DOCSLIB.ORG

Argumentative Theory of Reason) Perspective

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

WINING AND DINING* A Re-examination and Reinterpretation of the Records of the Presocratics and Earlier from an ATR (Argumentative Theory of Reason) Perspective The development of reasoning in Greece in the form of “devising and evaluating arguments intended to persuade” Greg Armfield * A fifth-century B.C. Attic kylix (drinking cup) from the Berlin State Museum, showing guests at a symposium drinking wine. Submitted for the degree of Masters of Arts in Philosophy Department of Philosophy University of Canterbury 2017 ABSTRACT Aristotle was the founder of logic. He said that there was nothing like it earlier. Interpretations of the records of the presocratics from a classical theory of reasoning (CTR) perspective give the ‘traditional account’ of the development of ‘Greek rationalism’. That is, an account of the Greeks becoming better at discovering the world through a process of forward inference: ratiocination. The recent argumentative theory of reason (ATR) of Sperber and Mercier provides an alternative perspective through which to interpret, or reinterpret these same records. According to the theory, the main function of reasoning is the devising and evaluating of arguments intended to persuade. This suggests a process of backward inference in order to support ideas that have arisen intuitively or in some other way. In applying this new perspective to the records, the result is that the Greeks did develop as reasoners, but more in the ATR sense until Plato. That is, the Greeks, over time, became better at devising and evaluating arguments, which were then used to support their ideas and speculations. Together these ideas and their supporting arguments became the theories the Greeks are known for. In other words, the Greeks developed first as rational persuaders with a variety of physical ideas and speculations about the world. At some point in the development, the Greeks recognised what it is to reason and its utility in the context of the law courts and the political assembly. Over a period of time, they came to understand, formalise and teach and learn the ways and methods of reasoning in the ATR sense. Once this was understood, there is evidence that it was then consciously and deliberately applied in attempts to discover the world through the process of forward inference. This all occurred well before Aristotle. To conclude, there was not nothing at all before Aristotle. He systematised what had already been formalised in coming up with logic. But formalised methods of reasoning, both ATR and CTR, were needed in order to do this. Contents 1.0 THE INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Preamble ............................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The development of logic ................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Aristotle’s explanation of discoveries and development ............................................................... 2 1.4 There was nothing at all before logic ................................................................................................ 4 1.5 Aristotle’s syllogism ............................................................................................................................ 4 1.6 Aristotle’s demonstration ................................................................................................................... 6 1.7 Demonstration guarantees knowledge............................................................................................. 7 2.0 THE QUESTIONS .................................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 The first question ................................................................................................................................. 9 2.2 The second question .......................................................................................................................... 10 3.0 THE APPROACH .................................................................................................................................. 12 4.0 THE TRADITIONAL ACCOUNT ....................................................................................................... 15 5.0 THE RECENT THEORIES .................................................................................................................... 17 5.1 Cultural change and cultural evolution ......................................................................................... 17 5.2 The argumentative theory of reasoning ......................................................................................... 19 5.2.a The classical theory of reasoning (CTR) .................................................................................. 19 5.2.b The argumentative theory of reasoning .................................................................................. 21 5.3 Conscious cognition theories ........................................................................................................... 24 6.0 THE REINTERPRETATION AND EXPECTATIONS ...................................................................... 28 6.1 Variation ............................................................................................................................................. 28 6.2 Selection .............................................................................................................................................. 29 6.3 Transmission ...................................................................................................................................... 33 6.4 The reasons ......................................................................................................................................... 33 6.5 The arché .............................................................................................................................................. 34 6.6 The expectations ................................................................................................................................ 35 6.7 Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 36 7.0 THE MYTHOLOGISTS AND MIXED-THEOLOGIANS ................................................................. 37 7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 37 7.2 The arché—Hesiod’s Theogony .......................................................................................................... 37 7.3 Arguments justifying actions in Homer ......................................................................................... 38 7.4 Arguments justifying actions in Hesiod’s Work and Days ............................................................ 39 7.5 How to farm ....................................................................................................................................... 40 7.6 Argument from probability in the Hymn to Hermes ...................................................................... 41 7.7 New type of explanation of the mixed-theologians...................................................................... 41 7.8 Semi-physical explanations .............................................................................................................. 42 8.0 THE MILESIANS ................................................................................................................................... 43 8.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 43 8.2 Thales of Miletus (c.624-c.546) ......................................................................................................... 43 8.2.a Thales’ arché—All is water ......................................................................................................... 44 8.2.b The earth rests on water ............................................................................................................ 44 8.2.c The soul produces motion ......................................................................................................... 45 8.2.d All things are full of gods .......................................................................................................... 46 8.2.e Other Thalean ideas .................................................................................................................... 46 8.3 Anaximander of Miletus (c.610-c.546) ............................................................................................ 47 8.3.a The arché is apeiron ...................................................................................................................... 47 8.3.b The arché cannot be water or any of the four elements ......................................................... 47 8.3.c Things come to be by separation .............................................................................................. 48 8.3.d The apeiron is divine ..................................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Philosophy in Literature

