En 1931, Rudolf Carnap publicó un artículo titulado "Die Überwindung der Metaphysik durch logische Analyse der Sprache" donde calificaba algunas expresiones de la conferencia de Martin Heidegger, "Was ist Metaphysik?", como 'sinsentidos'. Distinguía así entre expresiones (enunciados) 'con' y 'sin' sentido. Denunció que las que violaran el criterio empirista de significado serían del segundo tipo: 'pseudo-expresiones'. Sin embargo, Carnap reconocía desconocer la fuente exacta de los sinsentidos al comentar que expresaban algo, pero 'como lo hace un artista'. En 1936, Heidegger (...) reaccionaba explorando el 'como lo hace un artista' de Carnap en una conferencia en Zürich, "Der Ursprung des Kunstwerkes", donde distinguía, basado en la 'diferencia ontológica' de Sein und Zeit (1927), entre expresiones (lenguaje) 'de comunicación' y 'del ser'. En 1955, Heidegger fundaría esa distinción en términos de áreas de investigación, 'filosofía' y 'poesía', en la conferencia de Normandia, "Was ist das-die Philosophie?". En ella, Heidegger, no obstante, concluía, al igual que Carnap, no saber cómo distinguirlas, dado que el lenguaje acoge a ambas. Esta disputa por la prioridad entre tipos de expresión continúa en nuestros días (Stove 1991; Smith 1992; Lacoue-Labarthe 2002; Gadenne 2008; y Nef 2009). En este escrito, quisiera contribuir a la controversia ensayando una reconciliación entre lo que llamaré 'la concepción formal del mundo', representada por el realismo lógico, el empirismo lógico y las fenomenologías realista y trascendental, y 'la concepción informal del mundo', representada por la filosofía del lenguaje ordinario, la hermenéutica, la deconstrucción, el contextualismo y la poesía. La conclusión será una eliminación de las prioridades mediante una defensa biológica de la libertad de expresión. Em 1931, Rudolf Carnap publicou um artigo intitulado "Die Überwindung der Metaphysik durch logische Analyse der Sprache" onde qualificava algumas expressões da conferência de Martin Heidegger, "Was ist Metaphysik?", como 'sem sentido'. Distinguia assim entre expressões (enunciados) 'com' e 'sem' sentido. Denunciou que aquelas expressões que violassem o critério empirista de significado seriam do segundo tipo: 'pseudo-expressões'. Todavia, Carnap reconhecia desconhecer a fonte exata dos sem-sentidos ao comentar que expressavam algo, mas 'como o faz um artista'. Em 1936, Heidegger reagia explorando o 'como o faz um artista' de Carnap em uma conferência em Zürich, "Der Ursprung des Kunstwerkes", onde distinguia, baseado na 'diferença ontológica' de Sein und Zeit (1927), entre expressões (linguagem) 'de comunicação' e 'de ser'. Em 1955, Heidegger estabeleceria essa distinção em termos de áreas de investigação, 'filosofia' e 'poesia', na conferência de Normandia, "Was ist das-die Philosophie?". Nela, Heidegger concluia, contudo, do mesmo modo que Carnap, não saber como distingui-las, dado que a linguagem acolhe a ambas. Esta disputa pela prioridade entre tipos de expressão continua en nossos dias (Stove 1991; Smith 1992; Lacoue-Labarthe 2002; Gadenne 2008; y Nef 2009). Neste artigo, gostaria de contribuir à controvérsia procurando uma reconciliação entre o que chamarei 'a concepção formal do mundo', representada pelo realismo lógico, o empirismo lógico e as fenomenologias realista e trascendental, e 'a concepção informal do mundo', representada pela filosofia da linguagem ordinária, a hermenéutica, a desconstrução, o contextualismo e a poesia. A conclusão será uma eliminação das prioridades mediante uma defesa biológica da liberdade de expressão. (shrink)
This is the companion volume to Gregory Vlastos' highly acclaimed work Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher. Four ground-breaking papers which laid the basis for his understanding of Socrates are collected here, in revised form: they examine Socrates' elenctic method of investigative argument, his disavowal of knowledge, his concern for definition, and the complications of his relationship with the Athenian democracy. The fifth chapter is a new and provocative discussion of Socrates' arguments in the Protagoras and Laches. The epilogue 'Socrates and (...) Vietnam' suggests that Socrates was not, as Plato claimed, the most just man of his time. The papers have been prepared for publication by Professor Myles Burnyeat with the minimum of editorial intervention. (shrink)
