DOCSLIB.ORG

Platonic Interpretation Is Set in Wax, Not Stone

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Platonic Interpretation Is Set in Wax, Not Stone Platonic Interpretation is Set in Wax, Not Stone: Some Evidence for a Developmentalist Reading of Theaetetus 151-187 A thesis presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts Andrew R. Nelson May 2013 © 2013 Andrew R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved. 2 This thesis titled Platonic Interpretation is Set in Wax, Not Stone: Evidence for a Developmentalist Reading of Theaetetus 151-187 by ANDREW R. NELSON has been approved for the Department of Philosophy and the College of Arts and Sciences by Scott S. Carson Associate Professor of Philosophy Robert Frank Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3 ABSTRACT NELSON, ANDREW R., M.A., May 2013, Philosophy Platonic Interpretation is Set in Wax, Not Stone: Evidence for a Developmentalist Reading of Theaetetus 151-187 (110 pp.) Director of Thesis: Scott Carson Interpreting Plato is a difficult, divisive affair. This is particularly apparent in the Theaetetus where there are two primary interpretations of the first definition of knowledge—Reading A and Reading B, Unitarian and Developmentalist interpretations respectively. Reading A claims Plato has accepted moderate versions of Heraclitean Flux (HF) and Protagoras’ Measure Doctrine (MD). Reading B finds Plato rejecting both theories. This thesis provides a brief history of Platonic interpretation, an exposition of the first definition of knowledge, and evidence for Reading B. The evidence appeals to the two Readings’ mutually exclusive interpretations. The thesis suggests essential features of moderate versions of HF and MD, relates them to modern empiricists’ notion of sense-impressions, and then shows that Plato rejects sense-impressions later in the dialogue. Thus, showing that Plato does not accept moderate versions of HF and MD, and providing corroborating evidence that Reading B is correct. 4 DEDICATION To my friends and family, especially Jessica 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge the faculty and students of the Philosophy Department. They have provided an environment entirely conducive for scholarship and philosophical dialogue. Additionally, my thesis committee—Dr. Scott Carson, Dr. James Petrik, and Dr. Al Lent—deserve special accolades for their patience and helpful comments. Any merits of this piece of work are due in large part to the generous assistance of those mentioned above. 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................ 3 DEDICATION.................................................................................................................... 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................ 5 ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................ 8 NOTES ON THE TEXT..................................................................................................... 9 LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ 10 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 11 1.1 Statement of the Question................................................................................14 1.2 Possible Solution .............................................................................................15 1.3 Procedure .........................................................................................................16 2 DEBATING INTERPRETATION ................................................................................ 18 2.1 Ancient.............................................................................................................20 2.1.1 The Skeptical Interpretation ............................................................ 21 2.1.2 The Doctrinal Interpretation ........................................................... 24 2.2 Modern.............................................................................................................28 2.2.1 Unitarianism .................................................................................... 29 2.2.2 Developmentalism............................................................................ 30 2.3 Contemporary ..................................................................................................34 2.3.1 The Analytic Approach .................................................................... 35 2.3.2 The Literary Approach..................................................................... 37 2.4 Interpretative Principles...................................................................................40 3 KNOWLEDGE IS PERCEPTION ................................................................................ 45 3.1 The Theories of Theaetetus, Protagoras, & Heraclitus....................................45 3.2 Criticism of Theaetetus’ Definition.................................................................51 3.2.1 Refuting Protagoras......................................................................... 51 3.2.2 Refuting Heraclitus.......................................................................... 56 3.2.3 Refuting Theaetetus.......................................................................... 58 4 TWO READINGS & ARGUMENT ............................................................................. 