Plato Eleatic Dialogues

download Plato Eleatic Dialogues

of 198

Transcript of Plato Eleatic Dialogues

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    1/198

    Preferred Citation: Dorter, Kenneth.Form and Good in Plato's Eleatic Dialogues: The Parmenides, Theatetus, Sophist, andStatesman. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1994 1994. http://ark.cdli.or!/ark:/1"#"#/ft$199n%!n/

    Form and Good in Plato's EleaticDialogues

    The Parmenides, Theaetetus, Sophist, and Statesman

    Kenneth Dorter

    UNIVERSITY F !"#IFRNI" PRESS

    Berkeley Los Angeles Oxford

    $ %&& The Regents o( the Uni)ersit* o( !ali(ornia

    &o 'y 'other and to the 'e'ory of'y father

    Preferred Citation: Dorter, Kenneth.Form and Good in Plato's Eleatic Dialogues: The Parmenides, Theatetus, Sophist, andStatesman. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1994 1994. http://ark.cdli.or!/ark:/1"#"#/ft$199n%!n/

    &o 'y 'other and to the 'e'ory of'y father

    Pre(ace

    &he fo(r dialo!(es e)a'ined here for' a nat(ral !ro(p *ith se+(ential concerns. ince the ai' of thepresent st(dy is to try to (nderstand the !ro(p as a *hole, - have sacrificed the advanta!e of !reaterdetail that ooklen!th co''entaries *o(ld provide, in order to present a 'ore synoptic pict(re. B(t

    altho(!h the treat'ent of individ(al dialo!(es *ill not e as e)tensively detailed as in ooklen!thst(dies, - have tried to pay caref(l attention oth to the concept(al ar!('ents and to the dra'atic andliterary events, and have tried to ens(re that the lessenin! of detail *o(ld not 'ean a lessenin! ofattentiveness.

    - call this !ro(p of dialo!(es leatic, as a convenient incl(sive ter', even tho(!h the ter' is onlyindirectly applicale to the Theaetetus. Unlike the other three dialo!(es, the Theaetetusis cond(ctedneither y Par'enides nor the leatic stran!er, and its s(0ect 'atter is eracleitean and its dra'aticconte)t 2e!arian 3o*in! to the choice of (cleides and &erpsion as the introd(ctory speakers.5evertheless, Par'enides is 'entioned at an i'portant 0(nct(re as so'eone *hose vie*s o(!ht to e

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    2/198

    considered as an alternative to the philosophy of eco'in! that &heaetet(s defends *itho(t s(ccess316#d161a, and the fail(re to disc(ss the leatic philosopher is ascried only to the fact that he is tooi'portant to e considered in the availale ti'e 316"c164a. e is th(s the only alternative indicatedto the theories that fo(nder in the Theaetetus, and their collapse 'ay a'o(nt to an indirectendorse'ent of the leatic. 5othin! is pres(pposed philosophically y desi!

    7 ) 7

    natin! the dialo!(es in this *ay. 2y intention is rather to avoidthe pres(ppositions involved in callin!the' Plato8s critical dialo!(es, as is often done on the ass('ption that they are partial rep(diations ofthe theory of for's. &he latter desi!nation is in any case 'isleadin! *ith re!ard to the Statesman.

    o'e of the 'aterial has een derived fro' the previo(sly p(lished st(dies listed elo*, and is (sed*ith the per'ission of the editor or p(lisher. (stice and 2ethod in Plato8s Statesman 3.Pana!ioto(, ed.,Justice, La and Philosoph! in "lassical #thens;d'onton:

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    3/198

    of the t*o, eca(se its aporetic nat(re 'ore closely rese'les Plato8s earlier dialo!(es, *hile thetechnical nat(re of theParmenides'ore closely rese'les the later ones. e!ardless of the order in*hich theParmenidesand Theaetetus'ay

    ;1=Plato's Phaedo: #n (nterpretation3&oronto: University of &oronto Press, 196$, hereafterPP.

    7 $ 7have een *ritten, ho*ever, Plato leaves (s in no do(t that the Theaetetusis 'eant to e read as thefirst 'e'er of a trilo!y, follo*ed y the Sophistand Statesman: at the e!innin! of the Statesman3$>6a ocrates re'arks, - 'yself had a disc(ssion *ith &heaetet(s yesterday ;the Theaetetus=, andno* - have listened to hi' replyin! ;the Sophist=. -n any case, nothin! of s(stantial i'portance *illdepend on the order in *hich *e read theParmenidesand Theaetetus.

    He cannot p(rs(e s(ch a st(dy today *itho(t eco'in! part of the fortyyearold deate, as initiated yE. . . F*en, ao(t *hether Plato radically chan!ed his vie*s at this ti'eIaltho(!h that +(estion isonly incidental to the p(rpose of these st(dies. 5o oservations ao(t the develop'ent of Plato8sphilosophy are co'pletely (ncontroversial, (t so'e are co'paratively so. &here is a !eneral tho(!h

    not (niversal consens(s that in the dialo!(es considered to e early, Plato see's concerned pri'arily toinvesti!ate the nat(re of the virt(es and of other *ays of ein!, especially those that *e *o(ld callval(es?;$= that the dialo!(es considered to elon! to his 'iddle period !ro(nd this concept of nat(reson the ontolo!ical 'odel of the doctrine of separate for's? and that in the leatic dialo!(es (nderconsideration here, *hich are attri(ted to his last period, this theory of for's itself is ro(!ht into+(estion in so'e sense.

    &he first part of theParmenidesappears to attack the theory o(tri!ht, altho(!h the si!nificance of thisattack is rendered a'i!(o(s y Par'enides8 concl(din! re'ark that if one does notaccept so'e s(chtheory, he *ill not have anythin! on *hich to fi) his tho(!ht . . . and in this *ay he *ill (tterly destroythe po*er of disco(rse 31">c. &he Theaetetus, for *hatever reason, then proceeds to all (t i!norethe theory of for's in its atte'pt to define kno*led!e. &his is follo*ed y the Sophist, in *hich

    so'ethin! like a theory of for's is e'ployed, (t for's that are very different fro' those of the'iddle dialo!(es. -nstead of foc(sin! on val(es, it foc(ses on kinds, *hich are e)plicitly said to eval(ene(tral 3$$%a. &he Statesmanthen contin(es this approach and applies it to political +(estions.-t 'i!ht see' fro' this, as 'any co''entators concl(de, that Plato has rep(diated his 'iddle periodtheory of for's and replaced it *ith so'ethin! 'ore

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    4/198

    s(rrendered on the +(estion of the separation of for's, this contin(ed assa(lt *o(ld 'ake no sense.

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    5/198

    &he repeated dis0(nction et*een *hat is in itself, (nchan!in!, eternal, rational, !ood, and divine, and*hat co'es to e and passes a*ay, chan!es, and is characteristic of *hat is h('an rather than divine,repeats all the essentials of the 'iddle period theory of for's. 5ot all the points are 'ade *ith thesa'e e'phasis and detail as in thePhaedoand%epu)lic, (t that *o(ld hardly e s(rprisin! if Plato.had no reason to e)pect his readers to think that he had aandoned his earlier vie*s. 5evertheless, thelack of detail in his presentation per'its advocates of the revisionist thesis to +(estion ho*

    concl(sively and co'pletely the theory of for's is reaffir'ed here.o the foc(s of the controversy reverts to the date of the TimaeusI *here the affir'ation of theontolo!ical difference et*een for's and individ(als is entirely (na'i!(o(sIand *hether thatdialo!(e can e sho*n to e later than theParmenides. &he datin! of the dialo!(es has een a perilo(senterprise. arlier acco(nts, s(ch as chleier'acher8s,;4=

    ;4=(ntroductions to the Dialogues o& Plato3Ca'rid!e: Dei!hton, 16".

    7 > 7

    that *ere ased on a vie* of ho* Plato8s tho(!ht oughtto have developed, ovio(sly have no po*er as

    independent evidence for a partic(lar vie*. &he dialo!(es the'selves !ive (s occasional scraps ofevidence *hen one dialo!(e pres(pposes prior kno*led!e of another, as in the case of the leaticdialo!(es, or in the case of the Timaeus, *hich recalls the%epu)lic. B(t this does not take (s far, andin partic(lar it does not estalish *hether the Timaeus*ith its (na'i!(o(s affir'ation of theseparation of the for's is earlier or later than the Parmenides, *hich +(estions their separation.

    &he only other d(e that has co'e do*n fro' anti+(ity is

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    6/198

    7 7

    co(ntedJ Do *e co(nt (no0ectionale 3re'ovale y elision, apostrophe, or crasis hiat(s in thesa'e *ay as o0ectionale hiat(s, and, if not, *hat differences in *ei!htin! sho(ld e assi!nedJ -shiat(s affected y p(nct(ation, and does it therefore 'atter *hich edition is (sedJ -n co(ntin! (n(s(al*ords, do *e co(nt only the first occ(rrence or all occ(rrences, and, if only the first, does the len!th ofthe dialo!(e need to e taken into acco(nt at allJ -n addition to all these decisions, *hich consideraly

    li'it the possiility of scientific o0ectivity, *e '(st also decide *hether to take into acco(nt thenat(re and s(0ect 'atter of the dialo!(es. ho(ld *e e)pect to find the sa'e stylistic feat(res in anarrative 'yth 3Timaeus, an e)ercise in astract dialectic 3ParmenidesI*hich is so ano'alo(s as tohave fre+(ently een dis'issed y stylo'etrists as sp(rio(s, or a set of speeches 3 S!mposium, as indialo!(es like the%epu)lic, Theaetetus, orLas-

    -n vie* of all these variales, and of the f(rther co'plication that several investi!ators relied on fla*edass('ptions or on data otained y fa(lty co(ntin! 3*hether their o*n or that in

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    7/198

    H.Dittener!er

    1661 particles late 31/%;9= late 3"/%

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    8/198

    = Brand*ood, *ritin! t*o years after Cherniss,

    re0ected the latter8s ar!('ents for placin! the Timaeusa'on! the final three;1"= &he Place of the Timaeusin Plato8s Dialo!(es, "lassical /uarterl!, n.s., " 319>" %99>?reprinted in . .

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    9/198

    Development in Plato's etaph!sics;aalle: Fpen Co(rt, 196>= appendi) --.

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    10/198

    that the pri'ary concern of philosophy is in an area characteried y historical pro!ress, s(ch asdescriptive lo!ic, it *o(ld not see' condescendin! to re!ard Plato8s *ork 3like that of #= ""# 19? e'phasis inori!inal.

    ;16=PL+$$, $>.

    7 11 7

    than dialectically.

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    11/198

    s(0ect 'atter is inherently capale of contin(al refine'ent, and that Plato is likely to have enco(nteredconcept(al diffic(lties that *e are in a '(ch etter position to detect and resolve. 5evertheless, it is notal*ays the case that (nitarians read Plato in a 'ore charitale *ay than the revisionists do. 5o oneco(ld approach Plato *ith 'ore respect than does 2yles B(rnyeat, for e)a'ple, in his caref(llyanalytic co''entary on the Theaetetus, altho(!h B(rnyear dearly elieves that so'e kind of revisionof the 'etaphysics of the%epu)licis takin! place.;19= Fn the other hand, H. E. (nci'an has sho*n

    y his o*n e)a'ple that it is possile to e a (nitarian y havin! a loerre!ard than 'ost revisionistsfor Plato8s ac('en. (nci'an elieves that Plato did not 'odify his position in the direction of

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    12/198

    7 1" 7

    details of the interpretations *ill have so'e val(e in the'selves, as atte'pts to (nderstand the tho(!htof a !reat thinker, apart fro' *hatever val(e they 'ay have as evidence for a partic(lar thesis a)outPlato.

