Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming.
While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce
this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the
quality of the material submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or
notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This
may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages
to assure complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an
indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure,
duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For
blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If
copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in
the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed,
a definite method of "sectioning" the material has been followed. It is
customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to
continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary,
sectioning is continued again-beginning below the first row and continuing on
until complete.
4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic
means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted
into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the
Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best
available copy has been filmed.
Uni
International
300 N. Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106
8506355
Fordham University
University
Microfilms
International
PH.D.
Copyright 1985
by
Quirk, Michael John
All Rights Reserved
1984
PLEASE NOTE:
In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy.
Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark -J
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Page(s)
author.
12.
Page(s)
13.
14.
15.
Other
157
University
Microfilms
International
FORDHAH UNIVERSITY
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO
THE FACULTY OF
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
I N CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
BY
MICHAEL J . QUIRK
B R O N X , NEW Y O R K
APRIL, 1984
c
FORDHAM UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
AprilJ6
1984
A.jCBn.I.QME".
has been accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of.....D.QC tor .of. Phi 1 OSOfihy.
in the Department of
(Menti
(Rei
1985
MICHAEL JOHN QUIRK
To
Eileen
T A B L E OF C O N T E N T S
Acknowl edgements
Some Notes on S t y l e
INTRODUCTION: A THOUGHT-EXPERIMENT
I ) P L A T O N I C D I A L O G U E : P H I L O S O P H I C A L S I G N I F I C A N C E AND
DRAMATIC EXPOSITION
A) Dialogue and Mimesis
B) Historical and Cultural Bases f o r
Dialogue Form
C) Dialogue as a Philosophical Tenet
I I ) A N O U T L I N E O F V L A S T O S ' S A N A L Y S I S OF T H E
T H I R D MAN ARGUMENT
A)
B)
C)
D)
E)
P A R M E N I D E S AND P L A T O ' S P A R M E N I D E S
A)
B)
C)
D)
V ) A N A L T E R N A T I V E A P P R O A C H : CORNFORD
A)
B)
C)
D)
Cornford's "Phaedo-Theory"
Critique of Cornford
128e-130a as "The Atomic Theory of Forms"
Conclusion
vi
viii
1
22
25
36
47
65
65
72
84
86
89
95
114
116
119
138
148
154
156
159
167
170
V I ) S E T T I N G AND C R O S S - R E F E R E N C E S
174
197
A) Tone
B) The Range o f Forms (130 a-e)
C) I n i t i a l Objections t o Participation
(130e-131e)
D) The TMA, version 1 (131e-132b)
E) Forms as Thoughts (132 b-c)
F) Forms as O r i g i n a l s , version 2
G) Unknowable Forms (133a-134e)
H) Conclusion to Pt. 1
I ) Closing Comments
197
210
210
220
223
225
229
231
233
V I I I ) ON P A R T I C I P A T I O N AND S E P A R A T I O N
238
Preliminaries to Pt.2
Transition to Pt. 2 (135d-136c)
Hypotheses 1 and 2 (137c-155e)
Hypotheses 3-8
Sophist and- Theatetus
Phaedrus and Cratylus
Timaeus~and Phi 1ebus
267
267
271
273
;..286
295
303
308
X ) ON S E L F - P R E D I C A T I O N AND P A R A D I G M A T I S M
319
X I ) WHY T H E A N A L Y T I C C R I T I C I S M OF P L A T O F A I L S
375
A) On Degrees-of-Rea1ity
B) Logical Analysis and "Self-Image"
C) Analytic Commentary and the
R e a l is m / N o m i n a l i s m I s s u e
D) Some Questions Concerning Method
377
393
407
418
A P P E N D I X : V L A S T O S ' S L A T E R P O S I T I O N ON S E L F - P R E D I C A T I O N . . . 4 2 4
A)
B)
C)
D)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
454
ABSTRACT
463
VITA
464
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Writing a dissertation, as I have discovered, can be
an exacting and arduous task. I t s burdens are never carried
by the candidate alone: I would presently l i k e to take time
t o thank a l l those whose e f f o r t s and sympathies i n my
behalf made the present work possible:
S i n c e r e s t thanks must g o , f i r s t o f a l l , t o my
mentor, Rev. Quentin Lauer, S.J. His deep erudition and
c r i t i c a l encouragement have been an immeasurable
help in
vi
Dr. Robert Johann, Dr. Elizabeth Kraus, and Dr. Margaret
Coyne o f Fordham; my graduate collegues Robert Chapman and
Michael A l f a n o ; my collegues a t M o l l o y , Stephan Mayo,
Rosemarie LoSasso, and John Yanovitch; my collegues a t
Iona, Rickard Donovan and William O ' N e i l l .
Credit f o r typing and proofing the manuscript must
go to Ms. Florence Train and Mrs. Dorothy Quirk.
Deepest thanks must go t o my p a r e n t s , Michael and
Dorothy Quirk, for their sincere and patient support. Finally,
I want t o declare my indebtedness t o my dearest w i f e E i l e e n .
Her encouragement and c a r i n g gave me f o r t i t u d e when i t
threatned t o collapse, and renewed resolve when i t was waning.
I t i s to her that t h i s work i s lovingly dedicated.
viii
SOME N O T E S ON S T Y L E
Throughout t h i s work I have transliterated a l l Greek
terms into the Latin alphabet. Epsilon = , Eta = ;
O f r i i c r o n = , O m e g a = ; a n d U p s i l o n = u_.
The following two texts have been taken t o be
canonical on matters o f s t y l e : Kate L . Turabian, A Manual f o r
Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Chicago:
U n i v . o f C h i c a g o P r . , 1 9 6 9 ) , a n d W. S t r u n k a n d E . B . W h i t e ,
The Elements o f S t y l e (New York: Macmi 11an, 1982 ) .
Following both Turabian and Strunk and White, I have
adopted the following procedure for forming the posessives of
proper names: I have always added " - ' s " ( e . g . , Vlastos's),
except i n the case o f c l a s s i c a l Greek names ending i n
"s" ( e . g . , Socrates', Parmenides 1 ) .
I n my own t e x t , I have c a p i t a l i z e d o n l y t h r e e ' o f
Plato's technical terms --Form, Being, and Becoming-- to
emphasise their technical use and their difference from
ordinary usage. However, i n excerpted quotes from other
authors, I have retained their spelling of these terms even
i f they are a t variance w i t h my own s p e l l i n g . I have a l s o
c a p i t a l i z e d a few t e c h n i c a l terms o f my own ( e . g . , A p o l o g i s t ,
Revisionist), and have l e f t i n capitals the technical terms
of other authors ( e . g . , Bigger's "Constitutive" and "Regulative"))
<
INTRODUCTION
A Thought-Experiment
As a prelude t o t h e r e f l e c t i o n s on P l a t o ' s Parmenides
and i t s interpreters to follow, consider the following texts:
Plato's Sophist, A r i s t o t l e ' s Categories 13b 1-35, Hegel's
Logic, part 1 , Bertrand Russell's "On Denoting", Martin
Heidegger's "What i s Metaphysics?"
A more heterogeneous and disparate collection of
philosophical works could hardly be imagined.
Yet, i f one
non-being, of "nothing".
Aristotle
Plato
Hegel wishes t o show how Being, the most general and hence
vacuous of a l l concepts, generates i t s opposite, Nothing,
and how both are dia1 e c t i c a l l y resolved i n Becoming.
Heidegger, reflecting on science's insistence that i t studies
determinate beings "and nothing else", wonders just what
this "nothing" might be.
One could j u s t l y argue t h a t there i s a l o o s e ,
"family resemblance" between a l l the aforementioned texts.
One might even go so f a r as t o draw a meta-phi1osophical
moral from the comparison; that philosophers are tempermentally driven to ask and ponder questions about negation,
non-existence, and nothingness.
off a
It
His phenomeno-
The
I am n o t c h a l l e n g i n g t h e e n t e r p r i s e o f
analytic philosophy.
Neither
am I condemning t h e e n t i r e body o f a n a l y t i c P l a t o n i c
criticism.
Neverthe
The t r a d i t i o n i t s e l f f a l t e r s ,
8
isolated argument, and i t s self-image as the embodiment of
proper philosophic method.
Regarding the f i r s t f a u l t , the penchant for isolated
pieces o f reasoning. The virtue of analytic philosophy i s
i t s a b i l i t y to draw razor-sharp distinctions, clear up
muddlements, present i t s case with precision, and so on.
The vice of t h i s v i r t u e i s : the seeming reluctance to admit
into one's considerations, as philosophically important,
anything vague and ambiguous, that i s , anything a t odds
with-the methodological prescriptions for c l a r i t y and ex
actitude.
But
i t does positively interfere with the interpretive understandi ng o f past philosophers, such as Plato.
I t does so
could be tagged as
Then again,
these ends of expression - - c l a r i t y , succinctness, e t c . - are the product of a wri t ing tradition i n philosophy,
beginning with Kant, perhaps, and consolidated i n Frege,
Russell, and Moore.
has not
W h a t i_s t r o u b l e s o m e i s t h e t e n d e n c y o f a n a l y t i c
interpreters to impose upon the interpreted text an exegetical method which might suit analytic philosophy very well,
b u t i s i l l - s u i t e d t o philosophers who embrace d i f f e r e n t
l i t e r a r y v a l u e s , who emerge out o f a d i f f e r e n t p h i l o s o p h i c a l
tradition or historical epoch.
writers proceed
Not a l l philosophical
Carnap completely
Plato
i s he a pragmatist,
^Macomber, op. c i t . , p. 52 f f .
ITSee J . H. Randall's s a t i r e o f some philosophers'
tendencies to turn Plato into a contemporary theoretician
i n P l a t o : Dramatist o f the L i f e o f Reason (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1971), pp. 16-17.
Plato's
13
to be called
This means
13
t h a t we should n o t view the P l a t o n i c corpus as a vast Summa,
a treatise-in-disguise.
We w i l l n e e d t o s e e h o w l i t e r a r y d e v i c e s - - s e t t i n g ,
This i s ,
But
ahistorical
Such a s e l f -
In the process,
s a i d " , are l i k e l y t o miss not only how but why Plato said
what he did.
16
analysts, i n detailing Plato's sympathies or lack of sympathy
for another philosophical contemporary or near-contemporary
of his, to focus on, say, the Gorgias, Protagoras, or Philebus
of t h e i r namesake dialogues, rather than the Gorgias, Philebus
and Protagoras of history.
suffici ent.
What were
This
part 1.
The
Although
I n the remainder
a procedure
reinforced by analytic
I base
Although
Gregory
as
Parmeni des as
21
predication.
They
Thus t h e TMAs c o n s t i t u t e
Critical commentators
I)
Are
Or
are
ternati ves?
The aim of the present work i s largely one o f
criticism: a respectful challenge to the interpretive work
The t i t l e
"How t o r e a d . . . "
0r
25
a l l are phi1osophers).
Why s h o u l d h i s s t y l e ,
A)
In
26
l i t e r a r y genre as mimes, l i k e those of Sophron or Xenarchus.^
This admission o f A r i s t o t l e does much t o j a r the preconception
that Plato's writing inaugurated a genre i n i t s e l f , philo
sophical writing.
view
I f Arifctotle's Poetics is a
p. 42.
27
descriptive account of the production and appreciation of
the written and spoken word i n 5th century Athens, then
t h e r e i s a c l e a r breach between what we take t o be t h e
role of mimesi s i n l i t e r a t u r e and what the Athenians did.
I f Plato's dialogues are example of mimesi s , i t i s a dis
t o r t i o n t o think of them as journalistic representations of
actual Socratic conversations, or simple attempts to re
capture w i t h as much accuracy as possible the practice of
philosophy i n that day.
--a successful
28
The apposite sense i s that i n which a threeyear-old child says, after putting a yellow block
on a blue one, "This i s a pretend sandwich." Per
haps the c h i l d ' s delight i n pretending i s even more
basic than i t s delight i n imitation. At times, the
two coincide ; but on the whole "imitation" suggests
copying, while "pretending" and "make-believe" bring
to mind the role of the imagination.7
Kaufmann i s commenting on mimesis as used i n
Aristotle's Poetics,but I believe his insights are relevant
t o an understanding o f P l a t o ' s dialogues because they show
how one can adequately understand how t o consider and read
that span of Greek l i t e r a t u r e of which the dialogues are a
p a r t . (Kaufmann's treatment o f mimesi s makes no claims, f o r
example, about mimesi s as i t i s used as a technical term
i n Plato, eg., the kosmos aisthetos as an i m i t a t i o n of the
kosmos noetos i n Timaeus, e t c . 8 ) .
One b e n e f i t o f Kaufmann's
I f the dia
This
i s , i n e f f e c t , Aristotle's position on katharsis: the makebelieve world of the tragedian arouses the strong emotions
of eleos and phobos i n the audience, whereby the emotions
are relieved or "purged" of these (potentially harmful)
sentiments.^
But
30
these questions i n his life.^
This is especially
Since
then, almost by definition, i t cannot be the sort of "straightT^see PaiJl Friedlander, PIato, vol. 1 (Princeton:
Princeton Univ. Pr., 1964), pp. 108-126, 154-170, passim.
^Kaufmann, op. c i t . , pp. 44-45.
t r e a t i s e - i n - d i a l o g u e - f o r m ( B e r k e l e y o r Hume p e r h a p s ? ) ; b u t
Plato's dialogues are i n a class with "mimes" --they are not
t r e a t i s e s , but philosophical drama or 1iterature.
To ignore
The f i r s t assumes t h a t , as a
We b o t h a g r e e t h a t i t i s h a s t y t o a s s u m e t h a t ,
12Rudolph
On t h i s
c i t . , pp. 4-6.
34
Plato wrote dramatic works; but he was not a
man o f negative c a p a b i l i t y . Plato does speak t o h i s
readers through his dialogues; they are not adequately
understood unless the scholarly approach of detailed
t e x t u a l examination i s combined with those who see
Plato as remaining i n some way aloof from what he has
h i s characters say. No doubt the form i n which he
addresses his audience shows that Plato has a t l e a s t
as great an interest i n thinking as i n thought; no
doubt the dialogue i s used by him to exhibit philosophy
as an a c t i v i t y t h a t human beings engage i n . But the
undeniable significance of this aspect of Plato's
work i s no reason f o r ignoring precisely what Plato's
characters say o r f o r omitting to ask j u s t why Plato
has then follow the script he wrote for them.14
Weingartner concludes:
...Plato i s not reduced to choosing between showing
and saying: a dialogue may have a theme --even a con
clusion-- which i s Plato's and not that of his creatures,
a theme which i s upheld by the entire work, although
i t may never be e x p l i c i t l y stated w i t h i n i t . 1 5
Weingartner i s saying that a dialogue, as philo
sophical drama, need sacrifice neither i t s philosophical
seriousness nor i t s dramatic richness in order to remain
whole.
^Weingartner, op. c i t . ,
1 5 1bi d .
p. 6.
He i s i n t e r e s t e d , perhaps more i n
37
Nevertheless, t h i s i s how Plato wrote; i t seems as i f only
a "pretend" example of philosophical practice would suitably
express his aims and convictions as a philosopher.
Con
The e r i s t i c moot.
One form o f
philosophical
38
mitigated model o f a two-way e r i s t i c e x e r c i s e . . . . ^
This eristic excercise is
. . . a special pattern of disputation, governed
by s t r i c t rules, which takes the following shape.
Two persons 'agree t o have a b a t t l e ' . One i s t o
be questioner, the other answerer...The answerer
begins by undertaking to uphold a certain ' t h e s i s ' ,
e g . t h a t j u s t i c e i s i n t h e in t e r e s t o f t h e s t r o n g e r ,
o r t h a t know!edge is sense-perception. The q u e s t i o n e r
has to extract from the answerer, by a series of
questions, an answer or conjunction of answers i n
consistent with his original thesis,i.e. drive him
into an 'elenchus!. J 8
There i s more to Plato's dialectic than the sort
of Socratic confutation which Ryle describes above ( c f .
especially the development of Plato's ideas on dialectic,
i n Republic VI and Sophist) ^ 9 Nevertheless, such argumentation
does constitute a large part of the "dialogue" i n Plato's
dialogues, and an important part, since the elenchus i s
an effective tool against positions which are deeply, yet
not obviously inconsistent (e,g., Euthyphro, Callicles i n
Gorgias, etc.).
t h i s s o r t o f d i a l e c t i c a l i n t e r p l a y was an innovation o f
P l a t o ' s , both as philosophical tool and l i t e r a r y form.
More
i n the latter,
22
20Ryle,
" D i a l e c t i c . . p . 39.
21Ryle,
22Ryle,
40
t o show the young Socrates "the i n t e l l e c t u a l gymnastic he
must practics i f he i s to become a philosopher", which i s ,
as Ryle says, "the most unreleived and formalized model of
a two-way e r i s t i c question-answer exercise t h a t has come
down t o u s . "
23
25
42
Dionysius not to give the lecture on sunousi a to the general
public i n wri t ing or speech), to the writings of Galen and
Diogenes Laertius, and other
sources.27
28
2)
29
This is implicitly
Diogenes
3^Ryle,
"Dialectic..." p. 45.
3^Ryle,
"Dialectic..." p. 45-6.
32Ryle,
33
45
p i t t e d against one another, but he does not want the
cynical o r n i h i l i s t theses t o win. He marshals the
Worse and the Better Reasons but his heart i s with
the Better Reasons.3^
Socrates.
Although
35
Socrates' willing
As such,
No o t h e r form would be s u i t a b l e
C)
As G i l b e r t Ryle
37
P l a t o , i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c r e b e l l i o n against those who f e t i s h ize the poets and turn exegesis into a minor industry ( c f .
Republic 606 p. f f . and Protagoras 347c-348a), inveighs
heavily against this sort of overweening concern with booklearning i n Phaedrus 274b-277d, where he contrasts the l i v i n g
speech of conversation with the stasis of the written word.
3 ft
37Ryle,
OO
Note Ryle's "Surprise" at the condemnation of booklearning i n the Phaedrus, i n Plato's Progress, p. 22.
39
The R. Hackforth translation, i n Plato: The Collected
Pialogues (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Pr., 1961)., ed. E.
Hamilton ad H. Cairns.
His
51
the Sophists to be an advantage; witness their over-concern
with rhetoric (q.v. Gorgias 462b,ff.) or the quest for
making a p o s i t i o n seem convincing, whether o r not i t a c t u a l l y
TS.
42
elenchus.
i)
ii)
How can t h e w r i t t e n
Again, Friedlander:
between Socrates,
p. .165.
46
Ibid., p. 164-5.
471bid.,
pp. 165-66.
yet as a Socratic a r t i s t --strange as that might soundP l a t o was bound t o accommodate both demands, and d i d so
by melding his commitments t o techne and 1ogos i n the only
way possible.
hypocrisy.
G i v e n t h e w a y i t i_s w r i t t e n , i t s c r i t i c i s m
the inadequacy of
As Weingartner notes, t h i s i s
We c a n b e c e r t a i n a b o u t
But i f
An u n a r t i c u l a t e d ,
pp. 168-69.
58
vision".
49
This seems,
49See
59
That there can be insight into the truth without any
f i n a l , complete a c q u i s i t i o n o f the t r u t h : t h i s seems t o be
Plato's advance on Socratic philosophy.
Socratic apori a.
51
ir o n i c : n o t o n l y a r e e p i s t e m e a n d a p o r i a c o m p a t i b l e : P l a t o ' s
dialogues suggest, from early to late periods, that episteme
without aporia i s impossible. Such i s the conceit of knowledge
without-need-of-further-inquiry.
Plato also inherited the insight from Socrates
t h a t there i s no ready made knowledge simply t r a n s
ferable from one person to another, but only p h i l
osophy as an a c t i v i t y , the level of which i s ^ i n variably determined by one's partner. Every phi1osophi c a l conversation conducted by Socrates i s new and
different according to the partner --this i s the
Socratic principle of education... Plato gives wis
dom and d o c t r i n e ; but t h e Socratic p r i n c i p l e i s s t i l l
so commanding within him that f o r him, too, knowledge
would be d e c e i t i f i t purported t o be the same f o r
everybody and everywhere...52
Plato's tentativeness about epi steme i s thus
conditioned by the inquiry which can only be sustained by
dialogue; this "dialogue" i s given expression not only by
what Plato says, by way o f his characters, i n the dialogue,
d., p. 166.
60
but i n what Plato shows through his medium of expression,
the dialogue-form itself.
133c-l34e:
- P l a t o hopedfor a complete deduction of a l l the
forms from the form o f the good... a scheme which i s
never worked out i n the dialogue, doubtless for the
reason that i t i s unworkable.53
By glossing the "downward path" thus, Vlastos
betrays some sympathy toward the " d o c t r i n a l " approach, and
f a l l s prey t o i t s shortcomings: he assumes t h a t i f a
Platonic dialogue asserts an acocunt of dialectic as i n
book VI, i t i s a defi ni t i ve position of Plato's philosophy
at that time, rather than a tentative one.
54
5 ^ R e p u b l ic
such as Plato,
Dialogic
As mimemata o f "genuine
F i r s t , by analytically
64
considering the important role which dialogue form has i n
generating philosophical themes and conclusions - - i . e . , that
"competitive cooperation" which prompts insights not localizable i n any one character's set of b e l i e f s . Second i t
ignores the elements of imagination and artistry i n the
dialogue, a genre akin to drama: the interplay of character
ization, setting, metaphor, irony, etc. This is not to
disparage logical analysis, but merely to qualify i t s use
fulness i n understanding Plato, and also to warn of the
f a c i l i t y with which an analytic approach to the dialogues
can s l i p into the shortsighted "doctrinal" approach c r i t i
cised by Weingartner.
I believe Gregory Vlastos's treatment of Plato's
Parmenides i s a clear expression of these misbegotten
c r i t i c a l tendencies. I now t u r n t o h i s thesis on the f i r s t
part of Parmenides, as detailed i n his 1954 a r t i c l e "The
T h i r d K a n A r g u m e n t i n P l a t o ' s P a r m e ni d e s " . S u b s e q u e n t
modifications and additions to his thesis shall be treated i n
v a r i o u s p l a c e s t h r o u g h o u t C h s . 1 1 1- X I .
AFTERWORD:In s t r e s s i n g the " t e n t a t i v e " nature o f
Plato's dialogical philosophy I do not wish to imply that
Plato drew no definite conclusions and took no firm stands.
He i s n o t , as Weingartner n o t e s , Keats's man o f "negative
capability": he i s articulating a vision of r e a l i t y i n and
t h r o u g h t h e d i a l o g u e s . I ain c l a i m i n g , h o w e v e r , t h a t i t i s
s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t Plato saw f i t t o take these stands only
through d i a l o g i c a l philosophy. Although i t seems c l e a r t h a t
Plato rejects certain theses, l i k e Thrasymachus1 power-politics
and Philebus' hedonism, as scarcely worthy of serious con
sideration by rational and moral humans, i t remains that
Plato did his rejecting through the dialogue-medium, a mimesis
of a rational repudiation of these theses. Plato's "tentativeness" consists in this:not a skeptical refusal to
commit himself, but the realization that i f a thesis i s to
be rejected as "inadequate" or even "crazy", i t must be
rejected i n the s p i r i t of r a t i o n a l i t y --one must be prepared
t o o f f e r reasons i n opposition t o the t h e s i s , and t o some
degree succeed i n one's critique. Since the thesis one es
tablishes can i t s e l f be subject t o c r i t i q u e , one's com
mitment to i t implies further rational dialogue in i t s defense.
In that sense, that rational inquiry into value-questions is
potentially endless and capable of improvement, Plato i s "tentative"
65
II)
I t i s f o r t h i s reason t h a t we t u r n t o t h i s essay
for a beginning.
A)
This gener
66
they were valid.
67
fatal to the theory of Forms.^
(3)
G i v e n t h i s s t a n d on t h e TMA i t i s c l e a r
To t h i s
The implication
68
seems c l e a r : the l a c k , o r the inadequate use or conception
of a proper analytic method of interpretation has led to the
confusion surrounding the TMA, i t s meaning,
on Plato's thinking i n general.
and i t s impact
This may
232-44, passim.
And i t would
I s i t one
Is
Another
Plato
7
Ibid., pp. 254-5.
71
for these reasons:
(1)
The
s u p p r e s s i o n o f p r e m i s s e s i n t h e TMA w o u l d
i n a t r e a t i s e may be ir o n i c i n t e r c h a n g e i n a d i a l o g u e , and
we cannot automatically assume i t i s n o t .
The rejoinder
As de
Yet an
72
time he wrote the dialogue, and that only this state-of-mind
can indicate the dialogue's meaning. But this shortchanges
the importance of that which sound c r i t i c a l procedure must
take to be the primary source of the dialogue's meaning
and the best indicator of Plato's purposes: the dialogue
i t s e l f , including a l l i t s "literary" elements. This inadequacy
of Vlastos's procedure shall be examined i n Ch. XI, sec. D.
B ) V I a s t o s o n t h e T M A , V e r s i o n 1_ ( 1 2 8 e - 1 3 2 b )
The f i r s t version of the TMA, i n Parmenides 131e132b, runs thus:
I imagine your ground for believing i n a single
form i n each case i s t h i s : when i t seems t o you t h a t a
number of things are large, there seems, I suppose,
t o be a c e r t a i n character ( i d e a ) which i s the same
when you look a t them a l l ; hence you think t h a t
largeness is a single thing.
True, he replied.
But now take largeness i t s e l f and the other things
which are themselves large. Suppose you look a t a l l
o f these i n the same way i n y o u r mind's eye, w i l l n o t
y e t another u n i t y make i t s appearance - - a largeness
by virtue of which they a l l appear large?
So i t would seem.
I f so, a second form of largeness would present
i t s e l f , over and above largeness i t s e l f and the things
that share i n i t ; and again, covering a l l these, yet
a n o t h e r , w h i c h w i l l ma.ke a l l o f them l a r g e . So each
of your forms w i l l no longer be one, but an indefinite
number. 8
O
73
Vlastos paraphrases the argument through the
following two formal steps:
( A l ) I f a n u m b e r o f t h i n g s , a . b . a r e a l l JF,
there must be a single form F-ness i n virtue of which
we apprehend ,]j,and c , as a l l .
(A 2) I f a.b.,, and F-ness are a l l , there must
be another f o r m , F-ness, i n v i r t u e o f which we apprehend
, ] } , , a n d F - n e s s a s a l l F_.
Believing
t h a t P l a t o i n t e n d e d t h e TMA t o be a
74
( A 2 a ) I f a.b.> a n d F - n e s s a r e a l l
must be another form, F-nessi, etc.10
, there
Under t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , when
101bi
d., p. 234.
75
that are d i f f e r e n t (since F-ness and F-ness-j .respectively ,
have something to do with the character of being " l a r g e " ) .
Vlastos views t h i s as an unacceptable analysis of
the TMA: i t i n s i s t s t h a t t h e r e are " l a r g e j " t h i n g s , when
" l a r g e j " i t s e l f makes questionable sense.
Furthermore,
Placed
i n c o n t e x t , P a r m e n i d e s ' s TMA s e e m s t o e m p h a s i z e t h a t i f
t h i n g s have the character they hcive due t o t h e i r p a r t i c i p a
tory relationship with a single Form, then that Form must
stand i n participatory relationship, along with i t s instances
w i t h another Form i f J_t i s t o e x h i b i t the same c h a r a c t e r . * 1
The p o i n t Vlastos i s making by considering A2a i s t h a t i f
111bi
d. , p . 233
a character is present
then
talk of another
I n 131e
77
survey just what Vlastos's argument has accomplished thus
f a r : i t has ruled out the possibility of analogous predication
between a Form and i t s character i n the theory under examina
t i o n , o n t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e r e g r e s s i n t h e TMA w o u l d n o t
materialize. (But this simply begs the question: Vlastos
a s s u m e s t h e r e i_s s u c h a r e g r e s s . )
i z a t i o n o f t h e TMA a s a v a l i d a r g u m e n t ; b u t a g a i n , t h e q u e s t i o n
of soundness must be raised.
I s Plato's Parmenides, i n ad
And i f
t h a t i_s t h e c a s e , m i g h t t h e TMA s t i l l b e u n s o u n d b e c a u s e t h e
theory i n question i s not Plato's own, at least not at the
time he authored his Parmeni des?
I t would entail
f o r m o f t h e TMA a l o n e ?
79
but Plato did not do t h i s ; therefore his silence --as well
as s i g n i f i c a n t passages f r o m h i s o t h e r w o r k s - - r e v e a l s SP
as an integral yet unacknowledged element i n his theory of
Forms.^
He begins h i s argument by s p e l l i n g out the i m p l i c i t
p r e m i s s e s w h i c h m a k e t h e TMA a c o m p l e t e d e d u c t i v e a r g u m e n t .
They are
(A3) Any Form can be predicated o f i t s e l f .
Largeness i s i t s e l f large. F-ness i s . ( s e l f p r e d i c a t i o n assumption, o r SP)
(A4) I f anything has a certain character, i t
cannot be i d e n t i c a l with the Form i n v i r t u e o f which
we apprehend t h a t character. I f x i s , x cannot be
identical with F-ness. (Non-identity assumption, or
NI)
Thus, by i n s e r t i n g SP and N I i n t h e i r p r o p e r
places, the formal s t r u c t u r e i s thus (my own, more stream1inedversion, a f t e r Vlastos and Strang):
1 ft
( 1 ) I f a_,b_, a n d x a r e a l l , t h e r e m u s t b e a s i n g l e
form F-ness (one-over-many), i n v i r t u e o f which we ap
prehend ,J), and . as instancing . (Vlastos's A l ) .
(2) F-ness i t s e l f i s F (an instance of F-ness;
hence SP; Vlastos's A3).
(3) I f any x i s F, x cannot be identical with F-ness
(Non-identity assumption; Vlastos's A4)
(4) Therefore i f a,b,c, and F-ness are a l l F,
there must be another form, F-nessj, i n v i r t u e o f
which we apprehend a , b , c , and F-ness as F ( 1 , 2 & 3 ) .
17V1astos,
1^Colin
(5)
(6)
. A n d s o o n , a^d i n f i n i t u r n . ^
An i n f i n i t e regress need n o t be f a t a l t o the l o g i c a l
coherence of a metaphysical theory; e.g., Spinoza's Ethics.
But i n P l a t o ' s case i t would b e , s i n c e we are c o n s i d e r i n g
a single property, and the explanation for i t s instantiation
i n a given class o f p a r t i c u l a r s and, i n the TMA, Forms.2
A regress would undermine this explanation, or a i t i a .
I n an earlier a r t i c l e , Vlastos explores the sense
i n which P l a t o ' s Forms are a i t i a i : i n Phaedo lOOd-e the
aitia for a given object's beauty i s held to consist not i n
i t s p a r t i c u l a r sensuous q u a l i t i e s - - t h i s would be questionbegging-- but i n i t s * r e l a t i o n t o the Form Beauty: "only
upon the fact that i t i s by Beauty i t s e l f that beautiful
things are beautiful
21
d., p. 185.
81
explain the presence of a property i n an individual by re
f e r r i n g to one Form which i s necessarily related t o another,
and showing how the p a r t i c u l a r , by p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n one,
participates i n the other (Plato's examples; Three/Odd:
Fever/Sickness.
Vlastos correctly in
Forms are
po
221bid.,
23Ibid.,
p. 247.
p. 241.
t h e l o g i c a l n e e d f o r F o r m s - - t h e i r r o l e a s a i ti a i .
How
By relation to i t s e l f , by "self-participation"?
84
demonstrating that the. theorems entai1 a logically vicious
consequence.
T h e s e c o n d v e r s i o n o f t h e TMA i s a n a t t e m p t , o n
Socrates' part, to circumvent Parmenides' criticism of
the Forms by re-construing t h e i r relationship with par
ticulars.
there i s enough s i m i l a r i t y
85
I f so, nothing can be l i k e the form, nor can the
form by l i k e anything. Otherwise a second form w i l l
always make i t s appearance over and above the f i r s t form,
and i f that second form i s l i k e anything, yet a t h i r d .
And there w i l l be no end to t h i s emergence of fresh
forms, j_f the form i s t o be l i k e the thing that par
takes of i t . Emphasis mine: note the conditional,
" Ii fI "
Vlastos formalizes the above as:
26
86
Like the f i r s t version o f the TMA, the above i s a
valid piece of reasoning, demonstrating the inconsistency
of the theory of self-predicative Forms under question by
generating the regress.
l i g h t o n h o w t h e TMA i s t o b e i n t e r p r e t e d .
T h e TMA m i g h t
T h a t SP and N I a r e o n l y i m p ! i c i t premisses i n d i c a t e s ,
)
o f t h e TMA c o u l d o n l y have
27
Had P l a t o i s o l a t e d SP and N I , V l a s t o s c o n t e n d s , he
could have jettisoned one of them i n the course of the
Parmenides dispute, and Plato's Parmenides would not have
had so clear a victory i n the argument.
s u f f i c e i t f o r now t o remark t h a t
. ,
28
Parmem des,
Vlastos asserts
28
o, 241.