61 4.1 Reading A/Unitarian........................................................................................62 7 Page 4.2 Reading B/Developmentalist...........................................................................64 4.3 Two Divergent Paths in a Dialogue.................................................................66 4.3.1 Essential Features of MD & HF...................................................... 68 4.3.2 “Knowledge is Perception” and its Similarities to Empiricism...... 74 4.3.2.1 Hume................................................................................. 77 4.3.2.2 Locke................................................................................. 79 5 BLOCKS & TABLETS................................................................................................. 83 5.1 Plato’s Wax?....................................................................................................84 5.2 Exposition of Plato and Locke’s Wax .............................................................85 5.2.1 Plato’s Wax Block............................................................................ 85 5.2.2 Locke’s Wax Tablet.......................................................................... 87 5.3 Blocks versus Tablets ......................................................................................87 5.3.1 Activity & Passivity.......................................................................... 91 5.3.2 Thought & Perception ..................................................................... 94 5.3.3 Sense-impressions............................................................................ 96 6 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................. 99 BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................... 101 8 ABBREVIATIONS BT Myles Burnyeat, The “Theaetetus” of Plato, trans. M.J. Levett, rev. and intro. Myles Burnyeat (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 1990). BG Myles Burnyeat, “Plato on the Grammar of Perceiving,” The Classical Quarterly 26, no. 1 (1976): 29-51. CT Timothy Chappell, Reading Plato’s “Theaetetus” (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2004). KP The first definition of knowledge: “knowledge is perception” MD Protagoras’ Measure Doctrine HF Heraclitean Flux 9 NOTES ON THE TEXT References to Plato’s works except for the Theaetetus are from John M. Cooper, and D. S. Hutchinson, eds. Plato: Complete Works, (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997). References to the Theaetetus are from Myles Burnyeat, The “Theaetetus” of Plato, trans. M.J. Levett, rev. and intro. Myles Burnyeat (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 1990). References are cited by title and the Stephanus pagination except for the Theaetetus which is just cited by the Stephanus pages. References to Aristotle are from Richard McKeon, ed., The Basic Works of Aristotle (NY: Modern Library, 2001), and are cited by title and the Bekker numbers. References to Locke are from John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, collated and annotated by Alexander Campbell Fraser, 2 Vol. (New York: Dover Publications, 1959), and will be cited by title, book, chapter, and section. References to Hume are from David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, ed. David Fate Norton and Mary J. Norton, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004) and David Hume, Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, in Readings in Modern Philosophy Vol. II: Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Associated Texts, ed. Roger Ariew and Eric Watkins, (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 2000), 328-394. The Treatise is cited by title, book, part, section, and paragraph. The Inquiry is cited by section and page number. 10 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1: Thrasyllus’ Arrangement of Plato’s Works.........................................................27 Table 2: Stylometric Grouping of Platonic Dialogues.......................................................31
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Clitophon's Challenge and the Aporia of Socratic Protreptic* Teruo Mishima
    Clitophon’s Challenge and the Aporia of Socratic Protreptic* Teruo Mishima Before I discuss the text in detail, I would like to briefly sketch the main line of arguments in the Clitophon which I am going to take up, just for the sake of anamnēsis of the readers : In the opening scene Socrates speaks to Clitophon in the third person and tells him that he heard from somebody else that Clitophon, in his conversation with Lysias, has criticised Socratic diatribai (pursuits), whereas he has lavishly praised his synousia (association) with Thrasymachus. Taking Socrates’ words as a sort of disguised criticism or complaint, Clitophon answers that the story was only half true, because although he did on the one hand criticise Socrates, he also on the other hand highly praised him. Then, he explains to Socrates why he must take such an ambiguous attitude towards him. In the first half of his speech he focuses on the aspect of Socratic teaching which he admires unreservedly, namely Socrates’ protreptic speech towards virtues. Here he refers to a lot of Socratic dicta which remind us of well known passages in the early dialogues of Plato. By contrast, in the latter half Clitophon explains where his deep frustration with Socrates lies. He says that, being already converted by Socratic protreptic and resolved to pursue virtues, what he expects now from Socrates is “what comes next”, that is a detailed account of the essence of virtues to be acquired and a piece of concrete advice on how to acquire them. But to these - Clitophon complains - neither Socrates’ company nor Socrates himself gives any convincing answer.
