THE

UNITY
OF
PLATO'S
THOUGHT

THE

UNITY

OF

PLATO'S
THOUGHT

PAUL

THE

UNIVERSITY

SHOREY

OF

CHICAGO

PRESS

The
The

University

University

Copyright

of

Toronto

by

1903
New

Printed

in

Chicago

of

Press,

The

United

Toronto

University

Impression
the

Chicago

Press,

5,

of

of

Canada

Chicago

1960
States

}7

America

THE

UNITY

OF

PLATO'S

Paul

THOUGHT

Shobet

PART

INTKODUCTION

DuEiNG

the

of

idiom.

relative dates

the

The

been

done

combat
of

Platonism

illusions
A

paper.

endeavor
enumerators

Platonists^

some

of his

other, that

of

sequence
But

is

to

dialogues

world's

that

and

great
works

would

in

was

characteristic
Notably

in

; see

votive

the

of

is

in

earliest
of

judicious

by

and

study

ethical
observations

the

between

the

of

Studien,

varying
and

published writings,
dissolving
number

of

oring
endeav-

are

alleged inconsistencies,
followers

leads

shape

them

ed.,

pp.

in

to

before
his

270 B. and

of
In

them.

to

Protagoras

3d

over

majority,of

increasing

results

taken

infancy

philosophy

the

in

partly

is

Plato, extends

of

as

question;

forth

set

shiftingand

attributed

like the

conceptions had
in Platonische

the

question

Abstractly the

definite

masterpiece

his

late, that

statistical method,

principlehere

the

of the

beg

all,or

toward

the
of

reflects many

of

true

their

doctrine.

Platonic

of

that

the

upon

dialogues are

somewhere

gropings
in

are

The

opinion, and

it is not

triumphs

to

argument.

of

for

determined

philosophy

nothing

tablet

its results

producing

philosophicaland

for Bonitz

But

striking arguments

capable of

out

the

the

remains

development

Socratic

minor

necessary

the

changes

of the

correct

developments
for

is

of

Timceus

riper years present a succession

this is the assumption made
by

emulation
or

the

first tentative

their

probably repudiate
desire

practicethe
Plato

or

minor

many

like

that

human

by

depends

have

we

and

of

claimed

thought

one

order

like
literaryactivity,

contemporaries.

their

confirm, refute,

to

contradictions,

of

Laws

more

developed

whose

that

the

required by

is

until

To

the purpose

form
is

have

not

chronology
conjectural

the
the

true

controversy that

in

depictedas

are

something

investigatorswho,

that

his

thinkers

of life

the
Yet

views.

method

author

Any

that

affirm

sense

thought

man's

of himself

criticism

or

the

in

century undergoes

To

than

it the

maturity, and

point

very

develop

maturity.

half

did

Every

moods
the

the

assume

verbal.
and

full

presumably early.

whole

it

always

that

harmless

that

and

its value.

to

as

qualityof Plato's
assert

with

perhaps

short, all that

philosophy

dialogues,and
known

to

vocabulary

Sprachstatistikis not

discussion

fashion

would

any

gation
investi-

against mystical and

reaction

work

the

mean

of

study

illusions

toward
life is

essential

interpret Plato's
the

Plato's

to

the

become

have

we

Republic belongs

attitude

the
fi^v,

the
the

logicof

granted, since
tC

and

to

come

statistical

cherished

not

interestingtopic of

more

cannot

we

thought.

But

It has

writings.

historic

or

had

detail the

in

merely negative

KaOdirepand

of

tendency,

this

test

the

philology and

modern

has

Forschung

dialogues by

workmen
to

unfruitful.

is

of

favored

all if the

at

these

this

of the

general trend

metaphysical

Platonic

past twenty years

this
their

assume

his most

mind, and

passim.

Unity

The

Plato's

of

Thought

that

in a state
throughout the periodof his maturest
writingshis leading ideas were
of Heraclitean flux,or were
being casuallydeveloped from year to year. This method
and erudition to make
false points,
to labor fantastic
misleads scholars of great acumen
and to cite irrelevant parallels.It betrays them
into misplaced emphasis,
analogies,

disregardof

the

context, and

In short, it necessitates the

positivemistranslation.
and
of
of
natural interpretation
the simple,sane,
canons
rather than
sought a rigid technical terminology, and

systematicviolation of all the

literature." Plato

avoided

imagery in which he clothed hia most familiar

thoughts. Every variation of phrase and imagery is pressed to yield significant
contradictions
or
developments. The most far-reachingconclusions are drawn from
the different shades
of meaning attached
words
to such
as
"opinion," "dialectic,"
munion,"
"philosophy," "sensation," "reminiscence," "participation,"
"presence," "comand
suit
context.'
the theme
freelyand untechnically
employed by Plato to
The absence in any work of explicit
insistence
on
a
thought is supposed to prove the
absence of the thought from Plato's mind
at the time, and
we
as
a
are
consequence,
of maturityand naivete within
expected to believe in the most incredible combinations
the same
Sophoclean
writing. Or we are taught that Plato's development,like some
sentences, proceedsin the order aba, and consisted in the acceptance,the rejection,
prodigallyvaried

and

the

the

language and

re-acceptance of the

idea.

same

The

for

certain

most

the

reckless

first time

assertions

made

are

that
The

in

certain
elementary thoughts appear
dialogues.
emphatic introduction of a term or idea is,accordingto the exigenciesof the theory,
taken as proof that it is a novelty,and now
dramatic
now
explained away as a mere
artifice. The
rapid outline of an argument is alternately
regarded,accordingto the
of
the
later r6sum6
of the
as
an
or
a
"chronology,"
requirements
anticipatory
germ
bare
fuller treatment
found elsewhere.
Fantastic conceits or
to Plato's
as
possibilities
treated as absolute
are
literarymotives and polemicalintentions
psychologicaland
historical certainties and made
the basis of serious arguments.*
involved in a conception that thus betrays
i/reuSos
May there not be some
Trpwrov
that Plato's thought did unfold
It is of course
conceivable
its advocates?
a
priori
itself in this tentative and fumbling fashion.
and nutations
Examples of such mutations
be found
the
Pichtes
and
of
modern
can
Schellings
philosophy.
They
among
still more
are
frequent,as Professor Gildersleeve has wittilyshown, in the history
of modern
of Plato.
But it is at least
and, as I may add, in the in;terpretation
philology,
and
that
Plato's
his
of
life
had
taken shape
equally probable
philosophy
conception
at the age of thirty
-five,and that his extant works, though not of course
or thirty
a predetermined
the
varied
reflection
of
are
a
naturally
systematicexposition,
ous
homogeneand criticism of
body of opinion,and of a consistent attitude in the interpretation
2

Examples

throughout

the

alized

paper.

andjT"". Lutoslatvski,,,/-.""

,.,
s
Infra,

Origin

and

^
tu
Growth

of^

the

To

this category

"

satirized

.
'

..

of the
j

Sophists.
belong

particular philosophers

nearly
referred

all conjectures
to

in Plato's

as

to

gener-

the
sion

and

statements

thought

criticisms

time, and
^

under

contemporaries
Such

following
of Plato's

hypotheses

study,
own

as

o"

tendencies

in

especially the hypothesis

"

mere

meanings.

will

\^

the

be

names

or

the

that

he
,"

earlier

wholly disregarded

hindrance

to the

in

apprehen-

Shoeey

Paul

the fact,it would

be
contemporary life. And if this were
the interpretation
of his writingsthan the determination
and

Phcedo

Philebus

and

Symposium

or

than

even

follow rather

than

the

far

of

demonstration

important fact for

more

the relative dates of the

that the

precede the

Sophist,Statesman

Republic. I am
arguing against
vivid
dating of the dialectical dialogues. I do not deny the value of the more
that
of
Plato's
later
mood
and
and
we
manner
conception
gain
by combining
ing
comparthe traits of these dialogueswith those of the Laws
and Timceus.
This is no
directed against all sober critical investigation
of the difficult problem of
a/37os \o'7o?

such

not

Plato's

chronology. But the attempt to base such a chronology on the variations and
developments of Plato's doctrine has led to an exaggerationof Plato's inconstancythat
violates all sound
of literary
and is fatal to all genuine intelligence
principles
interpretation
of his meaning. The implicit
of this method
is that variation in literary
canon
and
be
assumed
must
to
machinery
expression
imply divergence or contradiction in
thought. To this I wish to oppose an interpretationbased on the opposite canon:
contradiction
to assume
serious
that we
alteration in Plato's thought only in
are
or
of
rational
default
a
or
literary
psychological
explanationof the variation in the form
of its expression. As Professor Maguire says in his forgottenbut very acute essays
on

the

Platonic

ethics

If

we

are

and

so

in abundance.

anxious

But

to find

out

inconsistencies

the

student

of Plato

in

appearance,

perhaps discover that

the pointsof agreebecause
with
it is more
to
more
fruitful,
commence
philosophical
ment."
The ultimate test of the two methods
lie in the appeal to specific
must
texts
But by way of
and contexts, and there will be no lack of this in the followingpages.
of the general features of Plato's
some
preparationit is first advisable to enumerate
of his meaning so difficult
writingsthat make the sane and simpleliteraryinterpretation
we

shall find them

"

will

rare.

only a thinker, but also a dramatic artist and an impassionedmoral

Although, as Schopenhauer says, he is reallythe most severe
of his design in an
iron hand, his
and holds the threads
and consistent of logicians,
the argument blows,*and he often seems
affect to follow whither
dramatis
personae
and conclude.
Wherever
than
demonstrate
to
entertain
to
concerned
edifyor
more
his aesthetic or moral
preferencesare involved he cavils on terminologyand breaks
fashion sorely puzzling
in a Ruskinian
into seemingly irrelevant eloquentdigressions
of a repugIf forced to acceptthe substance
to those not in sympathy with his mood.
nant
with
his
This
into
consonant
translates
it
he
more
language
feelings.
theory,
misleads
of
edification
and
both
the
of
and
rhetoric
science,
logic,
peculiarmixture
often mistakes the ornament
for
one
sentimentalist and the scientific puritan. The
sound
of
his
distaste
distrusts
because
other
the
the substance,
perfectly
reasoning
for its emotional accompaniment.
in so many
take
are
apt to misways that we
Again, Plato stimulates our own speculation
but
abandon
because we
defined,
the drift of his meanings not because it is not clearly
1. Plato

and

is not

teacher.
religious

Not

only

in the

earlier

dialogues,

but

in Bep., 394 D ; Thecetet., 172 D ; Laws,

667 A.

Unity

The

Plato's

op

Thought

of
tells us what he himself thoughtdb propos
essayist
too often begins by selecting
this or that brilliant suggestion. The investigator
a few
of
each
and
detached
notions
and formulas as adequately
then
dialogue,
representative
of these and .the interpretations
proceeds to jugglewith ingenious combinations
put
real
Plato's
them
his
Neither
as
thoughts
they lie
by
predecessors.
interprets
upon
to any competent reader who will patiently
study him to the end and report the
open
things on which he laysmost stress."
2. In the second place,Plato's dramatic quality
affects not onlythe artistic setting
and the personages,
the stage. Plato's serious
but the ideas which
he brings upon
for
faithful student.
distinctness
the
But
detaches
itself
with
the
meaning
perfect
hasty reader is more
likelythan not to receive as Platonic ideas that have a purely
dramatic
falsified by isolation from their context.' And
the
significance
; or that are
it to pursue

our

The

own.

clever

investigatorin pursuit of
Antisthenes,EucKd,

or

thesis

often

too

ideas

Isocrates

that

attributes
Plato

has

to Protagoras,
specifically

generalizedand

decked

out

of the spirit
of the age.
as
beyond all recognition,
representatives
of a thesis in jestto test an
the maintenance
Again, arguing for victory,
nent's
oppometal or displayone's own
ingenuitywas a common
practicein the world which
Plato depicts,
and
Platonic
is frequentlyillustrated in his writings. The
Socrates,
under
of an
ironical professionof ignorance,employs a similar method
to
cover
of
showy pretendersto universal knowledge,to produce a salutaryconviction
expose
the
stimulate
and
for
to
serious
or
a
more
youthful
thought,
ignorance,
prepare
way
latent in conventional
lows
analysisby an expositionof the antinomies
opinions. It folthat

and

the

ostensible

failure to conclude

the admission
perplexity,
to the

nothing as
hypothesis that
prove

the

of

even

an

argument,

stageof development of

Plato's

and
intentional,

was
fallacy

the

positivefallacies of
that

own

the

avowal

of bewilderment

logicin any

given dialogue
thought at the time. The
affected for a
airopCawas
in each case.
probabilities

has at least an equal claim to be tested by all the

strangelyoblivious of the limits thus far set to all
Expositorsof Plato seem
of
treat
as
philosophy. They
peculiardefects of Plato the inconsistencies
systems
which
they detect in his ultimate metaphysics after they have elaborated it into a
evaded
instinct
sound
he with
by poetry and myth. They
rigid system which
readers were
in possession
habituallywrite as if they themselves and their intelligent
reconciles all conflicting
claims of metaphysical analysis
of a final philosophywhich
from
the heightsof which
and common
torical
they may study merely as a hissense, and
phenomenon Plato's primitivefumbling with such problems as the nature of
purpose,
3.

