1985
DOI: 10.2307/284190
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Socratic Self-Knowledge and "Knowledge of Knowledge" in Plato's Charmides

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…7. 44 See also McKim 1985, cited by Kahn 1988 of the Socratic method would require Platonic metaphysics and epistemology. On this view, the dialogue offers a positive definition of sôphrosynê in terms of knowledge of the good, implicitly relates that conception of the virtue to the practice of dialectic and the acquisition of the 'royal art', and points to the theory of Forms and the Form of the Good.…”
Section: The Historical Subtextmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…7. 44 See also McKim 1985, cited by Kahn 1988 of the Socratic method would require Platonic metaphysics and epistemology. On this view, the dialogue offers a positive definition of sôphrosynê in terms of knowledge of the good, implicitly relates that conception of the virtue to the practice of dialectic and the acquisition of the 'royal art', and points to the theory of Forms and the Form of the Good.…”
Section: The Historical Subtextmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By Gary Alan Scott (Pennsylvania State Press, 2002). On the separation of Plato as writer and Socrates as narrator, and the far-reaching results that can ensue, see again McKim, (1985). On the educational aim of the dialogue, see Charles Kahn, "Plato's Charmides and the proleptic reading of Socratic dialogues", Journal of Philosophy 85 (10), (1988).…”
Section: -Iv -mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If indeed Plato intends for his reader to make this connection, it is important to ask why Plato would have Socrates raise objections to his own brand of self‐knowledge. See Carone, ; Tsouna, ; and McKim, , pp. 61–2.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%