Anamnesis in Plato's "Meno and Phaedo"

Author(s): R. E. Allen
Source: The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Sep., 1959), pp. 165-174
Published by: Philosophy Education Society Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20123748 .
Accessed: 24/10/2014 14:24
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Philosophy Education Society Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Review of Metaphysics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:24:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IN PLATO'S MENO AND

ANAMNESIS

PHAEDO

R. E. ALLEN

1.

in the Meno

Socrates

that no

paradox,

Sophist's

either he knows what

not

need

or he

stir,

a middle

that

wisdom

of

women

who

and

not,

must
nor

of things

priests and sages:

be

the

by appealing
told

ever

to learn

seeks

therefore

no

has

for men

found;

notion

divine,"

including

case he
of what

is false,

neither

have

of brutes.

ignorance

to the doctrines

For

anything.1

it is he is to inquire about, in which

does

way

the gods

the difficulty

one

in all likelihood

Socrates points out that the antithesis

it is he is seeking.
and

was

states what

He

of "wise men
Pindar

the

overcomes

and

and

ancient

(81b-c)

They say that the soul of man is immortal and never perishes,
though
at one time itmakes an end, called dying, and at another is born again.
. . .
We must,
lives in utmost holiness
therefore, pass our whole
Since the soul is immortal,
and has been born many
times, she has
beheld all things in this world and the next, and there is nothing
she
so it is not surprising
has not learnt;
that she can remember what
she once knew about virtue and other things.
For since all nature
is akin, and the soul has learnt all things, there is nothing
to prevent
one single thing?what
men call "learning?dis
her, by recollecting
and courageous.
For
covering all the rest, if her search is untiring
but recollection.
learning and inquiry are nothing
Such,

in essence,

is Plato's

It comes to us embedded
which

our

is not

theological

trappings,

part of Plato's
Anamnesis
philosophical

own,

of Anamnesis,

Recollection.

imagery of a religion

and many
in rejecting
its
commentators,
no
concluded
that it represents
serious

have

philosophy.

But I shall argue that the theory of

a serious,
represents
And
perplexities.

least in the dialogues

abandoned

doctrine

in the mythical

and

to genuine

solution
subtle,
there
is no
certainly

of the middle

period,

evidence,

that Plato

at

ever

it.a

1 Meno 80e
275c ff.
ff.; cf. Symp. 204a, Euthyd.
2 On the
in the Phaedrus
it is Anamnesis,
contrary;
rouses the soul's desire
of physical beauty, which
perception
it fell.
celestial place" from which
(249e-250c.)

stirred by the
for the "super

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:24:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

166

R. E. ALLEN
The

2.

the first

a dramatic

offers

Meno
argument

forward

put

of the soul in the Phaedo:

of

demonstration
for Anamnesis

the
the

and

of

validity
immortality

(73a)

if you put the question well,

people are questioned,
they will
and yet, unless they had knowledge
and the
always answer correctly;
correct account already within
But
them, they could not do this.
you will find the clearest proof that this is so if you lead them to
or anything else of that sort.
geometrical
diagrams,

When

The

of

slave-boy

the Meno,

of

ignorant

in

succeeds

geometry,

establishing the truth of a fairly difficult theorem with no other aid

than the figures inscribed in the sand at his feet and the assistance
of intelligent questioning.
Here is a fact. How is it to be
Since the boy had never been taught, but only
explained?
it not imply that he had some recollection of a
does
questioned,
seen

truth

than

entered

recesses

the

forgotten
If that were
worthless,
of passage,

he

before
in

all

that

curio

dusty
and that

inference.

human

form,

truth

and

locked

of

personal
memory?
Anamnesis
the theory would
meant,
of mental
The fact is the
archeology.

in nothing
consists
passage
However
difficult
inference may

be
fact

more
be

it seems

mysterious
to understand,
too that
obvious

that it is not all one with memory,

obvious
no easy
it provides
for immortality.
Nor
is this all.
For
ground
in this way,
taken
the theory
is a hopeless
failure.
If we
could
a
come
can
we
as
to
in
know
not
existence,
directly
previous
why
come
to know
of memory?
without
the intervention
now,
easily
our vision
as
as
remote
if we have
And
remains
forgotten,
really
no
we
the truth itself, whereas
if
have not forgotten,
there is
need
for

recollection.

