Taking a cue from the interpretive difficulties faced by Socrates and his interlocutors in Plato’s Theaetetus as they struggle to determine the meaning of Protagoras’ homo-mensura doctrine (HM), I argue that Protagoras, or early Protagoreans, used HM to speak on the relativity of literary criticism. For evidence I adduce an overlooked passage of the anonymous Certamen Homeri et Hesiodi, which contains an ethical formulation of HM. This formulation of HM, compatible with the portrait of Protagoras from Theaetetus, explains (...) the concern for literary interpretation latent in two sections of the Certamen. From the evidence in the Certamen, we may infer that HM was directly related to Protagorean education in civic virtue, part of which included a study of how to read and listen to texts. (shrink)

The paper presents a subjectivist interpretation of Protagoras’ man-measure fragment, by explaining some key terms (‘all things’, ‘measure’, ‘man’) and reconstructing his ontological, epistemological and anthropological views. The argument uses other fragments and testimonies of Protagoras as well as intertextual allusions to previous authors (especially Anaxagoras) and instances of reception of Protagoras by Plato, Aristotle and Isocrates which are particularly used here for the first time in order to interpret the man-measure fragment. It is argued that Protagoras denied metaphysical speculation (...) and preferred human knowledge based on subjective perception and made plausible by intersubjective discourse. (shrink)

Cet article examine le fragment de l’homme-mesure de Protagoras, tout d’abord en exposant les grands courants de son interprétation, ensuite et surtout en présentant les positions respectives et antagonistes de Nietzsche et Heidegger. Heidegger, contre Nietzsche, fait reposer l’homo-mensura sur un arrière-fond ontologique et platonicien, où la mesure n’est possible que depuis l’ouverture ontologique qui la précède. Cette interprétation a sa légitimité historique et philologique. Mais Nietzsche comprend le fragment comme entièrement irréductible au platonisme : Protagoras (et son (...) frère de pensée Thucydide) aurait pensé la connaissance comme l’étude de types psychologiques, non pas selon une norme épistémique stable, mais selon les variations d’intensité qui touchent toute psychè mais aussi toute communauté sociale. Je prends appui sur cette dernière intuition pour dégager ce qui me semble l’interprétation la plus riche du fragment de l’homme-mesure, à partir des remarques d’Eugène Dupréel – une interprétation sociale et normative où Protagoras est le penseur d’une praxis (la médecine, la politique…) qui, dans une situation et dans une communauté données, est capable d’améliorer les impressions subjectives du plus grand nombre. (shrink)

Este artículo se propone mostrar que el significado de aisthesis para Protágoras responde al uso y significación de la filosofía jónica, esto es, aún significa indistintamente juicio, sensación, emoción, creencia, en fin, doxa. Esto tiene una consecuencia muy relevante para la comprensión del homo mensura y la tesis que afirma: aisthesis es episteme.

Protagoras u Sekstusa Empiryka (PH I 216) a platoński Teajtet Dzieła Sekstusa Empiryka stanowią ważne źródło doksograficzne, zawierając m. in. fragmenty i przekazy poświęcone sofistyce. Są wśród nich omówienia poglądów Protagorasa. W świetle problemów, jakie stwarza rekonstrukcja myśli tego sofisty, warto poddać badaniu źródła i perspektywę Sekstusa, zwracając szczególną uwagę na krótkie przedstawienie tez Protagorasa zawarte w Zarysach Pyrrońskich (PH I 216). Porównując omówienie Sekstusa i przedstawienie Platona w Teajtecie, dostrzec możemy podobieństwo prezentowanych poglądów. W przekazie Seksusa podobnie jak w (...) Teajtecie główny akcent położony jest na tezę homo-mensura, z którą wiąże się dwa inne podstawowe dla platońskiego dialogu wątki: zmienności rzeczy oraz "prywatności" spostrzeżeń. Mimo charakterystycznej dla sceptycyzmu modyfikacji strony pojęciowej, nadinterpretacji oraz wyrwania tez z dialogowego kontekstu przedstawienia obu wątków wykazują daleko idące paralele z Teajtetem. Bez względu na to, czy omówienie to jest dziełem samego Sekstusa, czy zaczerpnięte zostało z jakiegoś wcześniejszego źródła mającego charakter sceptycznej "ściągawki", możemy na jego podstawie wnioskować, że dialog Teajtet uważany był w późnej starożytności za wiarygodne źródło informacji na temat poglądów Protagorasa. Należy jednak podkreślić, że przekaz Sekstusa stanowi jedynie interpretację treści zawartych w platońskim Teajtecie i – wbrew praktyce wielu uczonych - nie może być brany pod uwagę jako niezależne źródło wiedzy o myśli Protagorasa. (shrink)

