Justice and Holiness in Protagoras 330-331

Gallop, David

doi:10.1163/156852861x00116

Cited by 25 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding the same debate, the same pattern may be discerned in the analytic approach of Jeremy Wakefield (1987,1991) and in Weiss 1985b, McKirahan 1983, 1985, Finamore 1988. Likewise, Morris 1990and Richardson 1990, which explicate the hedonistic calculus passages (351b-358e), work within the bounds of the debate as defined by Gallop 1964, Dyson 1976, Taylor 1976, Zeyl 1980, and Klosko 1980. Willink's (1983 philological contribution casts light on one brief passage, but without drawing any conclusions about the dialogue's unity.…”

Section: Signs That the Transition Was Not Completementioning

confidence: 99%

“…19. The following articles appeared in mainstream philosophy or history of philosophy journals where analytic philosophy was routinely published: Cobb 1982, Devereux 1975, Duncan 1978, Ferejohn 1982, Forrester 1975, Gallop 1961, Gauthier 1968, Klosko 1979, Maguire 1977, Manuwald 1975, Penner 1973, Santas 1966, Savan 1964, Sayre 1963, Sesonske 1963, Sprague 1967, Sullivan 1961, Vlastos 1972, 1974, Wolz 1963, 1967, Woodruff 1976, and Zeyl 1980. Some articles were published in classics or philology journals, but focusing on the same passages as those focused on by analytic philosophers and using the same methods of analysis: Dyson 1976, Gulley 1971, Klosko 1980, O'Brien 1961, and Vlastos 1969.…”

Section: A Popular Introduction To Protagoras For Students a Dividedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…22. See Gallop 1961, Savan 1964, Sprague 1967, Gauthier 1968, Vlastos 1972, 1974, Penner 1973, Forrester 1975, Woodruff 1976, Devereux 1977, and Ferejohn 1982. Some of these articles take a wider view to include passages from 349a-360e, because the dialogue's discussion of courage and wisdom resumes discussion about the unity of virtue which was left unfinished at 334a; however, others take a narrower view, considering only one portion of the thicket of arguments between 330b and 334c.…”

Section: A Popular Introduction To Protagoras For Students a Dividedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(Vlastos 1972: 418-19) This complaint is about Vlastos's remote predecessors, and it singles out Shorey 1933 for special mention (Vlastos 1972: 419n2). His more immediate predecessors, David Gallop (1961) and David Savan (1964) in particular, are excepted from this general complaint; they had embraced the same new analytical tools endorsed by Vlastos, and their analysis of these passages meets a high standard of logical precision. Notice, however, how carefully Vlastos (1972: 419n1) demarcates the passages that are relevant for his own study: 329c-334c and 349d-350c.…”

Section: A Popular Introduction To Protagoras For Students a Dividedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Plato'sProtagorasand the Frontier of Genre Research: A Reconnaissance Report from the Field

Lavery¹

2007

Poetics Today

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After a review of some general issues surrounding the interpretation of Plato's dialogues, I consider in detail the reception of Plato's Protagoras in English scholarship since 1956, that is, during the last half century. That scholarship falls into three periods. At first (1956-82) there was a sharp division between analytic philosophy commentators and other commentators, but near-unanimity in adopting a "Democritean" conception of the text as composed of discrete, separable parts. In the second period (1983-92), an "Aristotelian" conception of the text, in which functionally distinct parts coordinate with each other within a whole, became a serious rival to the Democritean one. Since 1992, several Aristotelian strategies have been developed. I diagnose these trends as an indication of growing sensitivity to the unity of Protagoras and its integration of literature and theory. I use this review to draw some morals about exegesis and scholarly specialization.

show abstract

Section: Signs That the Transition Was Not Completementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Popular Introduction To Protagoras For Students a Dividedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Popular Introduction To Protagoras For Students a Dividedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Popular Introduction To Protagoras For Students a Dividedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Plato'sProtagorasand the Frontier of Genre Research: A Reconnaissance Report from the Field

