Search

The article provides information on an analysis of the introductions of Aristotle, a Greek philosopher's lectures with the title the Metaphysics. The introductions are designated as Book A and Book α and they share several important commonalities including the focus on the nature and number of causes, being highly rhetorical in character and the discussions of human nature. These books focus on the fundamental problems and conclusions of first philosophy.

In this article, Jonathan Lear examines the virtue of Plenty Coups, the last great chief of the Crow nation. It mentions that Lear presents Plenty Coups as an embodiment of the traditional virtues of courage and practical wisdom. Lear credits Plenty Coups' radical hope as enabling the Crow nation to recover a conception of the good life. It further provides an Aristotelian analysis of Lear's non-traditional conception of radical hope.

The aim of this paper is consider how Plato understands the relationship between Socrates, the primary philosophical protagonist in the majority of the Platonic dialogues, and Critias, the notorious leader of the thirty tyrants. How does Plato evaluate the implicit claim of the Athenian jury that Socrates corrupted Critias, making possible his one-year reign of terror in Athens? This paper will primarily focus on the second half of Plato's Charmides, during which Socrates cross-examines Critias about the nature of sophrosune. It will be suggested that Critias, who demonstrates an utter lack of sophrosune in his political leadership, supplies very Socratic accounts of the nature of sophrosune and, as such, is considered a student of Socrates by Plato. However, I will suggest that Critias failed to complete the Socratic education because he lacks the intellectual humility and the dedication to the truth which Plato believes characterize a true philosopher. Critias' overconfidence in his knowledge of sophrosune, his inability to defend his accounts when cross-examined, and his preference for physical force (instead of intellectual persuasion) indicate that he exploits Socrates' philosophical education for his own purposes. Whether or not Plato condemns Socrates for this oversight will also be considered. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper will examine one of the two serious charges indirectly leveled against Socrates by the Eleatic Stranger in the Sophist. Through a careful analysis of Sophist 226a-231b, I will attempt to demonstrate that the Eleatic Stranger is engaged in an indirect criticism of the philosophical methodology which is employed by Socrates in many of the other Platonic dialogues. In fact, The Eleatic Stranger goes so far as to imply that Socratic elenchos, which Socrates uses in the attempt to purify the souls of his interlocutors, is indistinguishable from the practice of sophistry. While the Eleatic Stranger calls the Socratic form of sophistry noble, because it separates the good from the bad, he does not consider it worthy of the name "philosophy". Instead, the Eleatic Stranger claims that the true method of philosophy is the dialectical science of diaeresis, which impersonally separates like from like. I will discuss what the Eleatic Stranger has to say about his own educational methodology in the Sophist and explain how he distinguishes it from that of Socrates. Additionally, I will reflect on the theoretical and political advantages of both of these methodological approaches and consider why Plato presents his readers with these two philosophical alternatives. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the famed fifteenth chapter of The Prince, Machiavelli criticizes the writers of "imagined republics and principalities" for neglecting the effectual truth of politics. He claims that these writers are excessively concerned with how people should act and, as a result, fail to understand how people do act. Such a teaching, Machiavelli believes, ruins those who follow it because it leads to a concern with one's own goodness, rather than how to protect oneself from the many who are not good. Ultimately, Machiavelli's criticism can be boiled down to the simple idea that previous writers have ignored the study of "defense policy" or how to protect one's self or one's nation from hostile outsiders. The aim of this paper is to determine whether or not Machiavelli's criticism accurately applies to the teaching found in Plato's Republic, perhaps the most famous work about an "imagined republic." In order to accomplish this aim, I will examine the role that defense policy plays in the imagined city that Socrates and his young companions construct. Although the vast majority of the discussion in the Republic concerns the domestic policy of the city in speech, I will focus my analysis on two important passages in which Socrates and his interlocutors discuss defense policy. In the first (422a-423b), Socrates recommends a Machiavellian-style defense policy to deal with dangerous neighbors. In the second (469b-471c), Socrates modifies this policy to allow for friendships between naturally alike cities. In light of these passages, I will argue that the teaching of Plato's Republic does not ignore the study of how to protect oneself from hostile outsiders as Machiavelli claims. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]