Socrates, Vlastos, Scanlon and the Principle of the Sovereignty of Virtue

Autores

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249X_30_9

Palavras-chave:

Plato, Socrates, Vlastos, Scanlon, virtue, normativity

Resumo

This article offers a new formulation of the Socratic principle known as the Principle of the Sovereignty of Virtue (PSV). It is divided in three sections. In the first section I criticize Vlastos’ formulation of the PSV. In the second section I present the weighing model of practical deliberation, introduce the concepts of reason for action, simple reason, sufficient reason and conclusive reason that were offered by Thomas Scanlon in Being realistic about reasons (2014), and then I adapt these concepts so as to render them apt to be used in the formulation I intend to offer. In the third section I present my formulation of the PSV using the concepts introduced in the second section and explain why I believe this formulation is better than the one offered by Vlastos.

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Referências

ADAMS, D. (2014). Sophia, Eutuchia and Eudaimonia in the Euthydemus. Apeiron 47, n. 1, p. 48-80.

ALVAREZ, M. (2016). “Reasons for Action: Justification, Motivation, Explanation”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2016 Edition. Ed. by Edward N. Zalta. Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/reasons-just-vs-expl/.

ANNAS, J. (1993). Virtue as the Use of Other Goods. Apeiron 26, n. 3-4, p. 53-66.

ANNAS, J. (1999). Platonic Ethics, Old and New. New York, Cornell University Press.

AUFDERHEIDE, J. (2013). An Inconsistency in the Philebus? British Journal for the History of Philosophy 21, n. 5, p. 817-837.

BARNEY, R. (2006). Socrates’ Refutation of Thrasymachus. In: SANTAS, G. X. (ed.). The Blackwell Guide to Plato’s Republic. Malden, Blackwell Publishers, p. 44-62.

BENSON, H. H. (2000). Socratic Wisdom: The Model of Knowledge in Plato’s Early Dialogues. New York, Oxford University Press.

BENSON, H. H. (2015). Clitophon’s Challenge: Dialectic in Plato’s Meno, Phaedo, and Republic. New York, Oxford University Press.

BERKER, S. (2007). Particular Reasons. Ethics 118, n. 1, p. 109-139.

BRICKHOUSE, T. C.; SMITH, N. D. (1994). Plato’s Socrates. New York, Oxford University Press.

BRICKHOUSE, T. C.; SMITH, N. D. (2010). Socratic Moral Psychology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

BROWN, L. (2012). Glaucon’s Challenge, Rational Egoism and Ordinary Morality. In: CAIRNS, D.; HERRMANN, F.-G.; PENNER, T. (eds.). Pursuing the Good: Ethics and Metaphysics in Plato’s Republic. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 42-60.

BUTLER, J. (2008). A Holistic Defense of Justice in the Republic. Apeiron 41, n. 4, p. 229-246.

BUTLER, T. (2007). On Today’s Two-Worlds Interpretation: Knowledge and True Belief in Plato. Southern Journal of Philosophy 45, n. 1, p. 31-56.

CARONE, G. R. (2000). Hedonism and the Pleasureless Life in Plato’s Philebus. Phronesis 45, n. 4, p. 257-283.

CARONE, G. R. (2003). The Place of Hedonism in Plato’s Laws. Ancient Philosophy 23, n. 2, p. 283-300.

CARPENTER, A. D. (2011). Pleasure as Genesis in Plato’s Philebus. Ancient Philosophy 31, n. 1, p. 73-94.

CRISP, R. (2003). Socrates and Aristotle on Happiness and Virtue. In: HEINAMAN, R. (ed.). Plato and Aristotle’s Ethics. Aldershot, Ashgate, p. 55-78.

DIMAS, P. (2002). Happiness in the Euthydemus. Phronesis 47, n. 1, p. 1-27.

EVANS, M. (2008). Plato’s Anti-Hedonism. Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium of Ancient Philosophy 23, n. 1, p. 121-145.

FEREJOHN, M. T. (1984). Socratic Thought-Experiments and the Unity of Virtue Paradox. Phronesis 29, n. 2, p. 105-122.

FINE, G. (1978). Knowledge and Belief in Republic V. Archiv Für Geschichte Der Philosophie 60, n. 2, p. 121-139.

