Dissoì lógoi § 5

contextualización, traducción e interpretación

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249X_26_1

Keywords:

Dissoì Lógoi, Antilogy, Relativism, Paradox, Eristic

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to analyze Dialex. § 5 in order to show that the author not only uses eristical arguments, but he also offers a solution to them. First, I present some general remarks about the date of composition, authorship, and structure of the treatise so as to appreciate the singularity of the fifth paragraph. Then, I offer a complete translation of Dialex. § 5 and I point out the similarities between the arguments presented there and some eristic paradoxes discussed in Plato's Euthydemus and Aristotle's Sophistical Refutations. Finally, I analyze Dialex. § 5. 15 and I propose an interpretation of the argument based on the philosophical context in which it was formulated.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

BAILEY, D. T. J. (2008). Excavating Dissoì Lógoi 4. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 35, p. 249-264.

BARNES, J. (1982). The Presocratic Philosophers. 2ed. New York, Routledge.

BECKER, A.; SCHOLZ, P. (2004). Dissoi Logoi. Zweierlei Ansichten. Ein sophistischer Traktat. Text, übersetzung, kommentar. Berlin, Akademie Verlag.

BETT, R. (1989). The Sophists and Relativism. Phronesis 34, n. 2, p. 139-169.

BONAZZI, M. (2007). I sofisti. Introduzione, traduzione e note. Milano, BUR.

BRANCACCI, A. (2005). Antisthène. Le discours propre. Paris, Vrin.

BURNYEAT, M. F. (1998). Dissoi Logoi. In: CRAIG, E. (ed.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 3: Descartes to Gender and Science. London/New York, Routledge, p. 106-107.

CONLEY, T. M. (1985). Dating the So-Called Dissoi Logoi: A Cautionary Note. Ancient Philosophy 5, p. 59-65.

DIVENOSA, M. (2011). Entre oralidad y escritura. Una aproximación a los Dissoi logoi. In: MÁRSICO, C. (ed.). Polythrýleta. Sistemas explicativos y mutación conceptual en el pensamiento griego. Buenos Aires, Rhesis, p. 113-153.

DORION, L. A. (1995). Aristote. Les réfutations sophistiques. Introduction, traduction et commentaire. Paris, Vrin.

DORION, L. A. (2009). Discours doubles. In: PRADEAU, J. F. (dir.). Les sophistes. Vol 2: Thrasymaque, Hippias, Euthydème et Dionysodore, Alcidamas, Discours Doubles (traductions, présentations et notes). Paris, Flammarion, p. 123-147.

GARDELLA, M. (2016). ἌνθÏωπος πεÏιπατεῖ: los argumentos del tercer hombre megáricos. Elenchos 37, p. 69-94.

GRAHAM, D. W. (2010). The Texts of Early Greek Philosophy. The Complete Fragments and Selected Testimonies of the Major Presocratics. Vol. 2: Edition and translation. New York, Cambridge University Press.

HAWTREY, R. S. W. (1981). Commentary on Plato’s Euthydemus. Philadelphia, American Philosophical Society.

HITCHCOCK, D. (2000). The Origin of Professional Eristic. In: ROBINSON, T.; BRISSON, L. (eds.). Plato. Euthydemus, Lysis, Charmides. Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium Platonicum. Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag, p. 59-67.

KAHN, C. H. (2003). The Verb “Be” in Ancient Greek. 2ed. Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing Company.

KENT SPRAGUE, R. (1968). A Platonic Parallel in the Dissoi Logoi. Journal of the History of Philosophy 6, n. 2, p. 160-161.

KENT SPRAGUE, R. (2001). The Older Sophists (translation). 2ed. Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing Company.

LACHANCE, G. (2016). Sur l’unité des Dissoi logoi 1-5. Phoenix 70, p. 290-301.

MÁRSICO, C. (2014a). Filósofos socráticos. Vol. 2: Antístenes, Fedón, Esquines y Simón (introducción, traducción y notas). Buenos Aires, Losada.

