Sophists

In Rhetoric and Power, Nathan Crick dramatizes the history of rhetoric by explaining its origin and development in classical Greece beginning the oral displays of Homeric eloquence in a time of kings, following its ascent to power during the age of Pericles and the Sophists, and ending with its transformation into a rational discipline with Aristotle in a time of literacy and empire. Crick advances the thesis that rhetoric is primarily a medium and artistry of power, but that the relationship between rhetoric and power at any point in time is a product of historical conditions, not the least of which is the development and availability of communication media.
Investigating major works by Homer, Heraclitus, Aeschylus, Protagoras, Gorgias, Thucydides, Aristophanes, Plato, Isocrates, and Aristotle, Rhetoric and Power tells the story of the rise and fall of classical Greece while simultaneously developing rhetorical theory from the close criticism of particular texts. As a form of rhetorical criticism, this volume offers challenging new readings to canonical works such as Aeschylus's Persians, Gorgias's Helen, Aristophanes's Birds, and Isocrates's Nicocles by reading them as reflections of the political culture of their time.
Through this theoretical inquiry, Crick uses these criticisms to articulate and define a plurality of rhetorical genres and concepts, such as heroic eloquence, tragicomedy, representative publicity, ideology, and the public sphere, and their relationships to different structures and ethics of power, such as monarchy, democracy, aristocracy, and empire. Rhetoric and Power thus provides a foundation for rhetorical history, criticism, and theory that draws on contemporary research to prove again the incredible richness of the classical tradition for contemporary rhetorical scholarship and practice.

“Friendship in Early Greek Ethics” examines the accounts of friendship (philia) in the early philosophical literature and argues that there is a coherent narrative of philosophical theorizing of friendship prior to Aristotle, one which does not make the Presocratics and Socratics mere pre-Aristotelian. The main treatments of friendship considered in this chapter—namely, those in Empedocles, Democritus, the Sophists, and the Socratics—can be understood as efforts to provide a convincing explanation of what motivates the relation of philia and to isolate the conditions for and key features of this specific form of relation essential to the good life.

""The paper provides an analysis of Protagorean philosophy, concentrating on Protagoras' famous homo mensura fragment. The examination is supported by significant philological clarifications, which eventually lead to the conclusion that ethico- political relativism does not follow from homo mensura fragment: only perceptual relativism logically follows. The argument goes on to show that Protagorean perceptual relativism may be understood both objectively and subjectively. The Heraclitean and Parmenidean influences upon Protagoras’ thought are also indicated. It is consequently shown how Plato and Aristotle misunderstood the central thesis of Protagoras, at the same time retrieving the homo mensura fragment from charges of self- refutation. It is also argued that Protagoras should not be called an “atheist”, but only a “subjective agnostic”.
""

In Plato’s Gorgias one of Socrates interlocutors, Callicles, exposes a philosoph-ical theory based upon the supremacy of the stronger over the weaker and in therefusal to accept a moral system created by these in order to restrain the powerful. Immediately, this theory reminds Nietzsche’s moral critique. The figure of Socratesserves as a counterpoint in the confrontation of both theories, because Callicles, inthe platonic text, as well as Nietzsche in his works stand in clear opposition to him.Then, we must compare both controversies in order to find out the proximity or dis-tance between Callicles’ and Nietzsche’s positions.

Aristotle is one of the important sources for studying pre-platonic Philosophers, among whom Heraclitus was the subject of Aristotle's main focus. His focus on Heraclitus was most importantly for the reason that Heraclitus was, as Plato states, the Intellectual godfather of Sophists and according to Aristotle, the Intellectual godfather of Plato himself. Aristotle therefore sought to make fundamental critiques of doctrines of Heraclitus and to thereby attack foundations of sophistic and platonic thoughts as well. This paper aims firstly to show the domains in which the doctrines of Heraclitus influence on doctrines of Sophists and Plato's thoughts. it seems that Heraclitus' attempt to reject authenticity of sensible and particular things convinced Sophists in their idea that there is no truth, and made Plato to claim that, since there is no truth in sensible and particular things, one should search for another container which would, based on doctrines of Parmenides, provide degrees of solidarity in order for one to acquire science and knowledge. Plato introduced the container to his theory of Ideas. After examining the influence of Heraclitus on Sophists and Plato, the paper then looks at Aristotle's critiques of two famous doctrines of Heraclitus, namely the doctrine of Universal Flux and that of Identity of Opposites, and demonstrates which particular thoughts of platonic ideas or sophistic paradoxes can be the target of the criticisms. it seems that criticisms endeavor to imply that sensible and particular things have some sort of solidarity. Sophistic doctrines will thereby be rejected altogether and platonic doctrines on his Ideas and his creation of their container will be pointless.

