Argumentation and Reflection in Plato’s Gigantomachia (Sophist 245e6–249d5)
-
Daniel Vázquez
Abstract
This paper argues that Plato’s gigantomachia is simultaneously concerned with first-order arguments about metaphysics and epistemology and with second-order arguments that reflect on the impact of ethical components, argumentative strategies and theoretical assumptions in the conversation. This complex argumentative structure reveals, I suggest, an organic and systematic conception of philosophy where all the elements are interdependent. This interpretation has four consequences, two at the second-order level, and two concerning the first-order arguments. First, it shows that there are methodological and ethical requirements without which philosophy is impossible. Second, it shows that the text does not refute materialism but tries to reflect the necessary conditions to consider possible the existence of incorporeal beings. Third, it argues that the text assumes a conception of knowledge where knowing something is a complex activity composed of two causal relations. Finally, it offers a new interpretation of the overall conclusion of the passage.
DK Diels, H./Kranz, W. 1952. Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. 6th ed. Berlin.Suche in Google Scholar
SVF Arnim, H. von. 1903–1905. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta. Stuttgart.Suche in Google Scholar
LS Long, A. A./Sedley, D. N. 1987. The Hellenistic philosophers. 2 Vols. Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9781139165907Suche in Google Scholar
Apelt, O. 1891. Beiträge zur Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie. Leipzig.10.1515/bgsl.1891.1891.15.504Suche in Google Scholar
Berman, B. 2014. “The Secret Doctrine and the Gigantomachia: Interpreting Plato’s Theaetetus-Sophist”. Plato Journal 14, 53–62.10.14195/2183-4105_14_4Suche in Google Scholar
Boys-Stones, G. R. 2010. “Hesiod and Plato’s History of Philosophy”. In Plato and Hesiod. Eds. G. R. Boys-Stones/J. Haubold. Oxford, 31–51.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199236343.003.0003Suche in Google Scholar
Boys-Stones, G. R./Haubold, J. H. (eds). 2010. Plato and Hesiod. Oxford.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199236343.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Brown, L. 1986. “Being in the Sophist: A Syntactical Enquiry”. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 4, 44–70.Suche in Google Scholar
–. “Innovation and Continuity. The Battle of Gods and Giants, Sophist 245–249”. In Method in Ancient Philosophy. Ed. J. Gentzler. Oxford, 181–207.Suche in Google Scholar
Brunschwig, J. 1988. “La theorie stoïcienne du genre supreme et l’ontologie platonicienne”. In Matter and Metaphysics, Fourth Symposium Hellenisticum. Eds. J. Barnes/M. Mignucci. Naples, 19–127.Suche in Google Scholar
–. 1994. Papers in Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9780511518393Suche in Google Scholar
Burnyeat, M. F. 2003. “Apology 30b2-4: Socrates, Money, and the Grammar of GIGNESTHAI”. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 123, 1–25.Suche in Google Scholar
Campbell, L. 1867. The Sophistes and Politicus of Plato. Oxford.Suche in Google Scholar
Caston, V. 1999. “Something and Nothing: The Stoics on Concepts and Universals”. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 17, 145–213.Suche in Google Scholar
Cherniss, H. 1944. Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato and the Academy. Baltimore.Suche in Google Scholar
–. 1957. “The Relation of the Timaeus to Plato’s Later Dialogues”. The American Journal of Philology 78, 225–266.10.2307/292120Suche in Google Scholar
Cohen, S. M./Keyt, D. 1992. “Analysing Plato’s Arguments: Plato and Platonism”. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy. Supplement, 173–200.Suche in Google Scholar
