• OpenAccess
    • List of Articles techne

      • Open Access Article

        1 - The Relationships Among Eros, Techne, and Philosophy in Plato’s Symposium and Phaedrus (With a Critical Emphasis on the Views of Vlastos and Nussbaum)
        Javid  Kazemi Seyyed Mohammad  Hakak Ali Naqi  Baqershahi Mohammad Raayat Jahromi
        Eros, the Greek god of love, in addition to its different meanings in the pre-Socratic mythological and philosophical history, has been used in Plato’s philosophy in different senses. This diversity has misled its interpreters in translating it into erroneous meanings s More
        Eros, the Greek god of love, in addition to its different meanings in the pre-Socratic mythological and philosophical history, has been used in Plato’s philosophy in different senses. This diversity has misled its interpreters in translating it into erroneous meanings such as love. The present paper examines the meaning of eros in Plato’s two Dialogs of Symposium and Phaedrus and then explores its relationship with philosophy and techne. In the dialog of Symposium, after being used in some different meanings, Eros is used in the sense of the longing and desire for observing absolute beauty, which is the same philosophy. This is because in Plato’s philosophy, the difference between the Idea of the good (philosophy is a motive for viewing it) and the Idea of beauty is mentally-posited. In other words, the Ideas of the good and absolute beauty are the same truth that is viewed from two points of view. Now that dialectics – an activity in which multiple details are recognized from the one and the one from multiple details – is introduced in the dialog of Phaedrus as an instrument of techne, it can be concluded that the Platonic lover, and the philosopher cannot perceive the Idea of beauty (or the good) unless through techne. The major problems in this paper are discussed based on the views of two interpreters of Plato, Gregory Velastos and Martha Nussbaum. Manuscript profile
      • Open Access Article

        2 - A Comparative Analysis of the Relationship between Tyche or Chance and Techne in Aristotle and Plutarch
        Maryam Samadieh
        Aristotle holds a dual approach to the relationship between techne and tyche (chance). On the one hand, he uses the two terms in the same meaning with the same subject in his Nichomacean Ethics, and in Rhetoric introduces chance as the cause of attaining a limited numbe More
        Aristotle holds a dual approach to the relationship between techne and tyche (chance). On the one hand, he uses the two terms in the same meaning with the same subject in his Nichomacean Ethics, and in Rhetoric introduces chance as the cause of attaining a limited number of good things through techne. On the other hand, he connects techne and experience with chance and lack of experience and introduces techne and chance as two opposing concepts. This is because he believes that experience creates techne, and lack of experience exposes Man to chance and accident. A study of Aristotle’s thoughts reveals the reality that techne cannot originate in chance because it demands the knowledge of cause, while chance or luck is an accidental, indeterminate, and unstable cause. Moreover, a study of the relation of techne to aletheia or unconcealedness and disclosure indicates that techne cannot emerge from chance. The reason is that, in Aristotle’s view, techne is a rational virtue that results in revealing the truth, which is itself the result of artists’ knowledge and awareness of the outcome of their craft. Similar to Aristotle, Plutarch accepts chance as a cause; however, he maintains that the existence of techne renders chance meaningless. He believes that techne is rooted in human wisdom and cannot arise from chance. Manuscript profile