Such

mirable

reader

is Bonitz

for the

most

part in his ad-

Spencer's inference
example is Herbert
state
from
Bep., 339 D, that Plato, like Hobbes, makes
Eliot
has
the source
of right. So President
enactments
misuse
of Bep., 421 A
been
recently misled
by Zelleb's
{Phil, der Griechen, 4th ed.. Vol. H, No. 1, p. 890), to prove
'A

that

notable

Plato

still seem,

would
to

think

intended

were

The"Btet., 156

analyses.

not

educate

that

the

the

masses.

etymologies

Many
of

the

scholars

Cratylus

fall most
*^^

seriously,and
S., as Platonic

of the

Parmenides,

t^^ose

of the

extreme
333 E, and
perceive,

"

fallacies
which,

as

"

not

few

continue

doctrine.
discovered

we

shall

Under
in

see,

Plato:
are

to quote
this

head

those

of

intentional;

Gorgiaa, dramatically justifiable against the

maintained
by CaUicles; those of Bep., I,
349 B, which
Zeller (p. 652) thinks Plato did not

thesis

Paul

in thought and things,'

the relation of
unity and plurality
of
of
self
edge,
or
a knowledge of knowlpossibility a consciousness
of conceivingor
immortality,the freedom of the will,the difficulty

universals,the antinomy

of

body, the

and

mind

Shobey

proof of
defininggood except in relation to evil,the alternative of excepting thoroughgoing
and phenomenalism or of positiaga noumenon
relativism
that cannot
be described
or
into
relation
told
that
he
has
"keine
with
We
are
brought
intelligible
phenomena.
deduction
extant
a satisfactory
Ableitung des Sinnlichen,"as if there were somewhere
the

of the sensible world

from

highermetaphysicalprinciple.It

some

the relation of the ideas to the

if
as
investigated,

not

of the

any

Deity is undefined, and

results could

follow from

to the

that the

is

objectedthat

of God
personality

attemptto define
of
an
investigation
is taken as
categories

is

the relation

an

the

Deity,or
ality
personin
a defect
complete table of
Plato's system or as a proof of the immaturity of the Phcedrus, as if the Aristotelian
illusions of the metaphysicalinstinct,and Plato
not mere
and Kantian
were
categories
and classifications as the argument
not far wiser in proposingonly such categories
was
in hand
required.
A chief merit of Plato is that he clearly
recognizesand sharplydefines the limits
When
the interests of the^ moral and religious
of scientific thought in these matters.
stake
his hopes and
he
resorts
to myth to express
life,as he conceives them, are at
the epistemological
problem compromises the foundations of practical
aspirations.Where
that
will
best
sound
he
the
solution
and
method,
arbitrarily
postulates
certainty
the extrication of a practicable
his chief purpose
serve
less
working logicfrom the hopehis necesof his time.
But he is always careful to distinguish
dialectical muddle
sary
postulatesfrom his mythical and metaphysical assumptions.'The
practical
exaggerated as the Socratic doubt of
dogmatism of his later works has been as much
metaphysicalnoumenon

of

The

God.

of

absence

from

"

dialogues.'"

the minor
4. As

fourth

subtletyin the

use

of

cause

misapprehensionwe
and

of abstraction

may

count

certain

antithesis characteristic

quaintand

of all Greek

curious

writers,but

reasoning often proceeds by what

verbal
links.
is generallythought to mean
This
to us
excessivelyminute
seem
learned
formal process by takingsome
mind
has
to
the
modem
the
that
abridge
merely
the cavils and
thingsfor granted. But it is often due to Plato's anxietyto anticipate
quibblesof the age before logic; or his wish to bringout neglectedshades of meaning.
Again, Plato, like all serious reasoners, employs unreal abstractions to express
cases." But in addition to this the Platonic
ideals and test hypotheses by extreme
not
and
fantastic
abstraction from the conditions of reality,
fallacious
meets
Socrates
a
carried

to

its

'Astonishment

bestowed
as

many,

the

crux

by

Plato

farthest

is often
upon

the

problem

B, 506
10

the

at

expressed

of the

to psychology,
if,transferred
all our
metaphysics.

it

one

were

Plato.

attention
the

and
not

still

B^.,

416

BC,

nothing that
apodictic replies in the "later" works proves
in the fact that they are not drais not already involved
matic
respondent naturally
disputations. A consenting
answers.
gives "apodictic
"E.g.,

the

isolation

Phileb., 21,to which

C.

Tim., 72 D, Laws,

His

"

of

'Jfeno, 86 B; PAccdr., 252 C, 265 C, 274 C

517

in

extreme

641D, 799 D, 812 A. The

percentage

of

Grote

of

pleasure

objects.

and

intelligence in

The

Unity

Thought

Plato's

of

all the real facts into

but by translating
by exposing the fallacy,
abstraction.
There is no real fallacy
but a sense
in such procedure,
for

the

views

modern

reader.'^

Allied

to this is the

use

abuse

or

the

language

of

fallacyresults
Opposite

of

of antithesis.

consistencyin their most abstract and extreme

of compromises and mediations.'^
a series
through
approached
the
P
lato
This
of
is right.
in
is
discussion among
course
Dramatically,
ordinarymen
all ages.
But the elaborate refutations which
Plato thinks fit to give of the crudest
form of hostile theories sometimes
produces an impressionof unfairness upon modern
critics." They forgettwo things: first,that he always goes on to restate the theory
and refute its fair meaning ; second, that in the case
of many
doctrines
combated
by
Plato there is no evidence that they ever
formulated
with the proper logical
were
fications
qualifirst stated

are

form.

And

ruthless

with

the truth is

except by himself.'^
5. In the

of confining
the difficulty
mention
we
place,and finally,
may
infinite variety and
of
the
suggestivenessof Plato's thoughts in the framework
either
of
of
It
is
to
or
philosophy
possible
system
present
exposition.
any
ethical and
Plato's
The
social ideals in a fairlysystematic r6sum6.
theory of
ideas may
be restated in the Platonic
terminology,which does not teach us much,
or
analyzed in relation to the underlying psychologicaland ontologicalproblems.
Specialchaptersmight be written on Plato's attitude toward inchoate physicalscience,
the temper in which he faced the religious
problemsof an age of transition,his portrayal
and criticism of the literary
and artistic life of his time.
But
a
complete system
of philosophy with principles
and interdependent,
and a fixed
subordinate,derivative,
be extracted from the Platonic writings. This will not
technical terminology,cannot
of the perfectfutility
of all such system-building,
greatlygrievethose who are aware
when
the
architect
the
of
a
even
Spinoza, a Kant, or a Schopenhauer.
genius
possesses
But
the expositor
of Plato can
hardly avoid attempting to cast his exposition
into some
systematicform, and the recalcitrance of his material is to him a serious
is quite satisfactory.
The
atomism
of Grote, Jowett, Bonitz,
problem. No method
and Horn, that treats each dialogue as an
isolated unit, is the renunciation
of all
method.

clever

The

attempts of

Plotinus, is
12

".

ff., in

few

o( (iktSoitik^,the
iJep.,I, 346, the separation
from
the other
functions of each art

power,

craft.

and

g., in.the

form.

In the

Gorgias

Callicles from

In

justice is taken
him

to

S"i

in the

long

position which
iJep., 338 C,
in

state

it

that

the

he affirms

unfair

clearly.

language

most

extreme

is spent
was

Thrasymachus's

grotesquely
more

in

argument

15

Gorgias.

A, thetheory

is first stated

convention

mere

jest (499B).
force

Cratylus,

sense

Cf. Laws,

to

drive

all Platonto deduce

expositors
ingeniousthan convincing."The
to all philosophersfrom
Thales
to
of German
erudition.
But, though

451 E, 453B, 489 D,

sura

chief

Thecetetus, Bep.,1 andll,

^^Philebus,
HE.

of French

of

schematism

exhaustive

wage-earning

succession

principlesare more
Zeller,applied alike
a masterlyachievement
philologically

symmetricallyfrom

ism

is

fifth

views

in the

good
piato

may

he brings

(DOmmlee,
know,

'^"

Similar

Protagoras,

on

is the

of pleasure

in

Ple'e logical statement

of

its

in order

to

and

Jlfen-

to be the

suggestions

stage in Euripides
zu

Platans

first thinker

assumed

C; Gorg.,

of Homo

treatment

claim

hints

found

the

definition

714

the

Philebus.
have

Prolegomena
he

is the

and

of

any

who

and

Staat).
could

Sophists

But

so

present

philosophidal

of the

the

theory

far

as

com-

in

all

bearings.
16

See my

review

of

sciences, Philosophical

Hal^vy,
Review,

ThAorle
Vol.

V,

platrndcienne

p. 522.

des

Shorey

Paul

and

palpable errors, Zeller's expositionfrequentlymisses the

and
emphasis that would be brought out by a more
proportions,perspective,
flexible literary
and philosophicinterpretation.
The present study,though it touches on
most
topicsof the Platonic philosophy,
does not attempta complete historical survey.
Some
where.
subjectsI have discussed else-

rarelyadmitting gross
true

There

are

irrelevant to the main

of

details

many

of

purpose

and
Timceus, e. g.)which
(in the Laws
emphasizingthe unity of Plato's thought.

adopted after many

presentation

and

the

atomistic.

psychologywill

The

first be

will be

attemptsis

Platonic
forth

set

discussed

ethics,the theory of ideas,and

as

problems
from
topicsand some
repetitions
taken
one
principaldialogues
by
in

whole.

different

chief

The

topicsof

Platonic

the

of the

definition

Sophist and

the

pointof

order

systematic

metaphysical
Other

Parmenides.

will follow in

view

The

outline of the

an

logicaland

of

group

the

be

of the

survey

one.

I.

(2) the

with

connection
a

between

compromise

would

ETHICS

ethics

virtues,and,

these:

are

(1) the

the
particularly,

more

Socratic

paradoxes;

determination

of their

science or art,to happiness,to the political

or
postulatedsupreme
royal
the
of
associated
and
with
hedonism;
it,
good; (3)
problem
(4),
of virtue and happiness."
the attempt to demonstrate
the inseparability
that all wrongdoing is involuntary;"that
1. Plato always formallymaintained
in some
be taught."
virtue is insightor knowledge,is in its essence
sense
one, and can
illustrates the conflicts that arise between
he merely dramatically
these
Sometimes
in
and
the
Laws'"
but
most
common-sense.
Elsewhere,
paradoxes
explicitly
cation
by implihe reveals his perceptionthat these propositions
in the minor
even
dialogues,
be reconciled with experienceonly by the conscious
employment of words in a
can
all
is
will the good or what
men
involuntary(1)because
specialsense.^' Wrongdoing
the rightwill do the wrong,
if
who
knows
(2) because no man
they deem the good;''^
does
refuse
the
that
in
term
to
the
take
we
knowledge
highestsense, or
any cognition
in
not control the will;'''
(3) because the conditions that shape conduct lie far more
relation

to

idea of

the

art, to

wills."

than in our
conscious
education, and environment
heredity,
this charitable
noted
principleand
by Aristotle between
"

"
virtue is free,"

arises
These

"

ethical

good,
tism,

as

are,

or

we

on

isXen.,

358CD;

chief topics of the

of tact, the

ethics

Plato's

on

principle

metaphysical
meanings.

^,

the
or

idea

of

schema-

his

86D;

Km.,
nonr,

2"2C;

ffxeSoj'aya^ol "yt-yfoi'Tai.

689

D,

Pft"e6,22B;

"

us

""

01

"

yt

as
opewirciTaiSev-

696

C,

2iiacAe",

710
to

196 Ej

633 D

modern

this

elvau
irpoiravayKdiitiv

cf. Laws,

ioMJS, 731C, 734B, 860D.

"ii
A
Laws,6iiA,

20

with

free-will controversy

problem by

A, ijv nt

iv

atiivvvuii'

Plato:

the

Xeyoi, i^povTivtv

aia^povtlv.
iocftes, 191E,

and

E,

contradiction

edifyingproclamation

the

scientific.^^ The

connected

conceptionsnot

382A(?), 413Aa),492E(1),589C;

WEuthydem.,
/Ac^ot

base

we

than

3, 9, 4; 4, 6, 6; Apol., 26A; Protag., 345 D,

77,78; Gorg., 466E, 467B=iJep.,577E=Z,aM)s,

SopA., 228C, 230A;

"

matter

If

distort

two

rather

Mem.,

Meno,

688B;iJep

,"

other

any

shall

of

out

dialogrues.

is emotional

The

Sep.,

kvipeloi.
.

429D;

Rep.,

ev

^Sovais,

443E,

"4A;

Themtet., 176 C; Polit., 306A.

nueno,

77; Euthydem.,

352B;
.sp.otoff.,
w,
86D.
2*rjnj.,
i...-.,
w^.

26

Cf.

my

note

ia",

279; Symp.,

205A; Gorg.,

468.

689; The"etet.,mC.
25

5" iSeo-irOTOl'.
617 E, ipeTJl
iJep.,
r
",j,.,
x

"

in A. J. p.. Vol. X, p. 77.

10

The

Unity

Plato's

of

Thought

infinite

It
foreknowledgeof God, and the absolute continuityof physicalcausation.
Plato taught free-will or
determinism."'
is, then, unprofitableto inquire whether
But it should
be distinctly
noted
he employs precisely
that in the Laws
the logicof
modern

determinism

patible
involuntarycharacter of wrongdoing is comand
acts.^'
of
voluntary
involuntary
legalpurposes
Virtue is knowledge because it must
to be a good, and the only certain
be assumed
good, the only sure guide to the good use of what the world calls good, is knowledge.^"
Opinion and habit may often suffice to regulateaction, but persistent
right opinion
rule
of
in
and
the
conduct
its
be
must
teachers,
highest
knowledge
presupposes
deduced
from and referred to a rational apprehension of ultimate
Virtue
is
good.'"

with

because

one

in

to

each

that

prove

the distinction

of the virtues is

the

the

for

involves

form

all the

because

or
knowledge,'"

of

others.'^ Virtue

each, when

is teachable

in the

taken

in
highest sense,
which knowledge and rightopinionmay
be taught. The
capacityfor knowledge, the
divine faculty,
is innate, but teaching and
guidance may direct it toward the good.'"
The ordinaryvirtues of habit and opinion may
fairlybe said to be taught when they
inculcated
wisdom
all the forces of society
are
^n
systematically
enlisting
by superior
its service."* This

affirms
alternately
of the
is

and

declares

Meno

the

is not

at

case

denies

Athens,'^and

therefore

of teaching"virtue,""*
and
possibility
it
conditions
comes
a
by grace
present

ethical
in

but

uses,

and

virtues

close
which

which

Vol.

