente le monde de la doxa, où être et non-être sont mêlés et qui est gouverné par deux principes correspondants, le feu et la nuit, tandis que l’unicité de la déesse de la Nuit dans l’au‑delà renvoie à celle de l’être. De plus, en distinguant deux étapes dans le voyage du narrateur, celle où il atteint de lui‑même le chemin de la nuit et du jour et celle où les filles d’Hélios le guident sur ce chemin, on peut expliquer l’existence même d’un discours sur les opinions des mortels : de même que le narrateur a besoin d’abord d’aller de notre monde quotidien jusqu’au chemin de la nuit et du jour pour avoir ensuite accès à la connaissance divine, de même il faut expliquer le monde de l’opinion en le faisant remonter à deux principes fondamentaux pour montrer aux mortels le chemin vers l’aletheia. L’article conclut en expliquant, à partir des fragments B14 et B15, pourquoi Parménide a recours à la déesse de la Nuit pour faire cette révélation : ce choix repose sur une critique de la lumière du soleil comme condition de la vision trompeuse. (shrink)

This article examines the theory of recollection in Plato's Meno and attempts to unravel some long-standing puzzles about it. What are the prenatal objects of the soul's vision? What are the post-natal objects of the soul's recollection? What is innate in the Meno? Why does Socrates (prima facie) suggest that both knowledge and true opinion are innate? The article pays particular attention to the ana- prefix in the verbs aneuriskô, anakineô and analambanô, and suggests that they are used for (...) two distinct stages of recollection: a phenomenological stage of ‘finding again’ or ‘awakening’ our innate content, which Plato calls doxa, and an epistemic stage of ‘getting it back’ as epistêmê. Thinking of the verbs with this ‘back/again’ sense of the ana- prefix (instead of as ‘up’, in the common translation of analambanô as ‘take up’) allows us to understand why Plato would simultaneously imply that our souls had prenatal epistêmê, have post-natal innate true opinion and have the potential to analambanein epistêmê. He is not talking about ‘taking up’ epistêmê that he also calls doxa, but about ‘getting back’ the epistêmê we had prenatally. The article concludes with an examination of what this innate content is, suggesting that it is a type of ‘principle’ and ‘essential’ mental content. (shrink)

This commentary examines the interpretation of Parmenides developed by Rose Cherubin in her paper, “Parmenides, Liars, and Mortal Incompleteness.” First, I discuss the tensions Cherubin identifies between the definitions and presuppositions of justice, necessity, fate, and the other requisites of inquiry. Second, I critically assess Cherubin’s attribution of a sort of liar paradox to Parmenides. Finally, I argue that Cherubin’s handling of the Doxa, the section of Parmenides’ poem that deals with mortal opinion and cosmology, is unsatisfactory. I (...) suggest that her reading may contradict the text in denying that the Doxa contains truths. (shrink)

In consoling the lover of sights and sounds at Republic 475e4-479d5, Socrates describes a tripartite distinction among knowledge, doxa, and ignorance. Socrates claims that knowledge is ‘over’ what-is, doxa is over what is and is-not, and ignorance is over nothing at all. I argue that Plato shows that doxa and ignorance are also related to what-is. While knowledge, doxa, and ignorance interact with different first-degree objects, these three capacities have a common second-degree object: what-is. The fact (...) that Socrates claims that doxa is inferior to knowledge, and ignorance is inferior to doxa, shows that these three capacities have a shared aspiration that doxa and ignorance each fail to fulfill in their own way. Following Plato’s analogy to the senses at 477c1-d1, I use an analogy to the senses to demonstrate Plato’s understanding of the relationship between doxa and what is. (shrink)

1. _ Doxa _ e _ Logos _ nel _ Teeteto _ Teeteto introduce la sua ultima definizione di _ episteme _, dichiarando di riportare l'opinione di una persona che resta anonima, con queste parole : " « Diceva che l'opinione vera sorretta da spiegazione è conoscenza, mentre quello che ne è privo non vi rientra. Ora, le cose di cui non si dà spiegazione non sono "passibili di conoscenza" - sono parole sue - mentre lo sono quelle per (...) cui una spiegazione è possibile » " La definizione in oggetto intende ovviamente correggere, o meglio integrare, quella precedente. Dire che l'_episteme_ è retta opinione non basta, perché si dà il caso, come emerso poche righe prima tramite l'esempio dei giudici in tribunale, che esista una retta opinione che non sia conoscenza. Se dunque la retta opinione rimane il soggetto base dell'_episteme_, occorre distinguerne almeno due tipi, ossia la retta opinione che non è conoscenza e quella che invece lo è, e contestualmente trovare un criterio per discriminare la prima della seconda. Questo... (shrink)

