DOCSLIB.ORG

Truth and Falsehood in Plato's Sophist

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

University of Kentucky UKnowledge Theses and Dissertations--Philosophy Philosophy 2014 Truth and Falsehood in Plato's Sophist Michael Oliver Wiitala University of Kentucky, [email protected] Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Wiitala, Michael Oliver, "Truth and Falsehood in Plato's Sophist" (2014). Theses and Dissertations-- Philosophy. 3. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/philosophy_etds/3 This Doctoral Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations--Philosophy by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STUDENT AGREEMENT: I represent that my thesis or dissertation and abstract are my original work. Proper attribution has been given to all outside sources. I understand that I am solely responsible for obtaining any needed copyright permissions. I have obtained needed written permission statement(s) from the owner(s) of each third-party copyrighted matter to be included in my work, allowing electronic distribution (if such use is not permitted by the fair use doctrine) which will be submitted to UKnowledge as Additional File. I hereby grant to The University of Kentucky and its agents the irrevocable, non-exclusive, and royalty-free license to archive and make accessible my work in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I agree that the document mentioned above may be made available immediately for worldwide access unless an embargo applies. I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of my work. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of my work. I understand that I am free to register the copyright to my work. REVIEW, APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE The document mentioned above has been reviewed and accepted by the student’s advisor, on behalf of the advisory committee, and by the Director of Graduate Studies (DGS), on behalf of the program; we verify that this is the final, approved version of the student’s thesis including all changes required by the advisory committee. The undersigned agree to abide by the statements above. Michael Oliver Wiitala, Student Dr. Eric Sanday, Major Professor Dr. David Bradshaw, Director of Graduate Studies TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD IN PLATO’S SOPHIST DISSERTATION A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Kentucky By Michael Oliver Wiitala Lexington, Kentucky Director: Dr. Eric Sanday, Associate Professor of Philosophy Lexington, Kentucky 2014 Copyright © Michael Oliver Wiitala 2014 ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD IN PLATO’S SOPHIST This dissertation is a study of the ontological foundations of true and false speech in Plato’s Sophist. Unlike most contemporary scholarship on the Sophist, my dissertation offers a wholistic account of the dialogue, demonstrating that the ontological theory of the “communing” of forms and the theory of true and false speech later in the dialogue entail one another. As I interpret it, the account of true and false speech in the Sophist is primarily concerned with true and false speech about the forms. As Plato sees it, we can only make true statements about spatio-temporal beings if it is possible to make true statements about the forms. Statements about the forms, however, make claims about how forms “commune” with other forms, that is, how forms are intelligibly related to and participate in one another. If forms stand in determinate relations of participation to other forms, however, then forms, as the relata of these relations, must compose structured wholes. Yet if they compose structured wholes, there must be a higher order normative principle that explains their structure. This creates a regress problem. In order to ground the structure of spatio-temporal beings, forms must be the highest explanatory principles. The theory of the “communing” of forms, however, makes it seem as if the forms require further explanation. This dissertation argues (1) that in the Sophist Plato solves the regress problem and (2) that, by doing so, he is able to ground true and false speech about the forms. I demonstrate that he solves the regress problem by differentiating a form’s nature from a form qua countable object. Then I show that this distinction between a form’s nature and a form qua countable object explains how true and false statements about the forms are possible. KEYWORDS: Plato, Metaphysics, Theory of Forms, Truth, Falsehood. Michael Oliver Wiitala July 30, 2014 TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD