DOCSLIB.ORG

Plato's Introduction of Forms

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Plato's Introduction of Forms This page intentionally left blank PLATO’S INTRODUCTION OF FORMS Scholars of Plato are divided between those who emphasize the liter- ature of the dialogues and those who emphasize the argument of the dialogues, and between those who see a development in the thought of the dialogues and those who do not. In this important book, Russell Dancy focuses on the arguments and defends a developmental pic- ture. He explains the Theory of Forms of the Phaedo and Symposium as an outgrowth of the quest for definitions canvased in the Socratic dialogues, by constructing a Theory of Definition for the Socratic dialogues based on the refutations of definitions in those dialogues, and showing how that theory is mirrored in the Theory of Forms. His discussion, notable for both its clarity and its meticulous schol- arship, ranges in detail over a number of Plato’s early and middle dialogues, and will be of interest to readers in Plato studies and in ancient philosophy more generally. r. m. dancy is Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University. He is the author of Sense and Contradiction: A Study in Aristotle (1975) and TwoStudies in the Early Academy (1991), and editor of Kant and Critique (1993). PLATO’S INTRODUCTION OF FORMS R. M. DANCY Florida State University, Tallahassee Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge , UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521838016 © R. M. Dancy 2004 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published in print format 2004 - ---- eBook (EBL) - --- eBook (EBL) - ---- hardback - --- hardback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of s for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. ForMargaret Contents Preface page xi Note on the text xii Abbreviations xii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 The dialogues 4 1.2 The genesis of the Theory of Forms: Aristotle’s account 11 1.2.1 Forms and definitions: the Argument from Flux 14 1.2.2 The Argument from Relativity: a forward glance at the dialogues 18 part iasocratic theory of definition 2 Socrates’ demand for definitions 23 2.1 Preliminary: on the vocabulary for “defining” 23 2.2 Defining and living right 26 2.2.1 Laches 26 2.2.2 Protagoras 28 2.2.3 Gorgias 29 2.2.4 Charmides 30 2.2.5 Euthyphro 31 2.2.6 Hippias Major 31 2.2.7 Lysis 34 2.2.8 Republic I 34 2.2.9 The importance of definition 35 2.3 The Intellectualist Assumption 35 2.3.1 Euthyphro 42 2.3.2 Hippias Major 47 2.3.3 Republic I 49 2.3.4 Laches 52 2.3.5 Protagoras 56 2.3.6 Charmides 57 vii viii Contents 2.3.7 Lysis 61 2.3.8 The alleged ambiguity of “know” 64 3 Fixing the topic 65 3.1 Existence, unity, causality, and Platonism 65 3.2 Existence claims in the Socratic dialogues 68 3.2.1 Protagoras 68 3.2.2 Charmides 75 3.2.3 Hippias Major 76 4 Socrates’ requirements: substitutivity 80 4.1 ASocratic theory of definition: preliminary 80 4.2 The Substitutivity Requirement 81 4.3 Necessary and sufficient conditions 82 4.3.1 Laches 82 4.3.2 Charmides 92 4.3.3 Lysis 104 4.3.4 Euthyphro 5c–6e 105 4.4 Leibniz’s Law 107 4.4.1 Charmides 169e–175b 107 4.4.2 Charmides 165c–e 108 4.4.3 Charmides 160d–161b 109 5 Socrates’ requirements: paradigms 115 5.1 Parade©gmata: some examples 116 5.2 Self-Predication 117 5.3 Generically abstract noun phrases 120 5.4 Euthyphro 6e 123 5.5 Euthyphro 6e–8a 124 6 Socrates’ requirements: explanations 134 6.1 Explaining content 134 6.2 Euthyphro 6de 137 6.3 Euthyphro 9d–11b 137 7 Socrates’ requirements: explaining by paradigms 148 7.1 Protagoras 330–331, 332–333 150 7.2 Charmides 160d–161b 151 7.3 Charmides 164c–166b 151 7.4 Hippias Major 156 7.4.1 Hippias Major 286c–287e 156 7.4.2 Hippias Major 287e–289d 158 7.4.3 Hippias Major 289d–291c 166 7.4.4 Hippias Major 291d–293c 167 7.4.5 Hippias Major 293c–294e 170 Contents ix 7.4.6 Hippias Major 295b–296d 174 7.4.7 Hippias Major 296d–297d 177 8 Explaining: presence, participation; the Lysis 186 8.1 Participation and partaking 187 8.2 Presence 188 8.2.1 Charmides 189 8.2.2 Gorgias 191 8.2.3 