Contents
Academic literature on the topic 'Antisthenes, Plato'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Antisthenes, Plato.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Journal articles on the topic "Antisthenes, Plato"
1
Mazzara, Giuseppe. "Plato and Antisthenes in the Phaedo: A Reflexive Reading. Part One." Peitho. Examina Antiqua 10, no. 1 (November 29, 2019): 13–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/pea.2019.1.1.
Full textAbstract:
The purpose of this study is not so much to show the presence of Antisthenes in the dialogue, but rather to examine what Plato alludes to. The controversy over ideas between the two Socratics is historically very well-attested, as can already be seen in the Cratylus. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that this controversy must have affected Plato when he was writing a dialogue in which the importance of ideas and his new logic is undeniable. Hence, this paper will investigate the following question: what impact could Antisthenes’ denominative and definitory logic have on the equally denominative and definitory logic presented in the Phaedo given that the latter work in all probability preceded the Sathōn? In light of what is said in the dialogue, the answer focuses primarily on what would not be said. Thus, this study has been divided into two parts: Part one shows how the so-called “second navigation” emerges as an objection to the insufficiency of the responses given by the physiologists. Tellingly, certain “common opinions” are regarded as perplexing and individuals holding them are referred to with the indeterminate tis, which – as is argued – must have included Antisthenes. Indeed, Tht. 108c7–8 reports the latter to have made common opinions a cornerstone of his denominative logic. Part two, on the other hand, is devoted to examining the so-called “final argument.” Here, Antisthenes’ presence seems somewhat more nuanced given his incomplete knowledge of the new logic of irreversible opposites which was worked out by Plato for the purpose of demonstrating the immortality and indestructibility of the soul. On the other hand, Antisthenes is likely to have prompted Plato to specify the relationship between ideas and things in the definitory logic, since the proponent of the theory of oikeios logos refused to distinguish between the substance and its attributes, the differences and its opposites as well as the opposites of opposites.
2
Mazzara, Giuseppe. "Plato and Antisthenes in the Phaedo: A Reflexive Reading. Part Two." Peitho. Examina Antiqua 11, no. 1 (December 23, 2020): 33–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/pea.2020.1.2.
Full textAbstract:
The purpose of this study is not so much to show the presence of Antisthenes in the dialogue, but rather to examine that to which Plato alludes. The controversy over ideas between the two Socratics is historically very well-attested, as can already be seen in the Cratylus. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that this controversy must have affected Plato when he was writing the Phaedo: a dialogue in which the importance of ideas and his new logic is undeniable. Hence, this paper will investigate the following question: what impact could Antisthenes’ denominative and definitory logic have on the equally denominative and definitory logic presented in the Phaedo, given that the latter work in all probability preceded the Sathōn? In light of what is said in the dialogue, the answer focuses primarily on what would not be said. Thus, this study is divided into two parts: Part one shows how the so-called “second navigation” emerges as an objection to the insufficiency of the responses given by the physiologists. Tellingly, certain “common opinions” are regarded as perplexing and individuals holding them are referred to with the indeterminate tis, which – as is argued – must have included Antisthenes. Indeed, Tht. 108c7–8 reports the latter to have made common opinions a cornerstone of his denominative logic. Part two, on the other hand, is devoted to examining the so-called “final argument.” Here, Antisthenes’ presence seems somewhat more nuanced, given his incomplete knowledge of the new logic of irreversible opposites which was worked out by Plato for the purpose of demonstrating the immortality and indestructibility of the soul. On the other hand, Antisthenes is likely to have prompted Plato to specify the relationship between ideas and things in the definitory logic, since the proponent of the theory of oikeios logos refused to distinguish between the substance and its attributes, the differences and their opposites, and the opposites of opposites.
3
Prauscello, Lucia. "Plato Laws 3.680B–C: Antisthenes, The Cyclopes and Homeric Exegesis." Journal of Hellenic Studies 137 (2017): 8–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0075426917000039.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractIn Laws 3.680b–c the Athenian Stranger's positive evaluation of the Cyclopean ‘way of life’ (Od. 9.112–15) is deeply indebted to Antisthenes’ interpretatio Homerica of the Cyclopes as ‘just’ insofar they do not have the need of written law. Antisthenes’ equation of ‘need of law’ with ‘need of written law’ is then contextualized within the unresolved tension, in the legislative project of the Laws, between oral dissemination (‘proems’ to the laws) and the potentially coercive power of the written text. Finally, Megillus’ inept reply to the Homeric quotation by the Athenian Stranger allows us to gain a more nuanced view of the ‘readerly’ dynamics enacted by the internal audience of the Laws.