Since Antiquity, Gorgias has been linked with some figures of style, named after him γοργίεια σχήματα.
But ancient testimonies are, on that matter, far less unanimous than modern ones. This paper deals
with two main problems : why do some ancient testimonies ascribe to Gorgias the invention of those
figures ? How was the phrase γοργίεια σχήματα created ? The criticism of excess in the use of
antithesis, parisosis and paromoiosis (which are the main Gorgianic figures) can be traced back to
Peripatetic and Stoic attacks against the Isocratic period. This criticism is first essentially focused on
Isocrates. It is only during the Quarrel between Atticists and Asianists that Gorgias' name became more
than an mere exemple, i. e. the paradigm of excess. The phrase γοργίεια σχήματα was probably forged
by Denys of Halicarnassus for that purpose. Therefore one should be cautious when considering
γοργίεια σχήματα as characteristic of Gorgias' style : it is an anachronistic (and rather isocratic) point of
view, based on criterias inherited from Atticism.

Lo scopo di questo intervento è analizzare la cura attraverso i logoi in Antifonte e Gorgia. Antifonte ha composto una technē alupias, una pratica per eliminare il dolore attraverso i logoi. Gorgia, dal canto suo, ha dedicato parti significative del suo Encomio di Elena alla  forza dei discorsi che sono in grado sia di eliminare il dolore sia di originare il piacere. Entrambi i sofisti sembrano conoscere molto bene l'aspetto performativo dei logoi: le loro speculazioni mostrano come la filosofia antica abbia riflettuto sull'uso della lingua in quanto metodo per curare sia il dolore psicologico che la sofferenza fisica degli uomini. Il testo è una rielaborazione della lezione tenuta l'11 dicembre 2020 all'interno del VII Corso di formazione per docenti e studenti Tradurre e commentare i classici della filosofia, organizzato dall'Associazione Achille e la Tartaruga con la collaborazione scientifica della Società Filosofica Italiana.

La discussione sulla storia della civilizzazione umana, sul faticoso cammino che ha compiuto per distinguersi dalle altre specie animali costruendo un mondo fatto a propria misura, è un tema che ha appassionato i greci del V secolo. Tra gli altri anche il celebre mito che Protagora racconta nel dialogo omonimo di Platone può essere legittimamente inserito in questo contesto. Ma a differenza di altri resoconti, come ad esempio quello di Archelao, il racconto di Protagora non pretende di avere valore storico, di ricostruire cioè la storia dell’umanità. Piuttosto, quello che il mito si propone di fare è di sfruttare alcune tematiche tipiche di queste discussioni per presentare alcune situazioni irrealizzabili, capaci però di mostrare la vera natura (politica) dell’essere umano. Un’analisi dettagliata del mito permetterà così di discutere alcuni punti fondamentali del pensiero di Protagora, ricostruendo allo stesso tempo la strategia polemica che Platone ha adottato per confutare il suo avversario.

No presente artigo, partiremos de uma concepção geral sobre a sofística, opondo-a à
filosofia, visando salientar o que as separa e o que as une. Em seguida, traçaremos brevemente o
pensamento de um sofista destacado, Górgias, buscando explicitar sua concepção de educação. A
seguir, faremos o mesmo com o pensamento de Sócrates. Após isso, iremos contrapor as concepções
de Sócrates e Górgias quanto à educação, comentando-as.

1. L'attenzione che Antifonte dedica al tema della natura umana è un esempio significativo di quella vocazione enciclopedica e di quella tendenza all'esaustività che gli studiosi hanno spesso riconosciuto alla sua opera. Su questo argomento i frammenti superstiti delle due opere principali, la Verità e la Concordia, sembrano seguire diversi percorsi d'indagine arrivando a delineare un quadro completo. Più precisamente, tre sembrano le prospettive da cui il problema viene affrontato: scientifica, epistemologica ed eticopolitica. Mentre i primi due ambiti appaiono oggetto di analisi soltanto nello scritto sulla Verità, il terzo e più significativo viene toccato in entrambe le opere, a ulteriore conferma di una coerenza di pensiero che non sempre invece la critica è stata disposta a riconoscere al Sofista. Se è vero infatti che Antifonte è il sofista di cui si è conservato il maggior numero di frammenti, non meno importante è che molti di essi provengono da lessici e si limitano a citazioni di singoli termini. Questa situazione ha spesso indotto gli studiosi a trascurare gran parte delle testimonianze concentrandosi sui pochi frammenti più lunghi e significativi, a tutto svantaggio della possibilità di guadagnare una valutazione d'insieme più completa. Ma, in realtà, anche i passi più stringati, se adeguatamente valutati e contestualizzati, possono contribuire a chiarire la complessità del discorso di Antifonte, che soltanto a una lettura superficiale sembra limitarsi a estemporanee prese di posizioni sui problemi più disparati. Al contrario, ci sono alcuni punti chiave,