    /+ 0ethod o( 1*.othesis and 0ethod o( Di)ision

    -n the dialo!(es elieved to elon! to his 'iddle period, especially thePhaedoand%epu)lic, Platop(ts for*ard the 'ethod of hypothesis as an indirect *ay 3

    of discernin! the hi!hest tr(th *hen *e cannot apprehend it directly.

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    13/198

    and is rooted in the !ro(nd of val(e. &he 'ethod of division, on the other hand, not only refrains fro'in+(irin! into the nat(re of the !ood, the hi!hest principle, (t the leatic stran!er e)pressly *arns thathis 'ethod 'akes no distinction et*een !reater and lesser val(e:

    &he 'ethod of definitions ;

    = does not care 'ore or less ao(t spon!in! than ao(t takin! 'edicine, nor *hether oneprovides (s *ith !reater or s'aller enefits than the other. -t ai's at ac+(irin! an(nderstandin! of *hat is akin and *hat is not akin in all the arts, and, *ith this intention, ithonors all of the' e+(ally. 3$$%a

    &he 'ethod of division, then, is very a'enale to analytic philosophy, not only eca(se its e'phasis ison analysis rather than synthesis, (t also eca(se its astraction fro' +(estions of val(e shares *ithanalytic philosophy a resistance to any atte'pt to derive val(es fro' facts, the o(!ht fro' the is. -n theStatesman, ho*ever, Plato once a!ain en!a!es in philosophical spec(lation ao(t the hi!hest principleof val(e, and it is (nfort(nate that this dialo!(e is al'ost al*ays i!nored y those *ho st(dy theTheaetetusand Sophist, even tho(!h it is the e)plicit se+(el to the'. &he prevailin! tendency to attach!reat i'portance to the Theaetetusand Sophist*hile i!norin! their se+(elIin other *ords, to treat*hat is in fact the e!innin! and 'iddle of a trilo!y as if they *ere co'plete and concl(sive inthe'selvesIhas led to a onesided perception of the 'ethod of division.

    &he Statesman, as if in accordance *ith the 'ethodolo!y of division itself, is isected do*n the'iddle. &he first half s(perficially rese'les the Sophist*ith its elaorate isective divisions, and at$d the stran!er even repeats his earlier in0(nction a!ainst payin! attention to

    7 1> 7

    distinctions of val(e. &he second half, ho*ever, not only e)plicitly avoids the techni+(e of isectivedivision (t 'akes constant reference to val(e distinctions? in fact the states'an is de&inedas the one*ho kno*s the est thin! to do in any partic(lar sit(ation 3"#4a"#>d. @or so'e reason, then, in theStatesman the'ethod of division leads to the sa'e kind of a)iolo!ical ontolo!y that the 'ethod ofhypothesis leads to in other dialo!(es.

    &o (nderstand this tension et*een the *ay the 'ethod of division is e'ployed in the t*o dialo!(es,*e '(st look at the pro!ression of the leatic tetralo!y as a *hole, co'prisin! the Parmenides,Theaetetus, Sophist, and Statesman. -n the first of these dialo!(es Par'enides raises serio(s +(estionsao(t the theory of for's, altho(!h it is clear that his attack is not intended as an o(tri!ht ref(tationsince he stip(lates in concl(sion that (nless one doesaccept so'e s(ch theory, he *ill not have

    anythin! on *hich to fi) his tho(!ht . . . and in this *ay he *ill (tterly destroy the po*er of disco(rse31">c. 5evertheless Par'enides8 ar!('ents sho* that the theory of for's is prole'atic eca(se it'(st constantly fall ack on 'etaphor and analo!y: the li'itations of h('an concept(aliation 'akethis inevitale. -n that case, ho* can the theory of for's e 0(stified in the face of concept(al aporiaes(ch as are pointed o(t y Par'enidesJ &he only 'eans availale is the 'ethod of hypothesis, and infact the trilo!y that follo*s theParmenidescan e read as an e)tended application of the 'ethod ofhypothesis in defense of the theory of for's. Cornford attri(ted a f(nction of this kind to theTheaetetus, *hich never rin!s in the theory of for's at all, *hen he *rote: &he @or's are e)cl(dedin order that *e 'ay see ho* *e can !et on *itho(t the'? and the ne!ative concl(sion of the *hole

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    14/198

    disc(ssion 'eans that, as Plato had ta(!ht ever since the discovery of the @or's, *itho(t the' there isno kno*led!e at all.;$1= &he fail(re of the Theaetetus'shypothesis, that kno*led!e is ased on theperception of partic(lars, de'onstrates the need for a hi!her hypothesis on *hich the resid(al +(estionsof that dialo!(e can e ans*ered. &he theory of for's, altho(!h never appearin! e)plicitly in theTheaetetus, *ill e visile in the ack!ro(nd in a n('er of *ays.

    5o*, the theory of for's co'prises t*o f(nda'ental clai's. @irst, for's are (niversals, instances of

    sa'eness in reality: it is y virt(e of the prior reality of a for' that a '(ltit(de of individ(als 'ay e;$1=Plato's Theor! o& *noledge3ondon: o(tled!e and Ke!an Pa(l, 19"> $6.

    7 1 7

    identified y the sa'e na'e.;$$= econd, for's are val(es: they are artic(lations of the goodnessofreality, and therefore the 'ost f(nda'ental for's are the !ood, ea(tif(l, 0(st, and so forth.;$"= HhatPlato does after the Theaetetusis to reintrod(ce each of these t*o aspects se+(entially. -n the Sophisthe sho*s that y reintrod(cin! the concept of (niversal kinds in astraction fro' the concept of val(e,*e can solve the f(nda'ental aporiae of the Theaetetus.;$4= o*ever, the Sophist, altho(!h not

    e)plicitly aporetic itself, nevertheless ends in a 'ost (nsatisfyin! and (nconvincin! *ay. &he sophistand philosopher are not distin!(ished fro' each other in ter's of their val(es, as had een the case inprevio(s dialo!(es, (t in val(efree technical ter's: the philosopher is a 'aker of acc(rate i'a!es, thesophist a 'aker of inacc(rate ones. &he distinction is transparently inade+(ate, for it fails to distin!(ishloveof *isdo' fro' *isdo' itself, a distinction that Plato else*here treats as f(nda'ental, and so aphilosopher eco'es identical to a *ise person? on the other hand, philosophers *ho in a 'o'ent ofi!norance prod(ce an inacc(rate i'a!e eco'e y definition sophists. Fn the Sophistsdefinition thereis no lover of *isdo'Ithere is either a *ise person or a sophist. -n the case of sophists, too, thedefinition fails to distin!(ish et*een their prod(cts and their intentions, so that sophists *ho happento !et the facts ri!ht ao(t so'ethin!, that is, to prod(ce an acc(rate i'a!e of it, are philosophers ydefinition, re!ardless of the p(rpose to *hich they p(t that i'a!e. ophists cannot e distin!(ished

    ade+(ately fro' philosophers *itho(t reference to their !oals, that is, to the concept of val(e.9a: He are in the hait of positin! one for' *ith re!ard to each !ro(p ofthin!s to *hich *e apply the sa'e na'e.

    ;$"= Cf.%epu)lic.>#9: &o the thin!s kno*n ;i.e., the for's= not only their kno*aility, yo( '(stsay, is provided y the !ood, (t even their ein! and essence co'es to the' fro' it.

    ;$4= &he Theaetetusfo(ndered in an atte'pt to !ive an acco(nt of the nat(re of kno*led!e, sty'ied inthe end y its inaility to find a satisfactory8 definition of lo!os, in partic(lar *ith reference to opinion,do)a. -n the Sophist, ho*ever, the stran!er 3*ho calls his 'ethod the 'ethod of logoi: $$%a does!ive a definition of lo!os, and in relation to do)a 3$1d$"e.

    7 1% 7

    sophists of sophists 3"#"c. &he real difference et*een the sophistic pretender to *isdo' and the

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    15/198

    !en(ine possessor of *isdo' *ill e that the latter alone possesses the science of the 'ean, that is, ofpartic(largoodness. (se+(ently, in thePhile)usand Timaeusthe theory of for's *ill reappear *ithrene*ed vi!or, and very '(ch in the service of the +(estion of val(e.

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    16/198

    are even re'inded of the f(t(re ocrates of the%epu)licy the presence of Ela(con,

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    17/198

    the order of their discovery or of their i'portance in Plato.

    1. &he theory of for's is al*ays linked to the pri'ordiality of!oodness.;"= &he nat(re of reality is not0(st a 'atter of chance or spontaneity, (t a conse+(ence of the fact that for Plato ein! is inseparalefro' val(e. &he for's that reality takes are therefore not rando' (t are conse+(ences of *hatfollo*s fro' the nat(re of !oodness: &o the thin!s kno*n ;the for's= not only their kno*aility, yo('(st say, is provided y the !ood, (t even their ein! and essence co'es to the' fro' it 3%epu)lic

    .>#9.

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    18/198

    that are forei!n to Plato8s *ay of thinkin!, and ased on very different ass('ptions, the for's8characteristics as (niversal and paradi!'atic are not only co'patile (t necessarily connected.

    >. @inally, as paradi!'s the for's are characteried y the sa'e +(ality that partic(lar thin!s possessy participatin! in the', and are therefore in a certain sense 3*hich *ill e clarified later selfreferential. Beca(se they possess a deter'inate character they are in principle kno*aleIindeed, asparadi!'s they are the (lti'ate referents of all o(r kno*led!e, as Plato ar!(es in the disc(ssion of

    recollection in thePhaedo3%4a%>a.

    7 $" 7

    - have recalled these feat(res of the theory eca(se they see' to e *hat !(ided Plato in his choice ofPar'enides8 ar!('ents, and perhaps even their order. 31 -n the preli'inary in+(iry Par'enides attacksthe valualaspect of the for's y askin! *hether there can e for's not only of nole thin!s like the0(st, ea(tif(l, and !ood, (t also of very i!nole 3

    thin!s like hair, '(d, and dirt. 3$ &he first ar!('ent attacks the for's as causes, assertin! that thecr(cial concept of participation, on *hich the for's8 ca(sality is fo(nded, is incoherent. 3" &he secondattacks the' as universals, char!in! that an infinite re!ress res(lts fro' this conception. 34 &he fo(rthattacks the' asparadigms, once a!ain pointin! to infinite re!ress, and 3> the fifth attacks the' aso)3ects o& $noledge, ar!(in! that s(ch a conception leads to a !(lf that 'akes the for's (nkno*aley (s, and o(rselves (nkno*ale y the !ods. &he third ar!('ent alone deals *ith a clai' ao(t thefor's that has not een part of the theory advanced in previo(s dialo!(esIthe vie* that the for's arenothin! (t conceptsIand *e shall see that Plato accordin!ly treats this ar!('ent so'e*hatdifferently fro' the others.

    et (s !o thro(!h the ar!('ents no* in t(rn, to see *hat they prove and *hat Plato 'ay have tho(!htthey prove.

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    19/198

    the ar!('ent itself 3*hich Plato 'ay have ass('ed his readers *o(ld e fa'iliar *ith *as to theeffect that *e are

    7 $4 7

    si'ilar eca(se *e are all h('an ein!s 3or share so'e other attri(te, (t dissi'ilar eca(se *e are

    distinct individ(als.;4= Hhatever the ar!('ent 'ay have een, ocrates replies to it y speakin! ofsi'ilarity and dissi'ilarity as separate for's, *hose very separation fro' the thin!s that participate inthe' resolves the parado): there is no contradiction in sayin! that -participatein si'ilarity anddissi'ilarity, rather than )eingoth si'ilar and dissi'ilar 31$9a. &he sa'e !oes for co'paraleparado)es ao(t the one and 'any, or rest and 'otion 31$9e.

