Plato grammaticus. On the Platonic Concept of epistēmē in the Theaetetus’ Dream-theory”. Theaetetus’ third definition of epistēmē was traditionally labeled as a precursor of the so-called Justified True Belief Knowledge-Model. Nevertheless, Plato’s point in the last section of this dialogue is more elaborated than this classification deems it. I will examine here why and how Plato develops such a strange doctrine as the Dream-theory in order to offer an interpretation of the problem of justification as discussed in the Theaetetus. Thanks to this strategy, I will show that Plato’s Theaetetus aims to prove that the forms are necessary tools not only to justify true beliefs but also, and consequently, to define what knowledge is. The upshots of this analysis with regard to the complex character of the objects of knowledge will lead to a reconsideration of Plato’s theory of knowledge and metaphysics. Additionally, they will result in a better understanding of his contribution on certain epistemological and semantic issues. / Siendo el símil de la línea un mero esbozo, deja muchos temas por esclarecer. El autor intenta echar luces sobre algunos de ellos apoyándose en otros pasajes de la República. Así, propone una correspondencia entre la reflexión sobre la estructura del alma en base al principio de no-contradicción y el segmento de la línea correspondiente a la dianoia, y analiza el curriculum matemático del filósofo para intentar precisar la naturaleza de las imágenes a las que se refiere la eikasia y la naturaleza de los entes matemáticos como objetos de la dianoia.

This dissertation takes as its starting point the claim made by Plato in the Theaetetus that wonder is the origin of philosophy. The aim of the dissertation is to understand this claim and to propose a reading of Plato’s dialogues which shows that this claim applies to at least two kinds of philosophical act, though in different ways. We accomplish this aim through a thorough examination of cross-examination and contemplation as distinct acts of philosophy and through an examination of where and how the notion of wonder appears and operates in these philosophical contexts. In the end, we see two distinct kinds of philosophical wonder (aporetic wonder and contemplative wonder), each corresponding to a distinct philosophical act, and each complying with Plato’s claim about wonder in different but complimentary ways. Aporetic wonder arises within a subject as the result of cross-examination, and contemplative wonder arises when the philosopher is confronted by the wonderful objects of contemplation (i.e., the forms).

Cet ouvrage a comme objectif de définir la nature et le rôle des disciplines mathématiques (ou dianoia) dans le système épistémologique élaboré au sein de la République de Platon. Décrite au livre VI (509d-511e), l’analogie de la ligne complexifie l’épistémologie dualiste classique, opposant opinion et science, vers une épistémologie à quatre paliers. Un espace intermédiaire entre les deux grands pôles est maintenant dégagé pour accueillir les disciplines mathématiques. Ainsi, malgré leur appartenance à la grande catégorie de l’intelligible, Platon refuse de leur accorder le statut de science, qu’il réserve à la noêsis. Le problème de l’objet de la dianoia repose sur le caractère hybride de cette section de la ligne. Le débat se divise entre deux grandes lectures : la première avance l’existence d’un objet propre aux disciplines mathématiques alors que l’autre n’admet qu’un seul objet pour l’intelligible, partagé par la dianoia et la noêsis. Notre travail débutera avec l’examen de ces des deux grands types d’interprétation. Nous tâcherons ensuite de montrer en quoi il existe une rupture épistémologique forte entre la dianoia et la noêsis, un écart qui semble suggérer la présence de deux objets distincts. Ce raisonnement est fondé sur une analyse du livre VII, soit, spécifiquement, l’exposé sur la fonction propédeutique de la mathématique dans l’éducation des dirigeants. Enfin, quant à la nature de cet objet, c’est l’hypothèse, interprétée comme une espèce d’opinion vraie, qui constitue selon nous le candidat le plus crédible à ce rôle. / This work aims to define the nature and role of mathematical disciplines (dianoia) in the epistemological system elaborated in the Republic. Described in book VI (509d-511e), the image of the divided line complexifies the classical dualistic epistemology, opposing opinion and science, thereby created an epistemological model operating on four levels: an intermediate space is opened between the two extremes to make room for mathematical disciplines. Thereby, and despite their belonging to the great category of the intelligible, Plato refuses to grant them the status of science, which he reserves for noêsis. The problem with dianoias’ object lies with its hybrid character. The literature is divided between two main interpretations: the first argues for the existence of an object proper to mathematical disciplines, while the other defends that there is only one intelligible object, split between dianoia and noêsis. The literature is divided between two main interpretations: the first argues for the existence of an object proper to mathematical disciplines, while the other defends that there is only one intelligible object, share between dianoia and noesis. Our work will begin with an examination of these two main interpretations. We will then attempt to demonstrate that there is a strong epistemological discontinuity between noêsis and dianoia, a gap which suggest the presence of two distinct objects. This argument is based on a close reading of book VII, specifically on the discussion of the propaedeutic function of mathematics in the education of leaders. Finally, regarding the nature of this object, it is the hypothesis, interpreted as a true opinion, that constitutes the most likely candidate for this role.