Socrates'
p. 255.
p. 254.
Conclusion
90
132a - b.
V l a s t o s changes h i s p o s i t i o n on t h e SP assumption s i g n i f i c a n t
l y , holding Plato to be "perplexed" not about whether Forms,
as "perfect particulars", necessitate by their nature an
infinite regress, but about the precise nature of our asser
t i o n s when we p r e d i c a t e something o f a Form - - i . e . , whether
we l i t e r a l l y p r e d i c a t e x o f form F-ness, o r use "F-ness"
to go proxy for i t s extension, the class of F-things.
Nevertheless, a l l of Vlastos's later work exhibits
a c o n t i n u i t y w i t h h i s e a r l i e r work on the TMA.
To begin w i t h ,
In
But as s e l f -
91
predication i s , for Vlastos i n 1954, implied by various
elements i n Plato's explicit thinking, i t i s nonetheless an
unacknowledged consequence of the theory of Forms, and be
cause unacknowledged, the source of the confusion and
frustration vented i n the Parmenides.
In his l a t e r work
He sees P l a t o ' s o n t o l o g y , as J . N. F i n d l a y
itself
supported by facts.
Witness,
I t would be i f pre
93
i s an assumption made on V l a s t o s ' s p a r t , f o r he never ex
p l i c i t l y defends his methodological and c r i t i c a l standards.
But then they remain untested assumptions, which can be
accepted or rejected, given their fruitfulness with regard
to what Plato wrote.
Secondly, I do not think Vlastos succeeds i n making
his case f o r reading Parmenides as a record of honest con
fusion - - h i s assumptions about Plato are not, i n the last
estimate, fruitful.
in his interpretation.
I t i s a s s u m e d t h a t t h e TMA c a n b e
There i s no attempt to
There
i s n o a t t e m p t t o i n t e r p r e t t h e TMA i n t h e l i g h t o f o t h e r
issues i n other dialogues, save for the "degrees-of-reality"
95
I I I ) T H E TMA A S A R E D U C T I O A D ABSURDUM ARGUMENT
As a means o f making a c l e a r path through t h e
f o r e s t o f studies on the Parmenides I introduced, i n my
Introduction, three approaches or "schools" of Platonic
interpretation, which diverge from each other largely
on the question of Parmenides P t . 1 . The C r i t i c a l school
views the dialogue as "a record of honest perplexity" and
an unintended expose of the logical incoherence of Plato's
metaphysics. The Revisionists view the Parmenides as a >
turning-point f o r P l a t o , away from a paradigmatic theory
to a more exclusively "logical" conception of Forms.
Finally the Apologetic school sees the dialogue as an a t
tempt t o clear away misunderstandings about the Forms
engendered through the misrepresentations of Plato's
Parmenides. The d i v i s i o n i n t o these three schools i s largely
a matter o f how an i n t e r p r e t e r views and appraises P l a t o ' s
philosophy as a whole, with special emphasis on the theory
of Forms: their overall vision of Plato's work colors their
interpretation of the significance and accomplishment of
Parmeni des.
Both Revisionists and Apologists view the dialogue
as a philosophical success, although they construe this
success in completely different ways. Critical readers
view the dialogue as a philosophical fai1ure. Vlastos, f o r
example, takes great pains to praise Plato for having the
strength of character to write a record of his confusion:
96
nevertheless the reason for that confusion i s never
recognized or acknowledged. The r e s u l t of t h i s i s the f a i l u r e
on P l a t o ' s part to make the necessary logical repairs t o
the Forms.* Because Plato f a i l e d to see the incompatibility
o f t h e SP ( s e l f - p r e d i c a t i o n ) and N I ( n o n - i d e n t i t y ) p r e m i s s e s ,
he f a i l e d t o make the necessary adjustments t o h i s meta
physics: thus the dialogue, which should have resolved a
real perplexity Plato had about the Forms, merely records
i t and does nothing t o remedy i t , which c e r t a i n l y makes the
d i a l o g u e a p h i 1osophi c a l f a i l u r e . On the o t h e r hand a Re
v i s i o n i s t l i k e Ryle or Strang sees Plato's Parmenides and
his successful arguments as a harbinger f o r the much-needed
revised theory of Forms, stated i n more detail i n the
Sophi s t , Statesman, and other l a t e r works. They are as en
thusiastic about the dialogue as are Apologists such as
Allen and Crombie, although the l a t t e r cheer for a different
reason: Plato's Parmenides, whose arguments are i n t e r n a l l y
consistent, continually attacks a theory of Forms which
Plato did not and would not ever hold.
In their estimate of the success of Parmeni des Pt. 1 ,
the Apologists and the Revisionists are closer to each other
than they might seem t o be a t f i r s t glance. Whatever d i f
ferences, they have with each other are largely due to
different appraisals of Plato's general metaphysical position,
especially as expressed i n dialogues written before
^Gregory V l a s t o s , "The T h i r d Man Argument i n t h e
Parmeni des", i n R.E. Allen, ed., Studies i n Plato's Meta
physics {London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965), pp. 26061. Henceforth: "TMA".
He maintains
98
not be self^-predicative paradigms), although this aim i s
i m p l i c i t ; the argument then assumes not- and generates
a contradiction
"treating universals
anti-
reductio position.
T h u s t h e t r e a t m e n t o f t h e TMA a n d i t s s i s t e r arguments ultimately resolves into a joust between
pro-reductio and anti-reductio factions (the one attempt
to avoid this either/or, that of Cornford, fails, I
believe; i t i s the subject of Ch. V). Which side has the
better arguments?
Although I am o b v i o u s l y i n c l i n e d t o s i d e w i t h t h e
p r o - r e d u c t i o group, n e i t h e r side- t o date, has, i n my
estimation, adequately established i t s claims. For example
comsider the anti-reductio claims of Geach:
T h e TMA i s r e a d b y u s [ i . e . , V l a s t o s a n d
GeachJ both as ' t h e record of honest p e r p l e x i t y ' .
Plato i s not making a merely hypothetical use of an
assumption ' p ' i n order to infer 'not p ' , which
Q
102
using Parmenides' assertion as a hypothesis. Dostoevshy's
Grand I n q u i s i t o r argues cogently down the l i n e f o r the
necessity of "bread and circuses" and keeping hoi p o l l o i
a t bay; y e t no one who knows anything o f Dostoevsky would
say that, since the Grand Inquisitor asserts what he says,
Dostoevsky agrees with the Inquisitor's assertions.
Dostoevsky i s chal1enging the Inquisitor, i n no small part
through the l i t e r a r y device of irony. The r e t o r t that
Dostoevsky wrote novels and Plato wrote philosophy i s
moot: Plato wrote dialogues and only dialogues, and the
burden o f proof i s on he who wishes t o i n t e r p r e t t h e d i a
l o g u e s a s t r e a t i s e s - i n - d i s g u i s e . We h a v e t h e r i g h t t o
assume that any dialogue admits of a " l i t e r a r y " as well as
a "philosophical" interpretation (indeed, the two cannot
be separated) u n t i l i t i s proven otherwise, and t h i s can
only be established on a dialogue-by-dialogue basis. There
i s l i t t l e to lead one to think that this can be carried
o u t : P l a t o ' s d i a l o g u e s have as much i n common w i t h the
methods of "The Grand Inquisitor" as with any treatise
(e.g., the ironic argumentation presented i n Plato's characterization of Euthyphro, Gorgias, Thrasymachus, e t c . ) . * *
I f Geach's anti-reductio stand i s to be vindicated
he must advance an argument based not on the form of Plato's
presentation but a substantive argument. I . e . , he must say
what Plato's assertion "p" i s , and show i t to be a f i r m l y
**Weingartner, UPD, pp. 1 - 4 .
103
entrenched Platonic commonplace. Like Vlastos, Geach believes
that "p", in part, is the doctrine of self-predicative
Forms, t h e SP assumption b e i n g unacknowledged b u t a l o g i c a l
consequence of the way i n which Plato conceived the Forms.
The argument which Geach advances i n s u p p o r t o f SP i s t h i s :
Plato designated the Forms o f natural kinds and a r t i f a c t s
not by using abstract nouns, but by concrete nouns with
the definite a r t i c l e ( e . g . , to anthropos = the Man, rather
than Manhood; auto t o anthropos = t h e Man I t s e l f ) ; t h a t
Plato could have "invented" such abstract nouns had he
seen the need (he invented poiotes for "quality"); and i n
Parmenides 133 c-d among other places, Plato does use ab
s t r a c t nouns to designate Forms, often alongside concrete
nouns. Therefore the tendency to use the definite article
i n a "hypostatizing" way along w i t h the concrete noun
- - a mode o f expression common i n Greek-- leads P l a t o t o
confuse and conflate expressions of the "The Lion i s
such-and-so" variety with "Lionhood is such-and-so" variety.
I t seems rash t o jump from the f a c t t h a t such an
i d i o m was common i n Greek t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t i t must
have spawned that s o r t o f confusion i n Plato as soon as he
considered metaphysical questions, for the temptation exists
i n English as w e l l . Of course Geach recognizes t h i s : he
simply maintains t h a t P l a t o f a i l e d t o r e a l i z e , what we r e a l
i z e , t h a t while i t may be l e g i t i m a t e t o speak o f a natural
12
12
104
kind i n the concrete way (e.g.,"The Lion i s a ferocious
b e a s t " ) i t i s n o t always c o r r e c t t o speak the same sen
tence abstractly (since "Lionhood i s a ferocious beast" i s
not true, and perhaps nonsensical). But even this i s a l l
too u n s u b t l e . I n one sense, s u r e l y we can say "The Lion i s
a ferocious beast, has a mane, t a i l , e t c . " , referring to
a n a t u r a l k i n d . But i n another way we c a n ' t , i f we con
s t r u e the f e r o c i t y o f The Lion t o mean t h a t a natural
k i n d can make me i t s d i n n e r . I t i s t h e c o n t e x t o f usage
or utterance that determines the sense or grammatical
meaning of "the Lion": the Lion (over there) i s ferocious
(he can k i l l me), but the Lion (speaking generally),
though f e r o c i o u s , cannot k i l l me ( a l t h o u g h he can k i l l
p e r s o n s , speaking g e n e r a l l y ; o r c o u l d k i l l me as an a b s t r a c t
p o s s i b i l i t y f i t t i n g t h i s n a t u r a l k i n d ) . We k n o w t h e d i f
ference i n English; why c o u l d n ' t Plato have known the
difference i n Greek? The burden of proof l i e s on those
l i k e Geach who claim t h a t P l a t o d i d n ' t know the d i f f e r e n c e .
And the f a c t that Plato deals with l o g i c a l l y sophisticated
terms such as "the many" and "the Similar" and "the Equal"
( t a p o l l a , a u t a t o h o m o i a , a u t a t a is a ) a n d s h i f t s " i n
differently" to the abstract forms "multitude"."similarity",
and "equality" (pi ethos, homoiotes, isotes) i n Parmeni des
need not alarm us: there i s no reason to speulate that
Plato confused the concrete-noun and abstract-noun ex
pressions of a natural kind with each other, or either of
105
them with the use of a concrete noun to express a par- u
13
ticular.
A l l t h i s leads one to suppose that Plato's use
of concrete-nouns as well as abstract-nouns to express
n a t u r a l k i n d s no more n e c e s s i t a t e s some s o r t o f SP assumption
than does our own E n g l i s h use o f the same.
I f t h e SP
p. 269.
107
With the NI assumption,
2.6 I f x i s F, by participating i n F-ness, then
x f F-ness,
we can derive ( w i t h the a i d o f 2 . 3 and 2 . 5 ) t h a t
2.7 F-ness i n 2.3 t F-ness i n 2.5,
which, given that 2.1, yoelds
2.8 F-ness i n 2.1 = F-ness i n 2.3 and F-ness i n 2.5,
where F-ness i n 2.3 f F-ness i n 2.5, which i s absurd.
14
The i n f i n i t e regress of Parmenides i s , i n a way,
a forestalling of the contradiction that occurs in 2.7: i f
F-ness i n 2.3 t F-ness in 2.5, then F-ness in 2.5 is
" r e a l l y " F-ness^, and so on. The contradiction can be
forestalled indefinitely, but the result of a regress of
Forms (which would u t t e r l y undermine the p o s s i b i l i t y of an
a i t i a f o r property F) i s j u s t as unpalatable as the bald
contradiction in 2.7.above.
In f a c t , W i l f r i d Sellars and Colin Strang have
t r i e d t o f o r m u l a t e t h e TMA a s a d i f f e r e n t s o r t o f r e d u c t i o ,
where the contradiction i n Weingartner's 2.7 does not obtain.
Sellars and Strang believe that Plato's Parmenides does not
claim, as i n 2.3 and 2.5 above,
15
oi ton eidon
19
21
c l u s i o n o f t h e TMA - - h o w e v e r v a l i d i t s d e r i v a t i o n f r o m t h e
argument's premisses-- is not merely contingently false,
i t i s impossible. I t does not merely contradict "a certain
181bid.,
p. 160.
19Ibid.,
pp. 160-61.
20Ibid.,
p. 161.
211bid.,
pp. 161^62.
22
^
I
Ibid., p. 164.
23Ibid.,
p. 168.
112
k n o w h o w e f f e c t i v e t h e TMA w a s . W e i n g a r t n e r d o e s i n s i s t
that, "hidden premisses" do not necessarily imply authorial
ignorance, and q u i t e c o r r e c t l y i n my e s t i m a t i o n ; nevertheless
t h i s o n l y e s t a b l i s h e s t h e p r o - r e d u c t i o r e a d i n g o f t h e TMA
as one possible way o f reading the TMA, rather than the
preferable one.
Both pro- and anti-reductio factions have ad
vanced incommensurable interpretations. Their readings
c a n ' t r e a l l y c o n f 1i c t b e c a u s e m a n y o f t h e i r k e y c r i t i c a l
assumptions (e.g., the nature of dialogue-form, what passes
as textual evidence, e t c . ) go unacknowledged yet are
radically opposed. Their words " f l y past each other" with
l i t t l e prospect of a group resolution of their differences.
Because these key assumptions are never articulates, both
camps often depict t h e i r conclusions as d e f i n i t i ve r a t h e r
than possible explications of the t e x t , and there i s l i t t l e
that the opposition can do to challenge that claim. Thus
t h e s e a o f i n k t h a t h a s b e e n s p i l l e d o n t h e TMA i n P l a t o ' s
Parmenides.
I have no ambitions toward stemming the tide of
interpretation-upon-interpretation. This is unrealistic,
and maybe even undesirable when i t i s a philosophical
t e x t t h a t i s under d i s p u t e . B u t i t seems t o me t h a t some
e f f o r t must be exerted toward making these interpretations
commensurable, so the claims o f one camp can be adequately
challenged by the other. In a general way, this can be
113
accomplished by determining the nature of Plato's philo
sophical writing, and by determining the most f a i r and
f r u i t f u l way t o read and i n t e r p r e t these t e x t s : these are
respectively the topics of Chs. I and XI, .
More s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e THA must b e - r e a d i n t h e l i g h t o f
i ) the historical Parmenides and his relationship to Plato,
and i i ) the " l i t e r a r y " aspects of the dialogue Parmeni des,
and i i i ) the relationship between Pts. 1 and 2 of Parmeni des,
and between Parmeni des and l a t e r dialogues such as Sophist,
Theatetus, Timaeus, and Philebus. What follows i s an attempt
to accomplish this task.
IV )
whose
115
I t is
and he i s g u i l t y ,
This i s unfortunate as
116
More, or Lawrence and Lee's I n h e r i t the Wind i n complete
ignorance of Darrow, Bryan, the clash between fundamentalist
Christianity and Darwin?
The introductory scenario f o r Parmenides (126a 127a) has Cephalus, Adeimantus, and Glaucon, a l l "deeply
interested" in philosophy, requesting Antiphon to recount
the incident of Socrates's early discussion with Parmenides
and Zeno.
Sophi s t 217c
There i s , however, no
117
The opening of Parmenides with this preci s ,
minimal as i t i s , of Eleatic doctrine i s symbolic of the
importance of the identities of Socrates' interlocutors to
the subject matter discussed.
P l a t o n i c d i a l o g u e ? Why Parmenides?
I contend t h a t Plato was p a r t l y motivated by the
following concerns.
vocates of a
118
compared to Plato's, admitting only
the intelligibility
the
he i s cramped by the Eleatic monomania about the i n t e l l i g i bilityof "Being" to the exclusion of all else, all that
i s necessary f o r a philosophical world that i s shaped
i n and by dialogue.
Like Plato, Parmenides conceives of Philosophy
as a "way" or "path"; see
But when
He must argue
-El e a t i c I n t e l 1i g i b i l i t v
120
i f theMilesians were correct i n insisting one one arche
for the physical universe, then this arche, consistently
thought out, should contradict our convictions about plural
i t y movement, and change.6
On t h i s a c c o u n t , Parmenides i s
proem.7
structure of the proem, coupled with the reference to "wellt r a v e l l e d Odysseus" i n F r . 1 l i n e 3 , gives the poem a confessional f l a v o r : Parmenides has t r a v e l l e d down a l l the paths
6W.
that the two "ways" --that of " i t i s " and of " i t i s not"-are presented not as concepts which are "conceivable or i n
conceivable" but as paths for thought which can or cannot be
completed.
contradiction: i f Being i s
s p a t i a l l y f i n i t e , t h e n t h e r e i s a n o n - B e i n g w h i c h i_s_
beyind Being's l i m i t s . I f , on the other hand,"what i s not
i s not, what i s i s " implies that Being i s aperas or l i m i t l e s s ,
Parmenides expressly denies
t h i s , above, on somewhat
Pythagorean grounds.
Now t h i s s o r t o f i n c o n s i s t e n c y can spawn a l l manner o f
philological parlor-games: i . e . , "Parmenides contradicted
himself because o f . h i s own naivete" vs. "Parmenides, no
philosophical slouch, would never have slipped that badly:
As Hyland
B u t i n t e r p r e t i v e p r o g r e s s j_s m a d e ,
I t h i n k , b y s h i f t i n g t h e f o c u s o f P a r m e n i d e s ' s Way f r o m
cosmology to i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y : by doing so the problems i n
volving the f i n i tude of that-which-is vanish.
On t h i s i s s u e , Hyland suggests
...that the 'finitude' in question is the finitude
of 'definition'. That i s , Being i s f i n i t e in the
s e n s e t h a t i t h a s in t e l 1 i g i b l e b o u n d a r i e s , o r a g a i n ,
t h a t i t i s capable o f a r t i c u l a t i o n . To put i t most
simply, B e i n g - i s - f i n i t e means most fundamentally,
Being-is-de-finable, Being i s i n t e l l i g i b l e , and
articulable.10
The f i n i t u d e of Being can thus be viewed as a
leftover element from Parmenides's past allegiance to
Pythagoreanism, as well as a symptom o f the usual Hellenic
g
10
Hyland, op. c i t . , p. 186.
124
queasiness about the irrational, identified with the l i m i t
less.^
l e s s , e t c . , t h e n B e i n g c a n n o t b e i d e n t i f i e d w i t h p hu sis ,
or the material, sensible world, at a l l .
Hyland notes
Hyland glosses
as saying
i t is only
Being is
Hyland perceptively
But what i s .
A?6
. . . I t i s thus Being as the i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y of
things which i s one, whole, eternal, not created or
destroyed, and, of course f i n i t e i n the sense of de
f i n i t e . Thus Parmenides i s not denying that things
change, come t o be, p e r i s h , and move.
Parmenides i s not denying things, but he i s denying
that things are.
i s perhaps best
15
Trees are
Lizards are.
PARMENIDES: ( s i l e n t )
PARMENIDES: Your'e repeating
yourself.
V27
BETATHON:- I said t h a t some
thing different was, the
second time.
BETATHON: C l e a r l y , t r e e s are
different from lizards...
BETATHON:
1i zard.
BETATHON:
Henry, here, i s a
And i s not a t r e e .
PARMENIDES: ( s i l e n t )
PARMENIDES: Thou c a n s ' t n o t
be acquainted with what i s
not,nor indicate i t i n speech.
12S
Betathon asserts "trees are"
telling.
There i s nothing
i t is purely intelligible.
t h e in t e l 1 i g i b l e c o n t e n t o f b o t h a s s e r t i o n s r e d u c e s t o t h e
t i estin, the "is".
Never
129
t o Parmenides (and the poem's "goddess") seem incontrovertible.
18
The meta
c ) B u t b ) e n t a i l s t h a t w h i c h i s n o t i_s n o t : y o u
you cannot know that-which-is-not nor u t t e r i t , because
i f you could, i t would not be what-is not, but what i s
(as i n a).
18
p. 272.
19
130
d) Therefore the very assertion of that which
involves non-being, negativity, etc., is logically
u n i n t e l l i g i b l e , and thus consigned to the "Way of
Seeming" condemned i n F r . 6 and 7.
From d ) , Parmenides seeks to establish the various
negative theses concerning creation and destruction, m u l t i
p l i c i t y , change, and movement expressed i n F r . 8, by arguing
e) I f any concept
involve s the (tacit) asser
tion of "that which i s not", then i t is likewise unin t e l l i g i b l e .
f ) Creation, m u l t i p l i c i t y , change, etc. are such
concepts.
g) Therefore creation, multiplicity, etc., are
unintelligible.
Thus Parmenides's "Way o f Truth" i s 1argely a series
of deductions from what appears to be a statement about the
logical parameters o f " t h a t which i s " , as against " t h a t
which i s n o t " ; G. S. Kirk and J . E. Raven i n t e r p r e t the
dialectical Fr. 8 as the attempt to dedjce a l l one can from
the positive doctrine about Being i n Fr. 2.
1 131
F i r s t of a l l , Raven
Burnet's
But Raven's
13l2
qualification also misses the point.
He assumes throughout
P a r m e n i d e s ' s _i_s_ t r y i n g
But of
' 133
noetic doctrine does not allow t h i s .
Both i ) and i i )
1^4
difficulty of wholesale rejection given the apparent t r i v
iality of his starting-point, "what-is, is".
But up to
Why n o t s i m p l y t a k e t h e "Way
This i s , after a l l ,
Then Parmenides'
135
seemirig as i t i s .
Yet Par -
and
Hence the
2^a.
pp
1136
conviction that Being i s not grasped i n doxa:
I n thesecond part o f the poem, words occur i n
their familiar, ordinary meaning; but paradox and
oxymoron are f e l t as i n c i p i e n t , and references to
what-is-not are disguised a l l too thinly. In the
f i r s t part there i s a logical consistency and r i g o r ;
but the words assume an unfamiliar and f i g u r a t i v e
sense.
I n short, for Parmenides the break between appear
ance and r e a l i t y has become complete.
Were Parmenides
I f Being i s
p. 348.
137
compromise these necessary attributes of Being: because
these attributes are necessary however, incoherences
would automatically develop concerning degrees and/or types
of Being.
_
24
s c a l e f r o m _to o n t o s o n d o w n t o n o n - b e i n g .
is not is not".
But: "what
But
B e i n g i s n e c e s s a r i l y u n i t a r y : w h a t i s j_s a n d c a n n o t b e o t h e r
than i t i s , for "what i s not is not".
T h i s d o e s n ' t mean t h a t " u n i t y of B e i n g " i s i n c o m p a t
i b l e w i t h o n t o l o g i c a l degrees and kinds: i t only shows how
uncompromising Parmenides i s concerning the necessity of
unity-in-being.
His
138
C)
I n t h e f o l l o w i n g w a y : i f I am
o f i n t e 1 1i qibi1i t y ,
I plan t o show
1-39
F i r s t , there i s Parmenides's dictum "to auto noein
estin te kai einai",
a phrase s u f f i c i e n t l y ambiguous as
26
Plato's
i n t e l l e c t , of nous, i s a descendent of
140
of the Forms, which also characterize Parmenides'
Being.
This gulf
Friedlander
29Ibid.,
p. 24.
allow f o r t h i s : what p a r t i c u l a r s seem t o be are not semblances of a higher order of r e a l i t y , but are more akin to
i11usi ons, floating free of any anchorage i n true Being.
Friedlander shows c l e a r l y the reasons why Plato
could never subscribe to this Parmenidean attitude:
For Parmenides, who knows o n l y pure being and
nothing else, "being and thinking are one and the
same", j u s t as i n the intermediary world of doxa
the ontological status o f the o b j e c t and the mode o f
knowledge are fused w i t h each o t h e r . P l a t o , who i n
corporates the abundance of i n t u i t e d forms into his
world o f being and f o r whom, because o f Socrates,
man o r ' s o u l ' i s one o f the highest experiences,
could no longer envisage so simple a construction.^
To the extent that Plato dissents from Parmenides's
"simple construction" he must have advocated a substantially
different account of i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y , since Parmenides's
stance on i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y revolves around his stubborn
commitment to simplicity.
Hyland recognizes this near the conclusion of his
chapter on Parmenides:
Evidently the view attributed to Parmenides has
immense d i f f i c u l t i e s . The problem o f how Being, so
understood, can be a " u n i t y " w h i l e a t the same time
being a source of i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y for a multiplicity
30Ibid.,
pp. 24-5.
1-43
" m u l t i p l i c i t y of phenomena"
But the
144
opposed t o P l a t o ' s own t h i n k i n g on the necessary bond between
nous and dialogue, most f o r c e f u l l y advocated i n Sophi st 260a f f .
and Phaedrus 274a-278b.
illuminating: Parmenides'
Dialogue i n the
Platonic style can hardly get off the ground under those
conditions.
doctrine of intelligibility is at
Re
For
145
as well as Rest, Many as well as One; there i s a t least
the suggestion of Forms of a r t i f a c t s l i k e shuttles
(Cratylus 388a)
and of
32
146
of Parmenides's views
on intelligibi1ity.33
34
Parmenides'
there
They would be a p r i o r i u n i n t e l l i g i b l e ,
Platonic
Sophist 247d.
147
there must be a kind of koinonia ( c f . Sophist 257a) between
Form and p a r t i c u l a r , despite the ontological insufficiency
o f the p a r t i c u l a r . Scholars have d i f f e r e d as t o how t h i s
koin5nia of Being between Forms and particulars i s best
conceived.
Others,
docrine.3^
op. c i t . Possim.
36Charles P. Bigger, Participation (Baton Rouge:
Univ. of Louisiana Pr. 1968), pp. 12-13.
37
148
D e g r e e s - o f - r e a lit y w o u l d s u g g e s t t h e r e i f i c c i t i o n o f n o n being, would contradict his belief i n the necessary unicity
Parmenides1s metaphysical position i s un
of what-is.
compromisingly moni s t i c.
D)
I f I am c o r r e c t i n t h e p r e c e e d i n g s e c t i o n s - - i . e . ,
t h a t the "Way o f Truth" i s concerned p r i m a r i l y w i t h i n
t e l l i g i b i l i t y and i t s metaphysical implications, and that
Parmenides's conclusions i n hte "Way" are h o s t i l e t o some
o f P l a t o ' s c r u c i a l views on t h e s u b j e c t - - then we can
reasonably anticipate the following w i l l crop up i n Plato's
Parmeni des:
1)
I t would be
of i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y escape unchallenged.
Therefore, in light
I f Socrates',
In
i s indeed
150
i n l i g h t of the historical Parmenides, i s perhaps best under
stood as a reductio ad absurdum of the Forms as they would
appear to one u t t e r l y commited to an extreme monism, one
f o r whom types o f r e a l i t y do n o t e x i s t .
In the following
c h a p t e r I s h a l l a d v a n c e t h i s r e a d i n g o f t h e TMA a s a
reductio on a self-predicative Forms; the larqer issue of
whether this supports the Apologetic or the Revisionists
commentators w i l l be the subject of chapter X.
3)
Parmenides p t . 2
Likewise,
as
151
concern with non-being: namely, that i t i s not.
Plato's
The
types of reality.
And t h i s coincides p e r f e c t l y with the demands o f the r e ductio of Parmenides p t . l : t h a t Forms must be d i f f e r e n t
types of beings from particulars.
t r i e d t o i n d i c a t e t h e o r i g i n o f SP from P l a t o ' s d e g r e e s - o f r e a l i t y thesis and his corresponding lack of any types-ofreality thesis.
"TMA", p. 246.
In short,
153
V ) AN A L T E R N A T I V E A P P R O A C H : CORNFORD
154
P l a t o i s n o t r e v e a l i n g h i s b a f f l e m e n t a t t h e T.MA, n o r i s
he revising an'older, self-predicative theory of Forms,
nor i s he chastising those who would have thought him naive
enough to endorse SP. Here Plato, or more s p e c i f i c a l l y ,
Plato's Socrates, i s an innocent victim, unfairly routed by
an overly contentious, misunderstanding Parmenides. I f this
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p r e v a i l s , many o f the claims o f a l l three
camps o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n are undercut, since there i s nothing
inherently wrong about the theory of Forms Parmenides
attacks.
This position i s maintained by the noted philologist
Francis Macdonald Cornford, i n his Plato and Parmenides.*
I t i s a sort of preliminary hurdle which must be cleared i f
t h e r e d u c t i o - r e a d i n g o f t h e d i a l o g u e , which I am a d v o c a t i n g ,
i s to be established. In the following, I shall attempt to
show how Cornford's reading o f Parmeni des p t . 1 i s i l l supported: one can only make sense o f the argument o f
Parmeni des i f some element i n the theory o f Forms under
discussion i s genuinely contradictory. This narrows the
i n t e r p r e t i v e p o s s i b i l i t i e s down t o two: a pro-reductio
reading of the dialogue, or the sort of anti-reductio
reading championed by Vlastos and Geach.
ii)because
^Ibid., p. 70.
3Ibid.,
pp. 74-75.
PLEASE NOTE:
This page not included with
original material. Filmed as
received.
guishes between
i i ) things defined
4Ibid.,
pp. 75-76.
51bid..
pp. 85,98.
B) Critique of Cornford.
p. 76.
160
tativeness of any philosophical position advanced i n a dia
logue, and suggests caution i n dividing theory from
metaphor and dramatic flourish. Logos and muthos coexist
i n P l a t o . The logos o f the anamnEsi s myth seems t o be t h a t
a l l knowing necessitates a t a c i t grasp, a recognition or
intuition
Given Socrates'
164
I t i s wrong to think
Self-predication is not
165
Consider the differences, however:
129b-c:
He i s suggest
i n g t h a t t h e r e i s no. s e n s e i n w h i c h One c a n b e m a n y o r M a n y
one.
The f a c t t h a t t h i s
of the dialogue:
He i n c o r r e c t l y
Were
C)
It
as self-predicative, and
This
168
As i n Phaedo,
this implies
o f t h e o n t o l o g i c a l d i f f e r e n c e i n P a r m e n i d e s , i t i_s t h e
difference.
When F o r m s a r e u n d e r s t o o d s o l e l y i n t e r m s o f
169
perfectly self-predicative --a pure instance of i t s e l f
and nothing else.
We w o u l d c o m e t o " u n d e r s t a n d " p a r t i c u l a r s
I f self-predication f a l l s , so do the
In essesce, by
Such encouragement
If
170
informal, i f not "textbook", reductios on this theory.
This i s not to say that Socrates e x p l i c i t l y endorsed a
self-predicationist theory.
Vlastos is correct in
But
D)
Conclusion
171
that of Inequality.
He b e l i e v e s
I n any event,
E v e n i f we d i d l i t e r a l l y " r e c o l l e c t "
172
That i s the chief concern of Parmenides p t . 1: to
ascertain j u s t what type of r e a l i t y a Form i s .
Socrates'
And i t i s t h i s
Plato
i i ) The
This, obviously,
173
t
either
I t does not
Socrates' Theory i s
Thus Parmenides'
Whether those i m p l i c i t
In
174
V I ) SETTING AND CROSS-REFERENCES
Many strands i n the present account o f the
Parmenides are beginning to converge; therefore i t would be
a p p r o p r i a t e t o p a u s e a n d s u r v e y ' t h e g r o u n d we h a v e c o v e r e d .
Despite the inconclusiveness of the present
analytic debate over self-predication and paradigmatism,
there are a number o f t h i n g s which seem t o strengthen
the pro-reductio reading o f the TMA, and thus p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y
weaken the C r i t i c a l or anti-reductio interpretation.
Chapter IV
Parmeni des.*
I f this i s so
t h e n we s h o u l d e x p e c t P a r m e n i d e s *
176
Ch. IV , one would c e r t a i n l y expect some s o r t o f counter
attack against Parmenides.