    Philosophy in Literature

    Syracuse University SURFACE Syracuse University Press Libraries 1949 Philosophy in Literature Julian L. Ross Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.syr.edu/supress Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Ross, Julian L., "Philosophy in Literature" (1949). Syracuse University Press. 3. https://surface.syr.edu/supress/3 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Libraries at SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in Syracuse University Press by an authorized administrator of SURFACE. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OU_168123>3 ib VOOK t'l hvtent <J/ie tyovevnment //te ^United cf ai o an f.r^^fnto iii and yccdwl c/ tie llnited faaart/* *J/ie L/eofile of jf'ti OSMANIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARY CallNo. 9ol//k?/^ Accession No. < Author ""jj^vv JLj. This book should be returned on or before the date last marked below. PHILOSOPHY IN LITERATURE PHILOSOPHY IN LITERATURE JULIAN L. ROSS Professor of English, Allegheny College SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY PRESS IN COOPERATION WITH ALLEGHENY COLLEGE Copyright, 1949 SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY PRESS Only literature can describe experience, for the excellent reason that the terms of experience are moral and literary from the beginning. Mind is incorrigibly poetical: not be- cause it is not attentive to material facts and practical exigencies, but because, being intensely attentive to them, it turns them into pleasures and pains, and into many-colored ideas. GEORGE SANTAYANA TO CAROL MOODEY ROSS INTRODUCTION The most important questions of our time are philosoph- ical. All about us we see the clash of ideas and ideologies. Yet the formal study of philosophy has been losing rather than gaining ground.
  • Dan Beachy-Quick Anaximander of Miletus, Son of Prixiades…

    Dan Beachy-Quick Anaximander of Miletus, Son of Prixiades…

    In the deserts of the heart Let the healing fountain start, In the prison of his days Teach the free man how to praise FREE W.H. Auden POETRY Dan Beachy-Quick Anaximander Free Poetry publishes essays and poetry by today’s leading poets. These chapbooks are available free of Vol. 15 No. 5 April 2020 charge and without copyright. The editor encourages the reproduction of this chapbook and its free distribution, ad infinitum. For further information please contact the editor at: [email protected] Anaximander (trans. by) Dan Beachy-Quick Anaximander of Miletus, son of Prixiades… Anaximander, friend of Thales, and fellow citizen… Anaximander of Miletus, son of Priaxides, whose mind Thales birthed, his student and his successor… Diodorus of Ephesus, writing about Anaximander, says that he affected a tragic pomp (like a goat-skin swollen with wine) and donned clothes to look like holy man. 1 Eratosthenes says, and Hecataeus of Miletus agrees, that Homer and Anaximander were the first two to publish books on Geography. …among the Greeks of whom we know, he was the first to bring forth, from hard toil, a book on the nature of Nature. Like a child left waiting in a field, he wrote down a summary of his principle thoughts, which somehow Apollodorus of Athens happened to find. 2 He wrote , , ​On Nature​ ​The Wandering Earth​ ​Of​ ​the Constant Sources (in sequential order) , and one other book. ​ ​ Stars, Spheres​ 1. Diogenes Laertius 26. Aëtius 2. Strabo 27. Aëtius 3. Theophrastus 28. Aëtius 4. Diogenes Laertius 29. Aëtius 5. Strabo 30. Eudemus 6.
  • 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.
  • A History of Cynicism