Discuto neste artigo o fragmento de Protágoras sobre a existência dos deuses e a sua coerência teórica com outras teses do sofista. Primeiramente, utilizo dados históricos e biográficos para iluminar o subjetivismo da primeira linha do fragmento. Em seguida, discuto os obstáculos epistemológicos mencionados por Protágoras e sugiro uma nova tradução para o termo brachýs, um dos conceitos centrais que ele propõe. Na seção 2, analiso o ataque à transcendência que distingue suas ideias sobre a matemática e a percepção sensível. (...) Finalmente, na seção 3, mostro como a sua postura teológica está de acordo com a tese do homo-mensura e com a sua abordagem antilógica. A conclusão ressalta a unidade do pensamento de Protágoras e a sua posição no Iluminismo grego. (shrink)

En el presente trabajo intentaremos poner en evidencia un singular enfoque sobre la pólis ateniense ofrecido por Protágoras en el diálogo platónico que lleva su nombre. Dicho enfoque, soslayado por los intérpretes, hace hincapié en la dimensión visual de la praxis política de los ciudadanos y es coherente con los posicionamientos ontológicos que emergen de los fragmentos del sofista.

Protagoras, of all the ancient philosophers, has perhaps attracted the most interest in modern times. His saying ‘Man is the measure of all things’ caused Schiller to adopt him as the patron of the Oxford pragmatists, and has generally earned him the title of the first humanist. Yet the exact delineation of his philosophcal position remains a baffling task. Neumann, writing on Die Problematik des ‘Homo-mensura’ Satzes in 1938,2 concludes that no certainty whatever can be reached on the (...) meaning of the dictum, since ‘man’, ‘measure’, and ‘things’ are all ambiguous, nor can we tell which of the three is the predicate. The time is past when it was believed that a man's philosophy could be understood apart from the events of his life and the circumstances of his age: yet in the case of Protagoras the historical method of approach has hardly been attempted, although the impact of environment was perhaps more decisive in the formation of philosophical concepts in the Greek world than anywhere else. The reality about which the Greek philosopher spoke had three aspects: it was either the one universe of physics, or the political unity, or God. For example, the book of Heracleitus Περ φσεως was divided into three chapters or logoi, About the Whole, a political, and a theological. Neither physics nor theology supplies from its own subject-matter the form in which this reality was described. (shrink)

