DOCSLIB.ORG

The Intelligible Creator-God and the Intelligent Soul of the Cosmos in Plato’S Theology and Metaphysics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Intelligible Creator-God and the Intelligent Soul of the Cosmos in Plato’S Theology and Metaphysics University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations Summer 2010 The Intelligible Creator-God and the Intelligent Soul of the Cosmos in Plato’s Theology and Metaphysics Jason G. Rheins University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Ancient Philosophy Commons, History of Philosophy Commons, History of Religion Commons, History of Science, Technology, and Medicine Commons, Metaphysics Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Rheins, Jason G., "The Intelligible Creator-God and the Intelligent Soul of the Cosmos in Plato’s Theology and Metaphysics" (2010). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 184. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/184 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/184 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Intelligible Creator-God and the Intelligent Soul of the Cosmos in Plato’s Theology and Metaphysics Abstract ABSTRACT THE INTELLIGIBLE CREATOR-GOD AND THE INTELLIGENT SOUL OF THE COSMOS IN PLATO’S THEOLOGY AND METAPHYSICS Jason G. Rheins Charles H. Kahn and Susan Sauvé Meyer When Plato discusses the World-soul, cosmic intellect (nous), and the Demiurge, he approaches them theologically, i.e. as being the subjects of an account of the nature of the gods, but few works in the last half-century or more have addressed the ‘players’ in Plato’s theology as such. The major strata in the hierarchy of divine beings were referred to in the Neo-Platonist tradition as “hypostases”. My question is this: between intellect, the World-soul, the Demiurge, and even the Forms how many hypostases did Plato posit, what were their nature, and what overall functions did they play in his philosophical system? I analyze Plato’s various accounts of those divine things that are immanent in the world of change (e.g. the World-soul) and those that are said to be transcendent intelligibles (e.g. the Forms and the Demiurge) in order to determine what Plato’s gods are, and what roles they play in his system. I examine the entire Platonic corpus, but I focus on Plato’s late dialogues, in which theology and cosmology receive considerably more extensive and significant treatment than they do in his earlier works. My central texts are the Philebus, Timaeus, and book X of the Laws, supplemented secondarily by the Phaedo, Phaedrus, Republic, Statesman, and Epistle VII. I also make cautious use of the testimonia regarding Plato’s so- called “unwritten doctrines”. The invention of the World-soul is revealed to be Plato’s way of instantiating intellect in the cosmos in order to suit the demands of his natural and moral philosophy, while his esoteric account of the Demiurge resolves any tensions between his immanent theology and his metaphysics, and suggests, semi-literally, the role that timeless, intelligible goodness plays in organizing the sensible world of change. Degree Type Dissertation Degree Name Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Graduate Group Philosophy First Advisor Charles H. Kahn Second Advisor Susan Sauvé Meyer Third Advisor Paul D. Guyer Keywords Plato, Platonic Theology, Demiurge, World-soul, Late Dialogues, Metaphysics Subject Categories Ancient Philosophy | History of Philosophy | History of Religion | History of Science, Technology, and Medicine | Metaphysics | Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion This dissertation is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/184 THE INTELLIGIBLE CREATOR-GOD AND THE INTELLIGENT SOUL OF THE COSMOS IN PLATO’S THEOLOGY AND METAPHYSICS Jason G. Rheins A DISSERTATION in Philosophy Presented to the Faculties of the University of Pennsylvania in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2010 Supervisor of the Dissertation : Co-Supervisor: Charles H. Kahn Susan Sauvé Meyer Professor of Philosophy Professor and Chair of Philosophy Graduate Group Chairperson: Kok-Chor Tan, Associate Professor of Philosophy Dissertation Committee: Charles H. Kahn, Professor of Philosophy Susan Sauvé Meyer, Professor and Chair of Philosophy Paul D. Guyer, F.R.C. Murray Professor in the Humanities and Professor of Philosophy The Intelligible Creator-God and the Intelligent Soul of the Cosmos in Plato’s Theology and Metaphysics COPYRIGHT 2010 Jason G. Rheins iii To My Makers Mom and Dad iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First thanks goes to my primary supervisor and graduate mentor, Dr. Charles Kahn. His seminar on Plato’s Timaeus in the Fall of 2003, my first semester at the University of Pennsylvania, and his subsequent courses and Greek reading groups on Late Plato put me on a path of questioning and searching that eventually led to this point. I am very fortunate to have had his guidance throughout this time, and more than once when my project was drifting off course or heading towards an unproductive shoal, it was his hand that turned the rudder and saved the voyage. I was enormously fortunate to have had the privilege of studying from so deeply learned