Antisthenes’ horse and Plato’s horseness: A metaphysical dispute between two Socratics
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249X_35_22Keywords:
Plato, Antisthenes, Ideas, Metaphysics, ConceptualismAbstract
The paper analyzes some of the main testimonia concerning the relationship between Antisthenes of Athens and Plato. The testimonies on personal issues report hard tempers of both thinkers, a problematic relationship, and a (probably fictitious) moment of rupture between them. The testimonies on their philosophical controversy mainly report a deep quarrel concerning Platonic metaphysics. According to the sources, Antisthenes would have written an entire dialogue against the founder of the Academia, the Sathon, in which he ferociously criticized Plato by saying that the Ideas have no objective but only mental reality. After the explanation of the aspects of this criticism, the paper will assess whether it is possible to find in the Platonic corpus an answer to the other Socratic.
Downloads
References
ADAM, J. (1902). The Republic of Plato Vol. I Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
ALLEN, R. E. (1997). Plato's Parmenides London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.
ARAÚJO, C. (2014). Ser e poder: sobre o governo dos filósofos. In: ARAÚJO, C. (org.). Verdade e espectáculo Rio de Janeiro, Viveiros de Castro Editora Ltda.
BENITEZ, E. (1996). Republic 476d6-e2: Plato's Dialectical Requirement. The Review of Metaphysics 49, n. 3, p. 515-546.
BOSSI, B. (2005). Is Socrates really defending conceptualism in Parmenides, 132b3-d4?. In: HAVLÍCEK, A.; KARFIK, F. (ed.). Plato's Parmenides . Prague, OIKOYMENH, p. 58-74.
BLOOM, A. (1991). The Republic of Plato . Transl. with notes and an interpretative essay by Allan Bloom New York, Basic Books.
BRAGA DA SILVA, A. L. (forthcoming). L’interprétation des « eíde » comme « noémata » : Antisthène dans le Parménide de Platon ?. In: Pentassuglio, F., Balla, Ch. (eds.). Socratica V Berlin, De Gruyter / International Society for Socratic Studies (forthcoming)
BRANCACCI, A. (1990). Oikeios Logos Naples, Bibliopolis.
BRANCACCI, A. (1993). Antisthène et la tradition antiplatonicienne au IVe siècle. In: DIXSAUT, D. (dir.). Contre Platon, Tome I: Le platonisme dévoilé Paris, Vrin, p. 31-51.
BROCHARD, V. (1926). La Théorie platonicienne de la participation d'après le Parménide et le Sophiste. In: BROCHARD, V. Études de philosophie ancienne et de philosophie moderne Paris, Vrin , p. 121-132.
BRISSON, L. (1993). Les accusations de plagiat lancés contre Platon. In: DIXSAUT, D. (dir.). Contre Platon, Tome I: Le platonisme dévoilé . Paris, Vrin , p. 339-356.
BRISSON, L. (1994). Platon. Parménide . Trad. par Luc Brisson Paris, Garnier-Flammarion.
CHANTRAINE, P. (1956). Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque Paris, Klincksieck.
CHERNISS, H. F. (1932). Parmenides and the Parmenides of Plato. The American Journal of Philology, vol. 53, no. 2, p. 122-138.
CHERNISS, H. F. (1946). Aristotle's criticism of Plato and the Academy Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press. (1ed. 1944)
CORDERO, N.-L. (2001). L’interprétation antisthénienne de la notion platonicienne de ‘forme’. In: FATTAL, M. (ed.). La philosophie de Platon Paris, L'Harmattan, p. 323-344.
CORNFORD, F. M. (1939). Plato and Parmenides London, Routledge & Kegan Paul .
DECLEVA CAIZZI, F. (1966). Antisthenis Fragmenta Milão, Varese. [“DC”]
DILLON, J. (2005). The Heirs of Plato Oxford, Oxford University Press.
DIXSAUT, M. (2001). Métamorphoses de la dialectique dans le dialogues de Platon Paris: Vrin.
DÜMMLER, G. F. (1889). Akademika Beiträge Zur Litteraturgeschichte der Sokratischen Schulen Giessen, J. Ricker.
EL MURR, D. (2005). La critique de la participation en Parménide, 131a-132b In: HAVLÍCEK, A.; KARFIK, F. (ed.). Plato's Parmenides . Prague, OIKOYMENH , p. 21-56.
