Bryson of Heraclea and Polyxenus, Megarian Philosophers
In: PhronesisSearch for other papers by Santiago Chame in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
Bryson of Heraclea and Polyxenus have received little attention from scholars. Sources on these philosophers are few and difficult to interpret. However, they present interesting dialectical arguments that concern some of Plato’s and Aristotle’s most important theoretical elaborations: Bryson’s arguments on the issue of semantic ambiguity were explicitly discussed by Aristotle, and Polyxenus is credited with a particular version of the Third Man argument. My purpose in this paper is to reconstruct the historical background of these two philosophers and to analyze the philosophical implications of the arguments that the ancient tradition ascribes to them.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Allen, J. (2019). Megara and Dialectic. In: Bénatouïl, T. and Ierodiakonou, K., eds., Dialectic after Plato and Aristotle, Cambridge, pp. 17–46.
-
Blank, D. (2014). Ammonius: On Aristotle On Interpretation 1–8. London.
-
Brancacci, A. (1990). Oikeios logos: La filosofia del linguaggio di Antistene. Napoli.
-
Brancacci, A. (2018). Socratism and Eleaticism in Euclides of Megara. In: Stavru, A. and Moore, C., eds., Socrates and the Socratic Dialogue, Leiden, pp. 161–178.
-
Cambiano, G. (1971). La Scuola Megarica nelle interpretazioni moderne. Rivista di Filosofia 62, pp. 227–253.
-
Čelkytė, A. (2023). The Medico-oikonomic Model of Human Nature in Bryson’s Oikonomikos. Phronesis 68, pp. 206–235.
-
Chame, S. (2017). La ontología negativa en las filosofías socráticas y sus proyecciones interepocales. Eidos: Revista de Filosofía de la Universidad Del Norte 27, pp. 39–69.
-
Chame, S. (2021). El λόγος propio y el problema de la verdad en Antístenes. Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 71, pp. 383–410.
-
Chame, S. (2022). On the Megarians of Metaphysics IX 3. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie (published ahead of print, October 8, 2022), pp. 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1515/agph-2021-0086.
-
Cherniss, H. (1944). Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato and the Academy. Baltimore.
-
Cordero, N.L. (2001). L’interprétation antisthénienne de la notion platonicienne de ‘forme’ (eidos, idea). In: Fattal, M., ed., La philosophie de Platon, Paris, pp. 323–344.
-
De Strycker, É. (1949). Aristote, critique de Platon. L’Antiquité classique 18, pp. 95–107.
-
Denyer, N. (2002). Neglected Evidence for Diodorus Cronus. Classical Quarterly 52, pp. 597–600.
-
Denyer, N. (2009). Diodorus Cronus: Modality, the Master Argument and Formalisation. Humana Mente 3, pp. 33–46.
-
Dorion, L.-A. (1995). Aristote: Les réfutations sophistiques. Introduction, traduction et commentaire. Paris.
-
Dorion, L.-A. (2000). Euthydème et Dionysodore sont-ils des Mégariques? In: Robinson, T. and Brisson, L., eds., Plato: Euthydemus, Lysis, Charmides. Proceedings of the V Symposium Platonicum, Sankt Augustin, pp. 35–50.
-
Döring, K. (1972). Die Megariker: Kommentierte Sammlung der Testimonien. Amsterdam.
-
Döring, K. (1989). Gab es eine Dialektische Schule? Phronesis 34, pp. 293–310.
-
Duncombe, M. (2023). Diodorus Cronus on Present and Past Change. Journal of the History of Philosophy 61, pp. 167–192.
-
Freese, J.H. (1926). Aristotle: Art of Rhetoric. Cambridge, MA.
-
Fritz, K. von (1931). Megariker. In: Pauly-Wissowa Realenzyklopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaf, supl. V. Stuttgart, pp. 707–724.
-
Gardella, M. (2013). Conflictos socráticos en el Eutidemo: la crítica platónica a la dialéctica megárica. Argos. Revista de la Asociación Argentina de Estudios Clásicos 36, pp. 45–64.
-
Gardella, M. (2015). Las críticas de los filósofos megáricos a la ontología platónica. Buenos Aires.
-
Gaskin, R. (1995). The Sea Battle and the Master Argument: Aristotle and Diodorus Cronus on the Metaphysics of the Future. Berlin.
-
Giannantoni, G. (1981). Il κυριεύων λόγος di Diodoro Crono. Elenchos 2, pp. 239–272.
-
Giannantoni, G. (1990). Socratis et Socraticorum Reliquiae, IV vols. Naples.
-
Gillespie, C.M. (1911). On the Megarians. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 24, pp. 218–241.
-
Graeser, A. (1974). Der ‘Dritte Mensch’ des Polyxenos. Museum Helveticum 31, pp. 140–143.
-
Gourinat, J.-B. (2021). Mégariques, éristiques ou dialecticiens: sur une appellation d’origine incontrôlée. In: Delcomminette, S. and Lachance, G., eds., L’éristique: définitions, caractérisations et historicité, Brussels, pp. 103–132.