4
Mazzara, Giuseppe. "Plato – The Motto of Delphi of the Alcibiades I: Between Emphases and Retractions of the Socratics?" Peitho. Examina Antiqua, no. 1(5) (January 24, 2015): 13–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/pea.2014.1.1.
Full textAbstract:
The present article aims to examine whether this Platonic dialogue can be regarded as polemical and competing with the similar educational proposals put forward by Xenophon and Antisthenes for the young Alcibiades aspiring to power in the city of Athens. The present article has been divided into two major parts. In the first one, I propose to unify the two opposing points of view that are reflected in the interpretations of the motto: the one that takes it to be a solitary dialogue of a soul talking to itself (Platonic origin) and the one that takes it to be an intersubjective dialogue (Socratic origin). In the second part, I try to highlight a few points of contact and conflict between Plato, Xenophon and Antisthenes, arguing that it is the latter two that may be alluded to in the dialogue, albeit indirectly, as competing and polemical targets.
5
Luz, Menahem. "The Erlangen Papyrus 4 and Its Socratic Origins." International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 8, no. 2 (August 20, 2014): 161–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18725473-12341286.
Full textAbstract:
P. Erlangen 4 is papyrus fragment of an ancient Greek, “Socratic” dialogue discussing cures for the (desire) of the beautiful—and, by implication, the meaning of moral beauty itself. Previous discussions have made general comparisons with the works of Plato, Xenophon and Aeschines. Prior to its philosophical analysis, I will re-examine the fragment, suggesting new reconstructions of the text, accompanied by an English translation. Although the precise authorship still remains a mystery, I will attempt to show that its philosophical language, argument and dramatic background are closer to the remains of Antisthenes than other Socratic writers and in particular to one of his Alcibiades compositions. The possibility will then be considered that it originated in one of his works or with one of his immediate followers.
6
Virapyan, Ed. "Cultural experiences with narratives." Voprosy kul'turologii (Issues of Cultural Studies), no. 7 (June 10, 2020): 42–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.33920/nik-01-2007-06.
Full textAbstract:
Method and conclusion (sketch of narratives). Homer, Graves in Troy, Antisthenes, Enemy (from the meaning of him according to the lost treatise from the Cynics in the reconstruction of the late Stoics). Plato and Diogenes, Guy Julius Caesar, Mark Licinius Crassus, Cicero, Appian, astrologer Ptolemy. Julian the Apostate, Simeon Pillar, Francis of Assisi. Rumi, Emanuel Swedenborg, Casanova, Hoffmann, Bismarck. Stolypin, Nietzsche, Camus, Beckett, Lono (Freud), Kafka, Suzuki, with film expressors: Antonioni, Parajanov, Pazolini, Truffo, Godard, Zaillyan, Confession (Makkiaveli). Thinkers from the ancient Chinese way in alleged actions and speeches. Why am I an abstraction: Saroyan, Fellini: a look at Casanova. As now in "Blow-Up" (Cortazar in the face of one of the motives of the memory). "The formula of Origen". The last message of Pontius Pilate to Rome and the future.
7
Mazzara, Giuseppe. "Plato: Smp. 212e4-223a9. Alcibiades: An Eulogy of Which Socrates? That of Plato, That of Antisthenes and Xenophon or That of All Three?" Peitho. Examina Antiqua 7, no. 1 (March 17, 2016): 25–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/pea.2016.1.2.
Full textAbstract:
In the Symposium, there are two revelations: one is that of the woman of Mantinea, the other that of Alcibiades. The former (201d 1–212e 3) proposes a Socrates reshaped by Plato, but what Socrates does the latter (216a 6–217a 3) express? Can the praise for Socrates contained in the latter also be considered a tribute by Plato to his teacher? The opinions are divided. I looked at two scholars: Michel Narcy (2008) and Bruno Centrone (20142 ), whose judgments, as they are set out and argued, are irreconcilable. The contrast may be determined by a certain ambiguity in Plato’s attitude towards Alcibiades. Part One – In order to clarify this ambiguity and to overcome the contrast between the two scholars I have tried to show how in the praise of Alcibiades there overlap different portraits of Socrates that refer to the tradition, to different experiences of various Socratics and of Plato himself in Apologia, and how this differs from the others and from himself by proposing a whole new portrait of Socrates as a representative of an Eros megas daimōn, revealed by the woman of Mantinea, in contrast to an Eros megas theos. Part Two – As instead regards the accusation of hybris, the hypothesis is this: for Plato his colleagues, and especially Antisthenes and Xenophon, offering an image of Socrates founded exclusively on his way of life and not also on the erotic aspects alluding to the supersensible world, seem to end up arousing laughter and looking like “fools” (nēpioi), like Alcibiades, who at the end of his speech, after making the audience laugh, is unmasked by Socrates for his clumsy attempt to impart a “life lesson” to Agathon, which he did not need at all, paying at his own expenses for his ignorance of the revelation through arriving late at the party.