and insightful a scholar. I am also deeply indebted to my co-supervisor, Dr. Susan Meyer. She deserves primary credit for what learning I have in Hellenistic philosophy, and for many things besides. She has helped to guide me in many ways; most pertinent here, it was she who in the later stages of its writing, piloted this thesis safely into harbor when it could not find a port. If this were a toast, then “the third cup to Zeus the Savior”, as Socrates is wont to say, would go to her. It would be impossible for me, at this point, to indicate all the myriad improvements that they suggested or the errors from which they averted me. All I can say is that in this instance the titles Doktorvater and Doktormutter are especially well deserved. I might add, however, that two other seminars they taught were of great importance to my thesis. The first was a seminar on Plato’s Sophist and Statesman, which Drs Kahn and Meyer co-taught in 2005. The second was a seminar on ancient and early modern teleology, which was also had Dr. Meyer as one of its co-instructors. Her v collaborator in that splendid course was Dr. Karen Detlefsen, whose questions about hylomorphism in ancient and early modern metaphysics on my qualification examination helped me immensely in sorting out my views on the Receptacle, and whose support, guidance, and extraordinary teaching were great boons and to me. Professor Paul Guyer generously gave of his time to serve as the third reader on my committee, and his thoughtful questions greatly improved overall philosophical depth of thesis and its relevance to broader questions in the history of metaphysics. This is hardly the only respect or place in which my ideas have been sharpened and my store of knowledge expanded thanks to Dr. Guyer’s Michael Weisberg, has been a friend, teacher, and mentor to me since I was only an undergraduate at Stanford, and my debts to him are as various as they are great. In this connection I wish to thank him particularly for serving as the department representative on my defense committee. My ideas have benefited from the input of countless people, and the failure of a name to appear here does not indicate a lack of contribution. Still, to single out a few whose conversation or whose questions during presentations have had the greatest impact, I should like to thank the following scholars: J. Benjamin Bayer, John Dillon, Laura Gómez Espíndola, Phillip Horky, Rolf Horstmann, Monte Johnson, Rachana Kamtekar, Grace Ledbetter, James Lennox, Anthony Long, Robert Mayhew, Mark McPherran, Andrew Payne, Ralph Rosen, Gregory Salmieri, David Sedley, Peter Struck, Jan Szaif, Anke Timmermann, Catherine Wilson, and David Wollsdorf. My classmates at the University of Pennsylvania have all given me helpful advice and feedback over the years, but those whose questions and suggestions particularly enriched this project vi include: Uygar Abaci, Matthew Bateman, Brad Berman, Anna Cremaldi, Wiebke Deimling, Scott Edgar, Paul Franco, Kathleen Harbin, Thomas Hilgers, Danny Muñoz- Hutchinson, Douglas Paletta, Krisanna Scheiter, Jeppe von Platz, Bradford Winegar. I am grateful as well to the Gary Hatfield and Kok-Chor Tan, the graduate chairs of the UPenn Philosophy Department during my time there; to Scott Weinstein, former chair of Penn’s philosophy department; to Peter Baumann, the Chair of Swarthmore Philosophy Department; to the invaluable assistance of Mrs. Sandra Natson and Mrs. Geraldine Winters of the Penn philosophy department, Mrs. Ernestine Williams of Claudia Cohen Hall research groups, and Mrs. Donna Mucha of the Swarthmore philosophy department. I was the recipient of a Dean’s Dissertation Completion Fellowship and an ARI Dissertation Teaching Subvention Grant. Without these forms of support I would surely still be toiling away on the present work. Mrs. Debi Ghate deserves special thanks in this regard. I am more grateful to my family than I can easily express. To my parents, Carl and Brenda, for whom this work is dedicated; to my sister, Jaclyn Rheins, and to my dearest friends in the world: Gregory Salmieri and Thomas and Aurora McClain no mere words of thanks can suffice. In the roughest of storms they were my constant anchors. I hope by this work that they enabled me to complete and better works and deeds to come, I can begin to repay my enormous debts to them. Finally, I must thank Rebecca Naugle, ἡ ψυχῆς ἐμᾶς ἴατρια. vii ABSTRACT THE INTELLIGIBLE CREATOR-GOD AND THE INTELLIGENT SOUL OF THE COSMOS IN PLATO’S THEOLOGY AND METAPHYSICS Jason G. Rheins Charles H. Kahn and Susan Sauvé Meyer When Plato discusses the World-soul, cosmic intellect (nous), and the Demiurge, he approaches them theologically, i.e. as being the subjects of an account of the nature of the gods, but few works in the last half-century or more have addressed the ‘players’ in Plato’s theology as such.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Plato As "Architectof Science"
