ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition最新文献_第8页

Socrates’ humour and Plato’s games in the commentaries of late Neoplatonists 苏格拉底的幽默和柏拉图的游戏在晚期新柏拉图主义者的评论中

ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.25205/1995-4328-2022-16-2-493-505

Dmitry Kurdybaylo, Inga Kurdybaylo

{"title":"Socrates’ humour and Plato’s games in the commentaries of late Neoplatonists","authors":"Dmitry Kurdybaylo, Inga Kurdybaylo","doi":"10.25205/1995-4328-2022-16-2-493-505","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25205/1995-4328-2022-16-2-493-505","url":null,"abstract":"The irony of Socrates is one of the essential elements of Plato’s dialogues. However, what appears ironic or playful to modern readers, was not apprehended in the same way by Neoplatonic commentators. For Proclus, one of problematic Plato’s passages concerns the “laborious game,” which refers to the refined eight hypotheses of the Parmenides. Proclus turns to various places of Plato’s dialogues where different games are mentioned. Some of them are mimetic arts, which are partly restricted in Plato’s Republic. Other games are distinguished as pertaining to “old men” and to children: the former is appropriate to philosophers, while the latter is not. Even the “laborious” mode of Parmenides’ playing is given an ontological interpretation. Damascius was aware of the “Parmenides’ game” problem, but he primarily used ready Proclean interpretation. Unsurprisingly, Damascius approaches the conclusion that Parmenides was not playing at all — despite the apparent wording of Plato and minute investigations of Proclus. The extant writings of Simplicius contain no dedicated Platonic commentaries. However, the commentary on Epictetus’ Enchiridion contains a verbose argument on human laughter and its role in a philosopher’s ethos. In general, Simplicius continues Damascius’ trend of rigorous seriousness. Olympiodorus the Younger follows his predecessors in a mere serious reading of Plato, but he acknowledges numerous instances of Socrates’ irony and joking. However, Olympiodorus dissociates Plato from Socrates’ irony and emphasises its purely didactic extent. Generally, we can conclude that the later a Neoplatonic commentator is, the less perceptive to Plato’s humour he appears.","PeriodicalId":228501,"journal":{"name":"ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116483533","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

“Other” in the Third Hypothesis of “Parmenides" (Prm. 158d3–6) 巴门尼德第三假说中的“他者”(Prm. 158d3-6)

ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.25205/1995-4328-2022-16-2-783-790

I. Protopopova

{"title":"“Other” in the Third Hypothesis of “Parmenides\" (Prm. 158d3–6)","authors":"I. Protopopova","doi":"10.25205/1995-4328-2022-16-2-783-790","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25205/1995-4328-2022-16-2-783-790","url":null,"abstract":"The main purpose of the paper is to comment on Prm. 158d3-6. Consideration of this passage is preceded by a brief overview of various approaches to “Parmenides”. The most important difference in the approaches is determined by the attitude of the researchers to the “subject” of the eight hypotheses. F. Cornford believes that “one” and “is” in Plato’s text are not unambiguous, therefore the “subjects” of hypotheses are different, and, consequently, the conclusions from these hypotheses, although different, are not contradictory. Cornford’s approach is productively developed by K. Sayre and R. Turnbull. The author’s interpretation of the “Parmenides” is based on the same premise of the ambiguity of “one” and “is”. Other researchers (R. Allen, S. Rickless, M. Tabak) disagree with this, insisting that the “subject” in all hypotheses is the same, so the conclusions of different hypotheses are contradictory, and the conclusion from the most extensive, the second hypothesis, is obviously absurd (Allen). Tabak’s point of view is particularly abrupt, assuming that Plato’s goal in the second part is a parody of the views of the Eleatics and Sophists, often presented with deliberately incorrect and absurd conclusions. Tabak believes that only the third hypothesis applies to the views of Plato himself. It is with that one that the second part of the paper is dealing, analyzig the sense of “other” in Prm. 158d3–6. The author consider what is the meaning of “nature other than eidos” in the context of the ideas of the “receptacle” and χώρa in the “Timaeus” (50d, 51a7–b1), and what is the “idea of the immensity” in the context of the reasoning about the one, many and immensity in the “Philebus” (16de). Another comment concerns the meaning of ἕτερόν τι ἐν ἑαυτοῖς γίγνεσθαι and compares several translations of this passage (Cornford, A. Hermann, S. Scolnicov, Sayre, Tabak). In conclusion, the author offers her own interpretation of “other” in connection with the seventh hypothesis of the “Parmenides”.","PeriodicalId":228501,"journal":{"name":"ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115064510","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Ancient Rome and female administrators 和女性管理者

ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.25205/1995-4328-2019-13-1-106-114

K. Sharov

引用次数: 1

The Dialogue On Aristotle Categories by Porphyry as a Platonic Dialogue 《论亚里士多德范畴的对话》——斑菲利的柏拉图式对话

ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.25205/1995-4328-2019-13-1-83-93

O. Goncharko, Dmitry N. Goncharko

引用次数: 0

Socratic schools as Problem of Actual Studies of Ancient Philosophy 苏格拉底学派作为古代哲学实际研究的问题

ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.25205/1995-4328-2019-13-2-670-682

E. Alymova, S. Karavaeva

引用次数: 0

The origins of the myth about the Argead dynasty 阿基阿德王朝神话的起源

ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.25205/1995-4328-2022-16-1-218-230

A. Solovieva

引用次数: 0

Poetry as the beginning of philosophy and science 诗歌是哲学和科学的开端

ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.25205/1995-4328-2019-13-2-716-732

O. Donskikh

引用次数: 1

Plato’s Critique of Scientific Management in Charmides 柏拉图在《夏密德》中对科学管理的批判

ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.25205/1995-4328-2023-17-1-7-28

K. Knies

引用次数: 0

Autolycus of Pitane. On Risings and Settings. Russian translation and commentary Pitane的autoolycus。论起落。俄文翻译及评论

ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.25205/1995-4328-2023-17-1-401-463

I. Rushkin

引用次数: 0

Alexander of Aphrodisias on syllogistic reasoning 阿佛洛狄西亚的亚历山大论三段论推理

ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.25205/1995-4328-2019-13-1-32-47

S. Garin

引用次数: 0