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 Cambridge University Press 0521838010 - Plato’s Introduction of Forms R. M. Dancy Frontmatter More information 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 Two Studies in the Early Academy (1991), and editor of Kant and Critique (1993). © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 0521838010 - Plato’s Introduction of Forms R. M. Dancy Frontmatter More information PLATO’S INTRODUCTION OF FORMS R. M. DANCY Florida State University, Tallahassee © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 0521838010 - Plato’s Introduction of Forms R. M. Dancy Frontmatter More information published by the press syndicate of the university of cambridge The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom cambridge university press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge, cb2 2ru,UK 40 West 20th Street, New York, ny 10011–4211, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, vic 3207, Australia Ruiz de Alarcon´ 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa http://www.cambridge.org C R. M. Dancy 2004 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2004 Printed in the United Kingdomat the University Press, Cambridge Typeface Adobe Garamond 11/12.5 pt. System LATEX 2ε [tb] A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library isbn 0 521 83801 0 hardback The publisher has used its best endeavours to ensure that the URLs for external websites referred to in this book are correct and active at the time of going to press. However, the publisher has no responsibility for the websites and can make no guarantee that a site will remain live or that the content is or will remain appropriate. © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 0521838010 - Plato’s Introduction of Forms R. M. Dancy Frontmatter More information For Margaret © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 0521838010 - Plato’s Introduction of Forms R. M. Dancy Frontmatter More information 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 i a socratic 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 © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 0521838010 - Plato’s Introduction of Forms R. M. Dancy Frontmatter More information 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 A Socratic 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 © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 0521838010 - Plato’s Introduction of Forms R. M. Dancy Frontmatter More information 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 © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 0521838010 - Plato’s Introduction of Forms R. M. Dancy Frontmatter More information 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 Fromone 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 © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 0521838010 - Plato’s Introduction of Forms R. M. Dancy Frontmatter More information 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Did Socrates Think Philosophy (Ethics) Is Impossible?1 in Plato's
    Did Socrates Think Philosophy (Ethics) is Impossible?1 In Plato’s early dialogues, Socrates produces arguments that throw doubt upon the prospects for success in philosophical ethics. In the Apology, Socrates tells us he had become convinced that ethical knowledge is not possible for human beings. He says such knowledge is ‘property of the gods’. Human wisdom, is by comparison, worth very little, or nothing at all. He found that it is not possible to analyze or define moral terms such as ‘good’, or ‘just’. Because of this inability, a science of the good (wisdom) is not possible. The practitioners of this alleged science are not able to verbalize the desiderata or goals of the science, except in the most general and question-begging ways. This is in marked contrast to other sciences, such as medicine, and military science. Paradoxically, Socrates did believe in the benefits of philosophical investigation. We may not acquire any positive knowledge via philosophy (beyond the knowledge of our own ignorance); nevertheless, the best life must include dialectical examination of ethical concepts, and discussions concerning the good. Why does he hold this apparently conflicted view? The answer is complex. On the one hand, Socrates believed that we have an ability to detect goodness, even if we cannot fully define it or understand it. Goodness does exist. Nihilism, the view that there are no objective moral values, is not necessarily connected with ethical skepticism, the view that definition or analysis of moral terms is not possible. Critical reasoning allows us to find the good people and acts, and more reliably find the frauds, bad people or acts.
    [Show full text]
  • Plato-Charmides.Pdf
    Charmides Plato Translated by Benjamin Jowett Introduction The subject of the Charmides is Temperance or (Greek), a peculiarly Greek notion, which may also be rendered Moderation (Compare Cic. Tusc. ‘(Greek), quam soleo equidem tum temperantiam, tum moderationem appellare, nonnunquam etiam modestiam.'), Modesty, Discretion, Wisdom, without completely exhausting by all these terms the various associations of the word. It may be described as ‘mens sana in corpore sano,’ the harmony or due proportion of the higher and lower elements of human nature which ‘makes a man his own master,’ according to the definition of the Republic. In the accompanying translation the word has been rendered in different places either Temperance or Wisdom, as the connection seemed to require: for in the philosophy of Plato (Greek) still retains an intellectual element (as Socrates is also said to have identified (Greek) with (Greek): Xen. Mem.) and is not yet relegated to the sphere of moral virtue, as in the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle. The beautiful youth, Charmides, who is also the most temperate of human beings, is asked by Socrates, ‘What is Temperance?’ He answers characteristically, (1) ‘Quietness.’ ‘But Temperance is a fine and noble thing; and quietness in many or most cases is not so fine a thing as quickness.’ He tries again and says (2) that temperance is modesty. But this again is set aside by a sophistical application of Homer: for Charmides Plato temperance is good as well as noble, and Homer has declared that ‘modesty is not good for a needy man.’ (3) Once more Charmides makes the attempt.
