La reflexión antigua y fundamental acerca del nombre involucra el doble compromiso de abordar el mythos y el logos. Entre Heráclito y Platón, los presupuestos filosóficos sobre el nombre confrontarán la búsqueda de una transparencia y una convencionalidad entre los nombres y las cosas. Primero, la oscuridad atribuida a Heráclito no margina el tratamiento del nombre como oráculo que revela y oculta al mismo tiempo. Y segundo, la dialéctica socrática por su parte, niega, pero también concede la naturalidad y arbitrariedad (...) del nombre, el único instrumento real para designar y distinguir. Desde múltiples perspectivas el presente artículo examina estas propuestas y da razones para incluir propiedades de los nombres distintas a sus referentes; razones que toda teoría genuinamente semántica debe incorporar. (shrink)

Dans cet article, j’examine la conception platonicienne du λόγος, en Sophiste 261d-262e, en tant que succession (συνέχεια) « signifiante » de ὄνομα et ῥῆμα, par un commentaire du passage cité du dialogue. Je discute particulièrement les points suivants : 1. Pourquoi « les termes prononcés », dans les cas d’une succession de noms ou d’une succession de verbes, n’indiquent aucune action ni aucune inaction (οὐδεμίαν... πρᾶξιν οὐδ᾽ ἀπραξίαν), aucune réalité qui est ni aucune réalité qui n’est pas (οὐδὲ οὐσίαν ὅντος (...) οὐδὲ μὴ ὄντος, 262c2-4)? 2. Quelle est la différence entre « nommer » (ὀνομάζειν) et « dire» (λέγειν), en 262d4-6? 3. Quelle est la différence des constructions : λόγος περὶ + génitif et λόγος + génitif, en 262e-263a? 4. Plus généralement : est-ce que le critère de vérité du discours établi en 263b-d est valide, rétrospectivement, pour toute forme de σημαίνειν, y compris le ὀνομάζειν? (shrink)

In his commentary on Aristotle’s De intepretatione, Ammonius criticises the view, which he ascribes to Alexander of Aphrodisias, that epirrhêmata, ‘adverbs’, fall under the rubric of onoma. While it is difficult to establish Alexander’s view on the basis of Ammonius’s criticism, I argue that an intelligible view can be reconstructed, mainly based on evidence in Alexander’s commentary on the Topics, about different types of adverbs. In particular, I suggest that Alexander, apparently unlike Ammonius, may have drawn a distinction between (...) two classes of adverbs Aristotle deals with in his logical writings: tropoi (modal operators); and ptôseis, i.e. the specific type of ‘inflections’ (adverbs in -ôs derived from a noun – usually an abstract noun) playing a prominent role in several of the topoi Aristotle gives in the Topics. (shrink)

Poets should mean at least as much as they say. When Lucan wrote sola futuri Crassus erat belli medius mora. qualiter undas qui secat et geminum gracilis mare separat Isthmos,1 he ought to have been aware of the inept juxtaposition of slender and Thick. Did Sophocles mean all that he has implied ? I think so, because onoma, if it has not this implication, is strange, and a feeble excuse for it has to be sought two hundred and fifty (...) lines away. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Evidence, Authority, and Interpretation: A Response to Jason HelmsCarol PosterAs someone with a long-standing interest in Heraclitus, I am delighted that Philosophy and Rhetoric is providing a forum for an ongoing discussion of his work.1 Although Jason Helms and I do disagree on specific matters concerning Heraclitean interpretation, we are, I think, in full agreement concerning the importance of Heraclitus for both rhetorical and philosophical studies and intend these (...) essays as contributions to what, it is hoped, will be a fruitful ongoing discussion of Heraclitus within the interdisciplinary tradition of this journal. Rather than address many minor points of disagreement superficially, I will concentrate below on close analysis of a few specific issues that I consider paradigmatic of differences in method rather than merely in conclusions.Panta Rhei (All Things Flow)That Heraclitus was interested in establishing any sense of orthoepia plays down his insistence on the panta rhei (everything flows). To suggest any final rightness of words would suggest that everything flows but the Logos.(Helms, this issue)Actually, I do not use the phrase “final rightness of words” but, rather, describe Heraclitus as “focus[ing] on the problem of correctness of names” and as [End Page 288] “consider[ing] the possibility that one can learn something about the nature of things by examining the non-literal sense of their names” (2006, 15).2 Name is an English equivalent of the Greek onoma (Latin nomen, substantive as opposed to verb or particle), not rhêma (word, verb, phrase) or logos (word, account, speech, saying, story, ratio, reason, etc.). The phrase “correctness of names” alludes to an ongoing discussion among scholars in classics and philosophy about a specific problem in early Greek thought (normally discussed in relation to Heraclitus, Protagoras, Prodicus, Plato’s Cratylus, and Aristotle’s Categories and On Interpretation).More importantly, Helms seems to think it impossible a priori that Heraclitus might have considered some sort of doctrine of flux compatible with a belief in correctness of names. Ancient evidence, however, suggests that Heraclitus did, in fact, consider stability of logos, correctness of names, and sensible flux compatible in some manner.For logos as unchanging, dk22b1 begins, “Of the logos that exists always [eontos aiei] uncomprehending are men.”3 Although the syntax is ambiguous, eontos aiei suggests some stability of logos. Sextus Empiricus states that Heraclitus considered the “divine logos” stable and eternal and human reason grounded in its participation therein (Adv. Math. 7.126–33).4 The “commonality” of logos in dk22b2 also suggests some interpretive stability, in the sense of logos not varying with respect to the perception of the individual.The phrase panta rhei, although solidly entrenched in the reception history of Heraclitus, often as part of a “doctrine of flux,” is not actually a well-attested Heraclitean saying (included in the dk “b” fragments) but, rather, derived from early testimonia. Whether the phrase is a paraphrase, indirect quotation, or Platonic/Aristotelian recasting of Heraclitus is uncertain. The earliest sources are Platonic:Therefore you [Theaetetus] were quite right in saying that knowledge is nothing else than perception, and there is complete identity between the doctrine of Homer and Heraclitus and all their followers— that all things are in motion like streams [hoion rheumata kineisthai ta panta]—the doctrine of the great sophist Protagoras that man is the measure of all things—and the doctrine of Theaetetus that, since these things are true, perception is knowledge.(Theaet. 160d) [End Page 289]Those... would agree well enough with Heraclitus that all things move and nothing remains still [panta menein ouden].(Crat. 401d)Heraclitus says that all things move and nothing remains still [hoti panta chorei kai ouden menei], and he likens the universe to the current of a river, saying that you cannot step twice in the same stream.(Crat. 402a)Nor will he condemn himself and all things and say that there is no health in them, but that all things are flowing like leaky pots [panta hôsper keramia rhei], or believe that all things are just like people afflicted with catarrh, flowing and running all the time [rheumatos te kai katarrou panta ta chrêmata].(Crat. 440c–d... (shrink)