Euthydemus 300e–301a 192 8.2.4 Lysis 216c–221d 193 part ii between definitions and forms 9 The Meno 209 9.1 The Intellectualist Assumption and the Socratic paradoxes 210 9.270a–80d: a Socratic mini-dialogue 210 9.2.171e–73c: the excellences 211 9.2.273c–74b: the ability to rule 215 9.2.377b–79e: desire and power 216 9.2.479e–80d: perplexity 217 9.380de: Meno’s Paradox, I 218 9.481a–86c: the Doctrine of Recollection 221 9.4.1 Recollection 222 9.4.2 Meno’s Paradox, II 225 9.4.381e–86c: Recollection illustrated 226 9.586c–100c: the Method of Hypothesis and the teachability of excellence 236 9.5.186c–e: the Intellectualist Assumption 236 9.5.286e–87b: the Method of Hypothesis 237 9.5.387b–89c: application of the method; excellence is teachable 238 9.6 The metaphysics of the Meno 240 part iii platonic forms 10 Phaedo 64–66: enter the Forms 245 10.164c: an existential admission 245 10.265a–66a: the Forms and the senses 245 10.3 Simmias’ agreement 248 10.4 The ease of forgetting the distinction 251 11 Phaedo 72–78: the Forms and Recollection 253 11.172–73:Recollection again 253 11.2 Being reminded of something 255 x Contents 11.2.1 The Prior Knowledge Requirement 255 11.2.2 A sufficient condition for Recollection 256 11.374a: the Ancillary Argument, I 264 11.474a–d: the completion of the Core Argument, I 265 11.4.174a–c: ideal and mundane objects 266 11.574c–75a: the Ancillary Argument, II 273 11.675a–76d: the completion of the Core Argument, II 276 11.6.175cd: the scope of the argument 278 11.6.275d–76d: forgetting and being reminded 279 11.776d–77a: the upshot of the argument 281 12 The Beautiful in the Symposium 284 12.1 Diotima’s immortality 284 12.2 Climbing to the higher mysteries 285 12.2.1 From one body to all bodies 285 12.2.2 The beauty of the soul 286 12.2.3 The beauty of knowledge 286 12.2.4 The beauty of it all 287 13 Phaedo 95a–107b: Forms and causes 291 13.197b–99d: Anaxagoras, teleology, and mechanism 292 13.299d–103c: Forms as Causes – The Safe Theory 294 13.2.1 Socrates’ previous failure (99d–100a) 295 13.2.2 The method (100a, 101d–102a) 296 13.2.3 The reintroduction of the Forms (100a–c) 299 13.2.4 The application to causes (100c–101d) 301 13.2.5 Socratic assumptions 304 13.2.6 The semantics of the theory (102a–d) 306 13.2.7 The exclusion principle (102d–103c) 308 13.3 Intermediates as causes: the Learned Safe Theory (103c–105c) 310 13.4 105c–107b: immortality and the Forms 312 14 Conclusion 314 References 316 Index of passages cited 336 General index 344 Preface In the spring of 1966,Gregory Vlastos invited me (among others) to submit a paper for consideration for an issue of the Monist he was editing. I did. Gregory did not accept the paper, but generously (as was his way always) provided me with detailed comments. One of those comments was: “To do this, you’d have to write a book.” Here it is. Along the way I have incurred an enormous number of intellectual debts. There is no possibility of my thanking all of those who have helped; for one thing, I would have to include all the students in seminars who have asked penetrating questions and made perceptive comments. So I’ll confine myself to the oldest debt, that owed to Gregory Vlastos, and the most recent ones. Michael Ruse sat through the better part of a seminar I gave on the book in 2002–2003, was obstreperous (often helpfully), and got me to submit the manuscript to Cambridge University Press. I won’t say that without his prodding the book would never have got out, but I won’t deny it either. Hilary Gaskin, of Cambridge University Press, also pushed me to submit it. She has been unfailingly encouraging throughout the entire process. She had it sent on to two referees, who gave me further reason to push on. Oneofthem, Eric Brown, gave me very extensive comments indeed. Among other things, the book was far too long, and he had a lot of suggestions for ways to shorten it (one of the most important was to stop short of the Republic, which was part of the original design; another was to curtail references to the secondary literature). Angela Blackburn did the copyediting, and was at all times understanding and helpful.