The essay consists in the analysis of the problem of the evil in the man and in the analysis of the remedies which the man can find against the evil. Plato affirms the presence of an active principle of evil in the soul of every man, which coincides with some instincts of the appetitive soul; the opposite principle to the evil is the reason, which needs, though, a correct education in order to be able to fight efficiently against the evil (...) in us. The man can be seen as a battle field of these opposite forces. Plato describes the presence of the evil in us in some passages of Republic Book 9, where he compares the appetitive part of the soul with a monster. The destiny of every person in her earthly existence consists in the continuing control of the appetitive part of the soul, if the status of ethical education is to be reached and maintained. The man who remains in the realm of the opinion, that is, in the realm of the doxa is an individual who only disposes of unstable opinions and who as a consequence do not have authentic remedies against the appetitive part. On the contrary, the individual who can ascend to the realm of being through the hard education represented by arithmetic, geometry, stereometry, astronomy, harmony and, finally, dialectic is really able to contrast the force of the evil within the individual. Ethics is really possible only through the complete education which passes through these disciplines: the more the individuals is theoretically educated, the more the individual is ethically educated. The knowledge of ideas is the only authentic therapy against the evil in us. (shrink)

Rather than the art of putting forward logically valid arguments leading to Truth, argumentation is here viewed as the use of verbal means ensuring an agreement on what can be considered reasonable by a given group, on a more or less controversial matter. What is acceptable and plausible is always coconstructed by subjects engaging in verbal interaction. It is the dynamism of this exchange, realized not only in natural language, but also in a specific cultural framework, that has to be (...) accounted for. From this perspective, it is not enough to reconstruct patterns of reasoning. As logos is by definition both Reason and Language, abstract schemata have to be examined in their verbal realization in a given situation of discourse. Such an approach to arguments allows for a “thick” description taking into account their discursive and communicational aspects, as well as argumentation’s constitutive dialogism and its inscription in a set of common representations, opinions and beliefs (a doxa). This approach, exemplified by the analysis of a short text on stock options borrowed from the French newspaper Libération, is an attempt at establishing a dialogue between disciplines like argumentation theories, rhetorical criticism and discourse analysis. (shrink)

Many of the cognitive and social sciences deal with the question of how beliefs or belief-like states are produced and transmitted to others. Let us call any account or theory of belief-formation and propagation a doxology. I don’t use that term, of course, in the religious or theological sense. Rather, I borrow the Greek term ‘doxa’ for belief or opinion, and use ‘doxology’ to mean the study or theory of belief-forming processes. How is doxology related to epistemology? Epistemology (...) is the theory of knowledge, and according to standard accounts knowledge is justified true belief. Since knowledge entails belief, doxology would seem to be intimately related to epistemology. How can we say what produces knowledge unless we can say what produces belief? Of course, many epistemologists are not so interested in what produces knowledge. They are interested in specifying the conditions definitive of knowing. We need not be so restrictive, however, about epistemology’s scope. Historically, epistemology was concerned with the sources or methods of knowing: which methods of belief-formation, which routes to belief, augur well not only for belief production but for the production of knowledge? Which routes to belief offer good prospects for yielding true, justified belief? (shrink)

The feeling of shame discussed by Socrates differs from the one considered in the classic distinction between shame culture and guilt culture [Dodds 1951; Williams 1993]. Dodds refers to 9th-century Homeric society and focuses on αἴδομαι understood as fear towards public opinion. What Socrates talks about, instead, is aischýne (αἰσχύνη), such as the feeling of shame Alcibiades only has towards Socrates, for which not public opinion but one’s own conscience matters (Smp. 216 b-c). Socrates’ standpoint does not coincide (...) at all with the dominant dòxa, nor does it intend to undermine Alcibiades’ moral autonomy by inducing his sense of shame. On the contrary, it performs a cathartic function that is essential for the care of the soul, which is an indispensable premise for Alcibiades to learn to govern himself. (shrink)

