INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note wül indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality6 " x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. University Microfilms international A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 Nortfi Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Order Number 9238125 Plato’s argument from relatives; The role of the distinction between hath hauto and pros ti in the theory of Forms Baltzly, Dirk Christian, Ph.D. The Ohio State University, 1992 UMI 300 N. ZeebRd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 PLATO’S ARGUMENT FROM RELATIVES: THE ROLE OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN kath hauto AND pros ti IN THE THEORY OF FORMS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University by Dirk Christian Baltzly, B.A., M.A. The Ohio State University 1992 Dissertation Committee: Approyp<Pby Allan Silverman Tamar Rudavsky "Adviser Robert Turnbull Department of Philosophy Nathan Rosenstein ©Dirk Christian Baltzly 1992 11 Dedicated to two of my earliest teachers: Iva Knight & Merle Baltzly. From them I learned nothing about Plato, but a great deal about the value of hard work. Ill ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My indebtedness to Allan Silverman and Bob Turnbull for their help with this project is beyond measure. Not only have they guided the dissertation to completion, but they have given moral support when it was most needed. I also owe a special debt of gratitude to Tamar Rudavsky, who was there when we needed her. I must also thank all of the other people who have read parts of the manuscript or those who have simply talked it over with me. They include: Victor Gaston, Jim Hankinson, Norm Mooradian, Alexander Mourelatos, Calvin Normore and Paul Woodruff. Everyone thanks his or her spouse for the patience and love extended to the writer in the course of the project. Elaine Miller not only provided these essentials for dissertation writing, but she also read the whole manuscript and added greatly to both its stylistic felicity and grammaticality as well as its philosophical content. IV VITA August 24,1963 ....................................................born: Zanesville, Ohio 1985 .......................................................................B.A. Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio 1988 .......................................................................M.A. Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio 1989-1990 ............................................................. Visiting Lecturer University of Texas, Austin 1990-presen t .........................................................Graduate Teaching Assitant Department of Philosophy Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS "Plato and the New Rhapsody," forthcoming in Ancient Philosophy. Review of Ilham Oilman, Philosophy and the Philosophic Life: A Study in Plato’s Phaedo, forthcoming in The Review of Metaphysics. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Philosophy. Areas of Specialization: Ancient Greek Philosophy, Metaphysics. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................iv VITA ............................................................................................................ V INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................1 CHAPTER I. THE RANGE OF RELATIVES.........................................................13 §1. The Problem of Defining a Class of R elatives.............................13 §2. Scavenger Hunt in the Early D ialo g u es...................................... 19 A. Charmides..................................................................................... 19 B. Euthyphro..................................................................................... 23 C. Republic IV, 436b-441c............................................................. 25 D. Hippias Major 2 8 8 e.................................................................. 30 E. Lflc/ie5 191d,jRe/7Mh//cI, 33 le and Protagoras 333e .... 32 §3. Classification of the Kinds of Relative T e rm s ................................. 37 §4. The Hallmark of Relative T e rm s................................................... 46 §5. Some Other Principles of Classification .......................................... 52 II. SOCRATIC QUESTIONS.................................................................. 58 §1. Constraints on Answers to Socrates’Questions ............................. 62 A. The Logical Cause of F ............................................................. 62 B. The Singularity R equirem ent....................................................65 C. The Self-Predication Requirement ...........................................69 D. The Interpretation of Self-Predication ...................................... 72 i. self-predication as complete b e in g .......................................... 77 ii. self-predication as predication of essence ................................. 8 6 iii. self-predication as identity with essence ......................................8 8 §2. Incomplete Relatives and Socratic Q uestions .................................96 A. Hippias’A nsw ers .......................................................................96 B. The Fitting, The Capable and The Beneficial ................................. 101 C. The Pleasant Through Sight and Hearing ......................................I l l D. C onclusion .....................................................................................115 §3. Intentional Relatives and Socratic Q u estio n s ................................. 115 A. C onclusion ....................................................................................126 VI III. RELATIVES IN THE PHAEDO ........................................................ 128 §1. A "Theory of Relations" in the P h a e d o ? .......................................... 129 A. Castaneda’s Account and the Arguments For It ............................ 130 B. Objections to the Castaneda A cco u n t .......................................... 136 C. Matthen’s Account............................................................................144 D. Conclusion .....................................................................................147 §2. The Theory of Forms in the Phaedo and Its Motivation . 148 A. Socrates Story and Constraints on Explanation ............................ 150 B. Forms, Shares and the al'rtae of R e la tiv e s .................................157 C. The Clever alria and the Paradigm of Substances ........................165 D. C onclusion .....................................................................................171 §3. Forms and the Answers to "What is F?" Q u e stio n s ........................172 A. The Form as The W h at-It-Is........................................................ 173 B. The Separation Argument ............................................................. 175 C. Change and Forms of /coo)' cxvra T erm s......................................181 D. The Structure of Relative Form s....................................................198 E. Conclusion .....................................................................................207 IV. Relatives in the R epublic .......................................................................213 §1. The Argument of Republic V, 475e-480a .......................................... 214 A. Who Are the Lovers of Sights and S ounds? .................................215 B. Relatives and the Objects of Knowledge and Opinion. 224 C. The Two Worlds T hesis ..................................................................235 §2. The Images of Sun, Line and C av e ....................................................240 A. The S u n ......................................................................................... 248 B. The Doubly Divided L i n e .............................................................253 C. The C ave......................................................................................... 259 §3. Turning the Soul A ro u n d ..................................................................265 A. rà 7vapaicXr)TiKa........................................................................... 266 B. The Propaedutic Studies ..................................................................270