    Plato as "Architectof Science" LEONID ZHMUD ABSTRACT The figureof the cordialhost of the Academy,who invitedthe mostgifted math- ematiciansand cultivatedpure research, whose keen intellectwas able if not to solve the particularproblem then at least to show the methodfor its solution: this figureis quite familiarto studentsof Greekscience. But was the Academy as such a centerof scientificresearch, and did Plato really set for mathemati- cians and astronomersthe problemsthey shouldstudy and methodsthey should use? Oursources tell aboutPlato's friendship or at leastacquaintance with many brilliantmathematicians of his day (Theodorus,Archytas, Theaetetus), but they were neverhis pupils,rather vice versa- he learnedmuch from them and actively used this knowledgein developinghis philosophy.There is no reliableevidence that Eudoxus,Menaechmus, Dinostratus, Theudius, and others, whom many scholarsunite into the groupof so-called"Academic mathematicians," ever were his pupilsor close associates.Our analysis of therelevant passages (Eratosthenes' Platonicus, Sosigenes ap. Simplicius, Proclus' Catalogue of geometers, and Philodemus'History of the Academy,etc.) shows thatthe very tendencyof por- trayingPlato as the architectof sciencegoes back to the earlyAcademy and is bornout of interpretationsof his dialogues. I Plato's relationship to the exact sciences used to be one of the traditional problems in the history of ancient Greek science and philosophy.' From the nineteenth century on it was examined in various aspects, the most significant of which were the historical, philosophical and methodological. In the last century and at the beginning of this century attention was paid peredominantly, although not exclusively, to the first of these aspects, especially to the questions how great Plato's contribution to specific math- ematical research really was, and how reliable our sources are in ascrib- ing to him particular scientific discoveries.
    [Show full text]
  • Citations in Classics and Ancient History
    Citations in Classics and Ancient History The most common style in use in the field of Classical Studies is the author-date style, also known as Chicago 2, but MLA is also quite common and perfectly acceptable. Quick guides for each of MLA and Chicago 2 are readily available as PDF downloads. The Chicago Manual of Style Online offers a guide on their web-page: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html The Modern Language Association (MLA) does not, but many educational institutions post an MLA guide for free access. While a specific citation style should be followed carefully, none take into account the specific practices of Classical Studies. They are all (Chicago, MLA and others) perfectly suitable for citing most resources, but should not be followed for citing ancient Greek and Latin primary source material, including primary sources in translation. Citing Primary Sources: Every ancient text has its own unique system for locating content by numbers. For example, Homer's Iliad is divided into 24 Books (what we might now call chapters) and the lines of each Book are numbered from line 1. Herodotus' Histories is divided into nine Books and each of these Books is divided into Chapters and each chapter into line numbers. The purpose of such a system is that the Iliad, or any primary source, can be cited in any language and from any publication and always refer to the same passage. That is why we do not cite Herodotus page 66. Page 66 in what publication, in what edition? Very early in your textbook, Apodexis Historia, a passage from Herodotus is reproduced.
    [Show full text]
  • Lowe's Eliminativism About Relations and the Analysis Of
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by PhilPapers Lowe’s eliminativism about relations and the analysis of relational inherence Markku Keinänen Tampere University, Finland markku.keinanen[a]tuni.fi https://philpeople.org/profiles/markku-keinanen .[DRAFT, please do not quote] Abstract, Contrary to widely shared opinion in analytic metaphysics, E.J. Lowe argues against the existence of relations in his posthumously published paper There are probably no relations (2016). In this article, I assess Lowe’s eliminativist strategy, which aims to show that all contingent “relational facts” have a monadic foundation in modes characterizing objects. Second, I present two difficult ontological problems supporting eliminativism about relations. Against eliminativism, metaphysicians of science have argued that relations might well be needed in the best a posteriori motivated account of the structure of reality. Finally, I argue that, by analyzing relational inherence, trope theory offers us a completely new approach to relational entities and avoids the hard problems motivating eliminativism. 1. Introduction It has been a widely shared view in analytic metaphysics that we need to postulate relations in order to provide an adequate account of reality. For instance, concrete objects are spatio-temporally related in various ways and the spatio-temporal arrangement of objects is contingent relative to their existence and monadic properties. Here the most straightforward conclusion is that there are additional entities, spatio-temporal relations, which account for objects’ being spatio-temporally related in different ways. Similarly, influential metaphysicians of science have maintained that relations figure among the fundamental constituents of reality according to reasonable interpretation of the best physical theories (Teller 1986, Butterfield 2006).