FERRARI, F. (2004). Platone. Parmenide Trad. F. Ferrari Milano, Biblioteca Universale Rizzoli.
FERRARI, F. (2010). Dalla verità alla certeza. La fondazione dialettica del sapere nella “Repubblica” di Platone. Giornale Critico Della Filosofia Italiana, 6, 3, p. 599-619.
FINE, G. (1978). Knowledge and Belief in Republic V, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 60, 2, p. 121-139.
FINE, G. (1990). Knowledge and Belief in Republic V-VII. In: EVERSON, S. (ed.). EpistemologyCambridge, Cambridge University Press , p. 85-115.
FRONTEROTTA, F. (2014). Os sentidos do verbo ser no Livro V da República e a sua função epistemológica na distinção entre conhecimento e opinião. In: ARAÚJO, C. (org.). Verdade e espectáculo . Rio de Janeiro, Viveiros de Castro Editora Ltda .
GIANNANTONI, G. (1990). Socratis et Socraticorum Reliquiae Vol. II. Napoli, Bibliopolis. [“SSR”]
GILLESPIE, C. M. (1914). The logic of Antithenes. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 27 (1).
GONZALEZ, F. J. (1996). Propositions or Objects? A Critique of Gail Fine on Knowledge and Belief in Republic V. Phronesis XLI, 3.
GRAESER, A. (2003). Platons ‘Parmenides’ Stuttgart, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur Mainz.
GROTE, G. (1865). Plato and the other companions of Sokrates Vol. III. London, John Murray.
HICKS, R. D. (1972). Diogenes Laertius. Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Transl. R. D. Hicks Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
HALFWASSEN, J. (1994). Geist und Selbstbewußtsein. Studien zu Plotin und Numenios Stuttgart, Steiner.
HELMIG, Ch. (2007). Plato's arguments against conceptualism. Parmenides 132b3-c11 reconsidered. Elenchos XXVIII, fasc. 2.
KEYT, D. (1969). Plato's paradox that the Immutable is Unknowable. Philosophical Quartely 19, p. 1-14.
KEYT, D. (1971). The mad craftsman of the Timaeus. Philosophical Review 80, p. 230-235.
KRÄMER, H. J. (1973). Aristoteles und die akademische Eidoslehre. Zur Geschichte des Universalienproblems im Platonismus. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie LV.
MÁRSICO, C. (2014). Filósofos Socraticos. Testimonios y fragmentos Volume II. Buenos Aires, Editorial Losada.
MIGLIORI, M. (2000). Dialettica e Verità Milano, Vita e Pensiero.
NARCY, M. (1993). Eidos aristotélicien, eidos platonicien. In: DIXSAUT, D. (dir.). Contre Platon, Tome I: Le platonisme dévoilé . Paris, Vrin , p. 53-66.
PALMER, J. (1999). Plato's reception of Parmenides Oxford, Clarendon Press.
PRINCE, Susan. (2018). Antisthenes of Athens Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, Press.
OWEN, G. E. L. (1968). Dialectic and Eristic in the treatment of Forms. In: OWEN, G. E. L. (ed.). Aristotle on Dialectic: the Topics. Proceedings of the Third Symposium Aristotelicum Oxford, Clarendon Press , p. 103-125.
RYLE, G. (1939). Plato's Parmenides , Mind 48.
SCOLNICOV, S. (2003). Plato's Parmenides . Berkeley, University of California Press.
SHOREY, P. (1969). Plato. Republic Translated by Paul Shorey London, William Heinemann Ltd.
SZAIF, Jan (2007). Doxa and Epistêmê as Modes of Acquaintance in Republic V. Les Études Platoniciennes, 4, p. 253-272.
TAYLOR, A. E. (1968). Plato. The man and his work London, Methuen.
TODD, O. J. (1966). Xenophon, Symposium. Apologia Translated By O. J. Todd. Loeb Classical Library No. 168. Cambridge, Harvard University Press .
ZELLER, E. (1892). Die Philosophie Der Griechen in Ihrer Geschichtlichen Entwicklung Dargestellt II Leipzig, Reisland.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 André Luiz Braga da Silva
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 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.