So

far

from

the

solving

Sophist's

paradox,

this

theory is but a prey to it.

But

Meno

in which

and in the Phaedo,

problem
3.

the context

of

inference

the

theory

indicates

that Anamnesis

is presented,

that

both

it is precisely

in the

to the

is directed.

The

would
have
been
forced
Plato's
upon
sophist's
question
his
in
awakened
interest
and
mathematics,
by
newly
by
to teach;
Socrates
in
himself.
Socrates
had never
claimed
Plato

mind

later dialogues
the offspring
their

knowledge

would

present

him

as a

spiritual
not of his own.
minds,
out of themselves.
of virtue

of other

midwife,
delivering
recover
Men must
The Meno

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:24:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

connects

ANAMNESIS

this fact with our knowledge

with

167

IN PLATO'S MENO AND PHAEDO

of mathematics.

of whether

the question

can

virtue

portion of it is devoted to establishing

The dialogue begins

be

But

taught.

major

the truth of the doctrine of

illustration.
This
is no accident;
the
by mathematical
a fundamental
exhibits
of
For
theme.
neither
virtue
dialogue
unity
nor mathematics
can be
if teaching
the handing
taught,
implies
over
of information.
do not understand
You
mathematics
by

Anamnesis

the multiplication
and you do not understand
table,
memorising
virtue
and
moral
In these areas,
rubrics.
by memorising
adages
come
must
from within?it
in large measure
must
understanding
be "recollected."
in
this
not
does
sense,
Recollection,
very special
or the items
and cannot
tell us the date of the battle
of Marathon,
on

yesterday's
whose
judgments,
judgments

This

menu:

the

objects
truth

whose

is the significance

not

does

theory

are

explain
of fact,

matters

contingent
is guaranteed

by

empirical
but those

systematic

necessity.

of "kinship":

of the metaphor

(Meno

81c-d)
Since all nature is akin
the soul has learnt all things,
(ffuyyevri?), and
one single thing,
to prevent her, by recollecting
there is nothing
recovering all the rest.

A single bit of genuine knowledge

serves us as the terminal link in

Zeus-like,

whole

of intelligible

link

is

structure,
from ignorance

necessary
can pass

on
But

The
the

reality.

and

his

draw

each
all.

innate

of

grasp
to knowledge.

of
is a theory
theory of Anamnesis
intensional
relations
which
the Forms

it

is not

clear

why

to ourselves

should

inference

the

stand in

The objects of knowledge

and necessary
connection
with
to gain
to recover
the means

intimate

4.

by which

chain,

golden

we may,

to recover
other;
It is because
of
it,

that

the

one
this

slave-boy

and it rests
inference,
bear to one another.
be made

to

rest

on

Anamnesis.
The
between
separated
doctrines.

answer

is bound

view
of the relation
Plato's
up with
as
and Forms.
The Phaedo
them
particulars
regards
an
a
two
entailed
unbridgeable
by
gulf,
yupispi?;,
by
To begin with,
aux? xaO'aOx?, alone
the Form
exists
by

itself, independent of and ontologically

It does
character

so because
to be had

it is a cause,
by particulars,

prior to its exemplifications.

since without
which

are,

it there would
in a formal

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:24:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

be no
sense,

its

168

R. E. ALLEN

neces
et seqq.).
every
(100b-c,
Secondly,
particular
never
to own
it fully;
it is not what
sarily falls short of the Form,
are exepa ovxa, different
Forms
sorts
it has.
and particulars
of
are members
not one.
of two worlds,
(74b ff.).
things
They
"effects"

are
of knowledge
of the
objects
independent
and
from
cannot
be
known
world,
it, they
"separate"
it. Because
there is a gulf between
Forms
and particulars,

Because
physical

the

through
the objects

of knowledge
pass

knowing,
supposes

ment

and
from

directly

prior

knowledge.

