FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4379531923> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4379531923 endingPage "368" @default.
• W4379531923 startingPage "366" @default.
• W4379531923 abstract "366 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY In harmony with Glaucon or Kant, but unlike Thrasymachus, Ballard is unconvinced by Socrates' virtual identification of virtue with art (T~xpv)or expert knowledge (cf. 24f., 50-79). For the tragic intellectualism embraced by both Socrates and Thrasymachus precludes the existential loyalty prized by Ballard's Plato and Plato's Glaucon. Against existential loyalty , Socrates' philosopher-kings, if left to themselves, would commit crimes of omission perhaps more heinous than the crimes of commission perpetrated by Thrasymachus' paragon of wisdom, the perfect tyrant. Although aware that only their leadership can prevent the greatest evils in states, philosophers nevertheless refuse to rule, even in the ideal state, unless compelled (cf. Republic, 519B7-520A4). Thus neither Thrasymachus' tyrant nor Socrates' philosopher would willingly sacrifice their own pleasure and happiness for the common good. Their epicurean taste contrasts sharply with Ballard's more Kantian or Biblical call for existential loyalty. No compulsion would be necessary to obtain the return of Ballard's philosophers to the political responsibilities of the cave. For his subordination of reason to myth precludes escape from the cave either in the satanic direction of Thrasymachus or the divine direction of Socrates (cf. 120). However one may evaluate Ballard's solution to the central problem of Platonism, his book surely encourages the dialectic which, in spite of his intentions, may lead to the knowledge cherished by the Republic's Thrasymachus and Socrates. Against their tragic intellectualism, neither Ballard nor anyone else can prove more than what the Republic's Socrates admitted: The fact of infallible knowledge is incontestable only for those experiencing it within themselves , while the claim to possess it necessarily seems mere pretense or, at worst, tragic hubris to men whose introspection reveals no rational instrument (~p~,~ov) capable of apprehending the absolute good (Republic, 527D5--528A1; cf. Protagoras, 352A8-353B3; Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, l177B27-11791A3; Metaphysics, 982B28-98385). The following minor errors were noted: Page 6, note 1: read Bury for Bary; page 24 (line 7 from bottom): read Prot. 358C for Prot. 385C ; page 28, line 4: read Nicias for Nisias ; page 66 (line 8 from bottom): read Republic IX for Republic IV. HARRY NEUMANN Scripps College Plato on Immortality. By Robert Leet Patterson. (University Park, Pa.: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1965. Pp. 141. $5.00.) In this sympathetic account of Plato's arguments for the immortality of the soul (as presented in the Phaedo and the Phaedrus) Professor Patterson has attempted to argue that Plato believed that his arguments were complete 'demonstrations' of the immortality of the soul. The author is concerned to indicate the intention, the background, and the structure of the various arguments which Socrates presents in defense of the view that the soul is immortal . In the course of his discussions Patterson seems to involve himself in a number of large issues (e.g, the problem of psycho-physical dualism, the concept of substance, the critique of materialism and epiphenomenalism, and the meaning of Plato's doctrine of Forms) which are not dealt with comprehensively and which transcend the primary concern of his book. The digressions which lead Patterson into exceedingly difficult philosophical problems and, in some cases, into the realm of exotic analogies (e.g., he at one point compares Plato's dualism to the views of Jainism, Hinayana, Samkhya, Nyaya-Vaiseshik, and Mimamsa metaphysics I) detract from the value of the book and tend to divert him from his basic intention. His defences of Plato's arguments are, on the other hand, interesting, if debatable. The basic teaching of the Phaedo is, it is said, that the soul in essence does not belong to the realm of becoming, but is a sempiternal entity. The first argument which Socrates prepublic : Utopia or Dystopia? (The Modern Schoolman, May, 1967). On the relation of sophistry to the problem of the xwp~qp~,see Diotim~ts Concept of Love, American Journal of Philology , 86 (1965), 47-50. BOOK REVIEWS 367 sents is said to have a Heraclitean structure (p. 22) presumably because it appeals to a conception of opposites. On this basis, the argument could just as well be described as Pythagorean. At any rate, the argument assumes..." @default.
• W4379531923 created "2023-06-07" @default.
• W4379531923 creator A5091417175 @default.
• W4379531923 date "1967-10-01" @default.
• W4379531923 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W4379531923 title "Plato on Immortality (review)" @default.
• W4379531923 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.1967.a229610" @default.
• W4379531923 hasPublicationYear "1967" @default.
• W4379531923 type Work @default.
• W4379531923 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4379531923 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4379531923 hasAuthorship W4379531923A5091417175 @default.
• W4379531923 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W4379531923 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W4379531923 hasConcept C127882523 @default.
• W4379531923 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W4379531923 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W4379531923 hasConcept C179455192 @default.
• W4379531923 hasConcept C2777239683 @default.
• W4379531923 hasConcept C2778672885 @default.
• W4379531923 hasConcept C2779259174 @default.
• W4379531923 hasConceptScore W4379531923C111472728 @default.
• W4379531923 hasConceptScore W4379531923C124952713 @default.
• W4379531923 hasConceptScore W4379531923C127882523 @default.
• W4379531923 hasConceptScore W4379531923C138885662 @default.
• W4379531923 hasConceptScore W4379531923C142362112 @default.
• W4379531923 hasConceptScore W4379531923C179455192 @default.
• W4379531923 hasConceptScore W4379531923C2777239683 @default.
• W4379531923 hasConceptScore W4379531923C2778672885 @default.
• W4379531923 hasConceptScore W4379531923C2779259174 @default.
• W4379531923 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W4379531923 hasLocation W43795319231 @default.
• W4379531923 hasOpenAccess W4379531923 @default.
• W4379531923 hasPrimaryLocation W43795319231 @default.
• W4379531923 hasRelatedWork W1545237466 @default.
• W4379531923 hasRelatedWork W2040801129 @default.
• W4379531923 hasRelatedWork W2360038771 @default.
• W4379531923 hasRelatedWork W2483969120 @default.
• W4379531923 hasRelatedWork W2507039959 @default.
• W4379531923 hasRelatedWork W2609841613 @default.
• W4379531923 hasRelatedWork W2994341246 @default.
• W4379531923 hasRelatedWork W4239514632 @default.
• W4379531923 hasRelatedWork W578969917 @default.
• W4379531923 hasRelatedWork W2168471558 @default.
• W4379531923 hasVolume "5" @default.
• W4379531923 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4379531923 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4379531923 workType "article" @default.