| Přispěvatelé: |
F. Renaud, N.G. Charalabopoulo, L. Palumbo, M.regali, J. Pfefferkon, A.L. Braga da Silva, D. G. MacIsaac, F. Ferro, S. Peterson, F.Forcignanò, M.Brémond, M. Corradi, I. Costa, C.Marsico, M.L. Gill, A. Larivée, S. Di Girolamo, J.K. Larsen, G. Mouroutsou, A. Santoro, N.Notomi, A. Spinelli, I. Protopopova, V. Ricci, A. D. Carpentier, B. Bossi, J. A. Gimenez, I. Maennlein-Robert, C. Araujo, K. Liu, M. Migliori, E. Sanday, B. Lienemann, L. Pitteloud, D. Blyth, M. Duque, R. Parry, A. A. Pleshkov, F.J. Gonzale, S. Meister, C. Lucchetti, R. Granieri, F. Aronadio, L. Giovannetti, J. Szaif, I-Kai Jeng, F. M. Petrucci, H. Tarrant, L. P. Gerson, M. G. Mouzala, A. Motta, I. A. Licciardi, L. Brisson, A. Macé, O. Renaut, Palumbo, Lidia |
| Popis: |
The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that the Parmenides’ prologue has two levels of speech, which convey two different points of view : one Socratic and the other non-Socratic. On the first level, Cephalus tells his desire to listen to the conversation between Socrates, Zeno and Parmenides. The second level consists in the account of that conversation which is narrated by Pythodorus and Antiphon, and expresses Pythodorus’ point of view. The usefulness of this distinction lies in the fact that on the first level the reader can find an interpretation of the speeches narrated on the second. In the Parmenides, Plato not only presents a fiction, but also gives the reader the tools to interpret it. My hypothesis is that Pythodorus is the bearer of a sophistic point of view inherited from Zeno, whose pupil he was. Such a sophistic point of view affects the fiction, in such a way that it seems, but only seems, that Socrates is refuted by Parmenides and Zeno, who appear to prevail in the discussion of the forms. And in the end, it seems, but only seems, that Parmenides, with his gymnasia, gives Socrates a dialectic lesson. Pythodorus’ point of view affects not only the fiction, but also its interpretation by scholars, who tend to regard the Parmenides as expressing Plato’s self-criticism about his theory of forms. |