for the doctrine

after

There,

of sense, we
in
cannot,
objects
the latter to the former:
passage
pre
This
is the core of the second
argu
the

of Anamnesis
that

establishing

in the Phaedo

recollection

may

(74b ff.).

be provoked

either

by what is like or unlike to the thing recalled, and that when

reminded of something by another thing which is like it, you must
be

able

short

of

to compare
the original,

and

decide

Socrates

in what
proceeds
Forms.

separation
not
equal,

of particulars
as sticks
are

something

just equal in itself?Equality.

know

it?

and
equal

the resemblance
way
to state the doctrine

to

There

sticks,

or

falls
of

is a thing which
to stones,

stones

the
is
but

But how do we come to

the

of sense,
for sensible
through
apparent
equals
are different
sorts of things.
and Equality
Because
equals
Why?
as
one
to
cannot
to know
it
know
is
equal;
Equality
perfectly
sense
it as in any
conceive
sensible
whereas
appear,
unequal,
equals
now
or
now
to
in
different
different
observers,
equal,
unequal,

perspectives.

Not

Again,

they are trying

perfectly
equal.
From
these

conclusion:

sensible

equals

differ

from

Equality

because

to be like it, but fall short; they can never be

considerations,

Socrates

draws

an

important

(75b)

it was
in other ways,
Before we began to see and hear, and perceive
nature of
no doubt necessary
of the essential
to possess knowledge
if we refer perceptible
they all desire
equals to it because
Equality,
to be of its nature, but fall short of it.
ardently

This is true of:

(75c-d)

The Greater and the Less and everything of that sort; for our argument
than to Beauty
itself, to the Good itself,
applies no less to Equality
in
to all those things which,
to Justice, Holiness,
and, in a word,
we
the
our dialectic,
seal of "Reality."
ratify with

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:24:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IN PLATO'S MENO AND PHAEDO

ANAMNESIS
Now
must

either

we

recall

them.

the man

for

have

who

what

he

must

come

knows,
to know

must

have

existed

The

5.

of

And

particulars.
There

second

unless

know

you

to examples

thing

it every day of our

a
is
of use.
problem

do

This

apply to an object.
first

know

of

Therefore,
and the

soul

we

(76c)
is

that

to knowledge

prior

of

capital
importance.
ease with which
Socrates'

of,

say,

while

courage,

a definition

in formulating

what

account

Anamnesis

is, can you

yet

of it. For

furnish

the thing seems impossible;

of it? Logically,
is that we

of
in the

involved

the utmost difficulty

finding

this.

for

argument

is epistemically

is a doctrine

is a paradox
could
point

respondents

must

the

this

an

render

always
do
always

recollection,
things
through
we entered
human
form.

of the Forms

knowledge

how,

these

these

can

knowledge
cannot
and we

before

nucleus

or we
things,
cannot
be accepted;

of
complete
knowledge
alternative
And the former

has

169

specimens

yet the simple fact

lives.
You

have

predicate,

But if you are to apply itwith

which

intelligence,

you

you

its meaning.

You must,
that is, know what
kinds
of action are such-and-such
can
before
that
this
is
that
kind
you
say
of action.3
associated
with
the problem
of use is the problem
Closely
of origin?how
did you come by your notion
of courage
to begin
common

with?

we

abstraction:
similar

to

to know

a
has been
of
question
theory
and define universals
by comparing
or
and abstracting,
from the
isolating
this

of perception,
their common
context,

in the answer,
are
things

easy obviousness
can know
that

two

a common

Therefore
to

come

objects

material

own

answer

knowledge

character;
of the
knowledge
of

character.
difficulties
similar

but

that

universal

leap

despite
to the eye.

only by knowing
is the
character
must

a certain

But

be

For we
that

they
universal.

epistemically

prior

its instances.4

3
Cf. Laches 190b-c, Aristotle, An. Post. I.i.6.
4
Cf. Theat.
185a ff. It is Aristotle's
doctrine
that sense provides
the
The universal
is apprehended by an act of
universal, but not as a universal.
intellectual
Such a view
is not?at
least
intuition, mediated
by sense.
to the criticism here urged.
But if, with Kant, we deny the
patently?prey
or with
of intellectual
existence
that the universal
is
Plato,
intuition,
in the particular,
immanent
then knowledge
cannot be gained by abstrac
then presupposes
tion, since abstraction
prior knowledge.

