Zbigniew Nerczuk

Protagoras u Sekstusa Empiryka (PH I 216) a platoński Teajtet Dzieła Sekstusa Empiryka stanowią ważne źródło doksograficzne, zawierając m. in. fragmenty i przekazy poświęcone sofistyce. Są wśród nich omówienia poglądów Protagorasa. W świetle problemów, jakie stwarza rekonstrukcja myśli tego sofisty, warto poddać badaniu źródła i perspektywę Sekstusa, zwracając szczególną uwagę na krótkie przedstawienie tez Protagorasa zawarte w Zarysach Pyrrońskich (PH I 216). Porównując omówienie Sekstusa i przedstawienie Platona w Teajtecie, dostrzec możemy podobieństwo prezentowanych poglądów. W przekazie Seksusa podobnie jak w Teajtecie główny akcent położony jest na tezę homo-mensura, z którą wiąże się dwa inne podstawowe dla platońskiego dialogu wątki: zmienności rzeczy oraz "prywatności" spostrzeżeń. Mimo charakterystycznej dla sceptycyzmu modyfikacji strony pojęciowej, nadinterpretacji oraz wyrwania tez z dialogowego kontekstu przedstawienia obu wątków wykazują daleko idące paralele z Teajtetem. Bez względu na to, czy omówienie to jest dziełem samego Sekstusa, czy zaczerpnięte zostało z jakiegoś wcześniejszego źródła mającego charakter sceptycznej "ściągawki", możemy na jego podstawie wnioskować, że dialog Teajtet uważany był w późnej starożytności za wiarygodne źródło informacji na temat poglądów Protagorasa. Należy jednak podkreślić, że przekaz Sekstusa stanowi jedynie interpretację treści zawartych w platońskim Teajtecie i – wbrew praktyce wielu uczonych - nie może być brany pod uwagę jako niezależne źródło wiedzy o myśli Protagorasa.

Studium poświęcone jest specyfice warsztatu tłumacza antycznych tekstów filozoficznych. Wszelką pracę translatorską, o ile ma ona na celu rekonstrukcję kontekstu językowego i historycznego, muszą poprzedzać zrozumienie i interpretacja tekstu. W celu rekonstrukcji kontekstu niezbędne jest odniesienie tekstu do prowadzonych ówcześnie dyskusji filozoficznych, odtworzenie siatki pojęciowej oraz wskazanie zapożyczeń oraz odesłań do innych tekstów. Realizacja tych zadań napotyka w przypadku prac z zakresu filozofii starożytnej na wiele przeszkód wynikających z wielowiekowej ewolucji języka greckiego, mglistości terminu ‘filozofia’, zaginięcia większości dzieł filozoficznych, zróżnicowania terminologii filozoficznej poszczególnych filozofów czy nurtów, a także przenikania się wzajemnego tekstów. The paper is concerned with the characteristic of the translation of ancient philosophical texts. The work of the translation of a philosophical writing, as long as its goal is to reconstruct the philosophical context, must be preceded by understanding and interpretation of that text. In order to achieve this goal it is necessary to refer the writing to the ongoing philosophical discussions of that time, as well as to restore the conceptual grid and indicate the borrowings and references to other works. In the case of writings in the field of ancient philosophy these tasks encounter a lot of obstacles resulting from the evolution of Greek, from ambiguity of the term 'philosophy', from the loss of the most of the philosophical works, from the diversity of philosophical terminology, as well as from the intertextuality of the ancient philosophical literature.