Nietzsche “Dili ciddiye alın!” diyor. Dilin daha ziyade iknâ vasıtası olarak hizmet
verdiği zamanlardan, onun teorisi üzerine kafa yorulduğu çağa atlamak bizi
“pratik” ve “teori” çatışması ile karşı karşıya bırakmaz. Mukayeseden çıkarılacak
çok daha mühim neticelerin olması böylesine basit bir değerlendirmeyi gölgede
bırakır. Sofistlerin para kazanma aracı olarak kullandıkları “dil” aslında sadece
yüzeysel olandır. Yani her ne olursa olsun muhatabı ikna etmek için odaklanmış bir
“konuşma” ortama ve zamana göre büyük değişiklikler gösterebilir. Oysa doğrunun
bir tek olması, zamana ve mekana göre dayanıklılık göstermesi gerekir. Bu noktada
mantıksal bakımdan mükemmel, muğlak olmayan, tam/kesin bir dilin günlük
konuşma için uygun olmadığını zaten tespit etmiştir Russell. Peki bu iki
kullanımdan (ideal lisan ve hatibin dili) hangisi “ciddiye alınmalı”dır?

Versuch der Rekonstruktion eines initiatorischen Handelns* "Es soll also gesagt werden, und sollte es mich auch mit Schmach und Gelächter ordentlich wie eine aufsprudelnde Welle überschütten .... Wenn nicht ... entweder die Philosophen Könige werden in den Staaten oder die jetzt so genannten Könige und Gewalthaber wahrhaft und gründlich philosophieren und also dieses beides zusammenfällt, die Staatsgewalt und die Philosophie, ... eher gibt es keine Erholung von dem Übel für die Staaten ... und ich denke auch nicht für das menschliche Geschlecht."1 sendem Hohn, staunendes Befremden über das für uns Befremdliche aufkommt. Ziel ist es, wenn auch nur in einigen Aspekten, so doch, die gravierenden Unterschiede in der Konzeption und Funktion der Philosophie -und damit der Logik -aufzuzeigen, die Platon von uns, aber auch schon von Aristoteles trennen. Im ersten Teil werden dazu die meiner Meinung nach zuwenig beachteten Beziehungen zur griechischen Religiosität behandelt, um ein erstes "Befremden" zu ermöglichen; im zweiten will ich versuchen, Platons religiöse Konnotationen dem Verdacht des der Philosophie bloß Äußerlichen zu entziehen, indem sie in dessen Verständnis von Sprache und Denken begründet werden. Abgeschlossen werden diese Überlegungendrittens -durch den Versuch das platonische Grundparadigma herauszuarbeiten, das vermittels der Logik der Ideen sowohl die philosophische Theorie, als auch deren psychagogische Praxis leitet: die Harmonien der kultisch-getanzten Musik.

Se otorgó a este ensayo el primer lugar del Premio Filosofía y Letras 2019 de la Facultad de Filosofía y Letras de la Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla. El pseudónimo empleado para su participación fue "un discípulo predilecto de Protágoras de Abdera". Las ideas inmersas en estas páginas configuran un navío que se somete a la potestad de la talasocracia sofística para navegar, entre las olas argumentativas del mar de la ἀρετή, hacia los verdaderos sofistas. Hablar del surgimiento de la sofística como causa de una crisis de la filosofía presocrática resultaría demasiado ingenuo. Se podría ir incluso un poco más lejos y establecer así un nuevo criterio, desde ahora constante y necesario, que sería considerar a Protágoras como un πρῶτος εὑρετής, primus inventor, primer descubridor. ¿Pero por qué pensar esta idea? El sofista, desde la presentación platónica en el diálogo que honra su nombre y pensamiento, se nos figura como un Prometeo de la filosofía, si es que podemos considerar que el Prometeo protagórico representa alegóricamente al primer filósofo entre la humanidad. ¿Por qué 'talasocracia sofística'? Tomé esta idea del poder político y económico de Atenas, me pareció que todo ese esplendor lo podrían representar alegóricamente los sofistas. Talasocracia apunta al poder y dominio del mar que tenía Atenas en tanto imperio democrático bajo una flota marítima imponente, pero a la lucha platónica contra los sofistas la enfoqué en el tópico del momento: la ἀρετή. Inmersos en esta talasocracia sofística los argumentos sofísticos y los socráticos constituyen innegablemente las naves de batalla en las que navegaremos donde los conceptos en el mar de la sabiduría, sobre las olas de la ἀρετή, se rigen por los nuevos alcances de este movimiento intelectual a cargo de los sofistas: la sofística clásica.