4차 산업혁명시대의 산물인 인공지능 컴퓨터와 지능형 로봇 등의 ‘생각하는 기계’는 모두 인간을 세계와 매개시키는 도구인 셈이다. 이 ‘생각하는 기계’의 특성을 설명하기 위해 본고는 프로타고라스의 명제 ‘인간이 척도다(homo mensura)’에서 착안한 ‘인간척도주의(homo-mensuraism)’를 논의의 축으로 삼는다. 인간이 세계(자연)와 관계/소통하기 위해 개발하고 사용하는 도구(매개자)는 ‘인간’이라는 척도에 따른 결과물이다. 이러한 사실은 칸트의 ‘범주’와 카시러의 ‘문화’ 그리고 맥루한의 ‘미디어’를 통해 뒷받침될 수 있다. 인식과 제작에 개입하는 ‘인간척도주의’는 오늘날 ‘생각하는 기계’가 기본적으로 인간의 논리적 사고와 뇌신경계의 작동원리를 모방한 데에서 첨예하게 드러난다. 인간의 지능은 기계의 지능, (...) 즉 컴퓨터의 2진법적인 디지털 신호로 치환되고 그 계산능력이 향상되면서 ‘생각하는 기계’의 역량은 급속도로 성장하고 있다. 그런데 ‘인간’을 척도와 목표로 삼아 개발된 ‘생각하는 기계’는 점차 인간의 의식을 포함한 ‘인간’ 자체가 아니라 인간의 지능만을 모델로 삼음으로써 오히려 점차 인간의 신체적 정신적 능력을 능가하는 역량을 발휘하고 있다. 결국 ‘인간’이라는 척도에 기반하여 산출된 문명적 이기(利器)인 ‘생각하는 기계’가 처음에는 인간과 세계를 잇는 매개자로서 도구의 성격을 띠었지만 최근 유전자 공학과 나노기술 그리고 로봇공학의 발전이 가속화되면서 단순한 매개자 혹은 도구의 수준을 넘어 그 자체가 자율성을 지닌 존재로 진화할 가능성이 커지고 있다. 이에 따라 ‘인간척도주의’는 인간 자체를 기준으로 삼는 ‘강한 인간척도주의’와 인간의 의식은 배제한 채 지능만을 모방하여 기계(기술)적인 효율성을 극대화하는 ‘약한 인간척도주의’로 나누어 이해할 필요가 있다. 여기서 ‘약한 인간척도주의’의 진화론적 위상과 존재론적 특성을 밝히는 일은 미래에 ‘생각하는 기계’와 인간의 관계를 예견하는 데 필수적이다. (shrink)

WHEN NIETZSCHE CALLED MAN THE YET UNFINISHED ANIMAL, he echoed a phrase that had remote origins. In classical German philosophy, the idea of man as a Mängelwesen, a lacking and underdetermined being, was shared by Herder, Kant, and even Hegel and Marx, among others. It was brought to clear expression by Schiller when he wrote: “With the animal and plant, Nature did not only specify their dispositions but she also carried these out herself. With man, however, she merely provided the (...) disposition and left its execution up to him.” What distinguishes man from animals, according to these thinkers, is the unfinished character of the gifts he is endowed with by nature; at the same time, this underdetermined quality is responsible for human openness and adaptability. To play on the myth of the birth of eros in the Symposium, one could say that for man poverty is resourcefulness. (shrink)

This essay proposes a possible direction for feminist epistemology-an embodied rationality that defines the process of knowing as a dialogue with particulars or the "things themselves." On the grounds that modern reality is marked by abstract projects of homo mensura, I argue that the task of postmodernism is to ground cognition in the world by breaking the habit of looking at the world, as if from a distance, and by ceasing to think about the world as if it (...) were composed of a collection of objects-in-general. (shrink)

A piece of wax—typically of a spherical shape—has been evoked occasionally as an apt example of how our engagement with the commonest everyday object may constitute a “raw” yet unexpectedly rich (and taxing) experience, from the Aristotelian discourse of Περὶ Ψυχῆς (_On the Soul_) to the ancient Chinese historical treatises, where the technique of making _lajuan _(wax-embraced silk) became a practical metaphor for the low-key transmission of classified information. Using the semi-enclosed, “walled” space—specifically, made of the material of wax from (...) Descartes’ often misread _Meditationes_—as a metaphor of an unlikely shape or structure for inducing the presence of the absent (e.g., memories of personal lives or ancient technology), the paper responds to Hoły-Łuczaj (Philosophy & Technology 36:19, 2023 )’s favorable and subtle touches in the Commentary on the recent study of ancient Eastern measurement and measuring thinking (Philosophy & Technology 36:22, 2023 ; Philosophy & Technology 34(4):785–809, 2021 ) by relating to the childhood experience of living with measuring tools and measuring/measured person(s) (_homō _-_mētiēns_/-_mēnsus_; to be distinguished from the Pythagorean formula of _homo_-_mensura _or man _as _the measure [of everything]). (shrink)