Cornford, E. M. 1935. Plato’s Theory of Knowledge. London.10.4324/9781315822884Suche in Google Scholar
D. H. Frank, 1985. “On What There Is: Plato’s Later Thoughts”. Elenchos 6, 5–18.Suche in Google Scholar
Diès, A. 1909. La définition de l’être et la nature des idées dans le Sophiste de Platon. 2nd ed. 1963. Paris.Suche in Google Scholar
Frede, M. 1996. “Die Frage nach dem Seienden: Sophistes”. In Platon. Seine Dialoge in der Sicht neuer Forschungen. Eds. T. Kobusch/B. Mojsich. Darmstadt, 181–199.Suche in Google Scholar
Friedländer, P. 1969. Plato 3: Dialogues, Second and Third Period. London.Suche in Google Scholar
Hankinson, R. J. J. 1998. Cause and Explanation in Ancient Greek Thought. Oxford.10.1093/0199246564.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Harte, V. 2002. Plato on Parts and Wholes. Oxford.10.1093/0198236751.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Huffman, C. 2008. Alcmaeon. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2008/entries/alcmaeon/.Suche in Google Scholar
Jackson, R. 1990. “Socrates’ Iolaos: Myth and Eristic in Plato’s Euthydemus”. The Classical Quarterly 40, 378–395.10.1017/S0009838800042968Suche in Google Scholar
Keyt, D. 1969. “Plato’s Paradox that the Immutable is Unknowable”. The Philosophical Quarterly 19, 1–14.10.2307/2218184Suche in Google Scholar
Kraut, R. (ed.) 1992. The Cambridge Companion to Plato. Cambridge.10.1017/CCOL0521430186Suche in Google Scholar
Leigh, F. 2010. “Being and Power in Plato’s Sophist”. Apeiron, 63–85.10.1515/APEIRON.2010.43.1.63Suche in Google Scholar
–. 2008. “The Copula and Semantic Continuity in Plato’s Sophist”. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 34, 105–121.Suche in Google Scholar
Lloyd, G. E. R. 1975. “The Hippocratic Question”. Philosophical Quarterly 25, 171–92.Suche in Google Scholar
Loraux, N. 1985. “Socrate, Platon, Héraklès: sur un paradigme héeroïque du philosophie”. In Historie et structure: à la mémorie de Victor Goldschmidt. Eds. J. Brunschwig/C. Imbert/A. Roger. Paris, 93–105.Suche in Google Scholar
Long, A. A./Sedley, D. N. 1987. The Hellenistic philosophers. 2 Vols. Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9781139165907Suche in Google Scholar
Mackenzie, M. M. 1986. “Putting the Cratylus in Its Place”. The Classical Quarterly, New Series 36, 124–150.10.1017/S0009838800010600Suche in Google Scholar
Malcolm, J. 2006. “Some Cautionary Remarks on the ‘is’/‘teaches’ Analogy”. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 31, 281–296.Suche in Google Scholar
March, J. 1999. Cassell Dictionary of Classical Mythology. Bath.Suche in Google Scholar
McCabe, M. M. 2001. “Developing the Good itself by itself: Critical Strategies in Plato’s Euthydemus”. Journal of the International Plato Society 2. Available at: https://www3.nd.edu/~plato/plato2issue/mccabe.htm.10.14195/2183-4105_2_3Suche in Google Scholar
–. 2000. Plato and his Predecessors. Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9780511552601Suche in Google Scholar
–. 1994. Plato’s Individuals. Princeton.Suche in Google Scholar
Miller, D. 2004. “Fast and Loose About Being: Criticism of Competing Ontologies in Plato’s Sophist”. Ancient Philosophy 24, 339–363.10.5840/ancientphil200424242Suche in Google Scholar
Moravcsik, J. M. E. 1962. “Being and Meaning in the Sophist”. Acta Philosophica Fennica 14, 23–78.Suche in Google Scholar
–. 1992. “The Forms: Plato’s Discovery”. In Plato and Platonism. London, 55–92.Suche in Google Scholar
Morgan, K. 2000. Myth and Philosophy from the Presocratics to Plato. Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9780511482540Suche in Google Scholar