    [Show full text]
  • Gregory Vlastos, Socrates
    72 Gregory Vlastos, Socrates: Ironist and ~oral Philosopher (Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), ISBN 0 521 307333 hardback £35/$57-50; ISB~ 0 521 31450X paperback £11-95/S16-95. Socrates: Ironist and Noral Philosopher (SINP) is a book that all students of Socrates and of Greek philosophy will have to read, and will benefit from reading. It isn't the complete portrait of Socrates that many of us hoped it would be (for example, it contains no full discussion of the elenchus) and it is not all new much of it is already familiar from journal articles. It reads, indeed, more like a collection of articles than a unified book, but it is none the less engaging and provocative for that, the product of hard thinking by a major scholar and a life-long Socratist It is also very well written. I shall focus on only a few central themes. 1. Socrates and Plato Vlastos (pp. 46-7) divides the Platonic dialogues into four classes: (1) ELENCTIC; Apology, Charmides, Crico, Euthyphro, Gorgias, Hippias Ninor, Ion, Laches, Protagoras, Republic I (2) TRANSITIONAL: Eu thydemus, Hippias l1ajor, Lysis, l1enexenus, l1eno (3) MIDDLE: Cratylus, Phaedo, Symposium, Republic II-X, Phaedrus, Parmenides, Theaetetus (4) LATE: Timaeus, Crit ias, Sophist, Politicus, Philebus, Laws 73 He believes that the protagonist of the elenctic dialogues ("SocratesE") is the historical Socrates. while the protagonist of the middle and later dialogues ("SocratesM") is little more than a mouthpiece for Plato. Many scholars would go along with this thesis. but they might well balk at the members of (2).
    [Show full text]
  • Against Hedonist Interpretations of Plato's Protagoras
    Binghamton University The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB) The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter 2-19-2010 Against Hedonist Interpretations of Plato's Protagoras J. Clerk Shaw University of Tennessee, Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://orb.binghamton.edu/sagp Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons, Ancient Philosophy Commons, and the History of Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Shaw, J. Clerk, "Against Hedonist Interpretations of Plato's Protagoras" (2010). The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter. 384. https://orb.binghamton.edu/sagp/384 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). It has been accepted for inclusion in The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter by an authorized administrator of The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). For more information, please contact [email protected]. Shaw Central 2010 p. 1 AGAINST HEDONIST INTERPRETATIONS OF PLATO’S PROTAGORAS J. CLERK SHAW, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE In the debate over whether Socrates endorses hedonism in Plato’s Protagoras, each side has its standard arguments. Those who think he does (hereafter “pro-hedonists”)1 frequently argue that their view stays closer to the text. On this view, there are clear textual indications that Socrates endorses hedonism, and the hypothesis that he does best explains why he introduces the view unprompted.2 Their opponents (“anti-hedonists”) typically argue that attributing hedonism to Socrates makes the Protagoras fit poorly with other Platonic dialogues in which Socrates explicitly argues against hedonism,3 so that we should avoid attributing it to him if at all possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpretation: a Journal of Political Philosophy
    Interpretation A JOURNAL A OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Winter 1993-1994 Volume 21 Number 2 Thomas Lewis Identifying Rhetoric in the Apology: Does Socrates Use the Appeal for Pity? Joel Warren Lidz Reflections on and in Plato's Cave Bernard Jacob Aristotle's Dialectical Purposes Mary L. Bellhouse Rousseau Under Surveillance: Thoughts on a New Edition and Translation of Rousseau, Judge of Jean-Jacques: Dialogues Peter Augustine Lawler Tocqueville on Socialism and History Maurice Auerbach Carl Schmitt's Quest for the Political: Theology, Decisionism, and the Concept of the Enemy Discussion Victor Gourevich The End of History? Book Reviews Will Morrisey Self-Knowledge in Plato's Phaedrus, by Charles L. Griswold, Jr. Leslie G. Rubin Citizens and Statesmen: A Study of Aristotle's Politics, by Mary P. Nichols John S. Waggoner The Liberal Political Science of Raymond Aron: A Critical Introduction, by Daniel J. Mahoney Interpretation Editor-in-Chief Hilail Gildin, Dept. of Philosophy, Queens College Executive Editor Leonard Grey General Editors Seth G. Benardete Charles E. Butterworth Hilail Gildin Robert Horwitz (d. 1987) Howard B. White (d. 1974) Consulting Editors Christopher Bruell Joseph Cropsey Ernest L. Fortin John Hallowell (d. 1992) Harry V. Jaffa David Lowenthal Muhsin Mahdi Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr. Arnaldo Momigliano (d. 1987) Michael Oakeshott (d. 1990) Ellis Sandoz Leo Strauss (d. 1973) Kenneth W. Thompson European Editors Terence E. Marshall Heinrich Meier Editors Wayne Ambler Maurice Auerbach Fred Baumann Michael Blaustein - Patrick Coby Edward J. Erler Maureen Feder-Marcus Joseph E. Goldberg Stephen Harvey Pamela K. Jensen Ken Masugi Grant B. Mindle James W. Morris Will Morrisey Aryeh L.