    A History of Cynicism

    A HISTORY OF CYNICISM Downloaded from https://www.holybooks.com Downloaded from https://www.holybooks.com A HISTORY OF CYNICISM From Diogenes to the 6th Century A.D. by DONALD R. DUDLEY F,llow of St. John's College, Cambrid1e Htmy Fellow at Yale University firl mll METHUEN & CO. LTD. LONDON 36 Essex Street, Strand, W.C.2 Downloaded from https://www.holybooks.com First published in 1937 PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN Downloaded from https://www.holybooks.com PREFACE THE research of which this book is the outcome was mainly carried out at St. John's College, Cambridge, Yale University, and Edinburgh University. In the help so generously given to my work I have been no less fortunate than in the scenes in which it was pursued. I am much indebted for criticism and advice to Professor M. Rostovtseff and Professor E. R. Goodonough of Yale, to Professor A. E. Taylor of Edinburgh, to Professor F. M. Cornford of Cambridge, to Professor J. L. Stocks of Liverpool, and to Dr. W. H. Semple of Reading. I should also like to thank the electors of the Henry Fund for enabling me to visit the United States, and the College Council of St. John's for electing me to a Research Fellowship. Finally, to• the unfailing interest, advice and encouragement of Mr. M. P. Charlesworth of St. John's I owe an especial debt which I can hardly hope to repay. These acknowledgements do not exhaust the list of my obligations ; but I hope that other kindnesses have been acknowledged either in the text or privately.
  • From Hades to the Stars: Empedocles on the Cosmic Habitats of Soul', Classical Antiquity, Vol

    From Hades to the Stars: Empedocles on the Cosmic Habitats of Soul', Classical Antiquity, Vol

    Edinburgh Research Explorer From Hades to the stars Citation for published version: Trepanier, S 2017, 'From Hades to the stars: Empedocles on the cosmic habitats of soul', Classical Antiquity, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 130-182. https://doi.org/10.1525/ca.2017.36.1.130 Digital Object Identifier (DOI): 10.1525/ca.2017.36.1.130 Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Published In: Classical Antiquity Publisher Rights Statement: Published as Trépanier, S. 2017. From Hades to the Stars: Empedocles on the Cosmic Habitats of Soul, Classical Antiquity, Vol. 36 No. 1, April 2017; (pp. 130-182) DOI: 10.1525/ca.2017.36.1.130. © 2017 by the Regents of the University of California. Authorization to copy this content beyond fair use (as specified in Sections 107 and 108 of the U. S. Copyright Law) for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by the Regents of the University of California for libraries and other users, provided that they are registered with and pay the specified fee via Rightslink® or directly with the Copyright Clearance Center. General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation.
  • Meditations the Philosophy Classic