IN PLATO’S SOPHIST By Michael Oliver Wiitala Dr. Eric Sanday Director of Dissertation Dr. David Bradshaw Director of Graduate Studies July 30, 2014 εἰ δ’ ἄγ’ ἐγὼν ἐρέω, κόμισαι δὲ σὺ μῦθον ἀκούσας, αἵπερ ὁδοὶ μοῦναι διζήσιός εἰσι νοῆσαι · ἡ μὲν ὅπως ἔστιν τε καὶ ὡς οὐκ ἔστι μὴ εἶναι, Πειθοῦς ἐστι κέλευθος (Ἀληθείῃ γὰρ ὀπηδεῖ), ἡ δ’ ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν τε καὶ ὡς χρεών ἐστι μὴ εἶναι, τὴν δή τοι φράζω παναπευθέα ἔμμεν ἀταρπόν · οὔτε γὰρ ἂν γνοίης τό γε μὴ ἐὸν (οὐ γὰρ ἀνυστόν) οὔτε φράσαις - Parmenides, Fragment 2 ἀφ’ οὗ δὲ ἕκαστον, οὐχ ἕκαστον, ἀλλ’ ἕτερον ἁπάντων - Plotinus, Ennead V.3.11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation has undergone a number of revisions and writing it has truly been a transformative experience. I would like to thank all those who helped me along the way. I am indebted to my director, Eric Sanday, for encouraging me to write about the Sophist and for forcibly dragging me “up the rough, steep path” out of the cave. Likewise, I would like to thank each one of my committee members. I am grateful to David Bradshaw for introducing me to Plotinus, Pseudo-Dionysius, and the Greek theological tradition, all of which have been influential on my philosophical and personal development over the past five years. I want to thank Ron Bruzina for his support, insight, and enthusiasm for philosophy. I owe a debt of gratitude to Hubert Martin for encouraging me and assisting me in my study of Ancient Greek, and to Robert Rabel for being willing to join my committee at the last minute as an outside examiner. I could not have written this dissertation without the continual help and support of my good friend, colleague, and fellow Platonist, Paul DiRado. We have spent countless hours talking through the ideas found in this dissertation and I owe many insights to him. I would also like to thank David Kaufman for encouraging and assisting me to look at variants in the manuscript tradition of the Sophist, and finally my father, Jeff Wiitala, for his help proofreading. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ vi LIST OF ABREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER I: SITUATING THE SOPHIST ACCOUNT OF BEING AND LOGOS ..................... 1 §1. AN OVERVIEW OF MY ARGUMENT ........................................................................................ 1 §2. STANDARDS FOR INTERPRETING A PLATONIC DIALOGUE ..................................................... 3 §3. AN OUTLINE OF THE BACKGROUND TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE FORMS IN THE SOPHIST ...... 6 §4. THE DRAMATIC CONTEXT AND THE CHARACTER OF THE ELEATIC STRANGER .................. 12 A. The Basic Dramatic Setting of the Sophist ................................................................... 12 B. The Guiding Question of the Sophist and Statesman and the Identity of the Eleatic Stranger ................................................................................................................................. 14 B(i). Differences in How Socrates and the Eleatic Stranger Approach Philosophical Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 18 B(ii). The Art of Refutation, Socratic Elenchus, and the Stranger’s Elenchus ................. 20 C. The Significance of Plato’s Use of the Eleatic Stranger .............................................. 23 §5. IMPORTANT PHILOSOPHICAL NOTIONS FROM DRAMATICALLY RELATED DIALOGUES ...... 24 A. Causal Priority: The Euthyphro ................................................................................... 25 B. Priority in Logos: The Euthyphro and the Structure of Definition throughout the Dialogues .............................................................................................................................. 31 C. Wholes and Parts: The Theaetetus and Sophist ........................................................... 37 §6. SYNTAX, SEMANTICS, AND TRANSLATION OF THE VERB “EINAI” (“TO BE”) ..................... 48 CHAPTER II: DIFFICULTIES WITH BEING AND NON-BEING (236C9-245E8) .................. 54 §1. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM OF NON-BEING AND FALSEHOOD (236C9-237B6) ......... 57 §2. ORIENTING THE INQUIRY INTO THE PROBLEM OF NON-BEING (237B7-241C6) .................. 60 A. A1—“What is not” cannot be Meaningfully Said (237b7-e7) ...................................... 61 B. A2—What is Not is Unthinkable, Inexpressible, Unutterable, and Unsayable (238a1- 238c12) .................................................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Gregory Vlastos, Socrates