Astrobiocentrism is a vision that places us in a scenario of confirmation of life in the universe, either as a second genesis or as an expansion of humanity in space. It manages to raise consistent arguments in relation to questions such as what would happen to knowledge if life were confirmed in the universe, how would this change the way we understand our place in the cosmos? Astrobiocentrism raises a series of reflections in the context of confirmed discovery, and it (...) develops concepts that work directly with what would happen after irrefutable evidence has been obtained that we are not alone in space. Unlike biocentrism or ecocentrism, the astrobiocentric view is not limited to the Earth-centric perspective, and for it incorporates a multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary understanding. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to make a reflection on the astrobiocentric issues related to the challenges and problems of the discovery of life in the universe and the expansion of mankind into space. Here we explore some aspects of the transition from biogeocentrism to astrobiocentrism, astrobiosemiotics, homo mensura, moral community, planetary sustainability and astrotheology. (shrink)

El presente trabajo constituye una aproximación a la tradición sofista desde la perspectiva nietzscheana. De modo más específico, analizamos hasta qué punto los planteamientos de los sofistas y la contienda que se desarrolla entre ellos le sirven al filósofo como una herramienta para enfrentarse a la tradición platónica. Para ello, describimos primero ciertas características propias de la competencia entre estos oradores, las cuales resultan compatibles con la valoración nietzscheana del devenir. En segundo lugar, relacionamos la interpretación de Nietzsche del (...) class='Hi'>homo mensura con el perspectivismo y el escepticismo propios de su pensamiento. Por último, explicamos cómo la expresión «cultura del conocimiento desinteresado», referida a los sofistas, apunta a marcar un contraste frente a la seriedad de la tradición socrático-platónica contra la que Nietzsche combate. (shrink)

Is there any such thing as the Cusan view of the relationship between faith and reason? That is, does Nicholas present us with clear concepts of fides and ratio and with a unique and consistent doctrine regarding their interconnection? If he does not, then the task before us is surely an impossible one: viz., the task of finding, describing, and setting in perspective a doctrine that never at all existed. For even with spectacles made of beryl stone or through the (...) looking glass of Lewis Carroll, we could not descry the totally nonexistent. Four lines of argument purport to show that the task before us is fundamentally impossible. 1. First of all, it may be argued that Nicholas of Cusa can have a coherent doctrine of faith and reason only if he has a generally coherent theory of knowledge and that since his theory of knowledge is generally incoherent, so too must be the aforesaid doctrine, which is an intrinsic part of the theory of knowledge. Let us grant—for the sake of the argument—the disputable logic of this reasoning, and let us focus on the question of whether Nicholas does or does not have a viable general theory of knowledge. Many philosophers judge the theory to be unviable. For example, the philosopher Hans Blumenberg writes: “I will not make what I believe would have to be a futile attempt at a unitary interpretation of the Cusan theory of knowledge. Here in particular the inner consistency of his philosophical accomplishment is doubtful. The reason for this can be specified: it lies, again, in the inability to deal with or successfully to evade the consequences of nominalism.” 2 Other philosophers are quick to agree that Cusa’s epistemology consists of a host of glaring contradictions: Cusa’s theory of representative perception is said to be incompatible with his doctrine of homo mensura—i.e., with his doctrine that man is the measure of the reality that is perceived and conceived by him. Cusa’s notion that empirical concepts are abstracted from perceptual and imaginative images is asserted to be contradicted by his further claim that all concepts are derived a pri- ori from the mind itself. (shrink)