    Meditations the Philosophy Classic

    MEDITATIONS THE PHILOSOPHY CLASSIC MEDITATIONS THE PHILOSOPHY CLASSIC THE INTERNATIONAL BESTSELLER MARCUS AURELIUS WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY DONALD ROBERTSON MEDITATIONS Also available in the same series: Beyond Good and Evil: The Philosophy Classic by Friedrich Nietzsche (ISBN: 978-0-857-08848-2) On the Origin of Species: The Science Classic by Charles Darwin (ISBN: 978-0-857-08847-5) Tao Te Ching: The Ancient Classic by Lao Tzu (ISBN: 978-0-857-08311-1) The Art of War: The Ancient Classic by Sun Tzu (ISBN: 978-0-857-08009-7) The Game of Life and How to Play It: The Self-Help Classic by Florence Scovel Shinn (ISBN: 978-0-857-08840-6) The Interpretation of Dreams: The Psychology Classic by Sigmund Freud (ISBN: 978-0-857-08844-4) The Prince: The Original Classic by Niccolo Machiavelli (ISBN: 978-0-857-08078-3) The Prophet: The Spirituality Classic by Kahlil Gibran (ISBN: 978-0-857-08855-0) The Republic: The Influential Classic by Plato (ISBN: 978-0-857-08313-5) The Science of Getting Rich: The Original Classic by Wallace Wattles (ISBN: 978-0-857-08008-0) The Wealth of Nations: The Economics Classic by Adam Smith (ISBN: 978-0-857-08077-6) Think and Grow Rich: The Original Classic by Napoleon Hill (ISBN: 978-1-906-46559-9) MEDITATIONS The Philosophy Classic MARCUS AURELIUS With an Introduction by DONALD ROBERTSON This edition first published 2020 Introduction copyright © Donald Robertson, 2020 The material for Meditations is based on The Thoughts of the Emperor M. Aurelius Antoninus, translated by George Long, published by Bell & Daldy, London 1862, and is now in the public domain.
  • The Cretans Always Liars

    The Cretans Always Liars

    305 THE CRETANS ALWAYS LIARS. EvERY student of the New Testament knows the famous hexameter verse on the Cretans in the first chapter of the Epistle to Titus (Titus i. 12), and is also aware that it is from a lost work of Epimenides, the Cretan poet. The identification is a very early one in the Christian literature ; it occurs, for example, in Clement of Alexandria's Stro­ mateis (i. 14), with the remark that St. Paul recognizes Epimenides the Cretan as a Greek prophet, and is not ashamed to quote him. It is found again in the Euthalian apparatus of the New Testament, where, in the list of quotations (p.apTvplat) in the Pauline writings, we find the passage from Titus, described as- 'Emp.EVl8ov Kp1JTO~ Kal p.avT£wc; XP1Jup.6c;, Kal Ka.A.A.1p.axov Kvp1Jvalov 7rOI1JTOV ~ al!T~. Here we find a reference to Epimenides as having the Mantic gift, which explains why Clement of Alexandria and the Epistle to Titus call him a prophet, rather than a poet; and we have a further reference made to Callimachus the poet, as using the same testimony (p.aprvpla), who must, on this showing, have quoted from Epimenides. A MS. on Mount Athos1 has the Euthalian note in a more extended form and tells us that the verse from Titus is found in Callimachus' Hymn to Jove-a fact which had already been recognized by scholars. The Athos note is as follows :- 'Emp.EVt8ov Kp1]Toc; p.aii'T,wc; XP1JUp.6c;. K'XP1JTal OE Kal Ka.U.{p.axoc; rjj XP~U£1 lv Tcj {m' a&ov p1J(Uvn de; Tov ll{a VJL"'I!• and the verification of the reference is given by turning to Cal­ limachus, Hymn inJov.
  • The Minotaur in Phaedo's Labyrinth: Philosophy's Necessary Myth

