No. 72 (2025): Número en curso
Articles

Defining the Statesman by Thinking of the Dialectician? Notes on the Capabilities of Paradeigmata in Plato’s Statesman

PDF (Spanish)
  • Lucas Álvarez
Lucas Álvarez
Universidad de Buenos Aires

Published 2025-02-19

Keywords

  • Plato,
  • statesman,
  • parádeigma,
  • philosopher,
  • dialectics

Copyright (c) 2025 Tópicos, Revista de Filosofía

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Álvarez, L. (2025). Defining the Statesman by Thinking of the Dialectician? Notes on the Capabilities of Paradeigmata in Plato’s Statesman. Tópicos, Revista De Filosofía, 72, 41-66. https://doi.org/10.21555/top.v720.2935
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

In the framework of the discussion about the potential identification of the statesman with the philosopher in the post-Republic Platonic dialogues, this paper focuses on the approach proposed in Statesman. Specifically, it focuses on the use of a methodological resource, parádeigma, to which the interlocutors appeal to define the statesman. In this sense, we contribute to the discussion by identifying a series of contact points that unite the characterization of the statesman with that of the philosopher-dialectician that emerges in Plato’s late works.

PDF (Spanish)

References

  1. Ackrill, J. (1955). Sumplokh Eidwn. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, 2, 31-35.
  2. Blondell, R. (2002). The Play of Character in Plato’s Dialogues. CUP.
  3. Blondell, R. (2017). The Politics of Weaving in Plato’s Statesman. En E. Kyprianidou (ed.), Weaving Culture in Europe. (pp. 27-51). Nissos Publications.
  4. Bravo, F. (2003). Las ambigüedades del placer. Ensayo sobre el placer en la filosofía de Platón. Academia Verlag.
  5. Carone, G. (2000). Hedonism and the Pleasureless Life in Plato’s Philebus. Phronesis, 45(4), 257–283. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156852800510225.
  6. Carone, G. (2005). Plato’s Cosmology and its Ethical Dimensions. CUP.
  7. Carpenter, A. (2015). Ranking Knowledge in the Philebus. Phronesis, 60, 180-205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15685284-12341283.
  8. Castoriadis, C. (2002). On Plato’s Statesman. Standford University Press.
  9. Clay, D. (1992). Plato’s First Words. En F. Dunn y T. Cole (eds.), Beginnings in Classical Literature. (pp. 113-130). CUP.
  10. Cordero, N. (2016). Platón contra Platón. La autocrítica del Parménides y la ontología del Sofista. Editorial Biblos.
  11. Cornford, F. (1935). Plato’s Theory of Knowledge. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  12. Couloubaritsis, L. (1995). Le paradigme platonicien du tissage comme modèle politique d’une société complexe. Revue de Philosophie Ancienne, 13(2), 107-162.
  13. De Chiara-Quenzer, D. (1998). The Purpose of the Philosophical Method in Plato’s Statesman. Apeiron, 31(2), 91-126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/APEIRON.1998.31.2.91.
  14. Delcomminette, S. (2006). Le Philèbe de Platon. Introduction à l’agathologie platonicienne. Brill.
  15. Dixsaut, M. (2000). Images du philosophe. Kleos, 4, 191-248.
  16. Dixsaut, M. (2001). Métamorphoses de la dialectique dans les dialogues de Platon. Vrin.
  17. El Murr, D. (2002). La symploke politike: le paradigme du tissage dans le Politique de Platon, ou les raisons d’un paradigme arbitraire. Kairos, 19, 49-95.
  18. El Murr, D. (2009). Politics and Dialectic in Plato’s Statesman. Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy, 25, 109-135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/22134417-90000114.
  19. El Murr, D. (2021). Kingly Intertwinement: 308b10–311c10. Plato’s Statesman. P. Dimas, M. Lane y S. Sauvé Meyer (eds.), A Philosophical Discussion. (pp. 239-260). Oxford.
  20. Frede, M. (1996). The Literary Form of the Sophist. En C. Gill y M. McCabe (eds.), Form and Argument in Late Plato. (pp. 135-151). OUP.
  21. Gill, C. (2010). Dialogue Form and Philosophical Content in Plato’s Philebus. Plato’s Philebus. En J. Dillon y L. Brisson (eds.), Selected Papers from the Eighth Symposium Platonicum. (pp. 47-55). Academia Verlag.
  22. Gill, M. (2012). Philosophos. Plato’s Missing Dialogue. OUP.
  23. Goldschmidt, V. (1947). Le paradigme dans la dialectique platonicienne. Vrin.
  24. Gómez-Lobo, A. (1977). Plato’s Description of Dialectic in the Sophist 253d1-e2. Phronesis, 22(1), 29-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156852877X00164.
  25. Gonzalez, F. (2003). How to Read a Platonic Prologue: Lysis 203a–207d. En A. Michelini (ed.), Plato as Author. The Rhetoric of Philosophy. (pp. 15-44). Brill.
  26. Griswold, C. (1989) Politiké epistéme in Plato’s Statesman. En J. Anton y A. Preus (eds.), Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy. III. (pp. 141-167). State University of New York Press.