Sophistik 10-4 "Aller Dinge Maß ist der Mensch" : die Lehren der Sophisten / Klaus Meister.-Paderborn ; München : Fink, 2010.-327 S. ; 24 cm.-ISBN 978-3-7705-5066-1 : EUR 39.90 [#1650] Die Sophisten haben, seit Platon sie in immer neuen Varianten massiv kriti-siert hatte, weithin einen schlechten Leumund. Sophistik im übertragenen Sin-ne hat pejorative Bedeutungen. Der Begriff bezieht sich dann auf ein willkürli-ches Verhältnis zur Wahrheit, auf die Praxis des rein rhetorischen Stärkerma-chens einer sachlich schwachen Position, wie es exemplarisch auch im Wi-derstreit des stärkeren und des schwächeren Logos in Aristophanes' Wolken präsentiert wird, in dem Fragen der Gerechtigkeit umgebogen werden zu Fra-gen der Überredung und letztlich auch der Gewalt. Im 20.

Plato’s Apology of Socrates contains a spirited account of Socrates’ relationship with the city of Athens and its citizens. As Socrates stands on trial for corrupting the youth, surprisingly, he does not defend the substance and the methods of his teaching. Instead, he simply denies that he is a teacher. Many scholars have contended that, in having Socrates deny he is a teacher, Plato is primarily interested in distinguishing him from the sophists. In this paper, I argue that, given the historic educational transformation in Socrates’ and Plato’s lifetimes, Socrates’ denial is far more complex and far reaching than the Socrates-versus-the-sophists distinction indicates. Socrates suggests that Athenians have failed to recognize that there were various types among the new educators of fifth century Athens – orators, sophists, natural philosophers and, perhaps, a philosopher like Socrates. Further, the traditional education, which the Athenians believed was threatened by the new educators, was itself fractured. Ultimately, rather than offering a straightforward distinction between philosophizing and teaching, Socrates and the sophists, Plato treats the question of teaching aporectically in Apology; that is, after pointing to various alternatives for understanding the nature of teaching, Plato concludes the work without offering a clear resolution to that question.

This paper attempts to clarify the nature and importance of a third kind of sophistic argument that is not always found in the classification of those arguments in the secondary literature. An argument of the third kind is not only a valid one, but also constituted of true propositions. What makes it a sophistic argument is the fact that it produces a false semblance of scientific explanation: its explanation seems to be appropriate to the explanandum without being so. Evidence for this kind of argument comes from Sophistic Refutations 11, and Brison’s attempt to square the circle should be counted as one of its
instances.

Статья представляет собой попытку дать непротиворечивую интерпретацию двух диалогов Платона — «Апологии Сократа» и «Критона» — в том, что касается позиции Сократа по вопросу о повиновении закону. В «Критоне» Сократ отказывается нарушить закон в ситуации, когда последний грозит ему неминуемой гибелью. В «Апологии», напротив, Сократ выражает дерзкую решимость ослушаться воли афинян, в чьей власти наказывать за неповиновение закону, если те запретят ему заниматься философией под страхом смерти. Позиция Сократа кажется противоречивой лишь в том случае, если исходить из предположения, что единственным обязывающим для себя законом он считает правила, введенные законодателем Афин. Однако противоречие исчезает, если принять, что Сократ мог рассматривать предписание следовать афинскому закону в качестве лишь одного из требований естественного права. Поскольку взгляды Сократа (и Платона) во многом формировались в контексте их полемики с софистами, прояснению позиций первых теоретиков естественного права способствует исследование разногласий между ними и их идейными оппонентами по вопросам об обязанности соблюдать соглашения и о природе человека. Если по логике софистов единственным мотивом для повиновения закону является страх перед возможным применением наказания, то Сократ убежден в существовании моральной обязанности следовать закону, корни которой лежат в разумном характере законов Города, основывающихся на законах самой природы. В вопросе о природе человека Сократ и софисты также занимают противоположные позиции. Софисты рассматривают человека как исключительно физическое и биологическое существо, главной жизненной целью которого является выживание. Именно мотивы самосохранения оправдывают для софистов нарушение закона, и в их предположительной иерархии естественного права ценность физической безопасности занимала бы самое высокое место. Сократ противопоставляет такому взгляду представление о человеке, природа которого заключена в его душе, а занятием, наиболее соответствующим природе, является забота о душе, исследование добродетелей, т.е. философия. Требование посвятить жизнь философии поэтому обладает приоритетом в иерархии естественного права, которую мог бы построить Сократ, в сравнении с предписаниями соблюдать законы Города или заботиться о сохранении собственного биологического существования. Сократ, таким образом, принципиально исключает для себя возможность неповиновения закону, который он считает естественным, и единственный вопрос для него состоит в том, какое из предписаний естественного закона в конкретной ситуации является более разумным (более соответствующим природе) и, следовательно, требующим повиновения. / The article presents an attempt to give a consistent interpretation of two dialogues by Plato — the Apology of Socrates and the Crito — regarding the position of Socrates on the issue of obedience to the law. In the Crito, Socrates refuses to violate the law in a situation where the latter threatens him with imminent death. In the Apology, on the contrary, Socrates expresses a daring determination to disobey the will of the Athenians vested with the power to punish disobedience to the law if the Athenians forbid him to philosophize under penalty of death. The position of Socrates seems contradictory only if one proceeds from the assumption that he considers the rules introduced by the legislator of Athens to be the only law binding on himself. However, the contradiction disappears if we assume that Socrates could consider the precept to follow the Athenian law as one of the requirements of natural law. Since the views of Socrates (and Plato) were largely formed in the context of their polemics with the sophists, a study of disagreements between them and their ideological opponents concerning the nature of the obligation to respect agreements and the human nature can contribute to the clarification of the positions of the first natural law theorists. If according to the logic of the sophists, the only motive for obeying the law is the fear of potential enforcement of punishment, Socrates is convinced of the existence of a moral obligation to obey the law, and the roots of this obligation lie in the reasonable nature of the laws of the City, based on the laws of nature itself. Socrates and the sophists also take opposite positions on the issue of human nature. Sophists view man as a solely physical and biological being, whose main life goal is to survive. It is the motives of self-preservation that justify the violation of the law for sophists and in their supposed hierarchy of natural law, the value of physical security would take the highest place. Socrates contrasts this view with the idea of a man whose nature is his soul, and the occupation most congruent with its nature is caring for the soul, ethical inquiry, that is, philosophy. The requirement to devote life to philosophy, therefore, has priority in the hierarchy of natural law that Socrates could have built, in comparison with the prescriptions to comply with the laws of the City or to take care of preserving one’s biological existence. Socrates, therefore, fundamentally excludes for himself the possibility of disobeying a law that he considers natural, and the only question for him is which of the prescriptions of natural law in a particular situation is more reasonable (more consistent with nature) and, hence, requiring obedience.

