Justiça, lei e poder são três conceitos que se interligam na História da Guerra do Peloponeso, de Tucídides. Este artigo desenvolve-se em torno do confronto que se pode estabelecer entre as noções de nomos (lei) e physis (natureza), tanto em Tucídides, como nos sofistas, nos pré-socráticos, em Platão e Aristóteles.

The physis and nomos controversy first emerged in ancient Greek thought. This article explores Castoriadis' reactivation of the issues concerned; in particular, his radicalization of Aristotle's conception of physis and nomos. It suggests that nomos appears as multifaceted in his work. However, three key variations may be identified: empirical nomos, normative nomos and generic nomos. Empirical nomos signifies the human creation of laws. It challenges the notion, long held in western philosophy, that Being = being determined. Although all laws are (...) by humans created and thus in one sense autonomous, Castoriadis further distinguishes normatively between those societies which embrace their self-creating and self-transformative capacity and those which obscure it. Normative nomos, then, refers to the autonomous or heteronomous institution of society. The third sense of nomos refers to the creation of form. In this generic sense, it is argued that the debate shifts from the human to the non-human realm; that nomos also manifests itself in the realm of physis. (shrink)

The relationship between nature and normativity in Aristotle’s practical philosophy is problematic. On the one hand, Aristotle insists that ethical virtue arises through the habitual repetition of ethically good actions, and thus no one is good or virtuous by nature. Phusikê aretê or “natural virtue” is more like cleverness (demotes) than prudence (phronêsis) and it can result in wrong actions. Yet on the other hand, at times Aristotle appears to use nature to justify normative claims. Thus the problem with Aristotle’s (...) use of the notion of nature in his practical philosophy is that in some instances what is natural seems to be ethically neutral, but in other instances it seems to set the standard for human perfection. Modern Aristotle exegetes have sometimes argued that Aristotle must, consciously or not, be using the term “nature” in at least two different senses here. To use the language of Julia Annas, when Aristotle talks about “natural virtue” in the sense of the talents or abilities which one possesses from birth, he has in mind the notion of “mere nature,” but when he discusses the perfections which a virtuous individual enjoys by his or her nature, Aristotle has in mind the notion of nature as an “ethical ideal.” I would like to suggest an alternative solution to the problem of reconciling Aristotle’s different senses of nature in his Ethics. In Nicomachean Ethics V.7, Aristotle claims that political justice {to dikaion politikon) possesses a “natural” {phusikon) part and a “conventional” {nomikori) part. Aristotle claims that both nature and convention admit of variation, and his language suggests that the two are ultimately parts which need to be interwoven or combined. Scholars who have struggled with Aristotle’s apparently disparate senses of the idea of nature have assumed that nature is an ethical ideal which can be separated from and serve as a guide for that which is merely conventional. I argue that when Aristotle invokes what is “natural” as a norm, he does so under the assumption that the natural component of a norm is ultimately separable from its conventional part only in abstraction. Just like the syllable “BA” is not reducible to the letters “b” and “a,” but instead is a whole greater than its two parts, political justice is a composite unity of nature and convention which, in unifying the two parts, transforms them. (shrink)

Una de las tantas disputas en torno a la interpretación de la obra de Tucídides estriba en determinar el género de su escritura. En este trabajo se considera a Tucídides como un pensador de lo político —es decir, un autor que identifica algunos de los rasgos subyacentes a, y fundantes de, un orden político— más que como un historiador de una guerra antigua. La aproximación que aquí se desarrolla identifica cuatro conceptos claves en el texto del pensador griego: la noción (...) de “causa” (próphasis) inmanente y psicológica como una explicación más efectiva que las míticas o finalistas a la hora de dar cuenta del acontecer humano; la consideración de una “naturaleza humana” (anthropeía phýsis) problemática que trasciende los estadios históricos; el “ocultamiento” (apokrýptein) de esta naturaleza en momentos de normalidad y su irrupción en momentos de crisis política; y, por último, el primado del “deseo” (epithymía) frente a la razón en la dinámica que impulsa la praxis de los seres humanos. Estos conceptos extraídos del texto de Tucídides forman un corpus teórico que serán retomados en más de una oportunidad por otros pensadores urgidos por pensar un nuevo orden político. De allí, que posean un carácter trans-histórico. (shrink)

Der vorliegende Band umfasst Beitrage zu einem zentralen Thema bei Platon: 'Physis' kann bei Platon im naturwissenschaftlichen Sinne als physische, biologische, materielle Natur oder im ubertragenen Sinne als eigenes Wesen, etwa hinsichtlich Seele, Kosmos oder Gottlichem, verstanden werden. So werden in diesem Band medizinische, biologische und kosmologische Ansatze ebenso wie ontologische, epistemologische und padagogische Themen zu Platons 'Physis'-Konzept fokussiert. Die zeitgenossische Nomos-Physis-Diskussion Platons mit den Sophisten sowie seine sprach- und kulturphilosophischen Uberlegungen spielen hier eine wichtige Rolle. Die anspruchsvolle literarische Gestaltung (...) der Platonischen Dialoge ist fur die genannten Fragestellungen hochst relevant, ebenso die Auseinandersetzung spaterer platonischer Philosophen mit Platons Physis-Konzept. Mit Beitragen von:Michele Abbate, Christian Brockmann, Ramon Cornavaca, Diego De Brasi, Pantelis Golitsis, Julia Knauss, Dietmar Koch, Mai Oki-Suga, Irmgard Mannlein-Robert, Oliver Primavesi, Mario Regali, Carlos Steel, Angela Ulacco. (shrink)