    Under Par'enides8 +(estionin!, ocrates says that there are for's the'selvesythe'selves 3

    also of the 0(st, the ea(tif(l, and the !ood 31"#? that he is at an i'passe 3

    ao(t *hether there are separate 3

    for's s(ch as h('an ein!, fire, or *ater 31"#c? and that he thinks there is no separate for' of hair,'(d, and dirt, (t they are 0(st as *e see the'Ie is tro(led y the tho(!ht that *hat is tr(e of onesho(ld perhaps e tr(e of all, (t is afraid this *ill 'ake hi' fall into a pit of nonsense 31"#cd.Par'enides replies: Ao( are still yo(n!, ocrates, and philosophy has not yet taken hold of yo( in the*ay that, in 'y opinion, it event(ally *ill, at *hich ti'e yo( *ill not despise any of these. B(t no*yo( still consider people8s opinions eca(se of yo(r a!e 31"1e. &here are a n('er of concl(sions *ecan dra* fro' this passa!e. @irst, ocrates8 i''ediate acceptance of val(eladen for's like 0(stice,

    ea(ty, and !oodness, to!ether *ith his o(tri!ht re0ection of the e)istence of for's for very i!noleand ase 3

    , 1"#c thin!s like hair, '(d, and dirt, sho*s the i'portance to hi' of the for's8 role as the earers ofval(e, a role that 'akes the' hard to reconcile *ith *hat is trivial or (nclean. &he 'at(re ocrates8description of the' as offsprin! of the !ood 3%epu)lic.>#9 is testi'ony to the fact that reality isshaped y the teleolo!y of !oodness,;>= and so the f(nda'ental possiilities of reality *ill also e'anifestations, ho*ever indirect, of the nat(re of the !ood.

    5ot only is there a connection et*een reality and teleolo!ical !oodness, (t there is also a connectionet*een philosophy8s atte'pt to apprehend that reality, and 'oral !oodness. (ch a connection hasalready een dra*n in detail in the%epu)lic8s doctrine of the tripartite

    ;4= (ch an interpretation is s(!!ested y ocrates8 e)trapolation of the ar!('ent to the one and the'any at 1$9c.

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    20/198

    so(l, and the present section contains a !raphic re'inder of that doctrine. Leno re'arks that he *rotehis pole'ic *hen he *as yo(n!, in a spirit of yo(thf(l co'ativeness 3

    rather than that of an older 'an8s love of honor 3

    , 1$6e. &hese alternatives represent yo(thf(l and 'at(re versions, respectively, of the spirited part ofthe tripartite so(l, the irascile part. -t is interestin!, then, that *hen ocrates treats Par'enides andespecially Leno so disrespectf(lly;= Iso insensitively to their love of honorIthat Pythodor(se)pected the' to e an!ry *ith hi', they only s'ile in ad'iration of ocrates8 cleverness 31"#a. Heare sho*n that Leno8s yo(thf(l spiritedness did not in his 'at(rity develop into an e+(ally a!!ressiveolder 'an8s love of honor, (t is rather replaced y a nonco'ative appreciation of rationality.

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    21/198

    s(spect it lies in the fact that h('an ein!s, fires, and *ater act(ally e)ist in the physical *orld?*hereas sa'eness, notsa'eness, pl(rality, oneness, rest, 'otion, 0(stice, !oodness, and ea(ty nevere)ist corporeally as s(ch,;%= (t only as attri(tes of physical thin!s. &here is no risk of identifyin!these latter for's *ith corporeal instances, eca(se there are no corporeal instances of the' as s(ch?corporeal entities are 3in a,%epu)licG-- >$4d>$>a. ince ocrates introd(ced the theory of -deas to e)plain *hy +(alification y opposites does noti'ply the identity of opposites, it 'ay see' an open +(estion, so far as the Parmenidesis concerned,*hether -deas are re+(ired *here opposition is not involved 3as is tr(e of %epu)licG-- >$"c ff. 3PP1#%. &he connection et*een

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    22/198

    on the li'itations of the theory of for's. -f Plato alieved that the !reatest diffic(lty co(ld e 'et ya thinker of s(fficient aility and e)perience, he *o(ld pres('aly elieve the sa'e to e tr(e of theother, lesser ar!('ents.;9=

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    23/198

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    24/198

    &hat is *hy *e resort to analo!ies only *hen *e are not ale to !ive an acco(nt of so'ethin! in itself,;1>= and so the need here to fall ack (pon 3at est analo!y is an ad'ission of a li'itation in thee)planatory po*er of the theory of for's.

    &he li'itation is not 'erely contin!ent, a f(nction of the ocrates8 lack of sophistication,;1= for evenin thePhaedo, *here the concept of

    ;1>= Cf.%epu)lic>#cd,Phaedrus$4a.

    ;1= 2iller ar!(es other*ise. e, too, elieves that in his portrayal of ocrates, Plato is servin! noticethat an indirect, analo!ical (nderstandin! of the doctrine of for's is not eno(!h 3PP>. B(t he takesthis as a reflection on the asyetinade+(ate level of concept(aliation on the part of yo(n! ocrates,rather than as a reflection on the li'itations of the 'at(re theory 3> n. "9 ;$1%=. Ao(n! ocrates is notyet s(fficiently adept at astract concept(aliation to (nderstand the nat(re of the for's in the'selves?he can only conceive of the' in corporeal ter's and therefore only in ter's of si'ile and 'etaphor.&he second part of the dialo!(e, 2iller ar!(es, is desi!ned to address this deficiency y trainin! hi' inastract concept(aliation. &h(s theParmenidesf(nctions as a kind of steppin!stone to*ard the%epu)lic. &he elder ocrates8 philosophical co''and of the theory of for's in the %epu)licis the!oal, aleit retrospectively posed, to*ard *hich the concept(al laor prescried in the Parmenidesis a

    needed 'eans . . . . &he yo(thf(l ocrates8 task is to appropriate f(lly, y critical and concept(alin+(iry, *hat *as !iven to Ela(con and

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    25/198

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    26/198

    ody perceives onl!individ(als, and the 'ind 3reason onl!for's: rational kno*led!e is not senseperception (t recollection. &he inco''ens(raility et*een the t*o kinds of perceivin! is *hy, fore)a'ple, not only are the prisoners in the cave 3*ho are at the level of sense perception (nale to seethe for's o(tside the cave *hen they look, (t the philosophers o(tside 3*ho perceive the for's *iththeir so(l are no lon!er ale to see the individ(alities *ithin. Conse+(ently, *hile it is evident that the

    ;16= &he &hird 2an

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    27/198

    7 "4 7

    Fn the other hand, neither can the predication si'ply e e+(ivocal, as the fifth ar!('ent *ill sho*, forthen the for' and thin! *o(ld ear no essential relation to each other and the theory of for's *o(ld epointless. &he only alternative is to take the d(al predication analo!ically 3as 'edieval theolo!y does ine)plainin! ho* predicates derived fro' the corporeal *orld can e applied to Eod and say thati!ness itself is not i! in the sense of takin! (p space, (t in so'e sense that is the intelli!ile

    analo!(e of takin! (p space. &he reply to Par'enides8 second ar!('ent, then, like the first, '(st fallack (pon analo!ical reasonin!. -n the first ar!('ent it *as a threeter' analo!y 3for's are to thin!sas te'poral (nits are to thin!s s(ch as Plato had (sed in the affinity ar!('ent of thePhaedo3%6ff., and here a fo(rter' analo!y 3i!ness itself is to i! as the intelli!ile is to the corporeal s(ch ashe (sed in the Divided ine.

    Fnce a!ain the apparent ref(tation of the theory of for's contains *ithin itself a re'inder of ho* theo0ection can e 'etIin ter's already fa'iliar to (s fro' the 'iddle dialo!(esI(t once a!ain thei'plicit defense can do no 'ore than partially vindicate the theory. -n the first ar!('ent the analo!y!ave (s no *ay of(nderstandin! intrinsicall!precisely ho* a for' is *holly present to 'any thin!s,and here *e find that *e have no (nderstandin! of *hat i!ness itself 3or any for' is intrinsically, (tonly analo!ically.

    ;+ Third "rgument9 !once.ts 4%/-26d8

    &he ne)t ar!('ent foc(ses on the for's8 f(nction as concepts. &he yo(thf(l ocrates sees that the keyto ans*erin! Par'enides8 second ar!('ent is to sho* that the for's are f(nda'entally different fro'thin!s, so that the t*o cannot e taken to!ether in the sa'e *ay. o*ever he does not yet for'(latethis difference in the sophisticated 'anner of thePhaedoand%epu)lic, (t s(!!ests instead that eachof these for's 'ay e only a tho(!ht, in *hich case it *o(ld not e appropriate for it to e)ist any*hereother than in o(r so(ls? for in that *ay each *o(ld e one and *o(ld no lon!er s(ffer the conse+(encesthat *ere 0(st 'entioned. ince this is the only feat(re of yo(n! ocrates8 defense of the theory offor's that *as not part of the 'at(re ocrates8 conception of the for's in other dialo!(es, it is not dear

    *hy Plato introd(ces it here at allIonly to depict it as co'pletely re0ected. -t 'ay e that eca(se ofPlato8s opposition to 'aterialis', and his elevation of the 'ind over the senses as the to(chstone ofreality, he *as seen as an ally y so'e of those *ho 3like the follo*ers of Prota!oras and Eor!ias

    7 "> 7

    elieve reality to e entirely s(0ective.;19= -n that case this central one of the five ar!('ents 'ay e'eant to si!nal his opposition to that e)tre'e interpretation of his anti'aterialis'. &he ar!('entdisc(ssed in the ne)t para!raph, in any case, see's to prefi!(re the ref(tation that ocrates (ndertakesa!ainst Prota!oras in the Theaetetus.

    -n a series of steps Par'enides estalishes that if the for' is a tho(!ht, the tho(!ht '(st e of anindependently real (niversal: 31 a tho(!ht '(st e of so'ethin!, 3$ na'ely, of so'ethin! that is, and3" it '(st e co''on to all its instances 31"$c. &he point see's to e that concept(alis' i'pliesits ne!ation, realis', eca(se tho(!hts are of independently real e)istents, in *hich case concept(alis'is incoherent. B(t *hy '(st the referents of tho(!hts e real independently of the 'indJ ".;$#= He can interpret these fra!'ents in a Platonic, rationalistic*ay, to 'ean that reason 3thinkin!,

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    28/198

    is the test of *hat is real.

    ;19= Kla(s Fehler 'ay e ri!ht in s(!!estin! that Plato is the ancient thinker *ho co'es closest to'odern idealis': Der *esentliche Be(! dieses Denkens a(f Mffentlichkeit ist a(ch der lette Er(nd,*ar(' dieses Denken sich hie in der Heise spaterer efle)ion a(f sich selst (rNck!eo!en (nd eini' stren!en inne philosophisches elste*()tsein konstit(iert hat, (' von sich a(s, a(s seine'-nneren, die Helt 8syste'atisch8 ( ent*erfen, o*ohl es !erade Platon, *ar, der dieser 2o!lichkeitvon allen antiken Denkern,

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    29/198

    Prota!orean position that tr(th issu)3ective, *ith no ascertainale o0ective referent.

    ;$$= ansEeor! Eada'er s(spects that in the second part of the dialo!(e there 'ay e hints even of adistinction et*een psyche and no(s, *hich paves the *ay for the Plotinian position 3Plato8sPar'enides and -ts -nfl(ence,Dion!sius;196"= "1.