I f one examines more closely the details of
Cornford's "Phaedo theory" and i t s partial reflection
i n 128e-130a, one can see that i t invites the criticisms
directed against i t by Parmenides. I f the separateness
between Forms and particulars i s determined only by the
Forms not exemplifying contrary characteristics, then a
difference i n ontological type between Forms and p a r t i
culars has not been secured. Thus i t would be permissible
f o r Parmenides to i n t e r p r e t - - o r misinterpret-- the Forms
as atomic intel1igibles, self-predicative exemplars, perfect
instances, and so on. A l l of Parmenides' arguments --the
analogy of the s a i l , the unknowabi1ity of the Forms-presuppose such a conception o f Forms and are e n t i r e l y
successful against i t . Parmenides* arguments show t h a t one
cannot conceive o f Forms as atomic i n t e l l i g i b l e s , perfect
p a r t i c u l a r s , e t c . , a n d h a v e F o r m s do. w h a t t h e y d o . : i m p a r t
i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y t o p a r t i c u l a r s and thus make knowledge
possible.Thus he i s showing the absurdity of such a
conception of Forms, revealing i t s hidden contradictions.
I f Parmenides i s misconceiving the Forms (e.g. Cornford:
by "physicalizing" them), then i t i s only because the
"atomic" conception o f Forms i s i t s e l f misconceived, a
misconception fostered by the dialogue's youthful Socrates.
The Parmenides i s a masterpiece of dramatic i r o n y ,
177
178
petard. In a dialogue f i l l e d with such ironies as these, the
s o r t o f r e d u c t i o I h a v e t a k e n t h e TMA t o b e w o u l d b e q u i t e
a t home.
There are other " l i t e r a r y " h i n t s t h a t the TMA,
indeed the whole dialogue, i s an extended reductio ad
absurdum on seemingly p l a u s i b l e p o s i t i o n s . One such
hint i s the co-presence, along with Parmenides, of Zeno,
an embodiment o f i r o n y and paradox, and the name most f r e q u e n t l y
associated with the reductio ad absurdum. Commentators
l i k e Cornford and Taylor are correct i n seeing Zeno, i n
Parmenides, as the loyal disciple of Parmenides, constructing
a via negativa toward Eleatic monism by systematically
refuting doctrines a t odds with Parmenides' via affirmativa.
179
absurdum technique ( i . e . , to prove , assert - and
show t h a t - e n t a i l s a contradiction, - , therefore
j)) would be hard to f i n d . But Zeno complains t h a t Socrates
h a s " n o t q u i t e s e e n t h e r e a l c h a r a c t e r o f my b o o k " ( 1 2 8 c ) ,
thus making his role i n the dialogue more paradoxical and
ambiguous: i s Zeno a convinced E l e a t l c , or a mere
"controversialist"?
. . . there i s a point you have missed
a t the outset. The book makes no pretense o f the f a c t
t h a t i t was w r i t t e n w i t h the purpose you describe, as
i f deception were something t o be proud o f . What you
have pointed out i s only i n c i d e n t a l . . . I t was
w r i t t e n i n t h a t c o n t r o v e r s i a l s p i r i t i n my y o u n g
days; and someone copied i t s u r r e p t i t i o u s l y , so t h a t
I had not even the chance to consider whether i t should
see the l i g h t or not. That i s where you are mistaken,
Socrates; you imagine i t was i n s p i r e d , not by a youthful
eagerness for controversy, but by the more dispassionate
aims of an older man; though as I said, your des
c r i p t i o n o f i t was not f a r wrong. (128c, d-e)
One w a y t o g l o s s t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e a b o v e
passage i s to maintain, with Cornford, that Plato i s
making Zeno look l i k e a "mere Sophist",
. . . a c o n t r o v e r s i a l i s t ( antilogikos),
w i t h the demagogue and f o r e n s i c o r a t o r , who can make
t h e same a c t i o n s e e m r i g h t o r w r o n g a s t h e y p l e a s e .
A l l t h i s i s described i n Phaedrus 261d as a rhetorical
a r t of deception, ignorant of the truth and going i n
chase of mere b e l i e f . 3
To substantiate t h i s assimilation o f Zeno t o
Sophism, Cornford cites the fact that "neither Plato nor
A r i s t o t l e treats Zeno as a serious philosopher or
180
181
. l e f t . i n . f a c t , Seneca t e l l s us that Zeno, i n con
trast to Parmenides, mainatined that "nothing
exists'.1 (Letter 88). 5
Hyland views Zeno's methods and "doctrines" as the
sign of a deep skeptical, rather than Sophistical, temperment.
T h a t a p h i l o s o p h i c a l s k e p t i c m i g h t m a k e common c a u s e w i t h
a staunch, d o c t r i n a i r e monist i s not surprising when one
considers how p l i a b l e skepticism has been throughout the
centuries: consider the u t i l i t y of skeptical argument i n
support of a l l kinds of opposed viewpoints i n postReformation r e l i g i o u s disputes. To i l l u s t r a t e h i s p o i n t
Hyland uses the apposite analogy of a f i d e i s t and an
a t h e i s t . T h e l a t t e r m i g h t s e e m t o m a k e common c a u s e w i t h t h e
former, insofar as he shares with the former a conviction
about the unreasonableness of belief i n God. But, on
closer i n s p e c t i o n , i t seems t h a t h i s differences w i t h
the f i d e i s t c u t much deeper. Thus Zeno i s a " d i s c i p l e " of
Parmenides only insofar as his negative theses might be used
to support Parmenides' positive theses. But t h i s does not
constitute a successful defense of Parmenides: "a genuine
defense would o f course require that he prove Parmenides
right."6
Plato i s exploiting Zeno's rather ambiguous
reputation (confirmed by Seneca, Simplicius, and Plutarch)
i n the service of an important point. Plato uses his
Socrates and Zeno to convey the power of the reductio
5
61bid-,
p. 206.
t h e s i s . And t h i s f a i l u r e of Parmenides i s i r o n i c a l l y
recapitulated i n p t . 2 , where as W.G. Runciman comments,
Parmenides merely makes e x i s t e n t i a l statements about
t o hen and then simply denies them. The r e s u l t i s an
e n t i r e l y barren d i a l e c t i c , which makes no meaningful
contributions to a true understanding of to hen.
185
. . . i t m u s t b e w i t h m o r e t h a n a p e r s o n a l
reference i n mind t h a t P l a t o selected j u s t t h i s name
f o r the youthful companion o f Theaitetos. The features
of Theaitetos --snub nose and bulging eyes-- resemble
those o f Socrates. Young Socrates bears the master's
name. And the discovery reported by Theaitetos had
come t o them i n j o i n t discussion (dialegomenois, 147d7)
- - i . e . , dialogue-- after their teacher, Theodoros,
had " o u t l i n e d " f o r them the problem t h a t had become
the starting point for their discussion. 9
Much i s made o f Socrates' youth i n Parmenides, and
most o f the references t o his youth are somewhat patronizing
( e . g . , 130e, 135d). Yet even i n Parmenides, there are clear
signs of something more than a "youthful eagerness f o r
controversy" (128e) i n Socrates.- There are the seeds of
philosophical discovery evident in his "analogy of the day"
(131b), which effectively overrides Parmenides' objections
to the Forms, although Parmenides imprudently brushes this
analogy aside. In short, the Parmenides reveals a youthful
Socrates(one lacking the abilities to grasp subtle dis
tinctions and to argue successfully), but also a young
Socrates: posessed of a desire to determine the truth of
things (and already, in a way, posessed of the truth about
the Forms), Socrates shows great p o t e n t i a l , potential which
even Parmenides lacks.
Theatetus and young Socrates of the Statesman stand
i n a position analogous to that of young Socrates i n the
P a r m e n i d e s . P o s e s s e d o f v a g u e , c o n f u s e d n o t i o n s , some f o r m
of intellectual "midwifery" prods them, despite i n i t i a l
Ibid., pp. 280-81; quote from p. 153.
187
aporia concerning knowledge.Parmenides p t . 1 draws no
substantive, explicit conclusions about the true nature of
Forms, Part 1 ends, as does Theatetus, with an exhortation
to "try to conceive afresh".
This supports the pro-reductio reading of Parmenides
i n a number of ways. Theatetus, young Socrates i n the
Statesman. and the youthful Socrates i n Parmenides a l l pass
from ignorance to the possibility of insight through a
harsh dialectical critique of their convictions. For each
of them, and for us as readers, the dialectical c r i t i q u e
evokes, or points the way toward a resolution o f the
problem, or at least toward a tentative stopping-place of
insight in a potentially "infinite conversation".on the
subject.*0 The parallels between t h i s dialogical structure
i n the Theatetus and the Statesman and the Parmenides
suggest that a true - - o r a t least a more adequate-- vision
of the Forms i s being evoked i n the l a t t e r dialogue, much
as an adequate conception of knowledge i s suggested by
Theatetus and a real grasp of statesmanship by the
Statesman. This undermines Vlastos's interpretation of
Parmenides as "a record of honest perplexity". Although
Plato i s not e x p l i c i t about what i s to be rejected i n 128e130a, explicitness i s not always his distinguishing mark.
He evokes a r e a l i z a t i o n i n the reader t h a t s e l f - p r e d i c a t i o n
i s to be rejected. Such evocativeness i s not found
*J.H. Randall, Dramatist of the L i f e of Reason
( N e w Y o r k : C o l u m b i a U n i v . P r . , 1 9 7 T T , PP 4 - 5 .
188
i n the l a t e r dialogues alone. I t l i e s within a l l the themes
of the e a r l i e r aporetic dialogues, such as friendship i n the
Lysis, courage i n Laches. holiness i n Euthyphro, sophrosune
i n Charmides, and so on; evocativeness goes hand-in-hand
w i t h a p o r i a . One way t o evoke a t r u e understanding o f Forms,
t o p o i n t the way toward an i n t u i t i v e grasp o f t h e i r n a t u r e ,
i s to reduce to absurdity a distorted vision of Forms, i n
much the same way i n which the aporiae o f L y s i s , Charmides,
Euthyphro show, rather than say what friendship, moderation,
holiness a r e . * 1 A reductio-reading o f P t . 1 makes sense o f
t h i s e f f e c t i v e l i t e r a r y technique commonly used by P l a t o :
the technique of indirectness, evocation.
There i s yet another interesting cross-reference
i n Plato's Parmenides. The incident depicted i n Parmenides
i s alluded to twice elsewhere i n Plato's work : i n
Sophist 217c, and Theatetus 183e. In both cases i t i s
Socrates who r e c a l l s the i n c i d e n t , and i n both cases he
expresses his profound respect for Parmenides:
SOCRATES ( ^ r e s p o n d i n g t o T h e a t e t u s ' r e q u e s t
t o discuss "those others who assert t h a t the whole o f
t h i n g s i s a t r e s t ] : A f e e l i n g o f r e s p e c t k e e p s me
from t r e a t i n g i n an unworthy s p i r i t Melissus and the
others who say the universe i s one and a t r e s t , but
t h e r e i s o n e b e i n g whom I r e s p e c t a b o v e a l l . P a r m e n i d e s
himself i s i n my eyes, as Homer says, a 'reverend and
a w f u l ' f i g u r e . I met him when I was q u i t e young and he
q u i t e e l d e r l y , and I thought there was a s o r t o f
depth i n him t h a t was altogether noble. (Theatetus 183e)
This metaphor i s Wittgenstein's. For the best
short treatment of Wittgenstein's saying/showing distinction
t h a t I know o f , see James C. Edwards, Ethics Without Philosophy
(Tampa: Univ. Presses of Florida, 1982) ,esp. Chs. I I and IV.
189
SOCRATES C t o s t r a n g e r ] : Do n o t d e n y u s ,
t h e n , t h e f i r s t f a v o r we a s k T i . e . , t o d i s c o u r s e o n
the names "Sophist. Statesman, Philosopher"}. Which
do you commonly p r e f e r - - t o discourse a t length by
yourself on any matter you wish t o make c l e a r , or t o
use the method of asking questions, as Parmenides
h i m s e l f d i d o n o n e o c c a s i o n i n d e v e l o p i n g some
m a g n i f i c e n t i d e a s i n my p r e s e n c e , w h e n I w a s y o u n g
and he a quite elderly man. (Sophist 217c)
There are a number of c u r i o s i t i e s i n the above
passages. I n both the Sophist and the Theatetus excerpts,
Socrates stresses the age-difference between Parmenides and
himself a t the time o f the Parmenides i n c i d e n t . I t seems
important for Plato to transmit through the words of
Socrates the f a c t t h a t Parmenides was o l d a t the time o f
the encounter, and Socrates quite young, and that Socrates
now posesses the age and experience once posessed by the
victor of that debate. This has, I think, a twofold effect;
f i r s t , i t s o f t e n s some o f t h e h a r s h e r c r i t i c i s m s o f
Parmenides which follow (237a, 241d ff.,258c f f . ) ; second
i t i s suggestive of Socrates' advance beyond philosophical
adolescence and his own, self-conscious appreciation of this
advance, almost as i f he were insinuating "were Parmenides
here today, the discussion would be quite d i f f e r e n t . "
Furthermore, i t i s noteworthy that although Socrates
praises Parmenides' acumen and b e l i t t l e s himself by comparison,
he s t i l l believes i n the Forms, Forms which Parmenides i s
supposed to have "refuted" i n Pt. 1. This suggests t h a t , for
Plato's Socrates, the true lesson of the earlier encounter
w i t h Parmenides was not t h a t the Forms were themselves
190
moribund (because the older Socrates s t i l l believes i n them),
but t h a t the theory i n 128e-130a was too raw, brash, and
contradictory. The older and wiser Socrates respects
Parmenides' critique of Forms, but he has not embraced
Eleaticism; he has "started afresh" and found a workable
theory of Forms.
12
In these dialogues,
On P a r m e n i d e s * b r a s h n e s s a n d S o c r a t e s ' n a i v e t e ,
see Kenneth Sayre, Plato's Late Ontology (Princeton:
Princeton Univ. Pr., 1983), pp. 18-20.
191
seems I n e v i t a b l y t o be p a r t o f the deceptive "Way o f
Seeming". But despite a l l t h a t , Parmenides manages t o
"dialogue" quite a b i t --nowhere more than i n the
Parmenides. True, his arguments (taking their cue from
Zeno) are uniformly d e s t r u c t i v e . But i t would seem t h a t t h i s
contentious style of argument, followed through consistently
to the end, would leave one with nothing to say, not even
Parmenides. Parmenides, hardly a professor of antilogike"
l i k e t h e S o p h i s t s , d o e s w i s h t o e s t a b l i s h some p o s i t i v e
thesis, one which "limns the true and ultimate structure
of reality"
13
13
dialogue.
In Sophist 216a, the Eleatic Stranger i s described
as a member o f the school o f Parmenides and Zeno. Yet
his c r i t i c i s m , beneath the courtesy and respect for
Parmenides always i n strong supply, i s often s t r i k i n g l y
caustic. Consider:
STRANGER: I t s t r i k e s me t h a t P a r m e n i d e s a n d
everyone else who has set out t o determine how many
real things there are and what they are l i k e , have
discoursed to us i n rather an offhand fashion.
THEATETUS: How s o ?
STRANGER: T h e y e a c h a n d a l l s e e m t o t r e a t u s
a s c h i l d r e n t o whom t h e y a r e t e l l i n g a s t o r y . . . ( 2 4 2 c )
The Stranger continues by making a thumbnail sketch
of the history o f metaphysics up to that p o i n t , including
i n h i s d e s c r i p t i o n P a r m e n i d e s ' c o n t e n t i o n t h a t " w h a t we c a l l
a l l things' are only one thing". His sketch i s mildly
sarcastic, depicting Parmenides, Empedocles, and others
a s p u r v e y o r s o f t a l l t a l e s , o r c h i l d r e n ' s s t o r i e s . He
sums up by n o t i n g t h a t although i t would be i n "bad t a s t e "
to fault such i l l u s t r i o u s metaphysicians and cosmologists,
each o f them shows contempt f o r "ordinary people l i k e
ourselves" by f a i l i n g to explain clearly what they mean.
This "lack of c l a r i t y " about the meaning of to on
launches a systematic critique of Parmenides' doctrines on
Being and not-Being - - i n short, his position on i n t e l l i g i
b i l i t y . This, as I have argued, i s the locus of controversy
193
i n both parts of the Parmenides: the clash of two radically
d i f f e r e n t views on the nature and scope of i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y .
The Stranger, i n developing h i s c r i t i q u e , seems t o v i n d i c a t e
Plato's "integral pluralism" against the sound objections
voiced by Parmenides against 128e-130a. The inclusion o f
" D i f f e r e n c e " among the megista gene (254b f f . ) allows
for an inchoate distinction between the " i s " of identity
and the " i s " of predication, thus rendering moot the
Parmenidean strictures against informative discourse con
cerning "what i s n o t " . This makes a P l u r a l i t y of Forms
( i n which a p l u r a l i t y of particulars participate) an
i n t e l l i g i b l e notion, effectively refuting Parmenides'
conviction t h a t i t i s not i n t e l l i g i b l e . The broad o u t l i n e s
of the Stranger's ontology supply the element missing i n
P a r m e n i d e s 1 2 8 e - 1 3 0 a : k o i n o n i a am ong t h e F o r m s . T h i s
e f f e c t i v e l y refutes the "atomic" conception of Forms
voiced by young Socrates; t h i s i n turn does away w i t h the
idea that what ontologically distinguishes Form
particular
from
194
high-grade particulars, and a l l the Parmenidean paradoxes
about being and non-being would apply. For example, i f , s a y ,
VSamenessV w a s a " p e r f e c t p a r t i c u l a r " , h o w c o u l d i t b e
understood to be "Different" from anything else? Only
Difference would be d i f f e r e n t , and only Sameness the same.
This i s absurd, and the Stranger lampoons i t i n 251 b-c.
14
15
195
Similarly, the Theatetus raises epistemologlcal questions
which mirror the more logical and metaphysical issues of
the Parmenides. The Theatetus t r i e s --and " f a i l s " - - to
answer the question o f how f a l s e judgement i s p o s s i b l e ,
given that one's mind cannot be related to or know "what
i s n o t " . The Parmenidean overtones o f t h i s issue are un->
deniable and recognized e x p l i c i t l y i n the dialogue (180e,
183a). Yet, l i k e the Parmeni des, the Theatetus has i t s
aporiae overcome i n the Sophist: given the two ways one can
construe Being and not-being (the predicative-is and the
i d e n t i t y - i s , the is-not of difference and the Parmenidean,
absolute i s - n o t ) , one can construe false judgement i n terms
6f the mind's relation to what i s , rather than what i s not.
Error i s wrongly saying of what i s something different from
what a c t u a l l y i s . E r r o r i s made i n t e l l i g i b l e as saying
something different from that which i s the case. Again,
a problem rooted i n the Parmenidean theory of i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y
i s overcome by showing, as Friedlander put i t , i t s
too-
197
V I I ) A R E A D I N G OF P A R M E N I D E S , P A R T O N E .
as e f f e c t i v e or i n e f f e c t i v e , and as r i g h t or wrong.
depiction
198
tremendous symbolic importance the figure of Socrates plays
p
i n Plato's l i f e and work . "Young Socrates" remains,
after a l l , "Socrates. "
Second, i t i s never entirely clear, i n the dialogue,
whether Parmenides' criticism proceeds from assumptions
common t o both Socrates and h i m s e l f , o r whether he i s
proceeding from assumptions foreign to Socrates-, though they
go unrecognized by the l a t t e r .
In short, i t is unclear
The fear
199
indeed, be necessary to preserve meaningful discourse.
This i s something that the historical Parmenides would not
do ( q . v . Ch IV o f the present w o r k ) , and seems t o compromise
what t o t h a t p o i n t seemed an uncompromising h o s t i l i t y
to the Forms. Hence the tone of Parmenides-, unlike that o f ,
say, Republic I or Euthyphro, i s not confident or final,
but puzzling and inconclusive --an ambiance enhanced by Pt. 2 ,
a d i a l e c t i c which seems t o go nowhere. How, t h e n , should we
take the arguments of Part 1?
Kenneth Sayre, i n his recent work PIato' s Late Onto!ogy,
gives a very prescient response t o t h i s question; unlike many
analytic commentators, Sayre does not neglect the l i t e r a r y
medium i n which philosophical argument i s expressed, and sees
b e t t e r than most commentators t h a t there i s more than one way
i n which an argument can do i t s work. Sayre speaks of
. . . a n e r r o r some commentators would n o t be prepared
to acknowledge. Simply stated, the error i s that of taking
P l a t o ' s arguments a t surface value when the context
i n d i c a t e s t h a t they should be taken otherwise. . . One
pervasive form o f t h i s e r r o r i s t o assume t h a t Plato
endorsesthe conclusion of every argument he puts i n t o the
mouths of his main protagonists. . .Another form i s to
assume t h a t Plato intends a l l arguments articulated by
his protagonists to be l o g i c a l l y t i g h t and philosophically
sound. This assumption rules out construing any argument
by a major protagonist as having primarily an elenctic
or r h e t o r i c a l r o l e , e i t h e r o f which would make i t i n
appropriate to take Plato to task for producing a
"bad" argument. . .
The most deceptive form of t h i s e r r o r , however,
i s a combination of the two above. This i s t o assume t h a t
whenever a major protagonist develops an extended argument
for (or against) a philoaophic thesis, Plato himself
a c c e p t s ( o r r e j e c t s ) t h a t t h e s i s on_ t h e b a s i s o f t h a t
specific argument. 3
Sayre goes on t o show t h a t various i n t e r p r e t i v e
positions on the Parmenides embody these e r r o r s : Cherniss.
3
K e n n e t h S a y r e , P I a t o ' s L a t e O n t o ! og.y ( P r i n c e t o n :
Princeton Univ. Pr., 1983), pp. 18-19.
200
who seeks t o explain how Plato could have continued t o
believe i n the Forms a f t e r leaving the objections of
.4
Parmenides unanswered,
d e f i c i e n c i e s i n t h e TMA i n o r d e r t o u n d e r s c o r e P l a t o ' s
"honest perplexity", both f a i l to see the rhetorical
role of Parmenides' arguments.
Sayre elaborates:
p. 19
201
from particulars (and each other), and i n section E below,
I believe that I have demonstrated that any account of Forms
which i n s i s t s on absolute separation i s not merely trouble
some but absolutely incoherent, since p a r t i c i p a t i o n , the
f i r s t and foremost element i n understanding what the Forms
are and what they do, cannot be reconciled with i t .
But
Parmenides
The Apologist,
202
P l a t o ' s i n t e n t i o n t o show t h a t the Forms which Parinenides
destroys are mere caricatures of Forms.
this:
Socrates,
he
He i s
dialogues.
203
I w i l l l e t Sayre have the f i n a l word on the overall
tone of the dialogue:
Parmenides'
arguments are highly schematic and
far from conclusive --not at a l l the kind of con
sideration t h a t would induce Plato t o make a major
theoretical revision so l a t e i n his career. For another,
they involve a number of rhetorical t r i c k s that Parmenides
pulls on an overawed Socrates, of a sort more characteristic
of the eristic dialogues of the middle period than of
the sober later dialogues. Most importantly, however, the
arguments are put forward and passed by without dialactical
examination o f the s o r t we have learned t o associate
with the solid results of the Theatetus and the Sophist.
Socrates i n Parmenides I does not have the acuity of
Theatetus, nor Parmenides the candor of the Eleatic
Stranger. A l l i n a l l , the interchange between the
aged master and the youthful novice i s a display more
of eristic than of philosophical argument. 8
The purpose o f t h i s e r i s t i c b a t t l e i s , I take i t ,
t o t r e a t new and serious d i f f i c u l t i e s involved i n a
discussion o f Forms, and t o suggest a way of. t h i n k i n g about
Forms which w i l l c l a r i f y and perhaps supercede these d i f
ficulties.
B) The Range o f Forms (130 a - e ) . After o u t l i n i n g
his theory of Forms i n 128e-130a, Socrates i s met with
"glances and smiles i n admiration" from Parmenides and
Zeno. Pythodoros, another i n t e r l o c u t o r , was n o t expecting
t h i s , nor the praise by Parmenides of Socrates' "eagerness
f o r d i s c u s s i o n . " On t h e one hand, we m i g h t t a k e Parmenides"
amd Zeno's a f f e c t i o n f o r Socrates' i n q u i s i t i v e v i g o r as a
sign of ordinary, commendable i n t e l l e c t u a l courtesy - - a
perception that in philosophical matters, questioning,
rather than answering, i s what matters. But there i s a
81bid.,
pp..22-23.
204
slightly patronizing halo surrounding their smiles:
Socrates
The
i f my
to
Socrates then
205
reverting to a discussion of those things of which he i s
sure Forms exist ( e . g . , Unity, Justice, e t c . ) - - upon which
Parmenides comments:
. . . you are s t i l l young, Socrates, and philosophy has
not taken hold of you so firmly as I believe i t w i l l
someday. You w i l l not despise any o f these objects then;
but a t present your youth makes you s t i l l pay attention t o
what the world w i l l think. (130e)
The above i s a puzzling mixture of accurate prediction,
i n c i s i v e commentary about Socrates' hesitation on mud, h a i r ,
and d i r t , and patronizing hauteur. But what philosophical
capital i s Plato trying to gain through Parmenides' insistent
questioning?
I think i t i s t h i s . Parmenides recognizes that
Socrates appeals to the Forms to secure a workable
account of i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y which i s significantly opposed
to his own. Against Parmenides, Socrates proposes a
plurality of noita --besides Unity, there is Plurality,
and Likeness-- and an account o f how s e n s i b i l i a ,
or
206
Forms are fixed and stable, while particulars are everchanging. That t h i s echoes Parmenides' own metaphysics i s
clear enough, but unlike Parmenides, Socrates does not
wish t o consign p a r t i c u l a r s e n s i b i l i a to "the way o f
seeming", i . e . , to reduce Becoming to non-being. The
p o i n t o f 128e-130a seems t o be t h a t Parmenides'
Being/non-being dichotomy i s not the only way t o make
sense out of i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y . Parmenides, however, would
tend to view the modification of his theses about the
u n i t a r y changelessness o f Being ( i n the service o f some
sort of p l u r a l i s t i c , degrees-of-reality metaphysics) as
s e r i o u s l y confused. Hence h i s attempt t o f i n d some
loophole, where the demands t h a t Forms be a p l u r a l i t y of
i n t e l l i g i b i 1 i a and the demands that they c o n s t i t u t e a
higher echelon o f Being show some signs o f s t r e s s o r c o n f l i c t .
Hence the short interlude concerning the range of
Forms. Socrates r e l i e s on the Forms, as a sort of explanatory
g
o r " a i t i o l o g i c a l " model, t o i l l u s t r a t e how many things can
e x h i b i t or r e f l e c t many i n t e l l i g i b l e q u a l i t i e s , properties,
and relations. Yet he defines the ontological difference
between Forms and p a r t i c u l a r s i n terms which can be reduced
to a degree-difference: particulars, in varying degrees,
exhibit contrary characteristics, while Forms, "pure" as they
are, do not. This can be merely a quantitative difference,
although i t need not be --a point the neglect of which w i l l
j e o p a r d i z e S o c r a t e s ' p o s i t i o n i n TMA v e r s i o n s 1 a n d 2 .
g
I owe the use o f t h i s term t o John Caputo, Heidegger
and Aquinas (New York: Fordham Univ. P r . , 1982), p . 6 .
There i s no problem of
This issue i s
Hence
seriously.
The irony i n that f i n a l b i t of fatherly advice
should not be missed:
the Forms
Put
Although Parmenides
209
A final word on the range of Forms: the Parmenides
does not settle the issue of the range of Forms, but i t
suggests, I think, that for epistemological purposes i t
i s best to view i t as universal. In other dialogues,
early and l a t e , Plato does not merely r e s t r i c t the Forms
t o t h e summa g e n e r a a n d m o r a l - p o l i t i c a l n o r m s : t h e r e i s
mention of natural-kind Forms i n Theatetus, Phi1ebus, and
Timaeus, and even mention of Forms of a r t i f a c t s i n
Republi c (the "Third Bed") and Cratylus 389a. I n
Republic 596a f f . , the craftsman "looks to the Form" i n
fashioning his handiwork. Whether Plato took these
seriously or as casual asides i s , perhaps, the wrong
question to ask: i t would be better to ask for what
purpose one should take a universal range of Forms seriously.
A universal range of Forms --discounting privative notions
such as " e v i l " and " i n j u s t i c e " - - seems t o be epi stemologi c a l l y
f r u i t f u l , in l i g h t of the interchange with Parmenides:
how else can the i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y o f the sensible order
be safeguarded? But however relevant a universal range
of Forms might be to epistemology, insight i n t o the
" t r i v i a l and undignified" via t h e i r eide i s certainly not
held worthy of sustained treatment by Plato: i t i s not
the kind of know!edge worthy of our pursuit. I n sum,
a wide range of Forms might be an epistemological necessity,
but very l i t t l e of consequence for the systematic love of
wisdom i s gained by dwelling f o r too long on such niceties
of the theory of knowledge.^
210
C) I n i t i a l objections to participation (130e-131e).
Parmenides zeroes i n on a potential loophole i n Socrates'
theory of Forms: he prompts Socrates assent to the idea that
p a r t i c u l a r s "partake" (metalambanonta) i n Forms and are thus
"called a f t e r t h e i r names" (tas eponumias auton ischein); thus
through partaking in Justness, Largeness, Beauty, or Likeness,
things become j u s t , l a r g e , b e a u t i f u l , or a l i k e . But t h i s ,
Parmenides asserts, seriously conpromises a Form's unity,
a prerequisite i n Socrates' theory (129a) and an obsessive
concern o f Parmenides* own o n t o l o g y . I f a Form, as a whole
or a u n i t y , i s present i n every one of i t s participants, then
i t i s somehow separate from, i t s e l f . But i f only p a r t o f a
given Form i s present to any given participant, i t i s
d i f f i c u l t t o see how Forms order and u n i f y p a r t i c u l a r s , o r
grant them a measure of i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y : they would not
resolve the problem of the One-over-many.
On t h e s u r f a c e , t h i s seems t o be a gross e r r o r on
Parmenides' part: as Cornford puts i t , he understands
" ' p a r t ' and 'whole' i n their most gross and material
sense."
11
F.M. Cornford, Plato and Parmenides (Indianapolis:
B o b b s - M e r r i 1 1, n . d . ) , p . 8 5 .
211
at all.
To repeat:
Furthermore, in denying
Parmenides i s merely
212
his ontological difference i n terms which have nothing to
do with "contrary characteristics".
In support of this reading, consider the following
elements of 130e-131e:
1) i n 130e, Parmenides commands Socrates' assent t o
the point that particulars, i n coming to partake i n the
Forms, are " c a l l e d a f t e r t h e i r names ( i . e . , the Forms'
names)". This i s a nearly verbatim quote of Phaedo 102b
- - a n obvious reference. This would seem t o imply t h a t
Forms are a special order of p a r t i c u l a r , one to which,
t o use modern p a r l a n c e , common nouns and d e s c r i p t i v e
terms r e f e r . I n f a c t , these can be legitimately viewed
as the proper names o f Forms. Parmenides, and Socrates
through h i s argument, both seem t o be invoking the
Phaedo' s authority i n defense of a highly particular-ized
account of the Forms.
But t h i s reliance on the Phaedo i s , as I have argued,
misplaced. The excursus on Equality (74a f . ) does not
show that only Equality i s a p e r f e c t l y equal t h i n g , but
rather that no two particulars are ever absolutely
equal, and that Equality i s perfectly i n t e l l i g i b l e as
E q u a l i t y - i t s e l f . Furthermore, the Phaedo does not
demonstrate that Equality-itself cannot combine with other
Forms; i t only shows that while things i n t e l l i g i b l e as
equals can nevertheless be unequal i n another sense, the
intelligibility of Equality-itself is not that of Inequality.
13
213
Furthermore, at 103e, a few lines after the reference
above, P l a t o ' s Phaedo seems t o contradict the n o t i o n ,
conceded by Parmenides and Socrates, that descriptive
terms are the proper names o f Forms:
Thus
i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y jn. particulars.
Therefore Parmenides' arguments are inconclusive,
since they reveal a misinterpretation of the "Phaedo-theory".
Yet they are also forceful, since young Socrates, f i l l e d with
an elan near to the s p i r i t ( i f not the l e t t e r ) of the
Phaedo,
This seems t o i n d i c a t e
The Form
This
I am o n l y
Socrates'
216
217
artulated this difference adequately i n terms of oppositesand contraries. But the "rub" i s that t h i s secures only a
degree difference. Socrates, perhaps a b i t annoyed a t
what might seem to be an overly hasty dismissal o f h i s
analogy, nevertheless cannot respond to Parmenides'
petitio principii, his counter analogy of the s a i l . ^ ^
He cannot respond because he i s wrongly convinced t h a t he
has done an adequate job i n outlining and c l a r i f y i n g the
ontological difference, and nevertheless witnesses Parmenides'
savage attack on the Forms as i t proceeds from t h a t very
o u t l i n e . Thus Socrates, by remaining s i l e n t , prematurely
concedes defeat.