Against the traditional interpretation of Doxa as intrinsically and thoroughly deceiving and untrustworthy, the present essay examines the passages which follow the self-characterization of the goddess’ speech as ‘deceitful.’ The traits of an extensive cosmogony and cosmology open up the possibility for discerning two aspects of Doxa: first a presentation of mortal erroneous opinions, but then also their correction within the framework of the ‘appropriate world-arrangement’ presented by the goddess.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Rhetorical Definition:A French InitiativeNancy S. StrueverRhetoric as TheoryIl y a quelque chose de démesuré et de prématuré à entreprendre une histoire de la rhétorique dans I'Europe moderne(Fumaroli 1999).When in his preface to the Histoire de la rhétorique Marc Fumaroli states that the project itself is overambitious and premature, he proceeds to justify his judgment by listing the complications of rhetorical definition: rhetoric is Protean in nature, and in this (...) it simply matches the fluidity of the phenomena of speech, parole ; it is oxymoronic as the science of the uncertain, trying to ally incertitude of topic with intelligibility of explanation; it intricates theoria and ergon, the concept of parole with an engagement with parole in act. Long a part of early education, it generates grace in adult expression, finesse. It is as well a primary source for reflection on communication phenomena. It is manifest in works of genius, yet, it is democratic in its accessibility; it is perdurable, remarkably persistent through change; and, it recognizes that the sharing and abusing of parole are intimately bound together. Finally rhetoric stimulates, for it may illumine the contemporary "exile" of literature and the arts, an exile that poses for us the issue of, perhaps intractable, cultural decline (Fumaroli 1999, 2–3). [End Page 401]These disparate elements of rhetoric, I would argue, by their very complexity justify rhetoric as mode of inquiry, and prompt our continuing consideration of the investigative protocols of rhetoric as hermeneutic. Roman rhetoric, subdivided into three communicative tasks—docere, delectare, movere —sponsors three investigative tasks: instructing requires command of the strategies of argument; delighting sponsors an ecology of desire, and moving requires a socio-pathology of community assent and dissent. The rhetorical interest in discursive effect, then, sponsors a second-order inquiry, the task of reviewing the basic assumptions of the communicative community: the beliefs, doxa, the shared opinions, endoxa, habits, dispositions. Rhetoric collects assumptions; thus Aristotle's Rhetoric has been characterised as a compendium of the collective wisdom of the polis. Rhetorical topoi, commonplaces, are the rubrics that organize common sense, sensus communis. Rhetoric has the task of understanding the means of asserting, rejecting, altering beliefs, the transfer of theory into practice, dealing with the transformations of idea into ideology.Rhetorical interests, in the Habermasian sense of motives that color knowledge initiatives, can correct careers of inquiry; a shift to a rhetorical investigative focus is pragmatic, to a most distinctive engagement with practice. And thus Martin Heidegger's aphorism: "Rhetoric functions inside politics." Rhetoric is framed, compromised by politics defined in the generous sense of discursive negotiations within the communal domain of beliefs, shared opinions, habits of action, dispositions. Rhetorical inquiry has to identify the beliefs and habits of action of a community in its efforts to preserve and extend its identity, and rhetoric must analyze the discursive negotiations for affirmation and alteration of beliefs vital to the continued existence of the polity.The work of Marc Fumaroli is of intrinsic interest to the historian of rhetoric as an instantiation of rhetorical interests driving an entire career, a practice shaped by rhetorical tasks and habits of action in inquiry; the effect is that of a kind of alchemy, of the transformation, at every turn, of the history of culture into the history of cultural politics. "Cultural politics" does not denote, of course, an exclusive focus on state policy, dirigisme in culture. Rather, we have a combination of a compendious notion of culture as all our inventions, artifices—political, theological, affective, aesthetic—with a generous sense of politics as all our discursive negotiations of differences of public import, a combination that sets a topic that Fumaroli prefers to call a "politics of the spirit" (Fumaroli 1992a, 80–81).1 If we distinguish rhetoric as discipline, oratory as product, eloquence as value, we [End Page 402] see Fumaroli's career is exemplary of a modern initiative that links rhetoric as disciplined inquiry to the politics of value. Thus, he will give us a rhetorical definition of the Académie Française's communal, historical duty to French "eloquence," to a pursuit of a national excellence (Fumaroli 1996a, 304, 1992b, 78). And... (shrink)