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]
  • Philosophy and the Foreigner in Plato's Dialogues
    Philosophy and the Foreigner in Plato’s Dialogues By Rebecca LeMoine A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Political Science) at the UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON 2014 Date of final oral examination: 06/20/2014 The dissertation is approved by the following members of the Final Oral Committee: Richard Avramenko, Associate Professor, Political Science Alex Dressler, Assistant Professor, Classics Daniel Kapust, Associate Professor, Political Science Helen Kinsella, Associate Professor, Political Science John Zumbrunnen, Professor, Political Science i ABSTRACT The place of foreigners in Plato’s thought remains understudied despite the prevalence of foreign characters, myths, and practices throughout his dialogues. Attending to this gap in the scholarly literature, this dissertation challenges conventional depictions of Plato as hostile to diversity by showing that Plato makes a compelling case for why we should engage with foreigners: the epistemological benefits of cross-cultural engagement. Through exegetical readings of the Republic, Laws, Phaedrus, and Menexenus, I argue that Plato finds cross-cultural dialogue epistemologically beneficial owing to its ability to provoke us to philosophize together, an activity at once conducive to the quest for wisdom and generative of friendship. Put simply, conversations with foreigners perform the same role as the Socratic gadfly of stinging us into consciousness. This finding has major implications for the field of political theory and, specifically, for the role of the new subfield commonly referred to as comparative political theory. By demonstrating the centrality of cross-cultural dialogue to Plato’s conception of political theory, this dissertation suggests that comparative political theory is not a deviation from the tradition of Western political theory, but a restoration of it.
    [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]
  • Interpretation: a Journal of Political Philosophy
    Interpretation A JOURNAL J_OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Winter 1998 Volume 26 Number 2 149 Jules Gleicher Moses Politikos 183 Tucker Landy The Limitations of Political Philosophy: An Interpretation of Plato's Charmides 201 Jason A. Tipton Love of Gain, Philosophy and Tyranny: A Commentary on Plato's Hipparchus 217 Larry Peterman Changing Titles: Some Suggestions about the "Prince" Use of in Machiavelli and Others 239 Catherine H. Zuckert Leadership Natural and Conventional in Melville's "Benito Cereno" 257 Jon Fennell Harry Neumann and the Political Piety of Rorty's Postmodernism Book Reviews 275 George Anastaplo Aristotle's "Physics": A Guided Study, by Joe Sachs 285 Michael P. Zuckert Shakespeare and the Good Life, by David Lowenthal 295 Joan Stambaugh Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil, by Rudiger Safranski 299 Patrick Coby Hypocrisy and Integrity: Machiavelli, Rousseau and the Ethics of Politics, by Ruth Grant 305 Susan Orr Leo Strauss and the American Right, by Shadia Drury 309 Will Morrisey Public Morality and Liberal Society: Essays on Decency, Law, and Pornography, by Harry M. Clor 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 Arnaldo Momigliano (d. 1987) Michael Oakeshott (d. 1990) Ellis Sandoz Leo Strauss (d. 1973) Kenneth W. Thompson International Editors Terence E. Marshall Heinrich Meier Editors Wayne Ambler Maurice Auerbach Fred Baumann Amy Bonnette Patrick Coby Elizabeth C de Baca Eastman Thomas S.