853; JowETT,

p.

a
"^

knows.

he

confused

sciences."" That

the arts and

27ZELLEE,

Ill,

408, 425.

PP.

to
'^

861-864 C.

The

meaning

is

perfectly

misunderstood,
864B,

to catil

not

about

2"Ev.thydem.,
point of view

the

of the

69 AB

Plato

clear, and

warns

us,

Cf. from

^"i'- 520B

another

Protag., 356, 357, with

Fhileb.,

292D; infra,

Euthyd.,

100 A, olos koI

Meno,

p. 16:

Laws,

eti-.
n-oi^crai,

aK\ov

Cf.

For

lated, like that

of

of any

The

other

abstract

T^

71 D

Meno,

unity

of

idea,

aper,
a

as

precondi-

(jj^^

Apol,

gjOB;

320;

24,25;

of

full refutation
At

of other

good

present

{274E).

"ecV (loip^i

see
Magciee, p.
views, p. 594, n. 4,

cf. Protag.,

spring

men

320A; Euthyd.,

gj^ ^

^^^ ^^.^.

^"^^"",

^^jj^ ^sj.\ov iv ^iv^i^ovixivai,

^6K^",v

^^^^^

up

avTo^arot

282C);
".

even

in

^"^^^,

ij"ai

^r,.

definition.

Gorg., 507 A;

also

in

iJep., 518B,
of

statement
alone
"rT^/ii)

the

can

and

is
The

knowledge

in

both

and

Plato

is

intentional,

course

519A.

There

of

suggestion

BoNlTZ,

Platonic

of Protag., 330, 331.

This

contradicts

apparently

speaking
whole
sense.

the

Aristotle

limit

of the

faculty, not the content, of

is

education

higher
And,

claims

exaggerated

of the

on

the

other

teaching

The

teaching

hand,

in the

of

though

strict

sense

"

lesser

-r^.

^.

(certainly by Plato) presents the

Htppias
paradoxical form (the voluntary lie better

fallacyinits most
the involuntary)

ji^an

and

by

its obvious

irony

(372DE,

already " in the Socratic

period
it seriously, but merely uses
does not take
it for dramatic
or
propadeutio
Zelleb, p. 597, takes this as
purposes.
Plato's
real
opinion, citing Sep., 535 D and
382, which
the paradoxical
merely use
the
terminology to emphasize
thought, acceptable to Mill or Huxley, that the mere
intel376 C)

Meno, 99A, and.Protojr., 361B, that iniBut the objection is captious.

be taught.

is satirizing the

Republic

knowledge.

696 C.

Laws,

(of

the

Sttidies, p. 265) faUacies

Sophists

Buthyd.,2"2G

gj^jg^^ ^^^^^

38

33

Gorg., 521D;

^j^j^^^

""mi

31

passim.

pp

ff.,is
postu-

is

Laws,

93Bffl.; Protag.,

Meno,

2CD;

Meno;

Rep., 492, 493.

ethical.

than

87B;

this interpretation

63, andZELLEE's

951 B.
69AB.

Phmdo,

Protag.;

nLaches;
logical rather

rH iraiSeU, 429C, i. c,

179 C D.

Laches,

37

Tim.,

-Euthyphro,

^Protag.;
sojlfeno,97B;

Poirt.,'309D

34j;ep., 500D, 429CD;

35jJep., 492E;

88C.

iy

is imparted

knowledge, opinion
virtually taught,

often

terminology.

281, 289; Merw,

Fhoedo,

though

passage,

41E.

The

divine

by, the Socratic analogy between the

comparison,though it ignoresthe distinctively
certain
of truth.
In a sense, each of us is good
measure
is not virtue, but it
u
nderstood
Knowledge as ordinarily
himself

is not

element, contains

that

28

this

Socrates
the

at

equivalentto chance."'
Plato

tion

Platonic

the

the

that under

senses

leotual
virtue

shows

love
as

well

Plato

that

of
as

truth
the

39i(ic7se",194D;

"

(knowledge)

ought

ordinary

virtue

Lysis, UQT)

to be

counted

of truthfulness,

Sep., 349 E.

Paul

Shoeet

11

does away with many

forms of wrongdoing. It is not courage, but the man
who knows
how is less likelyto be afraid.*" It is not crax^poavvr),
but it is incompatible
with many
forms

of

knows his own

and will undertake
a^poa-vvTj.The wise man
limits,
only what
for
these
because he did not or, in ironical
can
perform." Partly
reasons, and partly
know
the
even
as
himself,would not recognizethat men
assumption that others were
and
the
the
Platonic
Socrates
chief
ethical
the
to
seems
right
yet
ignore
wrong pursue,
he

factor,a virtuous

merely the

commendable,"

and

good

will,and argues

for Plato

are

"virtue"

but

that he who

the

plainlysomething different from

for
animal
example,apart from mere
Courage,
defined

fuller

analysis. All

and

that unfolded

opinion,or

define courage

in the absence
ethical

of conventional

by Plato

himself

edge
this involves real knowl-

But

Sophistsand average
Republic. The attempt to

of the

in the

distinctions

of these

be

temperamentalfearlessness,
may

knowledge of what is and is not to be feared.

good and evil,a completeideal of life,either that

Athenian

is

knowledge

be identified with
may
of
arts and sciences."
the
specialties

the

as

of

lacies"
"fal-

such

knowledge that

supreme

is

is just." But
justice

knows

of
starting-point

merely illustrates

inadequacy

the

thought."

distinction between
applicationto these problems of the obvious
then
of
the
the
science
Republic. And even
largercanvas
rightopinionrequires
most
that the courage
it remains
true
sophic
impliesa completephiloworthy of the name
such
in
of
life
educates
the
of
the
that
masses
opinion."
right
conception
mastery
tuous
from the virthat this supreme
Plato tacitly
assumes
knowledge will be inseparable
thus on this higher
it is in Socrates.*' And
statesmen
will in his philosophic
as
becomes
true
again.
plane the Socratic paradox
we
little to the consistencyand unity of Plato's thought whether
It matters
The

effective

and

to

drawn, the ideal

once

He

common-sense.

"Gors.,

difierentiated

C/. also the

sarily healthful.
m-D,

TO

',
broad

^J. iUa.a

rue

purposes

r,

of the

(460E)th^
rhetoric,

could
with
to be.

not

be

the

unconscious
Socrates

if

instrument

the

thought it monstrous
his
should prevail over
his latest work

refuses

does

control

that

not

i"

is

really the science of the just,

Gorgias
of injustice which
complacently represented it

better

the term

any

other

knowledge.
"

will,

knowledge
and

Hence,

352 B, says,

impulse in
And
"

Plato

to any

pronounces

in

belief
discord

practicable

society.The

afford to make

can

kind

concessions

of

bravery is

the ethical convictions

and

"

Protag., 318 B

**

Charm.,

the grossest

961 E

45

x^jg^es
The

Laches, 182 D.

165 G;

; Protag., 349, 350, 360 D ; Bep.,

=-'''-^

states, the citizen

"

tests

in

three

four

or

429,430.
-

r,^

o^^
-^'""YTheref^Pfe"^o, 82A.

xs

309E;

V'-

; brute

grades
=

and

soldiers

courage

"

jonr.
429C

PolU.,
of

the courage

sophic

"

j
j
o
defined

^
ye,Laws,mA"W-S,
strictly
speaking,s'
are,
"""
J """'

courage

Protag., 311,312,

Euthydem.,?"ZE,290;

ff.

courage

citizens

of the Platonic

in

animal

ordinary

state, the

philo-

courage.

This

309 A B.

The

Laws

and

more,

ever

be reunited

point

in the

selections

"

preserve

the

and

identity of the moral

dividing, but
"
(Jowett), by reserving the word

intellectual

the

chief

Cf. Polit.,
Bep., 485, 486, 539 Dff.
with
emphasize character, as compared

them;

to

and

for the

is the

harmony

applied

inteUect, still

man

in

the desires

319 A ; Laws,

ireieeaiai. Ti r"f

Gorff.,"
488 A.

188 DE;

that

the

for
Ji.
it

Gorgias

Aristotle (Eth. nic., 7, 2, 1), quoting Protag.,

he

explana-

,^""",-",

ofJ n,"
the

enii/ iiriSeA aWa

is 0I05 tUv

\iyif,'crito,
46B; c/. Laches,
as

4.

argument

immorality

is in-

it is one,

"."".oo-v^v i^^o.^l. But

uparrc.
,

the

as

knowledge of health, though

in general, is not
necesrecognition of common-sense

the

knowledge

from

far

so

toOtoi' rbv AdYPi/,and

Kara

in Bep., 438 D E, that

tion

in

fallacy,

The

others

as

or

reformed

of "ignorance."

torn

Ale., I,IITDE;

ideal

mere

present experiencea

732 A.

Laws,

460 B.
Observe

tentional.

in

between
171 DE;

2, 2, 24; Charm.,

Mem.,

Sophist, 229

that

193 ; Protag., 350.

Laches,

"Xen.,

by

as

affirmed,Plato

once

admit

can

the will

to be fulfilled

and

in Socrates

postulaterealized
distinction

intellect and

of the

regard this harmony

"

virtuous, 689 D.

which

are

ever

must
wise

"

12

The

found

dissociated

used

from

merely for the

of
he

the

grant it to
than

the

He

And,

associated
infrequently

unless

the other

hand,

with

ing
edify-

more

redeemable

and

will refuse the

we

of

his

right;and we will
judgment
in
the good rather
acquiredbelief

enough to obey his

promptings of appetite,
though he

innate

be

tunate
appetitethat is the forthat
knowledge,
recognize

currency

on

follow

not

aa^poavvri to

in

can

not

worthless

knows

who

man

the word

translate the facts into

to
prefers

will does

whose

him

to

allow

can

thought, is

terminology. Conventional virtue is

redeemed
by and in the coin of wisdom."
of wise

He

temperamentalmoderation

quicknessand acumen
But
intemperance and injustice.^

name

Thought

children and animals/'

some

least

at

or

Plato's

of

virtues."

the other

instinctive

of

endowment

Unity

know

how

not

to swim

recite

or

alphabet.^''

the

2. Plato
in
justice

other

virtues

But

mentioned.^

are

And

in the

predominance of

the latter
fjxyaXoirpeTreia,

times
some-

consecrated

by its incorporationin the

Even
in the Republic
change of doctrine.
it
hinted
is
that
Euthyphro
pietyis a form

was

impliesno

This

Bepublic.

four

number

the

of the

virtues and

and
oo-toT???"

also mentions

He

poets.

of the

the cardinal

suggestionof

the

irony."

with
scheme

found

the

justice.^

of

would

Plato

always recognizepietyas one

virtue,"and he would always

of all

synonym

concept

placein

Laches

The
the

in

courage

one

quiet
puzzlethat, if
48

state

it

PoiiticMS, 306 B,

prehensibly
foimdonlyin

clear

as

this

the

in the other.

is

one

the science

"

the obvious
when

he

siPfccedo
M

Laws,

''

69 B

But

this is

Protagoras

irrb ^ovovpycw
and temper

mood

(p.599) incom-

in unity of

Bt.

.rpo,

54

MetM,
are

na'P-?

^,^e
whole

The

to

m,

passage

"rvvx"pe'^
IS

in

the

Laws.

Meno,
,

78 D ; Laches,

560 E.

In

Meno,

199 D.
88 A,

felt

good

the

with

co-operation

as

Him.

classification

of the

faculties

of

C/. Cftarm.,
is not

ment

159 B

fE.,with

307 A B.

PoHt,

and

bravery

410DE,

503CD;

^^^^_

j^.^.^^

Laws,
^^^

opposite

and

""'

"'^"'*""''
"

"

"

public (430B),

"

for

Laches,

"^P"

Plato

to

of

the

Tempera-

opposi-

seeming

{PoUt., 306, 307 ; Sep.,

temperance
735A, 681B, nSB,
831Ei
Protag.,
of

want

Socrates

paradoxes.

to this by attributing

Vi"""

basis

virtue, but is the

Nicias

the

distinction,

this

calls

attention

our

doctrine

oiioim

(196 E)
i-vip^iiiv 7re*u"eVai,
chooses

to

deny

the

Uovra.

In the Be-

bravery

term

"

to
^5

402 0, "A"v9.pidT")!,
neyaAoirpe"r"i,a536A.

56

Cf. also

oi

If it

were

by

of Euthy-

one

particular

^.^^ between
ex^t

apttrr

m.

".

Cf. Themtet.,

-e.v.

maintain

74 A ; Bei).
included

or

to realize

willed

formulated

as

his edition

to, or an emotional synonym

it is
aspect of virtue which
in relation
to a special field of

It is not

to distinguish

necessary

conduct

make

in relation

mood

as

of
the

"eliminates"
ssThe
suggestion that the Euthyphro
be dated
by its recognition
t^j ,(,vx?!; piety, and that the ilfeno may
of oo-iiiTijt
{78 D) is utterly fantastic.

t"xo!

eirat.

of the

Protag., 329 C

"

is

virtue

and

of God,

of, all virtue.

