Abstract
In Soph. 237b7–239a11 Plato lays out a sequence of arguments that are generally considered homogenous. An analysis of each argument can shed light on the need to differentiate their respective nature. Firstly, it will be shown that the arguments do not work only at the linguistic level, contrary to the way these passages are interpreted by most of commentators. The meta–linguistic nature of the third argument will be particularly emphasised. Secondly, it will be argued that the three arguments follow each other according to a crescendo. The implications of this argumentative structure will be specifically appreciated. Both these results of the analysis induce to attribute a crucial importance to the notion of medamos on: the arguments do not aim to definitively exclude the possibility of a Parmenidean non–being; they play a positive role within the inquiry of the Stranger of Elea, inasmuch the thematisation of Parmenidean non–being is seriously taken into account and embraced at this stage of the dialogue. In fact it is only through this dialectical step that the Stranger gains the chance to proceed in the direction of a relational ontology and a new concept of non–being. The positive role played by the medamos on presupposes that this expression and the equivalent ones are not mere absurdities and can find place in the Platonic use of language; this implies that the notion of medamos on must have a justification in the framework of Platonic relational ontology and conception of language. The consideration of this aspect eventually gives the opportunity to return to the three arguments and present an explanation of their positioning in that stage of the dialogue.
Bibliografia
Ackrill, J.L. 1955. “ΣΥΜΠΛΟΚΕ ΕΙΔΩΝ”, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London 2, 31–35.Search in Google Scholar
Aronadio, F. 2015. “L’importanza del “non”: Platone, i nemici delle idee e il nulla”, Fogli di Filosofia 6, 1–32 (http://scuoladifilosofia.it/fogli).Search in Google Scholar
Aronadio, F. (in corso di stampa). “Intentionality and Referentiality in Plato’s Cratylus”, in Plato’s Cratylus. Proceedings of the Eleventh Symposium Platonicum Pragense, edited by F. Karfik, S. Spinka and V. Mikes, Leiden.Search in Google Scholar
Aubenque, P. 1991. Une occasion manquée: la genèse avortée de la distinction entre l’“étant” et le “quelque chose”, in Etudes sur le Sophiste de Platon, publiées sous la direction de P. Aubenque; textes recueillis par M. Narcy, Napoli, Bibliopolis, 365–385.Search in Google Scholar
Bluck, R.S. 1975. Plato’s Sophist. A Commentary, Manchester, Manchester University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Brown, L. 1986. “Being in the Sophist: A Syntactical Enquiry”, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy4, 49–70 (rist. in Plato. 1, Metaphysics and Epistemology, edited by G. Fine, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999, 455–478).Search in Google Scholar
Cassin, B. 1991. “Les Muses et la philosophie. Eléments pour une histoire du pseudos”, in Etudes sur le Sophiste de Platon, publiées sous la direction de P. Aubenque; textes recueillis par M. Narcy, Napoli, Bibliopolis, 291–316.Search in Google Scholar
Centrone, B. 2008. Platone. Sofista, Torino, Einaudi.Search in Google Scholar
Cordero, N.L. 1986–1987. “Le non-être absolu dans le Sophiste de Platon”, École pratique des hautes études, Section des sciences religieuses 95, 282–285.Search in Google Scholar
Cornford, F.M.D. 1935. Plato’s Theory of Knowledge, London, Routledge & Kegan.Search in Google Scholar
Crivelli, P. 2012. Plato’s Account of Falsehood. A Study of the Sophist, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139015004Search in Google Scholar
De Rijk, L.M. 1986. Plato’s Sophist: A Philosophical Commentary, Amsterdam–Oxford–New York, North Holland Pu. Co.Search in Google Scholar
