For Socrates, the virtues are a kind of knowledge, and the virtues form a unity. Sometimes, Socrates suggests that the virtues are all ‘one and the same’ thing. Other times, he suggests they are ‘parts of a single whole.’ I argue that the ‘what is x?’ question is sophisticated, it gives rise to two distinct kinds of investigations into virtue, a conceptual investigation into the ousia and a psychological investigation into the dunamis, Plato recognized the difference between definitional accounts of (...) the ousia and a psychological accounts of the dunamis, and the distinction between these two investigations can effectively resolve various interpretive puzzles regarding the unity of the virtues. It is argued that the virtues are ‘one and the same’ psychologically, while they are ‘parts of a single whole’ conceptually. (shrink)

In the so-called ‘dialogues of definition,’ Socrates appears to endorse the ‘priority of definition.’ This principle states that an agent cannot know anything about F-ness (its instances, examples, properties, etc.) without knowing what F-ness is (the definition of F-ness). Not only is this principle implausible, it is also difficult to square with Socrates’ method. In employing his method, Socrates appeals to truths about the instances and properties of F-ness, even while pursuing definitional knowledge; meanwhile, he holds that one cannot know (...) those truths without already knowing the definition. Thus, there is a tension between Socrates’ principle and his method. Commentators have tried to resolve this problem in various ways, though typically without a careful examination of his ‘What is F-ness?’ question. I argue that Socrates employs the ‘What is F-ness?’ question as a way of introducing two distinct types of investigation into F-ness (conceptual and causal). With this established, the relationship between Socrates’ principle and his method comes to light, and the tension is resolved. (shrink)

El propósito de este ensayo es presentar una interpretación deflacionaria de la línea dividida en República VI-VII. Argumento que una parte importante de las dificultades existentes entre la διάνοια y la νόησις radica en el hecho de que se leen las diferentes secciones de la línea dividida como si fueran compartimientos cerrados. Mi afirmación es que uno de los problemas cruciales y de difícil solución es cómo entender que un alma que opere según la νόησις pueda llevar a cabo sus (...) actividades cognitivas prescindiendo completamente de cualquier ingrediente sensible, toda vez que el alma que procede “noéticamente” está en un cuerpo. Para intentar explicar este importante detalle utilizo un pasaje del Fedón, en el que Platón intenta mostrar que es posible desentenderse del cuerpo “en la medida de lo posible”. La tesis de que el alma va ganando “claridad” a medida que va ascendiendo desde la εἰκασία hasta la νόησις, sostengo, podría entenderse como “certeza”: como algunos epistemólogos contemporáneos, Platón parece haber visualizado la idea de que, si hay conocimiento, tal conocimiento debe ser cierto, y tal certeza, sugiero, no se entiende como una mera certeza ‘psicológica’, sino como una certeza ‘epistémica’. Es decir, las razones que el sujeto cognoscente platónico posee son lo suficientemente fuertes como para creer que lo que cree es verdadero. (shrink)