-
Hicks, R.D. (1972) [1925]. Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Cambridge, MA.
-
Kneale, W. and Kneale, M. (1962). The Development of Logic. Oxford.
-
Mallet, M.C. (1845). Histoire de l’école de Mégare et des écoles d’Élis et d’Érétrie. Paris.
-
Mársico, C. (2005). Platón: Crátilo. Buenos Aires.
-
Mársico, C. (2011). Megaric Philosophy between Socrates’ Influence and Parmenides’ Ghost. In: Cordero, N.L., ed., Parmenides: Venerable and Awesome, Las Vegas, pp. 353–361.
-
Mársico, C. (2012). Ni el hombre es blanco ni el caballo corre. Argumentos antiplatónicos en Estilpón de Mégara. Méthexis 25, pp. 9–33.
-
Mársico, C. (2013). Filósofos socráticos. Testimonios y fragmentos I: Megáricos y cirenaicos. Buenos Aires.
-
Mársico, C. (2020). Intra-Socratic Polemics in Plato’s Theaetetus: Antisthenes and the Dream Theory. In: Bossi, B. and Robinson, T.M., eds., Plato’s Theaetetus Revisited, Berlin, pp. 133–146.
-
Mársico, C. (2023). Friendly Fire: Dialectic Struggles Between Plato and the Megarics. In: Mouzala, M.G., ed., Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception, Berlin, pp. 83–104.
-
Montoneri, L. (1984). I Megarici: Studio storico-critico e traduzione delle testimonianze antiche. Catania.
-
Moline, J. (1969). Aristotle, Eubulides and the Sorites. Mind 78, pp. 393–407.
-
Mueller, I. (1982). Aristotle and the Quadrature of the Circle. In: Kretzmann, N., ed., Infinity and Continuity in Ancient and Medieval thought, Ithaca, pp. 146–164.
-
Muller, R. (1985). Les Mégariques. Fragments et témoignages. Paris.
-
Muller, R. (1988). Introduction à la pensée des Mégariques. Paris.
-
Muller, R. (2008). À propos du possible mégarique. In Crubellier, M. et al., eds., Dunamis: Autour de la puissance chez Aristote, Leuven, pp. 303–325.
-
Olson, S.D. (2006). Athenaeus of Naucratis, The learned Banqueters. Books 10.420e–11. Cambridge, MA.
-
Roeper, G. (1854). I. Conjecturen zu Laertius Diogenes. Philologus 9, pp. 1–42.
-
Rolfe, J.C. (1927). The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius. With an English Translation. Cambridge, MA.
-
Schleiermacher, F. (1824). Platons Werke. Zweiten Theiles, Zweiter Band. Berlin.
-
Sedley, D. (1977). Diodorus Cronus and Hellenistic Philosophy. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 23, pp. 74–120.
-
Taylor, A.E. (1961). Plato’s The Sophist and The Statesman. Translation and Introduction by A. E. Taylor. Eds. Klibansky, R. and Anscombe, E. Edinburgh.
-
Villar, F. (2016). Los megáricos como sofistas erísticos: La respuesta platónica al ataque de Isócrates contra los Socráticos. Eidos: Revista de Filosofía de la Universidad Del Norte 25, pp. 185–213.
-
Villar, F. (2018). Los argumentos dialécticos de Eubúlides de Mileto: el Mentiroso, el Sorites, el Velado y el Cornudo. Factótum. Revista de Filosofía 19, pp. 48–59.
-
Villar, F. (2023). The Term ‘Sophist’ in Xenophon. In: Mársico, C. and Rossi Nunes Lopes, D., eds., Xenophon, the Philosopher: Argumentation and Ethics, Berlin, pp. 249–262.
-
Wehrli, F. (1957). Phainias von Eresos, Chamaileon, Praxiphanes (Die Schule des Aristoteles). Basel.
-
Wheeler, S.C. (1983). Megarian Paradoxes as Eleatic Arguments. American Philosophical Quarterly 20, pp. 287–295.
-
Zeller, E. (1846). Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung. Zweiter Teil, erste Abteilung. Sokrates und die Sokratiker. Plato und die alte Akademie. Tübingen.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 365 | 365 | 13 |
| Full Text Views | 62 | 62 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 161 | 161 | 2 |
Bryson of Heraclea and Polyxenus, Megarian Philosophers
In: PhronesisSearch for other papers by Santiago Chame in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
Bryson of Heraclea and Polyxenus have received little attention from scholars. Sources on these philosophers are few and difficult to interpret. However, they present interesting dialectical arguments that concern some of Plato’s and Aristotle’s most important theoretical elaborations: Bryson’s arguments on the issue of semantic ambiguity were explicitly discussed by Aristotle, and Polyxenus is credited with a particular version of the Third Man argument. My purpose in this paper is to reconstruct the historical background of these two philosophers and to analyze the philosophical implications of the arguments that the ancient tradition ascribes to them.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 365 | 365 | 13 |
| Full Text Views | 62 | 62 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 161 | 161 | 2 |