Techne and Truth. The problem of techne in the dispute between Gorgias and Plato -/- The source of the problem matter of the book is the Plato’s dialogue „Gorgias”. One of the main subjects of the discussion carried out in this multi-aspect work is the issue of the art of rhetoric. In the dialogue the contemporary form of the art of rhetoric, represented by Gorgias, Polos and Callicles, is confronted with Plato’s proposal of rhetoric and concept of art (techne). The ingenuous and dramatic structure of the dialogue composed of three acts, in each of which Socrates’ consecutive interlocutors emerge, is difficult to interpret. It seems, however, that even though the first conversation between Socrates and Gorgias constitutes a small part of the dialogue, it forms the foundations for the discussion. This part, dealing with such important issues as the subject of art, knowledge, power and relation between art and good, is the starting point for the conversations which follow. What do the differences between the Gorgias’ and Plato’s concepts of art consist in? Any attempt to answer the question requires presentation of the background for the discussion taking place in Plato’s work as well as the reconstruction of Gorgias’ vision of the art of rhetoric and art in general, defining the relation between art and knowledge. The latter may be undertaken on the basis of two paraphrases of the treatise “On Non-existence”, two epideictic speeches entitled “Helen” and “Palamedes” and some smaller fragments which have been preserved from Gorgias’ creative output. The treatise “On Non–existence”, very paradoxical in its philosophical meaning, testifies to new, sophistic thinking represented by Gorgias of Leontinoi. The treatise is the polemic and attack on Eleatism based on certain principles and methods elaborated by the Eleatics themselves. It also shows that Gorgias – using traditional Eleatic schemes – is opposed to this tradition. Even though the treatise does not discuss the problem of art directly, it anticipates the considerations from epideictic speeches. “Helen” and “Palamedes” constitute further stages in the development of Gorgias’ thought and concept of art combining typically epideictic elements with some philosophical convictions. Gorgias refers to the Eleatic theme considering the issues of truth, knowledge and belief, yet defining them in the empirical spirit. Solutions in the cognitive sphere determine the horizon of Gorgias’ rhetoric. The word is separated from the existence. Human cognition is limited and therefore the word and visual images affect the belief. This promotes the great importance of rhetoric, painting and sculpture, i.e. the areas which influence in a specific way – creating the “delusion” (ἀπάτη). Through idealization art provides pleasure, which is its objective. Therefore the task of art is to create delusion. The rhetor of Leontinoi discusses the issue of “how?” to use the word ‘rhetoric’. Gorgias is aware that rhetoric may be used to talk about what is unknown and that technical correctness of a rhetoric statement is not identical with the truthfulness of the proclaimed message. Mentioning it, Gorgias shows his respect to the truth as a value which should be respected in speech on the one hand, and on the other emphasizes that the truth in itself has no persuasive power. For this reason it is not enough to proclaim the truth, but, to convince the listeners, the orator should possess the skill of speaking. What is then the relation between truth and art emerging from epideictic speeches? Gorgias undoubtedly emphasizes the formal aspect of speech, as rhetoric is art, thus an ability based on certain principles. According to Gorgias, the truth is the value which should be respected in speeches. Rhetoric is able to create a fictive world, as a great range of reality remains outside direct human experience. Rhetoric does not oppose the truth but discussing not only what is directly given concerns the area outside the sphere of direct experience. This concept of rhetoric is the basis of the discussion about art carried out in the dialogue “Gorgias”. Even though the first of the discussions in the dialogue – the conversation between Socrates and Gorgias – is directly concerned with rhetoric itself, numerous remarks testify to its much wider character. This is best exemplified by the way of carrying out the conversation by Socrates, who, asking questions about rhetoric practised by Gorgias, throughout the whole conversation compares it with other skills. Additionally, the manner and the structure of the conversation prove that Plato considers the issue of rhetoric from a wider perspective determined by the issue of art. The specific feature of the conversation is ordering it around main issues – such notions as πρᾶγμα, ἐπιστήμη, δύναμις, each of which has its own meaning in Plato. In the first part of Gorgias Plato presents the principles previously occurring in other dialogues in a certain order, thus constructing the structure of the conversation with Gorgias. The notions are not novum in Plato but the fact that he clearly wants to systematise them and present a certain concept of art is a new and significant aspect. This tendency is of paramount importance for the discussion because Gorgias’ answers are evaluated by Plato from the perspective of this clearly set concept consisting of not only established notions but also certain principles. The discussion between Socrates and Gorgias introduces a theme which is crucial for the dialogue: the relation between art and good, i.e. the technical and ethical spheres. The issue is introduced by Gorgias, who mentions that rhetoric may be used for evil purposes. On this basis Socrates proves that if rhetoricians can use rhetoric for evil purposes, they have no knowledge concerning the subject of their art – justice, because one who knows what is just, always acts justly. Thus the relation between the technical and ethical spheres transpires to be the main point of contention. The question is whether a technician following the principles of the art he practices may act against good. This paradoxical statement based on the well-known Socrates’ principle "nemo sua sponte peccat" acquires philosophical foundations in the dialogue. In its remaining two parts Plato presents a justification, placing the principle within the framework of a certain concept of art, as a result of which not only rhetoric but also many other skills are criticised. The notions on which the conversation with Gorgias focuses are more precisely defined in the subsequent parts of the dialogue. Additionally, Plato presents twice the conditions which art should fulfill. They oblige the “technicians” to know the nature and purpose of the art and to know the causes of undertaken activities and to be able to justify them. These conditions determine the relation between the two spheres – technical and ethical. According to Plato, art may not act against good because it should be the objective of its activities. Certain concepts of good and knowledge outlined in the dialogue are the guarantees of “technicality”. Good, which should be respected by every art, is understood objectively and is contrasted with subjective pleasure. Knowledge, which should be the basis of art, opposes experience, which uses observation and recollection. Additionally, the definition of knowledge, significance of order in the world assuming the form of “geometrical equality”, significance of mathematics becoming the ideal of exactness indicate that Plato’s concept of knowledge is formed in Gorgias. These conclusions render it impossible that the results of any activity deserving the name of art should oppose good. And this is Plato’s main reproach of Gorgias’ concept, who wrote about false speeches possessing the power of conviction because they were written according to the principles proof of art or who defined tragedy as “a deceit, where he who cheats is more just than he who does not and the cheated is wiser than he who was not cheated”. Such determination of the relation between the technical and ethical sphere resulted from Gorgias’ concept of the world and fundamental philosophical principles. The whole concept of art described by Plato in the dialogue opposes the view presented by Gorgias. According to Plato, every technical activity has a defined object (ἔργον), is based on knowledge (ἐπιστήμη) and is always aimed at the good of human soul or body. The danger revealed and presented in the dialogue by Plato exists in the very concept of art presented by Gorgias, i.e. in its empirical foundations and the resulting understanding of the relation between art and good. Gorgias’ concept of art based on empirical cognition, which concerns the world of phenomena and rejects the possibility of perfect knowledge, leads, according to Plato, to a dangerous falsification of the relation between art and good. Plato proves that this weakness of Gorgias’ concept is revealed when confronted with these representatives of “the magnificent art” who are not protected against radicalism by the adherence to the moral tradition. The comparison of two, completely contrasting concepts of art based on different philosophical understanding of knowledge and good is decisive for the criticism of rhetoric in Gorgias. The concept presented by Plato criticises contemporary rhetoric and sophistry but determines the direction of research of the real art of rhetoric.