FINE, G. (1990). Knowledge and Belief in Republic V-VII. In: EVERSON, S. (ed.). Companions to Ancient Thought 1: Epistemology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 85-115.

FINE, G. (2008). Does Socrates Claim to Know That He Knows Nothing? In: INWOOD, B. (ed.). Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy. Vol. 35. Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 49-88.

FINE, G. (2016). The ‘Two Worlds’ Theory in the Phaedo. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 24, n. 4, p. 557-572.

FLETCHER, E. (2014). Plato on Pure Pleasure and the Best Life. Phronesis 59, n. 2, p. 113-142.

FORSTER, M. (2007). Socrates’ Profession of Ignorance. In: SEDLEY, D. N. (ed.). Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy. Vol. 32. Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 1-35.

FOWLER, H. N. (trans.) (1990). Plato. Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus. London, Harvard University Press.

FREDE, M. (1992). Introduction. In: LOMBARDO, S.; BELL, K. (trans.). Plato. Protagoras. Indianapolis, Hackett Pub. Co.

GERSON, L. P. (2003). Knowing Persons: A Study in Plato. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

GONZALEZ, F. (1996). Propositions or Objects? A Critique of Gail Fine on Knowledge and Belief in Republic V. Phronesis 41, n. 3, p. 245-275.

GOSLING, J. C. B.; TAYLOR, C. C. W. (1982). The Greeks On Pleasure. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

GULLEY, N. (1968). The Philosophy of Socrates. New York, St. Martin’s Press.

HACKFORTH, R. (1928). Hedonism in Plato’s Protagoras. Classical Quarterly 22, n. 1, p. 39-42.

HACKFORTH, R. (1945). Plato’s Examination of Pleasure. A Translation of the Philebus, with Introduction and Commentary. New York, Bobbs-Merrill.

IRWIN, T. (1992). Socratic Puzzles: A Review of Gregory Vlastos, Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher. In: ANNAS, J. (ed.). Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy. Vol. 10. Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 241-266.

IRWIN, T. (1995). Plato’s Ethics. New York, Oxford University Press.

IRWIN, T. (2003). Glaucon’s Challenge: Does Aristotle Change His Mind? In: HEINAMAN, R. (ed.). Plato and Aristotle’s Ethics. Aldershot, Ashgate, p. 87-108.

IRWIN, T. (2007). The Development of Ethics: From Socrates to the Reformation. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

JAULIN, A. (1996). Socrate, Ironie et philosophie morale, (Socrates, Ironist and moral philosopher) by Gregory Vlastos, Catherine Dalimier. Revue Philosophique de La France et de l’Étranger 186, n. 1, p. 167-169.

JEFFREY, R. C. (1983). The Logic of Decision. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

KAHN, C. (1992). Vlastos’s Socrates. Phronesis 37, n. 2, p. 233-258.

KRAUT, R. (1984). Socrates and the State. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

KRAUT, R. (1992). Review of Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosophers, by G. Vlastos. The Philosophical Review 101, n. 2, p. 353-358.

LAMB, W. R. M. (trans.) (1983). Plato. Lysis, Symposium, Gorgias. London, Harvard University Press.

LESHER, J. H. (1987). Socrates’ Disavowal of Knowledge. Journal of the History of Philosophy 25, n. 2, p. 275-288.

MILLER JR., F. D. (2005). Plato on the Rule of Reason. The Southern Journal of Philosophy 43, p. 50-83.

MIGILIORI, M. (2004). Socrate è forse un edonista? In: CASERTANO, G. (ed.). Il Protagora di Platone: struttura e problematiche. 2 vols. Napoli, Loffredo, p. 528-573.

MORAVCSIK, J. M. (1993). Review of Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher by Gregory Vlastos. Mind 102, n. 405, p. 206-210.

REEVE, C. D. C. (1989). Socrates in the Apology: An Essay on Plato’s Apology of Socrates. Indianapolis, Hacket Pub. Co.

RESHOTKO, N. (2001). Virtue as the Only Unconditional ”“ But Not Intrinsic ”“ Good. Ancient Philosophy 21, n. 2, p. 325-334.

RIDER, B. (2012). Wisdom, Εá½Ï„υχία, and Ηappiness in the Euthydemus. Ancient Philosophy 32, n. 1, p. 1-14.