Is there any such thing as the Cusan view of the relationship between faith and reason? That is, does Nicholas present us with clear concepts of fides and ratio and with a unique and consistent doctrine regarding their interconnection? If he does not, then the task before us is surely an impossible one: viz., the task of finding, describing, and setting in perspective a doctrine that never at all existed. For even with spectacles made of beryl stone or through the (...) looking glass of Lewis Carroll, we could not descry the totally nonexistent. Four lines of argument purport to show that the task before us is fundamentally impossible. 1. First of all, it may be argued (a) that Nicholas of Cusa can have a coherent doctrine of faith and reason only if he has a generally coherent theory of knowledge and (b) that since his theory of knowledge is generally incoherent, so too must be the aforesaid doctrine, which is an intrinsic part of the theory of knowledge. Let us grant—for the sake of the argument—the disputable logic of this reasoning, and let us focus on the question of whether Nicholas does or does not have a viable general theory of knowledge. Many philosophers judge the theory to be unviable. For example, the philosopher Hans Blumenberg writes: “I will not make what I believe would have to be a futile attempt at a unitary interpretation of the Cusan theory of knowledge. Here in particular the inner consistency of his philosophical accomplishment is doubtful. The reason for this can be specified: it lies, again, in the inability to deal with or successfully to evade the consequences of nominalism.”2 Other philosophers are quick to agree that Cusa’s epistemology consists of a host of glaring contradictions: Cusa’s theory of representative perception is said to be incompatible with his doctrine of homo mensura—i.e., with his doctrine that man is the measure of the reality that is perceived and conceived by him. Cusa’s notion that empirical concepts are abstracted from perceptual and imaginative images is asserted to be contradicted by his further claim that all concepts are derived a pri- ori from the mind itself.. (shrink)

Epistemic peer disagreement raises interesting questions, both in epistemology and in philosophy of science. When is it reasonable to defer to the opinion of others, and when should we hold fast to our original beliefs? What can we learn from the fact that an epistemic peer disagrees with us? A question that has received relatively little attention in these debates is the value of epistemic peer disagreement—can it help us to further epistemic goals, and, if so, how? We investigate this (...) through a recent case in paleoanthropology: the debate on the taxonomic status of Homo floresiensis remains unresolved, with some authors arguing the fossils represent a novel hominin species, and others claiming that they are Homo sapiens with congenital growth disorders. Our examination of this case in the recent history of science provides insights into the value of peer disagreement, indicating that it is especially valuable if one does not straightaway defer to a peer’s conclusions, but nevertheless remains open to a peer’s evidence and arguments. (shrink)

In this essay, I address Descartes’ medical thought, starting from the years of Le Monde and focus- ing especially on the “ontological” explanation of the dropsy in the Sixth Meditation. I especially consider Descartes’ attempt to ‘reform’ physiology according to the universal methodology of geometrical reasoning, as well as with the importance given by Descartes’ epistemology to the re- lationship between medicine and the mind-body union. The possibility of a coherent explanation of all the embodied phenomena, including illness and passions (...) is, in fact, a strategic opportunity to show the existence of an inner regularity in God’s Creation and so, to reconnect any ‘practical’ order (including medicine) to His essence. This leads Descartes to implicitly face the problem of the monstrous births, retracing what he could find in Toledo’s and Conimbricenses’ Commentaria. (shrink)

