Le très curieux silence des Doxographes à propos de l'incompétence des auteurs des opinions chez Parménide

N. Cordero
{"title":"Le très curieux silence des Doxographes à propos de l'incompétence des auteurs des opinions chez Parménide","authors":"N. Cordero","doi":"10.11606/ISSN.1981-9471.V15I1P01-17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the Goddess of Parmenides presents the two ways to explain the reality that must be faced by this who want to become a \"man who knows\", the truth and the opinions of mortals, she makes clear that the opinions (doxai) are not \"reliable\". Later, when he describes in detail how the makers of opinions really are, the description is devastating: they are the people who are incapable of judging, who are astonished, who do not know how to use sensations, and who have a misguided intellect. Consequently, when they express their opinions, they present only a \"misleading set of words. However, already from Aristotle onwards, this way of conceiving reality is attributed to Parmenides himself, and not to \"the mortals\". Theophrastus echoes this interpretation of Aristotle and, with him, the totality of the Doxographers. Obviously, in order to attribute the \"opinions\" to Parmenides himself, any reference to the incapacity of his authors is absent from the comments: no Doxographer mentions it.","PeriodicalId":185531,"journal":{"name":"Journal of ancient philosophy","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of ancient philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11606/ISSN.1981-9471.V15I1P01-17","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since the Goddess of Parmenides presents the two ways to explain the reality that must be faced by this who want to become a "man who knows", the truth and the opinions of mortals, she makes clear that the opinions (doxai) are not "reliable". Later, when he describes in detail how the makers of opinions really are, the description is devastating: they are the people who are incapable of judging, who are astonished, who do not know how to use sensations, and who have a misguided intellect. Consequently, when they express their opinions, they present only a "misleading set of words. However, already from Aristotle onwards, this way of conceiving reality is attributed to Parmenides himself, and not to "the mortals". Theophrastus echoes this interpretation of Aristotle and, with him, the totality of the Doxographers. Obviously, in order to attribute the "opinions" to Parmenides himself, any reference to the incapacity of his authors is absent from the comments: no Doxographer mentions it.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对于巴门尼德的观点作者的无能,剂量学家保持着非常奇怪的沉默
由于巴门尼德的女神提出了两种方式来解释这个想成为“知者”的人必须面对的现实,真理和凡人的意见,她明确了意见(doxai)是不“可靠的”。后来,当他详细描述意见的制造者是怎样的人时,这种描述是毁灭性的:他们是那些无法判断的人,他们感到惊讶,他们不知道如何使用感觉,他们的智力被误导了。因此,当他们表达自己的意见时,他们只是提出了一套“误导性的词语”。然而,从亚里士多德开始,这种设想现实的方式就被归于巴门尼德自己,而不是“凡人”。泰奥弗拉斯托斯呼应了亚里士多德的这一解释,也呼应了Doxographers的整体。很明显,为了把“意见”归于巴门尼德自己,评论中没有提到他的作者的无能:没有Doxographer提到它。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Linguistic (and Ontological?) encounters between Plato and Karl Popper O ponto de intersecção entre compostos naturais propriamente e não propriamente substanciais em Aristóteles On Becoming Fearful Quickly: A Reinterpretation of Aristotle’s Somatic Model of Socratean akrasia. Some remarks against non-epistemic accounts of immediate premises in Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics O justo cívico em Ethica Nicomachea V.6
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1