In this study, we aim to analyze the notions of “pragmatic” and “commatic” we encounter in what we highlight to be a process of canonization of style appropriate to each content and theological level since Porphyry. This research is divided into three parts: primarily, we investigate the sense in which the Neoplatonists use the adjective “commatic”, which includes on the one hand (1) defining what the Neoplatonists mean by “unity of meaning”, and on the other hand distinguishing between a “woven” (...) and continuous style and a “disjointed” and broken style, collecting the stylistic criticisms made by the Neoplatonists of the ancient texts; then (2) we seek to establish the areas of application of the “commatic” style in Neoplatonic discourse, distinguishing on the one hand inspired and ethical discourse, and on the other hand clear and sharp dialectical discourse, bordering on that which eludes philosophical demonstration, namely, the ἀσάφεια; finally (3), we aim to study the “pragmatic” style associated with each theological content in order to highlight its corresponding style and vocabulary. The present research stems from the need to show how behind the lexical and structural choices of the Neoplatonic writings there is a precise theory of style, produced by a process of aesthetic canonization that emerges clearly as early as Porphyry’s rhetorical fragments and from Neoplatonic exegetical activity on rhetorical works, as well as from an innumerable amount of references to a rhetorical tradition on the period and its parts, the commata and côla, which the Neoplatonists, as this study aims to show, master and apply on their own structuring and formalization of theological content. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to re-evaluate the position and role of Plato’s Charmides by analysing its second part. In this section, Critias tries to explain sôphrosunê as a form of knowledge that is self-referential in the sense that it is a type of knowledge of all other forms of knowledge without being knowledge of the objects of those other forms. Plato remains doubtful about the feasibility and usefulness of such a concept, as he believes that all types of (...) knowledge must be about something else, separate from the forms of knowledge themselves. He also thinks that such formal knowledge, if it indeed exists, is of little interest. This paper also aims to demonstrate that the Charmides belongs to a group of dialogues in which Plato discusses other people’s proposals, similar to what happens in the Theaetetus. In the case of the Charmides, this is very likely the project that we will later see developed in Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics. (shrink)