Antilogies formed a privileged sort of writings where Sophistic excellence could manifest itself at the best.
Hardly a doubt on this point, since mastery works as the Tetralogies by Antiphon, or the Helen and Palamedes by Gorgias, the final agōn of Aristophanes' Clouds or Thucydides' Melian dialogue are there to offer ample evidence of that.
But the list of antilogies is much richer and antilogies have a logic of their own, worth being uncovered.

Protagoras' Grand Speech is traditionally considered to articulate a contractualist approach to political existence and morality. There is, however, a newly emerging line of interpretation among scholars, which explores a naturalist layer in Protagoras' ethical and political thought. This article aims to make a contribution to this new way of reading Protagoras' speech, by discussing one of its most elaborate versions. Keywords Protagoras – morality – naturalism – contractualism – myth – justice – human nature

La duplice dimensione di teoria e prassi nella vita umana ha costituito sempre un motivo di intensa ricerca antropologica. Tale duplicità è spesso oggetto di analisi da parte degli interpreti che intendono indagare il pensiero di un autore, sebbene essa venga non di rado ricondotta all'unità dell'operare umano. Gli interpreti tendono infatti a coniugare in una sintesi superiore le ragioni della conoscenza e le ragioni dell'azione, evitando gli unilateralismi e le contrapposizioni dialettiche al fine di offrire una lettura organica e unitaria del pensiero di quell'autore.

Though Plato's Euthydemus is usually interpreted as an unambiguous attempt to discredit the sophists' teaching methods, I argue that the dialogue defends the role sophists play in philosophic education. Read in its dramatic context, the dialogue reveals that sophists offer a low-stakes environment for the testing and development of an important political virtue: moderation. The sophist's classroom facilitates the cultivation of moderation by simulating the agonistic conditions of the assembly or courtroom, where many encounter temptations to bully others verbally. By arousing one's inner bully, the sophists expose the limits of one's moderation. While not sufficient for developing moderation, such self-revelations constitute a necessary part of the process even for a philosopher like Socrates. Ironically, by bringing out the worst in their students, the sophists unknowingly supply a protreptic to philosophy.

يحاول هذا البحث إعادة فحص موقف أفلاطون ’العدائي‘ من البلاغة، كما يظهر في محاورتي ‘جورجياس’ و’فيدروس’. ويحاول استكشاف فرضية أن مفهوم البلاغة التي ينتقدها أفلاطون يشير إلى البلاغة السياسية وبعض أشكال البلاغة القضائية فحسب. ومن ثمَ يُحاج البحث بأن نقد أفلاطون للبلاغة هو نقد للخطابات السياسية التي تستهدف السيطرة على الشعوب بواسطة استخدام تقنيات التضليل اللغوية من ناحية ونقد للخطابات القضائية التضليلية من ناحية أخرى. ويحاول البحث الإجابة عن أسئلة محددة هي: ما البلاغة التي ينتقدها أفلاطون؟ ولماذا ينتقدها؟ وما البلاغة البديلة التي يقترحها أفلاطون؟ وهل يمكن تحقيقها؟ ويناقش البحث المشكلات التي ينطوي عليها موقف أفلاطون من البلاغة، وبعض الاستجابات المعرفية لهذا الموقف قديما وحديثا؛ سواء أكانت تنتمي إلى الفلسفة أم البلاغة. وتتضمن الخاتمة عرضًا لأثر نقد أفلاطون للبلاغة في البلاغة العربية.