4) Both the i n i t i a l objections to participation
(130e-131e) and the previous section on the range of Forms
(130a-e) make a number of sophisticated c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s o f
d i f f e r e n t kinds o f eide. Yet i t seems as i f these c l a s
sifications are almost inadvertently conjured up by Plato's
protagonists, since they pay them absolutely no heed. This
gives an ironic twist to an otherwise intensely dialectical
stretch of the dialogue: had these classifications been
recognized by the protagonists, the dialogue would have
taken a different course.
I owe the formulation o f t h i s l i s t t o the i n s i g h t s
of Charles Bigger; i n his P a r t i c i p a t i o n , he distinguishes
between Transcendental, Constitutive, and Regulative Forms.
17Sayre,
218
"The Transcendental Ideas", Bigger comments
. . . constitute the fundamental principles of phil
osophic logic. They predicate with a l l things
and with themselves (Sophist 254c), and constitute the
modes of universal relatedness (communion) o f a l l
things, the forms of separation and mingling. 18
Although Parmenides' l i s t of Transcendental Forms i s not
n o t i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h a t o f t h e f i v e summa g e n e r a o f t h e S o p h i s t ,
i t i s close enough to postulate a t least a veiled reference
to the l a t t e r : e.g., 129 d-e: Like, Unlike, P l u r a l i t y , Motion,
Rest. The nature of transcendental Forms i s such that they
cannot be supposed not to be potentially predicable of any
t h i n g , p a r t i c u l a r or Form. This seems t o be the message o f
Sophist 254c: just as any p a r t i c u l a r can be said to be
"same as x " . " d i f f e r e n t from y " , and so on, so too can any
Form be said to be "same as i t s e l f " , " d i f f e r e n t from
Form Y", etc. --the Transcendentals themselves included. The
inclusion of these Forms as the l i s t of "atomic i n t e l l i g i b l e s "
i n 129 d-e i s a supreme irony: although no Form "combines"
o r p a r t i c i p a t e s i n o t h e r Forms i n the same way i n which
particulars combine with Forms, the Transcendentals, far
from being isolated and atomic, cannot be conceived not to
be interrelated with other.
A f u r t h e r d i s t i n c t i o n i s made i n 130b and 130c
between Constitutive Forms ( e . g . , Man, Water, Fire) and
Regulative Forms ( e . g . , Rightness, Beauty, Goodness). The
former "constitute" t h e i r instances by conferring a property
"wholly present" i n t h e i r instances ( e . g . , either x i s an
apple or i t i s n ' t ; and i f y does not posess the charac-
18
219
t e r i s t i c s of an apple, i t i s n ' t a deficient apple, but
something else), while the latter are standards against which
an instance can be evaluated as "more-or-1ess-X" ( e . g . ,
E u t h y p h r o i s 1e s s j u s t t h a n S o c r a t e s - - w h i c h i s n o t t o
say he i s unjust).
19
u s e f u l i n TMA v e r s i o n 1 , w o u l d h a v e b e e n h a n d y i n 1 3 1 c - d ,
Parmenides' consideration o f Largeness. The Form Largeness,
as the i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y of a relation, i s a sort of
Regulative Form ( a r e l a t i v e Regulative Form, rather than
an absolute Regulative Form, l i k e Justice). The property
"large" admits of qualifications, "more" or "less" large
( i n relation to x ) . But Parmenides i s set on treating i t as
i f i t was a Constitutive Form, the i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y o f a
property which is either there or i s n ' t there. This i s
surely foolish, but i t i s a foolishness that would not have
materialized had Parmenides and Socrates alike recognized
the important "Idea classes" dangling before their eyes.
Their neglect of these kinds of eide betrays a fatal lack
of subtlety in their treatment of participation, since
p a r t i c i p a t i o n means something d i f f e r e n t f o r each kind o f
Form. This only serves to further complicate an almost
hopelessly muddled debate.
19JLbi_d.,
pp. 80-84.
220
C) The TMA, version .1, 131e-132b. Because I
have, o u t l i n e d both Vlastos's and Weingartner*s formalization
of this argument, I shall not dwell on the formal struc
t u r e o f t h e TMA o r o n q u e s t i o n s o f i t s v a l i d i t y . A s i n
C h . I I , I s h a l l d e e m t h e TMA v a l i d , b u t o f q u e s t i o n a b l e
soundness. I believe Sayre i s right i n suggesting that the
q u e s t i o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e TMA i s d e l i b e r a t e i n t h a t i t s h o w s
how, on other grounds, Socrates' thinking about the Forms
i s flawed and needs to be revised.
20
21
T h e TMA i s l i t t l e m o r e t h a n a l o g i c a l l y p r e c i s e
20
21
221
expansion of the earlier criticisms of participation. I f
one Form disperses a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t o many p a r t i c u l a r s , and
the Form i t s e l f i s (the primary) exemplification of t h i s
characteristic, then that Form, along with a l l i t s instances,
participates i n a t h i r d Form, and so on. Herein l i e s the
reductio: Forms, which need to be the One-over-many, are
no longer one, but an i n d e f i n i t e multitude (ape.i ron
pi ethos). I t i s important to note that Plato did not see the
a b s u r d i t y u n m a s k e d b y t h e TMA i n t e r m s o f a n i n f i n i t e
regress: rather the Forms, instead of providing i n t e l l i g i b l e
l i m i t s t o the i n d e f i n i t e multitude (the kosmos a i s t h e t o s ) ,
are themselves i n d e f i n i t e , and hence poor principles of i n
t e l l i g i b i l i t y . The moral of the reductio would then be: i f
Forms, as Parmenides construes them through Socrates, are
"atomic intel1igibles" or exalted particulars, then they
both are and are not "One-over-many". Since t h i s i s a
contradiction, Forms cannot be what Parmenides and Socrates
take them to be --the theory of 128e-130a must be rethought.
The burden of this re-thinking f a l l s on the shoulders of the
perceptive reader.
I . M . Crombie summarizes a l l the agonies o f the TMA:
A l l Socrates' t r o u b l e s , then, come from
treating forms as i f they were individuals or con
crete entities. I t must be, I believe, significant
that the error i s fathered on to him by Parmenides,
and that he does not denounce i t . 22
Yet Parmenidesis able to "father" this error onto Socrates
only because Socrates' thesis on the Forms encourages him;
22
I remarked that i f
23
223
conceivable as particulars.
224
24
But such
225
F) Forms as "Originals", version 2 . Socrates,fading
f a s t , now reverts back t o h i s argument i n 131e-132b,
simply swapping methexis f o r mimeisis. But i f the Forms
are patterns or standards (paradeigmata) which particulars
approximate or imitate, then Form and instances must share
the imitated character, which would presuppose another Form
f o r the set of the f i r s t Form and i t s instances, and so on
indefinitely. Again the Forms, which impose a unity or l i m i t
(peras) on the indefinite multitude, are themselves
indefinitem and not unitary Ones-over-many.
The structure of version 2 i s identical with that
o f version 1 : although p a r t i c i p a t i o n has given way t o
i m i t a t i o n , what i s reduced to absurdity i s the same, the
idea of particularized, "thingly" Forms. A few fine points
should be noted:
1) Socrates i s more desparate i n 132c-133a, so
his argumentation i s understandably more ragged and
i n c o n s i s t e n t . As mentioned above, Forms are impossible
perfect particulars, since they would have to instantiate
one and only one property, the property they "are".
But t h i s i s l u d i c r o u s : could one conceive o f Man i n
isolation from Animality, or Animality in isolation from
Man and any o t h e r s p e c i f i c animal? Furthermore, version 2
lacks the modest virtue of version 1, i . e . , that al1
i n t e l l i g i b i l i t i e s are grounded i n Forms, since i t tries to
use one i n t e l l i g i b l e , Likeness, to explain what Forms are
and what p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s . By making Likeness "foundational"
226
i n t h i s respect, version 2 unmasks a monumental p e t i t i o
principii on Socrates's part: i f particulars participate i n
Forms by i m i t a t i n g , o r being images o f them, then how i s
t h i s Likeness-relation i n t e l l i g i b l e ? By a Form, Likeness?
But then how do a l l these instences o f i m i t a t i v e l i k e n e s s
participate i n Likeness? By being " l i k e " i t ? This i s
blatantly circular.
25
25
pf
227
essentially correct:
But although
If
How
But this
C o n s t i t u t i v e Forms e i t h e r inform a p a r t i c u l a r
i f x does not f u l f i l l the necessary and
228
not the Form which constitutes x as F, deficient or not.
T w o p r o b l e m s w i t h t h e TMA e m e r g e h e r e , i )
A particular could
The
27
ii)
Even i f one
some
One
both
27
229
G)
Parmenides ominously
i)
This,
i)
I f Parmenides can
ii)
Parmenides seems
230
"I_f you are goifig to set up a single Form f o r every
d i s t i n c t i o n . . . " and "The Forms, v f they are as we are
saying they must be, cannot be known" (emphasis mine).
The hypothetical premises i n Parmenides' arguments suggest
t h a t both he and Socrates may not simply be mistaken, but
m a y b e m i s t a k e n i n t h i n k i n g t h a t F o r m s a r e a s t h e y sa.y t h e y
are.
i n t h e l e s s l u d i c r o u s s t r e t c h e s o f p a r t 1 , s u c h a s i n TMA
version 1 (132a): " . . . t a k e largeness and the other things which
are large ^presupposing Largeness i s both large and a t h i n g ] . . .
s , a s e c o n d F o r m o f L a r g e n e s s w i l l a p p e a r . . . " ; a n d TMA
version 2 (133a): " r f the Form i s to be l i k e the thing which
partakes of i t . . . " (emphasis mine).
Parmenides1 bizarre speculations are, from one angle,
a reductio on what Sayre calls radical separationism.
Such separationism f a i l s for the very obvious reason:
28
it
Here, as elsewhere,
28
S a y r e , o p . c i t . , p p 1 9 , 2 2 a n d CH I p a s s i m .
231
isolation of one from the other, since a l l relations and
r e l a t a i n one world are o f the same type as those i n the
other, hence making separation result i n the u t t e r absence
of relations between worlds.
I r o n i c a l l y , by making Forms
H)
Conclusion to part 1:
134e-135c.
Parmenides sums
Plato
232
t r u e i s : t h a t the eidos P l u r a l i t y i s n o t the same eidos
as the ei dos Unity, and vice versa. They are d i f f e r e n t
i n t e l l i g i b i l i t i e s , and make p a r t i c i p a n t things d i f f e r e n t l y
i n t e l l i g i b l e . But Socrates' theory i n s i s t s on more than
'
t h i s : t h a t , e . g . , P l u r a l i t y i s n o t a_ u n i t y , m e a n i n g t h a t
there i s no "oneness" about i t . P l u r a l i t y i s P l u r a l i t y and
nothing else, i t s i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y unrelated to any other
u n t e l 1 i g i b i 1 i t y . Hence Socrates' "surprise" a t whoever could
"combine" the Forms with each other and then separate them.
His surprise steins from the f a c t t h a t , perhaps unin t e l tional l y ,
he has already conflated Forms with p a r t i c u l a r s , or to be
more precise, has confused the way i n whicha p a r t i c u l a r
might be absolutely "by i t s e l f " w i t h the way i n which Forms
a r e i n t e g r a l u n i t i e s . B u t F o r m s a r e in t e l l i g i b i 1 i a : o n e
determines the integrity of a Form, i t s unity-of-intelligibi1ity ,
by determining i t s contrasts and relations with other
intel1igibles.
29
By c o n t r a s t , a p a r t i c u l a r i s a u n i t y , or
OQ
233
Another peculiar passage, already alluded t o , i s 135c,
where Parmenides i n s i s t s that Forms are necessary to " f i x "
thought and maintain "the significance of a l l discourse".
I t i s p e c u l i a r because, i n l i g h t o f what was established
i n Chapter Iv , Parmenides himself would never have said i t .
F i r s t , Parmenides' views on i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y are monistic
rather than pluralistic:
i s pure Being, to hen.
i)
30
31
235
do so rather openly, while leaving the possibility of a
workable theory quite open.
signalling Plato's
Yet
As a mimesis, o r a r e - p r e s e n t a t i o n o f philosophy
Despite i t s
236
i s not u t t e r l y devoid of them, and i t s r e l a t i v e l y sparing
use of irony, e t c . , i s always put i n the service of evoking
i n the reader a sense of just what i s wrong with Socrates1/
Parmenides1 Forms, and j u s t how the dialogue has gone awry.
Plato i s t r y i n g to show his readers an important t r u t h
about Forms - - t h a t they are not "abstract individuals'', e t c .
--through the imaginative re-presentation of a conversation
whose participants are blind to t h i s t r u t h .
I do not think,
Both /Apologists
H e i_s^ b e i n g a r e s p o n s i b l e
I n the Phaedo,
The
not
237
time.
Because he f e l t the
He sought t o evoke
V I I I ) ON P A R T I C I P A T I O N AND S E P A R A T I O N
In this chapter I shall attempt to apply the
f r u i t s o f my t e x t u a l a n a l y s i s o f Parmeni des p a r t 1 t o
the task of clarifying what i s meant by participation
(methexi s) and separateness (ch5ri smos). Cornford r i g h t l y
notes that Parmeni des raises serious questions about the
two n o t i o n s : I s h a l l t r y t o show how the r e d u c t i o arguments
o f p t . 1 are designed, i n p a r t , to suggest ways i n which
these questions might be answered. I n the course p f my
commentary, I shall argue that a number of non-Critical
commentators miss the way i n which Parmeni des t r i e s t o
resolve these problems, and err i n their understanding of
Parmenides along similar lines as C r i t i c s such as Vlastos.
A) The Meaning o f Ch5ri smos
As argued above, Parmenides 133a-134e i s a
i*
239
others suggest
2Charles
240
Regarding my f i r s t p o i n t : i n one sense i t i s
obvious that Plato could never countenance a separation as
absolute as that i n 133a - 134e. Particulars, though separate
from Forms, participate i n Forms. I t i s through participation
that Forms can be said to be "separate" from particulars.
R.E. Allen notes that Plato's is a relational
metaphysics, rather than a substance-metaphysics; this
allows Plato to articulate both degrees- and types-ofr e a l i t y . A particular, Allen argues, derives i t s Being and
i t s intelligible character through the participationrelation with the Forms: particulars,1ike Forms, are real,
but Forms and particulars are d i f f e r e n t sorts of r e a l i t y ;
and because the Being and character of particulars are
derived from that of the Forms, they are a "lesser" degree
o f r e a l i t y , f u r t h e r down on the "great chain o f Being".
Allen's sketch of Plato's metaphysics has the singular merit
o f showing how Forms can be separate from t h e i r instances
while remaining "intimate" enough with them so as not to
generate the absurdities lampooned i n Parmenides 133a - 134e.
Forms are not "perfect particulars" --as Allen quips, "one
cannot scratch Doghood behind the ears"-- because any
particular and i t s properties, however "perfect", are
only i n virtue of their participation i n Forms. This
preserves the intimacy between Form and p a r t i c u l a r by
underscoring the dependency relation between them. I t
thus preserves the separation between Form and particular
by noting the asymmetricality of the Form-particular
241
relationship, the l a t t e r depending on the former, but the
former not depending on the l a t t e r .
An i n t e r n a l
a s f a t h e r i n d i s t i n c t i o n f r o m t h e s o n as_ s o n . I t i s ,
therefore, the very intimate bond between particular and
Form which e s t a b l i s h e s t h e p a r t i c u l a r aj_ p a r t i c u l a r i n
distinction from --"separate" from-- the Form. Platonic
separation flows naturally from the type-distinction
between Forms and particulars and the quasi-internal,
constitutive relationship between them. I t i s only
the aberrant, extreme versions of chorismos (which, l i k e
133a - 134e, tend to forget the type-distinction) which
are refuted i n Parmenides p t . 1.
243
standing of the Forms can be extracted from Plato's t e x t s ,
proceeds t o explain how such a misunderstanding could occur:
The phrase "Plato's Theory of Ideas" sug
gests an established picture. According to t h i s
picture there exist both the physical world and the
ideal world, and the objects to be found i n the
former are more or less poor copies to be found i n the
l a t t e r . . . But out argument has been t h a t i t was
never Plato's primary intention to convey such a
picture. According to our view the mainspring of the
w r i t i n g s i n which we f i n d t h e c l a s s i c a l theory o f
forms i s the belief that the order which reason
imposes i s something which exists independently of
the material on which i t i s imposed, and that the
elements of this order (such things as equality,
proportion, and the l i k e ) are to be conceived of as
timeless and independent objects of reason. . .
I t i s important for the proper conduct of our lives
t h a t we should recover a c l e a r grasp o f them. This
we cannot do by a t t e n d i n g t o t h e i r p h y s i c a l i n s t a n c e s . . .
Therefore we must t u r n i n s t e a d t o t h e c o u n t e r - i n d u c t i v e
approach (based on Socrates' search for definitions)
as i t i s roughly outlined i n the Republic under the
title of dialectic. . .
Entities of this kind are of course abstract
e n t i t i e s ; they a r e r o u g h l y what we mean when we speak
of properties or universals. Yet Plato write (and
perhaps spoke) i n such a way t h a t h i s readers (and
perhaps his pupil Aristotle also) have got the im
pression that he wanted to postulate a world of
concrete though non-physical e n t i t i e s , and that the
essential contrast was not between two approaches
to the understanding of universals, but between
two worlds. 7
Crombie's analysis of "what went wrong" i n Platonic
exegesis i s , I think, quite r i g h t on the following counts:
i ) he i s aware that mimesis i s a metaphor, that senseparticulars are not l i t e r a l l y "poor copies" of their parent
Forms, and i i ) he emphasises the status of Forms as
universals, which bear the metaphysical burden of ordering
the natural world, and have the epistemic function of
7Ibid.,pp.
319-20.
244
enabling us to penetrate that order. Crombie's accuracy on
these p o i n t s goes f a r i n showing j u s t how f a r removed from
Plato's vision of the Forms i s the parody of 133a - 134e:
whatever Forms do, they do not simply reduplicate the
kosmos aisthetos. Nevertheless, there are serious d i f
f i c u l t i e s with Crombie's understanding of the Forms as
"abstract entities" or properties:
i ) How a r e t h e Forms " a b s t r a c t " ? They a r e n o t
abstracted from the data of sensation: that would make
Forms, as properties "drawn" from individual instances,
once removed from r e a l i t y instead of to ontos on. Crombie
realizes t h i s : he e x p l i c i t l y contrasts the inductive
method of generalizing from sensibilia with Plato's
dialectical or "counter-inductive" method, and holds that a
Form
8Ibid.,
p. 320
245
when Plato actually "wanted the forms, as objects o f
pure r e a s o n , t o be d e - p h y s i c a l i z e d v e r s i o n s o f common
p r o p e r t i e s . " Plato was concerned w i t h mapping and c l a s s i
fying "different levels of thought, i.e., the concreteempirical and the abstract-rational."
12
0. c i t . , p p . 3 2 0 - 2 2 .
p. 320.
13
13
247
aren't the properties as instances by actual individuals a l l
we r e a l l y need?
Crombie's failure i s , I think, a failure to dis
tinguish between properties, which are always conceived
qua possible and actual instances, and the i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y
of properties. I have been stressing throughout the present
work that the philosophical d i f f i c u l t i e s i n Parmenides a l l
concern i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y , and that Forms, as noeta, allow
the sense-world to be understood as orderly and intel1igib1e
through p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Forms are the i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y o f
properties: properties are what they are through par
t i c i p a t i o n . Thus Forms are universals, since they account
for the i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y of properties. But they themselves
are not properties as such. Crombie's confusion only seems
t o make Platonic metaphysics more c l u t t e r e d than i t a c t u a l l y
i s , even by Crombie's own account - - i t opens the way f o t a
cogent Aristotelian criticism of ch5rismos
i v ) What about those passages i n the Platonic
c o r p u s w h i c h do^ s e e m t o l e n d c r e d e n c e t o s o m e s o r t o f
"two worlds" reading? Crombie, acknowledging that there i s
"some j u s t i c e " i n the received "two worlds" view, nevertheless
argues that
. . .the conventional picture of the two worlds,
with the forms constituting the upper world, agrees
neither with the arguments which Plato puts forward
nor with the recommendations which he bases upon them.
I t is Plato the poet, with a strong strain of
r e l i g i o y s pessimism, who p a i n t s t h e p i c t u r e o f the two
worlds; Plato the philosopherm seriously concerned
t o map and c l a s s i f y d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f thought,
never justifies this picture.
14
14
248
15
249
sense o f the way i n which Forms serve as standards f o r
evaluation, which i s , Allen holds, the cardinal function of
the Forms. Crombie's "commutative universals" cannot, as
Forms can, be instantiated "better" or "worse"; they are
either exemplified or an entirely different commutative
universal i s exemplified. Commutative universals, therefore,
are difficult to reconcile with dialectic, since
. . . with the commutative universal, the
relation of genus to species i s always that of the
more abstract to the more concrete Cancl thusj
the
genus i s essentially poorer than i t s species, having
less content. . .the highest genera are most barren
of al1. 16
But t h i s conclusion surely does not characterize the
anhypotheton, the Form o f the Good o f Republic VI - V I I ,
which "provides a ground for the synoptic vision of a l l time
and a l l existence". ^ Finally, the mimesis metaphor cannot
be "cashed i n " with Forms as commutative universals. Allen,
i n s i s t i n g on a type-difference between Forms and p a r t i c u l a r s ,
believes that the mimesis metaphor i s s t i l l workable even
i f particulars are not 1iteral duplicates of their cor
responding Forms, and that the mimesis metaphor i s
indispensible i n t r y i n g t o understand how Forms can serve
as ideals. I f Forms are exclusively "commutative universals",
i t i s hard to see how they can be "imitated" a t a l l . To
disregard the aspect o f the Forms which l e t s them serve
as ideals, standards, and foci for the upward path of
*6Allen, 0. c i t . , p. 177.
draws t h i s
1 ft
19
Crombie's f a i l u r e , as well as
253
two orderings of r e a l i t y , two different, possibly irreducible
ways i n which r e a l i t y i s put together.
Given this understanding of kosmos, which i s closer
t o philosophical Greek, one can see how Plato can i n s i s t
on separation without asserting the "two worlds" so
vigorously parodied i n Parmenides 133a - 134e, o without
d i l u t i n g separation, as Crombie does, to the point of
superfluity. Against advocates of the "two worlds", Plato
i n s i s t s that Forms are a d i f f e r e n t order of Being ( a
different ontological type) from sensed particulars. Because
Forms are of the i n t e l l i g i b l e , rather than the sensible
order, they are separate from particular things. But because
they are a different order of being, rather than a separate
collection of entities, or a realm of eternal objects
p a r a l l e l to the realm of s e n s i b i l i a , Forms can be par
ticipated i n and can be known, contrary to Parmenides
133a - 134e. I t i s only because o f an i n t e l l i g i b l e order
that the sensible order i s possible: a sensed particular i s ,
after a l l , a certain kind of particular sensed i n a certain
determinate way. Thus the kosmos noetos and the kosmos
aisthetos, though genuinely separate, are not two worlds
a t a l l : they combine and interact; the being of the l a t t e r
i s derived from the former. They are two dimensions of
r e a l i t y rather than two separate r e a l i t i e s . By reading the
Forms as the kosmos noetos, or an order rather than a
collection or "world", one can avoid the p i t f a l l s of both
Crombie and the received, "two worlds" interpretation.
C) Ryle's C r i t i q u e o f P a r t i c i p a t i o n
I n Sections A) and 6) above I have assumed t h a t
the separation o f Form and p a r t i c u l a r can be made t o j e l l
with the account of participation worked out i n Parmenides.
But t h i s i n turn assumes t h a t " p a r t i c i p a t i o n " i s i t s e l f a
workable notion. This i s not to say that there are no
difficulties involved i n the idea of methexis Part of
the problematic of Parmenides p t . l concerned the dis
ambiguation of participation, the search for potential
obfuscations of the concept, the exposure of unclear or
inadequate formulations o f methexis. 130e - 131e shows t h a t
methexis i s u n i n t e l l i g i b l e as any sort of physical sharing;
132c - 133a shows t h a t p a r t i c i p a t i o n cannot mean a l i t e r a l
i m i t a t i o n o f the Form; 133a - 134e shows how the miscon
ception of Forms as perfect p a r t i c u l a r s leads t o a misconcep
tion of of chorismos, which in turn leads to the mis
conceived conclusion that participation is impossible.
Parmeni des p t . 1 i s a reductio against one highly mis
leading way of viewing the Forms: i t demonstrates what
Forms are not, what separation i s n o t , and f i n a l l y , what
methexis i s not. But even i n l i g h t of Parmenides p t . 1 ,
i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o say j u s t what p a r t i c i p a t i o n i_. One might
assume t h a t Plato thought o f i t as some s o r t o f koinoni a ,
communion, or relationship between the i n t e l l i g i b l e and
the sensible orders, and that once the misconstruals of
this interrelation have been refuted, the idea of methexis
w i l l be workable and untroublesome. But the exact character
of participation none i s
22
p. 106.
256
Ryle, calling this sui generis relation "exemplification",
thus paraphrases Cook Wilson's (and p u t a t i v e l y , P l a t o ' s )
thesis on i t :
On t h i s view a t h i n g - q u a l i t y p r o p o s i t i o n w i l l
.assert that a thing is in this relation of exemplifying
to the q u a l i t y ; and a relational proposition w i l l assert
that the two or more terms exemplify the r e l a t i o n .
Thus every thing-quality proposition w i l l be
a relational proposition, and every ordinary relational
proposition w i l l be a double relational proposition,
since i t w i l l be asserting that the relation of
exemplification holds between the terms and the special
r e l a t i o n , that of being-neighbor-to. 23
Ryle criticised this view through a regressargument, similar to that of Plato, but couched i n the
terminology of formal logic:
Now i f one t h i n g i s i n a c e r t a i n r e l a t i o n t o
another, the l a t t e r w i l l be i n some, not necessarily
the same, realtion to the former. I f ' t h i s i s green'
i s more f u l l y expressed by ' t h i s exemplifies greenness'
there w i l l be another relational proposition of the form
'greenness i s exemplified in (or inheres in) t h i s ' .
Forms w i l l be the subjects of r e l a t i o n a l propositions:
i . e . , there w i l l be significant and irreducible
relational sentences, each with an abstract noun denoting
at least one of the terms i n the relational proposition.
Mow w h a t o f t h e a l l e g e d r e l a t i o n i t s e l f ,
which we are c a l l i n g ' e x e m p l i f i c a t i o n ' ? I s t h i s a form
or an instance of a form? Take the two propositions
' t h i s i s s q u a r e ' a n d ' t h a t i s c i r c u l a r ' . We h a v e h e r e
two different cases of the relation of being-aninstance-of. What i s the r e l a t i o n between them and
that of which they are instances? I t w i l l have to be
e x e m p l i f i c a t i o n n u m b e r 2 . T h e e x e m p l i f i c a t i o n o f P_ b y
w i l l be an instance of exemplification, and i t s being
i n that r e l a t i o n to exemplification w i l l be an instance
of a second-order exemplification, and that of
a t h i r d , a n d s o o n ad^ i n f i n i t u m . . .
This conclusion i s impossible. So there i s no
such relation as being-an-instance-of. 'This i s green'
2^Ryle,
op. c i t . , p. 106.
258
e n t i t i e s of d i f f e r e n t ontological type. From these t a c i t
premisses, he concludes that Plato's Forms (or a t least those
of the middle dialogues) were entities or "nameables" of
some s o r t , and t h a t the p a r t i c i p a t i o n - r e l a t i o n was one
between two different logical (ontological?) types of
things or objects. I f t h i s i s what Forms are, then Ryle's
regress works, and undermines participation, to Plato's
detriment. But, as I have been arguing throughout, Plato
denies Ryle's premiss i ) . As argued i n Ch. V I I , Parmenides
p t . 1 i s an ironic reductio on the idea of "atomic i n t e l l i g i b l e s " , and thus on the idea of Forms as e n t i t i e s , things,
or nameables. And i f Plato denies i ) , he i s also able to
deny i i ) , since a relation across ontological types i s
needed to explain the i n t e l l i g i b l e order i n the kosmos
aisthetos.
Ryle continually faults "Platonism" for maintaining
that "abstract nouns are proper names", which entails that
" b e i n g - a n - i n s t a n c e - o f " i s a proper r e l a t i o n . He even
goes so far as to identify this confusion with the theory
25
of Forms as such,
At one point i n his analysis, Ryle
seems t o be saying nothing more than t h a t which the present
work has been maintaining a l l along: that Forms are un-
25
27
^ 6 R y l e , 0. c i t . , p . 1 0 7 .
27
Allen, 0. c i t . , p. 167.
ft
Ryle, 0. c i t . , p. 107.
29Ibid.,
p. 106.
261
Secreted within Ryle's confidence that the theory
of Forms i s l o g i c a l l y moribund i s a sort of nominal ism:
anything that is is a determinate, particularized indi
vidual. Since he assumes t h i s i n his analysis of the putative
p a r t i c i p a t i o n or exemplification relationship between Forms
and partdculars, he concludes that any attempt at relating
individuals of two logical and ontological orders i s bound
to f a l l victim to the vicissitudes of language - - i t s
failure w i l l consist i n i t s neglect of the homely yet
ubiquitous demands o f l o g i c a l grammar. I do not care to
c r i t i c i s e Ryle's t a c i t nominalism here; nor do I wish to
attack the methods of formal and ordinary language analysis
which Ryle has used effectively, here and elsewhere. But
i t seems t o me t h a t R y l e ' s n o m i n a l i s t i c bent has s e r i o u s l y
distorted his estimate and understanding of Plato's Forms.
Forms are n o t i n d i v i d u a l s , although i t may be
appropriate to speak of individual Forms. Sophist, on the
"interweaving o f Forms", shows t h a t although the kosmos noetos
taken as a whole i s determinately i n t e l l i g i b l e , no single
Form i s , by i t s e l f , a determinate individual or an isolated
particular: e . g . , one must grasp how, say, Motion i s D i f
f e r e n t ( f r o m R e s t ) and t h e Same (as i t s e l f ) and so on i f
Motion i t s e l f i s to be grasped as i n t e l l i g i b l e . This view
of Forms i s not restricted to the l a t e r Plato: the upward
d i a l e c t i c of the Republic implies an ascent from one hypo
thesis to a more general one, and so on u n t i l the vision
o f the Good allows f o r a synoptic v i s i o n o f a l l Forms i n
264
o t h e r , the non-particularized kosmos noetos i s related
to the p a r t i c u l a r i z e d kosmos aisthetos i n a s o r t of
u r - r e l ation which makes particulars i n t e l l i g i b l e , and
i n t e l l i g i b l e as^ p a r t i c u l a r s . T h a t r e l a t i o n i s m e t h e x i s .
This position has been most ably defended by
Charles P. Bigger i n his book P a r t i c i pation. Since Bigger
simultaneously criticises both Ryle and Ronald J. Butler,
I s h a l l begin my e x c e r p t w i t h B i g g e r ' s synopsis o f
Butler's "The Measure and Weight of the Third Man":
A somewhat similar argument to Ryle's has
been advanced by B u t l e r . He too argues t h a t P l a t o
intended t o a s s e r t some s o r t o f r e l a t i o n between
instances and forms; but holds, i n an argument
reminiscent of Spinoza, that i f two things have
nothing i n common, then no r e l a t i o n can hold
between them: "For a general relation to hold between
two kinds of things, there must be something char
acteristic of both kinds." Edinburgh is north
o f London, but hardly the same can be said o f
virtue. 30
Bigger continues:
Ryle and B u t l e r are among the many who f e e l
that the Parmenidean arguments against the form theory
rendered i t highly suspect, i f not false; for that
theory must depend on the establishment o f some r e l a t i o n
between the world of form and the world of Becoming,
and such a relation would be l o g i c a l l y vicious. I t
i s c e r t a i n l y t r u e t h a t i f we t r e a t those domains as i f
they were separate things to be related, then n
r e l a t i o n can e x i s t between them! The problem i s Dot
with form as a relatum (as. . . Ryle would have us
believe) in the participation relation; i t is with the
instancing term. Professor Butler correctly expresses
the problem: "Once Plato had postulated the world of
Being and the world of Becoming, he could not without
recanting say that the things i n the world of Becoming
are anything at a l l . .