The text was originally a conference speech. In principle, it was prepared for teachers of philosophy and people interested in philosophy, therefore it has the character of an essay and only to a small extent refers to the literature of the subject. However, I am deeply convinced of the validity of the thesis that I propose in it, even if they may seem only to a small extent supported by references to the state of research. Synthetical studies take a special place in the research on the history of ancient philosophy. They demonstrate the existing perspective by performing a selection and arrangement of the material, presenting the periodisation, accentuating and determining what is “philosophically significant.” This article points out that despite the great progress made in detailed research that has taken place over the last few decades, the general framework of development of philosophy, derived from Hegel’s thought, has remained unchanged for two centuries. Hegel’s perspective has instilled a certain pattern that encompasses a whole series of debatable solutions. These include (1) development of a certain understanding of what “philosophy” is and thus separating it from a wide spectrum of literature, rhetoric, medicine, and religion; (2) introduction of a dubious periodisation (e.g. the distinction between the Presocratic period and Socrates’ breakthrough in the form of a departure from the philosophy of nature and return to ethical considerations; (3) adoption of philosophy of Plato and Aristotle as the apex of thought. The author highlights the need to change the approach to the history of ancient philosophy and modify the existing paradigm. He calls for paying greater attention to the intertextual element and to the fact that the assessment of originality and relevance of preserved works is falsified due to the disappearance of comparative material. The proposal to establish a new reconstructive paradigm is based on the belief that during further research on ancient philosophy it would be advisable (1) to expand the research perspective and enrich it with the fields of education, medicine, the great sphere of literature, the spheres of fine arts and music, (2) to focus more on the issue of transmission and reception of texts thanks to which it is possible to deepen and extend the reconstructed context of philosophical discussions, (3) to come to the realisation that the abstract character of description, connected with all the syntheses of the philosophical thought in antiquity lead to its oversimplification and impoverishment by presenting it out of the context and depriving of what is individual and specific for a particular thinker.