    7 "% 7&he ar!('ent f(nctions in another *ay as *ell. &he first t*o ar!('ents e)plored the p(relyontolo!ical aspects of the for's, as ca(ses and (niversals, *hile the last t*o introd(ce theepiste'olo!ical di'ension, first i'plicitly in the fo(rth ar!('ent8s concept of paradi!', then e)plicitlyin the fifth ar!('ent8s foc(s on the prole' of kno*led!e. &he third ar!('ent is the transition et*eenthese pairs, and in its ref(tation of e)tre'e concept(alis' the relationship et*een ein! and thinkin!is riefly indicated.

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    30/198

    7 "6 7

    &hen it is not y likeness that other thin!s partake in the for's, (t it is necessary ' seekso'e other 'eans y *hich they partake.

    o it see's ;

    =.

    ere Par'enides does not 'erely ask ocrates to look at the for' and thin!s in the sa'e *ay, as hedid in the second ar!('ent, (t offers an ar!('ent *hy it o(!ht to e possile to do soIthereciprocality of the relation of likeness. ocrates, *ho has already conceded the infinite re!ress in thesecond ar!('ent, no* assents (nhesitatin!ly to each of the preli'inary steps, (t he hesitates this ti'eat the concl(sion that Par'enides dra*s fro' the'. @ro' the point of vie* of the 'iddle dialo!(es itis not s(rprisin! that ocrates hesitates. Par'enides8 concl(sion is that the infinite re!ress res(lted fro'ocrates8 clai' that the for's are paradi!'s and therefore rese'le the partic(lars in so'e *ay.o*ever the re!ress does not follo* specifically fro' this clai', (t fro' Par'enides8 treat'ent of

    the concept of rese'lance as a sy''etrical relation. -n the 'iddle dialo!(es the rese'lance et*eenfor's and partic(lars is represented y the 'at(re ocrates not as a sy''etrical one (t as oneet*een (ne+(als. -n thePhaedo, for instance, (sin! the e)a'ple of e+(ality, he says that partic(larsstrive to e like the for' (t fall short 3%4d ff., and he 'akes a si'ilar point in the %epu)licin ter'sof the e)a'ples of the ea(tif(l, the 0(st, and the pio(s 34%9a. &he relationship is th(s an (neven onein the sense that the for's have an asol(te perfection that the thin!s participatin! in the' can neverachieve. @or's and thin!s are (lti'ately inco''ens(rale and cannot properly e set into a reciprocalrelationship in the *ay that Par'enides proposes. -t 'akes sense to say that e+(al sticks strive to elike e+(ality itself, (t not to say that e+(ality itself strives to e like e+(al sticks. -ndeed, the fifthar!('ent *ill trade on this very type of inco''ens(raility.

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    31/198

    5+ Fi(th "rgument9 Se.aration 4%//a6%/e8

    &here is an i'portant introd(ction to the fifth ar!('ent, to *hich co''entators do not al*ays payeno(!h attention.

    Do yo( see, then, ocrates, ho* !reat the i'passe is, if so'eone 'aintains that for's are'arked off as entities the'selvesythe'selves ;

    =J

    Aes, indeed.

    Ao( 'ay e s(re, he said, that yo( do not yet, so to speak, !rasp ho* !reat the i'passeis if yo( 'aintain that each for' is one and is so'ethin! al*ays 'arked off apart ;

    = fro' partic(lar thin!s ;

    =.

    o* is thatJ said he.

    &here are 'any factors, he said, (t the !reatest is this: if anyone sho(ld say that it is noteven fittin! for the for's to e kno*n if they are s(ch as *e say they '(st e, no one*o(ld have any *ay to sho* the speaker that he *as *ron!, (nless the disp(tant *ere a'an of '(ch e)perience and not *itho(t nat(ral aility, and *ere *illin! to follo* a lon!and co'plicated proof? other*ise he *ho insists that they are (nkno*ale *o(ld e(nconvinced. 31""ac

    Hhat is re'arkale here is first of all Par'enides8 clai' that it *o(ld e an error to elieve that if thefor's are separate 3

    and

    , 1""a9, $ they are (nkno*ale, even tho(!h it *o(ld not e easy to de'onstrate the error. @or this isto concede in advance that the fifth ar!('ent, *hich 'akes precisely this clai', is in principleans*erale altho(!h only *ith !reat diffic(lty. 2oreover, eca(se of the relationship of this ar!('entto the previo(s ones, Par'en

    7 4# 7

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    32/198

    ides8 *ords s(!!est that those too sho(ld e ans*erale, if only in an el(sive 'anner. e'arkale tooare Par'enides8 *ords 3in the last speech aove, if ;the for's= are s(ch as *e say they '(st e,*hich i'ply that he shares ocrates8 vie*. &he conte)t s(!!ests that Par'enides is (sin! the firstperson pl(ral earnestly, and not as a patroniin! for' of the second person sin!(lar. -f the previo(sar!('ents *ere to have een re!arded as effective ref(tations, he co(ld hardly incl(de hi'self as oneof the theory8s s(pporters.

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    33/198

    4. 5o*, since the for's the'selves, as yo( a!ree ;in step 1=, *e do not have, and they cannot e)ista'on! (s? and since *hat each of these kinds the'selves is, is kno*n y the for' itself ofkno*led!e ;cf. step "=? then none of the for's is kno*n y (s, since *e do not participate inkno*led!e itself.

    -t see's not ;

    = 31"4c.

    >. 2oreover, since the for's are far 'ore perfect than the partic(lar thin!s a'on! (s, it is appropriatethat !od8s kno*led!e *ill e of the', in *hich case he *ill e (nale to kno* o(r *orld, since thefor's there are not ale to have any relationship to the thin!s a'on! (s, nor the thin!s a'on! (s tothose there 31"4cd.

    .

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    34/198

    relations: participation, recollection, and eros.

    Be!innin! *ith theeno, the 'at(re ocrates rid!es the !ap et*een o(r corporeal real' and thereal' of the for's y the concepts of participation and recollection: since corporeal thin!s participatein the for's, *e can reco!nie or recollect the for's fro' their li'ited presence in corporeal thin!s.&his does not +(ite enale (s to kno* the' as they are in the'selves 3kno*led!e itself or *isdo' isnot availale to (s, (t it enales (s to kno*somethingof the for's. ere, ho*ever, Plato 'akes the

    yo(n! ocrates respond to Par'enides8 ar!('ent as if he had not yet for'(lated the rid!in! conceptof recollection? and Par'enides has previo(sly disco(ra!ed ocrates8 atte'pts to for'(late the conceptof participation 3perhaps ocrates8 present hesitation indicates a s(spicion that so'e s(ch for'(lationcan e fo(nd. -t is ironic then that Par'enides sho(ld (se the very ter' participation here, *here theconcept itself is conspic(o(sly o'itted: &hen none of the for's is kno*n y (s since *e do notparticipate ;

    = in kno*led!e itself 31"4Ia phrase that is repeated in step > 31"4c1#.

    -n step $ *as an even 'ore pre!nant re'inder of the doctrine:

    &hose ideas that are *hat they are in relation to one another have their essence in relation toone another, (t not in relation to the thin!s a'on! (sIlikenesses or *hatever rise *e callthe'? and *e *hoparticipatein the' take o(r na'es fro' the'. = Cf.Phaedrus$4%d, $49d.

    7 4" 7

    ocrates forthri!htly asks, Hhat do yo( 'eanJ and Par'enides responds *ith the 'asterslave

    e)a'ple. B(t altho(!h that e)a'ple ill(strates his point, Par'enides had 0(st provided (s *ith t*o thatdo not: participation and na'in!. He and all thin!s in o(r *orld participate in the for's, and thepredicates that apply to (s are the na'es of the for's in *hich *e participate, s(ch as ani'al, 0(st,ea(tif(l, i!, and even 'aster or slave. -f partic(lar thin!s are th(s related to the for's yparticipation and na'in!, then o(r kno*led!e of these thin!s is ipso &actoa kno*led!e, ho*everi'perfect, of the for's, as the doctrine of recollection 'aintained.

    &his point is connected also *ith the lesson of the third ar!('ent: that thinkin! refers to a ein! that isnot red(cile to tho(!ht. &he activities of thinkin! and kno*in! stand in relation to the for's *itho(tcollapsin! the distinction et*een thinkin! and ein! 3for's. ike eros in ocrates8 speech in theS!mposium, thinkin! and kno*in! are f(nctions of so(l, and they therefore 'ediate et*een thecorporeal and the intelli!ile or divine *itho(t elon!in! e)cl(sively to either. &he fifth ar!('entarrives at its parado)ical concl(sion y i!norin! the 'ediatin! nat(re of kno*led!e and tryin! toacco(nt for kno*led!e entirely in ter's of the opposite poles of the divine and the corporeal.

    B(t altho(!h the 'at(re theory of for's has the reso(rces to *ithstand this final assa(lt too, the latter*as no 'ore pointless than *ere the other criti+(es. He sa* in the first ar!('ent that the relation ofparticipation is concept(ally aporetic, 'arkin! one of the o(ndaries *here concept(al clarity e!ins toreak do*n and !ive *ay to 'etaphor and analo!y. &here it res(lted in a li'itation as to *hat co(ld esaid ao(t the role of participation in e)plainin! the ontologicalrelationship et*een for's as ca(sesand the partic(lars that depend (pon the'. -n this fifth ar!('ent it res(lts in a si'ilar li'itation ao(t

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    35/198

    the epistemologicalrelationship et*een for's as paradi!'s and the partic(lars that enale (s to kno*the'. &he doctrine of recollection 'ay sho* that*e are led fro' partic(lars to kno*led!e of thefor's, and that Par'enides8 dichoto'y is therefore a false one, (t recollection is no less 'etaphoricthan participation. Par'enides8 attack sho*s that it is far fro' ovio(s hothe real's of partic(larityand of for' can stand in relation to each other, and hotherefore *e are to conceive of the relations ofparticipation and recollection that 'ake kno*led!e possile. 2ore than that, in e'phasiin! the deft,

    rather than the rid!es, et*een h('an thinkin! and the nat(re of reality in itself, the fifth ar!('entill(strates *hy allphilosophical theoriin! '(st (lti'ately fall short of co'plete ade+(acy to reality.

    7 44 7

    &he ar!('ent concl(des *ith a re'ark si'ilar to the one that preceded it:

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    36/198

    =, for each thin!. -t is hard to i'a!ine that

    can 'ean anythin! other than e)istin! distinctly fro' sensile thin!s,;$%= especially since at 1"#6

    3itself

    ;$= ayre, for e)a'ple, *rites, Hhat Par'enides ovio(sly has o'itted fro' this last'in(te defenseof the theory is any 'ention of the @or's as entirely separate entities . . . . Hhat Plato has Par'enidessayin! is that certain aspects of this theory ocrates has een 'aintainin!, here and in earlier dialo!(es,indeed are essential for intelli!ile disco(rseIna'ely those aspects providin! @or's that are definiteand al*ays the sa'eI(t that the notion that these @or's e)ist in total separation fro' the thin!s thatparticipate in the' not only is inessential (t leads to endless diffic(lties 3PL+$$.

    7 4> 7yitself is (sed interchan!ealy *ith

    3separate at ", >, c1, and d1.