In Section IV above we start with texts whose prima facie import speaks so strongly for the Identity Thesis that any interpretation which stops short of it looks like a shabby, timorous, thesis-saving move. What else could Socrates mean when he declares with such conviction that ‘no evil’ can come to a good man (T19), that his prosecutors ‘could not harm’ him (T16(a)), that if a man has not been made more unjust he has not been harmed (T20), that ‘all (...) of happiness is in culture and justice’ (T16(a)), that living well is ‘the same’ as living justly (T15)? But then doubts begin to creep in. Recalling that inflation of the quantifier is normal and innocuous in common speech (“that job means everything to him, he'll do anything to get it, will stick at nothing ”) we ask if there is really no chance at all that ‘no evil’ in T19, ‘not harmed’ in T20 might be meant in the same way? The shift from ‘no harm’ at T16(a) to ‘no great harm’ at T16(b), once noticed, strengthens the doubt. It gets further impetus in T21(b) when to explain how ‘all of happiness is in culture and justice’ he depicts a relation (that recurs more elaborately in T22) which, though still enormously strong, is not quite as strong as would be required by identity. The doubt seeps into T15 when we note that current usage did allow just that relation as a respectable use of ‘the same’. At that point we begin to wonder if resort to the Identity Thesis might not be just a first approximation to a subtler, more finely nuanced, doctrine which would give Socrates as sound a foundation for what we know he wants to maintain at all costs - the Sovereignty of Virtue - without obliterating the eudaemonic value of everything else in his world. We cast about for a credible model of such a relation of virtue to happiness and hit on that multicomponent pattern sketched on p. 9 above. We ascertain that this will afford a comprehensively coherent eudaemonist theory of rational action, while its rival would not, and will fit perfectly a flock of texts in Section V which the latter will not fit at all. Are we not entitled to conclude that this is our best guide to the true relation of virtue to happiness in Socrates' thought - the one for which he would have declared if he had formulated explicitly those two alternative theses and made a reasoned choice between them? (shrink)
Vlastos, G. Introduction: the paradox of Socrates.--Lacey, A. R. Our knowledge of Socrates.--Dover, K. J. Socrates in the Clouds.--Robinson, R. Elenchus.--Robinson, R. Elenchus, direct and indirect.--Robinson, R. Socratic definition.--Nakhnikian, G. Elenctic definitions.--Cohen, S. M. Socrates on the definition of piety: Euthyphro 10A-11B.--Santas, G. Socrates at work on virtue and knowledge in Plato's Laches.--Burnyeat, M. F. Virtues in action.--Walsh, J. J. The Socratic denial of Akrasia.--Santas, G. Plato's Protagoras and explanations of weakness.--Woozley, A. D. Socrates on disobeying the law.--Allen, R. E. (...) Plato's earlier theory of forms. (shrink)
Introduction: the paradox of Socrates, by G. Vlastos.--Our knowledge of Socrates, by A. R. Lacey.--Socrates in the Clouds, by K. J. Dover.--Elenchus, by R. Robinson.--Elenchus: direct and indirect, by R. Robinson.--Socratic definition, by R. Robinson.--Elenctic definitions, by G. Nakhnikian.--Socrates on the definition of piety: Euthyphro 10A-11B, by S. M. Cohen.--Socrates at work on virtue and knowledge in Plato's Laches, by G. Santas.--Virtues in action, by M. F. Burnyeat.--The Socratic denial of Akrasia, by J. J. Walsh.--Plato's Protagoras and explanations of weakness, (...) by G. Santas.--Socrates on disobeying the law, by A. D. Woozley.--Plato's earlier theory of forms, by R. E. Allen.--Selected bibliography (p. 336-339). (shrink)