El reto de la sofística obligó a Platón a afirmar el juego recíproco de Nomos y Logos, de ley y medida, para poder sostener debidamente la ilustración de la comunidad política en su intercambio retórico constante. La sofística demostró que el Nomos absoluto no existe y que son los hombres quienes tienen que forjarlo. Sobre la racionalidad de la retórica se erigió la sofística, cuyo objetivo fue ganar ilustración para las decisiones públicas. Retórica y sofística ven correctamente que la acción (...) política razonable está mediatizada por el lenguaje, pero caen en un error al asumir el Logos como mero instrumento o estrategia individuales, pues ello hace estallar la comunidad política. El saber como dialéctica es una respuesta de Platón a la lucha de opiniones que practican los sofistas. El saber es saber en la opinión, reflexión inmanente a la praxis, siempre abierta a la corrección. (shrink)

O presente trabalho tem como objetivo examinar o sentido de physis na discussão educacional das obras platônicas, contrapondo-a com o conceito de paideia. Um primeiro momento nessa discussão ocorre no Protágoras, quando o sofista epônimo propõe que todos os homens, por sua própria natureza, partilham da virtude política, afirmando, porém, que essa virtude é ensinável. Essas duas propostas aparentemente conflitantes são conciliadas na República, em que Sócrates determina a physis e a paideia como duas condições para ser integrado à cidade (...) completamente justa. Palavras-chave: filosofia grega; Platão; physis; paideia. (shrink)

This paper offers a detailed analysis of the first part of Hippias's speech in Plato's Protagoras (337 С 5-E 2). The aim of this analysis is to show the very richness of political notions and implications of Hippias's purpose, which one can be almost considered a sort of 5th century ВС philosophical hetairies's manifesto. Our analysis clarifies the meaning of Hippias's nomos/physis antithesis and it focuses on the philosophical value of these two terms. We try to reconstruct Hippias's conception of (...) positive law and to specify the concept of wise men's relationships and affinity. That, however, does not support the idea of a cosmo-politanism grounded on mankind's universal relationship. Hippias's position – which has to be grasped on the basis of Hippias's ontology explained by an important passage of Plato's Hippias Major – rather sustains the idea of a sort of "aristocratic cosmopolitanism" connected to the philosophical hetairies: that implies the recognition of verified and enhanced differences. (shrink)

En palabras de la Dra. Ivana Costa, la argumentación que aquí se propone lleva a los lectores a descubrir en la teoría epicureísta de las pasiones el fundamento de la filosofía política epicúrea [...]. Pero el eje de esta teoría está, indudablemente, en la caracterización que hace Epicuro del placer; esto es, la determinación precisa de qué lugar le cabe [...] entre los bienes para la buena vida [y] qué credenciales tiene para ser considerado el bien supremo. Este fue uno (...) de los temas centrales del debate ético-político que plantearon las diferentes líneas filosóficas en Grecia entre fines del siglo V a.C. y comienzos del siglo IV a.C. [...] Epicuro intentaba demostrar [...] que la justicia, entendida como virtud individual, se identifica con el placer, a contracorriente de la communis opinio, que la concibe destinada al beneficio de los demás. Al identificar a la virtud de la justicia con la ataraxia, al concebirla como virtud que es también capaz de "tranquilizar" con eficacia a quien la posee y la practica (porque es precisamente su contrario, la injusticia, la que provoca la turbación del alma), la noción epicúrea de justicia queda unida también a su singular teoría del placer. Que no es mero disfrute personal sino actividad que extirpa las opiniones equivocadas y las sustituye por estados mentales verdaderos y adecuados. La investigación que da origen a este libro había mostrado, con sólidas herramientas de análisis de las fuentes y exhaustiva discusión de la literatura sobre el tema, que el concepto epicúreo de justicia no puede escindirse del entramado de la lógica, la física y la ética del maestro de Samos. [...] Se parte entonces de esa trama compleja y, con delicadeza y generosidad, la argumentación va deshilvanando los motivos que han llevado tradicionalmente a una interpretación convencionalista o naturalista de la filosofía epicúrea. Finalmente, señala que el profesor Navarro nos propone considerar el concepto de justicia subrayando la posición excéntrica que insinúa Epicuro respecto de la contraposición nómos-phýsis en la que se venía dirimiendo la cuestión desde finales del siglo V a.C. El análisis [...] abre a la posibilidad de una reconstrucción global de la filosofía política epicúrea [y] permite reformular, a partir del eje naturaleza-convención, tanto su teoría física, como su gnoseología [...]. En cuanto a los aspectos específicamente políticos de la filosofía de Epicuro, la argumentación va, de los comienzos de la asociación humana, al estatuto de las leyes, el progreso de la historia y el papel de la prólepsis como criterio de lo justo. (shrink)