59'

VP""'A'"Ta

Ml"

53

V
'""""'

the

of Bonitz

(introduction to

24). It is the endeavor

allows

explicitlyin

perplexity
knowledge that will

in

"

that

of

"

'

689 D,

176C,T"i;oJl..iS.KoB.r.
5"r,5

p.

definition

the antithesis

in

accept

Heidel

allied

the sold.

689 D,

Laws,

should

service

176 C

Themtet

phro,

measur-

i?ep"6Kc,'

519 A;

piety,I

Peofessob

the

Zellee

plurality

the

of

of

involve

the supreme

and

the virtues

quests for

Both
terminate

fact of experience

more

631 C

iaws,

that

is

only indirectly

him

49Z,a")s, 710AB.
60Be"

both

is identified with

view, Protag., 350, and

refutes

to Plato

the

or

affirms

are

temperance

virtue

it is! enunciated

when

as

a
givingso problematical

Socratic

one

proof that all virtue

ing pleasure and pain. But

presumably

virtues,or perhaps as

to define

attempt

any

by the
is

the

energetictemperament.^'Both

by Socrates, who

to

on

Charmides

of

case,

maintains

Protagoras

answered

not

dialoguesturn
and

the

and

the

chief
from

scientific scheme.'*'

Several of the minor

notions.

the

of

shrink

Protag., 331 A.
desirable

to

mere

animal

^j^^^j ^^

courage.

courage

to

children

Trtijiuicei/ai
pointedly ignores

produce

Platonic

definition

ment.

attributes

In the iajos, 963 E, he

the

and

animals.

distinction

But
of

oy^oim

tempera-

Paul

Shoeet

13

happy,the distinction between the virtues vanishes;*"or in the tautologythat the

knowledge that is good is knowledge of the good.*'
It is often assumed
(1)that Plato was serious in these attempts to express by a
us

of a virtue and the various and contradictory

phrase or a substituted synonym the essence
that
the
failure
and
of
meanings of its conventional name
(2)
;
pretendedperplexity
Socrates at the close mark the pointreached by Plato's own
thought at the time. This
But the following
is a prioriconceivable.
considerations
it highlyimprobable:
make
this
unlike
in
if
he
of the
were
aware
a) Plato,
Xenophon,*^
always proceeds as
of the definition and of the multiplemeanings of ethical terms.
true theory and
use
All attemptsin his writingsto work
out abselute and
isolated definitions fail.*' His
not mere
own
illustrations,**
are
or
definitions,when
always working hypotheses*'
subordinate
to
and
the
of
which
formulas,
epigrammatic
interpretedby
argument
in hand.**
but sufficient for the purpose
as
they form a part,and recognized
imperfect,
The
definitions of the virtues in Rep., 429 ff. cannot
be understood
apart from their
used
and
declared
to
be
sketch
never
are
a
mere
context,
again. They are
shall we explainthis on the supposition
under
that he was
504 D.*' How
vTToypa^ijv,
"

illusion

any

as

to the value

of absolute

and

b) Plato repeatedlyrefers in a superiorway to eristic,voluntaryand involuntary,**

and logomachy into which the vulgar
to the confusion,tautology,
particularly
of these
when
they attempt to discuss abstract and ethical problems.*'Some

and

more

fall

touch

allusions

very

do not
that he

assume

we

and
fallacies exemplifiedin the minor
perplexities
himself
that
Plato
had ever
been so confused."
Why
imply
his changes of opinion,or
deceives us in order to disguise

the

on

dialogues.'*
They
should

dialogues

199 E.

60

Laches,

61

CTiarm., 174 B;

c/.Kep., 505BC

"

connection

gener-

62

The

never

tioas

Socrates
Xenophontic
in doubt, and
propounds

y6^ilJ.oy= SiKaLov,Mem.,

as

63

the

Except

dichotomy
Laches,

not

Laches,

Theoetet., 147 C

PolUicus.

Theoetetus, Euthyphro,

Lysis, Meno,
-

192B;
"

-i

by

Cf. Charmide,,

75,

76; .,Ad,.

T^
D.

.,Ato!,ibtd., 208

reached

Hippias Major.

Meno,

..x^a,
ono

C/. 263DE.

The

67

TvpavviSa

re

the

repeats

Laws

justice, 863E:

aSixiav

irapTws

defini-

ital
....

npoaayopevot.

definition

of

ev
eiri9i/(iii"'
ipvxji

Cf. 689 A B,

rh

^W"
TiUp.tmv avrit (sc. T^i if^x^')""^'P
Cf. Pep., 442 A, o "))nkilarov t^i

kox

irA^os TrdAeiit ianv.

icai

^X^"" 6*-^.
68Uep.,

454 A;

Sophist, 259 D
of

Phileb., 14 C,

ixovra
;

aKovra.

e"oO"ri

chus

already in Lysis, 216 A B.

69Pft(Edr., 237 C, 263, and, from

Phcedo, 90C.
conceit
as

re

of knowledge,

described

ital aKovcrtv;

iraifeii";The(etet.,

view. Pep., 538D;

false

"""?'

""^

ra,

""

"

'

yap

for

naturally is
apcrJ,,

re

Jof".

woKXu,.

".

"

a.

he

in

Jon)

^epos

Adyot, a^*.".p,Tpd^ro..
To"jrepi

r.^a

^po,
'"/-"S^tov
;
Z"""
'"^^''''"''r'"
3iS^,
Be^b.,
.^xo^..'X.y..yof
With reference to the arguments

:\"'^"?

""

B, gives

is pressed

knowledge

eW
S;"*opoj-

"""

Cf. Laws,

'"""'' '"'

.o^.(.^^^^

ra

.ara

474 C ff. Cf.Laws,

Gor-ff.,

^^ ^.^j^ reference to the problem of the Lysis ; Laws,

g^ gg^^ ggg^ ggg 3_ where the paradox of Gorg., 467, is
reaffirmed, ei iJ.ivpoiiXeo-Oe(is Trai^av, el S' 0)5 airovSa^ioy;
iJepMbJJc, 505 B, with Cfcarm., 173 "-174 B; Pep., 505 C, with
pleasures

are

Callicles

refers to the

rightly deny

963 ff.,approaches

Cf. infra,

E;

p. 19.

slightlydifferent point
is largely due to a

This

PAoedr., 237 C, which

in Soph., 230 B, and

The167

the

Elen-

practised in the minor

dialogues. There

is forced

problem

the

no

that
of

that

advocates

any

specific parallel,

Politicus, Plato

of the
manner

some

Sep., 505 C,

the

precisely in the
is

to admit

604) thinks

Republic and

after the

Even

But

Philetms.

fQj. tjjg philebus

71

Zellee(p.

bad.

the unity of virtue

206 B,

cetet,

So Soph., 232 A

(.Gorgicn, Protag.,

passages

to universal

pretender

Gorg., 499 B, where

of the

substance

rofl "vnoO
yi-ii

Ti)v

....

Kvirovittvov

yop

Adyioi-. Cf. the

"iA

"i

of (TM^poffvn),Phcedr., 237 E.

"

of

gg^

Gorg.,463D,but
66S.flr.,pT|ToputT)=iroAiT"^5)iopi'oiieISioXoi/,
261 A, vfiuxaY^Y'a

d'etre

g^,

65PAoedr.,237D, 6MoAoyi?"e"ievoiopor.
in Phcedr.,

84 A B.

Cf. Meno,

cures.

raison

function
which
perceives no difficulties, specific definition of his
unable
to give.
dogmatically such defini"'oPolit., 306 ff.,especially 306 A, rh
iy,i, 12.

quite serious definitions

Sophist and

in the

6*Taxo,,

tions

the

which

ally missed.
is

isolated definitions?

late

date

in Imws,

"political art"

and

of the tentative

for taking seriously Socrates's

reason

"politicalart" in j;"tAj/apply equally to the avowal of

itself,292 C.
ignorance in Laws, 963 B, or in the Politicus
ethical and social "good,"
The political art, i.e.,ultimate
dramatic
dem.

bewilderment

292 D

E, that would

as

to the

not

be to any
problem to Plato, as it must
always
a
In the Laws,
{Pep., 451 A).
thoughtful, conscientious man
was

14

The

obliterate the traces

illustration of
find

167

the

as

why

clear

of

practicedfor amusement
curiosity.When

game

time,and

do

not

we

should

we

Plato

which

achievement

find

Plato's

on

method

of truth,

of

ignorance

illustrated
dramatically

part?

his

problems,

of these

solution
But

thought.

constructive

the conceit

this game

states
explicitly

of mature

merelyas

to purge
eristic,
we

unconsciousness

naive

assume

the

not
dialectic,

or

intellectual

marvelous

rightto expect dramatic

in the intellectual life of the

consciousness

c) The Republic,in
is

not

we

tagoras?
correspondingparts of the Prothe
In brief,the Euthydemus, 277, 278; Phcedrus, 261, 262;
Thecetetus,
BepuUic, 454, 487 BO; the Sophist,230 B, 251 B, 2590, and Philebus,

awaken

or

Thought

Have

growth ?

Laches, Charmides, Lysis, and

20 A, 15 E, show
but

of his mental

Plato's

of

prominent a feature

so

it in the

E;

Unity

the ideas

and

tinctions
dis-

requiredfor the solution itself are obvious enough,and it is absurd to affirm

tagoras,^'
they were
beyond the reach of a thinker who was capableof composing the Prothe siibtle Lysis and Charmides, or the eloquent and ingenious Gorgias.
That
the highest rule of conduct
be based
must
completeinsightand is the
upon
multitude
determined
action
is
of
that
the
of
the
by habit' and
possession a few;
of tradition and publicopinion;that the
belief" shaped under the manifold
pressure
be
defined
virtues
differently
according as we refer them to knowledge or to
may
opinionand habit; that opinionin the Athens of the Sophistsand of the Peloponneand therefore was
sian war
not guided by true philosophy,
not the
was
rightopinion"
which
should become
the fixed habit of the populacein a reformed
; that the
society
Sophistswho professedto teach virtue taught at the best conformityto the desires
virtue*
and opinionsof the many-headed beast, and that therefore in the proper sense
not taught at all at Athens;" that virtue is one
was
regarded as knowledge,or as the
from perfectself-control (443E), but many
as
spiritual
harmony resulting
expressing
and
the oppositionof contrasted
of
different
education; and
temperaments
degrees
that endless logomachies result from
the inability
of the average
disputantto grasp
these and similar distinctions
these are reflections that might presentthemselves
to
who
had
listened
to Socrates,and surveyed the intellectual
man
young
any intelligent
life of the time, though only the genius of Plato could
construct
a
Eepublic from
could
them.
to
at
Plato
the
of
well
at forty
occur
as
They
as
thirtyor thirty-five
age
that so obvious
that
to assume
or
as
forty-five
a distinction
; and it is extremelynaive
between
science and opinion,familiar to every reader of Parmenides, and employed to
a
bring the Meno to a plausibledramatic conclusion,was
great scientific discovery,
marking an epoch in Plato's thought."
that

"

"

"

964

S., as

in the Republic,

eating the kind

apprehend

it best.

sophists and
"

sions.

of the

One

writings.""

But

John

2 C, and
finest
Stcaet

finallylimits
that

will

beliefs

the

himself

ideals
defined

were

to

"already

Mill,

of

analysis

Dissertations

82A;

cf

in all his

and

Sep., 522 A, 619 C

eo-Ti.

Xauu,

966C.

964 A, fitafooC "e

koX

iiii

fie

a^iov,

to"

aov

epSiv

koX

Sti^avro^

Sirp
us

Ttrrapa

ev,

TraAii'

ovra

bir^

Discus-

Ttrrapa.
76

Not

Apology,
matic
is the

iSep.,192, 193.

f^Laws,

"

Gorgias, 463 D "E.,521 D.

specimens

'"

to

of Athenian

Vol. IV, p. 250.

iiPhcBdo,

indi-

the mind

prepare

the

against

as

politicians,his

in the Euthyphro,
'2

he

training

of

to

220

dwell

reserves,

virtue

the
the

re'iemblance of Meno, 99 C, and

has no
draJon), why, if Plato

is opfl^fiofaignored in the

Euthydemus,

tion that

on

(c/. also

can

with
be

its mature

taught,

earlier

Or
Euthydemus?
logic and its assumpthan

the

Meno.?