Dixsaut, M. 1991. “La négation, le non-être et l’autre dans le Sophiste”, in Etudes sur le Sophiste de Platon, publiées sous la direction de P. Aubenque; textes recueillis par M. Narcy, Napoli, Bibliopolis, 165–213.Search in Google Scholar
Fronterotta, F. 2007. Platone. Sofista, Milano, BUR.Search in Google Scholar
Giovannetti, L. 2016. “Ryle, Platone e il Parmenide”, Fogli di Filosofia 7, 210–242 (http://scuoladifilosofia.it/fogli).Search in Google Scholar
Heinaman, R. 1983. “Being in the Sophist”, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 45, 1–17.10.1515/agph.1983.65.1.1Search in Google Scholar
Jordan, R.W. 1984. “Plato’s Task in the Sophist”, The Classical Quarterly 34, 113–129.10.1017/S0009838800029359Search in Google Scholar
Lafrance, Y. 1984. “Sur une lecture analytique des arguments concernant le non-être (Sophiste, 237b10–239a12)”, Revue de Philosophie Ancienne 2, 41–76.Search in Google Scholar
Lewis, F.A. 1976. “Plato on ‘Not’ ”, California Studies in Classical Antiquity 9, 89–115.10.2307/25010702Search in Google Scholar
Malcom, J. 1967. “Plato’s Analysis of to on and to me on in the Sophist”, Phronesis 12, 130–146.Search in Google Scholar
Malcom, J. 1985. “On what is not in any way”, The Classical Quarterly 35, 520–523.10.1017/S0009838800040362Search in Google Scholar
Mesquita, A.P. 2013. “Plato’s Eleaticism in the Sophist: The Doctrine of Non–Being”, in Plato’s Sophist Revisited, edited by B. Bossi and T.M. Robinson, Berlin, De Gruyter, 175–186.10.1515/9783110287134.175Search in Google Scholar
Migliori, M. 2006. Il Sofista di Platone. Valore e limiti dell’ontologia, Brescia, Morcelliana.Search in Google Scholar
Mourelatos, A.P.D. 1983. “‘Nothing’ as ‘Not–Being’: Some Literary Contexts that Bear on Plato”, in Essays in Ancient Philosophy. Vol. Two, edited by J.P. Anton and A. Preus, Albany, State University of New York Press, 59–69.Search in Google Scholar
O’Brien, D. 1991. “Le non-être dans la philosophie grecque: Parménide, Platon, Plotin”, in Etudes sur le Sophiste de Platon, publiées sous la direction de P. Aubenque; textes recueillis par M. Narcy, Napoli, Bibliopolis, 317–364.Search in Google Scholar
O’Brien, D. 1995. Le Non-Être. Deux Ètudes sur le Sophiste de Platon, Sankt Augustin, Academia.Search in Google Scholar
O’Brien, D. 2005. “La forma del non essere”, in Eidos–Idea, a cura di F. Fronterotta e W. Leszl, Sankt Augustin, Academia, 115–159.Search in Google Scholar
O’Brien, D. 2013a. “A Form that ‘is’ of what ‘is not’. Existential einai in Plato’s Sophist”, in The Platonic Art of Philosophy, edited by G. Boys–Stones, D. El Murr and C. Gill, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 221–248.Search in Google Scholar
O’Brien, D. 2013b. “Does Plato refute Parmenides?”, in Plato’s Sophist Revisited, edited by B. Bossi and T. M. Robinson, Berlin, De Gruyter, 117–155.Search in Google Scholar
Owen, G. E. L. 1970. “Plato on not being”, reprinted in Logic, Science and Dialectic, edited by G. E. L. Owen and M. Nussbaum, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 104–137.Search in Google Scholar
Palumbo, L. 1994. Il non essere e l’apparenza. Sul Sofista di Platone, Napoli, Loffredo.Search in Google Scholar
Rosen, S. 1983. Plato’s Sophist. The Drama of Original and Image, New Haven–London, Yale University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Rowe, Ch. 2015. Theaetetus and Sophist, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139047036Search in Google Scholar
Ryle, G. 1939. “Plato’s Parmenides”, Mind, N.S. 48, 129–151; 302–325.10.1093/mind/XLVIII.190.129Search in Google Scholar
Sasso, G. 1991. L’essere e le differenze: sul Sofista di Platone, Bologna, Il Mulino.Search in Google Scholar
Thomas, C.J. 2008. “Speaking of Something: Plato’s Sophist and Plato’s Beard”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 38, 631–667.10.1353/cjp.0.0032Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