MÁRSICO, C. (2014b). Encrucijadas dialécticas: élenchos, dispositivos antierísticos y filosofía megárica en las Refutaciones sofísticas. Archai 14, p. 137-148.

MASO, S. (2018). Dissoi logoi. Edizione criticamente rivista, introduzione, traduzione, commento. Roma, Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.

MAZZARINO, S. (1974). Il pensiero storico classico. Vol. 1. 2ed. Bari, Laterza.

MORENO MORENO, D. (2015). Nuevo análisis filosófico y estructural de los Dissoì lógoi. Revista de Filosofía 40, n. 2, p. 7-21.

MULLER, R. (1985). Les Mégariques. Traduction et commentaire. Paris, Vrin.

NARCY, M. (1994). Dissoi Logoi. In: GOULET, R. (dir.). Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques. Vol. 2: Babélyca d’Argos à Dyscolius. Paris, CNRS Éditions, p. 888-889.

RAMAGE, E. S. (1961). An Early Trace of Socratic Dialogue. The American Journal of Philology 82, n. 4, p. 418-424.

ROBINSON, T. M. (1979). Contrasting Arguments. An Edition of the Dissoi Lógoi. New York, Arno Press.

ROSSETTI, L. (1980). Tre studi sui Δισσοὶ λόγοι. Studi filosofici 3, p. 27-54.

ROSSETTI, L. (2007). A context for Plato’s dialogues. In: BOSCH-VECIANA, A.; MONSERRAT-MOLAS, J. (eds.). Philosophy and Dialogue. Studies on Plato's Dialogues. Vol. 1. Barcelona, Barcelonesa d’Edicions, p. 15-31.

ROSSETTI, L. (2011). Le dialogue socratique. Paris, Encre Marine.

SOLANA DUESO, J. (1996). Protágoras de Abdera. Dissoi logoi. Textos relativistas (traducción y notas). Madrid, Akal.

TAYLOR, A. E. (1911). Varia Socratica. Oxford, James Parker.

TRÉDÉ, M. (1992). Kairos, L’À-propos et l’occasion. Le mot et la notion, d’Homère à la fin du IVe siècle avant J.-C. Paris, Les Belles Lettres.

UNTERSTEINER, M. (1954). Sofisti. Testimonianze e frammenti. Vol. 3: Trasimaco, Ippia, Anonymus Iamblichi, Δισσοὶ Λόγοι, Anonymus ΠεÏὶ Îόμων, Anonymus ΠεÏὶ Μουσικῆς (introduzione, traduzione e commento). Firenze, La nuova Italia.

WATERFIELD, R. (2000). The First Philosophers. The Presocratics and the Sophists. Translated with commentary. New York, Oxford University Press.

ZILIOLI, U. (2007). Protagoras and the Challenge of Relativism. Plato’s Subtlest Enemy. Wiltshire, Ashgate.

Downloads

Published

2019-04-19

How to Cite

Gardella, M. (2019). Dissoì lógoi § 5: contextualización, traducción e interpretación. Revista Archai, (26), e02601. https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249X_26_1

Issue

No. 26 (2019): Archai 26 (2019 [2])

Section

Articles

License

Given the public access policy of the journal, the use of the published texts is free, with the obligation of recognizing the original authorship and the first publication in this journal. The authors of the published contributions are entirely and exclusively responsible for their contents.

1. The authors authorize the publication of the article in this journal.
2. The authors guarantee that the contribution is original, and take full responsibility for its content in case of impugnation by third parties.
3. The authors guarantee that the contribution is not under evaluation in another journal.
4. The authors keep the copyright and convey to the journal the right of first publication, the work being licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License-BY.
5. The authors are allowed and stimulated to publicize and distribute their work on-line after the publication in the journal.
6. The authors of the approved works authorize the journal to distribute their content, after publication, for reproduction in content indexes, virtual libraries and similars.
7. The editors reserve the right to make adjustments to the text and to adequate the article to the editorial rules of the journal.