This paper aims to analyse Isocrates’ speech Against the Sophistsin order to
describe the characterization of the so called “sophists” in the text, in contrast
with a wider corpus of contemporary authors. We believe that Isocrates uses
a negative stereotyped image of the sophists, very familiar to his audience, to
imply that he is not one of them and, by taking advantage of the controversy,
to outline his own profile as an oratory teacher.

A holistic analysis of Hippias Minor, to supplement my earlier holistic analysis of Hippias Major. The (dramatic) reality is in the characters, not in what they say, and through an analysis of them as paradeigmata [EDIT: deigmata of paradeigmata] it becomes possible to see how the two dialogues connect together and reveal a development in Plato's thought regarding the good itself, its manifestations, and the ramifications of these manifestations. Both dialogues should be read before Politeia (aka Republic) which presupposes them, on which see my holistic analysis of that dialogue.
I analyse Hippias Minor line by line at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCruvPuEgxOAVWlkpm8qP3UA

La pensée présocratique est née et s'est développée dans un dialogue étroit avec la pensée mythique et traditionnelle correspondant aux cosmo-théogonies archaïques et aux récits des poètes les plus anciens. Elle appartient à une période de grandes transformations économiques, sociales, politiques et, plus généralement, culturelles, qui a vu la naissance de la monnaie, le développement des échanges et des relations entre des régions éloignées du monde grec et périphérique, la perte progressive de pouvoir par les aristocraties, la création des premières cités, la diffusion de mouvements religieux alternatifs à la religion officielle, la mise en place de réformes importantes au sein des institutions religieuses panhelléniques comme le sanctuaire de Delphes et, enfin, l'émergence de nouvelles formes de discours et de connaissance étroitement liées les unes aux autres. Depuis le début du siècle dernier, de nombreuses études, notamment des écoles anglo-saxonne, française et italienne, ont mis en évidence les liens entre le développement de la philosophie à partir de la pensée religieuse (un développement diversement compris, selon les orientations et les approches disciplinaires mises en place) et l'évolution extraordinaire du contexte, en se concentrant sur tel ou tel aspect. Où la recherche sur cet ensemble de problèmes et de questions en est-elle ? Le dialogue entre les disciplines at -il progressé dans ce domaine des études de l'Antiquité ? Que peut nous apprendre la recherche aujourd'hui sur les relations entre les connaissances des présocratiques et la pensée religieuse archaïque, entre la pensée présocratique et le contexte (sous toutes ses formes) ? La définition même de « pensée pré-socratique » at -elle subi des transformations ? Les études sur la réception ont-elles modifié d'une manière ou d'une autre notre perception de celle-ci ? Programme 2021-2022 Samedi 20 Novembre Nuria Scapin (Université de Chypre) La grâce violente du dieu-Une interprétation du Zeus de l'Orestie d'Eschyle à la lumière de la théologie présocratique Samedi 18 Décembre Richard Seaford (Exeter University) New Thoughts on Presocratic Philosophy and Monetisation Samedi 15 Janvier 29 Janvier, 15h-17h, par visioconférence Emiliano Buis (Université de Buenos Aires) Délits religieux, crimes politiques : comment traîner un philosophe en justice à Athènes ? Samedi 19 Février, 15h-17h30, par visioconférence Fernando Santoro (UFRJ) « Un élément de plus (ou de moins) : Empédocle le dionysiaque »

This essay outlines the history of ROL and the evolution into the 21st century through analysis of judgement held in very important common law cases along with Bingham sub rules and Jennings criticism on Dicey's three limbs which all constitutional lawyers and students use

The present thesis deals with the famous Gorgias's Encomium of Helen. In particular, it aims to underline its moral meaning, above all in relation to the power of rhetoric. Contrary to the common view which considers Gorgias's Helen a mere stylistic drill, the thesis wants to show the philosophical value of the oration.

The essay is an exploration of the Greeks sociological history, appraisal of its traditional civilization and its intellectual heritage. The philosophical development rooted in its traditional civilization of Greek gave rise to the development of natural and social sciences, especially the competing visions and methodologies that still characterizes modern social and natural sciences.
integral to philosophy of social science.