The occasion for this collection of four essays—by Vlastos, Ostwald, Callahan, and Solmsen—was Plato’s 2400th birthday in 1974. We note at once the book’s most disappointing and inexplicable flaw: it includes no example of North’s own fine classical scholarship and luminous understanding of the spirit of Platonic thought. Ostwald’s essay, ranging over much of the Platonic corpus, tills the well-plowed field of Plato’s contribution to the nomos-physis problem. His thesis is clear and familiar: Plato introduces new objects, eide, into nature, (...) the knowledge of which objects founds both the techne [[sic]] of the true king and justice. The science of such knowledge is the bulwark against Thrasymachus’s, Callicles', and Glaucon’s arguments concerning ‘natural law'. Ostwald seems unwilling, though, to grapple with the practical details of this techne [[sic]] in the political sphere. Rep. 546b-e and Polit. 310d ff. are programmatic, not substantive, and supply more puzzlement than answer. Callahan takes no smaller a topic than dialectic, myth, and history in Plato. His most interesting claim is that myth provides a setting for dialectic; each dialogue, he argues, is itself a myth, providing a locus wherein mythical topics, historical personages, and records of dialectical examinations can themselves be examined. Solmsen’s quite suggestive essay asks why Plato should investigate the physical world, which is intrinsically less than fully knowable, as well as being an insufficient source of guidance for man on issues of justice, moderation, and conduct. Though pointing out that physical bodies and their science must be of lesser rank than dialectic, Solmsen reminds us that not only did bodies provide a starting-point for mathematical demonstrations, and the incentive for solid geometry, but also that the planetary motions provided a taxis, an order, which was an image of an ordered cosmos, itself an image of an ordered eidetic realm. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Sophistical Wisdom:Politikê Aretê and “Logosophia”Christopher Lyle JohnstoneThe pursuit of Wisdom is at the center of the Western intellectual tradition, its attainment the literal ideal and end of all philosophical inquiry. It is recognized by various religions and belief systems as the key to a meaningful, fulfilling, happy life. Yet for all this, its nature remains unclear and the means of its attainment uncertain. Is it one thing, or are (...) there different kinds of wisdom? How is it acquired? Can it be taught or communicated to others? How, if at all, do speech and language figure in the attainment and dissemination of wisdom?The relationship between wisdom and utterance, reflected in the connection between philosophy and rhetoric, has been a focus of intellectual interest in the West since at least the time of Heraclitus of Ephesus (ca. 500 BCE): Parmenides, Empedocles, Protagoras, Gorgias, Socrates, Plato, Isocrates, Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian, Augustine, Bacon, Vico—all have been concerned, either directly or indirectly, with the interrelation of speech or eloquence and what they view as the highest form of knowledge. Recent scholarship has pursued this relationship along several related lines of inquiry, albeit sometimes obliquely. Some investigators have examined the role of speech in the creation of all human knowledge.1 Others have concentrated more particularly on the role of rhetoric in the creation or exercise of wisdom.2 In an effort to illuminate the ancient foundations of these connections, several scholars have lately studied the link between language and thought in Greek philosophy and rhetoric.3My present interest centers on the linkages between wisdom and speech—between sophia and logos—in the teachings of those pivotal thinkers of the fifth-century Greek "Enlightenment," the Older Sophists. Although the doctrines of Heraclitus, Pythagoras, Empedocles, Archelaus, and the Atomists took up moral and political topics, presocratic thinkers generally had concentrated on the origins and mechanical workings of the physical world in which human beings live. As contemporaries of Protagoras and Gorgias, the Atomists—Leucippus and Democritus—are particularly noteworthy for having initiated inquiry into [End Page 265] the relationship between custom or law (nomos) and nature or objective reality (physis), which became a central concern for many of the Older Sophists.4 Such moral and political themes were taken up in earnest by the thinkers and teachers who resided in or were drawn to Athens in the fifth century BCE. Protagoras, Gorgias, Socrates, Antiphon, and others raised questions that were fundamentally political and moral: How should one live one's life? What are the values that should guide one's conduct? By what moral standards should our actions be judged, and how are these standards to be discovered? What legitimizes the laws that govern society? Are law and morality rooted in the nature of things, or are they merely matters of custom and convention? Such questions mark a shift in intellectual inquiry away from the sorts of naturalistic, metaphysical, and ontological problems that preoccupied presocratic thinkers and toward a primary concern with matters of praxis, politics, and morality.My aims in this essay are, first, to illuminate the conceptions of wisdom that can be reconstructed from our evidence for the teachings of the Older Sophists, and then to discern the role of speech in the attainment and exercise of this wisdom. The past half-century or so has witnessed a growing interest in the Sophists of fifth-century Athens. This interest is particularly noteworthy because it involves a determination to consider the Sophists on their own terms rather than through Plato's eyes, as had been customary in most nineteenth- and early twentieth-century sophistical studies. Though an early precedent was set by Grote's (1846) effort to challenge the Platonist bias in historical treatments of the Sophists, it was such scholars as Untersteiner (1949, 1954), Cornford (1950), Kerferd (1950, 1981), and Guthrie (1968, 1971) who inspired more recent revisionist histories of sophistical ideas.5 More recent studies have sought to illuminate the philosophical foundations of such ideas and their implications for the theory and practice of rhetoric. J. Poulakos (1983a, 1983b, 1984, 1990, 1995), Schiappa (1990, 1991, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999), de Romilly (1992), Consigny (2001), McComisky (2002), Gagarin (2002... (shrink)

