Philosophy

"L’authenticité de l’Alcibiade a été contestée sur la base d’arguments stylistiques et structurels. Entre autres, plusieurs ont décrié son manque de symétrie et l’indétermination de son thème principal. Or, une étude attentive de ce dialogue cher aux Néoplatoniciens permet d’invalider rapidement ces arguments et de distinguer un plan bipartite précis. En effet, lorsque l’Alcibiade est analysé à partir de deux des critères définitionnels principaux de l’elenchos, c’est-à-dire la contradiction et la honte, il devient alors possible de mettre en lumière la présence de deux parties distinctes, soit une partie réfutative (qui se termine en 127d) et une partie plus positive, dans laquelle la discussion est menée sur un autre mode que celui de la réfutation. Bien plus que de constituer une brisure, cette seconde partie permet de souligner les conséquences purgatives et purificatrices de l’elenchos, telles qu’elles ont été décrites entre autres par Platon dans le Sophiste.

The authenticity of the Alcibiades was challenged on the basis of stylistic and structural arguments. Several have condemned its lack of symmetry and the indeterminacy of its main theme. However, a careful study of this dialogue cherished by the Neoplatonists shows that these arguments are incorrect; moreover, it shows that the Alcibiades was composed according to a bipartite structure. Indeed, when the Alcibiades is analysed according to the two main definitional criteria of elenchus, namely contradiction and shame, it is thus possible to shed light on the presence of two distinct parts, a refutative part (which ends in 127d) and a more positive part, in which the discussion is conducted in a mode without recourse to refutation. Much more than a rupture, this second part highlights the purgative and purifying consequences the elenchus, which Plato described among others in the Sophist."

The aim of the present paper is to analyse the archeology of the concept of contradiction, more precisely in Plato, and to reveal the influence that the latter had on Aristotle's reflection on contradiction and contrariety. This paper will show that it is possible to find examples of a notion of contradiction in Plato's refutative dialogues, in which Socrates is described as refuting his interlocutors by demonstrating the contrary of their initial thesis. However, Plato never used the word antiphasis to name the act of contradicting oneself (this word seems to be the invention of Aristotle), but preferred the expression enantia legein heautôi, which means " to say the contrary to oneself " .

Le cinquième chapitre des Dissoi Logoi se distingue des quatre premiers chapitres sur de nombreux points. Plus particulièrement, l’auteur des Dissoi Logoi 5 connaît la solution à une erreur logique que l’auteur des quatre chapitres précédents semble ignorer, ce qui remet en question l’unité de ce traité.

The fifth chapter of the Dissoi Logoi differs from the previous four chapters on many points. More specifically, the author of the Dissoi Logoi 5 knows the solution to a logical error that the author of the first four chapters seems to ignore, which calls into question the unity of the treatise.

One of Plato’s goal in the Phaedo is not only to define what philosophy is, but also to describe what ‘real’ or ‘authentic’ philosophy consists of. This description of ‘authentic’ philosophy reveals a tension. Indeed, if Socrates feels the need to speak of a genuine philosophy, is it not a sign that there is another type of philosophy, which is inauthentic and fake? If Plato emphasizes the legitimacy of some philosophers, is it not because he believes that there are others, who resemble the former but are a mere imitation of them? In fact, there is in the Phaedo an implicit description of ‘false’ philosophers, which culminates with the presentation of a precise case: the antilogician. Sometimes called a sophist, often described as an eristic, the antilogician is a perfect example of philosophy gone wrong. Criticised more than once in his dialogues, Plato condemns vivaciously the antilogician as he diverts real philosophical inquiry and immerses people in absolute relativism.

This article’s goal is to distinguish in Plato two expressions often regarded as perfect synonyms: ἀντιλέγειν and ἐναντία λέγειν. Plato uses the verb ἀντιλέγειν and members of its family (ἀντιλογία, ἀντιλογικῶς and ἀντιλογικός) to describe a practice he condemned bluntly: eristic sophistry. These expressions have thus a negative connotation that ἐναντία λέγειν doesn’t share. Moreover, although it may mean “refute” and “contradict”, the verb ἀντιλέγειν is never used by Plato to describe refutations conducted by Socrates, the expression ἐναντία λέγειν being rather used. Finally, Plato gives the expression ἐναντία λέγειν a precise technical meaning, which contrasts with his predecessors and announces Aristotelian logic.

Abstract: The article examines the passages in Isocrates’ Corpus containing a description and a critique of a new type of sophistic called “eristic”. Based on the chronology of Isocrates’ discourses and the description he gave, the author shows that the majority of these passages could not have aimed at Plato as its sole or principal target. However, it should not be excluded that Isocrates’ criticism of eristics was directed against various members of the Socratic circle, a heterogeneous group in which Plato was comprised. The article shows that although a feud between Plato and Isocrates is not an acceptable premise, a possible rivalry between both men may have been possible. Nonetheless, such a rivalry does not allow one to assimilate Plato with an eristic.

In this paper I will argue that Albert – by reworking the definition of mysticus that he inherited from the Pseudo-Dionysius – finds an equilibrium between an emotional and intellectual mysticism: although intellect remains the noblest among our faculties and the one in which is impressed the divine image of creation, it will be clear that the intellectual faculty ultimately needs a completion from passions. In this respect, I will show how repentance and love have both a prominent role in supporting the conversion and the assimilation of the soul to its Creator.