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:24:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

170
The

of Anamnesis

theory

in fact,
it represents,
Plato's
doctrine
compare
uncover

the

structures

an

with

that

are

the

of Kant.
of

presuppositions
there could
which

"experience"
but the ordered

data,
Plato's

of

absolute

without

we mean,

if by

an answer

provides
infant
theory

one.

fundamentally

E. ALLEN

to this

problem:
We may

priori.
It was Kant's

to
goal
the a priori
at all.
And

experience,

be no

experience
not the casual

as Kant meant,

structure

R.

then Kant's

of perception,
For
the

structure

and

of

flow

goal and
order
of

And
like
the universal.
for Plato,
presuppose
though
experience
must?
the
in
the
final
universal
can?and
Kant,
indeed,
analysis,
cannot
it
be considered
be
discovered
apart from experience.
apart,

The doctrine that recollection may be provoked either by what is

like or unlike, the radical distinction between knowledge and belief,
the

gulf
obscure

between
posited
But
this point.

genuine

contribution

to

and

particulars
in the last

analysis,
else

thought?how

strive for Equality

apparent
equals
of cooperation.
is the product

fall

and

have

Forms,

tended

to

make

senses

the

we

could

know

short??and

that

knowledge

But if it is true that both Plato and Kant have a theory of a

we would
do well
not
to confuse
their
knowledge,
priori
a
sense:
the
is universal
in this
it necessarily
For Kant,
priori

true of the physical world.

of Forms

the

separation
There
deny.
and perishes.
which

can
Nor
mind

the

be no

ism,"

refusal

holds

It is just this which Plato's doctrine of

and
exact

particulars
of
science

is chiefly
that which

to

concerned
comes

to be

a structure
for Plato,
element,
priori
Kant's
of
itself
upon
imposes
experience.
own
cate
mind
its
the
of
the projection
by
is the

realism,"
"empirical
into
the material
gories
the

views.

of

to grant

and

sense,

his

ideal

"transcendental
existence

and

independent
are equally
alien
the
of
the Ideals which
Reason,
ground
activity
are not
The Forms
Plato's
principles
subjective
philosophy.
itself.
structure
are
of Being
the
objective
organization;
they
Although
knowledge
follow
may
sensible

objective

to
to
of

can recover
that we
it is only
through
experience
we
once
known
has been clearly
that Form
of a Form,
to
reference
without
thread of implication
Ariadne's

objects.

The

world

on

the

further

side

of

the

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:24:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ytop^[xri<;

IN PLATO'SMENO AND PHAEDO

ANAMNESIS

and once

is self-contained,

It is this emphasis on the mind's

for the

accounts

own

its

need

ethics

and fixes

reason,

the object of knowledge

and divine,

true

(84a).

never

leave.8

of perception

that

of the Phaedo.*

The

on what

its gaze

is true

rather than of opinion,

fulfillment

the

nourishment,

The doctrine

need

independence

intellectualist

strongly
follows
always

soul which

it, we

entered

having

171

of

that philosophy

its

own

finds

deepest

and true virtue consist

in the practice
of death,
the separation
of the soul from the body
to do so, is merely
in so far as it is possible
the articulation
of the
of the y copado?; and of Anamnesis.
ethical
consequences
6.

are

We

now

Anamnesis.

in

to

position

see

inference

why

implies

of universals,
i.e.,
presupposes
knowledge
are
we
of Forms.
which
that
But the Forms
"separate,"
implies
come to know
cannot
them through
in sensation.
the objects
given

Now

Inference

either

we

know

do

know

This

this

implies

them

through
since
them,

in turn implies

that we

cannot

some means
perception

at all, or that
And we
sensation.

know

other

them

than

that

presupposes

that knowledge

knowledge.

is epistemically

of Forms

to knowledge
of the particulars
which
them,
exemplify
at least,
this Plato
that knowledge
concludes,
ostensibly
as well.7
is temporally
This
in turn implies
the Forms
prior

prior
from

we

awareness
to explicit
of something
is not a discovery
wholly
known.
something
Learning
already
still ask whether
But we may
this

when

to

the

Forms,

come

sophist's
can we

problem.
recall
them?