This is a study of the encounter with the problem of heresy in Europe between the World Wars, in Germany and among Jews above all. It is first and foremost an intellectual history, though not exclusively so, and has four related aims. It argues, first, that the advent of a heretical ideal among Jews in the interwar period marked the definitive end of a chapter in German-Jewish history that began with Moses Mendelssohn. Mendelssohn's gambit and the liberal Judaism that arose (...) in its wake proved unworkable by this time, and the arrival of avowedly heretical forms of Jewish return signaled the end of his epoch. But we also find in this period the beginnings of a search for post-liberal modes of Jewish identity in which its predecessor endured in interesting and unexpected ways. Second, the dissertation reconstructs and analyzes the two leading languages of heresy in the interwar period, the gnostic and the pantheist. The first pined for salvation from a sinful world by the grace of a wholly transcendent, extramundane and therefore absent God, or a deus absconditus , and was associated in the interwar period with the Protestant representatives of dialectical theology. The pantheist language of heresy, by contrast, contested the gnostic spirit by divinizing the world, and was associated with the interconfessional revival of Spinoza. On the strength of this contextual reconstruction, the study aims, third, to reinterpret the philosophical careers of three important twentieth-century thinkers, all of them German-Jewish emigres: Hans Jonas, whose philosophical biology made him an unproclaimed "guru" to the German Green movment; Leo Strauss, the philosopher and unwitting father of a neo-conservative revolt in American politics; and Gershom Scholem, the eminent scholar of religion and Jewish culture. The study shows how their diverse projects all had origins in their encounter with the problem of heresy in interwar Europe. Their projects had also a common end: all resurrected the ancient Greek distinction between physis and nomos , and all contested normative Judaism by coming down squarely on the side of the former as the ground for Jewish identity in particular and human being more generally. Fourth and last, the dissertation makes an argument for the abiding salience of a theological dimension to European intellectual life between the wars and beyond. If nothing else, the stories presented here should alert us to the ways in which talk about God could be adapted for talk about nature, or politics, or art, to the ways in which discourses of the divine not only endure in this worldly world of ours, but flourish. (shrink)

Before going any further, something should be said about the word "natural" that appears in my title. Miller distinguishes two ways in which rights can be called natural, and holds that Aristotle recognizes natural rights in one sense but not the other. First, "natural" can be contrasted with "conventional," "legal," and "customary." This is the familiar distinction the Greeks made between physis and nomos. Aristotle makes use of the distinction when he contrasts natural and legal justice. According to Miller, Aristotle (...) has a theory of natural rights in the sense that he has a theory of natural justice that serves as the basis for his recognition of rights. It is naturally and not merely legally just that certain people be treated in certain ways; they have a valid claim, based on natural justice, to such treatment, and this claim is valid whether or not it is recognized by a legal system. On the other hand, the term "natural right" can also be used in a second way, to designate a right that is possessed in a state of nature, that is, at a time prior to the existence of political communities. Miller holds that Aristotle does not recognize natural rights of this sort, but as he points out, this would not prevent Aristotle from recognizing natural rights in the first sense. The natural rights Miller finds in Aristotle are not possessed by all people at all times; rather, his thesis is that when the polis does come into existence, Aristotelian natural justice requires that political systems be structured in ways that recognize the rights of certain human beings. More specifically, when the polis arises, certain people have a natural right to hold various political offices and to own property. (shrink)

Plato’s Protagoras is famous for Protagoras’s defense of the public practice of sophistry and his great myth, which contains his account of the origins of political life, as well as for Hippias’s rejection of the tyranny of nomos in the name of the natural kinship of the wise. What is perplexing is that Socrates makes no explicit response to these arguments. This essay argues that Socrates’s indirect response is actually contained in his otherwise unmotivated interpretation of the poem of Simonides, (...) where his description of “laconic philosophy” is in fact an indirect description of his own philosophical practice. While the sophists reject nomos without recognizing their own dependence on its stabilizing force, Socrates argues that genuine philosophers, recognizing at once the necessity as well as the defectiveness of nomos, must “unwillingly praise” convention and only present their criticisms indirectly. Socrates’s interpretation of Simonides, then, points the way to his own understanding of the tension between, but also the interdependence of, nomos and physis. (shrink)

