Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …
NEW AT DE GRUYTER

Elenchos

Journal of Studies on Ancient Thought

Ed. by Alesse, Francesca / Chiaradonna, Riccardo / Spinelli, Emidio

Editorial Board: Aronadio, Francesco / Berti, Enrico / Brancacci, Aldo / Centrone, Bruno / Decleva Caizzi, Fernanda / Dorandi, Tiziano / Ioppolo, Anna Maria / Opsomer, Jan / Rashed, Marwan / Reydams-Schils, Gretchen / Sedley, David


SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.101

Online
ISSN
2037-7177
See all formats and pricing
More options …

L’antilogicien ou l’ennemi de la philosophie véritable

Geneviève Lachance
Published Online: 2017-12-11 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/elen-2017-0003

Abstract

One of Plato’s goal in the Phaedo is not only to define what philosophy is, but also to describe what ‘real’ or ‘authentic’ philosophy consists of. This description of ‘authentic’ philosophy reveals a tension. Indeed, if Socrates feels the need to speak of a genuine philosophy, is it not a sign that there is another type of philosophy, which is inauthentic and fake ? If Plato emphasizes the legitimacy of some philosophers, is it not because he believes that there are others, who resemble the former but are a mere imitation of them ? In fact, there is in the Phaedo an implicit description of ‘false’ philosophers, which culminates with the presentation of a precise case: the antilogician. Sometimes called a sophist, often described as an eristic, the antilogician is a perfect example of philosophy gone wrong. Criticised more than once in his dialogues, Plato condemns vivaciously the antilogician as he diverts real philosophical inquiry and immerses people in absolute relativism.

Keywords: antilogique; éristique; misologie; philosophie; Phédon

Références

  • Blank, D. L. 1986. « Socrates’ Instructions to Cebes : Plato, Phaedo 101 d-e », Hermes 114 (2), 146–163.Google Scholar

  • Bluck, R. S. 1955. Phaedo, London, Routledge & Kegan Pau. Limited.Google Scholar

  • Bostock, D. 1986. Plato’s Phaedo, Oxford, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

  • Dixsaut, M. 1991. Platon. Phédon, Paris, GF Flammarion.Google Scholar

  • Dorion, L.-A. 2009. « Dissoi Logoi » in Les Sophistes, tome II, édité par J.-F. Pradeau, Paris, GF Flammarion, 125–131.Google Scholar

  • Dorion, L.-A. 2010. Xénophon. Mémorables I, Paris, Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar

  • Dorter, K. D. 1982. Phaedo. An Interpretation, Toronto, Toronto University Press.Google Scholar

  • Gallop, D. 1975. Phaedo, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hackforth, R. 1955. Phaedo, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kerferd, G. B. 1981. The Socratic Movement, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Miller, T. 2015. « Socrates’ Warning Against Misology (Plato, Phaedo 88c-91c) », Phronesis 60, 145–179.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Robinson, T. M. 1979. Contrasting Argument: An Edition of the Dissoi Logoi, Salem, N. H. Ayer.Google Scholar

  • Rowe, C. J. 1993. Plato. Phaedo, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Stough, C. 1976. « Forms and Explanation in the Phaedo », Phronesis 21, 1–30.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Vicaire, P. 1983. Platon. Phédon, Paris, Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar

  • Woolf, T. 2008. « Misology and Truth », in Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy, vol. XXII, édité par J. J. Cleary et G. M. Gurtler, Leiden, Brill, 1–16.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-12-11

Published in Print: 2017-03-01


Citation Information: Elenchos, Volume 38, Issue 1-2, Pages 45–59, ISSN (Online) 2037-7177, ISSN (Print) 0392-7342, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/elen-2017-0003.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in