Starting from a specific critique of the traditional «metaphysical mistake», Hannah Arendt comes to supporta “phenomenalism” that is not only radical but also spectacular in the sense that it enhances, not appearances that would replace an unknown being or substance, but an appearing as a unique exhibition on the world stage in view of an opinion to communicate or an action to perform. Along this path, an encounter with Merleau-Ponty’s thought can occur at several levels. Specifically, the thesis of (...) the ‘spectacular’ character of the world is presented in Arendt’s political theory as intimately linked to the thesis of an aesthetic and, at the same time, ontological basis of experience, which relates her thought to the Merleau-Pontian theory of vision as “thought conditioned” by the world and “which advents” as “instituted” in a body that is properly its own. For Arendt, thought is not only invisible, it is also ontologically visible as “doxa” in which it is divided into “aspects of world” that are revealed in a “specular” fashion as positions to take and show “outside,” to present and defend. This is a valuable asset in the context of political “advertising.”. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Isocrates' Use of doxaTakis PoulakosEven though Isocrates presents Antidosis as a thorough defense of his educational program, he says very little about it, choosing instead to offer lavish portraits of his own earlier writings, elaborate arguments in defense of his reputation, and painstaking attacks against his competitors. One of the few passages where he speaks directly and explicitly about his educational views concerns the type of teaching of which (...) he approved. "[T]eachers of philosophy," he remarks in an obvious reference to his own instruction, begin their students' training by acquainting them with "all the forms of discourse in which the mind expresses itself." Past this type of training, he goes on to say,when they have made them familiar and thoroughly conversant with these lessons, they set them at exercises, habituate them to work, and require them to combine in practice the particular things which they have learned, in order that they may grasp them more firmly and bring their theories into closer touch with the occasions for applying them —I say "theories," for no system of knowledge can possibly cover these occasions, since in all cases they elude our science. Yet those who most apply their minds to them and are able to discern the consequences which for the most part grow out of them, will most often meet these occasions in the right way. (184)The passage is important for a number of reasons. First, it makes clear that Isocrates conceives learning not so much in terms of possessing a specialized body of knowledge as in knowing how to apply principles to specific situations. Students will be educated in the art of logos, not only when they have become familiar with "all the forms of discourse,," but, more importantly, when they have learned how to apply principles of the art to practical situations. Second, the passage also makes clear that the proper site for applying the principles of the art of logos is the domain of politics. [End Page 61] Teachers of "philosophy" will guide students to apply their knowledge of the art of logos, not in every situation, but in those situations that deal with contingencies and that call for decisions about future courses of action, whose outcome is unknown and whose consequences are unforeseen. Along with many other sections throughout his writings, the passage above offers one more indication that Isocrates' educational program focuses principally on instruction in political or symbouleutic speaking, political discourse or logos politikos. Finally, as the passage states, the domain of situations addressed by his instruction is on the level of contingency and kairos, a domain belonging to the order of doxa, not the order of epistēmē. His teaching of political discourse relies on a method of adjusting opinions and conjectures to specific cases, on bringing doxa in closer proximity to kairos.The passage above, then, sets the conceptual stage for the type of civic education with which Isocrates associates his teaching throughout the Antidosis: the teaching of logos politicos, not for its own sake, but for the purpose of citizenship and statesmanship, an education in speaking well for the purposes of citizenship and statesmanship. By guiding students in how to apply rhetorical principles to practical situations, how to make choices about future courses of action with an eye to potential consequences, and how to adjust choices made to the demands of changing circumstances, he is in fact preparing students to participate in their city's deliberations as citizens. Should they rise to the occasion and be prepared to address the city's problems by submitting the judgments they formulate to the principles of contingency and timeliness, they may very well become leaders of the city one day, capable statesmen or celebrated citizens of the polis.But the passage also leaves several questions unanswered. To begin with, there is the question of the label "philosophy." Does Isocrates use the term philosophia to "denote his rhetoric" (Too 1995, 193) or to suggest an "implicit denial of rhetoric" (Cahn 1989, 134)? Is this label meant to be an act of "appropriating the term 'philosophy'" (Nehamas 1990, 5) or of positing "a contrasting definition of philosophy" (Timmerman 1998, 157)? Can the... (shrink)