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander Jones Calendrica I: New Callippic Dates
    ALEXANDER JONES CALENDRICA I: NEW CALLIPPIC DATES aus: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 129 (2000) 141–158 © Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn 141 CALENDRICA I: NEW CALLIPPIC DATES 1. Introduction. Callippic dates are familiar to students of Greek chronology, even though up to the present they have been known to occur only in a single source, Ptolemy’s Almagest (c. A.D. 150).1 Ptolemy’s Callippic dates appear in the context of discussions of astronomical observations ranging from the early third century B.C. to the third quarter of the second century B.C. In the present article I will present new attestations of Callippic dates which extend the period of the known use of this system by almost two centuries, into the middle of the first century A.D. I also take the opportunity to attempt a fresh examination of what we can deduce about the Callippic calendar and its history, a topic that has lately been the subject of quite divergent treatments. The distinguishing mark of a Callippic date is the specification of the year by a numbered “period according to Callippus” and a year number within that period. Each Callippic period comprised 76 years, and year 1 of Callippic Period 1 began about midsummer of 330 B.C. It is an obvious, and very reasonable, supposition that this convention for counting years was instituted by Callippus, the fourth- century astronomer whose revisions of Eudoxus’ planetary theory are mentioned by Aristotle in Metaphysics Λ 1073b32–38, and who also is prominent among the authorities cited in astronomical weather calendars (parapegmata).2 The point of the cycles is that 76 years contain exactly four so-called Metonic cycles of 19 years.
    [Show full text]
  • MONEY and the EARLY GREEK MIND: Homer, Philosophy, Tragedy
    This page intentionally left blank MONEY AND THE EARLY GREEK MIND How were the Greeks of the sixth century bc able to invent philosophy and tragedy? In this book Richard Seaford argues that a large part of the answer can be found in another momentous development, the invention and rapid spread of coinage, which produced the first ever thoroughly monetised society. By transforming social relations, monetisation contributed to the ideas of the universe as an impersonal system (presocratic philosophy) and of the individual alienated from his own kin and from the gods (in tragedy). Seaford argues that an important precondition for this monetisation was the Greek practice of animal sacrifice, as represented in Homeric epic, which describes a premonetary world on the point of producing money. This book combines social history, economic anthropology, numismatics and the close reading of literary, inscriptional, and philosophical texts. Questioning the origins and shaping force of Greek philosophy, this is a major book with wide appeal. richard seaford is Professor of Greek Literature at the University of Exeter. He is the author of commentaries on Euripides’ Cyclops (1984) and Bacchae (1996) and of Reciprocity and Ritual: Homer and Tragedy in the Developing City-State (1994). MONEY AND THE EARLY GREEK MIND Homer, Philosophy, Tragedy RICHARD SEAFORD cambridge university press Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521832281 © Richard Seaford 2004 This publication is in copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • Iamblichus and Julian''s ''Third Demiurge'': a Proposition
    Iamblichus and Julian”s ”Third Demiurge”: A Proposition Adrien Lecerf To cite this version: Adrien Lecerf. Iamblichus and Julian”s ”Third Demiurge”: A Proposition . Eugene Afonasin; John M. Dillon; John F. Finamore. Iamblichus and the Foundations of Late Platonism, 13, BRILL, p. 177-201, 2012, Ancient Mediterranean and Medieval Texts and Contexts. Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic Tradition, 10.1163/9789004230118_012. hal-02931399 HAL Id: hal-02931399 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02931399 Submitted on 6 Sep 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Iamblichus and Julian‟s “Third Demiurge”: A Proposition Adrien Lecerf Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris, France [email protected] ABSTRACT. In the Emperor Julian's Oration To the Mother of the Gods, a philosophical interpretation of the myth of Cybele and Attis, reference is made to an enigmatic "third Demiurge". Contrary to a common opinion identifying him to the visible Helios (the Sun), or to tempting identifications to Amelius' and Theodorus of Asine's three Demiurges, I suggest that a better idea would be to compare Julian's text to Proclus' system of Demiurges (as exposed and explained in a Jan Opsomer article, "La démiurgie des jeunes dieux selon Proclus", Les Etudes Classiques, 71, 2003, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Days Without End —Mortality and Immortality of Life Cycle— Kumi Ohno