8
Luz, Menahem. "The Rejected Versions in Plato's Symposium." PLATO JOURNAL 14 (July 22, 2015): 9–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.14195/2183-4105_14_1.
Full textAbstract:
Apollodorus' prelude to Pl. Symp. is a complex rejection of earlier accounts of Socrates' participation in a symposium. This can be examined contextually as a literary mannerism, or sub-textually as a rejection of previous literary versions of this topos. Neither approach contradicts the other, but scholars have found difficulties in finding any earlier author who could have been rejected. Recently, it has been argued that Xen. Symp. preceded Pl. Symp. acting as a catalyst for Plato's work. However, if neither was the first on a sympotic theme in a Socratic dialogue, we need not presume that Apollodorus referred to Xenophon, but rather that both responded to an earlier author. Scholars suggest various candidates although none has been proven. However, one source has not attracted attention: two anecdotes recorded in PFlor 113 where Antisthenes depicts both Socrates and himself as critical of symposia in general. The conclusions of my paper are that the contents of these anecdotes can be seen as the raw kernel out of which both Xenophon and Plato could have responded.
9
Stavru, Alessandro. "Sokrates und der zweifache Eros in den Überlieferungen von Antisthenes, Aischines und Platon." Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch für Antike und Mittelalter 16 (December 5, 2013): 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/bpjam.16.01sta.
Full textBook chapters on the topic "Antisthenes, Plato"
1
Taylor, C. C. W. "4. Socrates and later philosophy." In Socrates: A Very Short Introduction, 76–102. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780198835981.003.0004.
Full textAbstract:
‘Socrates and later philosophy’ examines the legacy of Socrates, the most important aspect of which was his influence on Plato. Antisthenes, another personal associate, adhered to some of Socrates’ ethical doctrines and his austere lifestyle. The Stoics accepted the cardinal doctrines of Socratic ethics—that virtue is knowledge and that virtue is sufficient for eudaimonia—while the Epicureans were consistently hostile to his ideas. The major medieval philosophers showed little interest in Socrates, but the revival of Platonism in the late 15th century changed that. The tradition of adapting the figure of Socrates to fit the general preconceptions of the writer is discernible in his treatment by three 19th-century philosophers: Hegel, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche.
2
Rowe, Christopher. "The Teachability of Aretē among the Socratics." In Early Greek Ethics, 629–48. Oxford University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198758679.003.0028.
Full textAbstract:
“The Teachability of Aretē among the Socratics” surveys the Socratics’ views on the teachability of aretē (“virtue” or better “goodness”), bringing together the key evidence relating to Euclides, Antisthenes, Xenophon, Aeschines, and Plato—those Socratics for whom we have significant evidence on the topic. The chapter ends with brief speculations on the position of Socrates himself. The survey is in roughly equal parts original, synthetic, and critical. The chief focus is on the implications of the various figures’ treatments of the question “Is aretē teachable or not?” for their views on what aretē actually is, and on the degree to which those views may or may not have committed them to one form or another of intellectualism.
3
Azoulay, Vincent. "After Pericles: The Decline of Athens?" In Pericles of Athens, translated by Janet Lloyd. Princeton University Press, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.23943/princeton/9780691154596.003.0010.
Full textAbstract:
This chapter considers the notion that Pericles' death marked the starting point of Athens's decadence. In The Peloponnesian War, Thucydides asserts that the death of Pericles was a turning point in the history of Athens. He describes Pericles' “reign” as a clear dividing line between a community led by a virtuous elite and a democratic city abandoned to the hands of kakoi—the despicable demagogues. The chapter first considers the claim that the death of Pericles opened the door to “demagogues” who led Athens to disaster, in contrast to the stratēgos who led the city to its greatest achievements. It then examines the argument of the Socratic authors—Plato, Xenophon, and Antisthenes—that Pericles was incapable of educating his contemporaries. It also discusses the relations between Pericles and democracy by drawing on Plato's analyses.