    The Minotaur in Phaedo's Labyrinth: Philosophy's Necessary Myth

    Trinity College Trinity College Digital Repository Trinity Publications (Newspapers, Yearbooks, The Trinity Papers (2011 - present) Catalogs, etc.) 2016 The Minotaur in Phaedo’s Labyrinth: Philosophy’s Necessary Myth Gregory Convertito Trinity College, Hartford Connecticut Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/trinitypapers Part of the Classical Literature and Philology Commons Recommended Citation Convertito, Gregory, "The Minotaur in Phaedo’s Labyrinth: Philosophy’s Necessary Myth". The Trinity Papers (2011 - present) (2016). Trinity College Digital Repository, Hartford, CT. https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/trinitypapers/43 The Minotaur in Phaedo’s Labyrinth: Philosophy’s Necessary Myth Gregory Convertito Plato’s Phaedo is a confusing dialogue. It takes place after the Apology and the Crito, on Socrates’s last night before his execution; Socrates has been waiting in prison for a long time due to an Athenian law barring executions during the annual ritual to celebrate Theseus’s mythical victory over the Minotaur. This story of the death of Socrates is embedded in a narration by Phaedo himself, who is relating the story to Echecrates. Socrates, after discussing the soul, the self, immortality, and death with Simmias and Cebes, Pythagorean acquaintances who have come to visit him, drinks the φαρμακον and dies. The myth of the Minotaur—a monster which has the body of a man and the head of a bull—is explicitly invoked in the text, which structurally mirrors this myth. Each has a monster, fourteen characters, and a thread which leads out of a labyrinth. In the myth, Theseus and the others are taken into the labyrinth wherein the Minotaur resides as tribute, as dictated by the Delphic Oracle, and the princess Ariadne gives Theseus a ball of thread to attach to the entrance, so he may find his way out again.
  • Teleology in the ​Phaedo's Biographical Account

    Teleology in the ​Phaedo's Biographical Account

    4 Teleology in the Phaedo’s Biographical Account ​ ​ José Manuel Osorio The aim of this paper is to clarify the first section of Socrates's biographical account (the 1 so-called first sailing) in Phaedo (96a-99d). ​ Specifically, the aim is to have a better ​ ​ ​ understanding regarding the teleological argument about the intellect in Socrates's speech. This is a complex and difficult passage which has been subjected to a series of what, in my view, are contradictory interpretations. Broadly speaking, it is possible to distinguish two very different groups of interpretations of the teleological arguments in the first part of the biographical section. In the first interpretation, scholars looking for the roots of the teleological arguments of the Timaeus arrive at the conclusion that they lie in the Phaedo. For this group of scholars, Plato ​ ​ ​ ​ employs a teleological argument in Socrates’s biographical account in the Phaedo, although it is ​ ​ 2 considered to be in schematic form when compared to the one employed in the Timaeus. ​ In the ​ ​ second interpretation, scholars focusing exclusively on the Phaedo’s biographical passage argue ​ ​ ​ 3 ​ that teleological arguments are not used by Plato in the Phaedo ​ since Socrates said in the first ​ ​ part of the biographical passage that he was completely incapable of finding a teleological cause (99c-d).4 ​ The upshot is this: studies of the Phaedo support the thesis that teleology is not present in ​ ​ the dialogue, while studies of the Timaeus support the opposite, namely, that in Socrates’s ​ ​ biographical account teleology is present. So there seems to be a contradiction in the literature about the place of teleology in the Phaedo.
  • Euripides” Johanna Hanink

    Euripides” Johanna Hanink

    The Life of the Author in the Letters of “Euripides” Johanna Hanink N 1694, Joshua Barnes, the eccentric British scholar (and poet) of Greek who the next year would become Regius Professor at the University of Cambridge, published his I 1 long-awaited Euripidis quae extant omnia. This was an enormous edition of Euripides’ works which contained every scrap of Euripidean material—dramatic, fragmentary, and biographical —that Barnes had managed to unearth.2 In the course of pre- paring the volume, Barnes had got wind that Richard Bentley believed that the epistles attributed by many ancient manu- scripts to Euripides were spurious; he therefore wrote to Bentley asking him to elucidate the grounds of his doubt. On 22 February 1693, Bentley returned a letter to Barnes in which he firmly declared that, with regard to the ancient epistles, “tis not Euripides himself that here discourseth, but a puny sophist that acts him.” Bentley did, however, recognize that convincing others of this would be a difficult task: “as for arguments to prove [the letters] spurious, perhaps there are none that will convince any person that doth not discover it by himself.”3 1 On the printing of the book and its early distribution see D. McKitterick, A History of Cambridge University Press I Printing and the Book Trade in Cambridge, 1534–1698 (Cambridge 1992) 380–392; on Joshua Barnes see K. L. Haugen, ODNB 3 (2004) 998–1001. 2 C. Collard, Tragedy, Euripides and Euripideans (Bristol 2007) 199–204, re- hearses a number of criticisms of Barnes’ methods, especially concerning his presentation of Euripidean fragments (for which he often gave no source, and which occasionally consisted of lines from the extant plays).
  • The Higher Aspects of Greek Religion. Lectures Delivered at Oxford and In

