Euthydemus is included neither in Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker by Diels–Kranz nor in Sofisti. Testimonianze e frammenti by Untersteiner nor in Early Greek Philosophy by Laks and Most. Likewise, the great twentieth century works on the Sophists do not give space to him, at best mentioning him briefly. Yet Euthydemus is the author of a fragment, which was quoted by Plato in his Cratylus, and on which again there is no modern study. This paper sets out to study this fragment (...) in depth, to review and discuss the various translations, both existing and possible, to study the context of Plato’s quotation, to clarify the exact meaning and the theoretical scope of this important fragment, and lastly to place Euthydemus in the Protagorean tradition, of which he is a notable product. (shrink)
This volume gathers specific investigations dealing with some of the main topics of the research on Democritus: the catalogue of works, music, literary criticism, technics, zoology and the relation to medicine, physics, epistemology, posterity.
With the use of a particular metaphor, which appears at the end of the Cratylus and is taken up with perfect symmetry at the beginning of the Theaetetus, Plato certainly wanted to indicate the succession of Cratylus–Theaetetus as an order for reading the two dialogues, which Trasillus faithfully reproduced in structuring the second tetralogy of Platonic dialogues. The claim of the theory of ideas, with which the Cratylus ends, must therefore be considered the background in which to place not only (...) the analysis of the name carried out in the Cratylus, but also the discussion and criticism of the epistemological theories examined and refuted in the Theaetetus. The transition from the discussion of the name to that of the logos is another important theoretical element that connects the two dialogues. Another one is the theory of knowledge, already precisely elaborated in the Cratylus, and taken up and deepened in the Theaetetus. Finally, the theme of false and error is a third theoretical element common to the two dialogues, which, starting from Euthydemus, finds its solution in the Sophist. (shrink)
In this paper I examine the testimonium of Aristotle’s Rhetoric concerning Diogenes the Cynic. This piece of evidence is the most ancient source of Diogenes and proves that Aristotle was familiar with his writings. I also study the testimonium on Diogenes that is handed down by Theophrastus, which confirms the interest of the ancient Peripatos in this philosopher. Finally, I examine a passage of Book 1 of the Politics where Aristotle refers to the thesis on the abolition of money. I (...) argue that such a thesis could be ascribed to Diogenes. In particular, I attempt to demonstrate that several theses of political philosophy put forward by Diogenes should be considered as constituting a polemical overthrow of the corresponding theses of Aristotle in Book 1 of his Politics. (shrink)
Dans les Grenouilles , Aristophane reproche à Socrate de mépriser la musique. Cette étude vise à montrer que Xénophon et Platon ont répondu à Aristophane. Dans le Banquet de Xénophon, Socrate accorde une grande importance à la musique et à la danse et il y applique une esthétique conforme à celle qu’il a lui-même exposée dans les Mémorables . Le Banquet de Xénophon renferme également des allusions critiques à deux autres pièces d’Aristophane, soit les Nuées et les Cavaliers. Dans le (...) Phédon , Socrate obéit au rêve qui lui enjoint de composer de la « musique », que Platon assimile en fait à la philosophie elle-même.In Frogs , Aristophanes blames Socrates for spurning music. The aim of this paper is to show that Xenophon and Plato answered Aristophanes’ charge. In Xenophon’s Symposium, Socrates attaches great value to music and dance, and he applies the esthetic theory he had set out in Memorabilia . Xenophon’s Symposium also contains critical allusions to two other of Aristophanes’ plays, Clouds and Knights. In Phaedo , Socrates obeys the dream that orders him to compose « music », which Plato reduces to philosophy itself. (shrink)
The question of the method was central in the thought and teaching of Prodicus. We have abundant information on this method but it is, probably, closely connected to various other issues, on which we are less well informed. The right method to solve diverse linguistic problems comprised two moments and not just one as it frequently assumed. Similarly, the terms orthotes and diairesis of names, which appear in the sources, do not designate one single and simple procedure, but rather a (...) double and more complex one, which is reconstructed in this article and whose objectives are clarified. (shrink)