16

The

subordination

higher than
of statement
and

that the

of

and
precondition

the

function

own

than

of

doing,and

is careful

to

add

being rather

obverse

aspect

class

facultyand

each

by

that the

form

this
preferred

Plato

the

includes

other

to the end/*

But

within
justice

the soul will express

justaction.*^
the chief difiiculties of the minor
dialoguesand

he

one

itself in

fill

definitions,then, meet

3. These

"

tions
defini-

These
society.*'

of labor in the soul and in

division

stated in terms

are

Thought

It is thus

of its

is the fulfilment

the economic

Plato's

op

higher to lower/"

from

which
justice

of

Unity

But

of the

Plato

warns
us
Republic.
they
literary
economy
It is not enough to define the
a complete philosophy.""
is good." A final definition
the assumption that their sum
virtues psychologically
on
its utility
relate virtue to, and deduce
must
from, an ultimate standard or ideal of
is
Such
definition
rather
a
a
possibility.
regulative
conceptionthan a practical
good."'
The Platonic Socrates is always prepared to silence by dialectic or overwhelm
by his
enumeration
eloquence those who deny that "virtue" is a real good."' But a formal, positive
of the reasons
and
and
desirable
be
are
can
never
good
justice
why courage
law so analyzed coerce
complete, and will always prove unedifying: "Does
you
?"
Plato wiselyattempts nothing of the kind.
He
much
cipline
merely describes the disand education"" that will enable his philosophic
rulers to prove, if required,
the
of virtue
and
coincidence
inculcate
efficacious right
happiness,and systematically
opinion,thus teachingvirtue and molding character and institutions in the lightof a
reasoned
and unified conceptionof the true scope and good of individual- and public

their

82

A, 442

432

E,

dition
83

the

wff

word

in

rather

Allowance

virtues, the

tween

the

Laws,

696 C, 710, and

naive

to

three

and

man

the

distinction

iv

'

jL

ence

con-

of
be-

taken

of

little

between

little pedantic

philological inquiry to ascertain

ipcVrov Jofav

.i;.T"
^vxaU S.a,o"-^."7

"

i^Spa,

'

-civ

it.

air,

ea^

a^iM^rai

tc

know

is

analogy

intended

clear, and

not

-rriv Si ToS

"iLawB,mk,
ToS"ra

the

"

thyself

is not

(Bep.,
p. 12.

; sitpra,

state, and account

once
Politicus, 306 "E., it becomes

learned

it is

from

literary schematism

faculties, and

and
SucaioawTi is
"ra"*po"rili'7|
to institute

that

virtue

the

that

complain

Plato

sense

recognizing

for the

literary

to the

estop

Greek

active

an

made

not

normal

from

than

once

is adapted

It does

its

7rA^0"t,etc.),or

of virtue

four

definition

the Republic.

the

employing

This

D.

of

machinery
389 D

86

the

on

the

that

is because

doctrine
one

that

he

by

abstractions

definition; cf. supra.

of the confusion,

others,

many

denies

attributing
("mixed

be expressed

can

But,

on

according

to

the contrary,

Plato, is

that

this.

to

Plato

modes")
in

men

But
the
have

absolute

an

the

very

by

one

ioMe,837A;
263B,

different

generic
and

meanings

and

not

cause

tional
87

be

and

the

sought,

the final unity

the

first step

intended.

one

in

not

insist-

And

verbal

defini-

Plato

preclude

social life
that

is

the

from

arguing

better

than

that

that

definitions which
that

express

his ideal

of average
it

embody

of the

Athenian
are

right

aspect of the tradi-

some

belief.

ijep., 427E,

reA.o,, ivaOV

toAcv

"al

ivSpeia

,al

"rii*p"ov"al

SiKaU.

fail to take

sub-species

"

'^'"'

''

rn.

t"
/-,
B
C

tn

D,

505 A,

r, toC

'/""XPIo-i/ieva x/'W^H-t

""

iyaSoO

iSea

,; SUaia

"i,(,^X.^a
yiyv.rai.

^^Gwrgias; Rep.,1.
'"The

sical

phrases

r^

504
'"P"^-'

covered

attach

conventional

is to

define

There

Plato's

meanings,

many

oVat i,^:^ tV
,j"".. s^^ov ir, St. "ro*i r' e-rrt

not

the

has
is to

argument

against formulas

as

""'

to

and

this
definition
dialogues that seek
^".^""^'^^^J"^
^'"^ dialectical
relativityof the definition,of course,
i^'^"

(Pfiwdr., 161, 162; Euthydem.,

277, 278;
Phtie6., 12Eff.; Euthyphro, 1 B. yiith Phoedr.,
PoUt., 285E;
Polit., 306 A).
Laches,
Nicias,

meaning

this view

There

four.

or

^^"
argument
(Charm., 163 A; Euthyphro, 9D, 11 C;
PAcedr., 237 D, ofioAovia Sejiei-oi
It cannot
be
opov, 263DE).

term

precise

three

"*

the virtues
without
distinCharmides, Critias, discuss
convention,
guishing temperament,
habit, systematic discipline, opinion, and complete insight. They are unable
to
any

business."

own

but

*ioO' but in the unity of the moral

life,the idea of good, the
political art, the aKo-not
definition
(cf.infra, n. 102). The
^^ ^ hypothesis
at the beginning, or a stage in the progress

""

notice of the

between

word

unity of virtue

does

a-

persists in

ethical

only which

meaning

If the

opinion, and

followed

bravery,

necessity of the definition

virtue.

*" rational

one's

minding
or

reason

Kpa-

SUat.oy

E, 443 A.

Grote,

'*

and

incompatibility

no

of

"

temperance

one

moraland
442

that

the final definitions of

not

are

the

place in

for

966 C.

"longer way,"

us

who

Neglect

tation.

See

iJep.,504C,

reading

the

of this point

has

are

Idea

of Good, in

Studies," Vol. I, p.

190.

"

is for

caused

much

University

the
See

Bepublic.
of

guardians,
Laws,

964,

misinterpreChicago Clas-

Paul

life. The
of Good.

But

C,

drus, 278

or

Timceus^

fantastic
as

once

never

with

him

he
who

he

of 534 B
says

both

can

C,

which

"There

own

the

of th"

vision

ethical and

Eepuhlic has

absolute

is

confute

affirms

little

no

ideas

Phce-

assurance

no

the

the universal cause,

Symposium, the
"good" conceived at
and ethical significance
logical
of

elements

chief

in

and

in the Phcedrus

Its
principle.''

cosmical

hopelesslymisunderstood, owing

been

the

in

than

more

knowledge,and

the Idea

fully
oppositeopinionand successselves
Many secondarysuggestionsattach them-

(66)of the

the Philebus

in

enumeration
an

for the

be

againstconfutation."'
phrase by association with the goodnessof God,

his

the

to

describes as the vision of

poetically
that
all
this mysticism culminates
forgotten

mastery

Mill when

than

right belief,but
defend

the

it must

purelylogicalstatement

preciseand
of

of this

attainment

17

Shobet

to the failure to connect

it

minor

In
dialogues."*

art

of final ends, the

the
rightlywith the problem of the "good" as
these dialoguesSocrates repeatedlytests definitions of the virtues
by demanding that
the
the
related
to
be
or
political
royal art, or
good. A virtue by
happiness,
they
break
and ayaOov.^^The definitions proposed repeatedly
hypothesismust be a koXov
does not
in which
the rule prescribed
Socrates is able to instance
down
because
cases
is not
to happiness
conduce
good."" Similarlythe rhetorician, the sophist,and
other pretendersto some
knowledge are confounded
by Socrates's demand
supreme
their art and science from all merely instrumental
that they shall sharplydiscriminate
which effect good or evil according as they are rightlyor
and technical specialties

presented in

"

In

of the

some

the

of arts, the

art

dialoguesthe negativedialectic

minor
that

demands

Socrates makes

identitywith

its

wrongly used, and show

art,the good."
political

neither Platonism

nor

any

to go

seems

doctrine

other

can

far, and

too
meet.

Thus

limits,"
knowing
the
it with
confounding
puzzle
by
"knowing
and
the
of
self-consciousness,
or
fallacyor
self-knowledge
question
psychological
this
and, waiving
point,
thing;"*
problem about knowing and not knowing the same
them
do
and
cannot
that
the
one
demands
intrusting
things
Socrates
knowing
proof
is
Platonism.""
The
of
axiom
explanation that
a fundamental
to expertsis a good
and
iavrov
above, is taken externallyof adminicular
the phrase, like ra
irpaTTeiv
the familiar

C/iarmides

in the

what

one

or

can

"

expression knowing

cannot

do,"

is made

one's

one's self," "

"

9229 E, iya9b5 V.

God

see

extending

the

...

with

(1)

to

the

wish

to

depress

place; (2) to the neo-Platouic device of

intelligiblehierarchy by the interpolation of
lowest.
It
the
the highest and
between

fifth

the

members

new

188, 189.
due

is treated
as
a
of the best"
potent cause,
"opinion
Finally he identifies the idea of good with God by a sophis29 E) and
a
^^^j
interpretation of ,rap.^^"ia.a iavrv mm.,
of (92 B) eUi.^ toO rorjTov (sc.("fov not SeoO,
j^^^ constraction

the

p. 283.

the identification of the good

pp.

because

Fantastic

93

ilSovnto

IV,

.^,

...

On

of Good,

Idea

Vol.

DiscussioM,

Dissertation* ond

91

c/. 38CD).
95 jfeno, 87 D
192 C, 193 D
; iocAes,
j^i^j.,284 D ; Bep., 332, 333.
96

See

Idea

belongstorhetoricorreligiousemotion,then,nottoPlatos

o/ Good,

scieutilio
94

.E. g.,

one

hundred

of the

idea

separate
fiftypages
good (P- 101)

and
of

Zellee's

ethical good (p. 867). In

and
the ethical dialogues
from
he quotes little or nothing
in which
PA"Edo, 99A,nor any other passage
cites neither

of the

^^

/'o^^JltTrrer
elucidation of the former

503D;

Gorff.,501AB,

Protoff.,349E; Bipp.

200-204.

ethics.

^^g^.

treatment

pp.

290, 291C;

282E,

,,^"j^^^^

PoUt,

170B;
Protag..
Charm.,
289C, 293D,309C;
Bep.,

jj

""Cy.
Meno,
J

80E,

286D.,

Euthydem.,
n

The"^tet., 191 B

i*^.,-t^x,
99C/. Xen., Men., 4, 2, 24; JIo., 1, 11. DE;
,

""
r
iam,732A.

18

The

mechanical
labor

why

or

arts and

function

Critias

Republic
good achieved

all

the

by

the fuller

as

of this distinction

the

division

of

ask
government.
is to ask why Plato

incorporatethe fourth book

Euthydemus, 292 E, the suggestionthat
of
the political
art will be the trainingup
he did

not

in

of

vicious circle

to

To

of life and

arts

lack

So

possessors

reference

Republic,with

why

"

Charmides.

it is treated

to know

successors

Thought

the supreme

dialoguesat
the

in

in the

be baffled for

to

dramatic

Plato's

op

as

soul and

the

in

of the
the

sciences,not

is allowed

short

wrote

Unity

or

an

infinite regress,

when
although,

part the true

in the Lysis the theory,virtually
And
Platonic doctrine.'"
repeated in the
similarly
that
which
intermediate
between
and
evil
desires
the good
that
is
good
Symposium,
because it makes
the good a mere
to an
means
as
a
remedy against evil,is rejected
But the generalmeaning that emerges
from the airopiai
of the minor
end.'"
dialogues,
A philoto them
and the answer
sophic
given in the Republic,is as simple as it is sound.
ethics must
relate its definitions and prescriptions
to some
sistent
consystematically
of
final
and
health
and
it
ends
be
the
realization
of
spiritual
conception
good
order in a reformed
the development of personality,
the greatesthappinessof
society,
of the will to
the greatestnumber, the fulfilment of the will of God, the renunciation
the politician,
the
rises above
live,or the survival of the fittest. The statesman
thinker
and artist above
the rhetorician,
the charlatan,by his
the true teacher above
toward
of an aim and a standard, his apprehensionof a type of perfection
possession
which
all his thoughts,and words, and acts converge.'"^
ethical and
and unified.
Plato's own
social conceptions
thus co-ordinated
were
not.
of the brilliant sophistsand
rhetoricians
who
Those
figurein his pages were
Plato's
in
estimable
and
could
not
have
been
men.
They
They may
ingenious
very
statesmen, or teachers of statesmen, because
they
judgment be true philosophers,
lacked both the "idea of good" and the synopticand unifyingdialectic requiredfor
in ethics and
and in the education
of the masses
its systematic
to
application
politics,
"virtue."
This recognitionof the logicalsignificance
of the idea oir good for the
and
the
Socratic
d
oes
commit
not
to
us
an
dialogues
Republic
acceptanceof all Plato's
It does not even
social ideals.
requireus to admit that the doctrine of the Republic
all
difficulties
the
solves
suggested by Plato's "negative dialectic." But it
really
creates the strongest
present to his mind when he wrote the
presumption that it was
Laches, Charmides, and Euthydemus.
Parallel to the quest for the definition of the cardinal virtues leadingto the idea
of good is the study of friendship,
love,passion,
culminating in the apprehensionof
it is hardly to be distinguished
from the good.'"'
the idea of beauty at the pointwhere
No complete philosophy
can
ignore these things. Plato's reflections upon them have
accompanied by

of the
explanations

Republic,it is

evidentlyin

"

100

100 A, olos

C/. Meno,

Cf.Bep.,
S-"

^oX.T"bv

TOUTO

avTit

497CD;

412AB,

^poa^^t

....

however,
101

euTTOiet*'

refers

TOt?

partly

opCus
to the

Cf. Lysis, 218 A, with

7roii"raiwoAtTtKoi', etc.

"AAoi/

""ii

950Bff.;

Laws,
.

T"-

Polit,

T^, paa.A"55

fieTOAapovai

lower

Symp.,

309D,

education
203 E.

tw

^ov^Ti

iraidetas, wniCn,
as

well.

^"iGorg., 503E, 501 C, 517, 518; Bep., 484 C, 500DE,

520Cj
ioKis, 625 E, 630 C, 688 B, 693 B, 706 A, 717 A, 733 CD, 962 A.
,,3
r"i.

""

""-^-j.'

i.