Esta pesquisa apresenta uma análise da filosofia de Antístenes sobre a epískepsis tôn onomáton – investigação dos nomes. Este tema está relacionado ao problema da orthótes onomáton, que esteve sempre envolvida nas atividades dos sofistas. Nesse aspecto, a orthótes de Pródico, possivelmente um precedente inspirador para a análise antistênica dos nomes, está relacionada com a epískepsis de Antístenes naquilo que convergem e divergem as duas perspectivas. Tanto Pródico quanto Antístenes convergem na mesma base filosófica do princípio do eikeîos lógos e, (...) consequentemente, se identificam na mesma hipótese de uma linguagem objetiva que está estritamente ligada às coisas. Mas, os dois pensadores divergem não só no problema da relação entre linguagem e realidade como também no problema da polissemia. Além do mais, expõe-se na conjectura textual o exame do pressuposto filosófico antistênico, a saber, o eikeîos lógos, concernente ao problema interpretativo da passagem que Aristóteles menciona Antístenes: “ eikeîos lógos hèn eph´ henós ”, ou seja, enunciado próprio para cada coisa. A questão debatida é se a expressão “ hèn eph´ henós ” faz referência ao ónoma ou ao lógos. (shrink)

The logos question, one of the most important among the subjects that traverse the Plato's Sophist, has in fact some different aspects: the criticism of father Parmenides' logos, that is unable to speak about the not-being, but also about the being; the relations between logos and its cognates, phantasia, doxa and dianoia; the logos’ complex structure, that is a compound with onoma and rema; the difference between naming and saying, two distinct but inseparable actions; the logical and ontological conditions (...) that make possible to say the truth, or to lie or simply to joke; the necessity of a most flexible logos that allows us to speak about the not-being, and about the being, but at the same time is a logos dangerously similar to the sophist’ one; finally, the identity between the power to produce “spoken images” and the very power to speak. The aim of the present article is giving a systematical view of the matter that grasps all these faces. (shrink)

The logos’ question, one of the most important among the subjects that traverse the Plato’s Sophist, has in fact some different aspects: the criticism of father Parmenides’ logos, that is unable to speak about the not-being, but also about the being; the relations between logos and its cognates, phantasia, doxa and dianoia; the logos’ complex structure, that is a compound with onoma and rema; the difference between naming and saying, two distinct but inseparable actions; the logical and ontological conditions (...) that make possible to say the truth, or to lie or simply to joke; the necessity of a most flexible logos that allows us to speak about the not-being, and about the being, but at the same time is a logos dangerously similar to the sophist’s one; finally, the identity between the power to produce “spoken images” and the very power to speak. The aim of the present article is giving a systematical view of the matter that grasps all these faces. (shrink)

In Plato’s later dialogues, and particularly in the Sophist, there is a general reinterpretation and rehabilitation of the name (onoma) in philosophy. No longer understood rather vaguely as one of potentially dangerous and deceptive elements of everyday language or of poetic language, the word onoma is recast in the Sophist and related dialogues into one of the essential elements of a philosophical language that aims to make claims or propositions about the way thingsare. Onoma, now understood as (...) name, is thus coupled with rhema, or verb, to form the two essential elements of any logos, that is, any claim, statement, orproposition. This paper follows Plato’s gradual rehabilitation and reinscription of the name from early dialogues through late ones in order to demonstrate thenew role Plato fashions for language in these later works. (shrink)