But in endorsing Butler's
remarks, we must make one very major r e s e r v a t i o n :
30
265
p a r t i c i p a t i o n , whatever i t may be, c o n s t i t u t e s a
term as a relatum. I t i s not a r e l a t i o n describing
two t h i n g s as having some common f e a t u r e ; f o r . . .
that i s the point of the argument at Parmenides
132D-133B t t h e T h i r d Man argument! . The idea
is
a cause whereby the exemplifying term exists
as such. I t i s not because an already existing relation
shares somehow i n the form o f r e l a t i o n t h a t i t e x i s t s
as a r e l a t i o n ; i t exists because of the form. The
form does not have the given character; i t i s not
red or large or a bed or what have you; but other
things, instances of Becoming, are i n virtue of
the form. I f participation is a relation, i t is a
real relation, one whereby at least one relatum
through the other(s). 31
The p a r t i p a t i o n r e l a t i o n i s thus not a r e l a t i o n
between beingsrit i s a r e l a t i o n o Being. Ryle's nomi n a l i s t i c leanings lead him to confuse participation with
a r e l a t i o n which could be thought to be nominal instead of
real - - a relation reducible to the "position" of
pre-existent individuals i n " l o g i c a l space". Hence his
penchant for trying to "solve" the dilemmas of p a r t i
cipation by recourse to analyzing the l o g i c a l grammar of
subject-predicate expressions. But, as Bigger suggests, this
confuses a very different, post-Fregean problematic with
P I a t o 1 s : p a r t i c i p a t i o n , having t o do with character, cannot
be understood i n terms of predication;
Participation i s never to be confused with
p r e d i c a t i o n . When we p r e d i c a t e , we say what something
i s ; b u t when we invoke p a r t i c i p a t i o n , we say why
i t i s . Form i s not merely a character which a thing
has; i t i s a thing because i t has that character.
Form i s only incidentally a p r i n c i p l e of class
ification; i t i s primarily the specification of the
mode o f operation o f the t h i n g . 32 (Emphases mine)
311bid.,
p. 73.
^2Ibid., p. 68n.
266
Hence Ryle's recourse to post-Fregean semantics
e n t i r e l y misses the point of participation: i t cannot be
understood by analyzing subject-predicate form and the role
of abstract nouns i n classification, f o r , i f Plato i s
r i g h t , i t i s the basis for subject-predicate logic and
a l l classification. Ryle's nominalism leads him to mis
interpret Plato, and i n the process of misinterpretation,
gives Ryle a false sense of confidence that the ambiguities
of participation have been overcome. But the nominalistic
assumption that relations are nominal cannot be imported
into Platonic exegesis without serious distortions:
There are not two sorts of things, forms and
instances, and a r e l a t i o n , participation, between
them. Forms are not things. They constitute things,
i n the sense of providing Becoming with a d e f i n i t e
pattern of activity, with a determinate character.
There are no instances of Becoming unless there are
forms. This relation between the form and i t s i n
stance: does not, l i k e "greater than" or "above",
hold between two existing things; rather i t i s a real
relation which constitutes the instancing relatum as
such. As l o n g as we i n s i s t on supposing t h a t a l l r e
l a t i o n s are nominal and t h a t none are r e a l , we s h a l l
have a great deal of trouble understanding Plato. 33
33
I X ) P A R M E N I D E S , PART 2 , AND R E L A T E D D I A L O G U E S
I n the previous sections I have t r i e d to show
how t h e TMAs o f Parmenides p t . l reduce a d e v i a n t t h e o r y
o f Forms t o a b s u r d i t y , and t h a t we can be c o n f i d e n t t h a t
they are genuine reductio arguments, rather than the
unintentional products of "perplexity", by considering
l i t e r a r y elements i n the dialogue and by noting the
considerable opposition between Eleaticism and Plato's
own " i n t e g r a l p l u r a l i s m " . I n t h i s chapter, I wish t o
f u r t h e r substantiate t h i s p o s i t i o n by showing how
Parmenides p t . 2 develops the arguments, begun i n p t . 1 ,
against "perfect f i t " and "named meanings" by showing that
they apply equally well t o Parmenides' own monistic
ontology. Following t h a t , I s h a l l show how the i m p ! i c i t
conclusions pf pt. 2 receive explicit treatment in later
dialogues such as Sophist and Theatetus, and are developed
i n new d i r e c t i o n s i n the Timaeus and Phi 1ebus.
A) Pre!iminaries to Pt.2.
Before explicating the text of pt.2, there are
a number of troublesome questions which need to be con
sidered, although I shall argue that neither of them are
quite as vexatious as most commentators have been led to
assume. The f i r s t concerns the proper i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of
to hen, the Subject of Parmenides' dialectical excercise.
There are those, such as Dies, Wahl, Wundt, and Hardie,
who see Parmenides1 "One" as t h a t which i s examined i n
267
sympathizes
with
i t
whatsoever. 3
Both these interpretations are, I think, partially
r i g h t and p a r t i a l l y mistaken. The Neoplatonic reading
advances the idea that the Parmenides' second part expounds
Plato's metaphysical foundations, as the Timaeus presents
the basis for his cosmology. I t suggests that Plato's
metaphysics was " s e c r e t l y " emanationist, t h a t to. hen o f
Hyp. 1 i s i d e n t i c a l w i t h the Form o f the Good i n Republic
and with Plotinus' God. But this i s a b i t fanciful given
the i n d i r e c t , inconclusive, and highly ironic tone of the
entire dialogue. I f Parmenides had been dishing out so
many a b s u r d i t i e s concerning Socrates' Forms, why should
we view him, i n P t . 2 , as an unimpeachable f o n t o f e s o t e r i c
truth? I shall argue, i n section B) , that Hyp. 1 con
sists of Parmenides' meditations, faithfully Eleatic,
on the nature of to hen, with the result that to hen, the
only Eleatic i n t e l l i g i b l e , i s u n i n t e l l i g i b l e on Eleatic
terms.
The l o g i c a l , anti-Neoplatinic reading of Ryle,
e t . a l . , i s likewise misleading. I t presupposes that, i n
Parmenides' eyes, there would be a difference between
what Socrates would dub "the Form 'Unity' " and what
he would c a l l "the One", or "what i s " . Remember:Parmenides'
One Being i s best construed as the sole basis f o r
i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y : i t i s an element i n a noetic rather
^Gilbert Ryle, "Plato's Parmenides", in R.E. Allen,
Studies i n Plato's Metaphysics (London:Routledge and Kegan
Paul, 1965),pp. 112-13.
4A.E.
272
Sayre suggests that Plato might be strengthening
his dialectical procedures i n the passage from Parmenides
cired above: although the Republic-dialectic enabled
the dialectician to determine conditions necessary for
the t r u t h o f h i s hypothesis, i t was i n s u f f i c i e n t l y powerful
to generate the s u f f i cient conditions, while the Parmeni des
method can accomplish this task.^ Important as this i s to
P l a t o ' s own d i a l e c t i c a l refinements --which are a prime
concern of "collection and division" i n the Sophist and
Statesman-- I d o n ' t t h i n k that t h i s i s why Plato has
Parmenides set these methodological strictures.
The reason f o r my doubt i s t h a t Parmenides s h o u l d n ' t
be s e t t i n g them. And the reason why he shouldn't be s e t t i n g
them i s t h a t i f one takes " t h e supposition t h a t the same
thing i s not" seriously, one i s talking about what i s not.
B u t a c c o r d i n g t o " T h e Way o f T r u t h " , o n e c a n n o t k n o w w h a t i s
not, nor indicate i n speech. (Fr. 2, 7-8)
Parmenides
71bid.
273
be serious: the "objects apprehended by discourse", the Forms,
are an i n t e l l i g i b l e piural it.y, and the postulated non
existence of these objects i s talk about nothing. Parmenides
i s caught in a massive contradiction, a performative
O
dilemma, i f you w i l l . He believes i n h i s s o r t o f n o e t i c
monism, and asserts i t s t r u t h ; but i n the act of asserting,
and i n outlining the methodological conditions for such
assertion, his actions contradict his words, since the act
of assertion-in-dialogue embodies persuppositions antithetical
to noetic monism. Parmenides unwittingly concocts a tran
scendental argument against h i s own noetic monism. The
remainder of pt. 2 consists in the fruits of this practical
contradiction.
C) Hypotheses 1_ and 2 : 137c-155e.
Hypothesis 1 i s the f i r s t solid hint of a theoj
274
from the conditionsl, as Cornford thinks, or a change of
meaning, as Taylor believes, translating i t as " i f i t i s
one" 9137c).
276
that One, i f i t i s i n time, must be older than i t s e l f , as
well as becoming younger than i t s e l f ; hence i t cannot be
i n time. From t h i s Parmenides concludes t h a t the One
cannot be. Furthermore, i f one asserts "One i s " , one
has predicated " b e i n g " o f the One and i t i s t h e r e f o r e n o t
a Unity, but two. Parmenides realizes something i s wrong
here, and draws this admission out of Aristoteles.
Parmenides does not surprise us when, i n 141d, he
" d e m o n s t r a t e s " t h a t t o h e n i s t i m e l e s s ; i t i_s s u r p r i s i n g t h a t
he concludes, i n 141e, that because of t h i s , to hen
c a n n o t b e s a i d t o be_. A c c o r d i n g t o " T h e W a y " , t h e O n e - B e i n g
i s timeless, and this constitutes a reason f o r classifying
a l l changing things as belonging to the. realm of doxa, of
seeming. But there i s , I think, a reason for explaining this
apparent contradiction. Parmenides here wishes to think the
One - - t h e sheer "what i s " - - i n i s o l a t i o n from a l l e l s e . * *
Hence his conclusion, consistent with "The Way", that
temporal predicates cannot apply to the One. But t h i s i s
not because, given a l l the predicates which can apply to
the One o r U n i t y , predicates concerning time and process
c a n n o t b e f o u n d . No. p r e d i c a t e s c a n a p p l y t o U n i t y e x c e p t
" i s one"; i t would be f a i r to say that atemporal predicates
are j u s t as inapplicable. This incurs a severe drawback
f o r the One: "being" can be made i n t e l l i g i b l e f o r (and
hence predicated of) particulars ( a l l "others" which are
12
279
But t h i s r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f Eleatic monism would amount
t o a r a d i c a l departure from Parmenides' own p o s i t i o n on
two counts, i ) The One, as beyond Being, cannot be a r t i c u l a t e d
i n speech. I t i s then beyond i n t e l l i g ibi1i ty as w e l l . But
"The Way",as I have pointed o u t , i s a work on the nature of
i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y , maintaining that "what is" alone i s
i n t e l l i g i b l e . Although Parmenidean (and Platonic) nous
i s non-discursive, i t i s t h a t which makes discourse about
r e a l i t y possible. But i f what i s i s one and nothing else
(a "perfect f i t " o f U n i t y ) , then nothing can be said about
it.--not that i t is timeless, nor that i t is limited,
n o r t h a t i t i_s o n e , n o r e v e n t h a t i t j _ s . W h e t h e r t h i s
perfect Unity i s befteath
or beyond i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y i s
281
the One, have t h a t b e i n g , but t o say "a One i s " would
be tantamount t o saying "a One ( i s ) one" fhen hen]
(142 b-c).
Once t h i s modification i s made, Parmenides' mon
i s t i c vision begins to f a l l apart. I n 142 c-d, i t i s admitted
that since " i s " belongs to "One", and "one" i s that which
has "being", "One" and "being" are parts of a whole, the
"One which i s " . P l u r a l i t y i s f o r c i b l y injected i n t o
Parmenides' monism: i f the principle of i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y i s
Unity, then that principle i s i t s e l f intelligible only i f
Being i s i n t e l l i g i b l e . The very notion of i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y
f a i l s t o make sense, then, i f there i s only one measure o f
i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y : some s o r t o f n o e t i c p l u r a l i s m , i t seems,
is necessary.
But Hyp. 2 proves even more devastating to Parmenides'
case. I n 144a Parmenides notes, a f t e r having generated
number from the dyad of the "One which j_s", t h a t
there is
282
whole qua whole) and i n motion (as whole qua parts). I t i s
also the same as " t h e others" ( i . e . , as the whole i n which
the parts subsist, or through which they exist) and different
from them as well (as the whole qua whole i n d i s t i n c t i o n
from the whole qua parts).
To appreciate j u s t how damaging t h i s i s t o
Parmenides' case, consider the following comment o f
J.N. Findlay:
What emerges from a l l t h i s i s t h a t there i s
nothing which cannot i n some sense be said o f U n i t y
i t s e l f , whether as a subject of characterization, or
as the term of a relation, and i t can - with a ven
geance be made an o b j e c t o f knowledge, o p i n i o n , and
perception, and there can be naming and saying practiced
upon i t (155d). And f o r a f u r t h e r vengeance, i t s
posession o f contrary a t t r i b u t i o n s make i n p r i n c i p l e
share the nature of the transitional instant (to
exaiphnes), the moment a t which something i s i n
passage from being something to being something
else, and i s i n a sense both and neither, and i s a
sense both i n and not i n time. 13
F i n d l a y ' s gloss shows j u s t how f a r removed the
findings o f Hyp. 2 are from the "Way o f T r u t h " . The l a t t e r
work sought to sharply l i m i t the f i e l d of i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y :
i . e . , to "what i s i s , what i s not i s not". Hyp. 2 seeks to
expand i t : to include the coincidence of opposites l i k e
same/different, i n i t s e l f / i n others, e t c . , and to include
a host of particulars which are themselves i n t e l l i g i b l e qua
the One-Being. A unity which can embrace such i n f i n i t e
richness and manifold contradictions cannot, i n Parmenidean
terms, be possible. Whereas the f i r s t Hypothesis was im
13
Findlay, op. c i t . , pp. 154-56.
283
possible f o r Parmenides on the ground that i t necessitates
too many " n e i t h e r / n o r s "
( n e i t h e r same n o t d i f f e r e n t ,
284
285
as well. There i s nothing i l l o g i c a l i n this conclusion:
i t merely corrects an i l l o g i c a l simplification of the
protean senses i n which Ideas have to be considered. 14
What Findlay i s saying here, I take i t , i s t h a t
although Forms are u n i t i e s i n t h e i r own r i g h t (e.'g.', the
eidos Unity has i t s own i n t e l l i g i b l e content, i n d i s t i n c t i o n
from, say, Plurality of Motion or Rest), they are not
atomized and unrelated to other i n t e l l i g i b i l i t i e s , other
Forms. This entails that i ) grasping the i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y
of any single e i dos entails the cognition of any number o f
others ( c f . , 142 b-c: Unity cannot be understood except
qua Being), and i i ) the eide themselves may, i n a sense,
e x h i b i t " c o n t r a r i e s " ( c f . Sophist: Sameness i s d i f f e r e n t
from Difference y e t the same as i t s e l f ) . The way i n which
Forms combine "contraries" i s o f course d i f f e r e n t from the
way i n which p a r t i c u l a r s do. I n the l a t t e r case, things are
understood t o be same and d i f f e r e n t , many and one, e t c . ,
while i n the former, understanding what an e i dos i s r e
q u i r e s theunderstanding o f how i t i s the same and d i f f e r e n t ,
many and one qua other e i d i which are d i f f e r e n t from each
other. But this difference i s nevertheless glossed over in
Socrates' monologue i n 128e-130a. Hyp. 2, then, reinforces
the c r i t i q u e made o f Socrates' Forms: p r i n c i p l e s o f i n
t e l l i g i b i l i t y are themselves unintelligible i f they are
conceived as "atoms of i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y " , isolated from
14
286
all'othfer principles and the particulars which they render
intelligible.
Hypothesis 2, then, illuminates three aspects of
"one" or "unity" :
more "Platonic".
In l i n e with his dialectical program, Parmenides
i n Hyp. 3 considers the "others" i n their relation to the
15
288
participation metaphor: the others are not identical
with Unity (here understood as a Platonic e i dos) but
they nonetheless partake i n Unity, l e s t they f a i l to be
i n t e l l i g i b l e as others and thus merge i n t o a sub-intel1igible
i n d e f i n i t e continuum. Hence the separation o f Form and
p a r t i c u l a r , considered to be so f a t a l on 133a-134e, i s not
fatal at a l l , since that separation, though real, i s not
and cannot be absolute.
To e x p l i c a t e : the o t h e r s , i f they were not instances
of Unity, or i f they did not partake i n Unity, would not
be others but a plethos apeiron. Thus unity i s , i n a sense
imposed on such an i n d e f i n i t e continuum, thus generating
"others" (other u n i t i e s ) . The unity i s imposed, i n Plato's
system, by the eidos-Unit.y: i t constitutes the others
as others. Other e i d l constitute the others as the determinate
kinds of others that they are. There i s , then, a sense i n
which Forms can be said to be immanent,insofar as they are
constitutive of the reality of particulars, as the partaking
o f part-in-whole and the'abiding o f whole-in-part makes
every part of a whole i t s e l f a "whole part". But i t i s
important to see that t h i s understanding of methexis does
not destroy separateness, the notion that Forms transcend
their instances. Although parts "partake" and wholes "abide"
i n each o t h e r , the whole i s n o t the same t h i n g as the p a r t .
Whole qua whole i s not parts qua p a r t s , despite t h e i r
intercommunion: there i s a dependency of parts on whole which
insures t h e i r "separation". The meditation on "part/whole"
Ch I .
291
Parmenides has commited himself to a method which cannot
countenance t h i s s o r t o f sang f r o i d : what about Hyp. 3?
Conclusion: one of the underlying assumptions of Hyp.4 i s
i l l i c i t , i . e . , the idea t h a t i t makes sense t o t h i n k t h a t
one can consider Unity apart from i t s "abiding" presence
i n unitary things. Hence the reductio: Unity --and t h i s
would apply to a Platonic eidos-Unity as w e l l - - cannot be
understood apart from i t s intercommunion with unitary
t h i n g s . T h i s h a r k s b a c k t o s u c h e a r l i e r d i a l o g u e s a s Men o ,
where the example of a particular geometric diagram prompts
the "recollection" o f geometrical e i de on the p a r t o f the
slave-boy: Forms are approached through our commerce with
particulars or aistheta, whereupon particulars are understood
through our noetic grasp of Forms. Thus Hyp. 4 i s not only
a reductio against Parmenides, but also agsinst those, like
young Socrates, who as a good " f r i e n d of the Forms"
atomizes and isolates them, thus obscuring the idea of
methexis and warping the notion of ch5ri smos.
Hyp. 5 and Hyp. 6 again form a pair of "antinomies"
which, far from being the insuperable aporiae Parmenides
concludes they must be, can be "seen through". Again,
Eleatic "purity" is contrasted with Platonic "pluralism",
1
\s
and the former looks less and less workable, ins fferably
r i g i d . Hyp. 6, to jump ahead, i s the "pure" hypothesis: the
"One which i s " o f Hyp. 2 i s broken asunder. The One.is said
not to be, and the predictable result i s a return to the
status quo o f Hyp. 1 , where nothing a t a l l can be said
harks back to
17Findlay,
op. c i t . , p. 156.
294
u n l i m i t e d m u l t i t u d e , which appears o r seems t o be l i k e and
unlike, great and small, and so on. This anticipates the
Phi1ebus' refashioning of participation in terms of
l i m i t and unlimited continuum; i t alludes to Hyp. 3 i n i t s
contention that i f the others, as"parts of the whole",
were not themselves limited wholes, they would be"absolutely
one", i . e . , an undifferentiated continuum (157c). Like
Hyp. 3, Hyp. 7 i s workable, but not on Parmenidean terms.
The others are not i n t e l l i g i b l e as others except insofar as
they are unified through Unity (Hyp. 3); but the others
as ontologically p r i o r to t h i s u n i f i c a t i o n can be under
stood as an undifferentiated mass, as pllthos apeiron.
The ease with which t h i s can be integrated into Platonic
metaphysics i s as apparent as the d i f f i c u l t i e s with
squaring i t with Parmenides'. Like Hyp. 5 and Hyp. 6 ,
Hypotheses 7 and 8 constitute a reductio on Eleatic
"purism". 7 and 8 contradict each other: therefore one
of Parmenides1 guiding assumptions must be mistaken.
Hyp. 8 , which embodies the absurdity of proving that
"nothing i s " i f the One i s n o t , must be the locus o f
t h a t assumption. The assumption, as i t turns o u t , i s the
same as t h a t which informs a l l the other " p u r i s t " Hypotheses:
that the principle of i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y i s isolable and atomic,
a "perfect f i t " of Unity and nothing else.
'
in the
297
existential use of the verb"is" from the copulative or
"2-place" use.
18
19
Owen, i n
20
19
O w e n , o p . c i t . , p . 2 3 1 . F o r sorae r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
modern and contemporary treatments of the problem of
reference, see Bertrand Russell, "On Denoting", Hind N.S. 14
(1905); P.F. Strawson, "On Referring", Mind N.S. 59 (1950);
John R. Searle, Speech Acts (Cambridge, England: Cambridge
Univ. Pr., 1969; Idem., "The Logical Status of Fictional
D i s c o u r s e " , N e w L i t e r a r . y H i s t o r y 5 ( 1 9 7 4 ) ; K ei t h D o n e l l a n ,
"Speaking of Nothing", Philosophical Review 83 (1974);
Richard Rorty, "Is There a Problem About Fictional Discourse?",
i n C o n s e q u e n c e s o f P r a g m a t i s m . ( K l i n n e a p o lis : U n i v . o f M i n n e s o t a
Pr."i 1982); Hilary Putnam, Reason, Truth and History (Cambridge
Cambridge Univ., P r . , 1981).
20
298
inadmissible negation o f , e.g., "Centaurs are ( i . e . , cen
t a u r s ) . One seems, i n c r e d i b l y , t o be t a l k i n g about non-being,
nothing. Given Parmenides' easy assimilation of negation
299
and the proper conception of "not" that i s involved i n them
( e . g . , x i s not-y rather than x is-not y ) . Insofar as
Owen sees P l a t o ' s achievement as c e n t e r i n g on t h e d i s t i n c t i o n
between i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and predication, he i s i n accord with
many o f those he c r i t i c i s e s , e . g . A c k r i l l .
21
welly
statement ' a One i s ' simply means a One has b e i n g . " (142c)
Furthermore, Parmenides senses the s t e r i l i t y of relying on
a s t r i c t identity-interpretation of the Being of One:
a l l "Unity i s " would amount t o , then, would be "One ( i s )
one", hen hen. The emptiness of Hyp. 1 can be a l l e v i a t e d ,
therefore, only i f one goes beyond the " i s " of i d e n t i t y
(One i s one) i n t o the " i s " of predication (That i s one).
And as expected, the Unity of Hyp. 2 i s f a r from s t e r i l e .
But i t i s not Parnenidean.
I n the Sophist, Plato has effectively undermined
the cornerstone of Parmenidean monism: i . e . , "What i s not
i s n o t " . Were i d e n t i t y statements the only s o r t o f statements
21
f Plato has
301
metaphysics, as Plato does, and demarcates i t reasonably
clearly from i d e n t i f i c a t i o n (as Parmenides does n o t ) , one
almost imvariably injects a type-difference into one's
ontology, paralleling the logical distinction between
predicans and predicandum.
22
22
303
(they constitute or actualize the kosmos aisthetos) without
rendering the Form-particular interrelationship suspect
( e . g . , as i n Parmenides) because two d i f f e r e n t ways i n which
Being i s power are distinguished. I n the Sophist, as i n
Parmeni des, PI ato campai gns f o r the recognition of
o n t o l o g i c a l t y p e s . T h e i n t e r w e a v i n g o f F o r m s , t h e Summa
Genera, "Being as power" - - a l l these spring from Plato's
concern to make the ontological type-difference e x p l i c i t .
F) Phaedrus and Cratylus.
I n Phaedrus 265d f f . , Plato's Socrates i n t r o
duces what has come t o be known as " t h e l a t e r d i a l e c t i c " ,
the procedure of collection and division (sunagoge,
diairesis):
The f i r s t i s t h a t we b r i n g a dispersed
plurality under a single form, seeing i t a l l together
--the purpose being to define so-and-so, and thus to
make p l a i n whatever may be chosen as the t o p i c f o r
exposition. . .The second procedure i s the reverse of
the o t h e r , whereby we are enabled t o d i v i d e i n t o
forms, following their articulation. . .
This method, applied i n Sophist and Statesman,
assumes t h a t i)Forms themselves comprise a " v e r t i c a l "
hierarchy, with more specific Forms participating i n the
i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y of more general Forms, and i i ) a "parallel"
koinonia e x i s t s between Forms o f the same degree o f
s p e c i f i c i t y . Both i ) and i i ) are at odds with the youthful
Socrates' understanding of Forms i n Parmenides P t . l : i n
Phaedrus, no Form can be grasped by nous, i n an articulate
understanding, a l l by i t s e l f , since the Forms themselves are,
304
i n p a r t , i n t e l 1 i g i b l e s by v i r t u e o f the way i n which they
participate " v e r t i c a l l y " with higher genera and lower
species, and "horizontally" with different species.
Collection and division reinforce one of the
aims of Parmenides: to combat the idea of Forms as "atomic
i n t e l 1 i g i b l e s " . Although one can legitimately speak of a
Platonic Form "by i t s e l f " ( i . e . , as a specific sort of
i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y ) , one cannot understand any one eidos
without understanding a complex o f o t h e r s . This was maintained
by Plato as f a r back as the "safe vs. ignorant" a i t i a i
episode
i n Phaedo (95e-105c).
23
305
.situate Courage i n the context of Virtue and Goodness, not
to mention Prudence and Temperance, Cowardice and Foolishness,
and so on.
24
of things are
con-"
25
In the
328d-344a.
25
308
cation of Plato's changing interests, and of the future
development of his thought. They signify the growing con
cern on his part to safeguard the Forms from misapropriation
by misguided "friends of the Forms", zealous anti-conven
tionalists like Cratylus, or those unwilling to approach
them with the patience of dialectical and analytic i n tel1igence.
G ) Timaeus and Philebus.
Parmenides showed that the p i t f a l l s of viewing
Forms as self-predicative, atomic intel1igibles are
directly related to a misconception of the nature of par
t i c i p a t i o n . The dialogue's Parmenides crassly misconstrues
participation as physical sharing, but i s helped along i n
his misconstrual by Socrates' f a i l u r e to establish a
type-difference between Forms and particulars. Both
Socrates and Parmenides are misled by the metaphor of
p a r t i c i p a t i o n . They see i t as a relationship between two
r e a l i t i e s , Forms and p a r t i c u l a r s , which i n some sense are
i n t h e i r own r i g h t , independent o f the p a r t i c i p a t o r y
relationship. But this undermines that which methexis
was designed to i l l u m i n a t e , i . e . , t h a t particulars
are instances o f i n t e l l i g i b l e Forms because they derive
their Being from
i t , c o n s t i t u t e p a r t i c u l a r s aj_ d e t e r m i n a t e p a r t i c u l a r s .
27
309
blassing. I t i s a metaphor because Plato certainly i s n ' t
using i t in i t s usual, "literal" connotation: physical
sharing, involvement i n a community, etc. I t i s a good
metaphor i n that i t illuminates the koinonia of the in
t e l l i g i b l e and sensible orders while securing their
separateness as w e l l . But methexis, as Parmenides i l l u s
t r a t e s , can be easily distorted: one can obscure the
dynamic, constitutive aspect of methexis ( c f . Sophist 247d)
and view i t as a s t a t i c relationship between two s e l f s u f f i c i e n t terms. The result of t h i s i s the argument
of Parmeni des 133a-134e: u t t e r l y unknowable eide.
Timaeus, I believe, constitutes Plato's halfsuccessful attempt to "cash in" the metaphor of participation
- - t o make the dynamic nature of methexis e x p l i c i t . Par
t i c i p a t i o n i s reformulated as the imposition of order upon
the chaos by the demiourgos, who uses the eide as models
(paradeigmata) in the construction of the sensible, physical
world. Thus the dynamics of participation are emphasised
i n the Timaeus, rather than that which results from that
dynamism having taken place ( i . e . , two kosmoi, sensible
and i n t e l l i g i b l e ) .
But Timaeus i s characterised by hesitancy. Early
on i n Timaeus' account, the recounting of the origins of
the material kosmos i s characterised as an eikotos muthos,
a "likely story"(e.g., 59c). This i s defended in the rather
Phaedo-esque manner of constrasting discourse about the
eternal and changeless, which can be assessed as episteme,
with discourse about the transient, that which becomes, which
310
never gets beyond doxa. A l l talk about the changing, sen
sible order i s necessarily a"story" rather than an account,
a 1ogos. But Plato's hesitancy, expressed by Timaeus, i s
not merely a result of his prior convictions about the
r e l a t i v e adequacy of Being and Becoming. The r e s u l t s of
Timaeus are also sketchy and incomplete, largely because
the attempt t o explain how the u n i n t e l l i g i b l e (chaos)
passes into the i n t e l l i g i b l e (kosmos)
of the demiourgos
311
28
_ _
See Robert Turnbull , "Episteme and Doxa" , i n
J . Anton and P. Preus, eds., Essays i n Ancient Greek Philosophy
(Albany: S.U.N.Y. Press, 1983), p. 283, and Paul Friedlander,
PIato, vol. 1 (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Pr., 1964), "Plato
as Physicist", Ch. XIV, pp. 246-60.
29
I have used J.H. Randall's translation, op. c i t .
30
31
**n
31
314
particulars. Rather, i t i s a difference between aspects
or types of Being, between structured and structure,
between limited and l i m i t .
32
32
315
And t h a t would seem t o undercut Plato's attempt t o r e
consider Form i n terms of l i m i t and measure alone.
Kenneth Sayre has t r i e d to extricate Plato from
t h i s d i f f i c u l t y by insisting that Form i s not to be under
stood as identical with the l i m i t of Phi 1ebus. Drawing
upon the symmetries between Philebus and A r i s t o t l e ' s
account of P l a t o ' s Unity and I n d e f i n i t e Dyad i n Metaphysics A,
Sayre maintains that Aristotle's account of Plato's socalled "unwritten doctrine" can unscramble the often
opaque language o f Phi1ebus 23c-30c.
Behind the constitution of both Forms and
sensible t h i n g s , as we have seen, are the basic
ontological principles Limit and Unlimited - - o r as
Aristotle put i t , Unity and the Great-and-(the)Small.
Existing apart from the"family of Limit" 25d , the
various ranges of continuous qualitative differences
that comprist the Unlimited contain neither Forms nor
particular sensible objects. Imposing Unity or Limit
upon these continua results i n fixed and unique r e f
erence points which admit qualtitative comparison.
These unique reference points are the equivalent
i n the Phi 1ebus to what i n earlier dialogues were
called Ideas or Forms, and, l i k e the l a t t e r , can be
precisely characterized and known independently o f
particular instances. Given the presence of
an appropriate set of fixed Forms along a given
continuum, in turn, other states along the con
tinuum can be referred t o the Forms they most
nearly approximate. The other states have no
determinate characteristics i n and by themselces, and
hence no independent i d e n t i t y . With reference to
appropriate Forms as norms, however, these states
become i d e n t i f i a b l e and numerable, and take on the
names o f the Forms themselves. Thus i n d i v i d u a l
sensible t h i n g s come i n t o being as determinate
objects by participation i n the Forms; as Aristotle
puts i t , they are constituted by the Forms and the
Great-and-(the)Smal1. . . individual sensible
things are both indeterminate i n themselves and i n
d e f i n i t e l y numerous i n t h e i r instantiations of a
given Form. 33
33
op. c i t . , p. 14.
show
35
X)
ON S E L F - P R E D I C A T I O N A N D P A R A D I G M A T I S M
T h e f o c i o f a l l l o g i c a l a n a l y s e s o f t h e TMA
are i )
and i i )
remain paradigms.
yields true conclusions about the incoherence of selfpredicative Forms; therefore paradigmatism indicates a
major logical flaw i n Plato's theory of Forms.
This is
t h e TMA a r g u m e n t s r e f u t e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f c o n s i s t e n t ,
self-predicative Forms, the Forms are not paradigms or
standards, at least in Plato's later dialogues.
This position
320
As Ryle, Owen, Strang, Weingartner and A c k r i l l J
3)
This flpoloqetic
position is
321
does not recognize as h i s own (Allen).
Position 1) insists
t h a t t h e TMA d o e s f l o w f r o m c o n t r a d i c t o r y p r e m i s s e s ,
but that Plato, becasue of his ignorance of the "hidden
premisses", never recognized this.
a g e n u i n e r e d u c t i o , t h e n k n o w l e d g e o f SP w o u l d h a v e
to be assumed, i n order that the contradictory conclusion
follow.
322
However, the d i f f i c u l t i e s and ambiguities i n the
Revisionist and Apologetic alternatives to the C r i t i c a l
reading of self-predication remain.
I f interpretation 2)
323
p r e c i p i t a t e d the c r i s i s o f the TMA.
pp. 1-6.
324
canons of interpretive consistency admitted by the other,
yet each nevertheless advances radically different readings.
The Apologists and Revisionists a l i k e have definite ideas about
just what constitutes a paradigm or standard; unfortunately
t h e i r i d e a s a r e n o t t h e same; t h e c o n f1i c t between t h e r o o t
meanings of t h e i r c r i t i c a l terms i s obscured and unacknowledged
Thus each imposes i t s own v i s i o n o f "paradigms" upon the t e x t ,
ignoring the equivocation,
to the text.
Allen,
325
Allen's argument begins with the observation that for
P l a t o , p a r t i c u l a r s are " c a l l e d by the same name as t h e i r
Form" (homonumon).