^19, 220
/.j

-ri

;
t*

Symp.,

205 D, 210, 211 ; PhcBdr., 250D

-_"

"

'

ff.;

Paul

become

the

commonplaces

strangeantinomy between
and

man

of

the

Shoeey

philosophyand

poetry

the love of like for like and

nature; the exaltation of character

the

19

of
transfiguration

the

of
beauty;"^the overloading
of the species."*
The

the instinct

to achieve

modern

of dissimilars

passionatelove and

in

aesthetic,
moral, and
of nature

the ends

the

Europe:

the attraction

and mood

the love of

passionin

of

intellectual
the

"

in

ship;
friend-

tality
immor-

of the

student

Lysis,Phcedrus, Symposium, Republic,

these ideas first presented
at which
themselves
The mood, the treatment, the emphasis varies.
Some
to Plato's mind.""
of the thoughts are omitted
treated in all,and contradictions
in each dialogue,
none
are
the
and developments may
be "proved" by uncritically
pressing
language and
and
the imagery. But the differences between
the Symposium
Phcedrus, both presumably
works
of the middle
period,are as noticeable as those found in any other
works
that touch
the theme.
The
one
idea, the Phcedrus
on
Symposium mentions
of the chief
the latter is one
several;the former ignores immortalityand avdfivTj"rK,
is
that
love
the
for both.'"
the
The
Phcedrus
sources
thought
yearning of
ignores
omits
the
doctrine of fiavia and
the mortal
for immortality,
the Symposium virtually
in the Phcedrus
he
enthusiasm.
In the Symposium love is not a god, but a demon;
delov.
These
and
other
differences
is ^"09 or (toescape explicit
n
contradiction)
sent
predifficulties to a rational literary
no
interpretation.On no reasonable theory of
Plato's development can
they signifyreal changes in Plato's beliefs in the interval
between
the compositionof the two dialogues.
tic,"'
The Lysis,though a slightSocratic dialogue,
displaysextreme subtletyof dialecof
the
characteristic
the
most
of
and impliessome
Symposium}'^ The
thoughts
failure to establish a formal
definition,and the Socratic avowal of ignorance at the
is an
that Menexenus
is a plain hint
There
end
"eristic,"and
prove nothing.
the edifyinglittle conversation
of him, so different in tone from
Socrates's treatment
that results from
illustration of the irXdvr]
dramatic
or
with Lysis,is a mere
airopCa
of
term.
the different meanings
an
Love, as the
failure to discriminate
ambiguous
tells us, is such a term
Phcedrus
species.""
includingsubordinate and contradictory
dWo
kuI
e'So?
Bvo
ev
e^
ovra
avTo,
8B7
dfufyolv
rpirov
the
Laws
A,
ovofjui
For, as
yap
say,
and

Laws

will find it

impossibleto

fix

date

"

is

theory thatBios

WiZeUeT's
a

rigid and

somewhat

derphUosophiacheTrieb is
interpretation of this

matter-of-fact

trated, the
the

poetry.
i05S3,mj,.,2OTD;

Laws,

Symp., 2100; Bep., 490ABi

6oJa
T.
vov,
ko.
ko.
688B, *pov,.r"
^er _.p"T05
..( i^^Ov^ias; Sep., 499C, with
I,a",s, -IID, ora.
ep""5 O.cot
Laws,
Ti- ^u,^p6vmv re "al ^""u"av
criTTiJev^a"- .vYt-^rai.
837;
841 D, 636 C, Trapa
^vVtr, with
Phczdr., 251 A j Laws,
asmSymp.
Gorg., 474 DE, generalization of k^6v
"""

108

word,
or

LuTOSLA

WSKI

to in the

alluded

Cp. 242) fails to tell us where

of Aristophanes."

conception

not

the

Euthydem.,

of

meaning,
295 B C, and

eristic,216
is

as

the

clear

"Tep"i",

Euthydem.,

301B;

sub-

class

same

as

Thecstet., 190C;

P^^^f"-

"""""-'--'"'.

in

recurs

to the

13^;

Par-

A
as

B, arguing

to

the

it is in Rep., 454 A,

fallacy by which

,",^

^^

^^.^

LOTosLAwaKI

^.^^.^

*ao"o"er,

etc

Symp.,

important
an
(p. 239) thinks
"f j^^ Cra*j,I"", is
already"
"

^^^^^^^

^^^^

"

it is illus-

ZgUer,

is

tell all he

""^t
"o*

who

associated
"o

263

C,

Unable

203
new

E, which
point, in

in iym,

218 A.

suppose" that Plato had "althe guiding thoughts

of his later system
^^^^^ " attained
tl^^j j" j^^ j^^^^^ ^^^ psychological analysis
^^ g^^j^ 3,^^^^
i.ydij.vii"7ttis carried as far as is possible on a Socratic
basis, but that
revealed
later.
the metaphysical explanation
If Plato
was

speech

The

on

such,

as

belongs

losCf. Rep., 402, 403, with

"

quibble

opposites

118 A B, and

P^'"''"
'^""^?;
V",lf

721,773E.

Laws,

is

of

identity

in Parmen.,

stance

knows

with

265 E.

."t

to

in every
in the

dialogue, why

Symposium

and

is ivdu.v,,aK

RepublicT

20

The

Unity

Plato's

of

Thought

How
airopiavkoI cradTov airepyd^eTai.

iraaav
"KepiKa^ov

familiar

etBrj
were

the two

to

in
phrase 5t' ofioioTrjTa "f)i\iav
of
Kleinias
with
that
o
n
a
precisely
par
the two meanings of iiavOdvoo
in the Euthydemus.^^^ Plato is no
confused
over
more
in the one
than in the other.
The
mood
of the Symposium and Phcedrus
is
case
old
with
with
The
compatible
youth or maturity,hardly
thoughts are naturally
age.
of them
the
not repeated in their entirety,
in
but many
Bepublic, or are sugappear
gested

Plato

from

appears

Fhcedr., 240 0.

the

elsewhere.

not

They

essential

they were
always in

that

the mood

4. In another

technical

permanent

with

but has
experiencesof utility,
discuss
Plato does not directly

ethics is

the

no

to doubt

reason

of life.

criticism

But

polemicagainsthedonism.

utilitarian
to prove

an

of Plato's

there is

he

was

them.

upon

concerned
is chiefly

utilitarianism

elements

Platonic

the modern

the

is

and
contradicted,"^

nowhere

to dwell

of

use

bewilderment

are

aspectthe

be confounded

not

almost

Menexenus's

that the moral

This

modern

controversy. The

law cannot

must

opponent of
from

be deduced

priorioriginand requiresa supernaturalsanction.

disclaims the
originof morality,but he explicitly
from
the hope of immortality,"'
affirms with great

necessityof the sanction derived

and bases all virtue on
of the
the supremacy
emphasis that the useful is the right,"*
Xoyia-TiKov or calculatingreason."^ In the Protagoras Socrates is representedas
arguments the identityof
maintaining against Protagoras by purely Benthamite
pleasureand the good."^
of the Gorgias and
The seeming contradiction between this and the anti-hedonism
been
It
has
sometimes
demands
Philebus
argued that Plato's own
explanation.
reversed
between
the compositionof the Protagoras and
opinionson this pointwere
that
Socrates merely developsa paradox
is
that of the Gorgias. Another
explanation
And
it
true
of the Sophist.
is
that in some
for the bewilderment
parts of the dialogue
and that we
warned
is obviouslyjesting,"'
Socrates
are
againstaccepting the result
Socrates
and Protagoras have
that both
maintained
too seriouslyby the reminder
in

277E.

112

Grote

is not

youth

beautiful

stimulus

tory

that

says

in the

Theoetetus

required

But

the

And

of the

el Si "eainiTe
Platonic
nor

....

as

the

as

he

that

suppose

beautiful Meno

same

yifiKnAu;

is still the

Socrates
we

can

ophy"

in the

helpful

snub-nosed

vein

with

that

/coAbs yap
says,
The
xiiAds,etc., 186 E.
Xe'-yoii'

epoiTiitdt
as he
would

ever

was

in the Lysis,

have

found
to

the

phUos-

Theeetetus.

difier herein
think.

The

phrases
for the
Bep.

argument

at the end

judgment

of

not
to

without
the myth, and the
to prepare
living justly in order

is complete

about
Minos

prove

116

Protaff., 353-8.

in

340 S.

12E, and

ia Sophist,

and

lUKaKov,

ii'Eep., 440E, 571C, 605B.

suggesting

does

only

use

opposite.

one

Whatever

have

opposites, quite

that

no

more

than

the

iva

of

^^^

"i^*

bravery

answer.

date

word
as

The

thing

of the

used

early

to trip him

he

senses

may

dramatic

ia

of quessuperiority in the same

in 350 B-351 A, when
it is argued
knowledge because
knowledge imparts con-

points out

that

we

cannot

convert

afarmative
and

from

of

capable

was

is merely

passage

up

have

Euthydemus,

in two

as

can

Again

Protagoras

universal

himself

of Socrates's

tio"

Mence,

the
a

(cf,also
fully,however,

contrariety

even

point, proceeds
principle that one

was

illustration

and

the

its author
two

protest against eristic

is
(generic) resemblance

explain

not

of the

aware

the

that

out

difference

He

fallacious

arises

Bep., 457 B.

D, Protagoras, anticipating Philebxis,

Socrates, ignoring
a

dence,"

621 C.

with

74 D).

Meno,

341

259D, points

compatible

by

In

in language

writing the Protagoras.

Oorgias does
Bep., 363 B C D, 367 E, 612 B C. The
from
the Bepublic, as Eitohie
{p. 156) seems

113

xiv

Socrates

"initiatory stimulus

an

unim-

the

the Bep., 402 D, emphasize

ai/So! Ixn. and
trjiiKpbi'
portance of the beauty of the body as compared
mind.

C,

210

Symp.,

of

initia-

the indisi"ensable

as

philosophy.

to

spectacle

the

proposition, "all bravery is

distinguishes as bravery the confidence

nature

and

training.

Though

is a far better
Socrates, Protagoras
reasoner
Nicias, and again Socrates refutes him
or

not

match

than

the
confithat
for

Laches

only by taking

Shobey

Paul

21

theses

from which
incompatiblewith the positions
nation
they started."* But the full explalies deeper. In the Republic Plato
the intrinsic
undertakes
to demonstrate
of virtue againsttwo
forms of disbelief
the explicit
desirability
skepticismof the
that
who
natural
affirms
is
the
of
the
justice
cynic,
advantage
strongerand human
justicean artificial convention, and the unfaith of the ordinaryman, who virtually
admits this theoryby commending justice
solelyon external and prudentialgrounds."'
The CalLicles of the Gorgias representsthe former
view, Gorgias himself and (less
"

obviously)
Protagorasthe
publicopinionwhich

his

latter.

Like

he is the
Sophists,
He
himself
teachingreproduces.""

He

modestlyclaims at the most

than the layman." Plato
persuasively

virtue.

only to
would

teach

.admit

it

both

of average

embodiment

other

teach
says that all men
little more
and
effectively

assertions,with the

tion
reserva-

that

the virtue so- taught hardly deserves the name,

and
that the teaching is
systematicnor philosophical.
The
molding power of publicopinion,operatingthrough countless social and
educative
agencies,is admirably depictedin the myth attributed to Protagoras,the
is repeatedin the Bepublic.^''There, however, the philosophic
main thought of which
this
irresistible force for the inculcation,
rulers are to employ
not of average
Greek
illustrates the dialectic
opinion,but of Platonic virtue. The Protagoras dramatically
of the great popular teacher.
His ethical
superficiality
incapacityand philosophic"
the precepts of the worthy sires
and logically
on
a level with
teachingis spiritually
However
unlike in temper and practical
and guardianssatirized by Adeimantus."^
hedonism
of Callicles and Thrasyakin
the
to
individual
effect,it is philosophically
who
machus
Protagoras is naturally
rejectall morality as an unreal convention.
recoils
from
the
naked
Like
the
he
of
this.
unaware
populace,
expositionof the
He
vidual
impliedin his preachingand practice.
acceptsthe terminologyof indiprinciples
hedonism
only under compulsionof Socrates's superiordialectic. But Socrates's
Sophiststo name
challenge to him and the assembled
any other final good
explicit
the Sophisticethics
to identify
of Plato's objects
is a proof that one
was
than '^BovT)
of Protagoras's
the demonstration
But neither this nor
with hedonism.'^*
inability
exhausts
the
of
the
in dialectic
to cope with Socrates
significance
dialogue.
of truth in the
always recognizeda certain measure
Plato, however
reluctantly,

neither

phrasesof utilitarian,if not

line

new

good,

and

of

the

"measuringart."

,"

"

SMtAt/pAro
ji".c./ti,"//wv

u
everywhere,
J

ii.
I
that
,

""""!
universal
"

But

""!

amrma-

".
part of

"

be

,.

1 18

Protag.

361

iv

-D

i.

"

"

.J.

"

act

Even

pleasure

^^^Bep., 362 E S.

the

120

12JE1TOHIE

121

Plato
if ",

is

....

,,

must

the

Gorgias
of

Eudsemonism
603, n. 1.

p.

of the

argument

Sophist

^
fullyaccepted by Plato," etc., as
"

now
.

i
of iv
the

not the author

was

in

we

Prof as., 328 B.

"The

(p.156) says:
"

Protagoras
.,

Of. Zelleb,

ijep.,492 ff.

tu.
the

Pr-otofforas.