The thinking employed by Homo faber, Latin for ‘Tool Wo/Man,’ and a concept articulated by Hannah Arendt and Max Scheler referring to humans as controlling the environment through tools, is instrumental in nature. Know-how is applied to the environment as one would apply a tool, in order to control it. In contrast, thinking that looks at how to engage the whole for the sake of solving a problem, is the thinking employed by Homo Cognoscens (a term I invented), (...) referring to the Examining/Inquiring Wo/Man, from the Latin cognosco, which means ‘I inquire/examine.’ In my essay, I show why it is important to move beyond the limited thinking of Homo faber. Homo faber in some sense still views itself at the center of the universe and capable of controlling it. S/he lives in a geocentric worldview. Homo cognoscens has a heliocentric worldview. Homo cognoscens understands that the world is interconnected and that we do not control the universe literally or figuratively no matter how advanced our knowledge. Instrumental thinking also does not lend itself to developing self-knowledge, for it doesn’t involve awareness of the thinking that goes into solving problems “out there.” It simply applies reason for the purpose of solving problems. We tend to reason things through, but rarely to think through our reasoning. Yet, we live in an interconnected world and we are interconnected with the world we live in. Our thinking reflects our interconnectedness and we have to be able to view it critically and self-critically. Homo cognoscens restores our relationship with the world and other people. Homo faber has gone too far in its instrumental thinking and destroyed relationship in the process. Everything has become instrumental. To move beyond Homo faber is to evolve to Homo cognoscens and understand how we are intrinsically connected to the world we depend on and need to engage it, rather than assume we can control it at all cost. (shrink)

The argument in theProtagoraswhich starts with an analysis of giving in to pleasure in terms of ignorance, and leads into a demonstration that courage is knowledge, is certainly one of the most brilliant in Plato and equally certainly one of the trickiest. My discussion deals mainly with three problems: Precisely what absurdity is detected in the popular account of moral weakness, and where is it located in the text? On the basis of largely formal considerations I believe that the absurdity (...) is a much less subtle affair than has been thought, and that it is located at 355c-d. What is the connection between knowledge and belief in 358b-d, and how do these two concepts figure in the arguments which precede and follow this passage? Here I want to comment on differences between theProtagorasand other Socratic arguments. How good is the argument at 356–357e which analyses moral weakness as ignorance? There are several problems here, including a fundamental puzzle of the dialogue, namely that, apparently, Plato uses a non-Socratic hedonism to establish the Socratic thesis that virtue is knowledge. Here I agree with those critics who see irony at the expense of the sophists—sophistic teaching is shown to be grounded in hedonism—but in addition I suggest that Plato also offers an oblique criticism of hedonism itself in the course of which basic points of real substance are made. This interpretation fits in with various other features of the dialogue, including the curious fact that, though the main argument proceeds on a thorough-going hedonistic basis, Socrates is subtly but distinctly not committed to that basis. Hence the unity of the dialogue is supported, and as well an attitude to hedonism is given which is more consistent with that of other dialogues, while we are able to see the Socratic paradox in its regular role as a tool of ethical exploration. (shrink)

Amsterdam University Press is a leading publisher of academic books, journals and textbooks in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Our aim is to make current research available to scholars, students, innovators, and the general public. AUP stands for scholarly excellence, global presence, and engagement with the international academic community.

R.E. Allen's superb new translations of four Socratic dialogues—_Ion_, _Hippias Minor_, _Laches_, and _Protagoras_—bring these classic texts to life for modern readers. Allen introduces and comments on the dialogues in an accessible way, inviting the reader to reexamine the issues continually raised in Plato's works. In his detailed commentary, Allen closely examines the major themes and central arguments of each dialogue, with particular emphasis on _Protagoras_. He clarifies each of Plato's arguments and its refutation; places the themes in historical perspective; (...) ties each theme to interpretations of rival translations; and links the philosopher's thought to trends in late modern philosophy. Topics discussed include: whether virtue is an art, whether wisdom and courage are logically equivalent, whether virtue is knowledge, and whether to know the good is to do it. Allen connects his discussion of these issues to the Benthamite tradition of hedonism and utilitarianism and to the ethical theories of Mill, Sidgwick, Moore, and Freud. (shrink)

This editorial presents some conclusions from a specific investigation on neoliberalism and academia, especially in the Latin American philosophical context.

Despite some sound basic assumptions, Wilkins & Wakefield portray a Homo habilis too linguistically sophisticated to fit in with the subsequent fossil record and thereby lose a reasoned explanation for human innovativeness. They err, too, in accepting a single-level model of conceptual structure and in deriving initial linguistic units from calls, a process far more dubious than the derivation of home-sign from naive gesture.