    [Show full text]
  • Gorgias, Menexenus, Protagoras Edited by Malcolm Schofield Frontmatter More Information
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-54600-3 - Plato: Gorgias, Menexenus, Protagoras Edited by Malcolm Schofield Frontmatter More information CAMBRIDGE TEXTS IN THE HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT PLATO Gorgias, Menexenus, Protagoras © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-54600-3 - Plato: Gorgias, Menexenus, Protagoras Edited by Malcolm Schofield Frontmatter More information CAMBRIDGE TEXTS IN THE HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT Series editors R AYMOND GEUSS Professor in Philosophy, University of Cambridge Q UENTIN SKINNER Professor of the Humanities, Queen Mary, University of London Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought is now firmly estab- lished as the major student textbook series in political theory. It aims to make available to students all the most important texts in the history of western political thought, from ancient Greece to the early twentieth century. All the familiar classic texts will be included, but the series seeks at the same time to enlarge the conventional canon by incorporating an extensive range of less well-known works, many of them never before available in a modern English edition. Wherever possible, texts are published in complete and unabridged form, and translations are specially commissioned for the series. Each vol- ume contains a critical introduction together with chronologies, biographical sketches, a guide to further reading and any necessary glossaries and text- ual apparatus. When completed the series will aim to offer an outline
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Protagoras 330-1 David Wol£Sdorf
    ~tKatO<J"UVll and 'Qc.nem,c; at Protagoras 330-1 David Wol£sdorf I Introduction and Review In an argument in Protagoras for the similarity of Ol1WlO(j'\JVTj and oCH6'tTj~ Socrates introduces the following set of propositions: 1 (1) OtKalO(j'\JVT] is OtKlXlOV. 2 (2) oCH6'tTj~ is OCHOV. 3 (3) OtKlX lO(j'\JVTj is ocrWV. 4 (4) oCH6'tT]~ is otKawv. iI , I The meanings of (1)-(4) remain controversial. The objective of this paper is to give an update on the state of the discussion and to offer my own interpretation. The words 'OtKlXtOOUVTj' and 'OtKlXtoV' are typically translated as 'jus- tice' and 'just'. Thus, (1) is rendered as 'Justice is just'. The words '6CH6'tT1~' and 'ocrtoV' are typically translated as 'piety' or 'holiness' and 'pious' or 'holy'. But 'piety' and 'holiness' are not synonyms. Humans and their actions can be pious or holy, but inanimate objects can be holy, 330c4-dl 2 330d2-el 3 331a7-b3 4 331a7-b3 182 David Wolfsdorf ~lKato(jUVT\ and 'CXn6'!T\~ at Protagoras 330-1 183 but not pious. Thus, it is unclear whether to translate (2)-(4) as 'Holiness defined, is a condition that can only occur within a metaphysical discur- is holy', 'Justice is holy', and 'Holiness is just', or 'Piety is pious', 'Justice sive context.9 is pious', and 'Piety is just'. For much of the paper I will retain the original Insofar as the condition of self-predication depends upon the subject Greek and render the key words in English only where necessary.
