Plato thought that dialectic is the method of philosophical inquiry. Yet there is no agreement between scholars regarding Plato\'s view of dialectic. The dominant interpretation, dating back to Robinson\'s Plato\'s Earlier Dialectic, which I call the \"discontinuous\" interpretation (DI), assumes a significant gap between Plato\'s account of dialectic as it is presented in the course of the dialogues. As such, although Plato considered dialectic as the method of philosophical inquiry, the term \'Dialectic\' is just a façon de parler conveying the method he deemed most suitable at different moments. One should note that (DI) entails the following trilemma: Plato\'s dialectic, as the method of philosophical inquiry, must be identified with either Elenchus (E), Hypothesis (H) or Collection & Division (C&D). For example, Irwin (1988:7) argues that one should identify dialectic with (E) while Benson (2015:238) argues that one should identify dialectic with (H). In contrast with (DI), the goal of this dissertation is to defend a \"continuous\" interpretation (CI): Plato introduced a unified view of dialectic as the method of philosophical inquiry in the Phaedrus. My argument supporting (CI) relies on three main premises: (1) The so-called three methods, (E), (H) and (C&D), are three different procedures of one διαλεκτικὴ τέχνη; (2) Plato\'s διαλεκτικὴ τέχνη is both a method of communication and a method of discovering truth; and (3) The Phaedrus (261a-266b) contains Plato\'s unified view of διαλεκτικὴ τέχνη, conceived as an amalgam of (E), (H) and (C&D), and a method of communication and a method of discovering truth. / Platão pensou que a dialética é o método de investigação filosófica. No entanto, não há consenso entre os estudiosos a respeito da sua visão da dialética. A interpretação dominante, que se remonta ao trabalho de Robinson Plato\'s Earlier Dialectic, que eu chamo de interpretação \"descontínua\" (ID), pressupõe que há uma ruptura na visão de Platão sobre a dialética no decorrer dos seus diálogos. Isto significa que ele considerou a dialética como o método de investigação filosófica, mas o termo \'dialética\' é apenas uma façon de parler para se referir ao método que considerou mais adequado em diferentes momentos. Portanto, (ID) implica o seguinte trilema: Devese identificar a visão de Platão sobre a dialética, enquanto o método de investigação filosófica, com o Elenchus (E), com a Hypotesis (H), ou com a Coleção & Divisão (C&D)? Por exemplo, Irwin (1988: 7) afirma que a dialética deve ser identificada com (E), enquanto Benson (2015: 238) afirma que a dialética deve ser identificada com (H). Em contraste com (ID), o objetivo do presente trabalho é defender uma interpretação \"contínua\" (IC): No Fedro Platão introduz uma visão unificada da dialética como método de investigação filosófica. Meu argumento para defender (IC) está baseado em três premissas: (1) os chamados três métodos, (E), (H) e (C&D) são realmente três procedimentos diferentes de uma διαλεκτικὴ τέχνη; (2) a τέχνη διαλεκτικὴ de Platão é o método de comunicação e descoberta da verdade; e (3) o Fedro (261a-266b) contém a visão unificada de Platão sobre a διαλεκτικὴ τέχνη, concebida como uma amálgama de (E), (H) e (C e D), e o método de comunicação e descoberta da verdade.