This
Allen sees
O
g
q u a F o r m a n d "F_" q u a p a r t i
ontology, a
r e l a t i o n t o s o m e t e r t i urn q u i d - - w h i c h i s t h e TMA i n a
nutshell. I f A resembles B, B resembles A, and i n virtue
t o some C which they posess o r i n which they p a r t i c i p a t e .
However the original/copy distinction of Platonic mimesis
does not commit one to such a symmetrical relationship:
i f B i s a copy of A, A i s not a copy of B. This serves
as Allen's interpretation of Allen's interpretation of
"degrees-of-reality": particulars are not deficient in
respect to Forms because they posess a lesser perfection
i n t h e i r common q u a l i t y , b u t r a t h e r because they are two
d i f f e r e n t kinds of being, one t o t a l l y dependent on the
other for the characteristic i t posesses the mim
e t i c relationship between Form and particular
328
329
Weingartner sees Allen's thesis as a "more
sophisticated" variant of A.E. Taylor's, which he, with
Vlastos, deems wrong.
between Form and particular i s one of image and copy, and this
relation i s as.ymmetrical :
portrait.
o f t h e TMA i n 1 3 2 d - 1 3 3 a t h e a r g u m e n t i s v a l i d b u t n o t
sound, since i t proceeds from the false premise of symmetricality
But Weingartner notes t h a t the mime s i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s "complex:
one component, the derivation of the copy from the original,
i s indeed asymmetrical, whereas, the resemblance o f the one
t o the other i s n o t , and t h i s resemblance, so much stressed i n
the second version o f the TMA, i s a l l that i s needed..."^3
W e i n g a r t n e r n o t e s t h a t t h e second v e r s i o n o f t h e TMA does n o t
preclude a k i n d - o f - r e a l i t y ontology, but i t shows that such
an ontology cannot avoid self-predicative Forms i f the mimesis
doctrine is kept intact:
s e l f - p r e d i c a t i o n assumption i s t h e f u l c r u m o f t h e TMA i n
132e6-l33a3-- i t i s not possible f o r the Forms to be l i k e
anything nor anything l i k e the Forms, since this implies an
infinite regress.
12
13
14
1 5 .
Weingartner, op. c i t . , p. 174.
16Weingartner,
331
333
from i t , Allen holding that this difference i s the basis
for the ambiguity of predication, Weingartner holding that
this destroys systematic ambiguity and with i t , paradigmatism.19
I suspect that this indicates a "parting o f the ways"
on the issues o f what i t means to
b)
a) be a "paradigm" and
19
334
"semblance" of a Form. For Weingartner, a paradigm i s a
standard which, although i t has the asymmetrical relationship
of original-to-copy, also must have the symmetrical relation
o f "resemblance" i n o r d e r f o r i t t o be a standard. He c i t e s
Geach on the standard yard: that although the standard yard
cannot be measures by an ordinary yardstick, and although
an ordinary yardstick i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y unlikely to measure
e x a c t l y the same as a standard y a r d , there must be some
s e n s e i n w h i c h t h e s t a n d a r d y a r d i_s_ a y a r d , " f o r o t h e r w i s e h o w
could i t be the standard against which the ordinary yard i s
measured?"
20
21
335
i
Hence, the interminable, rut-like quality of the
self-predication debate, however I do not think t h i s r u t
i s unavoidable: an element i n Wittgenstein's later philosophy
suggests a way o u t . The f i r s t Wittgensteinian maxim I would
l i k e to c i t s i s " beware the "one sided d i e t " of one sort of
example. The second i s : t o understand the "meaning" (of a
22
word, concept, or dictrine), look to i t s use.
The f i r s t
hermeneutic maxim w i l l enable us to see a possible reason for
the prevailing incommensurability and s t e r i l i t y of the
debate by revealing the consistent use of poor analogies and
examples, symptomatic of both the Apologetic and Revisionist
campe. The second i n t e r p r e t i v e technoque w i l l make a " r e t r e i v e "
of a philosophically f r u i t f u l notion of paradigmatism possible
by examining how Plato used "paradigmatism", " s e l f - p r e d i c a t i o n " ,
and "imitation" i n the dialogues, rather than by presupposing
a meaning and using i t as a template against which the texts
can be measured.
Allen's example misfires because i t i s a bad example,
presupposing that which i t seeks to demonstrate. I t i s possible
that, in this case, n possible analogy w i l l suffice.
Allen's analogy has two elements a)scarfrreflection::Form
particular, and b) "red" of scarf:"red" 'of reflection::
l_ qua the Form F-ness: qua the p a r t i c u l a r s a , b , or c . Element
a) i s adequate because i t illustrates the "relational"
dimension of Plato's metaphysics: particulars are what they
are only i n relation to the Form. But element b) --which i s
the important one, since i t illustrates the "systematic
22 L u d w i g W i t t g e n s t e i n , P h i l o s o p h i c a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n s
(New York: Macmillan, 1953) p a r . 593, p . 155e, and p a r . 43,
p. 20e.
f
336
ambiguity" Allen believes applies to Plato^s account of
predicates-- is incoherent:
the same way.
Allen's interpretation.
First, in the
337
s o m e t h i n g b u t a r e i_n s o m e t h i n g - - a m e d i u m .
Allen's example
Weingartner argues
If
338
assume that there c a n ' t be an "ambiguity" between the ways
i n which a form and the ways i n which a p a r t i c u l a r ( l i k e
a brass bar) can be a standard.
Furthermore, a l l standards
part wished to defend the position that not al1 truths are
true merely by nomos, but somethe most important o n e s are true by phusis.
"natural" or essential"
Thus Weingartner's
This w i l l be
339
Much o f what passes f o r s e l f - p r e d i c a t i v e language
i n Plato's dialogues does not necessarily commit Plato to a
self-predicative theory of Forms.
earlier dictrine
of self-
23
Weingartner, op. c i t . , p.
doctrine of
24
. . . I t seems t o m e t h a t w h a t e v e r e l s e i s
beautiful apart from absolute beauty i s beautiful
because i t partakes of that absolute beauty, and for
no other reason.
This suggests t h a t the Form Beauty i s i t s e l f b e a u t i f u l .
However i t does so i n such a way t h a t seems t o preclude an
"automatic" account of self-predication: a difference in
type i d emphasised between Form and p a r t i c u l a r when Socrates
maintains that i t i s i n virtue of Beauty that beautiful things
24
341
beauti ful:
. . .1 cannot understand these other ingenious
t h e o r i e s o f c a u s a t i o n . I f someone t e l l s me t h a t t h e reason
why a given object i s b e a u t i f u l i s t h a t i t has a gorgeous
color or shape or any other a t t r i b u t e , I disregard a l l
these other explanations - - I f i n d them a l l confusing-and I cling simply and straightforwardly and no doubt
foolishly to the explanation that the one thing that
makes that object beautiful i s the presence i n i t or
association w i t h i t , i n whatever way the r e l a t i o n comes
about, of Beauty i t s e l f . (100 d-e).
The d i s t i n c t i o n between Form and p a r t i c u l a r seems t o
be blurred i n part of the Hippias Major passage (288c):
" . . . We c a n h a r d l y b e s o a u d a c i o u s a s t o d e n y t h a t b e a u t y
i s beautiful." But the context of this passage i s a long
sequence where Socrates challenges Hippias i n t o giving his
answer to the question "What i s Beauty?" Hippias responds:
"the pleasant which comes through sight and hearing" o r ,
more b l u n t l y , beautiful things (278d). Socrates then
typically baits Hippias into solodifying his position:
"What about a beautiful lyre? i s that not a beauty?"
(288c), and the same f o r mares, p o t s , and maidens; i n each
343
Nor w i l l his vision of the beautiful take the form
of a face, or of anything that is of the flesh. I t will
be neither words, nor knowledge, nor a something that
exists i n something else. . . but of i t s e l f and by i t s e l f
i n an eternal oneness. . .
Starting from individual beauties, the quest for the
universal beauty must find him ever mounting the heavenly
ladder, stepping from rund to rung --that i s , from one to
two, and from two to every lovely body, from bodily beauty
to the beauty of institutions, from institutions to
learning and from learning i n general to the special lore
that pertains to nothing but the beautiful itself --until
a t l a s t he comes t o know what beauty i s . (210e-211d)
Vlastos i s indeed correct when he suggests t h a t
although "Beauty i s beautiful" i s never explicitly asserted
OC
i n the "Diotima" speech, such i s unarguably i t s message.
But on the other hand, i t certainly does not provide clear
evidence f o r the self-predicative Forms that Vlastos claims
Plato advanced. For starters, the "if anything is F.,
F _ - n e s s i s JF" t r o p e i s , a s V l a s t o s a d m i t s , m i s s i n g f r o m t h e
Symposi um, i n which case i t might be appropriate t o assume t h a t
Plato was n o t introducing a d o c t r i n e which ascribes s e l f predication to a Form because i t i s a Form. Furthermore, a l l
the allusions to a difference in ontological type are present
i n t h e S y m p o s i u m p a s s a g e a s w e l l a s i n Hi p pi a s M a j o r a n d P h a e d o ;
the immutability and timelessness of Beauty, as compared with
instances o f beauty, "neither comes nor goes" (211a), " i n an
eternal oneness" (211b), the difference between particulars
and Forms, the object of noetic "vision" ("Nor w i l l his vision
of the Beautiful take the form. . . of anything that is of the
flesh. . . etc. (211a) ) , and so on. A difference i n types-of-reality
25
344
a l l one needs to undercut an argument for l i t e r a l l y
self-predicative Forms. But the most t e l l i n g point against
Vlastos is in determining why, in the passage, Beauty i_s^
b e a u t i f u l : I t seems t o be so f o r two reasons: i ) Beauty
i t s e l f is the telos for a l l our "erotic" yearnings (211c),
i i ) i t effects a personal change i n the lover of beauty, making
the l i f e of the questor after beauty beautiful i t s e l f :
But i f i t were given t o man t o gaze on ebauty's
very s e l f . . . would you c a l l h i s , she asked me, an
unenviable l i f e , whose eyes had been opened t o the
v i s i o n . . . u n t i l i t had become h i s own forever?
And rememberm she s a i d , t h a t i t i s only when
he discerns beauty i t s e l f through what makes i t v i s i b l e
t h a t a man w i l l be quickened w i t h the t r u e , and n o t the
seeming virtue - - f o r i t i s virtue's self that quickens
him, not v i r t u e ' s semblance. And when he has brought f o r t h
and reared this perfect v i r t u e , he shall be called
the f r i e n d o f god, and i f ever i t i s given t o man t o
put on immortality, i t shall be given to him. (211e-212a)
The unity of Beauty i t s e l f , Virtuem abd the Good, and
their connection with Platonic immortality is the major
theme of the above passage. The intensely dramatic meaning
o f the passage seems t o be: only by the single-minded
pursuit of that eidos i n virtue of which beautiful things are
made b e a u t i f u l do we a t t a i n some measure o f transcendence
from out corruptible, time-bound existence --this i s the
essence o f human arete and thus f r i l l s out l i v e s w i t h
pr
blessedness (eudaimonia).
p /:
some Forms
For example,
27
27
28
t
'
i s absolutely equal) and Euthydemus 301 a-b can also be read
to support the thesis that "the idea Y-ness i s a Y", i . e . , as
embodying the self-predication assumption.
30
But a l l of these
28
On i r o n y i n P l a t o ' s P r o t a g o r a s , see F r i e d l a n d e r ,
op. c i t . , vol.2, pp. 5-37.
347
equal objects as equals.
31
Although i t i s presumptuous t o assume t h a t the s e l f predicationist case rests on a mountain of hard evidence, i t i s
equally presumptuous to suggest that there i s no reason at a l l
to grant that case any c r e d i b i l i t y .
There
a mountain
348
A sample l i s t i n g o f some o f these instances o f
paradigmatism may throw some l i g h t on t h i s i s s u e . P r a c t i c a l l y
a l l the instances of paradigmatism i n the Republic have to do
w i t h e t h i c a l issues --using the Forms o f virtues or the Good as
standards w i t h which we can mold our actions i n accordance, by
"incorporating" them i n t o our l i v e s . For instance, consider
402c" we"recognize" the Forms of Moderation, Courage,
Magnificence, e t c . , i n their "images" or instantiations, and
i t i s only i n t h i s way t h a t we, o r the Platonic guardians,
can become "musical". I n 472 c - d , Socrates proclaims t h a t
J u s t i c e i t s e l f and the j u s t man are one i n t h a t they manifest
a " p a t t e r n " ; 472b i n t i m a t e s t h a t the j u s t man i m i t a t e s J u s t i c e
i t s e l f , and i n every way i s such as Justice i s . These
sentiments are perhaps best expressed i n the Myth of the Cave,520c
Down you must g o , t h e n , each i n h i s t u r n , t o the
habitation of the others and accustom yourselves to the
observation of the obscure things there, For once hab
ituated you w i l l discern them i n f i n i t e l y better than the
dewllers there, and you w i l l know what each of the " i d o l s "
i s and whereof i t i s a semblance, because you have seen
the r e a l i t y of the beautiful, the j u s t , and the good.
A similar set of paradigmatic images can be found i n
the Phaedrus, 250 a-b and 251a, with Beauty as their subject.
250a recounts Plato's myth of the f a l l of the soul: the "vision"
o f the t r u e - b e i n g , present i n every human s o u l , i s l o s t t o a
degree by man i n h i s f a l l e n s t a t e : he f o r g e t s "the holy o b j e c t s
of his vision". While i n earthly "imitations" of Justice and
Temperance "and other prize posessions of the soul there dwells
no l u s t e r " , with Beauty i s i t "otherwise": the strongest
349
" v i s i o n " o f the soul - - a s we might expect, owing t o the o p t i c
metaphor-- i s that of Beauty; 251a outlines the ecstatic,
almost convulsive nature of that vision.
In the Timaeus, however, the reasons for paradigmatic
imagery seem t o have s h i f t e d : i t i s no longer used t o convey
how we can have " v i s i o n " o f i n t e l l i g i b l e r e a l u t y and order
our actions according to i t s pattern, but i t refers to the i
way i n which Forms serve as models f o r the natural world i n
i t s formation by the demiourgos. Representative passages include
29c:
. . . i n speaking o f t h e copy and t h e o r i g i n a l we may
assume that words are akirj t o the matter which they describe;
when they r e l a t e t o the l a s t i n g and the permanent and the
i n t e l l i g i b l e , they ought to be lasting and unalterable,
and, as far as t h e i r nature allows, irrefutable and invincible
--nothing l e s s . But when they express only the copy or the
likeness.and not the eternal things themselves, they need
only be l i k e l y and analogous to the former words.
as well as 37c:
When t h e f a t h e r and c r e a t o r saw t h e c r e a t u r e which he
had made moving and l i v i n g , the created image o f the e t e r
nal gods, he r e j o i c e d , and i n his job determined t o make
the copy s t i l l more l i k e the o r i g i n a l , and as t h i s was
an eternal l i v i n g being, he sought to make the universe
eternal, as far as i t might be.
and 48e-49a:
. . .our discussion of the universe requires a fuller
d i v i s i o n than t h e f o r m e r , f o r then we made two c l a s s e s . . .
One, which we assumed, was a p a t t e r n i n t e l l i g i b l e and
always the same, and the second uas only an imitation
of the pattern, generated and visible.
The " r e t r i e v a l o f a philosophically f r u i t f u l conception
of paradigmatism" that I promised i n p. 335 would be possible
only i n looking t o the ways i n which paradigm-imagery was used
i n the dialogues. I have l i m i t e d my examples t o t h e Republic
350
the Phaedrus, and the Timaeus not merely because of space
consideration, but because these dialogues are most representative
o f Plato's aims i n speaking o f and alluding t o the Forms as
paradeigmata.
i)
Nevertheless, the
351
thesis (i.e., that Forms are non-self-predicative paradigms)
has yet to be reached.
their
I n s h o r t , the R e v i s i o n i s t may
i n essence:
This i s what
w i t h P a r t n e n i d e s c o n c e r n e d t h e n a t u r e o f i n t e l 1i q i b i l i t . y :
For Parmenides, the source of i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y , or the
352
i n t e l l i g i b l e aspect o f t h i n g s , as t o _hen, the Parmenidean
One.
Were
353
whenever such attribution occurs.
J u s t i c e i_s t h e i n t e l l i g i b l e a s p e c t o f t h a t p r o p e r t y , t h e
source o f i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y whereby we can i d e n t i f y a p r o p e r t y
(e.g., " j u s t " ) as being what i t i s .
thesis in that
that Forms
32
But
For example,
The
When Forms
355
S i n c e S t r a n g b e l i e v e s v e r s i o n 2 o f t h e TMA i s a n
e x p l i c i t reductio argument, he can say against Vlastos that
I cannot see t h a t Plato was a t a l l perplexed,
unless i t was over the decision as t o which o f the
p r e m i s s e s o f t h e TI1A w a s t o b e j e t t i s o n e d ; a n d I d o u b t
whether he remained perplexed f o r very long even
about t h i s . 33
Strang believes Plato i s jettisoning SP, not merely
because o f i t s r o l e i n the TMA, but because i t i s a necessary
item in "Plato's middle-period paradigmatic theory", which
as i t turns out i s "epistemologically s t e r i l e " .
34
Strang
j u s t i f i e s h i s c l a i m t h a t SP i s e s s e n t i a l t o p a r a d i g m a t i s m
i n the following way, focusing on the image-copy or mimesi s
m e t a p h o r i s e d i n t h e r e d u c t i o o f TMA v e r s i o n 2 , a n d c o m m o n
enough i n dialogues such as Cratylus (389b) and Republic' (597c);
. . .The theses of the middle period paradigmatic
theory are (1) that the relation of particular to form
i s that of copy to o r i g i n a l , and (2) that knowledge of
forms, and i n particular of timeless truths about forms,
i s acquired i n t h i s l i f e by r e c o l l e c t i o n o f what was
already known by the discarnate soul before b i r t h .
(2) presupposes a consequence of (1), namely that form
and particular resemble each other ( l a ) ; and ( l a )
e n t a i l s , o r i s e q u i v a l e n t t o , SP. Therefore i f SP goes,
the paradigmatic theory collapses. 3
S t r a n g b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e TMA d e m o n s t r a t e s t h e
incompatibility of the uniqueness assumption (that for any
given property F, there i s one and only one form F-ness) and
33
34
35
paradigmatism.
He i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s by analogy w i t h a
a's p r e c i s e l y a s p o s s i b l e t h e o r i g i n a l d a m a g e d s t a n d a r d , m a d e
in 1760.
the I.S.Y. as
I f a Form i s a
B u t we can
o n l y s a y t h a t t h e s t a n d a r d i_s^ a y a r d l o n g i n t h e l i g h t o f t h e
unit of measurement o f the 1878 actsomething which i s n ' t
a yard long; otherwise the bar may contract o r expand, and
with i t , what i s taken to be a yard long, since newly-made
rulers would be aligned with the altered bar.
Now P l a t o ' s
Forms are not changeable l i k e the bronze bar, nor are they
357
v i s i b l e ; nevertheless Strang does not believe t h i s invalidates
his analogy.
act i s not a paradigm, "for neither the standard bar nor anything
else i s a copy of i t or resembles i t i n any way".
And the
how does
But
358
Strang's point i s that paradigmatism i s epistemologically
sterile:
the
Mwhat-is-x"
either I would
With
359
Strang believes that Plato had ample reason to postulate
forms as p - l o g o i i n the e a r l y and middle dialogues. He faced
an epistemological dilemma: how can one make t h i n g s i n t e l
l i g i b l e which are disputed and i n v i t e i n t e l l e c t u a l scrutiny,
i f the mose important of these things are without e a s i l y
recognizable "sensible images" ( c f . Statesman 285 f f . j a l s o
Phaedrus 263 a-c, Republic 523-4) ?
Unlike "straightforward"
360
c l a r i t y he claimed for his recollection.
07
i)
Strang i s
38
Op
361
i s identified not merely with dialectic (which Strang himself
notes), but also with "erotic mania".
39
In short, Plato
But, as i n Timaeus,
ii)
On p . 188 o f h i s a r t i c l e , S t r a n g says
But i s i t
Only
362
b) the only sort of paradigm there i s i s one l i k e the
standard bar - - a perfect example of something of a kind with
a l l i t s (other) instances. But a) rests upon a naivete about
anamnesis; even i f P l a t o was n o t being t e n t a t i v e o r even
mythic, there i s enough mention -in the dialogues about the
difference between noesi s and ai sthesi s that i t would be
f a c i l e to suppose t h a t our "seeing" the Forms before b i r t h
i s simply a high-grade version o f the a i s t h e s i s we have i n our
present l i v e s . And i f this i s so, b) could only r e s t on an
ungrounded assumption
that no paradigm
could f a i l to be of
40
a piece with the standard bar, standard lead weight, etc.
Is b) a mere presupposition of Strang^? I think so,
for this reason: his understanding of a paradigm, and of the
Forms as paradigms, centers around t h e i r capacity f o r being
standards. His argument against paradigmatism focuses on
standards: that i f something i s a paradigmatic standard, e.g.,
the paradigmatic yard, then i f i t i s a paradigm (e.g., a yard
long) i t must be a paradigm i n virtue of something which
i s i t s e l f a paradigm (and so on, ad i n f i n i t u m ) , or something
which i s non-paradigmatic (e.g., not a yard long). This
effectively punctures Plato's middle theory of Forms, says
Strang. But might i t n o t be the case t h a t some t h i n g s can
serve as standards and not be paradigms i n the way t h a t those
things which are "measured" against the standard are, yet
s t i l l i n some sense are " l i k e " those instances and, hence,
are paradigmatic?
40
363
Strang himself has given us an example of t h i s :
a-1ogos and that after which i t i s patterned.
example:
the
To use h i s
The length o f a
the latter
Must i t f a i l to be
i s a s e n s e , e . g . , t h a t s o m e t h i n g n o t a y a r d l o n g c a n b e 1i k e
a
One can
364
detailed representative drawing of the ship.
But i s t h i s r e a l l y so?
What i s
They are
365
as Wittgenstein noted, a score, a recording, and a per
formance o f , say, Beethoven's Ninth Symphony are l o g i c a l l y
41
a l i k e , i f not l i t e r a l visual pictures of each other.
I f t h i s i s mere chauvinism on Strang's p a r t , then the
instructions, and therefore non-self-predicative Foems,
could be said to be at least " l i k e " theur instances
without fear of an i n f i n i t e regress.
Whether o r n o t we should g i v e p a r t i c u l a r s t h e p r i
vilege of being 1ike their forms, or merely " l i k e " them i n
some vague unspecified way ( e . g . , whether, i n A l l e n ' s words,
p a r t i c u l a r s "resemble" Forms or are mere "semblances") could
lead to an avalanche of f r u i t l e s s discussion. I w i l l avoid
further treatment of the issue by changing the subject of
discussion to something more u s e f u l . Whether the Forms
are paradigms or not i s an issue that rests on another
issue: whether any standard which serves as a principle of
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and evaluation, and i s a model f o r fashioning
copies, but does not l i t e r a l l y resemble those copies,
could be called a paradigm without equivocation. For t h i s
i s what Forms d, among other t h i n g s : whether they m e r i t the
name "paradigm i s l a r g e l y i r r e l e v a n t and almost a matter o f
convention. But Paradigm or n o t , i f the Forms can serve as
models ( i n the manner of the printed instructions,
for example) for the fashioning of particular things
and their evaluation, they are not doubt paradigmatic,
or put more precisely, can serve as paradigms, or
have c e r t a i n paradigm q u a l i t i e s o r a s p e c t s . Even i_f
42
When P l a t o
367
as models f o r the ordering o f the natural world i n no way
constitutes apparent reversion to an e a r l i e r , self-predicative
theory o f Forms (and there i s ample reason to doubt that there
ever was such a d o c t r i n e ) , nor i s i t evident that the
Timaeus has i t s proper origins i n a self-predicative "middle
period".
Timaeus says about the Forms and what the Parmenides says,
even i f the Parmeni des i s interpreted as a refutation of
self-predicationism.
But the most important reason for paradigmatic forms i s
not i n accounting f o r the order of nature-- the Timaeus i s
admittedly a muthos--but i n providing concrete guides for
conduct.
To c i t e two instances:
i n Phi1ebus ( 2 6 b ) , i n t e l l i g e n c e
as the
368
exemplar i f we are ourselves t o be good, o r as P l a t o says,
"citizens" of that ideal city.
Plato's complaint against Sophism i s directed against
the idea that ethical inquiry i s , at best, a matter of doxa,
doxa i t s e l f being understood i n the context of a conceptual
relativism, i.e., that opinion is merely a matter of
c o l l e c t i v e p r e f e r e n c e , o f sheer nomos, and a l l d i s p u t e s common
to such inquiry are beyond rational adjudication.
In effect,
Sophism,
Gorgias
(e.g., Protaqoras357a f f .
As w i t h Parmenides, P l a t o ' s
369
particularly i n ethical and p o l i t i c a l matters, seriously
enough, with the consequence, Plato thinks, that they
themselves advance an u n i n t e l l i g i b l e position. Plato
wishes to score points for the i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y of moral
notions against the Sophists by developing his theory of
Forms. With few exceptions, discussion of the Forms takes
place i n the c o n t e x t , however vague or marginal, o f some
ethical issue, or question about the good for man. But i f
t h i s i s Plato's reason f o r advancing the Forms, as the
" .
43
370
The Apologist camp happily recognizes t h i s :
but
Their f a i l u r e i s p a r t l y due
the attempt
As my e a r l i e r a t t e m p t t o
My examination o f s e l f - p r e d i c a t i o n i n the
i t is simply not a
371
to make sense out o f such language, through a vague
and convoluted doctrine of "ambiguous" predication, misfires
badly. Whether Plato, say, i n the Republic or the Timaeus,
thought of his paradigmatic Forms as self-predicative exemplars
i s largely beside the point. I t i s possible to view Forms as
paradigmatic without thinking of them as paradigms i n the
narrow sense advocated by Strang. For instance, a l l the
paradigmatic language i n the Republic does not for an instant
make Forms paradigms on the order of Strang's standard bar
- - i t merely i n s i s t s that Forms can serve as paradigms by
providing the lover of wisdom with a telos to approximate.
There would be nothing inconsistent i n accpeting these passages
i n the Republic at "face value" because there i s nothing i n
Plato's paradigmatic language, understood in context, that
necessitates a self-predicative doctrine of Forms. There i s
nothing i n Plato's text which forces our hand that way,
and t h e r e f o r e we would be e n t i r e l y j u s t i f i e d i n t h i n k i n g
that Plato himself intended i n these middle dialogues a
paradi gmati c, yet not (necessarily) sel f-predicative theory of
Forms.
45
372
I have t r i e d t o show t h a t much o f the c r i t i c a l
hand-wringing over self-predication i s wasted e f f o r t .
As o u t
373
red herring.
The metaphysical and e t h i c a l r o l e o f the Forms as
paradigmatic ideals and the logical and metaphysical part
they play ( l e . , f i x i n g the meaning of general terms; and
as real universals which can be noeti cal l.y apprehended)
need not be reconciled because, understood i n context,
they don't conflict.
i n Meno r e c o l l e c t i o n and d i a l e c t i c
true episteme).
45
The
X I ) C O N C L U S I O N : WHY T H E A N A L Y T I C C R I T I C I S M O F
PLATO FAILS
I n Chs. I I I - X , I have t r i e d t o show the deep
misunderstanding of Vlastos's reading of Parmeni des. I
have also claimed that Revisionistic and Apologetic
c r i t i c s o f Vlastos o f t e n u n w i t t i n g l y make many o f the
assumptions Vlastos makes and thus likewise stumble i n t o
a bog of misunderstanding, a l b e i t a lesser sort of mis
u n d e r s t a n d i n g.
The question which must be asked now, i n con
clusion, i s "why i s t h i s musinderstanding r i f e within
a n a l y t i c commentary on Plato?" What could have motivated
scholars of considerable acumen t o view the Forms as
"perfect instances" (Vlastos), hypostatized concepts
(Crombie), or " o r i g i n a l s " whose "copies" resemble them i n
some u t t e r l y unspecifiable way ( A l l e n ) ? What i s i t t h a t
leads Vlastos i n t o asserting with supreme confidence that
Plato never "caught" the significance of the TMAs, while
leading a Ryle or an A c k r i l l , with equal confidence, into
claiming that Plato not only "caught" i t , but used i t to
r i d himself of an inept and cumbersome theory of Forms?
Why t h e e n d l e s s p r o l i f e r a t i o n o f r e a d i n g s and c o u n t e r readings? and why the p e r s i s t e n t a t t r i b u t i o n o f doctrines
to Plato ( e . g . , self-predicative Forms) which cannot be
adequately supported in the texts of his dialogues?
The answer of the preceding chapters to these
377
i n S e c t i o n A t h a t V l a s t o s ' s c o n f u s i o n a b o u t t h e TMA s t e m s ,
i n part, from his one-sided estimate of "degrees-ofreality" in Plato's metaphysics. In Section B I shall ar
gue that that confusion flows from a c r i t i c a l predisposition
Vlastos exhibits which i s an expression of the analytic
"self-image" as the embodiment of true philosophical method.
I contend that a philosophy which embodies this self-image,
when i t turns to the task of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , d i s t o r t s what i t
t r i e s t o e x p l i c a t e . I n Section C 1 s h a l l show how t h i s s e l f image prompts some a n a l y t i c c r i t i c s t o s u b s t i t u t e t h e i r
philosophical problematic or research program for that of the
interpretant; in Vlastos's case, there is a serious con
fusion between Plato's brand of metaphysical realism and that
sort of post-Fregean realism frequently attacked by contemporary
nominalists. F i n a l l y , i n Section D, I s h a l l comment on
Vlastos's interpretive procedure, as I believe i t seriously
d i s t o r t s the way i n which an i n t e r p r e t e r comes t o understand
what an author meant i n a t e x t , and because i t overestimates
the value of analytic method i n understanding written philosophy.
A ) 0_n D e g r e e s - o f - R e a l i t y .
I n Vlastos' 1954 a r t i c l e on the TMA, a rather
daring claim i s made:
. . .the costliest of a l l the assumptions
t h a t P l a t o made i s t h a t the verb ' i s ' and a l l i t s
variants (when used i n ontological assertions) have
a single meaning, the one which i s j o i n t l y specified
378
by the four propositions I have just enumerated. 1
These propositions, which Vlastos takes to be
P l a t o ' s understanding of what i t means t o bje, are as
follows:
i ) X in intel1igible;
i i ) X is changeless;
i i i ) X i s not qualified by contrary predicates;
iv) X is itself the perfect instance of the property
or relation which the word for "X" connotes. 2
Vlastos's defense of this position i s , I think,
inadequate. He attempts t o support a u n i c i t y - o f - B e i n g theory
i n Plato by appealing to various textual supports for
the four propositions l i s t e d above. I n support of i ) , he
c i t e s P h a e d o 6 5 c f f . , R e p u b l ic 5 0 9 d f f . j i n s u p p o r t o f i i ) ,
he c i t e s Phaedo 78d f f . a n d others; i n support of i i i ) he
c i t e s Phaedo 74c, and so on.
There i s no e f f o r t to con-
31bid.,
p. 246nl-3.
379
begs the crucial question: a Revisionist would claim that
the 1ater dialogues agree with Aristotle in that "things
can be said to be i n many d i f f e r e n t senses --namely, Forms
and particulars.
But one need not adhere to Revisionism to find
fault with Vlastos's ascription of "univocality" to Plato.
Propositions i ) - i i i ) , a t least, could apply just as
neatly to a "multivocal" account of the meaning of "to be".
I believe I have established much o f t h i s i n previous
chapters. For example, i f X i s a Form, i t i s intellegible,
a noeton; i f x i s a p a r t i c u l a r , i t i s an aisthe'ton, yet i s
made i n t e l l i g i b l e through i t s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Forms. Thus
i ) , by i t s e l f , need not be hard evidence for Plato's univocality-of-Being thesis. Likewise with i i ) : a particular,
x, changes, but i t s intelligible aspect, constituted through
p a r t i c i p a t i o n with the e i de, does not. Proposition i i i ) ,
concerning contrary p r e d i c a t e s , was d e a l t w i t h a t l e n g t h
i n Ch. V I I : I argued there that although i i i ) could,
properly understood, characterize Forms and not p a r t i
culars, i t could not serve to differentiate Forms from
particulars. Improperly understood ( e . g . , Forms as "atomic
intel1igibles"), i i i ) i s not a characteristic of Forms. In
Ch. VII I cited the remainder of Parmenides P t . 1 , and i n
Ch. VI the "interweaving" of the f i v e megista gene as
evidence t h a t , i n a qualified sense, i i i ) does not hold for
Plato: although the i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y that Form F-ness i s i s
not that of i t s contrary, F-ness can and must be understood
5Ibid.,
pp. 247-48.