    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).
  • On Matter: Schelling's Anti-Platonic Reading of the Timaeus Tyler Tritten

    On Matter: Schelling's Anti-Platonic Reading of the Timaeus Tyler Tritten

    93 The Official Journal of the North American Schelling Society Volume 1 (2018) On Matter: Schelling’s Anti-Platonic Reading of the Timaeus Tyler Tritten This essay1 contrasts the so-called emanationism of Neoplatonism, particularly Proclus’s, with the naturephilosophy2 of F.W.J. Schelling. The contention is that Schelling’s thought is Neo-Platonist because thoroughly Platonist (albeit not at all Platonic, that is, dualistic), except that his project stands Neoplatonism on its head by inverting the order of procession. Schelling agrees with Neoplatonism that matter is the lowest and most inferior of the hypostases—not even constituting a proper hypostasis itself, because incapable of self-reversion—but he differs in viewing matter as cosmologically prior to intellect, soul, the demiurge and so forth. The question concerns not the hierarchical but the ontological ordering of matter. For Schelling, procession is not a descent into being (and eventually non-being) from a one beyond being, but an elevation (Steigerung) and intensification of being, which precludes the need for return (έπιστροφή [epistrophē]). This is the trademark of Schelling’s late distinction between positive and negative philosophy. Positive philosophy is progressive, beginning with the inferior as the most original in order to ascend 1 This article is a slightly revised and shortened version of chapter three of my The Contingency of Necessity: Reason and God as Matters of Fact (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2017). 2 In Philosophies of Nature After Schelling (London: Continuum, 2008) Ian Hamilton Grant speaks of Schelling not as a practitioner of the philosophy of nature, but as a naturephilosopher.
  • Teachers' Pay in Ancient Greece

    Teachers' Pay in Ancient Greece

    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Papers from the University Studies series (The University of Nebraska) University Studies of the University of Nebraska 5-1942 Teachers' Pay In Ancient Greece Clarence A. Forbes Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/univstudiespapers Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University Studies of the University of Nebraska at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Papers from the University Studies series (The University of Nebraska) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Teachers' Pay In Ancient Greece * * * * * CLARENCE A. FORBES UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA STUDIES Ma y 1942 STUDIES IN THE HUMANITIES NO.2 Note to Cataloger UNDER a new plan the volume number as well as the copy number of the University of Nebraska Studies was discontinued and only the numbering of the subseries carried on, distinguished by the month and the year of pu blica tion. Thus the present paper continues the subseries "Studies in the Humanities" begun with "University of Nebraska Studies, Volume 41, Number 2, August 1941." The other subseries of the University of Nebraska Studies, "Studies in Science and Technology," and "Studies in Social Science," are continued according to the above plan. Publications in all three subseries will be supplied to recipients of the "University Studies" series. Corre­ spondence and orders should be addressed to the Uni­ versity Editor, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. University of Nebraska Studies May 1942 TEACHERS' PAY IN ANCIENT GREECE * * * CLARENCE A.
  • Aristotle on Thinking ( Noêsis )

    Aristotle on Thinking ( Noêsis )

    Aristotle on Thinking ( Noêsis ) The Perception Model DA III.4-5. Aristotle gives an account of thinking (or intellect—noêsis ) that is modeled on his account of perception in Book II. Just as in perception, “that which perceives” ( to aisthêtikon ) takes on sensible form (without matter), so in thinking “that which thinks” ( to noêtikon ) takes on intelligible form (without matter). Similarly, just as in perception, the perceiver has the quality of the object potentially, but not actually, so, too, in understanding, the intellect is potentially (although not actually) each of its objects. Problem This leaves us with a problem analogous to the one we considered in the case of perception. There we wondered how the perceiver of a red tomato could be potentially (but not actually) red (prior to perceiving it), and yet become red (be actually red) in the process of perceiving it. Here the question is how the intellect that thinks about a tomato (or a horse) is potentially a tomato (or a horse), and then becomes a tomato (or a horse) in the process of thinking about it. The problem about thinking seems more severe: for although there is a sense in which the perceiver becomes red (the sense organ becomes colored red), there does not seem to be a comparable sense in which the intellect becomes a tomato (or a horse). (1) there is no organ involved, and (2) there does not seem to be room in there for a tomato (let alone a horse). The Differences from Perception As we will see, there are important differences between perceiving and understanding, beyond the fact the one involves taking on perceptible form and the other intelligible form.
  • Theory of Forms 1 Theory of Forms

    Theory of Forms 1 Theory of Forms

    Theory of Forms 1 Theory of Forms Plato's theory of Forms or theory of Ideas[1] [2] [3] asserts that non-material abstract (but substantial) forms (or ideas), and not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality.[4] When used in this sense, the word form is often capitalized.[5] Plato speaks of these entities only through the characters (primarily Socrates) of his dialogues who sometimes suggest that these Forms are the only true objects of study that can provide us with genuine knowledge; thus even apart from the very controversial status of the theory, Plato's own views are much in doubt.[6] Plato spoke of Forms in formulating a possible solution to the problem of universals. Forms Terminology: the Forms and the forms The English word "form" may be used to translate two distinct concepts that concerned Plato—the outward "form" or appearance of something, and "Form" in a new, technical nature, that never ...assumes a form like that of any of the things which enter into her; ... But the forms which enter into and go out of her are the likenesses of real existences modelled after their patterns in a wonderful and inexplicable manner.... The objects that are seen, according to Plato, are not real, but literally mimic the real Forms. In the allegory of the cave expressed in Republic, the things that are ordinarily perceived in the world are characterized as shadows of the real things, which are not perceived directly. That which the observer understands when he views the world mimics the archetypes of the many types and properties (that is, of universals) of things observed.
  • Plotinus and the Artistic Imagination John S

