Platone e gli Eleati (II)

Carlo Martino Lucarini, Carlo M. Lucarini

Risultato della ricerca: Article

Abstract

Plato gives two constrasting accounts of Zeno's philosophical purposes in the Phaedrus and Parmenides. The Parmenides is more accurate in detail, and consequently it is more probable that Zeno intended to defend Parmenides' teaching, as he is represented as doing in this dialogue, than to accumulate eristic contradictions for their own sake, as he is represented as doing in the Phaedrus. Plato seems to be aware that one of the main features of Socratism, dialectic reasoning, originates in Eleatism; also that the distinction between the sensible and intellegible worlds (another chief feature of Socratism, as well as of Platonism) had been anticipated by Parmenides. Despite these considerable debts to Eleatism, Plato's Eleatic dialogues (the Parmenides and the Sophist) aim rather at uncovering the shortcomings of Eleatic logic. Plato was probably aware that eristic originated in Parmenides' infelicitous assertions about etvai, but it was not his well-known dislike for eristic that prompted him to write the Parmenides and the Sophist: his polemic against Eleatism originates rather from the fact that some contemporary philosophers (probably the Megarians) were still using Eleatic logic. Also the (probably a group of Academics) adopted some important features of Eleatism: attacking Parmenides, Plato pointed out to his Megarian and Academic friends how many drawbacks Eleatic logic entailed. © 2017 Verlag C.H. Beck oHG. All rights reserved.
Lingua originaleItalian
pagine (da-a)224-243
Numero di pagine20
RivistaHyperboreus
Volume23
Stato di pubblicazionePublished - 2017

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Classics
  • History

Cita questo

Lucarini, C. M., & Lucarini, C. M. (2017). Platone e gli Eleati (II). Hyperboreus, 23, 224-243.

Platone e gli Eleati (II). / Lucarini, Carlo Martino; Lucarini, Carlo M.

In: Hyperboreus, Vol. 23, 2017, pag. 224-243.

Risultato della ricerca: Article

Lucarini, CM & Lucarini, CM 2017, 'Platone e gli Eleati (II)', Hyperboreus, vol. 23, pagg. 224-243.
Lucarini CM, Lucarini CM. Platone e gli Eleati (II). Hyperboreus. 2017;23:224-243.
Lucarini, Carlo Martino ; Lucarini, Carlo M. / Platone e gli Eleati (II). In: Hyperboreus. 2017 ; Vol. 23. pagg. 224-243.
@article{5ed14ea998d241a681f4f0d6f8246c5b,
title = "Platone e gli Eleati (II)",
abstract = "Plato gives two constrasting accounts of Zeno's philosophical purposes in the Phaedrus and Parmenides. The Parmenides is more accurate in detail, and consequently it is more probable that Zeno intended to defend Parmenides' teaching, as he is represented as doing in this dialogue, than to accumulate eristic contradictions for their own sake, as he is represented as doing in the Phaedrus. Plato seems to be aware that one of the main features of Socratism, dialectic reasoning, originates in Eleatism; also that the distinction between the sensible and intellegible worlds (another chief feature of Socratism, as well as of Platonism) had been anticipated by Parmenides. Despite these considerable debts to Eleatism, Plato's Eleatic dialogues (the Parmenides and the Sophist) aim rather at uncovering the shortcomings of Eleatic logic. Plato was probably aware that eristic originated in Parmenides' infelicitous assertions about etvai, but it was not his well-known dislike for eristic that prompted him to write the Parmenides and the Sophist: his polemic against Eleatism originates rather from the fact that some contemporary philosophers (probably the Megarians) were still using Eleatic logic. Also the (probably a group of Academics) adopted some important features of Eleatism: attacking Parmenides, Plato pointed out to his Megarian and Academic friends how many drawbacks Eleatic logic entailed. {\circledC} 2017 Verlag C.H. Beck oHG. All rights reserved.",
author = "Lucarini, {Carlo Martino} and Lucarini, {Carlo M.}",
year = "2017",
language = "Italian",
volume = "23",
pages = "224--243",
journal = "Hyperboreus",
issn = "0949-2615",
publisher = "Bibliotheca classica Petropolitana",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Platone e gli Eleati (II)

AU - Lucarini, Carlo Martino

AU - Lucarini, Carlo M.

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Plato gives two constrasting accounts of Zeno's philosophical purposes in the Phaedrus and Parmenides. The Parmenides is more accurate in detail, and consequently it is more probable that Zeno intended to defend Parmenides' teaching, as he is represented as doing in this dialogue, than to accumulate eristic contradictions for their own sake, as he is represented as doing in the Phaedrus. Plato seems to be aware that one of the main features of Socratism, dialectic reasoning, originates in Eleatism; also that the distinction between the sensible and intellegible worlds (another chief feature of Socratism, as well as of Platonism) had been anticipated by Parmenides. Despite these considerable debts to Eleatism, Plato's Eleatic dialogues (the Parmenides and the Sophist) aim rather at uncovering the shortcomings of Eleatic logic. Plato was probably aware that eristic originated in Parmenides' infelicitous assertions about etvai, but it was not his well-known dislike for eristic that prompted him to write the Parmenides and the Sophist: his polemic against Eleatism originates rather from the fact that some contemporary philosophers (probably the Megarians) were still using Eleatic logic. Also the (probably a group of Academics) adopted some important features of Eleatism: attacking Parmenides, Plato pointed out to his Megarian and Academic friends how many drawbacks Eleatic logic entailed. © 2017 Verlag C.H. Beck oHG. All rights reserved.

AB - Plato gives two constrasting accounts of Zeno's philosophical purposes in the Phaedrus and Parmenides. The Parmenides is more accurate in detail, and consequently it is more probable that Zeno intended to defend Parmenides' teaching, as he is represented as doing in this dialogue, than to accumulate eristic contradictions for their own sake, as he is represented as doing in the Phaedrus. Plato seems to be aware that one of the main features of Socratism, dialectic reasoning, originates in Eleatism; also that the distinction between the sensible and intellegible worlds (another chief feature of Socratism, as well as of Platonism) had been anticipated by Parmenides. Despite these considerable debts to Eleatism, Plato's Eleatic dialogues (the Parmenides and the Sophist) aim rather at uncovering the shortcomings of Eleatic logic. Plato was probably aware that eristic originated in Parmenides' infelicitous assertions about etvai, but it was not his well-known dislike for eristic that prompted him to write the Parmenides and the Sophist: his polemic against Eleatism originates rather from the fact that some contemporary philosophers (probably the Megarians) were still using Eleatic logic. Also the (probably a group of Academics) adopted some important features of Eleatism: attacking Parmenides, Plato pointed out to his Megarian and Academic friends how many drawbacks Eleatic logic entailed. © 2017 Verlag C.H. Beck oHG. All rights reserved.

UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10447/295122

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 224

EP - 243

JO - Hyperboreus

JF - Hyperboreus

SN - 0949-2615

ER -