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom and Responsibility in the Myth of Er
    Freedom and responsibility in the myth of Er Author: Marina McCoy Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/3019 This work is posted on eScholarship@BC, Boston College University Libraries. Published in Ideas y valores: Revista Colombiana de Filosofia, vol. 61, no. 149, pp. 125-141, September 2012 These materials are made available for use in research, teaching and private study, pursuant to U.S. Copyright Law. The user must assume full responsibility for any use of the materials, including but not limited to, infringement of copyright and publication rights of reproduced materials. Any materials used for academic research or otherwise should be fully credited with the source. The publisher or original authors may retain copyright to the materials. Freedom and Responsibility in the Myth of Er Libertad y responsabilidad en el mito de Er Marina Berzins McCoy* Boston College - USA Abstract Plato uses the myth of Er in the Republic in order to carve out space for political freedom and responsibility for human freedom in the ordinary polis. While much of the Republic concentrates on the development of an ideal city in speech, that city is fundamentally a mythos presented in order for Socrates and his friends to learn something about political and individual virtue. The city in which Socrates and his friends exist is an imperfect city and myth of Er is intended for those audience members. Its emphasis on the necessity for personal responsibility in the midst of freedom can be understood as a political claim about the place of individual choice in a world that is constrained by both political and cosmic “necessity”.
    [Show 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Charis and Philia in Plato's Gorgias Jan Marie Christiansen Beane Iowa State University
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 1996 Charis and philia in Plato's Gorgias Jan Marie Christiansen Beane Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the English Language and Literature Commons, and the Rhetoric and Composition Commons Recommended Citation Beane, Jan Marie Christiansen, "Charis and philia in Plato's Gorgias " (1996). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 7083. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/7083 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Charis and philia in Plato's Gorgias by Jan Marie Christiansen Beane A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Major: English (Rhetoric, Composition, and Professional Commurucation) Major Professor: Scott P. Consigny Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 1996 11 Graduate College Iowa State University This is to certify that the Master's thesis of Jan Marie Christiansen Beane has met the thesis requirements of Iowa State University Signatures have been redacted for privacy Ill TABLE OF CONTENTS NOTE ON TRANSLATIONS AND TRANSLITERATIONS iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 2. INTERPRETIVE STRATEGY CHAPTERS. CHi4il?S IN GREEK CULTURE AND LITERATURE 15 CHAPTER 4. THE RHETORICAL SITUATION OF THE GORGIAS 26 CHAPTER 5.
    [Show full text]
  • V— the Theory of Forms
    Page 143 V— The Theory of Forms T.H. Irwin (1.)— Socratic Method and Platonic Metaphysics Throughout the Platonic dialogues the character Socrates assumes the existence of 'forms' (eide * Euthphr. 6d9­e1; Men. 72c6­d1), but most students of Plato believe that the Theory of Forms1is a distinctively Platonic theory, not accepted by the historical Socrates. Students who recognize a group of early 'Socrates' dialogues and a later group of 'middle' dialogues take the Theory of Forms to be introduced in the middle dialogues. Those who accept this division between Socratic forms and Platonic Forms appeal to Aristotle's comments (Metaph. 987a32­b10, 1078b12­1079a4, 1086a37­b11). According to Aristotle, Plato developed his theory of non­sensible, separated Forms in response to Socrates' search for definitions in ethics, because he believed that Socratic definitions could not apply to sensible things, since sensible things are subject to change. Plato's views about change resulted (Aristotle tells us) from his early association with Cratylus the Heracleitean. Aristotle leads us to expect, then, that when Plato argues that sensibles are deficient or imperfect, he will refer especially to change. We ought not to assume that Aristotle must be right, but it is only reasonable to examine the dialogues to see whether his claims are true, or plausible, or illuminating. To see whether he is right, we must find out what he means and how far his claim can be defended from Plato's dialogues. The most relevant passages in the dialogues are those—if there are any—in which Plato argues for non­sensible Forms.
    [Show full text]
  • Divination in Plato's Charmides
    Divination in Plato’s Charmides Towards the end of the Charmides (173aff.), Socrates asks Critias to listen to his “dream” in which the human race is ruled by sôphrosunê, conceived as the knowledge of knowledge and ignorance. In such a world, anyone who claimed to be a ship’s captain, doctor, or general, but lacked the relevant expertise, would be exposed as a mere pretender. “In that case, wouldn’t the outcome have to be that we would have healthier bodies than we do now, and when in danger at sea or in battle we would be kept safe, and our tools, all our clothing and footwear, and all our belongings would be made for us with skill, as would so much else besides, seeing that we would be employing true craftsmen?” Socrates then mentions a further benefit that sôphrosunê would bring to humans, not considered in the dialogue up to this point: “And if you’d like, let’s also allow divination to be knowledge of the future, and that sôphrosunê, presiding over it, turns away charlatans and appoints true seers as our prophets of things to come.” Though he concludes that people thus ruled by sôphrosunê would live and act with knowledge, Socrates fails to grasp what specific kind of knowledge sôphrosunê is such that it would also make them succeed and be happy. Critias insists it is both the seer’s knowledge “and another” (174a3), but when pressed he claims it is actually knowledge of the good and the bad (174b10). Yet it appears there isn’t any good thing for the sôphrôn person to know that doesn’t already fall within the scope of some branch of knowledge (e.g., medicine or navigation).