Plato thought that dialectic is the method of philosophical inquiry. Yet there is no agreement between scholars regarding Plato\'s view of dialectic. The dominant interpretation, dating back to Robinson\'s Plato\'s Earlier Dialectic, which I call the \"discontinuous\" interpretation (DI), assumes a significant gap between Plato\'s account of dialectic as it is presented in the course of the dialogues. As such, although Plato considered dialectic as the method of philosophical inquiry, the term \'Dialectic\' is just a façon de parler conveying the method he deemed most suitable at different moments. One should note that (DI) entails the following trilemma: Plato\'s dialectic, as the method of philosophical inquiry, must be identified with either Elenchus (E), Hypothesis (H) or Collection & Division (C&D). For example, Irwin (1988:7) argues that one should identify dialectic with (E) while Benson (2015:238) argues that one should identify dialectic with (H). In contrast with (DI), the goal of this dissertation is to defend a \"continuous\" interpretation (CI): Plato introduced a unified view of dialectic as the method of philosophical inquiry in the Phaedrus. My argument supporting (CI) relies on three main premises: (1) The so-called three methods, (E), (H) and (C&D), are three different procedures of one διαλεκτικὴ τέχνη; (2) Plato\'s διαλεκτικὴ τέχνη is both a method of communication and a method of discovering truth; and (3) The Phaedrus (261a-266b) contains Plato\'s unified view of διαλεκτικὴ τέχνη, conceived as an amalgam of (E), (H) and (C&D), and a method of communication and a method of discovering truth. / Platão pensou que a dialética é o método de investigação filosófica. No entanto, não há consenso entre os estudiosos a respeito da sua visão da dialética. A interpretação dominante, que se remonta ao trabalho de Robinson Plato\'s Earlier Dialectic, que eu chamo de interpretação \"descontínua\" (ID), pressupõe que há uma ruptura na visão de Platão sobre a dialética no decorrer dos seus diálogos. Isto significa que ele considerou a dialética como o método de investigação filosófica, mas o termo \'dialética\' é apenas uma façon de parler para se referir ao método que considerou mais adequado em diferentes momentos. Portanto, (ID) implica o seguinte trilema: Devese identificar a visão de Platão sobre a dialética, enquanto o método de investigação filosófica, com o Elenchus (E), com a Hypotesis (H), ou com a Coleção & Divisão (C&D)? Por exemplo, Irwin (1988: 7) afirma que a dialética deve ser identificada com (E), enquanto Benson (2015: 238) afirma que a dialética deve ser identificada com (H). Em contraste com (ID), o objetivo do presente trabalho é defender uma interpretação \"contínua\" (IC): No Fedro Platão introduz uma visão unificada da dialética como método de investigação filosófica. Meu argumento para defender (IC) está baseado em três premissas: (1) os chamados três métodos, (E), (H) e (C&D) são realmente três procedimentos diferentes de uma διαλεκτικὴ τέχνη; (2) a τέχνη διαλεκτικὴ de Platão é o método de comunicação e descoberta da verdade; e (3) o Fedro (261a-266b) contém a visão unificada de Platão sobre a διαλεκτικὴ τέχνη, concebida como uma amálgama de (E), (H) e (C e D), e o método de comunicação e descoberta da verdade.

This study discusses the history of the Arabs of north Arabia in later pre-Islamic times. This study provides an in-depth discussion of Arab ethnicity, which contributes to the improvement of our knowledge regarding this controversial issue. This study argues that the Arab nation is, in fact, a very old one of great importance, but the Arabs themselves had no consciousness of their unity and did not leave inscriptions proclaiming their identity as Arabs or claim to be the rightful proprietors of specific territories. An examination is made of the reasons behind the emergence of kingship in different communities through the course of history, in order to determine the general features of kingship. This study demonstrates that kingship in north Arabia had almost every feature of kingship as it appeared in other places. Particular attention is paid in the study to delivering a full and coherent account of the history of Qedar. Although, some scholars have tried to write the history of Qedar, their works remain fragmentary or inconsistent. Basing the examination not merely on most of the previous works, we subject those works to a comparison with the Assyrian inscriptions. By so doing, it has proved possible to critique the previous works and clarify many ambiguous issues in Qedarite history. Moreover, this study contributes to the improvement of our knowledge regarding Nebaioth and Na-ba-a-a-ti and their relationship with the Nabataeans. This study finds that the Nebaioth and Nabataeans were different, contemporary groups living during the sixth century BCE, even though the first direct and uncontested evidence of the Nabataeans of Petra comes from the late fourth century BCE, when the Nabataeans made their first clear appearance in Diodorus Siculus in connection with the expansion of the Seleucid Empire (312 BCE). The main settlement centres in north Arabia are discussed in depth in Chapter Five. This study traces the history of Tayma, Adummatu and Dedan, establishing the importance of those oases and their relationship with Mesopotamia. The discussion of those oases produces useful results, which contribute to improving our knowledge and assist in our understanding of issues relating to the history of those sites.