The paper is devoted to the sophistic method of "two-fold arguments" (antilogic). The traditional understanding of antilogic understood as an expression of agonistic and eristic tendencies of the sophists has been in recent decades, under the influence of G.B. Kerferd, replaced by the understanding of antilogic as an independent argumentative technique, having its own sources, essence, and goals. Following the interpretation of G.B. Kerferd, according to which the foundation of the antilogic is the opposition of two logoi resulting from contradictions or opposites, necessarily associated with the contradictory character of the sensual world, in the paper it is argued that the philosophical basis of antilogic should be sought in the presentation of the views attributed to Protagoras and "adherents of flux" in Plato's dialogue Theaetetus.

Rhetorik der Platonischen Verteidigung des Sokrates Die Platonische Verteidigung des Sokrates nimmt einen besonderen Platz im Werk Platons ein. Zweifellos schafft sie viele Fragen, das Datum und Umstände ihrer Entste- hung betreffend, oder hinsichtlich der darin enthaltenen originellen ldeen und ihrer Treue gegenüber der Verteidigungsrede von Sokrates selbst. Die Verteidigungsrede (eigentlich sind es drei Verteidigungsreden) ist jedoch auch aus dem Grund sehr interessant, daß sie (als Verteidigungsrede) zu einer gewissen Tradition gehört, die für immer mit der Sophi- stik verbunden ist. Diese Tatsache erlangt besonders deswegen große Bedeutung, weil Platon mit diesen Reden ein Gebiet betritt, das eine Domäne der philosophischen Haupt- feinde sowohl von Sokrates als auch von Platon selbst ist. Aus der Perspektive der späte- ren Texte Platons und der darin geäußerten Ablehnung gegenüber Anwendung der Rhe- torik ist es interessant, die Apologie des Sokrates in ihrem Aufbau zu analysieren. Die Be- stimmung des intertextuellen Hintergrunds der Platonischen Verteidigung des Sokrates, ihr Bezug auf rhetorische Traditionen jener Zeit und der Hinweis auf strukturelle, inhal- tliche und philosophische Anknüpfungen können bei der Rekonstruktion der Platonischen Auffassung von Rhetorik und des Verhältnisses Platons zu der Sophistik hilfreich sein.

The article discusses the sophistic method of “antilogic” (“double arguments”, “contrasting arguments”, “opposed speeches”, “two-fold arguments”). The main goal is to show that it is a method that, in the light of the doctrine presented in Plato’s Theaetetus, is based on philosophical foundations. The work of G.B. Kerferd was crucial for the research on the art of antilogic, as it broke with the unequivocally negative understanding of this method adopted by the earlier research tradition. Late testimonies of Diogenes Laertius, Clement of Alexandria, Seneca and Eudoxus point to Protagoras of Abdera as the creator and promoter of the antilogic. These testimonies are confirmed by references to the method of “opposed speeches” contained in the comedies of Aristophanes, in the tragedies of Euripides and in the anonymous treatise Dialexeis. Plato’s report on the doctrine attributed to Protagoras in the Theaetetus reveals the philosophical context of the antilogic. The so- -called “secret doctrine”, based on the acceptance of appearances and of the privacy of perceptions (man-measure doctrine), the rejection of truth and falsehood, and acceptance of the contradictory judgments results from the new vision of reality in flux. Therefore, the “secret doctrine” presents a consistent and coherent project leading to a new concept of logic and language and lays the foundations for the method of “double arguments”.

Este texto argumenta que el discurso de Sócrates, que constituye un compendio de su discusión con el rétor Gorgias acerca la retórica (464b2-466e3), forma parte de la estrategia polémica empleada por Platón, en la que el humor juega un papel fundamental. Con ayuda del método de la división, Sócrates desacredita la retórica (tal y como la presenta Gorgias), comparándola con la sofística, la cosmética y la cocina, y llamándolas a todas adulaciones. El propósito del presente escrito es mostrar la complejidad de la crítica platónica y de su dimensión intertextual, en tanto que contiene notables referencias a diferentes conceptos del “arte” [τέχνη], del “placer” [ἡδονή], de la “ilusión” [ἀπατη] y del “simulacro” [εἴδωλον] empleados los textos de Gorgias.