Socratic Moral Psychology

Abstract

Socrates' moral psychology is widely thought to be 'intellectualist' in the sense that, for Socrates, every ethical failure to do what is best is exclusively the result of some cognitive failure to apprehend what is best. Until publication of this book, the view that, for Socrates, emotions and desires have no role to play in causing such failure went unchallenged. This book argues against the orthodox view of Socratic intellectualism and offers in its place a comprehensive alternative account that explains why Socrates believed that emotions, desires and appetites can influence human motivation and lead to error. Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith defend the study of Socrates' philosophy and offer an alternative interpretation of Socratic moral psychology. Their novel account of Socrates' conception of virtue and how it is acquired shows that Socratic moral psychology is considerably more sophisticated than scholars have supposed.

Platonic Personal Immortality

“…Though, there are persuasive arguments that draw the view in the Apology closer to the view in the rest of the corpus (e.g., Brickhouse & Smith, , pp. 248–259).…”

Knowledge and Temperance in Plato'sCharmides

“…A full defense is provided by Brickhouse and Smith (, ), as well as Ferejohn ( and ). For my own unique defense of this type of interpretation, see Clark, .…”

“…See Clark, . At times, Brickhouse and Smith () appear to remain somewhat neutral on the question of what serves to distinguish the virtues. For instance, they claim (2010, p. 164) that ‘different crafts can be distinguished not only in terms of the knowledge in which they consist, but also in terms of what they apply to, whether as product or as subject matter .’ In other words, the virtues are distinguishable either in terms of their unique products or in terms of some distinctive subject matter.…”

¿Es Leoncio un incontinente? Ira y apetito en la República de Platón

“…408 y 457, y Boeri 2010, § 1, n. 3. 2 A modo de ejemplo de esta posición según la cual Leoncio actúa de manera incontinente (aunque cada uno con distintos matices), cfr. Irwin 1979Irwin y 1995Irwin [2000, Cooper 1984, Lesses 1987, Klosko 1988, Taylor 1991, Penner 1992, Davidson 2001, Reeve 2004, Brickhouse y Smith 2010y Santas 2010 3 A menos que se indique lo contrario, la traducción de las obras secundarias y de las fuentes primarias es mía. Para la República, sigo la edición de Slings (OCT).…”