    [Show full text]
  • Plato's Euthydemus
    PLATO’S EUTHYDEMUS: A STUDY ON THE RELATIONS BETWEEN LOGIC AND EDUCATION Plato’s Euthydemus is an unlucky dialogue. Few dealt with it in its own right, not just as part of a wider discussion of Plato, and fewer still saw in it more than a topic of sophistic fallacies. Some, of course, paid attention to the constructive sections of the dialogue, but only rarely do we come across a real attempt to unify its different aspects.1 In this paper I propose to show how, in the Euthydemus, Plato tries to distinguish between the Socratic and the Sophistic conceptions of education, by tracing them to their roots in the opposing views of the Sophists — and especially those of the second generation — and of Socrates about truth and about the role of logic. And although the eristic techniques of Euthydemus and Dionysodorus are obviously fallacious, they turn out to be developments of Protagoras’ views and follow from philosophical positions worthy of serious examination. The Euthydemus is a caricature, to be sure. But, as all good caricature, it has a serious intent. It sketches the degeneration of the Sophistic approach to education, in some of its aspects. More important­ ly, it distinguishes Socratic education from the methods and effects of its Sophistic counterpart. Euthydemus and Dionysodorus, the two sophist brothers, are reminis­ cent of the great Sophists of the Protagoras in more than one way. They are polymaths like Hippias, and at one time or another have taught a variety of arts, from forensic rhetoric to armed combat. Also, they have Prodicus’ penchant for linguistic analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Plato's Project for Education in the Early Socratic Dialogues
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 1-1-1996 Plato's project for education in the early Socratic dialogues. Heather Lynne Reid University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Recommended Citation Reid, Heather Lynne, "Plato's project for education in the early Socratic dialogues." (1996). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 2285. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/2285 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PLATO'S PROJECT FOR EDUCATION IN THE EARLY SOCRATIC DIALOGUES A Dissertation Presented by HEATHER LYNNE REID Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May 1996 Department of Philosophy © Copyright by Heather Lynne Reid 1996 All Rights Reserved PLATO'S PROJECT FOR EDUCATION IN THE EARLY SOCRATIC DIALOGUES A Dissertation Presented by HEATHER LYNNE REID Approved as to style and content by: ca Gareth B. Matthews, Chair Robert Ackerman, Member J^n Robison, Department Head philosophy ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my dissertation director Gareth B. Matthews for his special balance of support and criticism throughout this project, as well as Bruce Aune and Marios Philippides for their comments on early stages of the manuscript. I also wish to thank the Department of Philosophy of the University of Southern California for providing library privileges and research support necessary to the completion of this dissertation.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Participation and Predication in Plato's Middle Dialogues Author(S): R
    Participation and Predication in Plato's Middle Dialogues Author(s): R. E. Allen Source: The Philosophical Review, Vol. 69, No. 2, (Apr., 1960), pp. 147-164 Published by: Duke University Press on behalf of Philosophical Review Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2183501 Accessed: 10/08/2008 14:32 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. http://www.jstor.org PARTICIPATION AND PREDICATION IN PLATO'S MIDDLE DIALOGUES* I PROPOSE in this paper to examine three closely related issues in the interpretation of Plato's middle dialogues: the nature of Forms, of participation, and of predication.
    [Show full text]
  • False Pleasures, Appearance and Imagination in the "Philebus" Author(S): Sylvain Delcomminette Source: Phronesis, Vol
    False Pleasures, Appearance and Imagination in the "Philebus" Author(s): Sylvain Delcomminette Source: Phronesis, Vol. 48, No. 3 (2003), pp. 215-237 Published by: BRILL Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4182729 Accessed: 21-03-2015 17:53 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Phronesis. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 159.149.103.9 on Sat, 21 Mar 2015 17:53:03 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions False Pleasures, Appearance and Imagination in the Philebus SYLVAIN DELCOMMINETTE ABSTRACT This paper examines the discussion about false pleasures in the Philebus (36 c3- 44 al ). After stressing the crucial importanceof this discussion in the economy of the dialogue, it attempts to identify the problematiclocus of the possibility of true or false pleasures. Socrates points to it by means of an analogy between pleasure and doxa. Against traditional interpretations,which reduce the distinc- tion drawn in this passage to a distinction between doxa and pleasure on the one hand and their object on the other, it is argued that, rather,Socrates distinguishes between the mere fact of having a doxa or a pleasure, on the one hand, and the content of these acts, on the other hand.
    [Show full text]