Comment penser la politique sans repenser l'essence de l'opinion? Mais comment être encore 'philosophe' si l'on accorde que la doxa manifeste quelque chose de la vérité du monde? Statuer sur ce dilemme demande que soit interrogée la tradition de la philosophie dans sa relation à la politique. D'abord en réhabilitant l'idée d'un sens commun à tous, dont le partage passe par la confrontation des opinions énoncées dans des jugements discordants. Existence partagée supportant hors d'elle de l'impartagé, la démocratie (...) vit sous la condition que libre voix soit inconditionnellement accordée à l'expression des opinions. Ensuite, en donnant à cette existence démocratique, irréductible à un régime, son concept, la transaction. La transaction désigne à la fois une action de reliaison entre des pôles opposés inconciliables et les objets transactionnels dans lesquels se cristallise cette action de façon aléatoire et provisoire. La démocratie n'est rien d'autre que le mouvement qui va de l'action à l'objet qui la fixe puis de l'objet à l'action qui le défait."--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

In Plato's "Hippias Major" 292e6-7, we can find a self-predication sentence; "The fine is always fine." (We have similar expressions in "Protagoras" 330c4-6, 330d8-el, "Lysis" 220b6-7.) How should we interpret this sentence? We cannot give it any metaphysical meaning drawn from Plato's own theory of Form, which is explicit in his middle dialogues. "The fine" here should be the logical cause, not the one of the metaphysical essentials (cf. Paul Woodruff's "Plateo Hippias Major", p. 150). So taking a sentence like (...) "parthenos kale kalon" (287e4), we can safely paraphrase it in Woodruff's manner: "a fine girl is a fine thing." This can avoid reading the metaphysical meaning into the text. And I would like to make a new proposal for reading of 292e6-7: "the fine thing is what is to be called fine." This is to emphasize the unique character of the self-predication sentences in the early dialogues. In the Socratic way of discourse, Socrates and his partner get involved into "trial and error" during their pursuit of the knowledge. What they can do then is to give their opinions which seem to them true (so-called alethes doxa", cf. "Meno" 85c), and to get close examinations of them. And in this way they are getting closer to the knowledge. My interpretation well describes these activities. (shrink)