    [Show full text]
  • John Stuart Mill’Sworksare by Title, Followed by Volume and Pagenumber of the Collected Works of John Stuart Mill (CW), Edited by J.M
    Roots of Respect Roots of Respect A Historic-Philosophical Itinerary Edited by Giovanni Giorgini and Elena Irrera An electronic version of this book is freely available, thanks to the support of libra- ries working with Knowledge Unlatched. KU is a collaborative initiative designed to make high quality books Open Access. More information about the initiative can be found at www.knowledgeunlatched.org ISBN 978-3-11-021808-4 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-021809-1 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-021806-2 ISBN 978-3-11-044813-9 ISSN 0179-0986 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-052628-8 e-ISSN 0179-3256 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License, For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/. as of February 23, 2017. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliografic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliogra- detailed bibliografic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. fie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar.
    [Show full text]
  • Chaos and Control: Reading Plato's Politicus1
    Review Article Chaos and Control: Reading PlatoÕs Politicus1 MARY MARGARET M CCABE On rst reading, the Politicus appears a dismal dialogue (compared, for example, to the immediacy of both the philosophy and the drama of the Theaetetus). This conversation between the Eleatic Stranger and the hopelessly complaisant Young Socrates seems unlikely to capture our imagination; the lengthy discussion of col- lection and division may do little for our understanding of dialectic; and even the joke (at 266c, a pun on being a pig and coming last which is marginally more amusing in Greek) will leave us cold. It may be hardly surprising that Òthis weary dialogue,Ó as Gilbert Ryle called it, has been left alone by scholars. However a recent Symposium Platonicum has revived interest in the Politicus;2 this generated two volumes of papers given at the Symposium and, more impor- tantly, a new translation with commentary by Christopher Rowe. 3 The new OCT, moreover, gives a freshly edited text. 4 This material makes it immediately clear that the Politicus should not be dismissed out of hand – even although it stands revealed as an extremely complex composition, both from the literary and from the philosophical point of view. 1 Christopher Rowe, Bob Sharples and Tad Brennan were kind enough to read and criticise a draft of these comments; I am very grateful to them. 2 Old habits die hard; I prefer Politicus (Plt.) to Statesman, not least to avoid the dangers of archaism (and the impossibility of capturing an extinct species) in the English expression. In deference to Plato, however, I use the expression Òthe states- manÓ (rather than Òthe politicianÓ) to describe the person with political understanding.