Notomi, N. 1999. The Unity of Plato’s Sophist. Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9781107297968Suche in Google Scholar
Owen, G. E. L. 1966. “Plato and Parmenides on the Timeless Present”. Monist 50, 317–40.10.5840/monist196650325Suche in Google Scholar
–. 1971. “Plato on Not-Being”. In Plato: A Collection of Critical Essays. Volume I: Metaphysics and Epistemology. Ed. G. Vlastos. New York, 223–267.10.1007/978-1-349-86203-0_13Suche in Google Scholar
Plamböck, G. 1964. Dynamis im Corpus Hippocraticum. Mainz.Suche in Google Scholar
Politis, V. 2006. “The Argument for the Reality of Change and Changelessness in Plato’s Sophist (248e7-249d5)”. In New Essays on Plato. Ed. F.-G. Herrmann. Swansea, 149–175.10.2307/j.ctvvn951.10Suche in Google Scholar
Reeve, C.D.C. 1985. “Motion, Rest, and Dialectic in the Sophist”. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 67, 47–64.10.1515/agph.1985.67.1.47Suche in Google Scholar
Robinson, D. B. 1999. “Textual Notes on Plato’s Sophist”. Classical Quarterly 49, 139–160.10.1093/cq/49.1.139Suche in Google Scholar
Sellars, J. 2010. “Stoic Ontology and Plato’s Sophist”. In Aristotle and the Stoics Reading Plato, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, Suppl. 107. Eds. V. Harte/M. M. McCabe/R. W. Sharples/A. Sheppard. London, 185–203.10.1111/j.2041-5370.2011.tb00017.xSuche in Google Scholar
Silverman, A. 2002. The Dialectic of Essence. A Study of Plato’s Metaphysics, Princeton.10.1515/9781400825349Suche in Google Scholar
Smith, W. D. 1979. The Hippocratic Tradition. Cornell.Suche in Google Scholar
Souilhé, J. 1919. “Étude sur le terme Dynamis dans les dialogues de Platón”. Paris.Suche in Google Scholar
Strawser, B. 2012. “Those Frightening Men: A New Interpretation of Plato’s Battle of Gods and Giants”. Epoche, 16, 217–232.10.5840/epoche20121624Suche in Google Scholar
Vlastos, G. 1966. “A Metaphysical Paradox”. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 39, 5–19.10.2307/3129426Suche in Google Scholar
–. 1973. “An Ambiguity in the Sophist”. In Platonic Studies. Princeton, 270–317.10.2307/j.ctv1c9hq3w.16Suche in Google Scholar
–. 1965. “Degrees of Reality in Plato”. In New Essays on Plato and Aristotle. Ed. R. Bambrough. New York, 1–16.10.2307/j.ctv1c9hq3w.8Suche in Google Scholar
Vogt, K. M. 2009. “Sons of the Earth: Are the Stoics Metaphysical Brutes?” Phronesis 54, 136–154.10.1163/156852809X403630Suche in Google Scholar
von Wolfgang, K. 2004. “Zur Diskussion: Die ‚Gigantomachie‘ in Platons Sophistes. Versuch einer analytischen Rekonstruktion”. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 86, 307–321.Suche in Google Scholar
Wolfsdorf, D. 2008. Trials of Reason. Plato and the Crafting of Philosophy. New York.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195327328.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Titelseiten
- Articles
- Argumentation and Reflection in Plato’s Gigantomachia (Sophist 245e6–249d5)
- Perceiving Ideas
- Locke and the Methodology of Newton’s Principia
- Building Objective Thoughts: Stumpf, Twardowski and the Late Husserl on Psychic Products
- Review Article
- Are you a Democrat? Think Aristocratic. A review of: Kazutaka Inamura, Justice and Reciprocity in Aristotle’s Political Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, 255 pp.
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Titelseiten
- Articles
- Argumentation and Reflection in Plato’s Gigantomachia (Sophist 245e6–249d5)
- Perceiving Ideas
- Locke and the Methodology of Newton’s Principia
- Building Objective Thoughts: Stumpf, Twardowski and the Late Husserl on Psychic Products
- Review Article
- Are you a Democrat? Think Aristocratic. A review of: Kazutaka Inamura, Justice and Reciprocity in Aristotle’s Political Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, 255 pp.