  27. Hampton, C. (1990). Pleasure, Knowledge, and Being. An Analysis of Plato’s Philebus. Suny Press.
  28. Heródoto. (1981). Historia. Libro V. Terpsícore. C. Schrader (trad.). Gredos.
  29. Heródoto. (2013). Histories Book V. S. Hornblower (ed.). CUP.
  30. Ionescu, C. (2019). On the Good Life: Thinking through the Intermediaries in Plato’s Philebus. Sunny Press.
  31. Kamtekar, R. (2021). Weaving together Natural Courage and Moderation: 305e8-308b9. En P. Dimas, M. Lane y S. Sauvé Meyer (eds.), Plato’s Statesman: A Philosophical Discussion. (pp. 217-238). OUP.
  32. Klein, J. (1977). Plato’s Trilogy. Theaetetus, the Sophist and the Statesman. University of Chicago Press.
  33. Lane, M. (1998). Method and Politics in Plato’s Statesman. CUP.
  34. Larivée, A. (2019). Taking Frustration Seriously. Reading Plato’s Statesman as a Protreptic to Political Science. En B. Bossi y T. Robinson (eds.), Plato’s Statesman Revisited. (pp. 11-34). De Gruyter.
  35. Lefebvre, R. (2007). Platon, philosophe du Plaisir. L’Harmattan.
  36. Liddell, H. G., Scott, R. y Jones, H. S. (1996). A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford University Press.
  37. Louis, P. (1945). Les métaphores de Platon. Les Belles Lettres.
  38. Marcos de Pinotti, G. (1995). Platón ante el problema del error. La formulación del Teeteto y la solución del Sofista. Fundec.
  39. Menn, S. (2010). The Timaeus and the Critique of Presocratic Vortices. En R. Mohr y B. Sattler (eds.), One Book. The Whole Universe. Plato’s Timaeus Today. (pp. 141-150). Parmenides Publishing.
  40. Migliori, M. (1993). L’uomo fra piacere, intelligenza e bene. Commentario storico-filosofico al Filebo di Platone. Vita e Pensiero.
  41. Moravcsik, J. (1960). Sumplokh Eidwn and the Genesis of lógos. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 42, 117-29.
  42. Moravcsik, J. (1979). Form, Nature, and the Good in the Philebus. Phronesis, 24, 81-104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156852879X00054.
  43. Moss, J. (2019). Knowledge and Measurement. Philebus 55c-59d. En P. Dimas, R. Jones y G. Lear (eds.), Plato’s Philebus: A Philosophical Discussion. (pp. 219-235). OUP.
  44. Notomi, N. (1999). The Unity of Plato’s Sophist. CUP.
  45. Peck, A. (1962). Plato’s Sophist: The sumplokê tôn eidôn. Phronesis, 7, 46-66.
  46. Pender, E. (2003). Plato on Metaphors and Models. En G. Boys-Stones (ed.), Metaphor, Allegory and the Classical Tradition. (pp. 55-82). OUP.
  47. Platón. (1867). The Sophistes and Politicus. L. Campbell (ed.). Clarendon Press.
  48. Platón. (1945). Plato’s Examination of Pleasure (The Philebus). R. Hackforth (ed.). CUP.
  49. Platón. (1952). Statesman. J. Skemp (trad.). Routledge.
  50. Platón. (1975). Philebus. J. Gosling (trad.). Clarendon Press.
  51. Platón. (1988). El Sofista. N. Cordero (trad.). Gredos.
  52. Platón. (1988). Político. M. I. Santa Cruz (trad). Gredos.
  53. Platón. (1995). Statesman. C. Rowe (trad.). Aris & Philip.
  54. Platón. (2003) Le politique. L. Brisson y J.-F. Pradeau (trads.). Flammarion.
  55. Platón. (2005). República. M. Divenosa y C. Mársico (trads.). Losada.
  56. Platón. (2012). Filebo. M. Boeri. (trad.). Losada.
  57. Rosenstock, B. (1994). Athena’s Cloak: Plato’s Critique of the Democratic City in the Republic. Political Theory, 22, 363-90.
  58. Rowe, C. (1995). Introduction. En C. Rowe (ed.), Reading the Statesman. (pp. 11-28). Academia Verlag.
  59. Rowe, C. (2019). ‘Moderation’ and Courage in Plato’s Politicus (305e–311c). En B. Bossi y T. Robinson (eds.), Plato’s Statesman Revisited. (pp. 309-326). De Gruyter.
  60. Santa Cruz, M. (2009). La Justa Medida: entre Político y Filebo. Signos Filosóficos, 11(22), 75-100.
  61. Sayre, K. (1983). Plato’s Late Ontology. A Riddle Resolved. PUP.
  62. Sayre, K. (2006). Metaphysics and Method in Plato’s Statesman. CUP.
  63. Trevaskis, J. (1960). Classification in the Philebus. Phronesis, 5.1, 39-44.
  64. Trevaskis, J. (1966). The μέγιστα γένη and the Vowel Analogy of Plato Sophist 253. Phronesis, 11(2), 99-116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156852866X00021.
  65. White, D. (2007). Myth, Metaphysics and Dialectic in Plato’s Statesman. Ashgate Publishing Limited.
  66. Zaks, N. (2016). À quel logos correspond la συμπλοκe τῶν εidon du Sophiste? Revue de Philosophie Ancienne, 34, 37-59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/rpha.341.0037.
  67. Zaks, N. (2018). Science de l’entrelacement des formes, science suprême, science des hommes libres : la dialectique dans le Sophiste 253b-254b. Elenchos, 38, 61-81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/elen-2017-0004.
  68. Zuckert, C. (2005). The Stranger’s Political Science vs. Socrates’ Political Art. Plato Journal, 5, 1-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14195/2183-4105_5_5.