123

Rep., 362

125

499 D.

Eepublic
position
well

that
"

most

us

and

is a
directly converted.
,1.
should1.1 ""!,."""""
make
some
of the dialogue that Protagoras
scheme
And
Socrates
is
good points, though defeated in the end.
other proofs of the unity of
baffled in or fails to complete
virtue, and so is driven to rely on the proof from hedonism,
which is the chief feature of the dialogue.

tive cannot

it

knew

The
hedonistic, implication.'^^

the identity of pleasure

argument"
in
consequent unity of the virtues
Platoof
conrsewasawarehere,andinthe

and
(12),
o;,
I

He

Socrates.

to

(we think)will give

of that which

pursuance
contains
np

attributed

analysishere

Benthamite

as

Plato
of the

bad

12"

E.

Ritchie

354

D,

358 A.

(p. 155) strangely

recognizes,

Gorgias,

in

that

marked
there

says

advance
are

that

in the

upon

the

good pleasures

as

22

the
in

The

Unity

Plato's

of

Thought

and in the Laws

Republic has often been pointedout,'^"
languagerecallingthat of the Protagoras,that it is not
of action that does

course

any

promise

not

inference which

he draws

is the

that it is necessary

good,but

is the most
To

of

himself

that

balance of

desirable

or

to demonstrate

Arnold
the

seem

Plato's

his ethical

Matthew

introduction

this will

hints

unrealityover

word.

that it is safe

is not

declares,
explicitly

in human

nature

to pursue

pleasure.'"But

the

proclaim that pleasure

the virtuous life
good
to

that the

"

"

pleasurable.
Benthamite

Aristotle

favorable

Plato

purely verbal
to the

aversion

teaching."'But

acknowledges a

pleasurecast

alone

is not

feeling.And

clear-headed

modern

once

for all set forth

distinction.

And

suspicion

in his aversion

to the

Jowett, in his admirable

by which
logicand
many
its language.
acceptwhatever is true in its psychology,are nevertheless moved to reject
The
word '^Sovqis much
Greek
more
closelyassociated with a low view of happiness
than the English word
"pleasure;" and Plato had, or thought that he had, much
than the moderns
hedonism
with the negationof
have, for identifying
stronger reasons
all moral principle.
The Gorgias and Philebus
nowhere
contradict
the thesis of the Protagoras
explicitly
estimated
and
abstracted
from
all
that a preponderance of pleasure,
rightly
is the unqualified
evil consequences, is good.'^'The doctrine which they combat
tification
idenof pleasureand good, coupled with the affirmation that true happinessis to
and
be sought by developingand gratifyingthe appetitefor the pleasuresof sense
unable or unwillingto limit
ambition.'** Plato represents Callicles and Philebus
as
It is he, not they,
the
the
of
these propositions
even
qualifications
Protagoras.
by
the distinction of pure and impure,"^
wholesome
true and
who introduces
illusive,"'
critic may
and unnecessary
The
modern
and unwholesome,'"necessary
pleasures.'^*
to

Philebus, has

of

name

Plato

similar

rhetorical

or

thinkers,who

the considerations

perfectlyunderstand

the utilitarian

^^^

Plato

in attributing
to
justified

contemporarieseither this
this cynicaleffrontery.Plato
dialectical incapacityor
It is a
thought otherwise.
it
is
to
attribute
to
historical
evidence.
But
the
Callicles
not
of
legitimate
question
Stuart Mill, or
of the dialoguesthe utilitarianism of Grote or John
and the Philebus
that of the Protagoras, and so convict Plato of self-contradiction.'^"
even

objectthat

With

these

not

was

remarks

we

dismiss

may

so

any

of the

much

Gorgias and Philebus

as

is

directed againstthe crudest form of hedonism

dramatic, or rhetorical,
merely dialectical,
to bring upon
the stage before grapplingwith the problem in
Plato chooses
which
126

581 B

a^XajSet? goods

357 B, riSovaiotrat

(with Laws,

TO
x^^pov(cat
iu.i)5e

732 E),

nij

ort

ctAAa

afj-cLvov,

irpbtto

jrph^ auTo

B, 458 E,
?i)i"
alo-xioi'

se,* 457

per

iciXAiov

itaX

^Stoi'KaX

TO

a^vTTOT-

that some
painful goods are medicliial
of all
by the calculus
Sep., 351 C), and is checked
-all of which
is ignored
and
by Callicles
consequences,
the

(354 A

explanation

Philebus.

tpov.
127

733, 734

Laws,

l29PAiJe6., 60AB,
^^"'
130
131

has

and

The

128

cf. 663 A.
is verbally

nic, X, 1.

Mh.

direct

contradiction

132

of

136

495 A, 492 D

verbal

preceded

E ; Phileb., 12 A, 12

identification

by such

^Sovt)and

of

phrases

D,

as

27 E.

game

ayiL"hv in 355

ita9' h ijiiaiariv,351

C,

pMleb., 51, 52.

mibid.,

'

Gmg.,

been

him

Plato,

that

as

but

....

we

proceeding."

499DE.

41A; Gorg.,
Jowett

says,

it is not

should

is

IMd., 36 C ff.

135

iJep., 558 D.

"playing

necessary

discuss

133

the

both

in order
fairness

sides

of the

to understand
of

his

modes

of

24

The

"what

mistake

we

uneasiness,the
This

of

cessation

one.'"

Sensuous

as

human

our

in becoming
state,'"

call

men

this,in

in their nature

them

of

basis

last instance, rests his

the

that virtue and

than

in

seek

being.

impure

to make

real,or

as

is to
requires),

rather

pleasureis the fundamental

shall see, his demonstration

we

pleasuresare

estate

absence

ness
happiillusory.They are
with,desire,want, pain. "Surgitamari aliquid"is ever
relief of an
uneasiness, the scratchingof an itch, the

as

preconditionedby,and mixed
true of them.
They are the
To treat
of a vacuum.'^^
filling
far

what

Schopenhauer's.On

refutation of hedonism, and,

are

Thought

pain."

negativityof

it is of

ethics,as

Plato's

of

positivepleasure is usually the neutral state,the

for

doctrine of the

of Plato's

Unity

them
in

happiness
bind

It is to

jarof

and

one's

aim

process

one's

the Danaids.'^*

(exceptso

rather

self to

the

than
wheel

of

Far

happier,far more
calm
is the life that consistently
aims at few and
to which
the
pleasures,
pleasurable,
life
which
he
would
sensualist would
the
as
a
regard
hardly give
torpor or
name,
Ixion

and

the bottomless

into

water

pour

death.'''
Both

the

pain,and

no

physiologyand

pointof

have

been

impugned.

the action of
fatigue,

involves
healthynerves
pleasure. It is urged that the
yielda surplusof positivesensuous
of appetiteis normally more
than counterbalanced
by the anticipation
satisfaction.
Such
arguments will carry no weight with those who

must

present uneasiness
of immediate

contention, that the satisfactions

accept Plato's main

have no
inevitable,

that to seek

real worth, and

the futile web

unweave

this doctrine

psychologyof

the

argued that,up to the

It has been

of

basis
logical

is the

and

sense

ambition, however

life in them

true

our

is to

modern
qualifications

Whatever

Penelope.

of

of Plato's ethics.

weave

and

psychologymay

The

unfeignedrecognition
at once
the motive
pleasuresremoves
is happiness. It
lures to evil."" It is the chief link in the proof that virtue
and
of reason
the domination
into that
insures
over
feelingand appetite. It molds man
is Plato's favorite expression
for the ethical ideal,'"
likeness to the divine pattern which
neither pleasurenor
for the divine life knows
pain."* It is the serious argument that
attach

doctrine, it

to the

of the

inherent

iMPfetleft., 42Cff.
151

The

Bep., 583D.

that

argument

of the lower

worthlessness

oi(ria,is

is yivvn.^, not

of the proof.
(p. 604), the nerve
not, as Zellee
says
obviously, as the language of 53 C implies, one of those

make

and

metaphysical

serious
a

does

not

ever,

of

strong

Plato's

where

case

rhetorical

confirmations

feelings are

explicitly in the Republic

occur

pleasure

as

which

used

to

enlisted.

speaks,

583 E.
KirTjo-i!,

takes
H.
may
one

It has

for granted

Thompson,
be argued
another

the

and

not

that

the Pftosdnts

fuller discussion

of Plato's

out

^^*Gorg,,

is
strictly /ciVtjo-ij
=

493B, TeTpijiueVo!iriSos, etc.; PhcBdo,

84A,
IIijceAoinjs ttrTov, Gorfir,,
507E; Phileb.^
"

....

54 E.
155

pftcedo, 64 B

oi^ i" aefaaSai, etc.

of the

Philebus

not?

of Aeistotlb,

to

the

Oorg., 492E; Phileb., 54E, itai'cjao-if?./

calcu733, 734 B, the hedonistic

In Laws,

(W.

Anything

than

the life of intense

issp^cedo, 66Ci
.

to grow

out

Gor(7., 493E.
Nic,

pleasures.

Pep., 586AB
"!

of
'"

Eth.

is retained, but is applied not directly

life of
acts, but to types of life. The
is a priori
the
pleasures
pleasurable
more
it necessarily
yields a more
favorable
balance

individual

moderate
because

passage

mind.

54EvirtuaUy

objection

is not

pleasure

point,

lus of the Protagoras

PAcEdrits, ad !oc.). And why

if the dialogues are supposed

l53PAiIeft., 53Cff.;
Uteral-minded

argued

been

even

the

av^n/roi'epyov

It
how-

the
i52"Already" in the Gorgias, 493E, 494C, and
8"% *"?5eVSiji'ai,etc. ; JJep.,
Pftoedrits,258 E,""'irpoXvin)flV""
584 A B.

beside

It is
half-

that

moderns,

some

pleasure

The

X, 4, and

Thecetet., 176 B "E.; Laws,

612^; PAiiet.,
158

391E.

Phileb,, 33 B.

588.
.

716

D,

728 A B ;

Bep.,

352

B,

Paul

explainsPlato's repudiationof
the noble

anti-hedonistic

4. Plato's

happinessmarks

the hedonistic

rhetoric

insistence

formulas

of the

Protagoras, and justifies

Gorgias,the Phcedo, and the Philebus.^^

of virtue
necessityof proving the coincidence

difference between

another

25

of the

the

on

Shobey

him

and

and

modern
The question
writers.
ethical discussion,except for the polemical
rarelyput in the forefront of modern
of proving that an
opponent's philosophysuppliesno basis or sanction for
purpose
the problem to a digression
morality. The majorityof modern ethical writers relegate
is

or

footnote.

They are content

they franklyadmit

Or
could

to establish

that while

"generaltendency" or "strongprobability."
everybody would be gladif the proposition
a

be

of mathematical
But
this was
demonstration.
proved,it is not susceptible
not enough for Plato.
His own
faith was
He
adamantine.'^
certain that hapwas
as
piness
is inseparablefrom
virtue as
of the existence'" of the Island
of Crete.
Even
if it were
he would
not permit it to be impugned in a wellonly a probability,
ordered
Just how much
state.
immoral
and cynicalphilosophy
was
rent
curpositively
in Plato's day is, as we
have
historical
But
Plato
a
disputed
seen,
question.
himself was
haunted
by the thought of the unscrupulousskepticwho sought to justify
his own
in a
practiceby appealsto the law of nature or theories of the originof justice
of
weak
the
the
H
is
beset
the
conspiracy
against
strong.'"' imaginationwas
by
picture
of some
brilliant young
Alcibiades
standingat the crossways of life and debating in
his mind
whether
his best chance of happinesslayin acceptingthe conventional
moral
to policethe vulgar or in giving rein to the instincts and
law that serves
appetitesof
the
To
confute
the
became
nature.'"
to
to him
his own
convince
other,
stronger
one,
the
of
moral
It
chief
of
rulers
in
is
the
main
the
a
Mepicblic
philosophy.
problem
duty
and the Laws, and the Socrates of the dialoguesis at all times ready and equipped to
"'^

undertake

it.

Plato

in the

always overnice

is not

that the

enough

is

should

"wicked"

arguments by
have

not

which

skepticis refuted.

the

puts forth justenough dialectical strengthto baffle

the first instance

It

argument.'*^Socrates

the best of the

Callicles

in

or

Thrasymachus."" This, as we have seen, is the qualityof much of the argument of

the Gorgias,^^^
though it is intermingledwith hints of deeperthings,and supplemented
159

Gtwff.,507,512,513

leoGorgios, 509A;

69

; Phmdo,

Bep., 360B,

PMieft., 66 A

662 B.

101 i^aws

i62iSep.,'392AB;
Z,at"",663B, mSavrfs
TO

Trpos

Tira

; Bep., 580 B.

6i"A.

i9ikv.v irjvrhf

ocrioi'

koX

Si/taiov

ei ^r,Uv

y\

irtpov,

16*

511 B ; Laios,

with

E,

rSiv

907 C, ri

16"E.

177 8,

176 CD;

oirofiapaiVeTm. The whole

Cf., 527 A, vvv
Gorgias.
(ro^urciToieirre

the

forces

him

'6'

Theostet,

177 C D.

POint the
and

g., the

"OTe

vvv

passage
U

op^t, ort

'EK\-^viav

....

question
i, priropiKri

is

description

in

of

jrm

the

vjieit, oiirep
rpeli ovTei
oiiK i^ert diroSiiJai,etc.

\6yois JiyuvTOLi
KpaTovvret,

argument

Ueivri

Bep., 349, 350,

etc.
is

mere

iUus-

favorable
crude
gyji

force

bad

are

iyaSoi,and
ZeUer

Socrates

(p. 752) lists it

it may

valid

it

not

of pleasure

balance

of

in

the

There

is

that

the

IS

in

is

treated
But

to

prove

this

discusses

PAcedr., 239 C.

ultimately

some

From

theory

Good

at Athens.
as

employed

is

admission

ethical

abandoning

politicalideals
"pleasure,

whether

dialectic

the

cf. Bep., 505C).