For
The

how,

of

a Form,
the recollection

the nature

new,

but

of

and
of
that,
it
of

is recollection.
provides
if we

answer,

of

a genuine
solution
the
have
forgotten
course,

is that

the

5 Cf.
Phaedo 65e-66a.
6 Cf.
82d f?.
7 If Plato
understood
Anamnesis
in this way, he has unquestionably
confused
with
There
epistemological
priority.
temporal or psychological
is no reason to hold that, because knowledge
of x presupposes
knowledge
of y, y must have been known beforehand.
Kant, whose view of the a priori
is in many
never
similar
to
fell into this trap. For him,
Plato's,
respects
the a priori is part of the very structure of reason; reason could never come
to know it, precisely because there could be no reason without
it. It may be
that Plato's doctrine of Anamnesis
should be interpreted along similar lines,
but the explicitness
of the Phaedo on the subject of pre-existence makes
this
appear unlikely.

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:24:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

172

R. E. ALLEN
are

Forms
without

use them
in all cognition,
that we
continually
we
use
this
raises
that
them.
But
the old

implicit

knowing

in a new form;

problem

for how is this possible?

In answer

we may
cite as an analogy
the distinction
between
utens
and
docens.
in
the
Aristotle,
l?gica
l?gica
discovering
a
to the
rendered
brilliant
service
science
of logic,
syllogism,
was
docens.
his
was
But
not
it
the
invention;
l?gica
discovery
abstract
ent

kinds
for

that

of a formal

recognition
of valid

inference,
it passed

centuries

so native

principle
unnoticed

perforce
with
the Forms.

We

turns

everything
to
order

it in some measure

to use

on

recognized,

to discover

are.
fully and clearly what
they
a task, not a
was
It
this
possession.
and practice
the method
of inquiry
formulate
to know

But inquiry itself would

for Anamnesis.

For

how,

thought;

unless

for

them,
of a

genius
when

high
are
they
remains

still

For
fact

they
philosophy,
to
led Plato
that
he calls

which

what

that

were

be unintelligible

you knew

so it is

And

that they are is still

To know

are

hypothesis.

it.

he

it.

nature

their

sought,

obscure and difficult to penetrate.

not

used

a step without

proceed
but it requires
universality;
even
And
their
presence.

recognize
and
consciously

who

as Aristotle

not

could

those

by

Indeed, if it is the valid form of deduction,

had

in many
differ
to l?gica utens

inherent

principle

you were

of

it not
looking

for, could you find it?

7.

is a final

There

that

to be

question

considered.

is largely based on the Phaedo;

Anamnesis

of the Meno?

on which

To be more

This

is the account

specific,

the doctrine rests in the Phaedo

account

of

is it consistent with
of separation

also found in the Meno ?

of Anamnesis
the doctrine
is an answer
If, as we have argued,
to epistemological
entailed
of Forms
problems
by the separation
and particulars,
the question
it
answered
in the
be
seems,
should,

affirmative;

appear to be a highly

for it would
to hold

Plato's

development
to fit
found a question
a short way with
dissenters,
later

between

the dialogues

on

the

that he
it.
for

But

accepted
to argue

there

is evidence

intimately

connected

view of

unlikely

an answer,
so would

and
be

only
to take

of

inconsistency
of the
question

relation of belief and knowledge.