No description available.

O que é e como é a σωφροσύνη (ό τι ἐστι καὶ ὁποȋόν τι ἡ σωφροσύνη)? Esta é a questão que Sócrates propõe a seus interlocutores, Carmides e Critias, examinarem juntos no diálogo de juventude de Platão, o Carmides, diálogo tentativo ou de exame (πϵιραστικός). Σωφροσύνη é fazer todas as coisas ordenada e calmamente (τò κοσμίως πάυτα πράττϵιν καὶ ἡσυxῇ)? É um sentimento como pudor ou reserva (άἰδως)? É cuidar de suas próprias coisas (τὸ τὰ αὑτοῡ πράττϵιν)? Σωφροσύνη seria fazer coisas boas (τῶν ἀγαθῶν πρᾱξιν)? Ou, ainda, conhecer-se a si mesmo (τὸ γιγνώσκϵιν ἑαυτόν)? Seria ciência das outras ciências e ciência de si mesma (ἐπιστημῶυ ἐπιστήμη ἐστὶ καὶ αὐτὴ ἑαυτῆς)? Ou seria, finalmente, o conhecimento do bem e do mal (τὸ ἀγαθόν καὶ τὸ κακόν)? Como em outros propriamente chamados diálogos socráticos de Platão (no Laques é a coragem, no Eutífron é a piedade) nos quais se examina se uma virtude particular é conhecimento, no Carmides trata-se de examinar se a σωφροσύνη é conhecimento. Se é, é conhecimento de quê? E qual é, para nós, o benefício desta virtude, concebida como conhecimento? Estas são algumas das questões examinadas por Sócrates neste diálogo. Este trabalho pretende acompanhar passo a passo esta que é a primeira investigação (ἐξέτασις) socrática acerca da σωφροσύνη nos diálogos de Platão. Ou, dito de outro modo, este trabalho pretende acompanhar o passo a passo do filosofar socrático no diálogo Carmides. / What is it and how is σωφροσύνη (ό τι ἐστι καὶ ὁποȋόν τι ἡ σωφροσύνη)? This is the question that Socrates proposes to his interlocutors, Critias and Charmides, examine together in the dialogue of youth of Plato, the Charmides, tentative dialogue or examination (πϵιραστικός). Σωφροσύνη is make all things orderly and quietly (τò κοσμίως πάυτα πράττϵιν καὶ ἡσυxῇ)? Its a feeling like modesty or reserve (άἰδως)? You take care of your own things (τὸ τὰ αὑτοῡ πράττϵιν)? Σωφροσύνη would do good things (τῶν ἀγαθῶν πρᾱξιν)? Or even know himself (τὸ γιγνώσκϵιν ἑαυτόν)? Would be science of other sciences and science of herself (ἐπιστημῶυ ἐπιστήμη ἐστὶ καὶ αὐτὴ ἑαυτῆς)? Or would it be finally the knowledge of good and evil (τὸ ἀγαθόν καὶ τὸ κακόν)? Like in others properly called Socratic dialogues of Plato (in the Laches is the courage, in the Euthyphro is the piety) in which examines whether a particular virtue is knowledge, in the Charmides it is examining whether σωφροσύνη is knowledge. If it is, is knowledge of what? And what is, for us, the benefit of this virtue, conceived as knowledge? These are some of the issues examined by Socrates in this dialogue. This work intends to follow step by step this is that the first Socratic investigation (ἐξέτασις) about σωφροσύνη in the dialogues of Plato. Or, put another way, this work intends to follow step by step the Socratic philosophy in dialogue Charmides.

