The Theaetetus as a Fictitious Controversial Dialogue [Spanish]

Authors

  • Mariana Romina Simon Universidad de Buenos Aires

Keywords:

Plato, Theaetetus, aisthesis, Cyrenaics, Controversial Spaces

Abstract

This article is motivated by the debate about the presence of the ideas of Aristipo and the early Cyrenaics in Plato’s work. The following question guides this article: is it possible to identify the epistemological idea presented in the first part of the Theaetetus, which is attributed to refined and famous men, as part of the Cyrenaic philosophy? In order to answer this question, I will use the concept of an imaginary or fictitious controversial dialogue proposed by the Controversial Spaces model of Oscar Nudler. I Will be working with the following exegetical hypothesis: notwithstanding the differences between the doctrine exposed in the Platonic dialogue and the doctrine present in the Cyrenaic philosophy, it can be maintained that this group of philosophers was the one most likely to have been on Plato’s mind when he outlined the doctrine of the refined philosophers in the Theaetetus. In this regard, the presence of Cyrenaic philosophy in Plato’s work could be thought of as a kind of vestige.

 

Author Biography

Mariana Romina Simon, Universidad de Buenos Aires

Profesora de Filosofía por la Universidad de Buenos Aires. Se desempeña como docente en dicha institución y en escuelas de nivel medio y en institutos de formación docente. Como becaria doctoral de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, actualmente se encuentra realizando estudios en el área de Filosofía Antigua. Su tema de investigación tiene como objeto de estudio una de las filosofías del círculo socrático: la filosofía cirenaica. Su trabajo se enfoca especialmente en la teoría de la percepción y en el hedonismo ético sostenido por este grupo de filósofos.

References

<div>Bett, R. (2018). The Cyrenaics and Skepticism. En D. Machuca y B. Reed (Eds.), Skepticism: From Antiquity to the Present (pp. 14-23). Londres/Nueva York: Bloomsbury Academic.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Burnet, J. (1914). Greek Philosophy. Londres: Macmillan and Co. Chappell, T. (2004). Reading Plato’s Theaetetus. Alemania: Academia Verlag.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Cornford, F. M. (1935). Plato’s Theory of Knowledge. Londres: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner &amp; Co.</div><div>Frede, M. (1999). Observations on Perception in Plato’s Later Dialogues. En G. Fine (Ed.), Plato 1: Metaphysics and Epistemology (pp. 377-383). Oxford: Oxford University Press.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Giannantoni, G. (Ed.). (1990). Socratis et socraticorum reliquiae, 4 vol. Nápoles: Bibliopolis.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Giannantoni, G. (1997). Il concetto di aisthesis nella filosofia cirenaica. En G. Giannantoni y M. Narcy (Eds.), Lezioni Socratiche (pp. 179-204). Nápoles: Bibliopolis.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Hamlyn, D. W. (1961). Sensation and Perception. A History of the Philosophy</div><div>of Perception. Londres: Routledge and Kegan Paul.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Mársico, C. (2010). Zonas de tensión dialógica. Perspectivas para la enseñanza de la filosofía griega. Buenos Aires: Libros del Zorzal.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Mársico, C. (2013). Filósofos socráticos: testimonios y fragmentos I. Megáricos y cirenaicos. Madrid: Losada.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Mársico, C. (2014). Filósofos socráticos: testimonios y fragmentos II. Antístenes, Fedón, Esquines y Simón. Buenos Aires: Losada.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Nudler, O. (2009). Espacios controversiales. Hacia un modelo de cambio filosófico y científico. Buenos Aires: Miño y Dávila.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Nudler, O. (Ed.) (2010). Filosofía de la filosofía. Madrid: Trotta.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Ross, W. D. (1951). Plato’s Theory of Ideas. Oxford: Clarendon Press.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Rowe, Ch. (2015). The First-Generation Socratics and the Socratic Schools. The Case of the Cyrenaics. En U. Zilioli (Ed.), From the Socratics to the Socratic Schools. Classical Ethics, Metaphysics and Epistemology (pp. 26-42). New York: Routledge.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Santa Cruz. M. I., Vallejo Campos, A. y Cordero, N. L. (1992). Platón, Teeteto. Madrid: Gredos.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Schirren, T. (1998). Aisthesis vor Platon: Eine semantisch-systematische Untersuchung zum Problem der Wahrnehmung. Stuttgart &amp; Leipzig: Teubner Verlag.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Tsouna, V. (1998). The Epistemology of the Cyrenaic School. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Zilioli, U. (2012). The Cyrenaics. Durham: Acumen.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Zilioli, U. (2015) (Ed.). From the Socratics to the Socratic Schools. Classical Ethics, Metaphysics and Epistemology. New York: Routledge.</div></div>
Cover

Downloads

Published

2020-01-14

Issue

No. 33 (2020): July-december

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2020 Eidos

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term "Work" shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
The Author shall grant to the Publisher a nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons 3.0 License Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported CC BY-NC 3.0, or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions: (a) Attribution: Other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;(b) Noncommercial: Other users (including Publisher) may not use this Work for commercial purposes;
4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
5. Authors are permitted, and Eidos promotes, to post online the preprint manuscript of the Work in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work is expected be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Eidos's assigned URL to the Article and its final published version in Eidos.