    &he sa'e concl(sion is i'plied y the passa!e *ith *hich the final ar!('ent e!an, *here Par'enidessaid that so'eone of '(ch e)perience and not *itho(t nat(ral aility, and . . . *illin! to follo* a lon!and co'plicated proof *o(ld (nderstand *hy it *o(ld e *ron! to say that it is not even fittin! forthe for's to e kno*n if they are s(ch as *e say they '(st e, na'ely, 'arked off as entitiesthe'selvesythe'selves ;

    = . . . apart ;

    = fro' partic(lar thin!s ;

    =. -ndeed, in vie* of this (se of

    and

    , *e 'ay say that

    3'ark off in the present passa!e also 'eans separate. &he face that Plato does not here (se the*ord

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    37/198

    3separate is not si!nificant *hen he (ses synony'o(s ter's s(ch as

    and

    . &he present passa!e, therefore, affords no evidence that Plato at this point did anythin! (t reaffir'the theory of for's in all its essentials.

    Fn the asis of this e)a'ination there see's no reason to concl(de that Plato intended these ar!('entsto e a ref(tation or recantation of the theory of for's, and several reasons to elieve that he did not:

    1. &he ar!('ents are easily ans*ered on the asis of feat(res of the theory that *ere pro'inent in the'iddle dialo!(es and that co(ld pla(sily e o'itted here only y portrayin! ocrates as ein! in theearly sta!es of developin! the theory.

    $. By havin! ocrates hesitate precisely at the point *here s(ch factors can e ro(!ht into play to

    repel Par'enides8 attack, Plato see's to hint at the inconcl(sive nat(re of the ar!('ents.". 5ot only the ans*ers (t the prole's the'selves *ere anticipated in the 'iddle dialo!(es: theprole' of !ivin! non'etaphorical acco(nts of participation and recollection, and the a'i!(ity ofrese'lance and predication *ith re!ard to for's and thin!s, are clearly present in the Phaedo, *herethe co'plete theory *as first introd(ced. Plato evidently reco!nied these prole's fro' the e!innin!(t felt that the theory *as not vitiated y the'.

    7 4 7

    4. &he final ar!('ent e!ins and ends *ith speeches that sho* Par'enides to e ocrates8 ally in the

    theory, a devil8s advocate rather than ne'esis, *hich *o(ld hardly e possile if the ar!('ents *ereintended as serio(s ref(tations. &he 'otive for e)hiitin! and even e)a!!eratin! these prole's 'ayhave een partly to re'ind (s that the theory of for's cannot e re!arded as a do!'a or perfecteddoctrine (t only as a val(ale 3perhaps indispensale altho(!h ine)act *ay of interpretin! the *orld.

    -n Plato8s letters it is said that philosophical tr(th cannot (lti'ately e p(t into *ords, and '(st insteade n(rt(red indirectly in its recipient:

    &here is no co'position of 'ine concernin! these thin!s, nor *ill there ever e. @or itcannot e e)pressed in speech like other kinds of kno*led!e, (t after a lon! attendance(pon the 'atter itself, and co''(nion *ith it, then s(ddenly;$6= Ias a lae is kindledfro' a leapin! sparkIit is orn in the so(l and at once eco'es selfno(rishin!.

    3%."41c"4$a? cf. $."14ac&he a(thenticity of the letters has never een estalished concl(sively, (t on this point the letters ares(pported y the 'ythic, ironic, do(tso*in! character of the dialo!(es the'selves, in *hich all*ords are (ttered thro(!h 'o(ths other than that of the a(thor. &hePhaedrusin partic(lar !ives directs(pport to this senti'ent:

    e *ho thinks that he has e+(eathed in his *ritin!s so'e e)pertise ;

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    38/198

    =, and he *ho receives the' thinkin! that anythin! dear and fir' *ill e in the', *o(ld every si'ple'inded . . . if he tho(!ht that *ritten *ords are 'ore than re'inders, to the one*ho already kno*s, of that ao(t *hich they are *ritten . . . . Ao( 'i!ht think that theyspeak *ith a certain *isdo', (t if yo( +(estion *hat is said, eca(se yo( *ant to learn,they al*ays say the sa'e one thin!. 3$%>cd

    - think a '(ch finer *ay of ein! serio(s co'es ao(t *hen so'eone, (sin! the art ofdialo!(e, takes an appropriate so(l, and plants and so*s it *ith kno*led!eale *ords thatare ale to help oth the'selves and their planter? *ords that are not arren, (t have*ithin the' seeds fro' *hich other *ords !ro* in other characters, *hich are ever ale to'ake the' i''ortal, and 'akin! their possessor happy to the !reatest e)tent that ish('anly possile. 3$%e$%%a

    7 4% 7

    c. ocrates is (ncertain at present, and Par'enides attri(tes thisIas he hadocrates8 reservations ao(t for's of dirt, '(d, and hairIto his philosophical i''at(rity. ocrates hastried to define ea(ty, 0(stice, !ood, and all the other ideas efore he has een trained in the kind ofdialectic that see's to 'ost people to e (seless lo+(acity, (t is in fact the 'eans of capt(rin! tr(th.;$9= ocrates has een ri!ht to confine his attention to intelli!ile for's rather than sensile thin!s, thatis, to pay attention to likeness and (nlikeness. B(t it is necessary to do this as *ell as that: in the caseof each hypothesis not only '(st yo( e)a'ine *hat follo*s if *hat is hypothesied e)ists, (t also if itdoes not e)istIif yo( *ish to e 'ore f(lly trained 31">e1"a. -f *e sho*ed only *hat follo*edfro' the hypothesis that so'ethin! e)ists, then any prole's *e enco(ntered 'i!ht convince (spre'at(rely to re0ect o(r hypothesis? *hereas if *e also considered *hat follo*ed fro' denyin! it, *e'i!ht find the conse+(ences 'ore o0ectionale than those of acceptin! it. &h(s the Theaetetus*ill

    sho* that the prole's conse+(ent on denyin! the e)istence of the for's are even 'ore prole'aticthan those that follo* fro' affir'in! their e)istence.

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    39/198

    7 46 7

    even 'ore eni!'atic than the first. Procl(s 3pp. $9"4 distin!(ishes fo(r different *ays of interpretin!even the overall intent of the ar!('ents, re!ardless of any disp(tes ao(t their content: 31 #. &his approach,too, !oes ack to anti+(ity, accordin! to oert Br('a(!h 3Plato on the +ne: The 5!potheses in theParmenides;5e* aven: Aale University Press, 191= >. H. @. . ardie 'akes an appropriateresponse to it: -t see's to 'e clear that the passa!e of transition . . . is calc(lated to lead (s to e)pectthat the second part of the dialo!(e *ill thro* so'e real li!ht on the diffic(lties *hich have een raisedin the first . . . . &he reference in the Theaetetus316" to the 8nole depth8 of *hat *as (ttered y8Par'enides8 on this occasion see's to 'e to tell stron!ly a!ainst the vie* that the hypotheses of thesecond part are nothin! (t an osc(re 0oke or a lon! and tedio(s parody 3+(oted y @. 2. Cornford,Plato and Parmenides;ondon: o(tled!e and Ke!an Pa(l, 19"9= 114.

    ;"1= -t is a nat(ral inference that a 'ain p(rpose of the *hole e)ercise '(st e to point o(t that even

    the apparently si'plest ter's, s(ch as 8Fne8 and 8ein!8, *hich *ill appear at the threshold of any'etaphysical disc(ssion, are dan!ero(sly a'i!(o(s 3Cornford,PP11#. ecent e)ceptions to thelo!ical interpretation incl(de Pa(l @riedlander,Plato, vol. " 3Princeton: Princeton University Press,199 ;ori!. 19#=? !il Hyller, Plato8sParmenides: ;19$= $14#, *hich s(''aries his ookPlatons Dialog Parmenides in seinem 7usammenhangmit S!mposion und Politeia3Fslo, 19#? Br('a(!h,P+? and 2iller,PP.

    ;"$= 2a)i'ilian Beck *rites: -t is de'onstrated indirectly in this dialo!(e, na'ely, y carryin! thecontrary thesis to as(rdity, that ideas are neither (nifies nor '(ltit(des, neither *holes nor parts, haveneither spatial nor te'poral e)tension? ideas are eyond any +(antitative cate!ory? they are p(rely+(alitative identities 3Plato8s Prole' in theParmenides,4 Journal o& the 5istor! o& (deas6 ;194%=$"$" at $"4.

    ;""= &h(s ayre. e ar!(es that the fo(r hypotheses (nder if the Fne is sho(ld e paired *ith theiranalo!(es (nder if the Fne is not. -n that case, he says, if *e p(t to!ether hypothesis - 3if Unitye)ists, then this Unity *ith reference to itself has no characters *ith hypothesis G- 3if Unity does note)ist, then this Unity *ith reference to itself has no characters, *e !et the concl(sion that a (nity thatrefers only to itself 3i.e., a separate for', accordin! to ayre has no characters unconditionall!3i.e.,*hether or not it e)ists 3PL+444. -n other *ords, the very concept of separate for's is e'pty.Hhat ayre does not notice, ho*ever, is that y the sa'e lo!ic *e can arrive at the opposite concl(siony pairin! hypotheses -- and G. ypothesis -- is that if Unity e)ists, then this Unity *ith reference to

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    40/198

    others has all 3contradictory characters, and hypothesis G is that if Unity does not e)ist, then thisUnity *ith reference to others has all 3contradictory characters. Fn ayre8s principles, therefore, thet*o to!ether 'ean that a (nity that refers to other thin!s 3a nonseparate for' is selfcontradictoryunconditionall!3i.e., *hether it e)ists or not. o ayre8s concl(sion, that Plato is here rep(diatin! theconcept of separate for's in favor of for's that are not separate, is n(llified. He shall find that as lon!as *e concentrate only on the stated concl(sions of the hypotheses, and do not penetrate to the i'plicit

    distinctions *ithin the detailsof the ar!('ents, *e *ill not e ale to red(ce the appearance, of a'(t(al cancelin!o(t of all the hypotheses, into a positive concl(sion.

    7 49 7

    terpretations, candidates for *hat is ein! de'onstrated incl(de the nat(re and relationship of for'sand thin!s 3Br('a(!h, 2iller, the i'plications of the ori!inal participation ref(tation in Part 13=

    ;"4= oert ternfeld and arold Lyskind,eaning, %elation, and Eistence in Plato's Parmenides:The Logic o& %elational %ealism35e* Aork: an!, 196% 9#.

    ;">= &he latter interpretation is often referred to as the 5eoplatonic interpretation eca(se the5eoplatonists sa* their o*n doctrines in it. B(t not everyone *ho considers Plato to elieve in anoverarchin! transcendent principle is a 5eoplatonist. Procl(s8s co''entary on the Parmenides, *hichis the paradi!'atic 5eoplatonic interpretation, is do!'atic and +(estione!!in! to a de!ree that *o(lddeter 'ost co''entators fro' acceptin! the sa'e appellation.

    7 ># 7

    -n the first part of the dialo!(e *e fo(nd a d(e to interpretation in the fact that ocrates hesitated at asin!le cr(cial 0(nct(re of each ar!('ent (t the one a!ainst concept(alis'. Hill a si'ilar approachhelp (s to (nderstand *hat is !oin! on in the second halfJ &his possiility has had at least onedefender,;"= (t the evidence see's to e a!ainst it.

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    41/198

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    42/198

    disc(ssion. Fne *o(ld e)pect his 'o'ents of hesitation to e revealin! ao(t the stat(s of thear!('ent. Ao(n! e, (t theothers is denotatively less deter'inate, *hich *ill !ive the ar!('ent !reater fle)iility in places. 3eeelo*, note 44.

    < f(ll treat'ent of the prole' o(!ht to repeat the ei!ht hypotheses, once (nder the hypothesis that theothers e)ist, and a!ain (nder the hypothesis that they do not? or at least the ei!ht hypotheses ao(t the'any sho(ld e added to the ei!ht ao(t the Fne. 2oreover, Par'enides also says that he '(st do thesa'e *ith likeness, (nlikeness, 'otion, rest, !enesis and destr(ction, and ein! and notein!. -n other*ords one '(st consider each thin! (nder oth hypotheses, oth in relation to itself and to every otherthin! that yo( *ish, if yo( are to

    7 >" 7

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    43/198

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    44/198

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    45/198

    and contains (nli'ited 3

    n('er.