Engaño y daño del transhumanismo, Olivier Rey, (2019) HOMO LEGENS, MADRID.

Shaw introduces an important and compelling line of argumentation concerning the relationship between pleasure and the good into the literature on Plato’s dialogues with ramifications beyond any commitment that Plato has Socrates make to hedonism at Protagoras 351b–357e. To appreciate Shaw’s argument, the term ‘hedonism’ must be understood to indicate that the good is identical to bodily pleasure—not to both sensate and modal pleasure understood as a dichotomy, and not to all pleasures of the soul and body understood as a (...) blended, commensurable, spectrum. Chapter 1 characterizes hedonism in a narrower way.. (shrink)

This article argues that Henri de Lubac's conception of the homo ecclesiasticus has deep roots in the spirituality of Ignatius of Loyola. Drawing upon Splendor of the Church, the article first presents de Lubac's vision of the homo ecclesiasticus and his or her temptations; particularly important here is what de Lubac calls the ‘camouflage of the good’ and the consequent importance of discernment and asceticism. The article concludes by analyzing the Ignatian matrix of de Lubac's thought, especially its (...) emphasis on the discernment of spirits, a generous catholicity, and the inseparability of the spiritual and the ecclesial. (shrink)

Paul Ricœur is rightly regarded as one of the greatest representants of the hermeneutical tradition, at the crossroads of epistemological filiation from Schleiermacher and Dilthey and the ontological filiation of Heidegger to Gadamer. Johann Michel's bias in this article is to explore a third way of hermeneutics under the guise of an interpretative anthropology. Before being a set of scholarly techniques applied to specific fields, hermeneutics derives originally from ordinary techniques of interpretation at work in the world of life. The (...) purpose of the contribution is to show how Ricoeur's hermeneutics can give serious directions for elaborating such an interpretive anthropology, in which case it also needs to be supplemented by other intellectual traditions to achieve this goal. (shrink)

This paper argues that Socrates’s baffling digression on Spartan philosophy, just before he interprets Simonides’s ode, gives a key to the whole of Plato’s Protagoras. It undermines simple distinctions between competition and cooperation in philosophy, and thus in the discussions throughout the dialogue. It also prepares for Socrates’s interpretation of Simonides’s ode as a questionable critique of Pittacus’s sage wisdom “Hard it is to be good.” This critique stands as a figure for the dialogue’s contrast between Protagoras’s and Socrates’s (...) pedagogical methods. Protagoras advances an emulative view of education against Socrates’s self-knowledge model. The paper concludes with some thoughts on Protagoras’s claim that talking about poetry is as much about virtue as the earlier back-and-forth exchange about virtue’s unity and teachability. (shrink)

Cet article se propose d'élucider la problématique de la « psychologie de la foi » chez Nietzsche, qui inclut des notions clés telles que « morale », « idéalisme », « christianisme » et vérité. Cette reconstitution de la problématique est faite au moyen de l'explication linéaire de deux textes de Nietzsche : L'Antichrist, § 50, et Ecce homo, « Pourquoi je suis un destin », § 7. This paper tries to deal with the issue of what Nietzsche calls (...) « the psychology of faith », which includes such key notions as « morals », « idealism », « Christianity » and truth. This task is achieved by means of a line by Une commentary on two texts : The Antichrist, § 50, and Ecce homo, « Why I am a Fate », § 7. (shrink)

When Ecce Homo was finally published in 1908, a New York Times reviewer declared that its “the most interesting portions... are those in which Nietzsche..., without delving into the depths of philosophy, shows himself primarily as a master of charming satirical prose”. The review largely consists of quotations in which Nietzsche satirizes, which is to say, mocks, Germans. The author apparently missed Nietzsche’s sarcastic report of another reviewer who characterized Thus Spoke Zarathustra “as an advanced exercise in style, and (...) expressed the wish that later on I might provide some content as well”. Over a century later, Nicholas D. More argues that Ecce... (shrink)