In the 5th century BC, in Athens, Antiphon reflects on the relationship between physis and nómos in a way quite different from most sophists. Indeed, one of the particularities of sophist thought is to minimize physis so that thinking focus itself on nómos, on what man can, through thinking and debate, establish in regard to the common good and justice in the pólis. However, Antiphon takes up this relationship between nature and law to direct it to another path. In an (...) unusual way for a sophist, we see physis being emphasized at the expense of nómos. The comparison between the two concepts also serves as a backdrop for harsh criticisms of justice and laws. The objective of this article is, through the criticisms Antiphon makes to the system of the laws of the pólis, to think about the relationship established by the sophist between physis and nómos in order to find out if there is a new understanding of these concepts and to reflect the reason that led Antiphon to revisit them. (shrink)

L’article adopte un point de vue unitaire selon lequel sont interrogés à la fois les témoignages sur la physique d’Antiphon, les fragments du Peri aletheias, ainsi que les plaidoyers et, parmi les œuvres qu’on a longtemps considérées comme « morales », le Peri homonoias. Une analyse détaillée d’Aristote, Physique II, 193a10‑27, et de ses commentateurs anciens, ainsi que du Peri Aletheias (F44a Pendrick, col. II, 23‑30) sert de point de départ à une mise à l’épreuve ultérieure de la thèse par (...) la lecture suivie de l’ensemble. Il s’agit de soutenir qu’Antiphon affirme et montre la superposition nécessaire du nomos sur la physis en établissant leur inégal statut ontologique, de substrat matériel d’une part, de forme accidentelle surajoutée d’autre part. Cette interprétation trouve son prolongement dans l’analyse des deux xympheronta (celui de la nature et celui de la norme), et de l’heautos qui leur est couramment associé comme le « soi-même » le serait à « l’utile », selon l’idée qu’il serait question de combattre la norme au nom de l’intérêt personnel supposé, quant à lui, naturel. Le xympheron est plutôt pris ici comme « ce qui constitue », en anthropos, si c’est selon la nature ; en membre d’une communauté politique, si c’est selon la norme. La dépendance mutuelle de la physis et du nomos, comme de leurs xympheronta respectifs, fait alors que le naturel ne se révèle qu’à l’occasion de circonstances accidentelles et éphémères qui, un moment, isolent un membre d’un groupe politique de ce groupe-là, ou au prix d’une opération intellectuelle qui, pour un temps également, fait abstraction de l’œuvre constituante du nomos. (shrink)

This article attempts to offer a critical account of the genealogy of ancient Greek philosophy in its bid to transcend the old ruling mythopoeic culture. With this in mind, emphasis is given more to the speculative character of Greek thought rather than its technical and detailed aspects. In my account of the origin of Greek philosophy, I use Plato’s famous pronouncement (Plato, The Republic, Tenth Book) about the great quarrel between philosophy and poetry as a context to provide my analysis. (...) In dealing with the question at hand, I develop the following interrelated claims. First, Greek philosophy made its appearance in the struggle against the mythical background. Here, even though early philosophy tried to move beyond myth, it did not completely transcend the world of mythology. Second, in dealing directly with the quarrel, I identify two issues (problems) as the basis of the conflict: A) the essence of the divine and B) the nature of the universe. Third, I sum up my article by making the following claims. 1) Greek philosophy took the crucial step in trying to explain the cosmos (world) by introducing a single fundamental principle. 2) The transition from traditional mythology to a rational account of the origin and nature of the universe is not the work of a single thinker but the effort of many philosophers over the generations. 3) A proper account of the transition is best explained if we approach it as a result of the process of “continuity in discontinuity”. 4) Early, Philosophy is not so much about the triumph of reason and science, but the conceptualization and differentiation of mythic cultures. Thus in a way, Greek philosophy emerged along with mythic culture against ‘mythic culture’ at the same time. Keywords: physis, nomos, arche, physiology, aperion, mythology, anthropomorphic. (shrink)