    [Show full text]
  • Glaucon's Dilemma. the Origins of Social Order
    [Working draft. Please do not circulate or cite without author’s permission] Glaucon’s Dilemma. The origins of social order. Josiah Ober Chapter 2 of The Greeks and the Rational (book-in-progress, provisional title) Draft of 2019.09.20 Word count: 17,200. Abstract: The long Greek tradition of political thought understood that cooperation among multiple individuals was an imperative for human survival. The tradition (here represented by passages from Plato’s Republic, Gorgias, and Protagoras, and from Diodorus of Sicily’s universal history) also recognized social cooperation as a problem in need of a solution in light of instrumental rationality and self-interest, strategic behavior, and the option of free riding on the cooperation of others. Ancient “anthropological” theories of the origins of human cooperation proposed solutions to the problem of cooperation by varying the assumed motivations of agents and postulating repeated interactions with communication and learning. The ways that Greek writers conceived the origins of social order as a problem of rational cooperation can be modeled as strategic games: as variants of the non-cooperative Prisoners Dilemma and cooperative Stag Hunt games and as repeated games with incomplete information and updating. In book 2 of the Republic Plato’s Glaucon offered a carefully crafted philosophical challenge, in the form of a narrative thought experiment, to Socrates’ position that justice is supremely choice-worthy, the top-ranked preference of a truly rational person. Seeking to improve the immoralist argument urged by Thrasymachus in Republic book 1 (in order to give Socrates the opportunity to refute the best form of that argument), Glaucon told a tale of Gyges and his ring of invisibility.1 In chapter 1, I suggested that Glaucon’s story illustrated a pure form of rational and self-interested behavior, through revealed preferences when the ordinary constraints of uncertainty, enforceable social conventions, and others’ strategic choices were absent.
    [Show full text]
  • The Roles of Solon in Plato's Dialogues
    The Roles of Solon in Plato’s Dialogues Dissertation Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Samuel Ortencio Flores, M.A. Graduate Program in Greek and Latin The Ohio State University 2013 Dissertation Committee: Bruce Heiden, Advisor Anthony Kaldellis Richard Fletcher Greg Anderson Copyrighy by Samuel Ortencio Flores 2013 Abstract This dissertation is a study of Plato’s use and adaptation of an earlier model and tradition of wisdom based on the thought and legacy of the sixth-century archon, legislator, and poet Solon. Solon is cited and/or quoted thirty-four times in Plato’s dialogues, and alluded to many more times. My study shows that these references and allusions have deeper meaning when contextualized within the reception of Solon in the classical period. For Plato, Solon is a rhetorically powerful figure in advancing the relatively new practice of philosophy in Athens. While Solon himself did not adequately establish justice in the city, his legacy provided a model upon which Platonic philosophy could improve. Chapter One surveys the passing references to Solon in the dialogues as an introduction to my chapters on the dialogues in which Solon is a very prominent figure, Timaeus- Critias, Republic, and Laws. Chapter Two examines Critias’ use of his ancestor Solon to establish his own philosophic credentials. Chapter Three suggests that Socrates re- appropriates the aims and themes of Solon’s political poetry for Socratic philosophy. Chapter Four suggests that Solon provides a legislative model which Plato reconstructs in the Laws for the philosopher to supplant the role of legislator in Greek thought.
    [Show full text]
  • 2011: Durham University
    THE CLASSICAL ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE DURHAM UNIVERSITY FRIDAY 15TH APRIL - MONDAY 18TH APRIL 2011 CONFERENCE INFORMATION We are delighted to invite you to attend the 2011 Classical Association Annual Conference, which this year will be hosted by Durham University. Founded by Royal Charter in 1832, Durham University is among the contenders to the title of third oldest University of England; yet despite its ancient roots, Durham prides itself on combining tradition with innovation. The same is true of its Classics Department, one of the largest, youngest, and most international Classics Departments around. Two-thirds of staff in the department are non- British nationals: Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Serbia, and the USA are all represented; current research postgraduates add Egypt, Greece, Hungary, Korea, and Japan to the list. All of this is testimony to our view that Classics not only continues to be relevant, but has become increasingly important as a shared cultural resource through which diverse contemporary cultures can communicate. In various ways, then, Durham Classics operates across boundaries of time and of space and stands for intellectual exchange across languages and cultures, and it is this spirit of open exchange and dialogue that we hope to enact and celebrate during the Classical Association Annual Conference as well. The Durham colleges allow us to return to the traditional format of the on-campus event, with both accommodation and academic sessions in the main conference venue, Collingwood College. It will however also be possible to book a room at the Business school, or at the Marriott; and Durham city offers a range of other possibilities.