    . ince the Fne is divided, it cannot e a *hole? it can only e parts li'ited y an etrinsic*hole3144d. 3&his contradicts 1"%c, *hich states that to e a *hole it muste divided into parts.;4#=Conse+(ently the Fne is oth one and 'any, *hole and parts, li'ited and (nli'ited? and since it isoth *hole and parts, it is oth in itself and in another.

    c. @ro' this it is fallacio(sly ded(ced 3y e+(ivocation that the Fne '(st e not only at rest (t also in'otion, since in another 'eans chan!in!. 3B(t in fact in another *as previo(sly (sed in a

    ;4#= &here is a si'ilar tension in the Theaetetus. "c.

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    46/198

    conceive of a d(ality et*een oneness and the '(ltiplicity of deter'inations, the oneness that *eatte'pt to conceive collapses.

    7 >% 7

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    47/198

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    48/198

    a'i!(o(s (se of the ter' the Fne. -n the first hypothesis the Fne i'plies a s(pervenient (nity. -nthe second it refers not to a transcendent principle (t to the a!!re!ate of 'aterial reality. -n the third it*ill refer oth to the latter 39ua*hole and to the (nity of eachpartof the *hole.;44= &hea'ivalences a'on! these three senses of the Fne 3transcendent (nity, totality, individ(ality of eachpart rec(r thro(!ho(t the ei!ht hypotheses and reflect precisely the 'o'ents of the *holepartdialectic: *holeness is the principle of (nification, (t since the entity itself is an a!!re!ate of parts, the

    *holeness in so'e sense transcends the physical entity as s(ch? on the other hand, since this *holenessis o&the physical entity, the entity has an inherent inte!rity and so a *holeness that is immanent? (tthis i'plies parts and therefore concept(al dissol(tion of the *holeness of the entity into co'ponent(nities, *hich are the'selves *holes.;4>=

    ;44= &he a'i!(ity of the ter' others depends on that of the ter' Fne. &he follo*in! chart sho*sho* the t*o ter's are (sed in the vario(s hypotheses:

    Fne Fthers

    - transcendent ;(nspecified=

    -- i''anent, infinitely divisile infinitely divisile ;(nitiesJ=

    --- ;(nspecified= 'ediatin! et*een (nli'ited and for'

    -G transcendent *itho(t characteristics

    G concept(al ;(nspecified=

    G- none)istent *itho(t characteristics

    G-- none)istent 3(nity apparent, not real, characteristics

    G--- none)istent 3(nity none)istent

    ;4>= - s(spect that these are the sa'e three senses that Procl(s has in 'ind *hen he *rites, 8&he Fne8can e (sed in three senses. He have the Fne that transcends all ein!s, and that *hich is presentto!ether *ith all ein!s, *hich also, *ith the Fne, prod(ces all the orders of ein!s, and thirdly *ehave that *hich is inferior to Bein! and *hich is, as it *ere, 8s*allo*ed do*n8 y it 3p. "61.

    7 # 7

    -n the sa'e sense that the Fne is oth a *hole and parts, it is oth li'it 3*hole and (nli'ited 3parts:144e14>a. &his is i'plicit also in the a'i!(o(s *ay that (nli'ited 3

    has een (sed in these t*o hypotheses. -n hypothesis - it 'eans for'less, that is, eyond spatiality

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    49/198

    31"%d, *hereas in hypothesis -- it 'eans coe)tensive *ith spatiality and therefore (nli'itedlydivisile 314"a. Unli'ited 3eyond spatiality in the first hypothesis corresponds to li'it 3eyonddivisiility in the second hypothesis, that is, the s(pervenient *hole. &he !eneral contrast et*een thet*o anticipates not only the distinction et*een li'it and (nli'ited in thePhile)us3$"c$>, (t alsoparallel distinctions in other dialo!(es, s(ch as et*een the for'alists and the 'aterialists in theSophist3$4ac, et*een relative 'eas(re and the 'ean in the Statesman3$6"e$6>c, and et*een

    reason and chaos in the Timaeus3$9a"#. -t also recalls s(ch earlier acco(nts as the S!mposium'sopposition et*een the divine and the h('an 3$#$cd and the Phaedo'sconflict et*een the'aterialistic hypothesis 39ae and the hypothesis of for's 31##e. 5one of the other dialo!(es,ho*ever, presents the opposition as starkly as does theParmenides. -n each of the other dialo!(es theantithesis is resolved y 'eans of a synthesis of the t*o,;4= (t here any s(ch synthesis '(st econ0ect(ral. &he key to the possiility of s(ch a synthesis in theParmenideslies in the appendi) to thefirst t*o hypotheses.

    &his appendi), *hich co'ines oth 'o'ents of the previo(s antino'y, concl(des that the Fneso'eti'es participates in ein! and so'eti'es does not. B(t since it cannot so'eti'es have andso'eti'es not have the sa'e thin! (nless it receives it at so'e ti'e and a!ain loses it, it '(st !othro(!h s(ccessive sta!es of !eneration and destr(ction, chan!in! fro' the Fne to the 'any and ack

    a!ain 31>>e1>. &he concl(sion loses its parado)ical character if *e can interpret these s(ccessivesta!es as chan!es of aspect or relation rather than chan!es of state. (ch an interpretation is s(!!estedy the previo(s antino'y, since the first hypothesis considers the Fne in relation to itself and thesecond considers it in relation to the others. &he parado) *as !enerated y osc(rin! the differenceet*een these t*o aspects: reality appears

    ;4=Phile)us$>$%, Sophist$4c$49d, Timaeus4%e46a, S!mposium$#$d$#"a,Phaedo1#>c.ince the Statesmanis there 'akin! (se of the 'ethod of division, the synthesis is the (nity of the t*o*ithin the !en(s of 'eas(re.

    7 1 7

    as oth one and 'any, dependin! on *hether one looks to its (nified character or its diversity.

    Par'enides hi'self provides the fo(ndation for resolvin! the parado) in this *ay. Hhen the Fnealternates et*een (nity and '(ltiplicity it alternates et*een 'otion and rest, and *hen it does so itis necessary for it not to e in any ti'e. &he point of chan!e et*een 'otion and rest '(st itselfneither e the one nor the other, and there is no ti'e in *hich so'ethin! can neither e in 'otion norat rest at once 31>c. Par'enides introd(ces the concept of the instant 3

    as this li'itin! case of ti'e in *hich chan!e can e e)plained 31>ce, and !oes on to s(!!est thatthe chan!es of the Fne et*een e)istence and none)istence, and et*een ein! one and 'any, and soforth, are to e e)plained in the sa'e *ay 31>e1>%. &he fact that these chan!es are said to takeplace not inti'e (t at the li'itin! case of ti'e, at the o(ndary of ti'e and nonti'e, provides a asisfor re!ardin! the s*itch et*een (nity and '(ltiplicity as nonte'poral also in the *ay s(!!estedaove, that is, as a chan!e of aspect rather than a chan!e of state. -f the chan!e et*een (nity andpl(rality occ(rs at the o(ndary et*een ti'e and nonti'e, that chan!e is evidently nothin! (t theconti!(o(s sides of the o(ndary itself.

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    50/198

    &he concept of the instant provides (s *ith the 'ediation et*een the Par'enidean and pl(ralisticantino'ies inas'(ch as it posits a point of contact et*een the ti'eless and the te'poral, et*een thes(pervenient (nifyin! principle of reality and physical reality itself. -t is in this intersection, too, that*e '(st conceive participation and recollection to occ(r, and accordin!ly the concept of the instantprovides an el(sive (t non'etaphorical s(stit(te for the 'etaphors *hose li'itations *ere e)posedy the ar!('ents of Part 1.

    1*.othesis III+ I( the ne Is= >hat Follo?s (or the thers In Relation to

    Themsel)es9 E)er*thing Is 4Inconsistentl*8 True o( Them 4%:%cd.

    &he ar!('ent see's to e that if *e call so'ethin! a part of a 'any, this is different fro' callin! it amem)erof the 'any, or a part of one of the 'e'ers. &o e a part of the 'any 'eans to e a part ofthe 'any distri)utivel!, i.e., to e a part of each 'e'er. o in the case of so'ethin! that is a part of a'any in *hich it is also a 'e'er, then it '(st e a part of itself, *hich is i'possile. Plato8s point*o(ld then e that if *e speak of reality in ter's of *holes and parts, this sho(ld not e assi'ilated tothe 'odel of a s(' 3or a 'any and its 'e'ers.

    7 $ 7

    parts of a *hole they participate in one -dea 3

    , 1>%e, and each part also participates in the Fne since it is a (nity. B(t efore they participated in theFne they participated in a for' 3

    y virt(e of *hich each of the' is (nli'ited in +(antity 3

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    51/198

    .;46= &h(s in relation to the Fne they participate in li'it, (t in their o*n nat(re they are (nli'ited31>6cd. Beca(se of this d(ality they are also oth like and (nlike, the sa'e and not the sa'e, in

    'otion and at rest, and so on 31>6e1>9.He can see that this hypothesis develops the synthesis, only hinted at in the appendi), of the oppositionestalished in the first t*o. ere is 'ade e)plicit the opposition of li'it and (nli'ited as connected*ith the Fne and the infinitely divisile 'any, and the a'i!(ity of the totality as a s(pervenient (nity3*hole or 'ere a!!re!ation 3s('.;49= &he relationship et*een the 'any and their s(pervenientcharacter 3*hether as (nified or (nli'itedly divisile is e)pressed in ter's of participation in for's?the 'etaphor is reintrod(ced after the astract for'(lation of the appendi). -t is not therefore Plato8sintention to do a*ay *ith 'etaphor entirely, *hich *o(ld hardly e possile, (t to 'ake (s a*are ofo(r reliance on it and the *ay that this reliance li'its the transparency of o(r concepts. &he Statesman,in fact, *ill defend the i'portance of 'etaphoric and analo!ic paradi!'s.

    1*.othesis IV+ I( the ne Is= >hat Follo?s (or the thers In Relation to the ne9

    Nothing !an 2e Said o( Them 4l:&@6%;7@8

    ince the Fne and the others are 0ointly e)ha(stive, there can e no third entity to 'ediate et*eenthe', so they '(st e asol(tely sepa

    ;46= &his dis0(nction et*een specific for' and (nity can only e e h!pothesifor Plato.

    ;49= Cf. Theaetetus$#"e$#>e.

    7 " 7

    rate, and the others cannot participate in the Fne. ince the others cannot in any sense e one, neithercan they e 'any, since each *o(ld then e one part. 5or can *e speak of the' in ter's of likeness or(nlikeness, eca(se then they *o(ld participate in t*o for's 3

    , 1>9e?

    , 1#a, *hich is i'possile if they cannot participate even in one. ince they are (nale to participatein anythin!, they cannot e characteried in any *ay at all.