381
degrees-of-reality ontology. I t i s clear, as Vlastos ad
m i t s , that Plato i s not an Eleatic: particulars are not
t o t a l l y unreal, as they are f o r Parmenides, and Plato does
endorse a hierarchy of degrees i n Being (e.g., the Divided
Line of Republic 509d f f . ) . But i f Plato i s not an Eleatic,
his understanding o f " t o be" must be considerably more com
plex than that in Vlastos's four propositions.
One could accomodate i ) and i i ) t o a degrees-ofr e a l i t y ontology, b u t only i n a way which i s seriously
damaging to Vlastos's position on Plato's univocity-ofBeing thesis. Since particulars are, as Republic 478d
would have i t , both "real" and "unreal", one would have to
defend the r e a l i t y of particulars by specifying a sense i n
which they are intelligible or partake of i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y
and changelessness. This i s exactly what methexis i s
designed t o do. However i n making t h i s move we have established at least two senses of "to be": to be an eidos
and t o be that which participates i n e i d l . And t h i s would
place Plato i n the company o f A r i s t o t l e as a defender o f
the "manifold senses of 'Being' " .
Even Vlastos's c i t a t i o n s from Republic seem t o
undermine rather than support his position. I f , as i n 477a,
particulars "both are and are-not", then one must be w i l l i n g
t o i n s i s t t h a t they indeed a r e . As R.E. A l l e n q u i p s , we
m u s t r e m e m b e r t h a t d e g r e e s - o f - r e a l i t.y i m p l i e s d e g r e e s - o f real it.y: i f particulars are not to ont5s on, and are not
absolutely nothing, particulars then are not things which
382
neither are nor are not.
383
acknowledged the multivocity of " t o be", because i f he
d i d , he would have endorsed a types-ontology. This pre
supposes that one cannot have both degrees- and types-ofr e a l i t y , an assumption that I believe I have effectively
r e f u t e d i n my analyses o f Parmenides P t . 1 . I t also p r e
supposes that one can have a degrees-of-reality metaphysics
l i k e PIato's (where the gradations of Being run through
both eide and their derivatives, the aistheta) without also
implying types-of-reality and i t s concommitant, multivocityo f - B e i n g . I n "The T h i r d Man Argument", Vlastos f a i l s t o
justify his chief claim about Plato's metaphysics.
In "Degrees-of-Reality in Plato" (1965) Vlastos
attempts t o explain Plato's degree-ontology i n a manner
consistent with his earlier position, that Plato did not
recognize different senses, or different types of Being.
He makes a number o f important points i n the course o f the
article:
i ) Degrees-of-reality i n Plato i s not to be under
stood as degrees-of-existence; "as we commonly use the
word "existence", degrees of i t (as d i s t i n c t from degrees
o f perfection of things i n existence) make no sense what
soever; the idea of one individual existing more, or less,
than another would be a rank absurdity."6 Vlastos i s cer
t a i n l y correct i n denying that this i s the sense of
^Gregory Vlastos, "Degrees-of-Reality in Plato", in
R. Bambrough, e d . , New Essays on P I a t o and A r i s t o t l e (London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965T7p. 8-9.
384
degrees-of-reality in Plato, but there is a disturbing
undercurrent i n h i s argument. He suggests t h a t i n s o f a r
as Forms and particulars both e x i s t , they e x i s t i n
e x a c t l y the same manner, as i n d i v i d u a l s , n e i t h e r " e x i s t i n g "
more or less than the other. But i t jjs questionable whether
the Forms are individuals, i . e . , abstract particulars. The
idea of Forms as abstract particulars existing i n a nonspatio-temporal realn alongside the spatio-temporal realm of
aistheta stems, as Crombie has argued, from the conception of
Forms as "named meanings", as "things which are properties".
Crombie has presented a convincing interpretation of the
Parmenides as an attempt to refute the conception of Forms
as abstract particulars. Although the Republic passages
Vlastos i s fond of c i t i n g d indicate that both Forms and
particulars are, they do not establish, nor even suggest,
that both Forms and particulars exi s t as individuals. Forms
constitute the particular individuals as the sort of
i n d i v i d u a l s the l a t t e r a r e . One could understand P l a t o
as advocating a d i s t i n c t i o n between Being and existence:
Forms are, and through participation i n them particulars
come t o be the p a r t i c u l a r , determinate exi stents they a r e . ^
Vlastos's covert assimilation o f Forms and particulars i n t o
a common category o f e x i s t e n t s i s an assumption - - u n w a r r a n t e d - which threatens to color his interpretation of Platonic degrees.
^See Charles P. Bigger, Participation (Baton Rouge:
Univ. of Louisiana P r . , 1968), p. 73; Stanley Rosen, PIato's
Sophist (New Haven: Yale Univ. P r . , 1983) pp. 217-22,
232-34, 271-2.
i i ) D e g r e e s - o f - r e a l i t y i_s^ t o b e u n d e r s t o o d i n t e r m s
of "cognitive r e l i a b i l i t y " : "Here, then, i s one sense of
"real": that which i s cognitively dependable, undeceiving."
Forms, accordingly, are highly dependable, hence "more real
particulars, being less so, are "less real" Vlastos i l
luminates his conclusion through use of Plato's "Third
Bed" argument:
This i s the sense i n which the Form of the
Bed i s Rep.X (597 a-d) i s the " r e a l l y real" or
" p e r f e c t l y r e a l " Bed. This we would know even i f
we had not been given e a r l i e r the Cave t o t e l l us
how t o take these s t a r t l i n g expressions. Plato
explains himself a l l over again here, saying that the
bed-maker's product i s "something dark' (amudron t i )
by comparison with the t r u t h (prPs aletheian; T.e., by
comparison with the "true" Bed) --"dark"to the mind
when i t seeks l i g h t on the question, "what are the
properties which make up the essence o f Bed ?" The
same p o i n t i s made my another t a l e , t h e one compressed
i n t o the word "pure" as applied t o the Forms
already i n the Phaedo, then used again i n the
Symposium, and occuring three times i n adverbial form
i n Rep. V as a variant for the "perfectly" or
"completely" real. 9
Serious objections^ however, c&n be raised against
Vlastos' cognitive reliability account of Platonic degrees.
I f , as Vlastos suggests, a particular i s but a "shadowy"
simulacrum of the Form i n which i t participates, i t i s at
l e a s t a shadow and a simulacrum of i t . T h e i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y
o f a p a r t i c u l a r , t h e n , "shadowy" as i t may be, i s due t o
the participatory relationship i t has with Forms. Vlastos
distinguishes between "pure" and "shadowy" objects of cog8Vlastos,
"Degrees of Reality", p. 7.
386
n i t i o n , and neglects the relationship between the two which
constitutes the shadowy particular as the particular (and
the "shadow") t h a t i t i s . By t h i s neglect, Vlastos bypasses
the issue o f how p a r t i c u l a r s are less c o g n i t i v e l y r e l i a b l e
than Forms. As b e f o r e , Vlastos does n o t c l a r i f y how i t
i s possible to specify the Forms as more r e l i a b l e and
hence more real than p a r t i c u l a r s . To do so would imply
specifying a type-difference between Forms and particulars
which would ground claims of cognitive adequacy or i n
adequacy, and make i n t e l l i g i b l e Vlastos's d i s t i n c t i o n
of degrees-of-reality i n Plato. But this would entail
precisely what Vlastos denies: that Plato's ontology i n
cluded types as well as degrees of r e a l i t y , and insisted on
more than one unique sense for the verb "to be".
i i i ) Vlastos does attempt to support his contention
that the cognitive r e l i a b i l i t y of Forms over' particulars
i s the basis for Platonic degrees. Unfortunately his tactic
f a i l s to make his p o s i t i o n any more tenable:
. . .As i s clear i n the l a t t e r passage
Rep.V, 477a f f .
--the f i r s t and also the f u l l e s t
expression of degrees of reality-- the intended
contrast i s between the Form, F, and instances of i t
which are reckoned less "pure" F's than i t , not because
they are not exclusively F, but are F and not F,
their F nature i s adulterated by contrary char
a c t e r s , so t h a t we could onlu get a confused and un
certain idea of what i t i s to be F, one that would be
subject to constant fluctuations. . .
10
Here Vlastos returns to proposition i i i ) of his
101bid.,
pp. 6-7.
388
i f Forms are i n the same manner t h a t p a r t i c u l a r s are
( i . e . , i f they are simply "perfect instances"), are they
recognizable as Forms?
A pair of recent a r t i c l e s , Alexander Nehamas's
"Self-Predication and Plato's Theory of Forms" and Robert
T u r n b u l l ' s "Epi steme and Doxa", lend some support t o the
less counterintuitive claim that Plato believed in types
as well as degrees-of-reality, and t h a t , accordingly, he
admitted several senses of " t o be".**
Turnbull's work i s
Greek to correspond to i t .
He (CPlato]
does, however, have a dis
t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n i_s ( e i m i ) a n d c o m e s t o b e ( g i g n o m a i )
Though there i s some temptation t o t a r r y on the
parallels between that distinction and the one
b e t w e e n i_s^ a n d e x i s t s , I s h o u l d l i k e f o r t h e t i m e
being t o ignore comes t o be and attend t o j_s. That the
m a t u r e P l a t o l i n k s i_s^ t o t h e d o c t r i n e o f f o r m s i s
beyond question. What i s not so universally r e
cognized i s that i t is less illuminating to say, for
Plato, that the forms are than i t i s to say that
to be i s to be a form and, for nonforms, to say that
to be i s to be informed. 13
Turnbull explains the meaning of Plato's dual sense
of Being:
. . . f o r the mature Plato (at least), forms
are principles of structure. By the use of p r i n
ciples I wish to convey the idea of structure i t s e l f
as contrasted with something (or things) structured.
Thus The Triangle I t s e l f i s contrasted with t h i s
golden triangle ( a structured piece of gold).
The House I t s e l f i s contrasted with t h i s wooden
house. The Courageous I t s e l f contrasts with
courage i n Achilles. 14
The structure/structured-thing d u a l i t y outlined
by Turnbull above can also be viewed as Nature/Naturedthing : these dualities coincide with the polarities be
tween eimi/gignomai , noeta/aistheta, and i s / i s and i s - n o t .
The type-distinction between Form and particular affirmed
by Turnbull, and the dual sense of Being which flows from
i t , are the bases for claiming that while the i n t e l l i g i b l e
order i s , the sensible order i s and i s not. Because no
131bid.,
14Ibid.
p. 280.
389
390
p a r t i c u l a r i_s u n l e s s i t c o m e s t b e b y b e i n g i n f o r m e d
by structure-Forms, i t cannot be said to be i n the ultimate
or primary sense.
15
391
"perfect instances", while particulars are "imperfect in
stances". As I have argued again and again, t h i s i n t e r
pretation of Plato's ontological divisions leaves the
ontological divide between Forms and particulars deeply
incoherent: they are then, after a l l , two varieties of the
same metaphysical o r d e r , i . e . , p a r t i c u l a r s , f o r Vlastos.
Turnbull, however, construes Forms not as high-grade
particulars but as principles of structure which consti tute
particulars. Forms, for Turnbull, are not entities or things
but that which make things possible by informing them with
structure and determinateness. Turnbull's Form/particular
distinction can be maintained, while Vlastos's must
untimately collapse. And despite Turnbull's major d i s
agreement with Vlastos, he s t i l l manages to preserve much
of that which Vlastos sought to preserve --degrees-ofr e a l i t y , "that which i s " / " t h a t which i s and i s not", and
so on.
Nehamas's defense of multivocity i n Plato takes
i t s departure from the self-predication puzzles in
Parmenides p t . l , which have proven so troublesome for Vlastos.
Nehamas notes t h a t P l a t o ' s p r e f e r r e d way f o r speaking o f
Forms i s auto to F, "The F I t s e l f " . This contrasts with the
way one r e f e r s t o p a r t i c u l a r s : e . g . , " t h i s F " , " t h a t F " , e t c .
Locutions l i k e "The F I t s e l f " are taken, by Critical exegetes
l i k e Vlastos and Geach, to indicate either a self-predicative
e n t i t y , or a generalized paradigmatic image or concept, which
i s frequently misconstrued as a self-predicative e n t i t y .
392
But Nehamas suggests another way t o conceive o f auto t o
and assertions l i k e "The F I t s e l f i s F". The former
amounts to "What i t i s to be F " , while the l a t t e r roughly
translates "The F I t s e l f i s what i t i s to be F " . ^
A1though Nehamas ' s formulations might,
upon f i r s t reading, seem a b i t t h i n and t r i f l i n g , upon
closer inspection they quite successfully offer an alternative
to Critical self-predicationism. Particulars are handily
distinguished from Forms i n Nehamas's schema: they are
" f ' s " or "F-things", while t h e i r Forms are "what i t i s
to be an F-thing". Particulars are brute " t h a t s " , Forms are
t h e i r structural "whats". To say "The F i t s e l f i s F" i s not
t o proclaim The F I t s e l f (or F-ness) as an F-thing: i t i s
t o a r t i c u l a t e what i t means t o be an F-thing. There are
triangles, and knowing what "being triangular" i s or means;
there i s the courage of Achilles, and knowing what "being
courageous", i n A c h i l l e s and o t h e r s , i s o r means; and so on."
I n each case, Nehamas indicates a d i s t i n c t i o n between the
sense of " t o be" as applied to Forms and the sense o f " t o
be" as applied to particulars. Only by doing so, Nehamas's
work suggests, can we make sense o f P l a t o ' s s e l f - p r e d i c a t i v e
language and thus secure a meaninqful distinction between
18
393
'Forms and Particulars. Such a d i s t i n c t i o n , because i t
entails "multivocity" and "types-of-reality", i s far
from the one which Vlastos makes.
Although Plato can legitimately be said to have
a degrees-of-reality ontology, I believe there is l i t t l e
reason to endorse Vlastos's formulation of i t . Vlastos's
musings on degrees-of-reality constantly echo his conviction
t h a t " t o be" was univocal f o r Plato - - a conviction which
I hope t o have shown i s without textual support and i s
internally inconsistent. Nevertheless Vlastos continually
voices this conviction. Given i t s counterintuitive con
sequences, i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o understand why t h i s i s so.
I believe that a convincing explanation of his tenacity
can be found not i n his beliefs about Platonic doctrine
but i n his methodological presuppositions, which i n a way
"force his hand" i n the direction of the untenable reading
he advances.
B) Logical Analysis and "Self-Image".
Consider, once again, Vlastos's four propositions
mentioned above:the univocal sense of "x i s " means:
i) x is intelligible;
i i ) x is changeless;
i i i ) x i s not qualified by contrary predicates;
iv) x is itself the perfect instance of the property
or relation which the word for *x' connotes.
In Section A I c r i t i c i s e d i ) - i i i ) on the grounds
that they did not establish Vlastos's case for univocity.
But unlike i ) - i i i ) , iv) is not easily dismissed. I t i s
394
the one most crucial to Vlastos's position. I f i t s truth
can be established, then most -of Vlastos's claims concerning
univocity and degrees-of-reality w i l l be vindicated: i t s
truth w i l l entail the existence of only one ontological
type embracing both Forms and p a r t i c u l a r s . Forms, then
would be "perfect particulars".
I f i v ) could be established, Vlastos would be
correct i n his claim that Plato's metaphysics embodies a
massive incoherency. I t would f a i l to make the most
elementary distinctions between universals and particulars,
intel1igibles and sensibles, and so on. But i f Vlastos's
p o r t r a i t of an incoherent Plato i s to be vindicated over
those of his more generous rivals (Allen, Crombie, Turnbull,
et. a l . ) , then the establishment of iv) is absolutely
necessary. Vlastos's picture of a thoroughly confused
Plato i s , after a l l , prima facie counterintuitive, given
the readings of his philosophy which account for a l l that
Vlastos considers, and reveal a cogent Platonic system,
rather than an incoherent one. For the counterintuitive
understading of Plato to prevail, i v ) must be supported by
some hard evidence.
Yet Vlastos, amazingly, remarks of i v ) that
For this n documentation ( i n the s t r i c t
sense) can be offered --a point of great importance,
to be discussed shortly. 19
I f i v ) i s so central to Vlastos's interpretation,
19Vlastos,
"TMA", p. 246n4.
201bid.,
p. 248.
396
predication i f i t is the sort of degrees-of-reality theory
which already incorporates i v ) .
degrees-theory need
22
397
however, insists that such interpretive charity i s
out of place regarding Plato, and especially the
Parmenides. Why s o , g i v e n h i s a d m i s s i o n t h a t t h e r e i s
no hard evidence to support self-predication? For example,
why does he i n s i s t t h a t
. . .there can be no doubt about the fact
that Plato never asserted self-predication i n any of
his w r i t i n g s , and not much doubt that neither did
he assert i t i n oral discussion. . . for i f he had,
A r i s t o t l e would have known i t . . . 23
and yet continue to maintain that self-predication, as
expressed i n i v ) , i s an essential element i n Plato's
univocal doctrine of the meaning of "to be"?
What i s the
source of his assurance t h a t Platonic Forms are s e l f predicative, especially given that degrees-of-reality is
an inadequate support f o r i t ?
The only other argumentative support f o r Vlastos's
p o s i t i o n l i e s i n h i s formalization o f the TMAs. There, he
noted that several premisses were "missing" from the
arguments: one-over-many, non-identity, and self-predication.
Given t h a t Plato never made those premisses e x p l i c i t ,
Vlastos concludes t h a t he was unaware t h a t they were needed
t o generate the argument. He draws from t h i s conclusion the
corrolary
"hidden" element i n the theory of Forms and the degrees-ofr e a l i t y ontology i n which i t i s embedded. Since Vlastos
c o n c l u d e s ( c o r r e c t l y ) t h a t t h e TMA i s d e s t r u c t i v e o f s e l f 23Vlastos,
"TMA", p. 250.
399
o f those premisses. But t h i s does not indicate why the
premisses were l e f t unacknowledged, nor does i t give us
any h i n t s as t o how Plato thought, o r would have thought,
about s e l f - p r e d i c a t i v e Forms. Vlastos assumes that s i nee
Plato did not e x p l i c i t l y acknowledge self-predication, and
since self-predication is responsible for the regress, Plato
misses, the g r a v i t y o f the TMAs: they e f f e c t i v e l y undermine
t h e t h e o r y o f F o r m s . B u t , a s C h s . 1 1 1- X t e s t i f y , P l a t o ' s
f a i l u r e t o m e n t i o n s e l f - p r e d i c a t i o n i n t h e TMAs does n o t
indicate a lack of awareness of i t . Placed i n the context
of his encounter with the h i s t o r i c a l Parmenides, and i n
the context of his "literary" techniques, i t is a far less
forced i n t e r p r e t a t i o n to view Plato as very much aware o f
self-predication, and aware that i t i s f a t a l to a certain
conception of eide, that of young Socrates i n 128e-130a.
Nothing i n V l a s t o s ' s f o r m a l i z a t i o n o f t h e TMAs r e q u i r e s us
to admit t h a t P l a t o ' s Forms were inherently s e l f - p r e d i c a t i v e ,
that he did not recognize t h i s , and that i n consequence he
could only be confused and perplexed about his arguments
i n Parmeni des.
What might have misled Vlastos i n t o thinking that
h i s f o r m a l i z a t i o n s o f t h e TMAs c o u l d e s t a b l i s h a s u b s t a n t i v e
point about Plato's perplexity? A possible clue to his
motivations can be gleaned from the opening words of his
essay:
400
Hardly a text i n Plato has been discussed.
as much i n the l a s t f o r t y years as the two passages
i n the Parmeni des purporting to prove that the Theory
o f Forms involves an i n f i n i t e r e g r e s s , which came t o
be dubbed within Plato's l i f e t i m e the 'Third Man'
argument. A flood of l i g h t has been thrown on both
the meaning of the text and on i t s philosophical
implications. Yet in spite of t h i s , disagreement
continues. I s the Third Man Argument a v a l i d ob
jection to the Theory of Forms? Did Plato believe
i t was valid? . . . I f any progress i n agreement i s
t o be made a t t h i s j u n c t u r e i t must come from some
advance i n understanding t i e logical structure of the
argument. To t h i s end I s h a l l pursue i t s analysis
further than I think anyone else has yet found i t
profitable to push i t . 24
The g i s t o f the above seems to be t h i s : commentary
on Parmenides has f a i l e d to produce consensus on i t s meaning
and implications; t h i s consensus has not been achieved
because of the failure to consistently apply the right sort
o f i n t e r p r e t i v e m e t h o d o n t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y i m p o r t a n t *
segments of Plato's t e x t ; and t h i s method which has not
been r a d i c a l l y a p p l i e d t o t h e TMAs i s t h a t o f 1 o g i c a l
analysis.
Vlastos, whether he would acknowledge i t or n o t ,
i s banking his reading of Parmeni des on an interpretive
principle: the primacy of analytic method. All that stands
i n the way of "progress i n agreement" i s the neglect o f or
unwillingness to apply the methods of logical analysis.
Doing t h i s w i l l reveal the meaning o f the TMAs, t h e i r s i g
nificance for Plato, and their importance for contemporary
philosophical debate.
241bid.,
2 5 1b i d .
25
p p . 231-32.
401
I hope that Chs. 111-X have been, i f anything, a
chronicle o f the inadequacies of logical analysis as the
chief method i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f P l a t o . By using his
f o r m a l i z a t i o n s o f t h e TI'iA a s t h e p r i m a r y t o u c h s t o n e i n
his appraisal of Parmenides Vlastos i s subtly led into a
distortive sort of interpretive positivism. Plato never
explicitly recognizes self-predication i n Parmenides; yet
i t can be "drawn" from the logical skeleton of what ij^
e x p l i c i t l y s a i d i n the TMA. Vlastos seems predisposed t o
accept in his reading of the dialogue only textual evidence
and what can be derived from i t --the words of the arguments
and their entailments. This predisposition coaxes him into
c o n c l u d i n g t h a t P l a t o was perplexed by t h e TMAs and d i d n o t
recognize t h e i r power. I f he wasn't perplexed, or i f he
did appreciate their power,he "would have said so". But this
i s a crudely p o s i t i v i s t i c notion o f what i t means t o "say"
something i n a philosophical t e x t . Plato does manage t o
"say" that self-predication i s the problem, and that young
Socrates' theory o f Forms i s incoherent. He says t h i s
i n d i r e c t l y , through the iron.y of the exchanges between
Parmenides and Socrates, the frequency of reductio arguments
in both parts of the dialogue, the nature of Plato's long
standing quarrel with Eleaticism, etc. Furthermore, Vlastos's
p o s i t i v i s m i s h i g h l y s e l e c t i v e . On t h e one hand, he reads
the Parmenides as a record of perplexity because there i s
no e x p l i c i t mention of the SP-premiss i n the t e x t . Yet he
i s w i l l i n g t o a s s e r t t h a t SP was a s t a p l e i t e m i n P l a t o ' s
theory of Forms and degrees-of-reality theory while admitting
that there i s no evidence, i n the " s t r i c t sense", for i t .
On t h e one hand, he takes "absence o f evidence" t o s i g n a l
"evidence of absence", while on the other he i s more than
w i l l i n g to abandon a firm foundation for his assertions i n
the written work.
In short, analysis i s not enough. Given the highly
" l i t e r a r y " nature of Plato's thinking, this should be
apparent. That i t i s not to Vlastos --that he thinks that
analytic method w i l l generate interpretive consensus-- i s
a function
404
conviction that the logical analysis of language remains
philosophy's central task i s shared by a significant number
of contemporary analysts. For instance, the often-quoted
passage from Michael Duinmett's "Can Analytic Philosophy be
Systematic, and Ought i t To Be?":
Only w i t h Frege was the proper object o f
philo.ophy finally established: namely, f i r s t , that
the goal of philosophy i s the analysis of the struc
ture of thought; secondly, that the study of thought
i s to be distinguished sharply from the psychological
process of thinking; and f i n a l l y , that the only
proper method for analyzing thought consists i n the
analysis of language. . . The acceptance of these
t e n e t s i s common t o the e n t i r e a n a l y t i c
school. . .
but i t has taken nearly a half-century since his
CFrege'sJ death to apprehend clearly what the
real task of philosophy, as conceived by him, i s . 28
Dummett's account of the nature and legitimation
of philosophical analysis also reveals another element of
the analytic self-image: that, with analysis, philosophers
have f i n a l l y discovered the true aim and procedures of p h i l
osophy. This seems t o e n t a i l e i t h e r t h a t pre- o r n o n - a n a l y t i c
philosophers are not doing real philosophy (an ominous
thought ! ) o r , more charitably, that they were tackling
genuine problems with underdeveloped means - - i n e f f e c t ,
that they were doing badly what analysts do well.
This element of the analytic self-image --that with
the dawn o f l i n g u i s t i c analysis philosophy has f i n a l l y found
a means commensurate with i t s ends-- has s i g n i f i c a n t effects
for the historiography of philosophy: i . e . , that philosophy
2P
406
philosopher; the essence of philosophy i s the analysis of
arguments; t h e r e f o r e the a n a l y s i s o f the TliA should p r o v i d e
interpreters with sufficient normative guidelines for
understanding the meaning and import of Parmenides."). Given
the lack of solid support for his reading of Parmeni des
i n his other ruminations on Plato's thought, I can only
conclude t h a t V l a s t o s ' s f o r m a l i z a t i o n o f t h e TMAs i s h i s
sole normative guideline for concluding that the dialogue
i s a "record o f honest p e r p l e x i t y " , and t h a t Vlastos deems
the formalized arguments s u f f i c i e n t t o do so.
30
nonetheless
?n
especially its
method to
409
He also shows
. . . that a "philosophical problem" Qis]
a product of the unconscious adoption of assumptions
b u i l t into the vocabulary i n which the problem [is]
raised --assumptions to be questioned before the problem
[is]
taken seriously. 32
The c r i t i c a l t a c t i c o f challenging a doctrine by
questioning i t s assumptions certainly dies not originate
with Rorty, nor i s i t foreign to analytic c r i t i c s . However
I fear that analytic commentators have been f a r too neg
ligent i n applying that tactic on themselves. Their as
sumptions about philosophy and i t s proper method prompt
them to read into Plato's philosophy problems and responses
which were not h i s , and to mistake Plato's assumptions f o r
t h e i r own. A proper sense of philosophy's h i s t o r i c i t y would
serve to correct this lapse on their part, but i t would >
alsoi serve to undermine the basis for their self-image.
Nowhere i s t h i s lack of h i s t o r i c a l sense more
evident than in the attempt of analytic critics to articulate
what Plato meant by the ei de. Through the welter of i n
t e r p r e t a t i o n s t h e r e seems t o be one common tendency: t o
view the Forms as e n t i t i e s o r t h i n g s o f some s o r t . V l a s t o s ,
f o r whom Forms are " p e r f e c t i n s t a n c e s " , i s perhaps t h e
c l e a r e s t case. But Crombie, who senses something deeply
worong with t h i s tendency to make Forms i n t o things i n his
attack on "abstract individuals", nevertheless cannot
r e s i s t speaking of Forms as "abstract e n t i t i e s " (how does
one d i s t i n g u i s h between the two?). And many R e v i s i o n i s t s ,
such as Ryle and A c k r i l l , see as the result of Plato's
33
Hence
331bid.,
pp. 131-64.
cf.
Point of View
Goodman, Ways
OC
cf.
pp. 294
36
412
Although, f o r example, a Platonic Form or A r i s t o t e l i a n
essence could be j u s t l y said to be a "universal", and
although any talk about universals must touch at least
t a n g e n t i a l l y on the issue o f 'i n t e l 1 i g i b i 1 i t y , we are n o t
automatically entitled to conclude that the ancient
discussion on universals i s entirely commensurable with that
of analysis
37
A l t h o u g h t h i s j_s i n c o h e r e n t
i t i s n o t w h a t P l a t o w a s t r y i n g t o c[o i n P a r m e n i d e s . P l a t o
i s t r y i n g t o show that the Forms, the archai of i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y ,
cannot themselves be instances of the i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y they
impart, through methexi s, to particulars. Ryle takes Plato
to be engaged i n a sort of ontological housecleaning
--ridding the world of objects which are not necessary to
e x p l a i n what we say o f o r d i n a r y o b j e c t s . But f o r P l a t o , Forms
37
J t does so by
415
but that his Forms, not being entities, are incoherent.
One could, f o r example, extrapolate from Goodman's con
tention that whatever is i s individual to the conclusion
that Forms, as non-individuals , are philosophically mor
ibund. As I question Goodman's n o m i n a l i s t i c program, I
would question a conclusion such as the above drawn from
such a program.
38
39
historically
OO
416
conscious reading of the dialogues, to lead one to believe i t
works on Plato, l e t alone a host of other "realists" (e.g.,
Aristotle, Augustine, Scotus, etc.).
This tendency to read Plato through nominalist
spectacles p r e v a i l s even among P l a t o ' s a n a l y t i c defenders.
Witness R.E. Allen on the issue of whether or not the red
of a reflected scarf "resembles" that of the true scarf or
40
i s but a "resemblance" of i t .
Although Allen marshalls
this example i n the interests of reinforcing ontological
types i n Plato, his conclusion - - t h a t scarf and reflection
c a n ' t be the same s o r t o f " r e d " - - smacks o f " t h e odd
nominalistic position that a l l color instances are dif
ferent, and only r e s e m b l e . A l l e n ' s t a c i t nominalism
regarding red scarves and red reflections affects his more
substantive position on Forms and particulars: Because
methexis i s understood by Allen i n terms of " o r i g i n a l " and
"copy", Allen is forced to safeguard the type-difference
between the "red" of Redness I t s e l f and the "red" of a
scarf by way o f the murky notion of "analogous" predication.
I f P l a t o ' s problematic was n o t , as I have argued, t h a t o f
explaining resemblances but of explaining i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y ,
w h i c h m a k e s r e s e m b l a n c e ( m i m e sis ) p o s s i b l e , t h e n A l l e n ' s
analogy is not merely confusing, but unnecessary. Par
t i c u l a r s "copy" Forms because, as Hehamas puts i t , Forms
417
are "what-it-is-to-be-X": Forms constitute things as
determinate particulars, and once constituted particulars
can be said to "reflect" them. Allen's i m p l i c i t nominalism
paints a misleading picture of the relationship between
Form and p a r t i c u l a r . I t suggests ohl.y that Forms are,
particulars are, the latter are "resemblances" of the
former, and that this "resemblance" poses a serious i n
t e r p r e t i v e problem. One need o n l y recognize t h a t , f o r P l a t o ,
the Being of particulars i s derived from that of Forms
to see that his basis for "resemblance" i s entirely d i f
f e r e n t from t h a t o f scarves and t h e i r r e f l e c t i o n s . To
deny this basis
418
D) Some Questions Concerning Method.
Vlastos's overinf1ated claims for the abilities of
formalization as a c r i t i c a l method do not merely d i s t o r t his
estimate of Parmeni des by ignoring the h i s t o r i c i t y of Plato's
t e x t . They are misleading i n an even more basic way: they
lead one to believe that one can draw substantive conclusions
on the basis of the formal adequacy of his arguments alone.
V l a s t o s ' s i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n t o t h e formal s t r u c t u r e o f t h e TMAs
lead him to the correct observation that i t i s missing impor
tant premisses. This identification of self-predication as a
h y p o t h e s i s i n t h e TMA i s o f s i g n a l i m p o r t a n c e i s t r y i n g t o
understand what Parmenides means. But by i t s e l f , i t does
n o t determine Parmenides' meaning. One need o n l y examine
the work of Apologetic ( e . g . , Crombie) and Revisionists
( e . g . Weingartner and Strang) c r i t i c s who r e l y on Vlastos's
formalization in support of quite different substantive con
clusions to see that t h i s i s so.
Vlastos draws his substantive conclusions from the
f o r m a l i z e d TMAs on t h e b a s i s o f an i m p l i c i t , and q u i t e
peculiar idea o f what i t means t o understand a t e x t and
what the author meant by i t . In noting the missing premisses
o f the TMAs, Vlastos supposes t h a t P l a t o ' s "ignorance" o f
t h e p r e m i s s e s l e a d s h i m t o u n d e r e s t i m a t e t h e p o w e r o f t h e TMA
against paradigmatic Forms: Plato continues to believe i n
Forms ( t h i s , of course, begs the larger question of whether
Plato was ignorant o f the premisses, and neglects t o explain
how P l a t o ' s eide could be said t o be
paradigmatic). Vlastos
419
b e l i e v e s t h a t P l a t o ' s f a i l u r e t o mention SP and N I i s a
sign of his "ignorance" of them: thus he could not be .aware
of the logical power o f the TMAs. Nevertheless, Plato senses
something troubling about the TMAs: erroneously confident about
the Forms, he i s nonetheless tantalized by the arguments he
puts i n t o his Parmenides' mouth. Thus Parmenides records
Plato's confusion, his ambivalence, Vlastos argues.
