Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T14:42:54.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Phaedo and Republic V on essences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

F. C. White
F. C. White
Affiliation:
University of Tasmania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Towards the close of Book V of the Republic Plato tells us that the true philosopher has knowledge and that the objects of knowledge are the Forms. By contrast, the ‘lovers of sights and sounds’, he tells us, have no more than belief, the objects of which are physical particulars. He then goes on to present us with some very radical-sounding assertions about the nature of these physical particulars. They are bearers of opposite properties, he says, in so thorough-going a manner that we cannot say of them that they are nor that they are not: they lie somewhere between being and utter non-being.

This passage of the Republic (475–80) still awaits an agreed interpretation and I want to suggest as a reason for this that it is usually interpreted in isolation. I will argue that it becomes easier to understand when seen against the background of Plato's developing thought. To be more precise, it makes sense when taken as a rejection by Plato of one of his earlier beliefs: namely, a doctrine of essentialism to be found in the Phaedo.

The greater part of this paper then will be an attempt to show that Republic V is a rejection of the Phaedo's doctrine of essences. Its concluding part will try to explain why that doctrine was rejected.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 98 , November 1978 , pp. 142 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

(1)Allen, R.E., ‘Participation and Predication in Plato's Middle Dialogues’, PhR lxix (1960) 147–64.Google Scholar
(2)Allen, R.E., ‘The Argument from Opposites in Republic V’, RMetaph xv (1961) 325–35.Google Scholar
(3)Allen, R.E., ‘Plato's Earlier Theory of Forms’, The Philosophy of Socrates, ed. Vlastos, G. (New York 1971) 319–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)Bluck, R.S., Plato's Phaedo (London 1955).Google Scholar
(5)Bluck, R.S., Plato's Sophist (Manchester 1975).Google Scholar
(6)Bolton, R., ‘Plato's Distinction between Being and Becoming’, RMetaph xxix no. 1 (1975) 66–95.Google Scholar
(7)Brentlinger, J.A., ‘Particulars in Plato's Middle Dialogues’, AGPh liv (1972) 116–52.Google Scholar
(8)Brentlinger, J.A., ‘Incomplete Predicates and the Two World Theory of the Phaedo’, Phronesis xvii (1972) 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9)Burge, E.L., ‘The Ideas as Aitiai in the Phaedo’, Phronesis xvi (1971) 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10)Cresswell, M.J., ‘Plato's Theory of Causality: Phaedo 95–106’, AustralJPhilos xlix no. 3 (1971) 244–9.Google Scholar
(11)Creswell, M.J., ‘Essence and Existence in Plato and Aristotle’, Theoria, xxxvii (1971) Pt. 2, 91–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(12)Cresswell, M.J., ‘Participation in Plato's Parmenides’, Southern JPhilos xiii 2 (1975) 163–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(13)Crombie, I.M., An Examination of Plato's Doctrines ii (London 1963).Google Scholar
(14)Crombie, I.M., Plato. The Midwife's Apprentice (London 1964).Google Scholar
(15)Cross, R.C., & Woozley, A.D., Plato's Republic: A Philosophical Commentary (London 1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(16)Gallop, D., ‘Dreaming and Waking in Plato’, Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy, eds. Anton, J.P., & Kustas, G.L. (Albany 1972) 187–201.Google Scholar
(17)Gallop, D., Plato: Phaedo (Oxford 1975).Google Scholar
