Sobre o escopo cognitivo da aisthêsis no argumento final da primeira parte do Teeteto
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v10i2p45-69Keywords:
Plato, Theaetetus, aisthêsis, sensation, perceptionAbstract
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
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
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC By 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) 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).
