The Liaison between Analytic and Ancient Philosophy and Its Consequences

Author(s):  
Christof Rapp

Is it reasonable to expect that the occupation with history of philosophy contributes to our contemporary philosophical debate? The scholarship on ancient philosophy seems to be a paradigm case for the discussion of this kind of question. In the 1950s and 1960s, philosophers and scholars such as John L. Austin, Gilbert Ryle, G.E.L. Owen, John Ackrill and Gregory Vlastos initiated a new style of scholarship that was influenced by analytic philosophy. This analytic style of ancient philosophy scholarship encouraged philosophers to take arguments presented by Plato or Aristotle more seriously and to import ancient ideas into contemporary debates. It was objected that analytic scholars tend to be thematically narrow and to neglect the historical context. By sketching the development of the first two generations of analytic scholarship this chapter tries to show that analytic scholarship need not be anachronistic and that the gain of this method outweighs possible excesses.

2021 ◽  
pp. 3-8
Author(s):  
Michael Frede

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the study of the history of philosophy. In general, there is an enormous difference between those who concern themselves with ancient philosophy, those who concern themselves with medieval philosophy, and the students of the history of modern philosophy. And, across this distinction, there is a great variety of approaches. One should not forget that the historiography of philosophy itself in many ways is a product of history and reflects the historical context in which it is pursued. Nevertheless, what this book is interested in is not the factual question of why historians of philosophy do what they do, but the theoretical question, the question of how one ought to conceive of and explain what they do; though they themselves in this work may not in fact be guided by these assumptions and principles, there must be such principles to the extent that their activity is a rational activity. It is also important to note that philosophers tend to criticize historians of philosophy as being unduly historical and not sufficiently philosophical.


2015 ◽  
Vol 37 (119) ◽  
pp. 329
Author(s):  
Barbara Botter

Recentemente, o tema da akrasia tornou-se um assunto favorito de discussão entre os estudiosos e contribuiu para introduzir a filosofia antiga no debate filosófico contemporâneo. O tema da akrasia foi uma preocupação dos filósofos ao longo da história da filosofia desde os tempos de Sócrates. A reflexão socrática sobre a ação humana é enigmática em seus detalhes, e Aristóteles, e provavelmente o Platão maduro, entraram em desacordo com Sócrates sobre alguns pontos importantes. Apesar disso, o objetivo do presente artigo é mostrar que Platão no Protágoras não representa Sócrates como o filósofo que recusa explicitamente a possibilidade da akrasia. Acho melhor supor que o que está em jogo nas palavras de Sócrates é apenas negar que quem comete uma injustiça a comete em plena consciência de estar agindo mal. Esta afirmação não parece pressupor a negação da akrasia, se com esta palavra indicamos o fenômeno bem conhecido de cometer uma ação moralmente não correta, embora o sujeito conheça a conduta moralmente excelente. Para justificar esta hipótese proponho examinarmos a possibilidade da presença no Protágoras de um segundo elemento cognitivo que age na presença imediata do objeto de desejo. É este o elemento responsável da conduta do agente nos casos de akrasia, embora o conhecimento moral permaneça presente no sujeito, mas não ativo no momento da ação.Abstract: Recently the topic of akrasia has become a favourite subject of discussion among the scholars and has contributed to reintroduce ancient philosophy into contemporary philosophical debate. Akrasia has been a persistent concern of philosophers throughout the history of philosophy since the time of Socrates. The Socratic insight into the way human action should be grasped is always puzzling in its details, and Aristotle, and probably the mature Plato, disagreed with it at some important points. In spite of this fact, our claim in this article is to show that Plato in the Protagoras does not represent Socrates as explicitly denying the possibility of something called akrasia. It is probably best to suppose that what is at stake in Socrates’ words is only denying that anyone can act as a result of his feelings, knowing that what he is doing is base. This argument does not seem presuppose the denying of akrasia, once we have become clear that with this word we intend a manifest phenomenon of our lived lives, like acting against what we know to be the best. To support our claim we will try to show the presence in Plato’s Protagoras of another cognitive element, which is involved when the particular object of desire appears. This is the element that in the cases of akrasia will determine what happens, although the moral knowledge is present and persisting. 


2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 170-183
Author(s):  
Marina N. Volf

The article offers a meaningful analysis of the terms normative and descriptive epistemology, interpretations of their content in contemporary analytic philosophy (W.V.O. Quine, R. Rorty) in the context of their application to describe the ancient sophistic epistemology. The author substantiates the application of descriptive epistemology to the realities of ancient philosophy, namely, to the sophistry of Gorgias in the framework of the appropriationist history of philosophy. As examples we consider the Sophistic inquiry, which, depending on the speaker’s ultimate goals, could be presented as nomadic or as logos-navigation, as well as the problem of the correct understanding of physical and mental phenomena and the ways of correctly pointing them out in Rorty and Gorgias. These examples show that the application of descriptive epistemology to ancient philosophy can change the interpretation paradigm of sophistry and significantly adjust the view of ancient epistemology.


Think ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (60) ◽  
pp. 5-20
Author(s):  
Anna Marmodoro

The debate over whether and how philosophers of today may usefully engage with philosophers of the past is nearly as old as the history of philosophy itself. Does the study of the history of philosophy train or corrupt the budding philosopher's mind? Why study the history of philosophy? And, how to study the history of philosophy? I discuss some mainstream approaches to the study of the history of philosophy (with special focus on ancient philosophy), before explicating the one I adopt and commend.