This paper presents the teaching of Isocrates (436-338 BC), Plato’s contemporary Athenian author, and his conceptions about the form and purposes of paideia or education, which he called, as a whole, philosophía. To this end, the list of students Isocrates supposedly had, the popularity of his school and the testimony by other authors of antiquity on his educational influence are described. After that, the isocratic definition of philosophía is discussed: sometimes presented as an intellectual commitment coupled with experience, at other (...) times as the culture or paideia created by Athens, a city where logos, in its double meaning of reason and discourse, occupied a place of exceptional importance. Finally, I move from this general definition of philosophía to that presented and professed by Isocrates in his school, which, according to him, was the only one to fully deserve the title of philosophía, defined as a deliberate educational procedure. Then the philosophía of Isocrates and its most important principles are presented: dóxa or opinion, empeíria or experience, and the kairós or occasion, pointing out the reasons for this option, the expected results of such educational program, and how such principles appear in what we would call its pedagogical methods, among which Isócrates’ practice of submitting his own works to the criticism of his students, in a form of discussion or debate that nowadays we would call a seminar, stands out. ********** O artigo apresenta o magistério de Isócrates (436-338 a.C.), autor ateniense contemporâneo de Platão, e suas concepções acerca da forma e dos propósitos da paideía ou educação, que ele denominava, em seu conjunto, philosophía. Para tanto, descrevemse o rol dos alunos que Isócrates teria tido, a popularidade de sua escola e o testemunho, por outros autores da Antiguidade, de sua influência educativa. Em seguida, discute-se a definição isocrática de philosophía, apresentada, por vezes, como um empenho intelectual conjugado à experiência; em outros momentos, como a cultura ou paideía criada por Atenas, cidade em que o lógos, em seu duplo sentido de razão e discurso, ocupava lugar de excepcional importância. Por fim, passa-se dessa definição geral de philosophía para aquela que a apresenta como um procedimento educativo deliberado, sendo que o professado por Isócrates em sua escola seria, segundo ele, o único a merecer, de todo direito, o título de philosophía. Descreve-se, então, a philosophía de Isócrates, com seus princípios mais importantes, a dóxa, ou opinião; a empeiría, ou experiência, e o kairós, ou ocasião, indicando as justificativas para essa opção e os resultados esperados de tal programa educativo, e de que modo tais princípios estariam presentes no que chamaríamos de seus métodos pedagógicos, dos quais se destaca a prática de Isócrates de submeter suas próprias obras à crítica de seus alunos, em um formato de discussão ou debate próximo do que denominaríamos, hoje, de seminário. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Ancient Quarrel Revisited:Literary Theory and the Return to EthicsJoseph G. KronickThe modern quarrel between theory and practice, like the ancient one between philosophy and poetry, is at once a practical one—at its heart is the question how we should live—and a pedagogical one—who or what is the proper teacher of virtue? Today, the quarrel is between theory and literature rather than between philosophy and poetry, a change that (...) has not been beneficial. The modern complaint against the abstractions of theory reflects a diminution in the quality of the argument. For the ancient Greeks, to ask about the virtuous life was to inquire into what it is to be human, for aretê, which is typically translated as "virtue," but is understood to mean "excellence" or "goodness," meant acting in accordance with what it is to be fully human. 1 The notion that "real issues," as one prominent theorist argues, belong to the realm of action and epistemological and ontological questions to the abstract realm of theory is a simplification of the more serious question of the relation of particulars to universals. It reverses the Platonic and Aristotelian hierarchy that makes thinking the highest form of activity. But something else is going on in this call to action: in denigrating thinking as abstract, it elevates doxa, opinion, in its place. Under the regime of doxa, two things occur: philosophy and poetry are looked upon as useless because utility becomes the criteria for measuring value, and singularity is looked upon with disdain, if it is, indeed, acknowledged at all, because to the extent the world as it appears is common to us all, doxa is not distinct or individual but uniform or the same. Philosophy and poetry share not only the stigma of being deemed useless, but they are dismissed as odd, singular, not common.This essay is concerned with the status of the singular in philosophy [End Page 436] and poetry. The ancient quarrel has not been settled, which may indeed be a good thing because the quarrel keeps alive the question, who is to speak for that which cannot be spoken of, the singular? Silence may be the appropriate response, yet to preserve the experience of that which resists language is the task of philosophy and poetry, hence the quarrel. A long tradition has it that the philosopher seeks universals, while the poet offers particular images of virtue, but at the heart of this argument over ethics is the question of how to account for the singular or unique. To do so, I turn to Socrates, whose singularity remains unaccounted for to this day.Socrates may be said to embody the very problem of the relation between philosophy and literature, for he left us no writings and exists for us primarily through the writings of Plato. Yet there is widespread acceptance of Plato's portrait of him, particularly as to Socrates' method, the elenchus, and his principle of the priority of definitions. However, Socrates' insistence upon the priority of definition is not an example of the philosopher elevating theory over experience but a practical issue involving the care of the self. Furthermore, in ancient Greece, moral and philosophical questions concerning the soul were as much the provenance of poetry as they were of philosophy. The search for truth is a practical matter concerning the conduct of life, but the Platonic philosopher wishes to give a rational account, or logos, that would link conduct to knowledge, whereas the poet's examples are bound to their representations. Nevertheless, to presume that Socrates was seeking a definition of virtue on the grounds that possession of the definition would translate into a good life is an absurdity, for he could never have sought after the knowledge of virtue if his mode of life depended upon the definition rather than on his character. 2The error is to accuse Socrates of placing abstract knowledge before virtuous conduct. When Socrates asks for a definition of the beautiful, for instance, he does not reject the answer, "the beautiful is a beautiful woman," because it confuses a particular with a universal (when compared to the beauty of the gods, the woman is... (shrink)