    -f the third hypothesis provided a positive 'ediation et*een the antitheses of the first t*o, the fo(rthprovides its ne!ative co(nterpart y sho*in! that unlessparticipation in for's is possile, *e *ill havethe res(lt that Par'enides had *arned of in the first part of the dialo!(e: -f anyone . . . does not ad'itthe e)istence of for's of thin!s or 'ark off a for' (nder *hich each individ(al thin! is classed, he *illnot have anythin! on *hich to fi) his tho(!hts . . . and in this *ay he *ill (tterly destroy the po*er ofdisco(rse 31">c. &he present ar!('ent sho*s that so'e s(ch post(lation '(st e accepted if'eanin!f(l speech is to e at all possile. -t th(s anticipates the Theaetetus'spervasive ar!('ent that a*orld of fl() *itho(t stale for's is (nintelli!ile and *o(ld 'ake speech (nintelli!ile.;>#= &hepre'ise on *hich this fo(rth hypothesis rests, that since the Fne and the others are 0ointly e)ha(stive

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    52/198

    there can e no tertium 9uidthro(!h *hich they can stand in relation to one another, had already eenans*ered in the appendi) in ter's of the concept of the instant as the tertium 9uidet*een 'otion andrest, and et*een all s(ch other oppositions. -t had also een ans*ered in the 'iddle dialo!(es in ter'sof the relation of participation, y *hich the (nity of the for' and the '(ltiplicity of corporeality are'ediated. &hat very ter' appears here ei!ht ti'es in the halfpa!e et*een 1>9d and 1#.

    -f Par'enides had asked *hether anythin! co(ld e)ist esides the Fne and the man!, the relationship

    et*een the' *o(ld have s(!!ested itself as a possile ans*er. B(t eca(se he had s(stit(ted for theter' 'any the 'ore !eneral ter' others,;>1= the +(estion is p(t in a *ay that precl(des that ans*erand e)a!!erates the parado). is phrase the thin!s that are otherthan the Fne 31>9 '(st ydefinition incl(de even the relations )eteenthe Fne and *hat is other than the Fne, and so aritrarilye)cl(des any ans*er.

    Co'inin! the first fo(r hypotheses, Par'enides concl(des that if Fne e)ists, the Fne is all thin!s andnothin! at all in relation oth to

    ;>#= Cf. esp. 16$c16".

    ;>1= e.

    7 4 7

    itself and to all others 31#. He have seen, ho*ever, that altho(!h on the s(rface these concl(sionsappear to cancel one another o(t, red(cin! their '(t(al antecedent to as(rdity, the details of thear!('ents reveal a consistent (nderlyin! teachin!. &hey sho* ho* the theory of for's 'ediates theanta!onis' et*een the Par'enidean and pl(ralistic *orldvie*s and overco'es the onesidedness ofeach.

    %%+ I( the ne Is Not 4%;726 %;;c8

    &he second !ro(p of fo(r hypotheses is odd in t*o *ays. @irst, three of the hypotheses are as(rd intheir very for'(lation. -f the Fne does not e)ist, it 'akes no sense to ask ho* the Fne is related toitself or to the others, or ho* the others are related to it. econd, it see's odd that Plato8s Par'enides*o(ld even entertain the hypothesis that the Fne is not, since the historical Par'enides vehe'entlydenied that it is possile to say or even think that it is not.;>$= Perhaps, then, the second fo(rhypotheses are serio(sly 'eant to e *hat the first fo(r only appeared to e: a reductio ad a)surdumofthe antecedent. -n that case they *o(ld a'o(nt to an indirect de'onstration of the Fne y sho*in! theincoherence of its denial. &his !ro(p, (nlike the previo(s one, does not contain an i'plicit escape fro'incoherence. &he ar!('ents 'ay f(rther f(nction as a *ay of preventin! the first fo(r fro' ein! takenas a reductio, for there is no point in re0ectin! the hypothesis that the Fne e)ists, on the !ro(nds that itleads to as(rdity, if the re0ection of that hypothesis leads to as(rdity as *ell. ven if this !ro(pf(nctions as a reductio, ho*ever, the care that Plato has p(t into the ar!('ents s(!!ests that there isso'ethin! to e learned fro' their content as *ell as their for'.

    1*.othesis V+ I( the ne Is Not= >hat Follo?s (or the ne In Relation to the

    thers9 E)er*thing Is 4Inconsistentl*=8 True o( It 4%;7@6%;/@8

    &o say that the Fne is not, it '(st e that *e can distin!(ish the Fne fro' other thin!s, and *e '(sttherefore have kno*led!e of it. -t '(st therefore partake of si!nifiers s(ch as that, so'e, this, andso on, and relations s(ch as likeness and (nlikeness, e+(ality and ine+(ality, and so forth, and *e *ill

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    53/198

    e ale to say *hat is tr(e of it. B(t if *e say *hat is tr(e, it is dear that *hat *e speak of '(st e)ist311e. 5ot only does *hatisnot th(s participate in ein!, (t *hatis participates in notein!,insofar as its o*n nonein! is not, and so ein! and

    ;>$= Cf. fra!'ents $, , %. Cornford, ho*ever, takes these hypotheses to e Plato8s controversion of thehistorical Par'enides8 clai' 3PP$$#, $4#.

    7 > 7

    notein! participate in the'selves and in each other 31$a. ince it participates in opposites it '(stchan!e, (t since it is neither in space nor capale of eco'in! other than itself it '(st e at rest. &h(sit '(st oth chan!e and not chan!e, oth co'e into ein! and perish, and neither co'e into ein! norperish.

    &his see's to e an indirect confir'ation, y reductio, of Par'enides8 *arnin! a!ainst tryin! to speakao(t nonein!. &o speak of nonein! is to treat it as a ein!, *hich leads to as(rdity. -n the Sophistadisciple of Par'enides *ill sho* that it is possile in one sense to speak of nonein!, (t only in apredicational sense, not 3as here in an e)istential sense. &his indirect conse+(ence of the present

    ar!('ent eco'es the direct conse+(ence of the ne)t one.

    1*.othesis VI+ I( the ne Is Not= >hat Follo?s (or the ne In Relation to Itsel(9

    Nothing !an @e Said o( It 4%;/@66%;"8

    ince the Fne is not, it cannot participate in anythin!, and therefore none of the aove +(alities 3norany others pertain to it.

    1*.othesis VII+ I( the ne Is Not= >hat Follo?s (or the thers In Relation To

    Themsel)es9 E)er*thing Is 4Inconsistentl*8 True o( Them 4%;@6%;:E8

    &he others '(st e)ist if *e can speak of the', (t they cannot e other than the Fne, for eh!pothesithere is no Fne, so they '(st e other than each other. &hey can only e so in !eneral 3

    rather than 9uaindivid(als, since individ(als i'ply (nity, *hich does not e)ist. < !iven 'ass ofothers is (nli'ited 3

    in +(antity and infinitely divisile, and is therefore oth one 3in appearance and 'any 3in reality.ince they co'ine apparent (nity *ith '(ltiplicity, they *ill appear to possess n('er, lar!eness,s'allness, e+(ality, and li'it. 2oreover, dependin! on *hether one looks to their appearance or theirreality, they *ill appear as oth (nli'ited and li'ited, one and 'any, like and (nlike, sa'e anddifferent, to(chin! and separate, in 'otion and at rest, co'in! to e and perishin!, and the rest.

    &he contradictions are of co(rse only apparent, since they are et*een *hat the 'any appear to e 3as*e i'a!ine the' no* and *hat they really are. &he hypothesis reverses the Platonic *orldvie*: theinner reality eyond. appearances is no lon!er the (nity and for' of thin!s, (t their diversity andfor'lessness. &o e precise, !iven the indefinite and individ(al nat(re of these others, Par'enides istalkin!

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    54/198

    7 7

    ao(t *hat *o(ld later e called pri'e 'atter, or *hat the Timaeuscalls chaos, that is, the 'aterialasis of e)istence hypothetically den(ded of all for'. &h(s, as *ith the precedin! pairs of hypotheses,the conse+(ences of this first 'e'er of the fo(rth pair only apparentl!contradict those of itsco'panion. ere *e are 'ade to realie that *itho(t oneness reality *o(ld red(ce to (nfor'ed 'atter.&he ne)t hypothesis sho*s that nothin! can e conceived or said ao(t reality so conceived. #9, sho*s

    7 % 7

    that all thin!s in the *orld of eco'in!, *hich participate directly in the specific oneness of a for'3ein!, also participate indirectly in an asol(te Fne, the !ood, *hich is eyond ein!. &hef(nda'ental prole' for the theory of for's is to !ive an acco(nt of the nat(re of these t*orelationships.;>"= &he first part of theParmenidescasts do(t on o(r aility to !ive a non'etaphoricalacco(nt of the nat(re of participation y thin!s in for's 3i.e., y eco'in! in ein!, *hileconcl(din!, ho*ever, that (nless *e nevertheless affir' the e)istence of for's and participation *e*ill not e ale to acco(nt for the possiility of tho(!ht and disco(rse 31">c. &he second part of thedialo!(e has no* sho*n, in its diyin! *ay, that a si'ilar concl(sion follo*s fro' a consideration ofthe relationship et*een o(r *orld of eco'in! and the Fne that is )e!ondein!. Fnce *e enter into

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    55/198

    the !y'nastic di'ension of these ar!('ents and respond to their challen!e to dra* cr(cialdistinctions, *e can distin!(ish et*een the ar!('ents that reflect !en(ine parado)es, and those thatare only for'(lated in a parado)ical 'anner (t can readily e resolved y 'eans of the distinctions*ith *hich Plato s(pplies (s. &his has led (s to concl(de that altho(!h the relationship et*een thete'poral 3eco'in! and the ti'eless 3the Fne can e hinted at in ter's of the concept of theinstant, a f(lly elaorated acco(nt re'ains recalcitrant, and the third hypothesis is forced to ret(rn to

    the 'etaphor of participation. B(t 0(st as the first part of the dialo!(e concl(ded y sayin! that, despitethe prole's of concept(aliin! the relation of participation, to atte'pt to do a*ay *ith thatrelationship *o(ld destroy the possiility of tho(!ht and disco(rse? here too the fo(rth hypothesissho*s the i'possiility of dispensin! *ith the relation of participation. "= Cf.PPchap. 6 >.

    7 6 7

    !ha.ter T?o

    The Theaetetus

    %+ Kno?ledge and Virtue 4%-a6%:/e8

    5ear the e!innin! of the dialo!(e ocrates asks &heaetet(s *hether kno*led!e and *isdo' are thesa'e thin! 314>e. &heaetet(s ans*ers in the affir'ative, and ocrates responds nonco''ittally: 5o*it is this very thin! that perple)es 'e, and - a' not s(fficiently capale of !raspin! y 'yself *hatkno*led!e is. &here 'atters are allo*ed to rest.

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    56/198

    point is the sa'e, that the hi!hest rational attain'ent !oes eyond intellect(al kno*led!e alone 3*hich'ay e in the service of o(r irrational passions and involves the s(ordination of corporeal evils tothe divine.

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    57/198

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    58/198

    anony'o(s co''entator on Theaetetus3eds. . Dials and H. ch(art, Berliner Klassikerte)te ii,19#>: 8the ;side of the= .t*ofoot s+(are is also inco''ens(rale . . . (t he left it o(t, they say,eca(se it is in theeno 3 Theaetetus: Kno*led!e as Contin(ed earnin!,Journal o& the 5istor!o& Philosoph!

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    59/198

    each oserver. Plato e!ins the dialo!(e *ith the 'ost ele'entary conception of kno*led!e, that is, thelo*est !rade of infor'ation, 'ere sense e)perience. @ro' this he *ill !enerate (nder the press(re ofcriticis' pro!ressively 'ore co'plete 'odels, in accordance *ith the 'ethod of hypothesis.;9=

    By e!innin! in this *ay Plato is ale to respond to the attack on staility la(nched y eracleit(s,*ho insisted that concept(al distinctions are al*ays aritrary, re!ardless of *hether they refer to val(ess(ch as ea(ty, or fact(al de'arcations s(ch as (p and do*n, day and ni!ht, or alive and dead. &he

    *orld of tho(!ht, like the *orld of ein!s, is p(re eco'in! or fl(), and concept(al kno*led!e istherefore del(sory. &he ne)t !eneration took the ne)t step and *ondered ho*, if eracleit(s is ri!ht, itis possile for hi' to say so *itho(t inconsistency.