O que é e como é a σωφροσύνη (ό τι ἐστι καὶ ὁποȋόν τι ἡ σωφροσύνη)? Esta é a questão que Sócrates propõe a seus interlocutores, Carmides e Critias, examinarem juntos no diálogo de juventude de Platão, o Carmides, diálogo tentativo ou de exame (πϵιραστικός). Σωφροσύνη é fazer todas as coisas ordenada e calmamente (τò κοσμίως πάυτα πράττϵιν καὶ ἡσυxῇ)? É um sentimento como pudor ou reserva (άἰδως)? É cuidar de suas próprias coisas (τὸ τὰ αὑτοῡ πράττϵιν)? Σωφροσύνη seria fazer coisas boas (τῶν ἀγαθῶν πρᾱξιν)? Ou, ainda, conhecer-se a si mesmo (τὸ γιγνώσκϵιν ἑαυτόν)? Seria ciência das outras ciências e ciência de si mesma (ἐπιστημῶυ ἐπιστήμη ἐστὶ καὶ αὐτὴ ἑαυτῆς)? Ou seria, finalmente, o conhecimento do bem e do mal (τὸ ἀγαθόν καὶ τὸ κακόν)? Como em outros propriamente chamados diálogos socráticos de Platão (no Laques é a coragem, no Eutífron é a piedade) nos quais se examina se uma virtude particular é conhecimento, no Carmides trata-se de examinar se a σωφροσύνη é conhecimento. Se é, é conhecimento de quê? E qual é, para nós, o benefício desta virtude, concebida como conhecimento? Estas são algumas das questões examinadas por Sócrates neste diálogo. Este trabalho pretende acompanhar passo a passo esta que é a primeira investigação (ἐξέτασις) socrática acerca da σωφροσύνη nos diálogos de Platão. Ou, dito de outro modo, este trabalho pretende acompanhar o passo a passo do filosofar socrático no diálogo Carmides. / What is it and how is σωφροσύνη (ό τι ἐστι καὶ ὁποȋόν τι ἡ σωφροσύνη)? This is the question that Socrates proposes to his interlocutors, Critias and Charmides, examine together in the dialogue of youth of Plato, the Charmides, tentative dialogue or examination (πϵιραστικός). Σωφροσύνη is make all things orderly and quietly (τò κοσμίως πάυτα πράττϵιν καὶ ἡσυxῇ)? Its a feeling like modesty or reserve (άἰδως)? You take care of your own things (τὸ τὰ αὑτοῡ πράττϵιν)? Σωφροσύνη would do good things (τῶν ἀγαθῶν πρᾱξιν)? Or even know himself (τὸ γιγνώσκϵιν ἑαυτόν)? Would be science of other sciences and science of herself (ἐπιστημῶυ ἐπιστήμη ἐστὶ καὶ αὐτὴ ἑαυτῆς)? Or would it be finally the knowledge of good and evil (τὸ ἀγαθόν καὶ τὸ κακόν)? Like in others properly called Socratic dialogues of Plato (in the Laches is the courage, in the Euthyphro is the piety) in which examines whether a particular virtue is knowledge, in the Charmides it is examining whether σωφροσύνη is knowledge. If it is, is knowledge of what? And what is, for us, the benefit of this virtue, conceived as knowledge? These are some of the issues examined by Socrates in this dialogue. This work intends to follow step by step this is that the first Socratic investigation (ἐξέτασις) about σωφροσύνη in the dialogues of Plato. Or, put another way, this work intends to follow step by step the Socratic philosophy in dialogue Charmides.