2021 ◽  
Vol 55 ◽  
pp. 277-287
Author(s):  
John M. Rose ◽  

Heidegger’s works are useful in teaching undergraduates in a variety of ways besides simply introducing Heidegger as an important figure in the history of philosophy. This paper outlines the role of Heidegger in the structure of my Ancient Philosophy course, an intermediate level requirement in the history of philosophy for the philosophy major at Goucher College. The thematic role of Heidegger in the course is illustrated with the intersection of Heidegger’s and Heraclitus’ philosophies and their related pedagogy of following language in a polysemic movement that can break the spell of sclerotic ordinary language about beings. Both Heraclitus and Heidegger move from the ordinary opining of the natures of things to the enigma at the heart of language. The paper also references the effect of this pedagogy on students with writer’s block, or graphophobia, when faced with their first attempts at serious philosophical writing. I conclude with describing the outcome of overcoming the fear of writing.


Author(s):  
Eduardo Mendieta

Karl-Otto Apel (b. 1922–d. 2017) was one of the most original, influential, and renowned German philosophers of the post–World War II generation. He is credited with what is known as the linguistification of Kantian transcendental philosophy, in general, and the linguistic transformation of philosophy in Germany, in particular. His name is closely associated with that of Jürgen Habermas, his junior colleague, whom he met as a graduate student in Bonn in the 1950s, and with whom he maintained a lengthy philosophical collaboration. He received his doctorate in 1950 with a dissertation titled Dasein und Erkennen: Eine erkenntnistheoretische Interpretation der Philosophie Martin Heideggers (translated as: “Dasein and knowledge: An epistemological interpretation of Martin Heidegger’s philosophy”). However, as early as the 1950s, Apel had become increasingly critical of the relativistic and historicist consequences of his phenomenological and hermeneutical work. In 1962, he presented his Habilitation at the University of Mainz, which was published in 1963 as Die Idee der Sprache in der Tradition des Humanismus von Dante bis Vico (translated as: “The idea of language in the traditions of humanism from Dante to Vico”). This book is a pioneering reconstruction of the Italian philosophy of language and how it laid the foundations for the different currents of the philosophy of language that would branch out in the modern philosophies of language. In 1965, Apel published “Die Entfaltung der ‘sprachanalytischen’ Philosophie und das Problem der ‘Geisteswissenchaften,’” which was translated into English as Analytic Philosophy of Language and the “Geisteswissenschaften” in 1967. This was the first work of Apel to be translated into English, but it is also emblematic of Apel’s pioneering engagement with “analytic” philosophy. In 1973, at the urging of Habermas, Apel published Transformation der Philosophie (Transformation of philosophy) in two volumes. A selection, mostly from the second volume, appeared in 1983 under the title Towards a Transformation of Philosophy. In this work Apel introduced the idea that would become the hallmark of his thinking: The Apriori of the Community of Communication, by which he meant that the conditions of possibility of all knowledge and interaction are already given in every natural language that belongs to a community of speakers, who are per force already entangled in normative relations, that can never be circumvented or negated lest one commit a performative self-contradiction. In 1975, Apel published Der Denkweg von Charles S. Peirce: Eine Einführung in den amerikanischen Pragmatismus (The intellectual path of Charles S. Peirce: An introduction to American pragmatism), which is made up of the lengthy introduction he had written for his two-volume German selection and translation of Peirce’s writings. His next most important book was Diskurs und Verantwortung: Das Problem des Übergangs zur postkonventionellen Moral (translated as: “Discourse and responsibility: The problem of the transition to a postconventional morality”), from 1988, a collection of essays in which Apel develops his own version of discourse ethics. Apel’s last three books are collections of essays: Auseinandersetzungen in Erprobung des transzendentalpragmatischen Ansatzes (1998) [Confrontations: Testing the transcendental-pragmatic proposal) (It should be noted that Auseinandersetzungen, one of Apel’s favorite words, could also be translated as “coming to terms” with a particular thinker. This is an important volume as in three extensive essays Apel discusses his differences with and departures from Habermas’s version of universal pragamatics.); Paradigmen der Ersten Philosophie: Zur reflexiven–transzendentalpragmatischen Rekonstruktion der Philosophiegeschichte (2011) (translated as: “Paradigms of first philosophy: Toward a reflexive-transcendental-pragmatic reconstruction of the history of philosophy”), and Transzendentale Reflexion und Geschichte (2017) (translated as: Transcendental reflection and history”).


2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 360-379
Author(s):  
David Vessey

The key difference between the history of ideas and the history of philosophy is that philosophers always consider their historical studies as potentially contributing to contemporary philosophical practice. Such presentism risks anachronistic readings of texts, but a too narrow focus on the historical context of the text risks limiting its ability to contribute to contemporary philosophizing. The current discussion of the history of philosophy focus entirely on how to understand, and what we can learn from, a philosopher’s claims and arguments. Hans-Georg Gadamer offers a different focus, arguing instead that it is the questions that the text answers that generate insights for contemporary philosophical practice. His focus on questions cuts across the standard ways of thinking about the relation between the history of philosophy and the history of ideas and provides novel answers to some central issues in the philosophy of history, for example how to best articulate a principle of charity.


2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
LISA SHAPIRO

ABSTRACT:I reflect critically on the early modern philosophical canon in light of the entrenchment and homogeneity of the lineup of seven core figures: Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant. After distinguishing three elements of a philosophical canon—a causal story, a set of core philosophical questions, and a set of distinctively philosophical works—I argue that recent efforts contextualizing the history of philosophy within the history of science subtly shift the central philosophical questions and allow for a greater range of figures to be philosophically central. However, the history of science is but one context in which to situate philosophical works. Looking at the historical context of seventeenth-century philosophy of mind, one that weaves together questions of consciousness, rationality, and education, does more than shift the central questions—it brings new ones to light. It also shows that a range of genres can be properly philosophical and seamlessly diversifies the central philosophers of the period.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document