Each of us is a measure. The project of advocates of change in Plato’s Theaetetus as compared with sophistic thought -/- Summary -/- One of the most intriguing motives in Plato’s Theaetetus is its historical-based division of philosophy, which revolves around the concepts of rest (represented by Parmenides and his disciples) and change (represented by Protagoras, Homer, Empedocles, and Epicharmus). This unique approach gives an opportunity to reconstruct the views of marginalized trend of early Greek philosophy - so called „the (...) sophistic movement”. Paradoxically, previous research shows little interest in sophistic thought as a source of the standpoint of advocates of change („the secret doctrine”). The roots of „the secret doctrine” were investigated in the works of Heraclitus, Aristippus, and Antisthenes or those related to “neoheracliteanism”. However, researchers did not make any significant attempt to confront this concept with the contemporary research on the sophistic movement. The conviction that sophistry was primarily humanistically oriented was one of the main reasons why researches were opposed to the fact that „the secret doctrine” could represent a true expression of Protagoras’ views. This is why J. Burnet and F. M. Cornford in their seminal works assumed that “the secret doctrine” should be attributed to Plato, who simply combined a series of loose statements into one single project. In this work, we argue that the thesis which questions the parallels between the sophists’ interests and the philosophers of nature requires a significant revision. There is ample evidence to suggest that the philosophy of nature was a part of sophists’ research. This is supported by two main arguments. First, the tutors of sophists were philosophers of nature. Second, there are numerous sources that explicitly show sophists’ interest in the physical issues. These sources include anecdotal evidence about the fact that sophists wrote works On nature. There is also information confirming that they deliberated on detailed physical issues. The analogies between the concepts attributed to the advocates of change and our knowledge about sophists from other sources is very wide and contains most elements, which are included in the project of “changeable reality” presented in Theaetetus. The deliberations on the mechanism of perception, which are close to those of flux theory of perception in Theaetetus, are present in the sources referring to Gorgias of Leontinoi, the famous sophist and rhetorician. Also, the second element of “the secret doctrine” that is the metaphysics of flux matches up with what we know about the sophists’ views from other sources. On this basis, one can deduce that – contrary to the tradition which marginalized the role of sophistic considerations on the issue of being and non-being – it was one of the major subjects of sophistic research. Its main point was the criticism of the Eleatic conception of a single and unchangeable being, which also plays a key role in the doctrine of flux in Theaetetus. The epistemological theses which are presented in Theaetetus are borne out in sophistic sources. They include the definition of knowledge as perception, the „Man-measure” formula and a number of principles, which result from these foundational theses. Sophists’ empirical preferences resonate with the theses of the advocates of change in Theaetetus. Special attention that is given to the issues of differences among people, and even to cognitive differences in one person depending on the changeable states to which a person is subject, goes well together with what we know about reciprocal influence between the sophistry and medicine. The consequences of the epistemological conception present in Theaetetus have their equivalents in sophists’ works and other testimonies. An example of these consequences may be the abolition of truth and falsehood or the abolition of contradiction, which finds its expression in the thesis ouk estin antilegein. The analogies also concern reflections on the language itself. The project of the “new language” uses categories, which were developed by sophists. These include the antithesis of nomos and physis. The general intentions of this project reflect Protagoras’ ideas, at least to the extent to which they are known from the sources reporting his thoughts on language. Plato’s Theaetetus can thus be considered a veritable treasury of sophistic motifs. Even though the problem remains unsolved and one is still not able to unambiguously decide about the author of “the secret doctrine”, one can come to a certain conclusion – even if Plato synthesized various doctrines, he must have relied in his project mostly on the elements that he borrowed from sophists. Moreover, the value of reconstructing the project of the advocates of change in Theaetetus does not consist of mere enumeration of sophistic motifs. The dialogue is key to understanding the sophistic movement, whose separate doctrines – for the lack of sources and as a result of centuries-old disregard – are usually treated as rhetorical formulae that are interpreted in many ways and have no philosophical foundations. If it is really the case that the theses attributed to Protagoras in Theaetetus were actually a part or a derivative of Protagoras’ thought, or – speaking more conservatively – if they constitute a synthesis of sophistic thought done by Plato, they could represent philosophical foundations for the most important sophistic theses: the “Man-measure” formula, the ouk estin antilegein principle, the concept of language as a tool, the idea of the relativity of good and the whole practical sphere of sophists’ activity. Contrary to the views of many researchers, we are certain that the representatives of the sophistic movement did not limit themselves only to the application of practical rules, which determined the extent of their educational or rhetorical-political activity. They were capable of creating – indeed, they did create comprehensive projects that embraced the whole thematic scope subject to philosophical reflection. (shrink)

