RÉSUMÉ: Cet article poursuit un double objectif: premièrement, de montrer que, dans I’Hippias majeur de Platon, Hippias défend une ontologie matérialiste, et, deuxièmement, de définir la critique de cette ontologie matérialiste. Cette démonstration repose sur l’interprétation du passage qui se trouve en 300b4-301e3. Nous présenterons d’abord les limites des interprétations qu’en font P. Woodruff et I. Ludiam, pour ensuite définir le concept de matérialisme dans le contexte de la pensée ancienne afin de dégager les traits spécifiques du matérialisme que Platon (...) prête aHippias. L’opposition entre Hippias et Socrate est enfait une opposition ontologique entre deux conceptions de l’unité : les unités corporelles élémentaires et l’«unité formelle».ABSTRACT: The aim of this article is twofold: first, to show that, in Plato’s Hippias Major, Hippias is the mouthpiece of a materialist ontology; second, to discuss the critique of this ontology. My argument is based on an interpretation of Hippias Major 300b4-301e3. I begin by revealing the shortcomings of P. Woodruff’s and I. Ludlam’s interpretations. Next, I define the concept of materialism as it was understood in ancient Greece in order to outline the specificity of Hippias’ materialism. Finally, I argue that the opposition between the two characters of the Hippias Major represents in fact an ontological opposition between two conceptions of what a unity is, i. e., Hippias’ elementary corporal unities and Socrates’ “formal unity.”. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThe aim of this article is twofold: first, to show that, in Plato'sHippias Major,Hippias is the mouthpiece of a materialist ontology; second, to discuss the critique of this ontology. My argument is based on an interpretation ofHippias Major300b4–301e3. I begin by revealing the shortcomings of P. Woodruff's and I. Ludlam's interpretations. Next, I define the concept of materialism as it was understood in ancient Greece in order to outline the specificity of Hippias' materialism. Finally, I argue that the opposition between (...) the two characters of theHippias Majorrepresents in fact an ontological opposition between two conceptions of what a unity is, i.e., Hippias' elementary corporal unities and Socrates' “formal unity.”. (shrink)