Lavery¹

2007

Poetics Today

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Vlastos (1971). Para a desconsideração das autopredicações como relevantes para a compreensão do argumento, ver Gallop (1961), e, com análise detida sobre elas, mas com resultados próximos aos de Gallop, Taylor (1991). Em grande medida, a leitura proposta aqui segue de perto Wakefield (1987) O raciocínio é o seguinte: se (i) uma virtude não é como (hoion) a outra, segue-se (6) que a piedade não é como (hoion) a justiça, e (7) que a justiça não é como (hoion) a piedade.…”

Section: A Colocação Do Problemaunclassified

Virtude e conhecimento no <i>Prótagoras </i>de Platão

Miranda¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among Plato's first dialogues, the Protagoras stands out as the work in which the so called ethical intellectualism is exposed in the most systematic manner. Roughly, in ethical intellectualism, ethical themes such as virtues or moral excellences (justice, piety, wisdom, temperance and courage) are defined exclusively as the result of a cognitive process; in other terms, for ethical matters to be correctly understood, a certain knowledge must be considered; in this case, knowledge of the good. This point is made clear at the end of the Protagoras: all virtues discussed throughout the dialogue are strictly one thing, namely knowledge. The consequences of the intellectualist ethical doctrine were also explored by Plato in his first dialogues, especially in the Protagoras. First, the multiplicity of different manifestations of human excellence are thus reduced to the possession of a knowledge, a problem that was thoroughly explored in ancient literature and resulted, contemporarily, in the question of the unity of virtue. Secondly, the central role of knowledge in the comprehension of the ethical life requires the comprehension of the relation between knowledge and other admittedly fundamental aspects such as appetites and passions that are decisive to the human soul and crucial to determine one's actions. This latter point arises from the abundant observation in Plato's first dialogues, especially in the Protagoras, that knowledge is not only a necessary condition but also a sufficient condition to obtain and exercise virtue in such a way that no extracognitive element (such as passions and appetites) is able to interfere in the path of action indicated by knowledge. If knowledge of the good is what defines virtue and if it is hegemonic when present in the human soul, what role is left to passions and appetites in the ethics of the first dialogues? These two points are articulated in the doctrine that is exposed in the Protagoras, a dialogue that deepens and systematizes Socrates' theories discussed in the other dialogues from this period. Therefore, I intend to examine the relation between virtue and knowledge in the Protagoras. This work is divided in two parts: in the first, I deal with the problem of the unity of virtues; in the second part, I investigate the meaning of ethical intellectualism in view of the relation between knowledge and non-cognitive elements, and one particular virtue shall be examined: courage.

show abstract

Plato's Introduction of Forms

Dancy

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars of Plato are divided between those who emphasize the literature of the dialogues and those who emphasize the argument of the dialogues, and between those who see a development in the thought of the dialogues and those who do not. In this important book Russell Dancy focuses on the arguments and defends a developmental picture. He explains the Theory of Forms of the Phaedo and Symposium as an outgrowth of the quest for definitions canvassed in the Socratic dialogues, by constructing a Theory of Definition for the Socratic dialogues based on the refutations of definitions in those dialogues, and showing how that theory is mirrored in the Theory of Forms. His discussion, notable for both its clarity and its meticulous scholarship, ranges in detail over a number of Plato's early and middle dialogues, and will be of interest to readers in Plato studies and in ancient philosophy more generally.

show abstract

Justice and Holiness in Protagoras 330-331

Cited by 25 publications

References 0 publications

Plato'sProtagorasand the Frontier of Genre Research: A Reconnaissance Report from the Field

Plato'sProtagorasand the Frontier of Genre Research: A Reconnaissance Report from the Field

Virtude e conhecimento no <i>Prótagoras </i>de Platão

Plato's Introduction of Forms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About