|
|
The similarity between Socrates and Jesus of Nazarteh
Čížková, Blanka ; Hogenová, Anna (advisor) ; Blažková, Miloslava (referee)
This paper's focus was the similarity between Socrates and Jesus. We have compared various events and circumstances in their lives and in their teachings. Both men were responsible for the emergence of a thinking that was unparalleled until then. Their teaching is of an ethical kind. The task of every man is not only to know the virtues of goodness, justice, truth, etc. but to live by them.
|
|
|
The Sophists as seen by Plato and Aristotle, and their reappraisal by Hegel
Dovhoruk, Ivanna ; Thein, Karel (advisor) ; Jinek, Jakub (referee)
This work is an inquiry of the original traces of negative and positive criticism of the sophists. Through the interpretation of the relevant passages in selected works of Plato, Aristotle and Hegel we will try to seize the main reasons that have led these thinkers to the rejection of sophistry, or for its appreciation. Thence, there will not be taken into account the Sophists as a philosophical phenomenon, but what Plato, Aristotle and Hegel say about them. At the same time we give up all criticism and evaluation, because we do not want to seek advantages and disadvantages of these opinions; we just want to know what they are. The first chapter includes four interpretations of Plato's dialogues Protagoras, Gorgias, Sophist and Euthydemus. In the second chapter we will try through the Aristotle's reading of the first fifteen chapters of his writings Sophistical Refutations seize the reasons for his adverse assessment of the Sophists. The third chapter examines Hegel's appreciation of sophistry, which results from his conception of the history of philosophy as a necessary process of evolution in his Lectures on the History of Philosophy. In the conclusion the results of inquiry and overall summary will be presented.
|
|
|
The Sophists as seen by Plato and Aristotle, and their reappraisal by Hegel
Dovhoruk, Ivanna ; Thein, Karel (advisor) ; Jinek, Jakub (referee)
This work is an inquiry of the original traces of negative and positive criticism of the sophists. Through the interpretation of the relevant passages in selected works of Plato, Aristotle and Hegel we will try to seize the main reasons that have led these thinkers to the rejection of sophistry, or for its appreciation. Thence, there will not be taken into account the Sophists as a philosophical phenomenon, but what Plato, Aristotle and Hegel say about them. At the same time we give up all criticism and evaluation, because we do not want to seek advantages and disadvantages of these opinions; we just want to know what they are. The first chapter includes four interpretations of Plato's dialogues Protagoras, Gorgias, Sophist and Euthydemus. In the second chapter we will try through the Aristotle's reading of the first fifteen chapters of his writings Sophistical Refutations seize the reasons for his adverse assessment of the Sophists. The third chapter examines Hegel's appreciation of sophistry, which results from his conception of the history of philosophy as a necessary process of evolution in his Lectures on the History of Philosophy. In the conclusion the results of inquiry and overall summary will be presented.
|
|
|
Sophists and their way of education
MATERNOVÁ, Kateřina
The work deals with the education of sophists in ancient Greece. It is divided into three parts ? the first one deals with the historical context of creation of sophists and it describes their basic ideas. The second part is dedicated to the way of sophistic education and also to the most important sophistic personalities ? Protagoras and Gorgias. In this part, there is a chapter about rhetoric and its importace for sophists. The last part describes the influence of sophists on important people of ancient Greece ? Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Also their influence in the future is mentioned. The purpose of the work is to describe sophistic methods of education, their meaning and influence.
|
|
|
Who is Afraid of Being Smart?
Chvatík, Ivan
Although the dialogue is formally aporetical, this paper argues that Plato succeeded in grapsing – between the lines – the phronesis Charmides is looking for. However, this is not possible by means of a definition, since phronesis is neither a thing nor substantial knowledge. It seems to be a sort of self-reference, an ability to project one’s acting in unpredictable situations, to judge if something was done well or wrong, to consider what one knows and what not. Hence phronesis is the ability which precedes and makes any knowledge possible and without which nobody can act well and be happy. In this sense the phronesis of this dialogue is closely connected with the Platonic concept of the good and has much in common with the Platonic concept of human "immortality".
|
|
|
Why to Go to Study with Euthydemus?
Chvatík, Ivan
The paper attempts to show that the purpose of the Euthydemus is not to ridicule the sophist’s art of disputation, but rather to point out the problems which serious philosophical dialectics encounters in the very essence of language, especially as concerns initiating others into this highest of all human activities. As the author sees it, the dialogue denies the possibility of teaching philosophy as the supreme human virtue and way to bliss, while explaining the paradoxical characteristics of such a virtue. This special virtue, i.e. human rationality (phronesis), is inherent in human beings; one cannot learn it extrinsically, but merely cultivate it as such. The author finally suggests further consideration of whether Plato’s concept of phronesis can be identified with his idea of the Good.
|
|
|
Polytropos Odysseus, polytropoteros Hippias, polytropotatos Sokrates
Chvatík, Ivan
The paper attempts to figure out the message of the dialogue from its text alone, without recurring to other dialogues or to an "unwritten doctrine". Socrates defeats Hippias in the discussion not by a superiority in positive knowledge but by his wits. He implicitly shows the reader that it is wrong to believe with Hippias that the morality of the character would be an ability of the kind of a positive knowledge. The message of the dialogue results in understanding that the human wit is more than knowledge, makes it possible, and enables us to use it morally well or evil. It is wit which makes us human, not knowledge.
|
|
|
Static and Dynamic Model of Education in Clasical Times
Boháček, Kryštof
The article confronts two competitive educational models of ancient Greece: the sophistic and platonic one. Both educational and tuitional model has been continuously modified in many different ways through the european history, it is also possible to see them in present approach. Plato´s dynamic model, focused particularly on tuition and future potential, proves even today its generally valid acceptance, while sophist´s static model is forced to adaptate increasingly with difficulties to changeable reality in the era of globalization.
|
guest ::
