柏拉图在《克拉提勒斯》中的工具类比

Q1 Arts and Humanities Ancient Philosophy Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.5840/ancientphil202242226
S. Driscoll
{"title":"柏拉图在《克拉提勒斯》中的工具类比","authors":"S. Driscoll","doi":"10.5840/ancientphil202242226","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper argues that Plato’s arguments at Cratylus 386e-390d are more robustly analogical than is generally supposed. Accordingly, it first establishes the nature of the main analogues (cutting and burning, boring, and shuttling). It then demonstrates the argument’s underlying structural relation (that, through their destructive or divisive nature, these analogues create), extending it to the target domain (names) and to Socrates’ chosen method for evaluating that domain (i.e., etymologizing).","PeriodicalId":38413,"journal":{"name":"Ancient Philosophy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Plato’s Tool Analogy in Cratylus 386e-390e\",\"authors\":\"S. Driscoll\",\"doi\":\"10.5840/ancientphil202242226\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper argues that Plato’s arguments at Cratylus 386e-390d are more robustly analogical than is generally supposed. Accordingly, it first establishes the nature of the main analogues (cutting and burning, boring, and shuttling). It then demonstrates the argument’s underlying structural relation (that, through their destructive or divisive nature, these analogues create), extending it to the target domain (names) and to Socrates’ chosen method for evaluating that domain (i.e., etymologizing).\",\"PeriodicalId\":38413,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ancient Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ancient Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5840/ancientphil202242226\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ancient Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/ancientphil202242226","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文认为,柏拉图在克拉提洛斯的论证386e-390d比一般认为的更为有力的类比。因此,它首先确定了主要类似物(切割和燃烧、钻孔和穿梭)的性质。然后论证论证的潜在结构关系(通过其破坏性或分裂性,这些类似物创造),将其扩展到目标领域(名称)和苏格拉底选择的评估该领域的方法(即,词源学)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Plato’s Tool Analogy in Cratylus 386e-390e
This paper argues that Plato’s arguments at Cratylus 386e-390d are more robustly analogical than is generally supposed. Accordingly, it first establishes the nature of the main analogues (cutting and burning, boring, and shuttling). It then demonstrates the argument’s underlying structural relation (that, through their destructive or divisive nature, these analogues create), extending it to the target domain (names) and to Socrates’ chosen method for evaluating that domain (i.e., etymologizing).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ancient Philosophy
Ancient Philosophy Arts and Humanities-Classics
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
期刊最新文献
Seneca Pythagorean Topoi in Aristophanes’ Birds 1553–1564 Philosophical Breakdowns and Divine Intervention Sextus on Place Socrates on Self-Improvement: Knowledge, Virtue, and Happiness. By Nicholas D. Smith
×
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