    Plotinus and the Artistic Imagination John S

    Roger Williams University DOCS@RWU School of Architecture, Art, and Historic School of Architecture, Art, and Historic Preservation Faculty Publications Preservation 2015 Plotinus and the Artistic Imagination John S. Hendrix Roger Williams University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://docs.rwu.edu/saahp_fp Part of the Architecture Commons Recommended Citation Hendrix, John S., "Plotinus and the Artistic Imagination" (2015). School of Architecture, Art, and Historic Preservation Faculty Publications. Paper 31. http://docs.rwu.edu/saahp_fp/31 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Architecture, Art, and Historic Preservation at DOCS@RWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in School of Architecture, Art, and Historic Preservation Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DOCS@RWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Plotinus and the Artistic Imagination John Hendrix In the thought of Plotinus, the imagination is responsible for the apprehen- sion of the activity of Intellect. If creativity in the arts involves an exercise of the imagination, the image-making power that links sense perception to noet- ic thought and the nous poietikos , the poetic or creative intellect, then the arts exercise the apprehension of intellectual activity and unconscious thought. According to John Dillon in “Plotinus and the Transcendental Imag- ination,” 1 Plotinus’ conception of the imagination led to the formulation of the imagination as a basis of artistic creativity. In Plotinus, imagination operates on several different levels: it produces images in sense perception, it synthesizes images in dianoetic thought, and it produces images in correspondence with the articulation through logos of noetic thought.
  • Sophist Revisited Trends in Classics Q Supplementary Volumes

    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.
  • Iamblichus and Julian''s ''Third Demiurge'': a Proposition

    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.
  • On the Arrangement of the Platonic Dialogues

    On the Arrangement of the Platonic Dialogues

    Ryan C. Fowler 25th Hour On the Arrangement of the Platonic Dialogues I. Thrasyllus a. Diogenes Laertius (D.L.), Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers 3.56: “But, just as long ago in tragedy the chorus was the only actor, and afterwards, in order to give the chorus breathing space, Thespis devised a single actor, Aeschylus a second, Sophocles a third, and thus tragedy was completed, so too with philosophy: in early times it discoursed on one subject only, namely physics, then Socrates added the second subject, ethics, and Plato the third, dialectics, and so brought philosophy to perfection. Thrasyllus says that he [Plato] published his dialogues in tetralogies, like those of the tragic poets. Thus they contended with four plays at the Dionysia, the Lenaea, the Panathenaea and the festival of Chytri. Of the four plays the last was a satiric drama; and the four together were called a tetralogy.” b. Characters or types of dialogues (D.L. 3.49): 1. instructive (ὑφηγητικός) A. theoretical (θεωρηµατικόν) a. physical (φυσικόν) b. logical (λογικόν) B. practical (πρακτικόν) a. ethical (ἠθικόν) b. political (πολιτικόν) 2. investigative (ζητητικός) A. training the mind (γυµναστικός) a. obstetrical (µαιευτικός) b. tentative (πειραστικός) B. victory in controversy (ἀγωνιστικός) a. critical (ἐνδεικτικός) b. subversive (ἀνατρεπτικός) c. Thrasyllan categories of the dialogues (D.L. 3.50-1): Physics: Timaeus Logic: Statesman, Cratylus, Parmenides, and Sophist Ethics: Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Symposium, Menexenus, Clitophon, the Letters, Philebus, Hipparchus, Rivals Politics: Republic, the Laws, Minos, Epinomis, Atlantis Obstetrics: Alcibiades 1 and 2, Theages, Lysis, Laches Tentative: Euthyphro, Meno, Io, Charmides and Theaetetus Critical: Protagoras Subversive: Euthydemus, Gorgias, and Hippias 1 and 2 :1 d.
  • Plato's Third Man Argument