In his indictment of rhetoric in the Gorgias (454c ff.), Plato
offers criteria for distinguishing
and belief.
Knowl
knowledge

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:24:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IN PLATO'S MENO AND PHAEDO

ANAMNESIS

173

not
and it is produced
is infallible,
by instruction,
persuasion.
or
on
true
and
the
the
other
be
false;
hand,
Belief,
may
persuasion
it may
also destroy
these are dis
which
it. But though
produces
edge

we

of knowledge
and belief,
features
tinguishing
natures.
This omission
little of their intrinsic
where
Meno,
connectedness.
of

the

are
of knowledge
grounded
with
his
Socrates
has finished

the criteria
When

turns

he

slave-boy,

have

is made

to Meno

and

says

still

in the
good
in systematic
examination
"At

(85c),

these notions have been stirred up in him as in a dream;

were
would

asked
the same questions
frequently
as well
as anyone
at last."
know

true opinions,
will

go on

but if his mind

to recover

truth

Later in the dialogue,

belief

in different
So

the boy

far,

learned

present

but if he
he
forms,
has only

is further stirred by questioning,

out

he

of himself.

the distinction

between knowledge

and

is more

drawn.
While
the doctrine
carefully
examining
success
is knowledge,
it is agreed
that practical
may
man
well
attained
with
A
knows
who
equally
right opinion.
can
to Larisa
but so too can the man who
others;
way
guide

that

virtue

right
Right

But

not
there
one

as useful

is, and
it is not

there

the way
we have

while

opinion,

knowledge
"that

about

opinion

same

the

is a difference

he has never
although
a
as
is
it,
good
guide

thing
between

as

runaway

traveled

it.

to action

as

Socrates

remarks,
and knowledge
is
opinion
I would
to know:
claim

knowledge.
right

of conjecture,
but something
are not many
of which
I would
things
say
or belief,
of them"
however
(98b).
Opinion

that,

but

down,
slave

On

(a?x?a; Xoyt<T[X(j>,98a).

the

other

hand,

"when

this

and

good
to the mythical
statues
of Daedalus,
which,
run away.
no
more
It will
with
you
stay
on the
unless
it is made
fast by "reflection

likened

the
has

(97a-c).

a matter

be
may
fastened

be

true

is

true,
if not
a

than
reason"

beliefs

are

fastened, they turn into knowledge, and abide; that iswhy knowl
it differs because of its
edge is more valuable than right opinion;
bond

"

(oeor(ji?<;).

account

This

of knowledge,

whereby

a collection

of true beliefs is bound into a coherent system by "reflection on the

is intimately
to the Phaedo's
related
reason,"
description
an account
able to render
of itself
(Xoyov Souvcu, 7665).

vital point is that, in the Meno, opinion is made

reflection.

There

is

an

essential

continuity

of

it as

But

the

into knowledge
between

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:24:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

the

by
two,

174

R.
in the Phaedo

whereas
divine

not

and

objects

an anticipation

of the doctrine of the Republic

and

knowledge
doctrine

is

the

of

Opinion

logical

problems
which
particulars

dialogues

that
that
and

in kind, our modes

different
and not

one

translatable

knowledge.

It follows

in the Meno and the Phaedo

for, but had not yet clearly

are Teipaorixo?
"tentative";

spirit
to a conclusion.

of startling
new

This

formulated.
and

But in the middle

of a man

the

system
sophical
the universe.

that

differ in

The

who

ways

early
the Meno

period a different

spirit

has

Phaedo

originality,

in many

Plato's

through,
things
thought
a
us with
presents
philo
man
a new
and
of
of
theory
in
F.
Cornford's
M.
rests,

philosophy
on twin
of
the immortality
and divinity
metaphor,
pillars:
rational
and
the
of
the
and
soul,
objects
reality
indestructibility
its knowledge.
is the doctrine
The architrave
of these pillars
Anamnesis,

of
into

in the Phaedo,
solves epistemo
Anamnesis
a
between
Forms
and
generated
by
yup^u?;
was
when
he wrote
the Meno,
Plato,
perhaps

shares their character.

is stirring,
and come

is evidently

(V 476c ff.),

respect:

important

groping

and

and
objects,
between
Forms

separation

be different,
can never
become

as "true

same

the

got

the

them must

the doctrines of Anamnesis

this

not

have

opinion
result

if the two are wholly

particulars;
apprehending
the other.

are described
the Forms
(84a),
"
of opinion
This
(?ooCaonr?v).

E. ALLEN

Recollection.
University

of Minnesota.

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:24:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

the
of
of