English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article replies to the critical note by Trabattoni («Elenchos», xxxiii (2012) pp. 69-107). The author defends his interpretation of Plato's Theaetetus against Trabattoni's objections, arguing that the maieutic and peirastic character of the dialogue explains its negative or aporetic conclusion. For the failure of all the attempts to define knowledge in the dialogue doesn't mean that, according to Plato, knowledge is not possible for men or that it can be identified with doxa; on the contrary, Plato clearly states that the philosopher, i.e. the dialectician, is absolutely able to attain the perfect knowledge of the forms. The subsequent failures in the Theaetetus, particularly the last two, depend on the admission of an "additive model'' according to which knowledge is "doxa plus something'', an epistemological attitude that is explicitly rejected in the Meno.

L'interpretazione del Teeteto e la natura della epistemologia platonica. Alcune osservazioni