The article attempts to think friendship in its relation to law and justice and provides some arguments for the importance of this concept in Derrida’s ethical, legal and political philosophy. It draws on early texts such as Of grammatology and reads them in conjunction with later texts such as The animal that therefore I am. The relation of friendship to law and justice is explored by means of Derrida’s notion of “degenerescence” understood as the necessity or law of indeterminateness that (...) cuts across, both limiting and de-limiting, all laws, types and generic partitions, for instance, juridical (natural and positive right), humanistic (human and animal), anthropological (sexual difference), philosophical (physis and nomos). Drawing on Derrida’s readings of “sexual difference” in Heidegger and the latter’s evocation of “the voice of the friend” in Being and time, the article addresses the theme of Geschlecht and articulates the exigency to think sexual difference beyond duality together with the exigency to rethink law and right otherwise than on the ground of nativity and “natural fact” and in terms of what Derrida calls “a friendship prior to friendships” at the origin of all law and socius. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:99 HUME AND DERRIDA ON LANGUAGE AND MEANING "...Language itself is menaced in its very life, helpless, adrift in the threat of limitlessness, brought back to its own finitude at the very moment when its limits seem to disappear, when it ceases to be self-assured, contained, and guaranteed by the infinite signified which seemed to exceed it." Is this true? What does it mean? Derrida is making a contrast (...) between two views of language. On the view that Derrida believes correct, the linguistic sign, whether spoken or written, acquires its meaning, its significance, from conventions. On this view, meaning is a matter of nomos or institution rather than physis or nature. Since meaning is a matter of convention rather than nature, the sign on this view is arbitrary. And in this respect, there is no distinction between the linguistic or phonic sign and the written or graphic sign. The other view of language denies that all significance is a matter of nomos. There are, rather, at least some signs the signification of which is natural. This view of language is one that Derrida, quite correctly, locates in Plato. It is there already, perhaps especially, in the Meno. Socrates distinguishes knowledge from true opinions :...true opinions, as long as they remain, are a fine thing and all they do is good, but they are not willing to remain long, and they escape from a man's mind, so that they are not worth much until one ties them down by (giving) an account of the reason why. And that, Meno my friend, is recollection, as we previously agreed. After they are tied down, in the first place they become 100 knowledge, and then they remainin place. That is why knowledgeis prized higher than correct opinionin being tied down. Knowledge is thus certain, or incorrigible. There is no knowledge that lacks a guarantee of its truth. This knowledge is obtained through a form of knowing that Socrates argues is akin to "recollection." The details of what recollection is need not detain us; what is important is what recollection is a knowledge of. There are in fact two cases with which the Meno deals. The first is the case of geometrical 4 propositions. In the course of Socrates' interrogation, Meno' s slave boy discovers that a certain geometrical proposition is true. Recollection is, thus, in the first place a discovery of facts that makes propositions true. That a proposition is true is, in general, not a matter of convention: truth depends upon the facts that the proposition is about, and whether those facts do or do not obtain will in general not be dependent upon any social institutions or conventions. On the other hand, it is compatible with this to hold that what a proposition means is a matter of convention. That 'Hume ist tot' means in German that Hume is dead is a matter of convention, just as it is a matter of convention that 'Hume is not dead' means in English that Hume is not dead; but it is not a matter of convention, but of non-linguistic fact, that the former is true and the latter false. Importantly, Socrates first obtains from Meno an affirmative answer to the question "Does he speak Greek?" before he begins his examination of the slave boy. The boy can thus be taken to understand the conventions that determine the meaning of the proposition the truth of 101 which he discovers. Grasping meaning may in this way be a matter of grasping conventions; but to grasp the truth is not a matter of convention. However, this is not Plato's view, as is made clear by the second example of the sort of thing of which recollection is supposed to yield knowledge. What Socrates seeks is a definition of 'virtue;' he even gives Meno a brief course on how to give good definitions. And this search is, for Socrates, analogous to the search for the truth of the slave boy's geometrical proposition. As the slave boy searches for the truth with respect to a geometrical proposition, so Socrates searches for the truth with respect to the definition of 'virtue.' In each case the... (shrink)

A much-maligned feature of ancient and medieval political thought is its tendency to appeal to nature to establish norms for human communities. From Aristotle's claim that humans are "political animals" to Aquinas' invocation of "natural law," it may seem that pre-modern philosophers were all too ready to assume that whatever is natural is good, and that just political arrangements must somehow be natural. The papers in this collection show that this assumption is, at best, too crude. From very early, for (...) instance in the ancient sophists' contrast between nomos and physis, there was recognition that political arrangements may be precisely artificial, not natural, and it may be questioned whether even such supposed naturalists as Aristotle in fact adopt the quick inference from "natural" to "good." The papers in this volume trace the complex interrelations between nature and such concepts as law, legitimacy, and justice, covering a wide historical range stretching from Plato and the Sophists to Aristotle, Hellenistic philosophy, Cicero, the Neoplatonists Plotinus and Porphyry, ancient Christian thinkers, and philosophers of both the Islamic and Christian Middle Ages. (shrink)

This article critically engages with Castoriadis’s elucidation of autonomy. It does so by taking into account the implications of Castoriadis’s enduring interest in the ecological devastation of the natural world, on the one hand, and the changing configuration of his philosophical anthropology, on the other—especially in regard to his reconsideration of the creativity of nature in the 1980s and the reconfiguration of the nomos and physis problematic. It contextualizes these movements in his thought within a broader hermeneutic of modernity that, (...) following Johann Arnason, emphasizes the cultural currents of both Romanticism and the Enlightenment as constitutive of modernity as a field of tensions. In an extension of Arnason’s elaboration, however, the present article argues that a latent opening towards an ecological worldhood is implicit to Castoriadis’s hermeneutic of modernity that, conversely, also finds Castoriadis at the limits of autonomy. (shrink)

This brief volume is the first in a series of monographs designed to introduce the main types of ethical theory from ancient Greece to the present. The series provides an historical purview for the beginner, brief but accurate, interspersed with critical evaluation from a modern analytic point of view. Huby's volume on Greek Ethics is more expository than evaluative in nature, with most attention directed toward Plato and Aristotle. Some of the virtues of the volume, in spite of the lack (...) of critical comment, are: 1) The attempt to show the historical continuity of problems. ; 2) A careful treatment of Greek terms, notably physis, nomos, arete, dikaios, sophrosyne, philia, eros, emphasizing multiple meanings and connotations and, where necessary, indicating any differences between Greek and present day usage which might tend to confuse the reader.—C. L. H. (shrink)

