Plato’s Timaeus is both a cosmology and a cosmogony. Dr.

Stewart refers to this dual-

purpose text as a ‘cosmological cosmogony’. Although its cosmogonical relevance is often

disputed, we will see that Plato finds it necessary to include a cosmogony as a foundation for his

cosmology. First we will define and then make clear the distinction between the terms

cosmogony and cosmology. Next we will delve into the Timaeus and apply our definitions,

finding that there is enough evidence to satisfy the criteria of each term.

Before delving into the argument we must define what exactly we mean by the terms

cosmogony and cosmology. On one hand, the word cosmology typically refers to “a theory or

story of the origin and development of the universe” (Dictionary.com). Cosmogonies are usually

recognized as creation stories, such as the biblical account of Genesis or Hesiod’s Theogony.

Although this seems to be the trend, the word cosmogony is not exclusive to religious stories or

ancient myths, but can also include contemporary examples such as the Big Bang Theory. On the

other hand, we have cosmology, which “deals with the general structure and evolution of the

universe” (Dictionary.com). At its core, cosmology attempts to focus on the nuts and bolts of the

universe, not necessarily how they came to be. However, it is important to note that cosmologies

in many respects can encompass cosmogonies. The Timaeus is a perfect example of this.

Although these terms are often used synonymously, our definitions make a clear distinction.

Given this, we will see that the Timaeus is both a cosmogony and a cosmology.

In the Timaeus, Plato first sets out by laying down a cosmogonical foundation. He argues

that “everything that becomes or is created must…be created by some cause” (Timaeus, 28a).

Given this principle, Plato moves on to consider whether this applies to the universe (‘world’) or

not. He determines that the world is not eternal, but created (28b). He reasons that the world is

always changing, “apprehended by opinion and sense” (28b) and that such attributes render the

world created. By applying his principle to the created world, Plato determines that the world

must have a creator. Ultimately, Plato has little concern for this creator and proposes that “the

father and maker of all this universe is past finding out” (28c). By avoiding further investigation
 2

into the creator, Plato clearly reminds us that this discourse is aimed at the nature of the universe

(27c), not its origins. However, Plato has satisfied our definition of a cosmogony. This creator is

a theory or story that accounts for the origin of the universe. We now have evidence that the

Timaeus is indeed a cosmogony, but that is certainly not where it ends. In order to get to the

bread and butter of the Timaeus, Plato asserts that we must simply “accept the tale which is

probable and inquire no further” (29d). Instead of the creator, we must now focus primarily on

the world. Plato gradually makes this shift for us in his writing, and continues on by arguing that

the world is “a copy of something” (29b), namely the creator. He gives some explanation as to

“why the creator made this world” (29d-e): reasoning that the creator, free from jealousy, only

“desired that all things should be as…himself” (30a). He goes on to talk about other things such

as soul (34b) and why the world is round (33c), although these appear to be simply examples of

‘the likely story’ he mentioned earlier (29d). It is essentially here that Plato shifts from

cosmogony to cosmology.

Whether Plato’s cosmogony of the creator is a serious attempt at determining the origin

of the world or not, we still have the claim that the Timaeus is also a cosmology to consider. We

now have a world, a world that needs to be analyzed and explained. Plato reasons that the world

is composed of four elements: earth, air, fire and water (32c). This theory is nothing new, for

Empedocles had previously attributed these elements to be the underlying reality of the world.

Plato acknowledges his predecessor’s contribution but at the same time takes it a bit further by

asserting that these elements have bodies. Given this, Plato goes through a set of proofs and

derives that the elements and therefore the world is ultimately composed of triangles—either

isosceles or scalene (53c). These triangles resemble atoms in the fact that they are the underlying

reality of all things. Formed from these triangles are the elements: air, fire and water from the

scalene and earth from the isosceles (54c). Similarly to Empedocles, Plato also addresses the
 3

problem of change with the elements but abandons the concepts of ‘love’ and ‘strife’. Based on

their physical properties (56a-b), Plato assigns each element to one of the five geometrical solids,

with the fifth solid (dodecahedron) representing the universe as a whole. As Plato was well

aware, each solid is fundamentally composed of either scalene or isosceles triangles. This allows

(with the exception of earth) for the elements to resolve into one another; changing from one

element to another (53e). From this we can now claim that Plato has satisfied our definition of

cosmology. Not only has he given us an explanation for the origins of the world (cosmogony) but

he has also explained its physical structure through the elements, and fundamentally triangles.

Not only has he defined the composition of the universe but he has also applied his theory to

explain why these elements—and essentially the world—are in flux.

We have now proven that the Timaeus is both cosmogonical and cosmological. Plato

provides a theory of the origin of the world through the creator while also fronting a theory to the

nature of the world’s composition. Why Plato bothered to create a cosmogony is certainly an

open question. Perhaps Plato felt that it was necessary to appease the principle of sufficient

reason as a means to an end in describing his geometrical theories. Mistaken or not, it seems as

though Plato believed that in order to really describe something you must first describe how it

came to be. Regardless, it is now evident the Timaeus is a ‘cosmological cosmogony’.

Word count: 1033