    [Show full text]
  • Republic As Psychology & Dissuasion from Politics Working Draft – Oct 27, 2017 – Uvic Michael Griffin, [email protected]
    Griffin 1 of 15 “Plato’s Glaucon”: The Republic as Psychology & Dissuasion from Politics Working Draft – Oct 27, 2017 – UVic Michael Griffin, [email protected] Roadmap 1. Overview: Reading the Republic 2. “Plato’s Glaucon?” a. Dissuasion from entering politics prior to self-care b. Distinguishing images (esp. polis) from what they represent (esp. psychē) 3. Imaging in the Republic: Myths, Analogies, and Imitations a. Socrates’ analysis of images (eikōnes, eidōla, muthologein, mimēsis, dēmiourgia) b. Socrates’ use of images i. The City ii. The Ship iii. The Divided Line iv. The Cave v. The Inner Animals vi. The Myth of Er 4. Glaucon: Nourished on eikōnes? 5. Not taking it literally: The shift from imitation and the non-rational soul (Book 10) Translations lightly adapted from Cooper & Hutchinson 1997. 1. Introduction Overview: Books 1-10 Note that the ten-book division may be partially arbitrary; a six-book division was also current in antiquity (Sedley 2013). 1. What is justice (dikaiosunē)? Is the just life better than the unjust life? No trivial question (352D). Justice as principle of coherence in any complex. Thrasymachus, Socrates. Aporia. 2. Is the just life really better than the unjust life? Plato’s brothers Glaucon and Adeimantus. The Ring of Gyges. The city (polis)–soul (psychē) analogy (368C-369C), leading to the creation of a “polis in words” (poiōmen… logōi). Origins and foundations of poleis with “each doing their own work”. The simple and sustainable “city of pigs,” which has craft specialization but no class divisions, rejected by Glaucon in favour of luxuries, necessitating military power and the education of “guardians” through music and poetry.
    [Show full text]
  • The Unity of the Philebus: Continuity in Plato’S Philosophy
    Distribution Agreement In presenting this thesis or dissertation as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree from Emory University, I hereby grant to Emory University and its agents the non-exclusive license to archive, make accessible, and display my thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known, including display on the world wide web. I understand that I may select some access restrictions as part of the online submission of the thesis or dissertation. I retain all ownership rights to the copyright of the thesis or dissertation. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. Signature: _________________________ ___________________ Jong Hwan Lee Date The Unity of the Philebus: Continuity in Plato’s Philosophy By Jong Hwan Lee Doctor of Philosophy Philosophy ___________________________________ Dr. Richard Patterson Advisor ___________________________________ Dr. Ann Hartle Committee Member ___________________________________ Dr. Richard D. Parry Committee Member Accepted: ___________________________________ Lisa A. Tedesco, Ph. D. Dean of the James T. Laney School of Graduate Studies ______________ Date The Unity of the Philebus: Continuity in Plato’s Philosophy By Jong Hwan Lee B.A., Seoul National University, 2002 M.A., Seoul National University, 2005 M.A., Emory University, 2010 Advisor: Dr. Richard Patterson, Ph.D. An abstract of A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the James T. Laney School of Graduate Studies of Emory University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy 2013 Abstract The Unity of the Philebus: Continuity in Plato’s Philosophy By Jong Hwan Lee The Philebus is Plato’s answer to the question what the human good is.
    [Show full text]
  • Logos and Psyche in Plato's Phaedo Jesse I
    Sacred Heart University DigitalCommons@SHU Philosophy, Theology and Religious Studies Faculty Philosophy, Theology and Religious Studies Publications 12-2011 Logos and Psyche in Plato's Phaedo Jesse I. Bailey Sacred Heart University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/rel_fac Part of the Ancient Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Bailey, Jesse I. "Logos and Psyche in Plato's Phaedo." Dissertation. Pennsylvania State University, 2011. Web. https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/paper/12631/ This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy, Theology and Religious Studies at DigitalCommons@SHU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy, Theology and Religious Studies Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@SHU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of the Liberal Arts Logos and Psyche in Plato’s Phaedo A Dissertation in Philosophy by Jesse I. Bailey © 2011 Jesse I. Bailey Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2011 The dissertation of Jesse I. Bailey was reviewed and approved* by the following: Dennis Schmidt Liberal Arts Research Professor of Philosophy, Comparative Literature, and German Dissertation Adviser Chair of Committee Chris Long Associate Professor of Philosophy and Classics Shannon Sullivan Professor of Philosophy, Women's Studies, and African and African
    [Show full text]