The late Antique mosaic of Orpheus decorated a small room, approximately 18 m2 in area, connected with two even smaller ones, in 4 m2 and the other 2 m2 in area, belonging most likely to a small funerary chapel (or tomb) discovered in the ancient necropolis by the Damascene Gate in Jerusalem; it was discovered in 1901 by H. Vincent.
The author proposes a new interpretation of the iconographic program of the Orpheus myth used by wealthy Christians in a sepulchral context (see Olszewski M.T. «Orphée endeuillé de la mosaïque funéraire de Jérusalem», in Rey Mimoso-Ruiz, B. ed., Actes du colloque «Orphée entre Soleil et ombre», à l’Institut Catholique de Toulouse du 16 au 17 novembre 2007, Inter Lignes, numéros spécial – mars 2008, pp. 205-214, 226). He also proposes a new interpretation of the role Orpheus played in Roman funerary art, concentrating on the importance of the play on words and the visual and textual punning that was popular in ancient art and especially in funerary art. He rejects the popular interpretation of Orpheus as Christ in the Roman catacombs and proposes to interpret the image as that of Orpheus, bard of the departed souls, without any ahistorical connection with Christ. The program of the mosaic from Jerusalem is thus explained as a play on the words Orpheus-orphanos and Chiron (Chi-Rho) and Pan [Παν(τοκράτωρ)].The frequently used Christian funerary formula of resting in peace, Christ or the Lord corresponds
perfectly with the mood created around the mythical bard.
Orpheus’ universal role as singer and musician moving even the most stony of hearts, extolling the beloved departed, is absolutely justified in the context of a 6th-century Christian tomb. Orpheus is a popular and neutral figure, meaning that in effect it does not constitute a threat to Christian theology and can be tolerated by the educated Christians of Jerusalem.

Medea was produced in 431 BC as part of a tetralogy which also contained Philoctetes, Dictys and the satyr-play Th eristae (' Reapers '). Euripides won the third prize, which is suggestive of his lesser popularity during his own lifetime. Nonetheless, ever since antiquity, Medea has remained a highly infl uential play, while there is concrete evidence for the reception of Philoctetes in later literary criticism and of Dictys in fourth-century iconography. 1 As with most Euripidean tetralogies , the three tragedies belong to diff erent myths (unlike Aeschylean tetralogies , whose tragedies derive from successive phases of the same legend). Th is chapter sets out to explore certain common underlying themes, which, despite the plot diff erences, pervade the plays of this tetralogy . I shall argue that the tragedies are conceptually interrelated by means of the key notions of exile and otherness and shall investigate the manner in which these ideas are embedded within their contemporary sociopolitical and cultural context.

NOTE TO COLLEAGUES: I have written this essay specifically for the undergraduate students in my Introduction to Philosophy class focusing on ancient Greek ethical thought. I have used a simple, conversational style and, for the most part, eliminated both footnotes and quotations. Footnotes would make comprehension seem formidable. Quotations would release students from the necessity of doing their own thoughtful analysis of the primary sources in order to verify (or contest) the correctness of these interpretations. How these supplementary readings fit into my pedagogy will become clear as I post more materials relating specifically to my pedagogy. In the meantime, those who know the relevant source material and secondary literature may find the interpretations advanced here of interest. I welcome comments and feedback.