    （83） Days Without End —Mortality and Immortality of Life Cycle— Kumi Ohno Introduction Eugene O’Neill’s Days Without End (herein referred to as “Days” ) was premiered on December 27th, 1933 at Plymouth Theatre in Boston. The play consists of four acts and six scenes. The author tried to excavate the “crisis awareness” against an intrinsic nature of mankind through this play. In Dynamo which was written in 1929, O’Neill introduced four gods: “Puritan god”, “electricity god”, “Dynamo” and “the real god representing the eternal life”. In the story, however, Ruben, the main character, who seeks the salvation from these gods, is unable to find the true answer and commits suicide. In Days, the main character barely but successfully finds out the religious significance of the purpose of life and continues to have hope and the will to live, which is quite different from other O’Neill’s plays. This play was written in 1930s during the great economic depres sion and the anxiety of the people described in Dynamo is inherited by this play, although the subject is dug from the different aspect. However, as seen from the author’s efforts of rewriting the script several times, his attempts to reach the final conclusion was not successful for many years. The play was finally published after rewriting eight times during the period between 1931–1934.1 Days is considered to be the worst play of Eugene O’Neill. Ah, Wilderness!, which was highly acclaimed by the critics and which ran 289 performances, was written almost in the same 1 Doris V.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cosmos and Theological Reflection: the Priority of Self-Transcendence Paul Allen
    Document generated on 09/30/2021 12:09 p.m. Théologiques The Cosmos and Theological Reflection: The Priority of Self-Transcendence Paul Allen Les cosmologies Article abstract Volume 9, Number 1, printemps 2001 In this article, I argue that the primary significance of cosmology for theology is through a notion of self-transcendence. It is an inherently theological notion URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/005683ar arising within cosmology. It points to the realm of interiority claimed by DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/005683ar contemporary theology. Employing the thought of Ernan McMullin in particular, I claim that self-transcendence emerges within cosmological See table of contents inquiry when it becomes philosophy, and when extrapolation is involved. A theological thrust to cosmology is confirmed when one understands the limits of cosmology as an empirical discipline amidst the existential questions that can be posed about the meaning of the universe, a development well illustrated Publisher(s) by the anthropic principle. Faculté de théologie de l'Université de Montréal ISSN 1188-7109 (print) 1492-1413 (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Allen, P. (2001). The Cosmos and Theological Reflection: The Priority of Self-Transcendence. Théologiques, 9(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.7202/005683ar Tous droits réservés © Faculté de théologie de l’Université de Montréal, 2001 This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online. https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/ This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit.
    [Show full text]
  • Claudius Ptolemy: Tetrabiblos
    CLAUDIUS PTOLEMY: TETRABIBLOS OR THE QUADRIPARTITE MATHEMATICAL TREATISE FOUR BOOKS OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE STARS TRANSLATED FROM THE GREEK PARAPHRASE OF PROCLUS BY J. M. ASHMAND London, Davis and Dickson [1822] This version courtesy of http://www.classicalastrologer.com/ Revised 04-09-2008 Foreword It is fair to say that Claudius Ptolemy made the greatest single contribution to the preservation and transmission of astrological and astronomical knowledge of the Classical and Ancient world. No study of Traditional Astrology can ignore the importance and influence of this encyclopaedic work. It speaks not only of the stars, but of a distinct cosmology that prevailed until the 18th century. It is easy to jeer at someone who thinks the earth is the cosmic centre and refers to it as existing in a sublunary sphere. However, our current knowledge tells us that the universe is infinite. It seems to me that in an infinite universe, any given point must be the centre. Sometimes scientists are not so scientific. The fact is, it still applies to us for our purposes and even the most rational among us do not refer to sunrise as earth set. It practical terms, the Moon does have the most immediate effect on the Earth which is, after all, our point of reference. She turns the tides, influences vegetative growth and the menstrual cycle. What has become known as the Ptolemaic Universe, consisted of concentric circles emanating from Earth to the eighth sphere of the Fixed Stars, also known as the Empyrean. This cosmology is as spiritual as it is physical.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Rhetoric and Greek Mathematics: a Response to a Modern Historiographical Dilemma
