THE SOPHIST'S PUZZLING EPISTÊMÊ IN THE SOPHIST

D. J. Murphy
{"title":"THE SOPHIST'S PUZZLING EPISTÊMÊ IN THE SOPHIST","authors":"D. J. Murphy","doi":"10.1017/s0009838823000320","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Against prevailing interpretations, this article contends that Plato's Sophist and Statesman accord the sophist a kind of ‘knowing-how’ (epistêmê). In Soph. 233c10‒d2, the Visitor and Theaetetus agree that the sophist has not truth but a δοξαστικὴ ἐπιστήμη. This phrase cannot mean ‘a seeming knowledge’, for –ικός adjectives formed from verbs express the ability to perform the action denoted by the verb—here, δοξάζω. Although not a first-order, subject-area knowledge, sophistry is a second-order knowledge of how to form and use judgements (doxai). Other acknowledgements of the sophist's epistêmê and the ascription to him of τέχνη, ‘craft/expertise’, confirm that the Visitor's conclusion is not to be dismissed as irony. To critics who argue from the Gorgias and from other works that Plato must consider the Visitor's conclusion an error, the author replies: 1) other dialogues do not control the Visitor dialogues; 2) the Visitor does not validly demonstrate that the sophist lacks all knowledge; 3) by admitting sensibles into Being, the Visitor and Theaetetus allow the objects of epistêmê to include things in the embodied world, even likenesses. Non-philosophers’ epistêmê in the Visitor dialogues is not implicated in the difficulties that critics have raised about epistemology in the so-called Two Worlds dialogues. On this new ontology, even the sophist, if guided by philosophical rulers, can benefit citizens by employing his elenctic expertise as Socrates did, aiding their growth toward virtue.","PeriodicalId":22560,"journal":{"name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Classical Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0009838823000320","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

Against prevailing interpretations, this article contends that Plato's Sophist and Statesman accord the sophist a kind of ‘knowing-how’ (epistêmê). In Soph. 233c10‒d2, the Visitor and Theaetetus agree that the sophist has not truth but a δοξαστικὴ ἐπιστήμη. This phrase cannot mean ‘a seeming knowledge’, for –ικός adjectives formed from verbs express the ability to perform the action denoted by the verb—here, δοξάζω. Although not a first-order, subject-area knowledge, sophistry is a second-order knowledge of how to form and use judgements (doxai). Other acknowledgements of the sophist's epistêmê and the ascription to him of τέχνη, ‘craft/expertise’, confirm that the Visitor's conclusion is not to be dismissed as irony. To critics who argue from the Gorgias and from other works that Plato must consider the Visitor's conclusion an error, the author replies: 1) other dialogues do not control the Visitor dialogues; 2) the Visitor does not validly demonstrate that the sophist lacks all knowledge; 3) by admitting sensibles into Being, the Visitor and Theaetetus allow the objects of epistêmê to include things in the embodied world, even likenesses. Non-philosophers’ epistêmê in the Visitor dialogues is not implicated in the difficulties that critics have raised about epistemology in the so-called Two Worlds dialogues. On this new ontology, even the sophist, if guided by philosophical rulers, can benefit citizens by employing his elenctic expertise as Socrates did, aiding their growth toward virtue.
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
诡辩家的困惑epistÊmÊ在诡辩家
本文反对流行的解释,认为柏拉图的《智者与政治家》赋予智者一种“知识”(epistêmê)。在《苏菲书》233c10-d2中,来访者和泰阿泰特斯一致认为诡辩家所拥有的不是真理,而是一个δοξαστικ κ ι πιστ η。这个短语不能表示“表面上的知识”,因为由动词构成的形容词表达了执行动词δοξ ζω所表示的动作的能力。虽然诡辩不是一级的、学科领域的知识,但它是关于如何形成和使用判断(doxai)的二级知识。对诡辩家epistêmê的其他承认,以及对他的τ η,“手艺/专业知识”的归属,证实了访客的结论不应被视为讽刺而不予考虑。对于那些从《高尔吉亚》和其他著作中提出柏拉图一定认为《来客》的结论是错误的批评者,作者的回答是:1)其他对话录无法控制《来客》的对话录;2)来访者不能有效地证明诡辩家缺乏所有的知识;来访者和忒阿忒图通过承认可感知的存在,使epistêmê的对象包括了具象世界中的事物,甚至是形象。非哲学家在访客对话中的epistêmê并没有涉及到批评家在所谓的两个世界对话中提出的关于认识论的困难。在这个新的本体论上,即使是诡辩家,如果在哲学统治者的指导下,也可以像苏格拉底那样,通过运用他的哲学专长来造福公民,帮助他们走向美德。
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
PHILOSOPHY IN DIO CHRYSOSTOM, ON ANACHÔRÊSIS (ORATION 20) THE MATHEMATICAL EXAMPLE OF GNOMONS IN ARISTOTLE, PHYSICS 3.4, 203a10–16 HELOTS AT THERMOPYLAE: THE GREEK DEAD AT HERODOTUS 8.25 A SERVILE RIDDLE FROM POMPEII? (CIL 4.1877) JULIUS CAESAR AND THE LARCH: BURNING QUESTIONS AT VITRUVIUS’ DE ARCHITECTVRA 2.9.15–16 – ERRATUM
×
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