苏格拉底在多大程度上是道德理智主义者?重温柏拉图的《普罗泰戈拉》

IF 0.1 3区 历史学 0 CLASSICS
R. Zaborowski
{"title":"苏格拉底在多大程度上是道德理智主义者?重温柏拉图的《普罗泰戈拉》","authors":"R. Zaborowski","doi":"10.1353/acl.2021.0019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:Socrates' ethical position is commonly classified as moral intellectualism. In this paper I argue against such a classification because in my view it is too narrow. First, I briefly recall traditional and less orthodox readings of Socrates' view. Then I analyse the passages of the Protagoras relevant to Socrates' position. Next, I focus on the multifariousness of the words know and knowledge and on a range of concepts of knowledge. Finally, I suggest that a more comprehensive reading of Socrates' position is accurate. I conclude by reformulating Socrates' position and suggesting a new way to describe it.","PeriodicalId":41891,"journal":{"name":"Acta Classica","volume":"64 1","pages":"263 - 290"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"To what extent was Socrates a moral intellectualist? Revisiting Plato's Protagoras\",\"authors\":\"R. Zaborowski\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/acl.2021.0019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT:Socrates' ethical position is commonly classified as moral intellectualism. In this paper I argue against such a classification because in my view it is too narrow. First, I briefly recall traditional and less orthodox readings of Socrates' view. Then I analyse the passages of the Protagoras relevant to Socrates' position. Next, I focus on the multifariousness of the words know and knowledge and on a range of concepts of knowledge. Finally, I suggest that a more comprehensive reading of Socrates' position is accurate. I conclude by reformulating Socrates' position and suggesting a new way to describe it.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41891,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Classica\",\"volume\":\"64 1\",\"pages\":\"263 - 290\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Classica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/acl.2021.0019\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"CLASSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Classica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/acl.2021.0019","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CLASSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:苏格拉底的伦理立场通常被归为道德理智主义。在本文中,我反对这样的分类,因为在我看来,它太狭隘了。首先,我简要回顾一下对苏格拉底观点的传统和非正统解读。然后,我分析了普罗泰戈拉中与苏格拉底立场相关的段落。接下来,我将重点介绍“知道”和“知识”这两个词的多样性,以及知识的一系列概念。最后,我建议对苏格拉底的立场进行更全面的解读是准确的。最后,我将重新阐述苏格拉底的立场,并提出一种新的描述方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
To what extent was Socrates a moral intellectualist? Revisiting Plato's Protagoras
ABSTRACT:Socrates' ethical position is commonly classified as moral intellectualism. In this paper I argue against such a classification because in my view it is too narrow. First, I briefly recall traditional and less orthodox readings of Socrates' view. Then I analyse the passages of the Protagoras relevant to Socrates' position. Next, I focus on the multifariousness of the words know and knowledge and on a range of concepts of knowledge. Finally, I suggest that a more comprehensive reading of Socrates' position is accurate. I conclude by reformulating Socrates' position and suggesting a new way to describe it.
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
Acta Classica
Acta Classica CLASSICS-
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信