    Plato's Third Man Argument

    Greek Philosophy (Essays) Theo Todman Does the Third Man Argument refute the theory of forms? Fine [1993] recognises four versions of the Third Man Argument (TMA). However, she argues persuasively that these are similar arguments with similar tacit premises, though with different emphases. Consequently, we will consider only that in Parmenides 132a1- b2. Fine’s translation runs as follows, with Parmenides speaking to Socrates: I suppose it is because of the following sort of thing that you think that (1) each form is one: (2) Whenever many things seem large to you, there perhaps seems to you to be, when you have looked at them all, some one and the same idea. Hence you think (3) the large is one. …. (4) What, then, if in the same way you look in your soul at all these – at the large itself and the other large things? (5) Will not some one large appear again, by which all these will appear large? …. So another form of largeness will appear besides the large itself and its participants. (6) And in addition to these, yet another, by which all these will be large. (7) And so each of the forms will no longer be one for you, but infinitely many. There are two things we need to address in this essay. Firstly, we need to understand the TMA itself, determining its premises, logical structure and validity. Secondly, we need to determine what Plato wants us to learn from it, and what its consequences are for his theory of Forms. The Argument Vlastos [1954] generalises Fine’s steps (2) and (5) as: (V2) If a number of things a, b, c, are all F, there must be a single Form F-ness, in virtue of which we apprehend a, b, c as all F.

  • Contradiction and Aporia in Early Greek Philosophy John Palmer

    Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-11015-1 — The Aporetic Tradition in Ancient Philosophy Edited by George Karamanolis , Vasilis Politis Excerpt More Information chapter 1 Contradiction and Aporia in Early Greek Philosophy John Palmer An aporia is, essentially, a point of impasse where there is puzzlement or perplexity about how to proceed. Aporetic reasoning is reasoning that leads to this sort of impasse, and an aporia-based method would be one that centrally employs such reasoning. One might describe aporia, more basically, as a point where one does not know how to respond to what is said. In the Platonic dialogues dubbed ‘aporetic’, for instance, Socrates brings his interlocutors to the point where they no longer know what to say. Now, it should be obvious that there was a good deal of aporetic reasoning prior to Socrates. It should also be obvious that the form of such reasoning is immaterial so long as it leads to aporia. In particular, the reasoning that leads to an aporia need not take the form of a dilemma. Instances of reasoning generating genuine dilemmas – with two equally unpalatable alternatives presented as exhausting the possibilities – are actually rather rare in early Greek philosophy. Moreover, there need not in fact be any reasoning or argumentation as such to lead an auditor to a point where it is unclear how to proceed or what to say. Logical paradoxes such as Eubulides’ liar do not rely on argumentation at all but on the exploitation of certain logical problems to generate an aporia. All that is required in this instance is the simple question: ‘Is what a man says true or false when he says he is lying?’ It is hard to know how to answer this question because any simple response snares one in contradiction.
  • Gregory Vlastos

    Gregory Vlastos

    Gregory Vlastos: A Preliminary Inventory of His Papers at the Harry Ransom Center Descriptive Summary Creator: Vlastos, Gregory, 1907-1991 Title: Gregory Vlastos Papers Dates: circa 1930s-1991 Extent: 100 document boxes (42.00 linear feet) Abstract: The papers of philosopher Gregory Vlastos, a scholar of ancient Greek philosophy who spent most of his career studying the thought of Plato and Socrates, document his studies, his writings, and his career as an educator at several American universities. Call Number: Manuscript Collection MS-4361 Language: English, with Ancient Greek, French, German, Italian, Latin, Modern Greek, and Spanish Access: Open for research Administrative Information Acquisition: Gifts, 1993-2010 (G9070, G9134, G9163, G9225, G9252, G9628, G9979, G9982, G10214, G10288, G11877, 10-03-014-G) Processed by: Hope Rider, 2006; updated by Joan Sibley, 2016 Repository: The University of Texas at Austin, Harry Ransom Center Vlastos, Gregory, 1907-1991 Manuscript Collection MS-4361 Scope and Contents The papers of philosopher Gregory Vlastos (1907-1991), a scholar of ancient Greek philosophy who spent most of his career studying the thought of Plato and Socrates, document his studies, his writings, and his career as an educator at several American universities, especially Cornell, Princeton, and The University of California at Berkeley. The papers are arranged in six series: I. Correspondence and Offprint Files, II. Study, Lecture, and Teaching Files, III. Works, IV. Works by Others, V. Miscellaneous, and VI. Offprints Removed from Manuscripts. The Correspondence and Offprint Files (35 boxes) in Series I. represent Vlastos' extensive correspondence with other philosophers, classicists, former students, academics, and others. The files are arranged alphabetically by correspondent name, and generally include not only letters received, but copies of Vlastos' responses.