In Plato’s later dialogues, and particularly in the Sophist, there is a general reinterpretation and rehabilitation of the name (onoma) in philosophy. No longer understood rather vaguely as one of potentially dangerous and deceptive elements of everyday language or of poetic language, the word onoma is recast in the Sophist and related dialogues into one of the essential elements of a philosophical language that aims to make claims or propositions about the way thingsare. Onoma, now understood as (...) name, is thus coupled with rhema, or verb, to form the two essential elements of any logos, that is, any claim, statement, orproposition. This paper follows Plato’s gradual rehabilitation and reinscription of the name from early dialogues through late ones in order to demonstrate thenew role Plato fashions for language in these later works. (shrink)

Imagine an equilateral triangle “pointing upward”—its horizontal base under its apex angle. A semiotic triangle has the following three “vertexes”: (apex) an expression, (lower-left) one of the expression’s conceptual meanings or senses, and (lower-right) the referent or denotation determined by the sense [1, pp. 88ff]. One example: the eight-letter string ‘coleslaw’ (apex), the concept “coleslaw” (lower-left), and the salad coleslaw (lower-right) [1, p. 84f]. Using Church’s terminology [2, pp. 6, 41]—modifying Frege’s—the word ‘coleslaw’ expresses the concept “coleslaw”, the word ‘coleslaw’ (...) denotes or names the salad coleslaw, and the concept “coleslaw” determines the salad coleslaw—recalling Frege’s principle that sense determines denotation. Church [2, p. 6] wrote: -/- We shall say that a name denotes or names its denotation and expresses its sense. […] Of the sense we say that it determines its denotation, or is a concept of the denotation. -/- Aristotle seems cognizant of distinctions going beyond those in semiotic triangles. The expression Aristotle’s semiotic pyramids seem warranted by Aristotle’s Categories, 1a1: -/- When [two] things have a name (onoma) in common and the concept (logos) of being (ousia) which corresponds to the name in each case is different, they are called same-named (homonuma). Thus, for example, both a man and a picture [of an animal] are called animals. These have only a name in common. In each case the name’s concept of being [an animal] is different; for if one says what being an animal is for each of them, one will give two distinct concepts. -/- Semiotic triangles and pyramids in Aristotle’s logic are compared to those in Church’s [2]. [1] JOHN CORCORAN, Sentence, proposition, judgment, statement, and fact, Many Sides of Logic, College Publications, 2009. [2] ALONZO CHURCH, Introduction to Mathematical Logic, Princeton, 1956. -/- The semiotic pyramid in Categories, 1a1 has a square base under the vertex ‘animal’. On the corners of the square are: the concept “animal”, the concept “animal picture”, the animals, and the animal pictures. The animals are homonymous with the animal pictures. People find Aristotle’s example far-fetched or inept even if the experience of pointing to a picture while saying “That is Tarski” is familiar. Imagine looking at a painting while thinking “That is an animal”. Without putting too fine a point on this, notice that in Aristotle’s sense it is individual things that are homonymous, not words. It would be natural to say also in his sense that two things are homonyms if one is homonymous with the other. In contrast, we use the words homonym and homonymous to relate words that are spelled the same and pronounced the same but have different meaning. Consider the noun ‘center’ and the verb ‘center’. Consider the noun ‘smell’ and the verb ‘smell’. The spelling of two homonyms is an ambiguity, or an ambiguous spelling. We need appropriate adjectives to distinguish the Categorical senses of ‘homonym’ and ‘homonymous’ from the current English sense just mentioned. I propose ‘ontological’ for the sense relating things and ‘linguistic’ for that relating words. Given that all words are things but not all things are words, we ask are words that are linguistically homonymous also ontologically homonymous? END OF POST ABSTRACT. (shrink)

Do alambique de Sebastião da Rocha Pita, João Adolfo Hansen -- Historiarum Copia, História Seleta : o Tratado Político (1715) de Sebastião da Rocha Pita -- Tratado político (1715), Sebastião da Rocha Pita -- Glossário -- Índice de matérias -- Índice onomaśtico -- Índice mitológico -- Índice bíblico -- Índice geográfico -- Índice de batalhas -- Índice de máximas políticas.

Livros -- Opúsculos, ensaios prefaciais e artigos -- Agostiniana -- Palavras posfaciais, cronologia, Onomástica.

As Socrates argues in Cratylus, although different name-makers or name-designers (Greeks and barbarians) do not embody the name in the same syllables it must not be forgotten that they attempt to reproduce the same ideal (t´ypos). Could also Greek and barbarian names of gods, made of different letters and syllables, reproduce the same t´ypos? If one takes seriously Herodotus’ onomatological inquiry in his Egyptian lógos (The Histories II 50), one may find the optimum way to understand the scope of Plato’s (...) dialectical ‘games’ between the three speakers in Cratylus (Socrates, Hermogenes and Cratylus) and, more precisely, their «theological» implications. (shrink)