Note Vlastos's procedure i n thus explicating the
t e x t o f Parmeni des. He s t a r t s from the assumption t h a t
a formalization of the TMAs, arguments which constitute the
heart of the dialogue, w i l l be the only sure means f o r
securing some s o r t o f i n t e r p r e t a t i v e consensus on the d i a l o g u e ' s
meaning. But after having completed the formalized arguments,
and a f t e r n o t i n g the m i s s i n g SP and NI premisses, V l a s t o s
turns his attention from the text of Parmenides to speculation
about Plato's motivations or purposes i n writing the Parmeni des.
His speculations about Plato's psychological state have l i t t l e
or no connection with what goes on i n Parmenides p t . 1: i . e . ,
the "analogy of the s a i l " , the arguments concerning the
unknowability of Forms, e t c . Only after Vlastos believes he
has a s c e r t a i n e d P l a t o ' s m o t i v a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e TMAs does he
veer back and examine the other arguments of p t . 1 i n the
light of his (rather speculative) earlier insights.
Vlastos, on one l e v e l , seems t o be saying something
rather uncontroversial: that the meaning of a text i s intimately
connected with the intentions of the author. Well and good:
b u t how are we j u s t i f i e d i n saying " t h i s i s what the author
420
m e a n t " w h e n e x p l i c a t i n g a g i v e n t e x t ? We g o t o t h e t e x t
i t s e l f , of course, and determine what U means. Vlastos
proceeds under the assumption, however, that the text of
Parmenides cannot be understood on i t s own terms: P l a t o ' s
i n t e n t i o n s must be ascertained through some o t h e r method
which w i l l get behind the text to the "real" intentions
l u r k i n g beneath i t which w i l l make the t e x t i n t e l l i g i b l e .
Vlastos, i n a sense, advocates a reversal of ordinary
c r i t i c a l procedure: instead of sharpening our focus on the
author's intention by understanding the meaning of the text,
Vlastos seems t o be saying t h a t we can o n l y c l o s e i n on
textual meaning by determining what the author meant
- - i . e . , independently of the text.
For certain sorts of texts or writing this critical
approach i s appropriate, I believe: those texts that are,
on the s u r f a c e , meaningless, but regarding which we have
reason to believe some meaning l u r k s under the surface.
Understanding an " i n joke" would have to proceed i n this way,
or something written i n code. But the marginal status of such
writing indicates that this method i s not part of the usual
way texts are understood. For w r i t i n g l i k e t h a t o f P l a t o ' s
Parmeni des, I think one must acknowledge the wisdom of
Northrop Frye's rule-of-thumb:
One has t o assume, as an essential h e u r i s t i c
axiom, that the work as produced constitutes the
d e f i n i t i v e record of the w r i t e r ' s intention. 42
421
Even i n those cases where "the work as produced" seems t o
break down as " t h e d e f i n i t i v e record o f the w r i t e r ' s i n t e n t i o n "
( e . g . , as i n
422
l i k e Parmenides would not f a i l to appreciate i ) the dis
t i n c t i v e role of the dialogue-form i n transmitting and
expressing philosophical insight,
i i ) the highly
and i i i ) the
423
i s perennial and ahistorical, and betray a lack of that
h i s t o r i c a l consciousness t h a t seems t o be essential f o r
a f a i r interpretation and evaluation of a t e x t . Analytic
commentary chronically ignores the significance of the
historical distance which separates us from Plato. I t f a i l s
to note dissimilarities i n subject matter and thus tends
toward
distortions
A P P E N D I X : V L A S T O S ' S L A T E R P O S I T I O N ON S E L F - P R E D I C A T I V E FORMS
'
1 111
11
I n 329e there i s a complementary aspect to Socrates' i d e n t i t y t h e s i s : he asserts, against Protagoras, t h a t i f a man has
one virtue he w i l l necessarily have them a l l . Vlastos coins
t h i s the " b i c o n d i t i o n s l i t y thesis" since i t makes i t necessary
that the posession of one Virtue entails the posession of
a l l others; and vice versa, a l l virtues are mutually necessary.
This can be formalized as
N(X) (Cx = Jx ='Px : Tx : Wx)
and further d i s t i l l e d to the mutual implication of classes
N ( C = J = P = T = W)
with the f i n a l consequence being the unity of the e i dos
underscoring a l l the (coextensive) virtues.5*
Interpreted i n a straightforward way, this could
hardly be what Socrates means. I t would entail the i n t e r s u b s t i t u t i v i t y o f v i r t u e - t e r m s i n an,y c o n t e x t : a l t h o u g h some
4Vlastos,
51bid.,
p. 232.
coextensive,
6Ibid.,
p. 231.
428
B) "Pauline" and "Ordinary" Predication.
Vlastos's way out o f t h i s morass i s t o d i f
f e r e n t i a t e between two modes o f predication, "ordinary"
and "Pauline" predication. The d i f f i c u l t i e s with the Socratic
t h e s i s o f the u n i t y o f t h e v i r t u e s o n l y a r i s e i f we take
the premisses of his arguments to be ordinary preducations,
i . e . , that the grammatical subject of the sentence i s the
l i t e r a l predicandum. Thus "Justice i s j u s t and pious"
would be a straightforward application of the attributes
" j u s t " and "pious" to Justice i t s e l f , the eidos Justice.
"Wisdom i s Courage" would be an identity-statement, or an
assertion that the terms "Wisdom" and "Courage" refer t o
the same eidos. But t h i s , as Vlastos c o r r e c t l y notes, i s
" h o p e l e s s l y a t odds b o t h w i t h common sense and w i t h the
p r o c e d u r a l assumptions o f h i s own d i a l e c t i c . " ' ' On t h e o t h e r
hand, i f Plato's Socrates i s using "Justice11, "Courage",
"Wisdom", e t c . , as S t . Paul uses " c h a r i t y " when he says
"Charity suffereth long and i s kind", the d i f f i c u l t i e s
disappear, because t h i s mode o f predication predicates not
of the Form-as-it-is-in-itself but rather of the Form-asit-is-instanced. (in the formalized language, "Pauline"
predication does not predicate F-ness qua F-ness, but
rather F-ness qua a , b , c , which are F by virtue of F-ness).
This sort of predication Vlastos christens "Pauline" pre
d i c a t i o n . I t enables us t o entangle the web o f ambiguities
7Ibid.
4 29
i n Protagoras by distinguishing between the grammatical
subject of the predications (the Forms) and the true logical
subjects (the entire range of the Forms' instances), thus
s h i f t i n g the locus o f the dialogue's discussion from Forms
to their instances - - i n this case, persons capable of v i r
tuous l i f e . 8
The significance o f t h i s f o r Vlastos's ideas on
self-predication is not inconsiderable. I f the self-predi
cative language i n Protagoras ( e . g . , 330 c-d) i s actually
Pauline predication, might i t not be possible that other
passages "that wear the look of self-predication" are
actually Pauline predications?
Vlastos is cautious in his claims for Pauline
predication i n the dialogues: the only safe way t o de
termine this would be "to go through each of the texts
i n question, i n v e s t i g a t i n g each i n i t s own context. . .
But a systematic, exhaustive scrutiny of the linguistic
data which would give us a firm basis for an answer. . .
has yet to appear i n p r i n t . "
81bid.,
pp. 252-5.
91b1d.,
p. 260.
430
self-predicative reading w i l l yield blatant ab
s u r d i t y . But there w i l l be some f o r which the
self-predicative reading w i l l survive, and these
w i l l be sentences where no obvious ineptitude w i l l
result --where the sense would be extremely plausible
by ancient standards, tolerably so by modern ones. 10
An example o f the f o r s t s o r t would be 31b, 39e
Timaeus, where Plato speaks of the Form Animality as ho
estin z5on ( l i t e r a l l y , says Vlastos, "that which i s - - i . e . ,
really i s - - animal") and as to pantelei zoo (the perfect
animal). Vlastos believes this i s enough " l i n g u i s t i c evidence"
to think that Plato believed that the Form of z5on i s
i t s e l f z5on. But this would undermine one of the cardinal
reasons for postulating any Form: that Forms are immutable,
and provide the demiourgos with a suitable model. I t
would be as disasterous a self-predication as would be
the a s s e r t i o n t h a t Motion I t s e l f moves, and f o r the same
reason: were i t self-predicative, i t would cease to be the
Form that i t i s . * *
An example o f the second s o r t o f s e l f - p r e d i c a t i o n
- - i . e . , ordinary rather than Pauline-- would be the Sym
posium passage discussed at length i n Ch. X above. Vlastos
defends the l i t e r a l l y self-predicative reading i n the pas
sage:
To read "Beauty i s b e a u t i f u l " as a Pauline
predication would be to turn i t i n t o a truism of
utter inconsequence for that redirection of desire,
that mutation of sensuality, which Platonic er5s
prescribes while the thesis that Beauty i t s e l f i s the
101bid.,
p. 261.
111bid.,
pp. 261-62.
p. 263.
13Ibid.,
p. 265.
432
i s confused about different things, but nonetheless con
fused. The confusion no longer points to a contradiction
within the theory of Forms: rather i t reveals an eguivocation
between types of attributive statements which, i f straightened
out, would cause his ontology to wear a different look.
I n short, Plato's Forms are s t i l l , f o r Vlastos, things or
p a r t i c u l a r s o r o b j e c t s (hence t h e S.ymposiurn c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n
of to kalon), but are no longer necessarily concrete pos
sessors of the attributes they confer to the sense-particulars
which participate i n them and i m i t a t e them (hence the Pauline
predications i n Timaeus). Vlastos believes, I think, that
Plato's Forms are not quite abstract enough: the Symposium
passage i s , Vlastos impugns, only "tolerably" acceptable
by modern standards, the implication being that Plato's
emphasis on Forms as paradeigmata f o r the ethical l i f e
has sprung this confusion.
14
Were t h i s t o be abandoned
p. 261.
15
15Harold
abstract uni
it
would e n t a i l cognizing J u s t i c e i n i t s many possible manifeatations --the whole range of i t s instances. Only i f this
i s possible can the Forms serve as paradigms, or models f o r
l i v i n g the ethical l i f e . The t r a d i t i o n of paradigmatism
1J.N. F i n d l a y , P l a t o and Platonism (New York: New
York Times Press, 1978), pp. 20-22.
435
i s altogether too strong to dismiss as an aberrant s t r a i n
i n Plato's thought, the result of a confusion between universals and particulars which can be excised from that part
of his theory o f Forms which i s l o g i c a l l y sound.
In Ch.IV
43b
predi cation.
I f I have presented a secure case for this i n t e r
pretation i n Ch. IV , then I think Vlastos's reformulation
of the self-predication paradoxes as confusions between
ordinary and Pauline predications can be effectively
challenged. Only i f Plato's Forms are abstract particulars
can Vlastos's "Pauline" thesis hold: he seems t o be saying
that i n an assertion such as "Justice i s pious" i t only
seems as i f the eidos J u s t i c e i s a concrete instance o f
piety; actually, the abstract entity Justice is going proxy
for i t s concrete instances as the subject of the predication.
But i f Forms are sources of i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y or the
i n t e l l i g i b l e aspect of r e a l i t y , they need not be confined
to the ontological niche i n which Vlastos places them, and
indeed they cannot i f they are to function as guides for
concrete a c t i o n . As a "concrete u n i v e r s a l " , o r the a i t i a
of the i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y of a property in a l l i t s concreteness,
a Form, when apprehended by nous, i m p l i c i t l y reveals a l l
possible manifestations of i t s i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y , as well as
i t s i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y as abstracted from a l l possible man
ifestations. Knowing "justice" entails knowing a l l possible
modifications of Justice, at least in a tacit or unarticulated way ( c f . Meno 81c; Phaedo 73a f f . ) , which can be
made e x p l i c i t through d i a l e c t i c (Republic 510c f f . ) . But
i f t h i s i s what knowing a Form e n t a i l s , there i s no need
to bring i n the issue of Pauline predication: i t has already
been taken care o f on the level of the Forms themselves.
19
441
442
20
To
t o be made t o look f o o l i s h :
,443
conclude, i n a way s u p e r f i c i a l l y s i m i l a r t o Hamilton, t h a t
Protagoras, by defending the unity of the virtues to be
analogous to the unity of the parts of a face, i s closer
21
to Plato than is the dialogue's Socrates.
Only insofar
as Protagoras advances the epistemological and metaphysical
idea that the virtues are interrelated yet each posessed
of differing distinguishing characters i s he on anything
like "Platonic" ground. But this sort of purely noetic,
purely speculatice thinking i s only part of Plato. Because
of Vlastos's analytic t h i r s t f o r precise arguments and
positions, he takes this sort o f logical-metaphysicalepistemological doctrine to be the essence, the grand
obsession o f Platonism. But the i r o n y o f Protagoras seems t o
smash t h i s i l l u s i o n : the a b i l i t y t o discern s i m i l a r i t i e s
and differences between the various eide of the virtues
does not constitute a moral education at a l l . This i s ,
after a l l , what Protagoras spoke of i n his long speech
--paideia. In a practical sense, the virtues cannot be
as loosely connected as Protagoras says they are: the
good l i f e would lose i t s cohesion and unity --becoming a
succession of interchangeable and vaguely interrelated
"goods"-- and i n some way i t would cease t o make sense t o
speak o f a "good l i f e " as such. This seems t o be the
consequence of Protagoras' conceptual relativism and con
ventionalism: there are no goods that are not relative to
21
Edith Hamilton, in her introduction to Protagoras
i n PIato: The Collected Dialogues, ed. E. Hamilton and H. Cairns
(Princeton: Princeton Univ. P r . , 1961), p. 308.
444
a given conventional system, no such thing as "the good
l i f e f o r man as such". And t h i s i n t u r n might stem from
Protagoras' tendency to take the nature of the virtues as
solely of i n t e l l e c t u a l interest --as an academic parlorgame, where the thrusts of the opposition can be parried
by a non-commital " I f you l i k e " or " I f that's what you think".
This i s what Plato's Protagoras strongly suggests.
By once again neglecting the dialogue's " l i t e r a r y "
side, Vlastos misses an important philosophical point:
what i s at stake and under discussion i n the Protagoras i s
not precisely the properties of "wisdom", "courage", "justice",
" v i r t u e " , e t c . , and how they r e l a t e t o the e i d i , but r a t h e r
w h a t i s i n v o l v e d i n 1e a r n i n g t h e s e e i d i , l e a r n i n g w h a t i t
i s t o be. j u s t , w i s e , courageous, e t c . Whatever p o i n t P l a t o
i s making concerning the logical character of these moral
concepts (or moral Forms) i s subordinate to his point about
how one becomes v i r t u o u s .
The central issue i n the dialogue i s not the
cognitive or theoretical unity of the virtues, but their
1ived unity. Just as i n Euthyphro Euthyphro believes that
Piety can be conceived of i n isolation from the other parts
of Justice ( 12e ) , Protagoras evidently believes that a l l
the virtues can be comprehended and exemplified individually.
This i s tied i n with his views on the teachability of v i r
tue: virtue i s teachable because
445
of course agrees with Protagoras that virtue i s teachable,
but disagrees
446
The Sophist has h i t upon the t r u t h , but
only accidentally, for he does not understand the
Socratic analogies. This i s shown immediately i n
what f o l l o w s . Almost i n the same b r e a t h , he asserts
that i t i s possible to posess one virtue but not
another --as i f the parts of a face did not form
an organic unity.. .Protagoras i s incapable of
defending the unity of aretS. 23
Because the Sophist i d e n t i f i e s his mission as
an exclusively intellectual one --understanding social
conventions and shoring them up through rhetorical b r i l l i a n c e - a l l his talk about the unity of the virtues w i l l be empty:
he w i l l not understand them because he intellectualizes
them, and refuses to consider them as they are lived and
embodied. The conceptual unity of the virtues i s as
Protagoras says i t i s : a unity-in -diversity. But from
this one i s not entitled to conclude, as Protagoras does,
that the virtues can be instantiated i n isolation from
each other (without compromising their abstract u n i t y ) , or
t h a t one can l i v e v i r t u o u s l y i n some respects and nonvirtuously i n others. The self-image of Sophism generates
this problem: Plato's Socrates tries to correct i t through
a concerted effort at "baiting" Protagoras --letting Pro
tagoras' own moral shortcomings ( h i s hyper-intel1ectualism)
show the cognitive deficiency o f h i s theory.
Plato makes t h i s point almost exclusively through
Socratic i r o n y : the l a t e r parts o f the dialogue seem almost
to recapitulate the earlier discussion on the unity of the
23Ibid.,
p. 19.
447
25
24Vlastos,
25
"UPD", p. 236n34.
p. 28.
28Ibid.,
pp. 32-33.
450
First of a l l , that there i s nothing in the dialogue which
constitutes a refutation of the metaphysical thesis held
by Protagoras, that the virtues form a diverse or specified
u n i t y , l i k e the p a r t s o f one f a c e . He i s r i g h t i n assuming
that this i s "orthodox" Platonism, as f a r as a s t r i c t l y
cognitive account of the Forms goes. But the need to t a i l o r
Socrates' account of the u n i t y o f the v i r t u e s , by way o f
"Pauline" predication, is largely superfluous. Plato is not
talking about the virtue-Forms as objects for pure noetic
contemplation (a strictly cognitive account), but is viewing
them as exemplars f o r action or paideia. A neat logical d i s
tinction between virtues, such as Protagoras', f a l l s short
here: one may understand the v i r t u e s to be d i s t i n c t i n d i s
interested contemplation, but such contemplation i s not
sufficient for a true knowledge of virtues, of virtues as
they are 1ived. And as Friedlander notes, when a Sophist
holds that virtues are ultimately distinct and only loosely
related, there i s nothing to prevent him from giving
credence t o the many who b e l i e v e i t possible t o "do wrong
and a t the same time be o f sound mind, temperate and w i s e " ,
since the Sophist holds a l l values to be j u s t i f i e d by
nothing more than cultural f i a t . A Sophist, because of his
r e l a t i v i s m and conventionalism, makes i t easy t o overlook
the crucial distinction between virtue-as-an-object-ofcontemplation and virtue-in-action, and this i s the
source of Socrates' annoyance with Sophistic ethics: i t
gives the self-seeking opportunists the conceptual am
452
453
454
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
Plato. The Collected Dialogues.Edited by Edith Hamilton
and Hunting ton Cairns. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1961.
. The Loeb Classical L i brar.y. 9 volumes.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
. The Republic. Translated by Allan Bloom.
New York: B a s i c books, 1968.
Secondary Sources
A c k r i l l , J . L . "SUMPLOKE EIDON". B u l l e t i n o f t h e I n s t i t u t e
of Classical Studies, No. 2, 1955. Reprinted i n
Allen 2 ) ana Vlastos 6 ) .
. 2) "Plato and the Copula". Journal of Hellenic
Studies 77, part 1, 1957. Reprinted i n Vlastos 6 ) .
. 3) "In Defense of Platonic Division". In Ryl e:
A Col lection of C r i t i c a l Essays. Edited by George
Pitcher and Oscar C. Wood. Garden C i t y " Doubleday,
1968.
. 4) "Plato on False Belief: Theatetus 187-200".
Monist, No. 50, 1966.
. 5) Aristotle the Philosopher. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1981.
Allen, R.E. "Participation and Predication i n Plato's
Middle Dialogues." Philosophical Review 69, 1960.
Reprinted i n Allen 2) and Vlastos 6 ) .
, e d . 2 ) S t u d i e s in P l a t o ' s H e t a p h . y s i c s . L o n d o n :
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965.
. 3) PIato's "Euthyphro" and the Earlier Theory of
Forms. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1970.
456
. 3) "The Relation of the Timaeus to Plato's
Earlier Dialogues." Ameri can Journal of Philology 78,
1957.
Cornford, Francis I'iacdonald. Plato's Theory of Knowledge.
Indianapolis: Bobbs-f.erri 11 Library of Liberal
Arts, ri.d.
. 2) Plato and Parmenides. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merri11
Library of Liberal Arts, n.d.
Crombie, I . M . An Examination o f P l a t o ' s D o c t r i n e s . 2 volunes.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963.
Cross, R.C. "Logos and Forms i n Plato." Mind N.S. 63, 1954.
Reprinted in Allen 2).
Cross, R.C., and Woozley, A.D. Plato's Republic: A Philosophical
Commentary. London: Kacmillan, 1964.
Dewey, John. The Quest f o r C e r t a i n t y . New York: Putnam, 1929.
Dies, Auguste. PIaton. Paris: Bude, 1924.
. 2) PIaton: Theetete. Paris; Bude, 1924.
Dodds, E.R. The Greeks and the 1 r r a t i o n a l . Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1966.
D o n e l l a n , K e i t h . "Speaking o f .Nothing.'" Phi 1osophi c a l
Review 83, 1974.
Dummett, Michael. "Can A n a l y t i c a l Philosophy Be Systematic,
and Ought I t To Be?" I n Truth and Other Enigmas.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978.
Edwards, James C. E t h i c s Without P h i l o s o p h y : Wi t t g e n s t e i n
and the Moral L i f e . Tampa: University Presses of
Florida, 1982.
Findlay, J.N. PIato: The Written and Unwritten Doctrines.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974.
. 2 ) P I a t o a n d P I a t o ni s m . N e w Y o r k : N e w Y o r k T i m e s
Books, 1978.
Fogelin, Robert. "Three Platonic Analogies." Phi 1osophi cal
Review 83, 1971.
Friedlander, Paul. PIato. 3 volumes. Translated by Hans
Meyerhoff. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964.
457
Frye, Northrop. The Anatomy of Criticism. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 19b7.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. T r u t h and Method. New York: Continuum,
1975.
. 2) Pi alogue and Dialectic: Eight Hermeneuti cal
Studies on Plato. Translated by R. Christopher
Smith. New Haven: Yale U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1980.
Geach, Peter T . "The T h i r d Man A g a i n . " P h i l o s o p h i c a l
Review 65, 1956. Reprinted i n Allen 2).
Gosling, J.C.B. PIato. London: Koutledge and Kegan Paul,1973.
Grube, G.M.A. Plato's Thought. London: Methuen, 1935.
Gulley, N. "Plato's Theory of Recollection." Classical
Quarterly N.S. 4, 1954.
Guthrie, W.K.C. A History of Greek Philosophy. 5 volumes.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press,
various dates.
Hare, R.M. "Plato and the Mathematicians". In Bambrough 1 ) .
. 2) PIato. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1983.
Heidegger, Martin. Basic Writings. Edited by David Farrell
K r e l l . New York: Harper and Row, 1978.
. 2) Introduction to Hetaph.ysics. Translated by
Ralph Manheim. New Haven: Yale U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1959.
Hoy, David Couzens. The C r i t i c a l C i r c l e : L i t e r a t u r e , History,
and Philosophical Hermeneuti cs. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1978.
Huby, Pamela M. "Socrates and Plato." I n A C r i t i c a l History
of Western Phi losoph.y. Edited by D.J. O'Connor.
New York: M a c m i l l a n , 1964.
Hyland, Drew A. The O r i g i n s o f Phi1osoph.y: I t s Rise i n Myth
and t h e P r e - S o c r a t i c s . New York: Putnam, 1973.
Jaeger, Werner. Paideia. 3 volumes. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1939.
Jones, W.T. A Hi story of Western Philosophy. Volume l i
The C l a s s i c a l Mind. Second E d i t i o n . New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970.
458
K i r k , 6 . S . , and Raven, J . E . , eds. The Pre-Socrat.ic
Philosophers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press, 1957.
Klein, Jacob. PIato' s Trilogy. University of Chicago Press, 1964.
Koyre, Alexandre. Discovering Plato. Translated by Leonora
Cohen R o s e n f i e l d . New York: Columbia U n i v e r s i t y
Press, 1945.
L e n t r i c c h i a , F r a n k . A f t e r t h e New C r i t i c i s m . Chicago:
University of Cohcago Press, 1980.
Levi, Albert William. Philosophy as Social Expression.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974.
L y n c h , W . F . Ar^ A p p r o a c h t o t h e M e t a p h y s i c s o f P l a t o
Through t h e " Parmenides1*"! Washington, D. C.:
Georgetown University Press, 1959.
Macomber, W.B. The Anatomy of D i s i l l u s i o n : Martin Heidegger's
Notion of Truth. Evanston: Northwestern University
Press, 1967.
M i l l s , K.W. "Some Aspects o f P l a t o ' s Theory o f Forms:
T i m a e u s 4 9 c f f . " P h r o n e sis 1 3 , 1 9 6 8 .
Horacscik, J.N.E. "The T h i r d Man Argument and P l a t o ' s Theory
of Forms." Phronesi s 8, 1963.
. 2) "Learning as Recollection." I n Vlastos
6).
459
Owen, G.E.L. "Plato on Non-Being'."1 I n Vlastos 6 ) .
. 2) "A Proof i n the Peri Ideon." Journal of
Hellenic Studies, 1957. Reprinted in Allen 2).
. 3) "The Platonism of Aristotle." Proceedings of
the B r i t i s h Academy 51, 1965.
. 4) " A r i s t o t l e on the Snares of Ontology." In
Bambrough 1 ) .
. 5) "Plato and Parmenides on the Timeless Present."
Moni st 50, 1966. Reprinted i n Mourelatos 2 ) .
. 6) "The Place of the Timaeus i n Plato's Dialogues."
Classical Quarterly 2, 1953. Reprinted in Allen 2).
Palmer, Richard K. Hermeneuti cs. Evanston: Northwestern
University Press, 1969.
Peck, A.L."Plato versus Parmenides." Philosophical Review 71,
1962.
Peirce, Charles Sanders. Philosophical Writings. Edited by
J u s t u s B u c h l e r . New Y o r k : D o v e r , 1955.
Peters, F.E. Greek Philosophi cal Terms; A Hi s t o r i cal Lexi con.
New York: New York U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1967.
Putnam, Hilary. Reason, Truth, and History. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press, 19S1.
Randall, John Herman. PI ato: Dramati s t of the L i f e of Reason.
New York: Columbia U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1971.
. 2 ) A r i s t o t l e . New Y o r k : Columbia U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1960.
Robin, Leon. PIaton. Paris: Felix Alcan, 1935.
Robinson, Richard. PIato's Earlier Dialectic. Oxford: The
Clarandon Press, 1953.
Rorty, Richard. "Relations: Internal and External." The
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Paul Edwards.
New York: M a c m i l l a n , 1967.
. 2 ) P h i 1osoph.y a n d t h e M i r r o r o f N a t u r e . P r i n c e t o n :
Princeton University Press, 1979.
. 3) Consequences of Pragmatism. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1982.
46D
Rosen, Stanley. PI a t o ' s Sophi s t : The Drama o f Original and
Image. New Haven: Yale U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1983.
Ross, U.D. Plato's Theory of Ideas. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1951.
Runciman, W.G. " P l a t o ' s Parmenides." Harvard Studies i n
CIassi cal Phi 1olog.y 64, 1969. Reprinted i n Allen 2 ) .
Russell, Bertrand. "On Denoting." 1!ind U.S. 14, 1905.
R e p r i n t e d i n Essays i n A n a l y s i s . Hew York: George
Braziller, 1971.
R y l e , G i l b e r t . " P l a t o ' s P a r m e n i d e s . " Min d N . S . 4 8 , 1 9 3 9 .
Reprinted in Allen 2).
._Z ) " D i a l e c t i c i n t h e A c a d e m y " . I n B a m b r o u g h 1 ) .
. 3) Plato's Progress. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press, 1966.
. 4) " P l a t o ! " The Encyclopedia o f Philosophy.
E d i t e d by Paul Edwards. New York: M a c m i l l a n , 1967.
S a y r e , K e n n e t h M . P I a t o ' s L a t e O n t o ! og.y: A R i d d l e R e s o l v e d.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983.
Searle, John. Speech Acts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press, 1969.
. 2) "The Logical Status of Fictional Discourse."
Hew L i terar.y Hi s t o r y 5 , 1974.
Sellars, Wilfrid. Philosophical Perspectives: History of
Philosophy. Reseda, California: Ridgeview Publishing
Co., 1959 and 1967.
. 2) "Vlastos and the Third Man." Phi 1osophical Review 64,
1955. Reprinted in Sellars 1).
Shorey, Paul. What Plato Said. Chicago: University o f
Chicago Press, 1933.
Sluga, Hans D. Gottlob Frege. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul, 1980.
Strang, Colin. "Plato and the Third Man." Proceedings of
the Aristotelian Society 37, 1963. Reprinted in
VI astos 6~n
41
Strawson, P.F. "On Referring." Hind M.S. 59, 1950.
Reprinted in Logico-Linguistic Papers. London:
Hethuen,
T a y l o r , A.E. P I a t o : The Man And His Work. London: Methuen, 1929.
T u r n b u l l , Robert G. "Episteirie and Doxa: Some R e f l e c t i o n s
on E l e a t i c and Heraclitean Themes i n P l a t o . "
In Anton and Preus, eds.
Urmson, J.O. Philosophical Analysis: I t s Development
Between the Two World Wars. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1956.
Von F r i t z , K u r t . "Nous, Woei n , and Their D e r i v a t i v e s . "
In Mourelatos 1).
V l a s t o s , Gregory. "The T h i r d Man Argument i n the Parmenides."
Philosophical Review 63, 1954. Reprinted i n Allen 2 ) .
. 2) "Degrees of Reality i n Plato." I n Cambrough 1 ) .
. 3 ) " R e v i e w o f I . K . C r o m b i e , An_ E x a m i n a t i o n o f
P I a t o ' s D o c t r i n e s , v o l . 2 . " P h i l o s o p h i c a l R e vie w 7 5 ,
1966. Reprinted as "Plato on Knowledge and Reality"
in Vlastos 9).
. 4) "Reasons and Causes i n the Phaedo.'" Phil osophi cal
Revi ew 7 8 , 1969. R e p r i n t e d i n Vlastos 6) and Vlastos 9 ) .
. 5)"Plato's ' T h i r d Man1 Argument (Parm. 132A1-B2):
Text and Logic." Philosophical Quarterly 19, 1969.
Reprinted in VIastos 9).
,edl 6)PIato
A Col lection of Critical Essays.
Garden City: Doubleday, 1970.
, ed., 7) PIato 11: A Col 1ection of Critical Essays.
Garden City: Doubleday, 1971.
. 8) "The Unity of the Virtues i n the Protagoras."
Revi ew o f Metaphysi cs 2 5 , 1972. Reprinted i n
Vlastos 9).
. 9) Platonic Studies. 2nd Edition. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1981.
Walsh, W.H. Metaphysics. New Y o r k : H a r c o u r t Brace J o v a n o v i c h ,
1963,
462
Warnock, S.J. English Philosophy Since 1900. 2nd Edition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969.
Wedberg, Anders. "The Theory of Ideas." In Vlastos fc).
Weingartner, Rudolph H. The Uni t.y o f t h e PI a t o n i c Dialogue.
Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merri11, 1973.
White, Nicholas P. Plato on Knowledge and Reality. Indianapolis:
Hackett, 1976.
. 2) A Companion to PIato's Republic. Indianapolis:
Hackett, 1979.
Wiggins, David. "Sentence Meaning, Negation, and Plato's
Problem of Non-Being." In Vlastos 6).
Wilshire, Bruce. Metaphysics. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merri11,
1969.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. Translated
by G . E . K . Anscombe. New Y o r k : M a c m i l l a n , 1953.
Woods, M.J. "Problems i n Metaphysics Z . " I n A r i s t o t l e : A
Col1ection of Critical Essays. Edited by
J.M.E. Moravscik. Garden City: Doubleday, 1968.
463
ABSTRACT
I n this thesis I attempt to i d e n t i f y ,and c r i t i c i s e
what I believe are serious deficiencies i n contemporary
a n a l y t i c commentary on P l a t o , and t o show how many o f these
deficiencies stem from a shared analytic "self-image".
Analytic philosophers have traditionally seen l i n g u i s t i c
analysis as the true method of philosophy, one wherein
perennial philosophical problems can possibly be defin
i t i v e l y solved. Such a self-image, however, hampers the
task of interpretation i n that i ) i t de-emphasises the
a l 1- i m p o r t a n t 1 i t e r a r y a s p e c t o f P l a t o ' s w o r k , a n d
i i ) i t neglects the historicit.y of philosophy, the dif
ferences between Plato's philosophical problematic and
that of analytic philosophy.
I focus on the dispute over "self-predication"
i n Plato's theory of Forms as presented i n the Parmenides.
I c r i t i c i s e the work of Vlastos, Ryle, Crombie, Strang, and
A l l e n o n t h e TMA i n s o f a r a s t h e y a l l i n d i c a t e a n e g l e c t o f
the l i t e r a r y and h i s t o r i c a l context of the Third Han Argu
ments. I argue that the TMA's are best viewed as reductio
ad absurdurn arguments on self~predicative eide when placed
i n t h a t c o n t e x t . I n support o f my argument, I t r y t o show
the substantive historical breaks and continuities of Plato's
philosophy w i t h Parmenides' "Way o f T r u t h " , and the con
tinuing relevance of Parmenidean monism i n Plato's l a t e r
thought. Plato's Sophist, Timaeus, Philebus, and other l a t e r
works are shown t o amplify the reductio conclusions o f Parmenides.
VITA