    Science in Context 16(3), 391–412 (2003). Copyright © Cambridge University Press DOI: 10.1017/S0269889703000863 Printed in the United Kingdom Ancient Rhetoric and Greek Mathematics: A Response to a Modern Historiographical Dilemma Alain Bernard Dibner Institute, Boston To the memory of three days in the Negev Argument In this article, I compare Sabetai Unguru’s and Wilbur Knorr’s views on the historiography of ancient Greek mathematics. Although they share the same concern for avoiding anach- ronisms, they take very different stands on the role mathematical readings should have in the interpretation of ancient mathematics. While Unguru refuses any intrusion of mathematical practice into history, Knorr believes this practice to be a key tool for understanding the ancient tradition of geometry. Thus modern historians have to find their way between these opposing views while avoiding an unsatisfactory compromise. One approach to this, I propose, is to take ancient rhetoric into account. I illustrate this proposal by showing how rhetorical categories can help us to analyze mathematical texts. I finally show that such an approach accommodates Knorr’s concern about ancient mathematical practice as well as the standards for modern historical research set by Unguru 25 years ago. Introduction The title of the present paper indicates that this work concerns the relationship between ancient rhetoric and ancient Greek mathematics. Such a title obviously raises a simple question: Is there such a relationship? The usual appreciation of ancient science and philosophy is at odds with such an idea. This appreciation is rooted in the pregnant categorization that ranks rhetoric and science at very different levels.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstract of 'Platonic Participation'
    1 Abstract of ‘Platonic Participation’ The Republic presents us with a standard account of the Theory of Forms, especially in the discussion of the difference between knowledge and opinion. But we also get in the Republic the only passage in the Platonic corpus that gives some sort of reasoned account of what is meant by participation, I mean the analogy of the Sun. A feature of this analogy is that, properly taken, it answers one of the criticisms of participation that Parmenides levels against Socrates in the Parmenides . The Republic also gives, in other places, an account of how forms and particulars can be said to be like each other that answers Parmenides’ criticism based on the likeness regress. For this reason, as well as for several others, the chronological division of the Platonic dialogues into early and middle and late should be rejected, and the Parmenides should not be read, as scholars do now read it, as posing problems for the Theory of Forms given in the Republic , but the Republic should be read as giving answers to the problems posed in the Parmenides . But while the Republic successfully answers criticisms from Parmenides in the Parmenides , it does not answer, and cannot answer, criticisms from Aristotle in the Metaphysics . This is because the Republic is distinctive among Platonic dialogues in talking, and talking at length, about particulars as participating in being and not just as participating in the beautiful or the just or the like. For while some sense can be made of speaking of participation in the just or the beautiful, no sense at all can be made of speaking of participation in being.
    [Show full text]
  • The Form of the Good in Plato's Timaeus
    THANASSIS GKATZARAS | 71 One of the many philosophical problems The Form of the Good in that we face in the Timaeus is raised by the Plato’s Timaeus claim that the God who created the world (from now on we shall call him ‘Demiurge’)1 is good (Tim. 29d7-30a2). A satisfying explanation of Demiurge’s goodness is far from easy, and dif- ferent approaches have been proposed. How- ever, in this paper I’ll try to show that a clear, sufficient and relatively simple interpretation is possible, if we are based on the hypothesis that Timaeus follows the theory of causation in the Phaedo (including the distinction between ‘safe’ and ‘elegant’ cause) and the concept of the Thanassis Gkatzaras Form of the Good in the Republic.2 University of Ioannina [email protected] To be more specific, I’ll try to show that the Form of the Good of the Republic is also presupposed in the Timaeus and it plays the same role, and we should consider it as a first principle of platonic cosmology, independ- ent from the existence of Demiurge or even the Divine Paradigm (i.e. the model accord- ing to which the Demiurge creates the world). On first impression, this interpretation looks barely possible, since there is no direct refer- ence in the text to this particular Form, with the possible exception of what is said at Tim. 46c7-d1.3 In my opinion, this absence has to do ABSTRACT with specific purposes Timaeus serves, and not with the abandonment of the Good as a cause.
    [Show full text]