No contexto da restauração da democracia ateniense no séc. IV AEC, Isócrates e Platão instituíram duas das mais proeminentes escolas filosóficas da Antiguidade e certamente as duas mais importantes do Período Clássico. Em alguma medida influenciados pela moralidade socrática voltada para o debate das virtudes, ambos são radicais opositores dos sofistas de seu tempo e do século anterior, que promoviam, segundo eles, uma educação erística ora imoral ora lisonjeadora. Com o objetivo de oferecer novas alternativas pedagógicas para a formação (...) política dos jovens, tanto Isócrates como Platão propõem, sob a alcunha de philosophia, modelos de paideia orientados para o bem comum, a justiça e a idoneidade. Há, no entanto, uma fundamental disputa ideológica em torno de cada uma dessas filosofias. A fim de se opor à retórica sofística, o idealismo da filosofia platônica, como sabemos, vale-se do método dialético para que o verdadeiro conhecimento (episteme) das virtudes morais seja alcançado, promovendo assim a justiça e o bem comum da pólis. O pragmatismo isocrático, ao contrário, delineia a filosofia como uma paideia dos discursos cívicos, em que somente as boas opiniões (doxai) seriam capazes de melhor orientar a cidade com razoabilidade para as ações a serem tomadas, em detrimento de uma episteme platônica que nada serviria para a política. Discutiremos, portanto, esses e outros aspectos dessa disputa ideológica entre Isócrates e Platão, buscando verificar como ocorre essa querela ao longo dos textos a eles atribuídos, além de apontar em que medida a relação entre suas doutrinas filosóficas foram determinantes para os contornos da Filosofia e da Retórica na posteridade. (shrink)

This essay explores the treatment of the relation between nature (phusis) and norm or convention (nomos) in Democritus and in certain Platonic dialogues. In his physical theory Democritus draws a sharp contrast between the real nature of things and their representation via human conventions, but in his political and ethical theory he maintains that moral conventions are grounded in the reality of human nature. Plato builds on that insight in the account of the nature of morality in the myth in (...) the Protagoras. That provides material for a defense of morality against the attacks by Callicles in the Gorgias and Thrasymachus and Glaucon in the Republic, all of whom seek to use the nature-convention contrast to devalue morality. (shrink)

Carl Schmitt's notion of nomos is commonly regarded as the international equivalent to the national sovereign's decision on the exception. But can concrete spatial order alone turn a constellation of forces into an international order? This article looks at Schmitt's work The Nomos of the Earth and proposes that it is the process of bracketing war called Hegung which takes the place of the sovereign in the international order Schmitt describes. Beginning from an analysis of nomos, the ordering function of (...) the presocratic concept moira is explored. It is argued that the process of Hegung, like moira, does not just achieve the containment of war, but constitutes the condition of possibility for plural order. (shrink)

Der Begriff der Natur gehort zu den grundlegenden Kategorien des abendlandischen Weltverstandnisses. Das Wort, das ihn bezeichnet, Natur, ist ein unubersetzbares Fremdwort von paneuropaischem Gebrauchsumfang. Seine lateinische Form ist jedoch selbst eine Lehnubersetzung des griechischen physis. Die Griechen waren also die Schopfer des Wortes und damit der Idee, daa die uns umgebende Welt Natur ist. Ziel dieser Untersuchung ist es, diesen ersten Schopferakt sprachlich-semantisch zu verstehen als unentbehrliche Voraussetzung einer eigentlichen Begriffsgeschichte. (Franz Steiner 1993).

This essay, following an existing train of scholarship working to make sense of the Platonic connection to Utopia, argues for nomos as a useful angle in furthering this understanding. Raphael's approach to politics combines with the Utopian social system to suggest a highly Platonic vision of nomos, whereby social norms are absorbed into an essentialized nature, stripped of all arbitrariness and therefore, ostensibly, perfectly rational. The result is a sterile regime that fails to acknowledge the whimsical elements necessary to the (...) human soul and therefore also necessary to actual human societies. (shrink)

O conceito de phýsis no Corpus hippocraticum parece ter dois níveis: um mais e outro menos específico. Nas passagens em que o termo phýsis não apresenta qualquer determinante ou adendo, o conceito é menos específico. Ele é mais específico, no entanto, quando o termo leva consigo adjuntos como “do homem”, “da criança”, “da mulher”, etc. Apesar de parecer esta uma questão dicotômica, há razões para crer que ela possui maior complexidade. Isto nos motivou a apresentar algumas questões que expõem um (...) espectro bem mais amplo do conceito de phýsis, em detrimento da mera abordagem binária. Para além da complexidade conceitual que ronda a ideia de phýsis, o artigo leva em conta ainda o nível discursivo (talvez mesmo retórico). Neste âmbito, o conceito de phýsis é problematizado a partir da fricção entre enunciação e enunciado. Abstract The concept of phýsis in the Hippocratic corpus seems to have two levels: one of them more and the other less specific. In the passages in which the term phýsis does not show any determiner or addition, the concept is less specific. It is more specific, however, when the term take complements as “of man”, “of child”, “of women” etc. Though it seems a dichotomic issue, there are reasons to believe that it bears more complexity. It has instigated us to present some issues that expose a much wider spectrum of the concept of phýsis rather than the binary account. Beyond the conceptual complexity which surrounds the idea of phýsis, this article considers the discursive (perhaps even rhetoric) level. In this account, the concept of phýsis is examined out of friction between enunciation and enunciated. (shrink)