(18)Gosling, J., ‘Republic, Book V: τὰ πολλὰ καλά etc.’, Phronesis v (1960) 116–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(19)Gosling, J., ‘Δόξα and Δύναμις in Plato's Republic’, Phronesis xiii (1968) 119–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(20)Gulley, N., Plato's Theory of Knowledge (London 1962).Google Scholar
(21a)Guthrie, W.K.C., A History of Creek Philosophy, i (Cambridge 1971).Google Scholar
(21b)Guthrie, W.K.C., A History of Greek Philosophy, iv (Cambridge 1975).Google Scholar
(22)Hackforth, R., Plato's Phaedo (Cambridge 1955).Google Scholar
(23)Hare, R.M., ‘Plato and the Mathematicians’, New Essays on Plato and Aristotle, ed. Bambrough, R. (London 1965) 21–38.Google Scholar
(24)Hintikka, J., ‘Knowledge and its Objects in Plato’, Patterns in Plato's Thought, ed. Moravcsik, J.M.E. (Dordrecht-Holland 1973) 2–30.Google Scholar
(25)Keyt, D., ‘The Fallacies in Phaedo 102a–107b’, Phronesis viii (1963) 167–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(26)Kirwan, C., ‘Plato and Relativity’, Phronesis xix, no. 2 (1974) 112–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(27)Kripke, S.A., ‘Naming & Necessity’, Semantics of Natural Language, eds. Davidson, D., and Harman, G. (Dordrecht-Holland 1972) 253–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(28)Mills, K.W., ‘Plato's Phaedo 74b7–c6’, Phronesis ii (1957) 128–47, and iii (1958) 40–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(29)Murphy, N.R., ‘Plato, Parmenides 129, and Republic 475–80’, CQ xxxi (1937) 71–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(30)Murphy, N.R., An Interpretation of Plato's Republic (Oxford 1951).Google Scholar
(31)Nehamas, A., ‘Plato on the Imperfection of the Sensible World’, American Philosophical Quarterly xii no. 2 (1975) 105–17.Google Scholar
(32)Nehamas, A., ‘Predication and Forms of Opposites in the Phaedo’, RMetaph xxvi (1973) 461–91.Google Scholar
(33)O'Brien, D., ‘The Last Argument of Plato's Phaedo’, CQ xvii (1967) 198–231, and xviii (1968) 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(34)Owen, G.E.L., ‘A Proof in the ΠΕΡΙ ΙΔΕΩΝ’, JHS lxxvii (1957) Pt. 1, 103–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(35)Ross, W.D., Plato's Theory of Ideas (Oxford 1951).Google Scholar
(36)Runciman, W.G., Plato's Later Epistemology (Cambridge 1962).Google Scholar
(37)Schiller, J., ‘Phaedo 104–5: Is the Soul a Form?’, Phronesis xii (1967) 50–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(38)Seligman, P., Being and Not-Being (The Hague 1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(39)Taylor, C.C.W., ‘Forms as Causes in the Phaedo’, Mind lxxviii (1969) 45–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(40)Turnbull, R.G., ‘Aristotle's Debt to the “Natural Philosophy” of the Phaedo’, PhilosQ viii (1958) 131–46.Google Scholar
(41)Vlastos, G., ‘Degrees of Reality in Plato’, New Essays on Plato and Aristotle, ed. Bambrough, R. (London 1965) 1–19.Google Scholar
(42)Vlastos, G., ‘A Metaphysical Paradox’, PAPhS xxxix (1966) 5–19.Google Scholar
(43)Vlastos, G., ‘Postscript to the Third Man: A Reply to Mr. Geach’, PhR lxv (1956) 83–94.Google Scholar
(44)Vlastos, G., ‘Reasons and Causes in the Phaedo’, PhR lxxviii (1969) 291–325.Google Scholar
(45)White, F.C., ‘Particulars in Phaedo 95e–107a’, New Essays on Plato and the Pre-Socratics, eds. Shiner, R., & King-Farlow, J. (Ontario 1976) 129–47.Google Scholar
(46)White, F.C., ‘The “Many” in Republic 475a–480a’, CanadJPh vii (1977) 291–306.Google Scholar
(47)White, F.C., ‘The Compresence of Opposites in Phaedo 102’, CQ xxvii (1977) 1–9.Google Scholar
(48)White, F.C., ‘J. Gosling on τὰ πολλὰ καλά’, Phronesis (forthcoming).Google Scholar
(49)White, F.C., ‘Plato's Middle Dialogues and the Independence of Particulars’, PhilosQ xxvii (1977) 193–213.Google Scholar