Sobre o escopo cognitivo da aisthêsis no argumento final da primeira parte do Teeteto

Authors

  • Anderson Borges UFRGS

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v10i2p45-69

Keywords:

Plato, Theaetetus, aisthêsis, sensation, perception

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to examine the cognitive limits of aisthêsis in 184-6 of Plato’s Theaetetus. The options are: (i) aisthêsis as ‘bare sensation’ and (ii) aisthêsis as ‘perceptual judgment’. I argue that Plato ignores the tension between these two alternatives because he is describing the whole process of perception as containing both. My focus is the text at 184-5, but first I make some preliminary comments, from a synoptic perspective, about what Plato is doing in the context of the argument. After that, I move on the text, offering translations and interpretations of the relevant parts. I also discuss some of Cornford and Cooper’s ideas about Theaetetus 184-6.    

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

BORGES, A. P. ‘Fluxo e Infalibilismo em Teeteto 151-160’, Journal of Ancient Philosophy, vol. 6, nº 2, 2012, 1-30. DOI: 10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v6i2p1-30

BOSTOCK, D., Plato’s Theaetetus. Oxford: OUP, 1988. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198239307.001.0001

BURNYEAT, M. ‘Protagoras and Self-Refutation in Later Greek Philosophy’, The Philosophical Review, Vol. 85, nº 1, 1976a, 44-69. DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511974052.003

BURNYEAT, M. ‘Protagoras and Self-Refutation in Plato's Theaetetus’, The Philosophical Review, Vol. 85, nº 2, 1976b, 172-195. DOI: 10.2307/2183729

BURNYEAT, M. ‘Plato on the Grammar of Perceiveing’, The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 26, 1976c, 29-51. DOI: 10.1017/s0009838800033784

BURNYEAT, M. The Theaetetus of Plato. Indianapolis-Cambridge, Hackett, 1990.

CAMPBELL, L., The Theaetetus of Plato: with a Revised Text and English Notes, 1980 [1883].

CASTAGNOLI, L. ‘Protagoras Refuted How Clever is Socrates’ “Most Clever” Argument at Theaetetus 171a–c?’, Topoi 23, 2004, p. 3-32. DOI: 10.1023/b:topo.0000021381.34686.0d

CHAPPELL, T. Reading Plato’s Theaetetus. Indianapolis-Cambridge, Hackett, 2004.

CHERNISS, H. Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato And The Academy. Baltimore, JHP, 1944. DOI:

CONFORD, F. M. Plato’s Theory of Knowledge. Mineola-NY, Dover, 2003 [1935]. [2013 - DOI: 10.4324/9781315822884]

COOPER, J. M., ‘Plato on Sense-Perception and Knowledge (Theaetetus 184-6)’, Phronesis, vol. 15, 1970, 123-146. DOI: 10.1163/156852870x00107

COOPER, J. M., Plato’s Theaetetus. New York & London, Garland Publishing, 2015 [1990].

DIÈS, A., Théétète (Oeuvres Complètes Tome VII). Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1924

DIXSAUT, M., ‘Natura e Ruolo Dell’ Anima Nella Sensaione (Teeteto 184b-186e)’, in: CASERTANO, G., Il Teeteto di Platone: Struttura e Problematichep. Napoli, Lofredo Editore, 2002, 39-62.

DRETSKE, F. Perception, Knowledge, and Belief. Cambridge, CUP, 2000. DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511625312

FINE, G., ‘Plato on Perception’, OSAP 1988a (suppl. Vol.), 15-28.

FINE, G., Plato’s Refutation of Protagoras in The Theaetetus, Apeiron 31, 1988b, 201-234. DOI: 10.1515/apeiron.1998.31.3.201

FREDE, M. ‘Observations on Perception in Plato’s Later Diaologues’. In: IRWIN, T. Plato’s Metaphysics And Epistemology. New Your-London, Garland, 1995, 389-394.

IRWIN, T., ‘Plato’s Heracleiteanism’, The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 27, nº. 106, 1977. DOI: 10.2307/2218924

KANAYAMA, Y., ‘Perceiving, Considering, and Attaining Being (Theaetetus 184-6)’, OSAP, 1987, 29-81.

KAHN, C., ‘Some Philosophical Uses of ‘to be’ in Plato’, Phronesis 26, 1981, 105-134. DOI: 10.1163/156852881x00204

KAHN, C., Plato And The Post-Socratic Dialogue. Cambridge: CUP, 2013. DOI: 10.1017/cbo9781139381734

LORENZ, H. The Brute Within: Appetitive Desire in Plato and Aristotle. Oxford, OUP, 2006. DOI: 10.1093/0199290636.001.0001

MCDOWELL, J., Plato: Theaetetus. Oxford: OUP, 1973.

MODRAK, D. K., ‘Perception and Judgement in the Theaetetus’ , Phronesis, 26, 1981, 35-54. DOI: 10.1163/156852881x00123

NARCY, M. Platon: Théétète. Paris, Flammarion, 1994.

NUNES, C. A. Teeteto-Crátilo. Belém, EDUFPA, 2001.

OWEN, G. L. E. ‘The Place of the Timaeus in Plato’s Dialogues’, The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 1/2, 1953, 79-95. DOI: /10.1017/s0009838800002652

POLANSKY, R. M., Philosophy and Knowledge: a commentary on Plato’s Theaetetus. Lewisburg, BUP, 1992, p. 160-171.

POLANSKY, R. M., ‘The Senses of Being in Theaetetus 184-6, Philosophical Inquiry, vol 7, 1985, 93-102. DOI: 10.5840/philinquiry1985729

ROBINSON, R. 1950. Forms and Error in Plato’s ‘Theaetetus’. In: The Philosophical Review, v. LIX 1, p. 3-30. DOI: 10.2307/2181445

ROWE, C. Plato: Theaetetus and Sophist. Cambridge, CUP, 2015. DOI: 10.1017/cbo9781139047036

SAYRE, K., Plato’s Analytic Method, Chicago-London, UCP, 1969.

SEDLEY, D. The Midwife of Platonism. Oxford: OUP, 2004. DOI: 10.1093/0199267030.001.0001

SILVERMAN, A. ‘Plato on Perception and Commons’, Classical Quarterly, vol. 40, 1990, 148-175. DOI: 10.1017/s0009838800026859

VALGIMIGLI, M. Platone Teeteto. Roma-Bari, Editori Laterza, 1999 [1931]

VLASTOS, G., ‘Introduction to the Library of Liberal Arts Plato's Protagoras’. Indianapolis and New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1956.

WAGNER, E. (ed.) Essays on Plato’s Psychology. Lexington Books, 2001.

ZUPPOLINI, B. “Co-Presença de Opostos em República V, 478e-480a”, Manuscrito, vol. 38, 2015, 81-110. DOI: 10.1590/0100-6045.2015.v38n3.baz. DOI: 10.1590/0100-6045.2015.v38n3.baz

Published

2016-11-01

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Borges, A. (2016). Sobre o escopo cognitivo da aisthêsis no argumento final da primeira parte do Teeteto. Journal of Ancient Philosophy, 10(2), 45-69. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v10i2p45-69