This dissertation on "Archaeology and the Israelite Cult" covers a period of ca. I 000 years, dating from the time of the Hebrew patriarchs ca.l950 B.C.E. to the end of the monarchy which is given as ca. 950 B.C.E. The archaeological findings are related to five significant and major excavation sites in Palestine which have been found to embrace the time span under consideration and point in many ways to the practice of the Israelite or Canaanite cult. These five sites are:- a) The Bull Site b) Kuntillet Ajrud c) The Fortress- Sanctuary at Arad d) Shechem e) Megiddo The writings of the Israelite cult are scant and commence mainly with the patriarchs. The time of Abraham and his recognition of a monolatrous god. The beginning of the complex Y ahwistic cult introduced by Moses in the Sinai Desert, following Israelite escape from Egypt. The Israelite cultic practices, which are now considered to be syncrestic, are discussed where they relate to biblical texts and archaeological findings of confirmation. / Biblical and Ancient Studies / M.A. (Biblical Studies)

Text in Afrikaans / Die verhandeling behels 'n holistiese benadering tot die geskiedenis van die Israelitiese stamme/clans gedurende die 'tyd van die Rigters' (soos in die Ou Testament gereflekteer). Na my mening het 'n holistiese benadering die potensiaal om 'n meer komprehensiewe beeld van die 'Rigtertyd' te verkry. 'n Vierledige ondersoek na die situasie van die Israelitiese stamme/clans word daarom aan die hand van die politieke konteks, die sosio-kulturele en ekonomiese situasie, die godsdienstig-ideologiese aspek en die literere dimensie gedoen. In die laaste hoofstuk is daar gepoog om die verskillende dimensies op mekaar te betrek. Opsommend kan gese word dat byna alle aktiwiteite gedurende hierdie periode ongestruktureerd en sonder orde was, dit wil se daar was anargie in die Beloofde Land. · Elkeen het gedoen wat reg was in sy eie oe' (Rgt 21 :25). / This dissertation deals with a holistic approach towards the history of the Israelite tribes/clans throughout the 'period of the Judges' (as referred to in the Old Testament). In my opinion, a holistic approach has the potential to offer a more comprehensive analysis of the 'period of the Judges'. A fourfold investigation into the situation of the Israelite tribes/clans is carried out involving the political context, the socio-cultural and economic situation, the religious-ideological aspect and the literary dimension. In the last chapter an attempt is made to integrate the different dimensions. To conclude, it can be said that nearly all phenomena in the tribal period was characterized by a lack of structure or order, in other words, there was anarchy in the Promised Land. 'Everyone did what was right in his own eyes' (Jdg 21 :25). / Biblical and Ancient Studies / M.A. (Bybelkunde)

Text in Afrikaans / Die Nimsiede het gedurende die laat 9de en vroeë 8ste eeue oor Israel geregeer. Psalm 15 is waarskynlik gedurende die 8ste eeu, tydens die regering van koning Jerobeam II geskryf. ’n Mondelinge tradisie het in die tyd van die Omriede ontstaan en is gedurende die Nimsiede-periode voortgesit . Psalm 15 reflekteer iets van die sosio-ekonomiese konteks van hierdie tydperk. ’n Analise word gedoen om ’n moontlike verbinding met die regering van die Nimsiede te bevestig. ’n Analise word ook gedoen van die emosies wat in die psalm uitdrukking vind. / Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Studies / M. Th. (Old Testament)

This dissertation on "Archaeology and the Israelite Cult" covers a period of ca. I 000 years, dating from the time of the Hebrew patriarchs ca.l950 B.C.E. to the end of the monarchy which is given as ca. 950 B.C.E. The archaeological findings are related to five significant and major excavation sites in Palestine which have been found to embrace the time span under consideration and point in many ways to the practice of the Israelite or Canaanite cult. These five sites are:- a) The Bull Site b) Kuntillet Ajrud c) The Fortress- Sanctuary at Arad d) Shechem e) Megiddo The writings of the Israelite cult are scant and commence mainly with the patriarchs. The time of Abraham and his recognition of a monolatrous god. The beginning of the complex Y ahwistic cult introduced by Moses in the Sinai Desert, following Israelite escape from Egypt. The Israelite cultic practices, which are now considered to be syncrestic, are discussed where they relate to biblical texts and archaeological findings of confirmation. / Biblical and Ancient Studies / M.A. (Biblical Studies)