There is a problem about belief and knowledge in Plato's epistemology that has exercised serious students of Plato only to settle into a recent orthodoxy. Guthrie characterizes the problem and its current resolution this way: ‘In the Meno doxa appeared to be a dim apprehension of the same objects of which knowledge is a clear and complete understanding … in the Republic each is directed to different objects, knowledge to the Forms and doxa to the sensible world alone (...) … at least the opinion seems now to prevail that on the relationship between doxa and knowledge Meno and Republic are irreconcilable, and exhibit a complete change of mind on Plato's part.'. (shrink)

There is a problem about belief and knowledge in Plato's epistemology that has exercised serious students of Plato only to settle into a recent orthodoxy. Guthrie characterizes the problem and its current resolution this way: ‘In the Meno doxa appeared to be a dim apprehension of the same objects of which knowledge is a clear and complete understanding … in the Republic each is directed to different objects, knowledge to the Forms and doxa to the sensible world alone (...) … at least the opinion seems now to prevail that on the relationship between doxa and knowledge Meno and Republic are irreconcilable, and exhibit a complete change of mind on Plato's part.'. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:From Death to Life: Key Themes in Plato’s Phaedo by Franco TRABATTONIAthanasia A. GiasoumiTRABATTONI, Franco. From Death to Life: Key Themes in Plato’s Phaedo. Boston: Brill, 2023. 190 pp. Cloth, $143.00In his comprehensive study of the Phaedo, Franco Trabattoni challenges the conventional interpretation of Plato’s thought by denying that Plato was ever a dogmatist or a skeptic. The opening chapter proposes that Plato employs a “third way” standing (...) on the Parmenidean distinction between dôxa (belief) and epistēme (knowledge). According to Trabattoni, the Phaedo (together with all other dialogues dealing with the distinction between sensible and intelligible reality) implies that knowledge of the forms can be obtained only after the separation of body and soul and only without the assistance of intermediaries. He contends that humans have no better instrument than lôgos to discover the intelligible realities (forms) that philosophy seeks. However, because lôgos serves as an intermediary, he believes that the mediation of lôgos introduces an unavoidable fault into the cognitive process, which is directly linked to the concept of dôxa. He maintains that this hypothesis is essential for the arguments presented in the Phaedo’s first part to make sense.Trabattoni delves into the Phaedo not just philosophically but also linguistically, particularly in passage 60c, where Cebes brings up the question of suicide. Notably, in chapter 2, Trabattoni provides a new translation of this passage that contrasts with the readings supplied by Dorter, Gallop, and Boter. Trabattoni claims that Plato responds to the problem of suicide by adhering to the eudaemonistic stance that no obligation that goes against the happiness of the individual subject to it is of any value.Chapter 3 features a counterargument to the predominant viewpoint positing an inconsistency between the Phaedo and the Republic. Trabattoni asserts that these dialogues agree in maintaining that true virtue can be ascribed only to those who believe in metaphysical realities and possess an exclusive desire to acquire knowledge of them. He posits that the disparities between the two dialogues can be attributed primarily to differing perspectives rather than a significant theoretical divide.In my opinion, chapter 4 is the book’s most interesting and original portion. Here, Trabattoni argues that Plato’s contrast in the Phaedo between genuine and false philosophers is directed at Antisthenes, specifically, that Plato opposes his Socratism to Antisthenes’ by depicting the Platonic Socrates as a genuine philosopher (philōsophos) in contrast to Antisthenes’ Socrates, who is portrayed as a false one (philōdoxos). According to Trabattoni, Plato endeavors to provide what Antisthenes’ portrayal of Socrates does not, namely, a metaphysical perspective that differentiates between opinion and truth. Though novel and charming, Trabattoni’s interpretation is not supported by the text since the Phaedo makes no direct allusion to Antisthenes’ Socrates, mentioning Antisthenes only at the beginning (58b) as someone present at Socrates’ last moments. Thus, the book’s strongest section could also be considered its weakest.Chapter 5 argues that the recollection theory is not intended to establish the possibility of a complete retrieval of the knowledge of the forms. [End Page 163] Trabattoni disagrees with Scott’s and others’ assertion that recollection is a method of inquiry on the grounds that Socrates never explains how the alleged “method” of recollection should be applied. Rather, Trabattoni contends, the function of recollection is to explain why human intellective knowledge cannot exceed the boundary of dôxa. Trabattoni argues further that the recollection theory indicates that only when the soul is separated from the body, that is, when a person dies, is it possible to gain knowledge of the forms.Chapters 6 and 7 examine in depth the philosophical, methodological, and linguistic aspects of the objections raised by Cebes and Simmias as well as Socrates’ ensuing arguments regarding the immortality of the soul. Additionally, Trabattoni explores the historical background of Plato’s Phaedo and the impact on it of Pythagoreanism, Orphism, and Eleatic philosophy.Chapter 8 is another particularly captivating section. It offers a fresh perspective on the concept of the “second voyage” (deũteros ploũs), challenging the prevailing interpretation, on which the second voyage signifies the triumph of the... (shrink)

