L'elenchos dans la République de Platon

Cette étude porte sur la réfutation (elenchos) dans la République de Platon, et montre que la présence de cette méthode au livre I ne saurait être un signe de la rédaction antérieure de ce livre, ni de la volonté de Platon de critiquer cette forme de la dialectique. Les deux premiers chapitres traitent de l'aspect épistémologique de la question : le premier montre que l'exposition de la dialectique au livre VII inclut l'elenchos, et le second que la défaillance des arguments du livre I doit être interprétée par des motifs pédagogiques, et non par une intention satirique de l'auteur. Les deux derniers chapitres se penchent sur la dimension morale de l'elenchos. Ainsi, le troisième chapitre affirme que Platon nous présente, au livre I, l'elenchos comme un outil efficace d'éducation morale, tandis que le quatrième chapitre cherche à expliquer la critique morale de l'elenchos du livre VII par la différence entre l'éducation dans une cité parfaite et celle dans une société corrompue. La conclusion de l'ouvrage explique le délaissement de la méthode élenctique dans les neuf derniers livres de la République par des raisons autres que par la perte de confiance de Platon en les capacités de cette méthode.

Le concept de justice et la quête du bonheur chez Thrasymaque de Chalcédoine

Thrasymaque de Chalcédoine, un sophiste de renom dans l'Athènes du Ve siècle av. J.C. est présenté comme l'interlocuteur principal de Socrate dans le livre I de la République. Il y est surtout question de la justice et des implications qui en découlent, Socrate et Thrasymaque ne s'entendant évidemment pas sur la nature de la justice. Thrasymaque, poussé par le questionnement constant de Socrate, en vient à formuler différentes thèses sur la justice, notamment : «Je soutiens, moi, que le juste n'est rien d'autre que l'intérêt du plus fort» (Rép. 338c) et «la justice et le juste constituent en réalité le bien d'un autre.» (Rép. 343c) Parallèlement, il oppose au philosophe une vision de la justice difficile à accepter, mais aussi difficile à réfuter : celui qui commet l'injustice est plus heureux que celui qui agit en fonction de la justice. Ainsi, pour Thrasymaque, l'injuste est meilleur que le juste et est plus heureux, car l'injustice est plus profitable pour soi-même. Selon cette vision, qu'est-ce donc que la justice, et en quoi n'est-elle pas profitable pour soi-même? L'objectif de ce mémoire sera de faire ressortir positivement la conception de la justice de Thrasymaque, car c'est avec elle qu'entre en conflit la recherche du bonheur. En effet, si la justice est la représentation des intérêts du dirigeant, comme l'avance le sophiste, alors être juste n'est rien d'autre qu'agir en fonction des intérêts d'autrui et non de soi-même. Cependant, dans une Cité où les individus sont sous la gouverne de la loi, il n'est pas si simple d'agir toujours selon ses propres intérêts lorsque ceux-ci sont contraires à la justice. C'est pourquoi il sera également pertinent de s'attarder aux caractéristiques et aux vertus qu'un individu doit posséder, selon Thrasymaque, pour être heureux. Nous essaierons donc de dégager de la pensée de Thrasymaque un modèle de vie à suivre : le κρείττων. En dernière analyse, nous mettrons en relief la position de Thrasymaque avec la critique platonicienne. Pour Socrate, la position voulant que l'injustice soit profitable est difficile, car il lui faudra montrer que c'est en fait la justice qui apporte le bonheur, en tant qu'elle est une vertu de l'âme.

The Sophists (Ancient Greek)

The sophists were itinerant professional teachers and intellectuals who frequented Athens and other Greek cities in the second half of the fifth century B.C.E. In return for a fee, the sophists offered young wealthy Greek men an education in aretē (virtue or excellence), thereby attaining wealth and fame while also arousing significant antipathy. Prior to the fifth century B.C.E., aretē was predominately associated with aristocratic warrior virtues such as courage and physical strength. In democratic Athens of the latter fifth century B.C.E., however, aretē was increasingly understood in terms of the ability to influence one’s fellow citizens in political gatherings through rhetorical persuasion; the sophistic education both grew out of and exploited this shift. The most famous representatives of the sophistic movement are Protagoras, Gorgias, Antiphon, Hippias, Prodicus and Thrasymachus.

