The aim of the present paper is to analyse the archeology of the concept of contradiction, more precisely in Plato, and to reveal the influence that the latter had on Aristotle’s reflection on contradiction and contrariety. This paper will show that it is possible to find examples of a notion of contradiction in Plato’s refutative dialogues, in which Socrates is described as refuting his interlocutors by demonstrating the contrary of their initial thesis. However, Plato never used the word antiphasis to (...) name the act of contradicting oneself, but preferred the expression enantia legein heautôi, which means “to say the contrary to oneself”. (shrink)

One of Plato’s goal in the Phaedo is not only to define what philosophy is, but also to describe what ‘real’ or ‘authentic’ philosophy consists of. This description of ‘authentic’ philosophy reveals a tension. Indeed, if Socrates feels the need to speak of a genuine philosophy, is it not a sign that there is another type of philosophy, which is inauthentic and fake? If Plato emphasizes the legitimacy of some philosophers, is it not because he believes that there are others, (...) who resemble the former but are a mere imitation of them? In fact, there is in the Phaedo an implicit description of ‘false’ philosophers, which culminates with the presentation of a precise case: the antilogician. Sometimes called a sophist, often described as an eristic, the antilogician is a perfect example of philosophy gone wrong. Criticised more than once in his dialogues, Plato condemns vivaciously the antilogician as he diverts real philosophical inquiry and immerses people in absolute relativism. (shrink)

Le présent article propose une analyse comparative de l’Isagôgè et du Commentaire aux Catégories d’Aristote de Porphyre. Il s’agira de déterminer si le Commentaire aux Catégories d’Aristote permet de jeter quelque lumière sur le questionnaire porphyrien ou de trancher le débat qui a mené à la célèbre querelle des universaux.

The anonymous Armenian commentary was transmitted together with the Armenian translation of Aristotle's Peri Hermeneias. It was composed in the Hellenizing style and commonly associated with the figure of David the Invincible, a philosopher of the Neoplatonic School of Alexandria. This article presents a general structural analysis of the commentary followed by a comparative study and translation of its first chapter. It argues that the commentary was indeed written in the tradition of late antique Greek commentaries but was probably not (...) associated with late Neoplatonism. The Armenian commentary shares many common features with Ammonius’ commentary, but also departs from it on many crucial aspects. From a philosophical standpoint, it has much more in common with Boethius’ and Alexander of Aphrodisias’ commentaries than with those of the Neoplatonic School of Alexandria, thus suggesting an early writing date. (shrink)

At first sight, Isocrates’ use of the term “sophist” may appear contradictory as it is associated with both a positive and a pejorative meaning. The article contends that Isocrates was not being unintentionally vague or imprecise as he deliberately used the term to refer to two disparaging groups of professional teachers or writers who, in his opinion, had nothing in common. Isocrates tended to privilege the positive meaning of the term over the negative one, considering the latter as a contemporary (...) deviation of the former. (shrink)

At first sight, Isocrates’ use of the term “sophist” (σοφιστής) may appear contradictory as it is associated with both a positive and a pejorative meaning. The article contends that Isocrates was not being unintentionally vague or imprecise as he deliberately used the term to refer to two disparaging groups of professional teachers or writers who, in his opinion, had nothing in common. Isocrates tended to privilege the positive meaning of the term over the negative one, considering the latter as a (...) contemporary deviation of the former. (shrink)

The article examines the passages in Isocrates’ Corpus containing a description and a critique of a new type of sophistic called “eristic”. Based on the chronology of Isocrates’ discourses and the description he gave, the author shows that the majority of these passages could not have aimed at Plato as its sole or principal target. However, it should not be excluded that Isocrates’ criticism of eristics was directed against various members of the Socratic circle, a heterogeneous group in which Plato (...) was comprised. The article shows that although a feud between Plato and Isocrates is not an acceptable premise, a possible rivalry between both men may have been possible. Nonetheless, such a rivalry does not allow one to assimilate Plato with an eristic. (shrink)

Résumé L’article propose une analyse comparative de la pensée mystique de Jean Scot Érigène (810-877) et de Maître Eckhart (1260-1328). Nuançant les critiques contemporaines relatives au rôle joué par l’expérience dans le mysticisme médiéval, il défend la position selon laquelle il est préférable d’instaurer une comparaison sémantique détaillée de la pensée de ces deux auteurs plutôt que de diviser le mysticisme médiéval en fonction de l’influence mystique augustinienne ou dionysienne décelable chez chacun d’entre eux. L’auteure mène une telle analyse en (...) se reposant sur l’utilisation du concept d’incarnation comme principe sémantique fécond et non comme doctrine théologique. Tandis qu’Érigène utilise ce concept pour engager la conversation avec le divin (utilisation « horizontale »), Eckhart s’en sert pour donner naissance à une vision mystique plus incisive (utilisation « verticale »). Nuançant également l’idée selon laquelle l’apophase est une caractéristique commune de la tradition néoplatonicienne médiévale, l’auteure montre qu’Érigène et Eckhart utilisent l’apophase pour obtenir des effets fort différents. Guidés par leur désir de percer tout mécanisme de la contemplation mystique sans pour autant discréditer l’expérience en tant que telle, Érigène et Eckhart ne conçoivent pas l’apophase en contradiction avec la corporalité, mais l’utilisent pour affirmer l’ordre sous-jacent et le caractère commun de la nature et de la vie. (shrink)