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    60/198

    openly so that even the colers 'ay hear the' and learn their *isdo' and cease fro'their foolish elief that so'e thin!s stand still *hile others are in 'otion, and, once theyhave learned that all thin!s are in 'otion, 'ay honor these teachersJ 316#cd

    -n vie* of his elief that *e do ordinary people no favor y convincin! the' that staility is anill(sion, *e '(st e)pect that *hatever affinity Plato has for the vie*s of eracleit(s *ill not e

    strai!htfor*ardly ackno*led!ed. 5evertheless, these doctrines are taken very serio(sly in theTheaetetus. He need to consider ho* receptive Plato is to the o0ections a!ainst nat(ral staility and to*hat e)tent his o*n philosophy of for' 0(stifies itself a!ainst the considerations that lead to thedestailiin! of *hat appears to e stale. -n theParmenidesPlato thre* the theory of for's into(ncertainty. 4c,(t, he says 3in a dear echo of the 'ethod of hypothesis, *e need to oserve o(r tho(!hts in relationto the'selves, *hichever ones *e think, to see *hether for (s they are consonant *ith one another or

    7 %> 7

    not at all 31>4e? cf.Phaedo1##a, 1#1d. -n the present case, three s(ch eliefs prod(ce tension *iththe state'ent ao(t the relative sie of n('ers:

    5othin! can ever eco'e 'ore or less, either in sie or n('er, as lon! as it is e+(al toitself.

    >a&hese three ad'issions fi!ht *ith the'selves in o(r 'inds *hen *e talk ao(t the dice, or *hen *esay that if &heaetet(s !ro*s taller, then ocrates !oes fro' ein! taller to ein! shorter *itho(tchan!in! sie 31>>c. &heir fi!ht *ith the'selves pres('aly consists of the fact that each of the'see's clearly tr(e *hen taken 0(st y itself, (t clearly false *hen applied to the relative lar!eness ands'allness Ff n('ers 3the dice and sies 3ocrates and &heaetet(s.;11= -t is i'portant to keep in'ind that the fi!ht '(st e a tension ithineach state'ent, rather than a tension amongthe', for thee)a'ples of the dice and &heaetet(s falsify either all three of the ad'issions to!ether or none at all. 3-tis 'isleadin! therefore to translate

    as contend *ith one another, *hich i'plies that if *e !ot rid of t*o of the' the re'ainin! one*o(ld e (nprole'atic.

    -n thePhaedo31##e1#"a s(ch prole's are resolved y 'eans of the theory of for's: relations likelar!er and s'aller are not corporealproperties of individ(als. &hey are therefore not s(0ect to thethree ad'issions 'entioned aove, *hich apply only to nonrelational s(0ects. &hey are conceivedinstead as relational essences, *hich are distinct fro' any corporeal individ(al, (t *hich 'ay eparticipated in y individ(als in certain circ('stances.

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    61/198

    taller to ein! shorter, (t only that in one co'parison he participates in the relation taller and inanother shorter. 5or *o(ld *e say, in violation of the second principle, that ocrates has decreased*itho(t anythin! havin! een

    ;11= Polansky 94 p(ts it so'e*hat differently, y descriin! the tension as res(ltin! fro' thepossiility of interpretin! each state'ent either as referrin! to so'ethin! in itself, or as referrin! to itrelative to so'ethin! rise. &h(s in each case the s(0ect is (nchan!ed in itself (t 'ay e different

    relative to so'ethin! else.

    7 % 7

    s(tracted fro' hi', (t only that he participates in a different relation eca(se the sie of the otherreferent 3&heaetet(s has chan!ed. 5or a!ain, in violation of the third principle, that ocrates has !onefro' notshort to short *itho(t a process of eco'in!, (t only that he participates in one relationalfor' rather than the other eca(se of a eco'in! that attached to the otherreferent.

    Unlike thePhaedo, the Theaetetus'akes no 'ention of the theory of for's and offers no sol(tion.&heaetet(s hi'self is left in a state of perple)ity y the p(les, and ocrates re'arks, &his feelin!I

    *onderIvery '(ch pertains to philosophy. @or there is no other e!innin! of philosophy than this,and it see's that the one *ho said that -ris is the child of Honder did not !enealo!ie adly 31>>d.&his 'etaphor of parent and child pervades the Theaetetus. -t *as i'plicit at the e!innin! of thispassa!e as *ell. -f ocrates only *anted to ill(strate the si'ple parado) that si) dice co(ld e oth'ore 3than a s'aller +(antity and less 3than a !reater one *itho(t chan!in!, *hy did he needlesslyco'plicate the e)a'ple y 'akin! the lar!er and s'aller +(antities, not five and seven as *e *o(lde)pect, (t fo(r and t*elveIthe e)tre'es of *hich si) is the har'onic 'eanJ e even !oes to thetro(le of pointin! o(t, for no apparent reason, that si) is not only 'ore than fo(r and less than t*elve,(t 'ore than fo(r y a half and less than t*elve y a half 31>4c. &he only p(rpose this *o(ld see' toserve is to 'ake (s think of si) as a kind of prod(ct or offsprin! of fo(r and t*elve, as the 'ean that(nifies the'.;1$= &he parentchild relation is in fact the do'inant leit'otiv of the dialo!(e. &he

    Theaetetuscontains at least si) e)plicit references to parenta!e, and at least seven references to therelation for *hich parental procreation is a 'etaphor, that is, the e)planation of so'ethin! as a prod(ctof the interco(rse of t*o prior ele'ents.

    &he e)plicit references e!in 31 *hen ocrates, after ein! told ao(t &heaetet(s y &heodor(s,i''ediately asks *ho &heaetet(s8s father is 3144c. 3$ ater he speaks of his o*n 'other, Phaenarete3149aIthe only ti'e in any dialo!(e that he does so.;1"= 3" e then !oes on to co'pare thefor'(latin! of opinions to !ivin! irth 31>1, 1>%cd, and 34 s(se+(ently refers to the deceasedProta!oras8s theory as an orphan 314e. -n et*een *ere 3> the reference to Honder as

    ;1$= Cf. ose'ary Des0ardins, The %ational Enterprise: Logos in Plato's Theaetetus3%c.

    &he sa'e pheno'enonIthe e)planation of an e)istent as the prod(ct of t*o pro!enitorsIis operative*itho(t the parenta!e 'etaphor in 31 ocrates8 definition of day as the 'i)t(re of earth and *ater

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    62/198

    314%c, *hich is to serve as a 'odel for &heaetet(s in his search for a definition of kno*led!e. 3$ -nresponse to ocrates8 e)a'ple of clay, &heaetet(s reco(nts his and his yo(n! friend ocrates8 idea ofclassifyin! all n('ers into those that are the prod(ct of t*o e+(al roots 3s+(ares and those that arethe prod(ct of t*o (ne+(al roots 3olon!s. 3" ocrates hi'self is presented as a 'i)t(re of&heaetet(s8s looks 314"e and yo(n! ocrates8 na'e 314%d? cf. Statesman$>%d. 34 -n the presentpassa!e *e have seen that relations like i!!er and s'aller can e e)plained only as the prod(ct of to

    referents, not as the property of one. 3>&he analysis of syllales at $#" sho*s that they are nor'allythe prod(ct of 'i)in! vo*els and consonants. 3 ". &he +(estion re'ains contin(o(sly in vie* d(rin! B(rnyeat8s disc(ssion of the firstpart of the dialo!(e 3TP%>.

    7 %6 7

    Hithin eracleitean fl() chan!in! thin!s 'ay e descried as !rad(al processes or slo* 'otions,so'e of *hich are capale of actin! (pon or ein! acted (pon y others, in s(ch a *ay that perceptionres(lts 31>a. Perception is accordin!ly like the offsprin! of t*o parents. &he pro!eny is al*ays t*ins.Hhen the slo* 'otion that is a !rad(ally chan!in! o0ect co'es *ithin ran!e of the slo* 'otion thatis a !rad(ally chan!in! eye, they prod(ce the t*ins, perception and the perceived thin!Ifor e)a'ple,the perception of *hiteness and the representation of a *hite o0ect 31>d. &hese pro!eny of the slo*'otionsIthat is, of the !rad(al 'otions of chan!in! thin!sIare +(icker eca(se they 'ove fro'place to place: fro' their '(t(al irthplace et*een the eye and the o0ect, the perception 'oves to theeye, and the perceived o0ect 'oves to its perceived location. %a.

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    63/198

    =. -t is to s(ch collections that they apply the ter's 8h('an8 and 8stone,8 and every ani'al and for'31>%c. < little later ocrates incl(des !ood and ea(tif(l 31>%d.

    Fne of the reasons that Plato is (s(ally held to s(scrie to the fl() theory of perception is that it fits in*ith his vie* of the physical *orld as eco'in! rather than ein!. B(t all the evidence of the

    previo(s dialo!(es indicates that this f(rther e)tension of the theory, y *hich '(ltit(des collectedto!ether, or (niversals, are relativied in the sa'e *ay as sensiles, is one to *hich he does nots(scrie. Fn the eracleitean hypothesis, ho*everI*hich is ein! e)plored hereIthe nat(ralinterpretation of (niversals is that they are artificial constr(cts astracted 3not recollected fro'partic(lar e)periences.

    -t 'i!ht see', ocrates points o(t, that *e can disp(te this doctrine y pointin! to the fact that indrea's, 'adness, and other illnesses, perceptions of reality contradict those of nor'al, *akin!perceivers, and are o0ectively false 31>%e1>6a. -f *e reco!nie that so'e opinions are false, then *e'(st e ale to reco!nie a standard of correct

    7 %9 7

    ness, in *hich case,paceProta!oras, not everyone is the 'eas(re of tr(th. &his o0ection proves to e*itho(t s(stance, for accordin! to the theory o(r 0(d!'ents do not have the sa'e referents as those ofanyone elseIsick people and drea'ers incl(dedIand therefore do not contradict one another andcannot e considered false. -f *ine that everyone 0(d!es to e s*eet is 0(d!ed y 'e to e ittereca(se - a' sick, there is no contradiction. Hhen - say this *ine - a' referrin! not to the *ine initself (t to one of the t*in offsprin!s of oth the *ine and 'y or!ans of perception. &his offsprin! isn('erically different fro' the offsprin! that anyone else intends y the phrase this *ine, and that isthe partial offsprin! of theiror!ans of perception. &he doctrine is th(s co'patile *ith the principle ofnoncontradiction;1>= and not falsifiale on any ovio(s !ro(nds. =?=)[email protected]!oras 'i!ht as *ell have said that the 'eas(re of all thin!s is not a person (t api! or aoon. &hen he co(ld la(!h at (s for thinkin! hi' as *ise as a !od *hen in fact he is no *iserthan a tadpole. -n that case it *o(ld 'ake no sense for anyone to pay to e his st(dent, or to practiceocratic 'id*ifery or dialectic, since tr(th is already to e fo(nd in 'ere perception 311ce.

    5either &heodor(s nor &heaetet(s can find anythin! *ron! *ith this

    ;1>= Hhat is in every *ay different fro' so'ethin! else cannot in any *ay have the sa'e capacity asthe other 31>6e.

  • 8/13/2019 Plato Eleatic Dialogues

    64/198

    7 6# 7

    ref(tation, (t ocrates points o(t that it is an e)a'ple of de'a!o!(ery 31$d, and that Prota!oras*o(ld acc(se the' of acceptin! appeals t