O texto consiste em uma tradução do artigo Penser l’après : Sciences, pouvoir et opinions dans l’après Covid-19 escrito pela professora e filósofa de ciências Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent. A tradução foi autorizada pela autora e sua eventual publicação deve seguir as diretrizes do jornal The Conversation, no qual o artigo foi originalmente publicado. A partir das medidas implementadas mundialmente para o combate ao coronavírus, a autora analisa o vínculo entre as comunidades científicas e o governo. A gestão da crise sanitária, segundo (...) Bensaude-Vincent, baseia-se não só em dispositivos atuais, mas recorre a um modelo bastante arcaico: o confinamento generalizado. A diferença, segundo a filósofa, estaria no fato de hoje tal medida visar a salvar, sobretudo, o sistema hospitalar. Tal contexto nos remete a imagens de um passado que se considerava superado, lançando, assim, uma dúvida sobre o vínculo entre ciências e poder das últimas décadas. Os interesses locais, políticos, econômicos, religiosos e mesmo os interesses e valores dos próprios pesquisadores mostram-se, por vezes, incompatíveis com o “dever do ceticismo organizado que resta como um dos grandes princípios do éthos científico”. Daí a desconfiança do público que, por sua vez, é reduzido ao silêncio por pertencer ao inferior âmbito da doxa. A ideia de uma hierarquia na ordem do conhecimento que estabelece a opinião como um saber inferior não é nova, no entanto, segundo a autora, para os antigos isso não implicaria, como atualmente, uma hierarquia política. Bensaude-Vincent convoca, assim, a reabilitação dos "saberes de campo não científico como fontes de invenção e de soluções" em regime, como o nosso, de incerteza. (shrink)

Cet article a pour objet premier de tenter d’expliciter deux notions importantes de la psychologie platonicienne, celles de phantasia et de phantasma. L’auteur, par une analyse de certains passages clés des Dialogues, tente de retracer la genèse de la distinction de ces deux notions, jusqu’à leurs définitions dans le Sophiste. Cette explicitation révèle, simultanément, le lien étroit que chacune de ces notions entretient avec la doxa ou opinion.— The purpose of this article is to try to clarify two (...) important notions of the platonic psychology, namely those of phantasia and of phantasma. The author, through analysis of key excerpts from the Dialogs, tries to relate the genesis of the distinction of these two notions, until their definitions in the Sophist. This explanation simultaneously reveals the link that both notions have with the doxa. (shrink)

Si en una fingida encuesta se planteara la cuestión más bien extraña, quizá un punto absurda ―como las de tantos otros sondeos de las opiniones de las gentes―, acerca de cuál es la obra que mejor expresa el derrotero histórico de la fenomenología en España a lo largo del siglo XX, yo al menos, sin pretender condicionar la dóxa de nadie, contestaría señalando no a una obra original sino a una peculiar traducción de Husserl al castellano. Dicha traducción, que iba (...) precedida de un largo estudio introductorio, se publicó incompleta, y, por si fuera poco, apareció además fuera de España: en México, en el año incierto de 1942. De una imprenta de la Ciudad de México salía al mundo en esa fecha, en efecto, la notable versión que José Gaos preparó de las Meditaciones cartesianas de Edmund Husserl. O mejor, salía a la luz su traducción de las cuatro primeras meditaciones, pues la versión castellana de la meditación quinta desapareció bajo los escombros del piso madrileño en que la familia Gaos vivía antes de la guerra (calle de Marqués de Urquijo 15). (shrink)