Intent upon harmonizing doctrines of their predecessors, some Neoplatonic commentators are faced with a problem of resolving doctrinal discrepancies so as to restore the συµφωνία in the history of philosophy. This article considers a particular example of this attempt ats harmonization: how Simplicius reconciles Aristotle's Categories with the Neopythagorean doctrine of the Pseudo-Archytas. The chronological inversion introduced by the counterfeiter produces remarkable effects on the late Platonic doctrine about general terms, to the extent that a commentator such as Simplicius works (...) to reduce the dissonance between Archytas' and Aristotle's words. This paper has three aims: to restore the general grid that Simplicius uses for reading and commenting on Archytas through Aristotle; to identify the exegetical strategies aimed at a doctrinal reconciliation; to consider a specific case, provided by the doctrine of weight, which engenders a new physical theory by Simplicius. (shrink)

Dans Les Nuées, Aristophane adresse des critiques à Socrate auxquelles Platon répond philosophiquement dans l’Apologie. Or le Socrate des Nuées porte des traits de Protagoras, et certains reproches attribués à l’un valent pour l’autre. Comme pour Socrate, Platon a composé pour Protagoras une apologie, dans le Théétète. Si nous comparons les accusations de la pièce à ce que Platon prête à Protagoras, nous constatons qu’il se fait son défenseur. Mais pour quelle raison et à quel point de vue? Par une (...) analyse des concepts de geloion et de mimèsis comique, on montre comment Platon déploie une stratégie de réappropriation de la pensée de Protagoras – pour lui donner un tour philosophique qui constitue en même temps une réflexion critique sur le statut de l’objet comique.In the Apology, Plato gives a philosophical answer to critics contained in Aristophanes’ Clouds. However, through Socrates, The Clouds target Protagoras too. As a matter of fact, Plato composed an apology for him, as well in the Theaetetus, that answers the charges in the comedy against Protagoras, becoming in a certain way his « lawyer ». But why and what for? Analysing the concepts of geloion and comic mimesis, we show how Plato undertakes to give a philosophical reading of Protagoras’ thought, which, in the same time, constitutes a critical thinking about the object of comedy. (shrink)

Unlike the _Phaedo_ itself, its reception in Antiquity remains little studied. By examining the extant commentaries, their sources, and the dialogue’s presence in the reflections of ancient thinkers both inside and outside the Platonic tradition, this volume aims to reconstruct its ancient history.