Reviewed by:

• Calling Philosophers Names: On the Origin of a Discipline by Christopher Moore
• Patricia Curd

What does a philosophos do and what is a philosophos anyway? Christopher Moore explores these questions in his intriguing book, examining the history of the word philosophos and considering the development of the discipline that came to be known as philosophia. Moore's account "begins around 500 BCE with the coinage not of a self-lauding 'love of wisdom' but with a wry verbal slight, and concludes a century and a half later, in the maturity of an institution that is continuous with today's departments of philosophy" (1). The story moves between analysis of the word philosophos, comparing it and its history with that of other phil- compounds, and a wide-ranging discussion of the activities of those to whom the name was applied over the chosen period, and the attitudes of those who used the name to characterize themselves and others.

According to Moore, the evidence suggests that it was the Pythagoreans (Pythagoras and those who associated themselves with him and his views) who first came to be called philosophoi. The name was not clearly laudatory. Moore examines the development and uses of other phil- compounds at this time, and argues that, more often than not, a phil-x was a person taken to be obsessively, overly, or dangerously dedicated to x or x-ing or to being thought to be x or an x-er (whatever x might be). This dedication was not seen as a good thing: the relevant practice was often taken to be of ambiguous status or absurd; thus, as Moore observes, the philaitios is a litigious character perhaps best avoided. In the case of our word, the sophos was usually taken to be a sage or wise person (as in the traditional list of the Seven Sages); Moore says that Pythagoras and those around him "were, in effect, sophos-wannabes" (7). A central text for Moore is Heraclitus DK.B35/LM.D40 (in Moore's translation): "For philosophical men really quite ought to be researchers into much." The important words here are 'philosophical' (from philosophos) and 'researchers' (from historia). Rejecting other recent interpretations, Moore sees B35 as dismissive rather than as encouraging of inquiry and argues that the phrase 'philosophical men' is a slur. He links it with Heraclitus's contempt for Pythagoras in B40/D20, B81/D27, and especially B129/D26, where Heraclitus claims that Pythagoras "practiced historia most of all men … and made his own wisdom, polymathy, fraudulence." According to Moore, "Only later could processes of abstraction liberate the term philosophos from its archetype" (7). Calling Philosophers Names is his account of why this is so and how the liberation happened.

Aside from the introductory chapter and an epilogue, the book contains three sections comprised of three chapters each. These address (1) the earliest uses of the term philosophos and a lexical analysis of it along with a discussion of Pythagoreanism; (2) the fifth-century history of those called philosophoi (including the Sophists and Socrates) and the appearance of what Moore calls "Non-Academic philosophia"; and (3) Plato's and Aristotle's defense of the name and the practice in the face of the ambivalence expressed by nonphilosophers. The volume concludes with a collection and summaries of versions of the story of Pythagoras as a philosopher, classical uses of philosoph- terms, a list of the phil-prefixed words discussed in the book, a capacious bibliography, an index, and an index locorum. [End Page 327]

The book's reasoning is dense. Moore begins with key texts and discusses them throughout the book, bringing in more interpretations of the passages as the arguments they provoked developed chronologically. In the chapters on Socrates and Plato, Moore's order of discussion tends to follow the dramatic dates of the dialogues, which can be disconcerting when what can reasonably be taken to be Platonic (rather than Socratic) views are taken as evidence of Socrates's own commitment to philosophia. This is particularly striking in the treatment of...

审核人：

• 呼唤哲学家的名字：克里斯托弗·摩尔的纪律渊源
• 帕特里夏（Patricia）豆腐

什么是一个philosophos做，什么是philosophos呢？克里斯托弗·摩尔（Christopher Moore）在其有趣的书中探讨了这些问题，研究了“哲学”一词的历史，并考虑了后来被称为“哲学”的学科的发展。摩尔的帐户“始于大约公元前500年，并非以自吹自'的“爱智慧”造币，而是以口头上的口头表达，并在一个半世纪后的今天结束，该机构的成熟与今天的各行各业都息息相关。哲学”（1）。故事字的分析之间移动philosophos，它和它的历史与其他的比较菲尔-化合物，并广泛讨论了在选定的时期内使用该名称的人的活动，以及使用该名称表征自己和他人的人的态度。

根据摩尔定律，有证据表明，这是毕达哥拉斯（毕达哥拉斯和那些与他和他的看法附和谁）谁首先来到被称为philosophoi。这个名字不是很美。摩尔当时研究了其他phil-化合物的开发和使用，并指出，phil-x通常是被迷恋，过度或危险地专注于x或x -ing或被视为一个人的人。被认为是x或x -er（无论x可能）。这种奉献精神不被认为是一件好事：相关实践常常被认为是模棱两可或荒谬的。因此，正如摩尔所言，费城费是一个诉讼人物，也许最好避免。用我们的话来说，Sophos通常被认为是一个圣人或睿智的人（就像传统上的“七贤”名单）；穆尔说，毕达哥拉斯和他周围的人“们，实际上，Sophos的-wannabes”（7）。摩尔的中心著作是赫拉克利特（Heraclitus）DK.B35 / LM.D40（摩尔译本）：“对于哲人来说，确实应该成为很多研究者。” 这里的重要词是“哲学的”（来自philosophos）和“研究者”（来自historia））。摩尔拒绝了最近的其他解释，认为B35是不屑一顾的，而不是鼓励探究，并认为“哲学人”一词很含糊。他将其与赫拉克利特斯在B40 / D20，B81 / D27，尤其是B129 / D26中对毕达哥拉斯的蔑视联系在一起，赫拉克利特斯声称毕达哥拉斯“在大多数人中都实践了历史……并做出了自己的智慧，多义性，欺诈性”。根据摩尔的说法，“只有在以后的抽象过程中，才可以将哲学术语从其原型中解放出来”（7）。他称呼“哲学家的名字”是为什么这样以及解放是如何发生的。

除了介绍性章节和结语外，该书还包含三个部分，每个部分由三个章节组成。这些论述（1）术语philosophos的最早使用以及对其的词法分析以及对勾股主义的讨论；（2）称为哲学家（包括苏菲派和苏格拉底）的人们的第五世纪历史，以及摩尔所谓的“非学术哲学”的出现；（3）面对非哲学家所表达的矛盾，柏拉图和亚里斯多德对名称和惯例的辩护。体积最后提出了收集和毕达哥拉斯的故事版本，作为一个哲学家，古典用途摘要哲学家-方面，名单菲尔书中讨论的带有前缀的单词，宽敞的参考书目，索引和索引locorum。[结束页327]

这本书的推理很密集。摩尔从关键文本入手，并在整本书中对其进行讨论，随着段落引发的争论按时间顺序发展，对段落进行了更多的解释。在有关苏格拉底和柏拉图的章节中，摩尔的讨论顺序倾向于遵循对话的戏剧性日期，当合理地认为是柏拉图（而非苏格拉底）的观点被视为苏格拉底自己对承诺的承诺的证据时，这可能会令人不安。哲学。这在治疗...方面尤其引人注目。