    [Show full text]
  • THE PHILOSOPHY BOOK George Santayana (1863-1952)
    Georg Hegel (1770-1831) ................................ 30 Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) ................. 32 Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach (1804-1872) ...... 32 John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) .......................... 33 Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) ..................... 33 Karl Marx (1818-1883).................................... 34 Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) ................ 35 Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914).............. 35 William James (1842-1910) ............................ 36 The Modern World 1900-1950 ............................. 36 Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) .................... 37 Ahad Ha'am (1856-1927) ............................... 38 Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) ............. 38 Edmund Husserl (1859–1938) ....................... 39 Henri Bergson (1859-1941) ............................ 39 Contents John Dewey (1859–1952) ............................... 39 Introduction....................................................... 1 THE PHILOSOPHY BOOK George Santayana (1863-1952) ..................... 40 The Ancient World 700 BCE-250 CE..................... 3 Miguel de Unamuno (1864-1936) ................... 40 Introduction Thales of Miletus (c.624-546 BCE)................... 3 William Du Bois (1868-1963) .......................... 41 Laozi (c.6th century BCE) ................................. 4 Philosophy is not just the preserve of brilliant Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) ........................ 41 Pythagoras (c.570-495 BCE) ............................ 4 but eccentric thinkers that it is popularly Max Scheler
    [Show full text]
  • Plato Apology of Socrates and Crito
    COLLEGE SERIES OF GREEK AUTHORS EDITED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF JOHN WILLIAMS WHITE, LEWIS R. PACKARD, a n d THOMAS D. SEYMOUR. PLATO A p o l o g y o f S o c r a t e s AND C r i t o EDITED ON THE BASIS OF CRON’S EDITION BY LOUIS DYER A s s i s t a n t ·Ρι;Οχ'ε&^ο^ ι ν ^University. BOSTON: PUBLISHED BY GINN & COMPANY. 1902. I P ■ C o p · 3 Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1885, by J o h n W il l ia m s W h i t e a n d T h o m a s D. S e y m o u r , In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. J . S. C u s h in g & Co., P r i n t e r s , B o s t o n . PREFACE. T his edition of the Apology of Socrates and the Crito is based upon Dr. Christian Cron’s eighth edition, Leipzig, 1882. The Notes and Introduction here given have in the main been con­ fined within the limits intelligently drawn by Dr. Cron, whose commentaries upon various dialogues of Plato have done and still do so much in Germany to make the study of our author more profitable as well as pleasanter. No scruple has been felt, how­ ever, in making changes. I trust there are few if any of these which Dr. Cron might not himself make if he were preparing his work for an English-thinking and English-speaking public.
    [Show full text]
  • Sophist Revisited Trends in Classics Q Supplementary Volumes
    Plato’s Sophist Revisited Trends in Classics Q Supplementary Volumes Edited by Franco Montanari and Antonios Rengakos Scientific Committee Alberto Bernabe´ · Margarethe Billerbeck · Claude Calame Philip R. Hardie · Stephen J. Harrison · Stephen Hinds Richard Hunter · Christina Kraus · Giuseppe Mastromarco Gregory Nagy · Theodore D. Papanghelis · Giusto Picone Kurt Raaflaub · Bernhard Zimmermann Volume 19 De Gruyter Plato’s Sophist Revisited Edited by Beatriz Bossi Thomas M. Robinson De Gruyter ISBN 978-3-11-028695-3 e-ISBN 978-3-11-028713-4 ISSN 1868-4785 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. Ą 2013 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Logo: Christopher Schneider, Laufen Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ϱ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com Preface This book consists of a selection of papers presented at the International Spring Seminar on Plato’s Sophist (26–31 May 2009, Centro de Ciencias de Benasque ‘Pedro Pascual’, Spain) with the financial support of MI- CINN, CSIC, Universidad de Zaragoza and Gobierno de Aragón. The Conference was organized by the editors, under the auspices of the Director of the Centre, Prof. José Ignacio Latorre, who provided invaluable assistance at every stage of the Conference, up to its close with a lecture on Quantum Physics for Philosophers. The aim of the conference was the promotion of Plato studies in Spain in the framework of discussions with a number of international scholars of distinction in the field, whilst at the same time looking afresh at one of Plato’s most philosophically profound dialogues.
    [Show full text]