RIDER, B. (2012). Socrates’ Philosophical Protreptic in Euthydemus 278c”“282d. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 94, n. 2, p. 208-228.

ROWE, C. (2007). The Moral Psychology of the Gorgias. In: ERLER, M.; BRISSON, L. (eds.). Gorgias ”“ Menon. Selected Papers from the Seventh Symposium Platonicum. Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag, p. 90-101.

RUDEBUSCH, G. (1999). Socrates, Pleasure and Value. New York, Oxford University Press.

SCANLON, T. (2014). Being Realistic about Reasons. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

SESONSKE, A. (1963). Hedonism in the Protagoras. Journal of the History of Philosophy 1, n. 1, p. 73-79.

SHIELDS, C. (2006). Plato’s Challenge: The Case against Justice in Republic II. In: SANTAS, G. X. (ed.). The Blackwell Guide to Plato’s Republic. Malden, Blackwell Publishers, p. 63-83.

SPARSHOTT, F. (1992). Review of Socrates on Trial, by Brickhouse and Smith; Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher by Gregory Vlastos. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 22, n. 3, p. 411-425.

SULLIVAN, J. P. (1961). The Hedonism in Plato’s Protagoras. Phronesis 6, n. 1, p. 10-28.

TATE, J. (1946). The Philebus ”“ R. Hackforth. Plato’s Examination of Pleasure. A Translation of the Philebus, with Introduction and Commentary. P. Vi+143. Cambridge: University Press, 1945. Cloth, 10s. 6d. Net. The Classical Review 60, n. 1, p. 29-30.

TAYLOR, A. E. (trans.) (1956). Plato. Philebus and Epinomis. Ed. by Raymond Klibansky. London, Nelson.

TAYLOR, C. C. W. (1992). Review of Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher, by Gregory Vlastos. The Philosophical Quarterly 42, n. 167, p. 228-234.

TAYLOR, C. C. W. (trans.) (2002). Plato. Protagoras. Oxford, Clarendon Press.

VLASTOS, G. (1969). Socrates on Akrasia. Phoenix 23, n. 1, p. 71-88.

VLASTOS, G. (1985a). Happiness and Virtue in Socrates’ Moral Theory. Topoi 4, n. 1, p. 3-22.

VLASTOS, G. (1985b). Socrates’ Disavowal of Knowledge. The Philosophical Quarterly 35, n. 138, p. 1-31.

VLASTOS, G. (1991). Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

WEISS, R. (2006). The Socratic Paradox and Its Enemies. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

WHITE, N. (1995). Review of Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 55, n. 1, p. 237-242.

WOLFSDORF, D. (2004). Socrates’ Avowals of Knowledge. Phronesis 49, n. 2, p. 75-142.

Archai 30 (2020 [3])

Downloads

Publicado

2020-06-02

Como Citar

Nascimento, D. S. (2020). Socrates, Vlastos, Scanlon and the Principle of the Sovereignty of Virtue. Archai Journal, (30), e03009. https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249X_30_9

Edição

n. 30 (2020): Archai 30 (2020 [3])

Seção

Artigos

Licença

Dado o acesso público desta revista, os textos são de uso gratuito, com obrigatoriedade de reconhecimento da autoria original e da publicação inicial nesta revista. O conteúdo das publicações é de total e exclusiva responsabilidade dos autores.

1. Os autores autorizam a publicação do artigo na revista.
2. Os autores garantem que a contribuição é original, responsabilizando-se inteiramente por seu conteúdo em caso de eventual impugnação por parte de terceiros.
3. Os autores garantem que a contribuição que não está em processo de avaliação em outras revistas.
4. Os autores mantêm os direitos autorais e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação, sendo o trabalho licenciado sob a Creative Commons Attribution License-BY.
5. Os autores têm permissão e são estimulados a publicar e distribuir seu trabalho on-line após a publicação na revista.
6. Os autores dos trabalhos aprovados autorizam a revista a, após a publicação, ceder seu conteúdo para reprodução em indexadores de conteúdo, bibliotecas virtuais e similares.
7. É reservado aos editores o direito de proceder ajustes textuais e de adequação do artigo às normas da publicação.