1 Sterblichkeit ist in der frühgriechischen Welt nicht nur ein wesentliches Charakteristikum des Menschen, sondern geradezu ein Synonym von Menschlichkeit. Das Menschliche wird bestimmt, indem es mit dem Göttlichen kontrastiert wird, dessen Charakteristikum die Unsterblichkeit ist. Das Sein des Menschen ist in dieser Perspektive zuallererst durch einen Mangel gekennzeichnet: Als ‚Sterbliche' (brotoi) sind die Menschen vergängliche, hinfällige, schwache Wesen und damit durch einen Abgrund von den ewigen, unsterblichen, starken Göttern getrennt. Ein Mensch zu sein, bedeutet, mit einer unheilbaren Schwäche geboren zu sein; es bedeutet, gleich mit der Geburt ein "Todeslos" (moros) gezogen zu haben, wie Heraklit es ausdrückt (DK 22 B20). Die entsprechenden Motive sind in der vorplatonischen Literatur leicht zu finden: Philolaos soll gesagt haben, dass die Menschen "zum Besitz der Götter" gehören (DK 44 B15). Pindar beschreibt es so, dass das menschliche Vermögen gegenüber göttlicher Macht ein ‚Nichts' (ouden) ist (Nemeische Oden, VI.1-4). Und bei Demokrit heißt es trocken: "Man muss erkennen, dass das menschliche Leben schwach (aphaurēn) und kurz (oligochronion) ist und mit vielen Plagen und Schwierigkeiten einhergeht" (DK 68 B285). Dabei schwingt mit, dass dem Menschen ein bestimmter Platz im kosmos zukommt und er sich in die Ordnung der Dinge einfügen sollte. Die delphische Weisheit ‚Erkenne dich selbst' (gnōthi sauton) könnte man in diesem Sinne lesen: als Aufforderung, sich darauf zu besinnen, was man ist und was einem folglich zukommt und was nicht. Dabei ist die Einsicht in das eigene Menschsein in erster Linie ein Wissen um die eigene Endlichkeit, Schwäche, Fehlbarkeit und Minderwertigkeit. Es ist das Wissen darum, dass man den Göttern prinzipiell unterlegen ist. Eine solche Selbsterkenntnis schützt davor, das rechte Maß zu verlieren und mit den Göttern konkurrieren zu wollen. ‚Nichts im Übermaß' (mēden agan) lautet vielleicht nicht zufällig ein weiteres delphisches Gebot. Der Gedanke vom schwachen Menschen, der notwendig hinter den unsterblichen Göttern rangiert und sich entsprechend unterzuordnen 2 hat, ist tief eingeschrieben in die frühgriechische Kultur, von der die griechische Philosophie in der vorsokratischen Zeit ihren Ausgang nimmt. Von der Sophistik freilich könnte man meinen, dass sie sich nicht recht in diese Tradition fügen will. So möchte es jedenfalls scheinen, wenn man die Gelehrten vor Augen hat, die bei Platon die Bühne betreten. In der traditionellen Deutung ist die sophistische Bewegung eher ein Beispiel dafür, wie es aussieht, wenn man seine Begrenztheit vergisst, wenn man nicht mehr weiß, was man ist und das rechte Maß verliert. Aus platonisch-sokratischer Sicht sind die Sophisten auf den ersten Blick eine Gruppe eitler Professoren, deren herausragendes Erkennungsmerkmal ihre Selbstüberschätzung ist. Die Hippias-Dialoge und der Protagoras liefern besonders amüsante Beispiele dafür. Anstoßpunkt der Auseinandersetzung ist die Frage des Wissens, und zwar genauer des Wissens um die ‚wichtigen' Dinge und um das ‚Gutsein': Während den Kontrahenten des Sokrates typischerweise die arrogante Gewissheit eigen ist, dass ihnen göttliche Weisheit zu Gebote steht, zeichnet sich Sokrates durch das Bewusstsein aus, nur über "menschliche Weisheit" (anthrōpinē sophia) zu verfügen (Platon, Apologie 20d). In dem Szenario, das Platon bietet, scheint der Sophist also derjenige zu sein, der über vollendete sophia zu verfügen meint, während der philosophos derjenige ist, für den solche Weisheit immer nur ein Ideal bleibt, dem man nachstrebt. Letzterer kennt sein Maß, während ersterer sein Maß aus dem Blick verloren hat und daher anmaßend oder maßlos ist. Der berühmte Satz des Protagoras, dass der Mensch "das Maß aller Dinge" sei, könnte als Motto dafür verstanden werden: Das sophistische Denken stellt in dieser Perspektive ein Denken dar, das den Gedanken der Endlichkeit und Mangelhaftigkeit des Menschen aller Tradition zum Trotz in den Wind schlägt und sich nicht darum schert, wie die Götter die Dinge eingerichtet haben. Diese Anmaßung ist geradezu das Erkennungsmerkmal des sophistēs. Dass die wirkliche Geschichte eine andere gewesen sein muss, ist nichts Neues. Dennoch sind die traditionellen Vorurteile gegenüber der Sophistik bis heute so wirksam, dass es nach wie vor schwer fällt, ein Bild zu zeichnen, das die wirklichen Anliegen von Gelehrten wie Protagoras, Antiphon oder Gorgias jenseits der platonischen Karikaturen sichtbar werden lässt. Das Folgende könnte man als Beitrag zu der weiterhin nötigen kritischen Arbeit an den klassischen Einteilungen der Philosophiehistorie verstehen, welche die Kontinuitäten zwischen der Sophistik und der nicht-sophistischen Vorsokratik sowie den Einfluss der Sophistik auf die sokratisch-platonische Philosophie notorisch verstellen. Die Vorstellungen vom Menschsein, die insbesondere Protagoras und Gorgias voraussetzen und die wichtige Vorgaben für ihre Lehren liefern, sind ein guter Leitfaden dafür, weil sie darauf

Reading Paulo Freire’ s Pedagogy of the oppressed, one might easily conclude that rhetoric has no place in a classroom so thoroughly imbued with the ethics of dialogue. However, this essay suggests that rhetoric plays a productive and in fact necessary role in Freire’s pedagogy of the oppressed. Drawing from the sophistical techniques of imitatio and dissoilogoi, I suggest that true liberation from a dominated consciousness goes through rather than around the methods of rhetorical persuasion, methods that not only develop rhetorical skills in students but that also encourage rhetorical performance on the part of the educators. Dialogue remains central to this pedagogy but becomes enriched by its natural counterpart, rhetoric, so that the aim is not only cognitive liberation but the accrual of practical power.