    The Higher Aspects of Greek Religion. Lectures Delivered at Oxford and In

    BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME FROM THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIET OF Henirg m. Sage 1891 .A^^^ffM3. islm^lix.. 5931 CornelJ University Library BL 25.H621911 The higher aspects of Greek religion.Lec 3 1924 007 845 450 The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924007845450 THE HIBBERT LECTURES SECOND SERIES 1911 THE HIBBERT LECTURES SECOND SERIES THE HIGHER ASPECTS OF GREEK RELIGION LECTURES DELIVERED AT OXFORD AND IN LONDON IN APRIL AND MAY igii BY L. R. FARNELL, D.Litt. WILDE LECTURER IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD LONDON WILLIAMS AND NORGATE GARDEN, W.C. 14 HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT 1912 CONTENTS Lecture I GENERAL FEATURES AND ORIGINS OF GREEK RELIGION Greek religion mainly a social-political system, 1. In its earliest " period a " theistic creed, that is^ a worship of personal individual deities, ethical personalities rather than mere nature forces, 2. Anthrqgomorphism its predominant bias, 2-3. Yet preserving many primitive features of " animism " or " animatism," 3-5. Its progress gradual without violent break with its distant past, 5-6. The ele- ment of magic fused with the religion but not predominant, 6-7. Hellenism and Hellenic religion a blend of two ethnic strains, one North-Aryan, the other Mediterranean, mainly Minoan-Mycenaean, 7-9. Criteria by which we can distinguish the various influences of these two, 9-1 6. The value of Homeric evidence, 18-20. Sum- mary of results, 21-24. Lecture II THE RELIGIOUS BOND AND MORALITY OF THE FAMILY The earliest type of family in Hellenic society patrilinear, 25-27.
  • An Interpretation of Platoʼs Ideas and Criticism of Parmenides According to Peanoʼs Ideography

    An Interpretation of Platoʼs Ideas and Criticism of Parmenides According to Peanoʼs Ideography

    Athens Journal of Humanities & Arts - Volume 5, Issue 1 – Pages 13-28 An Interpretation of Platoʼs Ideas and Criticism of Parmenides according to Peanoʼs Ideography By Giuseppe Boscarino Anyone who studies the Platonic work finds great difficulty in interpreting the precise meaning of his ontological terms, which are most often enveloped in an obscure and mystical language. Aristotle already emphasized the allegorical and poetic meaning of the platonic terms "imitation" and "participation," related to the sensible things, "copies" of the "ideas." I have asked myself then the following question: Is there a rational and logical nucleus within the mystical and mythological shell of Platonism? Studying the mathematical ideography of Peano, a great logician, mathematician and contemporary linguist, elicited the following question: can we make an ideographic translation of Platoʼs ontological terms in the same way Peano did for aspects of Euclidʼs work? We demonstrate a possible valid, rational, and logical nucleus of certain Platonic nomenclature beyond the mists of certain metaphysical interpretation, while also showing Platoʼs criticism of Parmenides to be invalid in the light of Peanoʼs ideography. Difficulty in the Interpretation of Platonic Theory in Educational and Historiographical Processes Many students have experienced the darkness, ambiguity and vagueness of philosophical language in the study of the history of philosophy. This turns into difficulty whenever the teacher has to explain to young students the thoughts of a philosopher, using the most limpid and clear language possible. Thus, texts on the history of philosophy instead of helping young people to escape from imprecise, vague and primitive ways of reasoning, rather accentuate this aspect, exposing the thinking of philosophers in even more obscure and ambiguous ways than seen in the original source.