The historical and philological difficulties confronting an interpretation of the sophists are significant. Only a handful of sophistic texts have survived and most of what we know of the sophists is drawn from second-hand testimony, fragments and the generally hostile depiction of them in Plato’s dialogues.

The philosophical problem of the nature of sophistry is arguably even more formidable. Due in large part to the influence of Plato and Aristotle, the term sophistry has come to signify the deliberate use of fallacious reasoning, intellectual charlatanism and moral unscrupulousness. It is, as the article explains, an oversimplification to think of the historical sophists in these terms because they made genuine and original contributions to Western thought. Plato and Aristotle nonetheless established their view of what constitutes legitimate philosophy in part by distinguishing their own activity – and that of Socrates – from the sophists. If one is so inclined, sophistry can thus be regarded, in a conceptual as well as historical sense, as the ‘other’ of philosophy.

Perhaps because of the interpretative difficulties mentioned above, the sophists have been many things to many people. For Hegel (1995/1840) the sophists were subjectivists whose sceptical reaction to the objective dogmatism of the presocratics was synthesised in the work of Plato and Aristotle. For the utilitarian English classicist George Grote (1904), the sophists were progressive thinkers who placed in question the prevailing morality of their time. More recent work by French theorists such as Jacques Derrida (1981) and Jean Francois-Lyotard (1985) suggests affinities between the sophists and postmodernism.

This article provides a broad overview of the sophists, and indicates some of the central philosophical issues raised by their work. Section 1 discusses the meaning of the term sophist. Section 2 surveys the individual contributions of the most famous sophists. Section 3 examines three themes that have often been taken as characteristic of sophistic thought: the distinction between nature and convention, relativism about knowledge and truth and the power of speech. Finally, section 4 analyses attempts by Plato and others to establish a clear demarcation between philosophy and sophistry.

A perfeição da justiça em Platão uma análise comparativa entre a alegoria da linha dividida e os personagens d A República

The allegory of the divided line presents one structure that divides itself into four levels of reality. Two of them move in the world of appearances or opinion, and the others into the world of being or intelligibility: eikasia and pistis, and dianoia and noesis. The difficulty is the following: if there are four levels of reality each with their respective objects that are apprehended according to a type of knowledge involved, is there an interpretation of the justice according to each level? Accordingly, our intention, after presenting the types of knowledge in the allegory of the divided line, is to demonstrate how the justice is comprehended at each level of reality. We understand that Plato uses the characters to represent levels involving different types of knowledge. The characters are Cephalus, Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, Glaucon, Adimantus and Socrates, and the comprehension about what is the justice at each level follows what these characters understand justice to be

Conveniência e plausibilidade da proposição de que justiça é harmonia n A República de Platão

This thesis endorses the interpretation that in Plato`s Republic the argument made by Thrasymachus in which justice is the convenience of the most powerful one is implicitly accepted by Socrates. Although Thrasymachus´ discussion does not show any similarity with the argument of Socrates, it proposes a sarcastic and ironic comment on political life. Socrates accepts this comment to develop a more refined notion of the category of the most powerful ones. While Thrasymachus assumes that the convenience of the most powerful ones includes the power to subordinate all and everything to their individual pleasures, Socrates admits that the most powerful ones are defined only by their characteristic of being able to hold power in perpetuity. In this context, the main theme of The Republic is that the harmony between the functional classes of the city is convenient for perpetual power. For preservation of harmony, the functional class of the most powerful considers the convenience of forsaking a possible monopoly on pleasure towards a redistribution that promotes harmony, which also makes it convenient for the other classes. Thus, we can explicitly say that the most powerful ones believe in a sense of justice as convenience for everyone, but implicitly believe only in the argument that justice is what is convenient for themselves. Since convenience is what promotes harmony between functional classes, it becomes convenient to Socrates to believe that the understanding justice that the most powerful ones have is not publicly disclosed. The notion that all the speculation of the dialogue between the characters cannot be true, but, at best, only plausible and convenient is also part of the central argument in The Republic. Socrates needs to modify the nature of the functional classes through a targeted program of sexual reproduction and a program of ideological indoctrination so that the proposal to promote harmony through the elements of the city, declaring that justice is in favor of the weakest becomes a more plausible and convenient speech. To make the new system more plausible, Socrates develops a metaphysics based on the mathematical notion of harmony, such metaphysics serving the official rhetoric of the political regime presented by Socrates