Aristotle's dialectic and Socratic dialogue (Master thesis)
This paper, consists comparative study between Aristotle’s conception of dialectic through his works Topicsand Sophistical Refutations and Socratic dialogue or else with Plato’s conception of dialectic in his primary dialogues. In this paper I have tried to support that exist direct correlation between the two above conceptions and moreover the evolution of Aristotle’s conception of dialectic. In the first part I refer to the three primary dialogues, Euthyphron, Protagoras, Gorgias and as we perceive, Socratic dialogue concist philosophical conversation between citizens of Athens. The issues that are discussed in this philosophical conversation concern problems of daily life and more specific, ethics. Socrates, through his own particular method to discuss, shows to his interlocutors the way they must think and research all matters they care about so they will be able to answer in question of ti estin. On the other hand, in the second part I refer to Aristotle who supports that dialectic can be used by everyone, citizens and idiotes and also through dialectic can be discussed any issue that concerns the city and every human. According to Aristotle, anyone that use dialectic can support his opinion successfully. Moreover, the most important thing about dialectic is that can be used in assemblies of citizens in which are discussed city’s common issues. Also, another conception appears in both philosophers’ works in which I refer in the third part. Sophistic according to Plato, includes important hazards especially for young people and this is why Plato through Socrates tries to awake everyone who doesn’t know the risk of sophistic. Also sophistic method is not accepted by Plato not only because is dangerous but also because acts in ways that are unacceptable to him. For Aristotle, the differences between sophistic and dialectic concern the purpose and the methods that are used in each case. In other words, for Aristotle we are talking for dialectic when there is moral προαίρεση. Otherwise we are talking about sophistic. Finally, we mention that for Aristotle, dialectic means syllogistic method. By this side he presents dialectic from a round observation without fails not a single detail. He actually quotes advices on cases like: what should we avoid or say during dialectic conversation, which way should we follow to come to conclusion, which the hazards from a weak argument are and most of all the sophistic method and how a converser should response in cases like these. All of his advices lean on “empeiria”. This factor is substantial in Aristotle’s philosophy because he supports his truth in the observation of the facts as are presented on human senses. Also substantial is the key word in Aristotle’s dialectic, endoxa. Endoxa, consist propositions that express the probability. An endoxo is not sure yet but there are great chances to verify. On the other side, the essence of Socratic method or of Platonic dialectic of “ti estin” can be summarized in two ascertainments: a) every converser must realize that either ignores partially the matter that was supposed to be known either completely, b) every converser must investigate the central idea of the things, so that the converser be able to discover the missing knowledge.
|Alternative title / Subtitle:||συγκλίσεις και διαφορές|
convergences and differences
|Institution and School/Department of submitter:||Πανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων. Φιλοσοφική Σχολή. Τμήμα Φιλοσοφίας, Παιδαγωγικής και Ψυχολογίας|
|Subject classification:||Αριστοτέλης, 384-322 π.Χ.|
Πλάτων, 427-347 π.Χ.
|Appears in Collections:||Διατριβές Μεταπτυχιακής Έρευνας (Masters)|
Files in This Item:
|Μ.Ε. ΠΑΡΔΑΛΗ ΕΛΕΝΗ 2017.pdf||1.46 MB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:This item is a favorite for 0 people.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.