(M9BC;

argument,

Gorg., 498 C.

Thrasymachns

answer.

koX

Soorates's

Callicles

from

identification
held

and

fallacies.

from

662 E.

kAi

question

Strictly Speaking,

merely to
Pleasures
social

of

thesis, oi aSiKoi ^pivtiiM

himself.
to contradict

Plato's

among

distinct

iJep., 365 B ; Gorg., 510 D ; Laws,

^^Thecetet,

Laws,

889 D

of the game

sets np

jSioi-.

l63iJep., 358, 359, 365; Oorg., 483 ft. Cf. Bep., 358 C,
S.ar.epvKr,^ivo, Ta Sra; Protoff., 333 C, ineX noXl^oi yi ""a.;
a^4"^apr,r^"r,..;
Phileb.,
Euthvdem.,219B,i^:",yipi. t" ,,,.1.
66 E i Gorg.,

tration

be

(Protaff.) is not raised.

terms

is

rejected

for

as

the
the
The

reasons

Cf. Phileb., 55 B, with

three
diaThe
contradiction.

Philebus.
no

logues, differing in mood,

plement one another.

are

logicallyconsistent

and

sup-

26

The

silence,but

to

conceptionof the true

But

the formal

Plato

as

least,all

at

Thought

the

nature, harmony, health,and consequenthappinessof the soul.

proof is

summed

other

the framework

of the

interests

book

subordinate

ideal state,the

the

education,the idea
higher philosophical
The
first
degeneratetypes.
argument is based on

sketches of

the state which

individual and
ninth

It takes two

book.
of the

ideal

happinessof

the

runs

forms

the

is to

state

through the
(1) That of a
misery of

well-governed
justsoul

mere

than

to the wretchedness

the

second

the

As

analogy.
the

of the

tyranny,so

piness
hapis the

soul is

whose

man

the

to

the

ruling passion.'"(2) The

force

of

truth that it embodies.

psychological

factious

of
figures

from

external

division,the sovereigntyof reason, or

harmony or discord,health or disease,as
appetite,

and

good, the charactercomparison of the

the

ochlocracyor

the

of

the construction

"

of

work

entire

the prey of a mob

of appetites,
the slave of a
or
this external analogyis derived wholly from the

Unity or

design.""To these,

of the whole

are

arguments which,

in three

book

in the ninth

up

tells us, constitute

repeatedly

in form

Plato's

of

Republic,however, Plato undertakes not only to confute

convince.'*' The real ground of conviction is the total underlying

by noble eloquence. In
and

Unity

the

usurpationsof passion

used

the soul, are

of

expressionof inevitable

more

alternatives

speech; they are

of the higher reason
facts.
The dominance
over
indisputable
psychological
condition
and
controlled
sole
and
effective
is
at
the
emotion
once
disciplined
appetite
of the
is happiness,and
of the unity,harmony, and health of spiritual
life which
manifestation
of
and
fulfilment
of
w
hich
the
is
external
justice
obligation
unswerving
soul
still
with
is
is
To
ask
whether
diseased
virtue.'"
a
more
compatible
happiness
mere

exact

restingon

absurd

than

The

to

dwell

expectit to

second

in

argument

body."^
is probablyaware

diseased

brief,and

is very

Plato

that at the best

conviction.'" The three faculties of the soul,

inspires
of
of
pleasure the pleasuresof pure intelligence,
types
that the pleasures
of intelligence
ambition, and of appetite. Plato assumes
belong to
toward
the intellect directed
the good controls the other faculties.
the man
in whom
the highestplane of intellect
In other words, he takes for grantedthe coincidence
on
and virtue which he found in Socrates and which the education of the Republic secures
it commands

assent

rather than

taken

yieldthree
abstractly,

in the

guardians.'"Now,
had

to cavil

time
the

argument

168

the advocate

experienceof

some

appetite. The
higher order
pleasuremust

"

ambitious

of

in

pleasuresassociated
the

sensuous

1105760

392AB,

based

on

445

427D, 445A,

A,

Crito, 47 D E.

gratifiedambition
nothing of

and

little or

the

171

"3

544A.

Rep., 580 D

"SGrote

conclusiTe,

442 E

life supposed
"2

sarily
neces-

"intellectual" for his own

type of
completerexperience. It would be a waste of
fallacies or rhetorical exaggerations
with which
Plato burdens
minor
The argument itself is familiar
his eagerness to make
a strong case.'"
as

Bep., 357 A B, 358 B, 367 A B, 367 E.

169369AB,

with
know

man

life has

virtuous

preferenceof the

pleasure. The

be ratified
on

the
and

man

of the intellectual and

591 B, 589 E ;

Gorg., 512 A, 479 B

"already"

in

of the
met

by

and

"*

Mill

is not

main

that
But

to

Of. supra,
that

object

is addressed

philosopher
the

B.

the

of the
the

arguments

this

p. 11.

argument,

simple, just

case

drawn

even

point, because

wrong

of the

man,

simple

from

the

but

just

man

order,

if
the
that
is
har-

Paul

enough through

its

Shobet

acceptance in substance

27

John

by

Stuart

Mill ;

who, however, seems

Plato's use
of it fallacious.
It has been rejected
the ground
as
a fallacy
on
measurable
b
ut
relative
individual
a
pleasure is not an objective
entity,
feeling.
thought we are confronted by an alternative the terms
Again at the limits of human
it is impossible
of which
to realize distinctly.Is it better to be a completely
tented
conBut
if
than
man?
waive
the
claim
the
that
is
absolute
a
we
an
pig
argument
what Plato affirms is
proof,and turn from these unreal abstractions to the facts of life,
pleasurablein the end to develop and foster the capacityfor
simplythat it is more
the "higher" pleasures
than that for the lower, as is shown
by the judgment of those
In this less absolute form the argument leans for support
who have experiencedboth.
that which follows it.
that which
on
on
precedes,and still more
In the third place,
the lower pleasuresas compared with the higher are illusory,
and
unreal,
impermanent, and they tend to destroy the healthy balance of faculties
This is a repetition
of all true pleasure.''^
which
is the condition
or
anticipation"'
of pleasurewhich
have already
met in the polemic
of the theory of the negativity
we

to think

that

againsthedonism.
The rest is exhortation, inspisketch of the Platonic ethics.
This completesour
ration,
within
the
not
but
of
the
present
myth, things ovk a-qhearepaaicoveiv,
scope
that
spirit
study,nor indeed reproduciblein any study. For the ethical and religious
informs

of Plato

page

every

II.

himself.

go to the master

must

we

OF

THEORY

IDEAS

realistic way of speaking of the universal;

a
theory of ideas is (1)primarily
versal
(2)a poeticand mythicalextension of this realistic language,by which the uniof
and
of
and
desire
but
a
as
is treated,not only as a thing,
beauty
object
thing
assertion that
it is the definite and
positive
aspiration
; (3)in relation to metaphysics,
notions
tute
constio
f
the
rather
correlates,
substantive
general
the
or
objective
essences,
and
which
xinits of realityto
psychological
logical
the ultimate
ontological
of
Heraclitean
from
the
or
a
refer
Protagorean
philosophy
as
us
only escape
analysis
It
the
is
ideas
the
occur
dialogues.
throughout
pure relativity.In the first sense
Plato's

leads up
mony,

Plato

pleasure. Here
"
philosopher,"
the

is
or

that

higher

the

in

is

the

and

is renewing

indulging
of

Athens

happier

sensualist;

and

soul,

the

and

analysis

the

debate

between

the

politician begun

the

of

in

feelings in a demonstra"
life
day the " philosophic

his

his

type than
he

from

the

sensualist, and

the

He

Gorgias.

tion

of

health

and

does

Kantian

to them.

holds

the

that

life of the
no

real

men

can

be found

expatiateupon
to these

proximate
in

ment
ri

the

the

a8i"a

types.
applies

Laws
.

iiiv iSUov

And

the

rally
argument natuin
an
Ding-an-sich
the

of the argn-

statement

simple

to

the

"al

naicoS

just

iovroC

man,

663 C,

Oempoviitva ^Sia,

elvai
t^s /tpiViio!noripnv KvpiuTepav
-niv S' aAijSeini'
etc.,
j/Hiiefinirepa t"|i/ t^s xe'P'X'ot "pvxv^ v Ttji- t^s ^cKtCovik.
.

B-586

,,5

i"

Zeller thinks

^^

C.

is possible

approach politicallife as
to it from
not a desirable,thing, condescending
anecessary,
pleasurable
life which
they feel to be higher and more
a
of the Republic
of the argument
The
form
(cf.Sep., 521 B)
of contrasting the extreme
is determined
by the purpose
philosopher and the finished tyrant.
types of the virtuous
in proportion
they apas
men
it applies to other
But
until

not

politician

reform

except when

of the doctrine

irrational to look for the other forms

who

the
as

Philebus.

as

Those

preliminary

Mill

it

rfeumfi

who

put

sketch.

The

aSSrmed

before

of the
the

fuller

Philebus

Philebus

regard

is probably

Sprachstatistik

of

treatment
late

was

it

late,

conceived,

But

the

plies
Part

no

II.

psychology
evidence.

of pleasure

in the

Cf. infra, "Plato's

two

dialogues

Psychology,"

sup-

and

28

The

universal

on

essay

the

by
the idea

as

Plato

peace.

discussed

And

Thought

ment
topicsthat did not requireembellishreaffirmation
the
of
or
explicit
type,
absence
of
from
either
a
given dialogue
apparent

of
mythicaldescription

noumenon.

Plato's

of

the

many

the idea

as

nothing.

proves

Plato's fearless and

modem

critics either

thought,

and
seriously
such

must

consistent

take

extenuate

or

All

Unity

it

is

repugnant to

so

proof of the naivete, not

paradox by arguing that he

the

have

realism

as

abandoned

modified

or

interpretations
springfrom a failure
problem and the historical conditions

the

to

to grasp

in

of
childishness,
not

have

his

maturer

the real character

meant

that
his
it

works.

of the metaphysical

adopt and clingto this

thought has always faced the
of
alternative
and
or
positingan inexplicable
paradoxicalnoumenon,
acceptingthe
Plato from his youth up
"flowingphilosophy." No system can escape the dilemma.
No
fascinated and repelledby the philosophyof Heraclitus.
other
was
alternately
writer has described
and change in the world
so
vividlyas he the reign of relativity
of phenomena."* Only by affirming
could he escape Heracliteanism
a noumenon
as
the ultimate account
of (1)being,and (2)cognition."'
He chose or found this noumenon
in the hypostatized
of Socratic inquiry,
mind, the objects
concepts of the human
the postulates
of the logiche was
of contemporary
tryingto evolve from the muddle
vivid to him
the realities of the world of thought so much
than the
more
dialectic,
world
of sense.'*" This is the account
Aristotle'*'
of the matter
and confirmed
given by
by the dialogues. Except in purelymythicalpassages, Plato does not attempt
to describe the ideas any more
than Kant
describes the Ding-an-sichor Spencer the
He does not tell us what they are, but that they are.
And
"Unknowable."
the difficulties,
which
attach
the
doctrine
thus
to
recognizedby Plato,
rightlylimited,
clearly
those that confront any philosophythat assumes
absolute.
are
an
precisely
Plato's particular
selection of the hypostatizedconcept for his absolute
seems
from
the common-sense
more
paradoxicalonly because,
pointof view of a convenient
the
real
alternative of consistbut inconsistent conceptualism,
ent
we
philosophical
ignore
nominalism
and
the
historical
conditions
consistent
that
forced
or
realism,
forget
for Plato not merely the only metaphysical
Plato to make
his choice.
Realism
was
alternative to Protagoreanrelativity
the only practicable
it
was
;
way of affirmingthe
of universals
and
abstract thought. The
validity
psychology and logic of modern
worked
out
nominalism
as
Locke,
by
Berkeley, John Stuart Mill, and
gradually
Taine, did not exist. The modern
flowingphilosophercan give a plausibleaccount of
solution.

Prom

178 Symp.,
207D
ThecBtet., 156 3.

I80I

do

not
I

mean

wUl

malicious

{Beitr"ge,

pp.

B,

44 A

Stuart

69 C

52 E,

D;

Mill

ThetBtet., 179 B., 185, 186

Less

directly

that

Plato

hypostatize
critic might
81-3), that

Tim., 27 D,
are

Soph.,

iJep., 533B.

said:

"Go

to, I need

Socratic

the
infer

Plato

pertinent

from

would

Apelt's
have

-a

concepts,"
made

argu-

all

Plato

human

ideas

(which he
hypostatization

didl)

starting-point had
and
(which is
partly true) that he would
not have
put forth the paradox
at all if he had
not felt the necessity of positing some
of sense.
This last Apelt confirms
reality beyond the world
by Met, 10406, 27,which, however, proves
nothing for Plato,
it merely states a favorite
as
thought of Aristotle,

concepts
been

Cratj/J.,386; PAt!e6., 58E, with

rwumenon,

ment

51 BC.

49Dff.,

249B;

which

E; Tim., 43 BC,

Cratt/l; 439, 440

1'9

28A,

Heraclitus to John

that made

say

could

doctrine

sense"

"common

the

"i

Met,

of

the

1, 6, 987a, 29 ff.,10866.

if his

concept,

Paul

the

universal,recognizesthe general term

old

accepts the
the old

time

logicas

logic
he

which
relativity
and

necessary

be

combated

blocked

mainly,if not

algebraicsymbol,and

convenient

created,and

the

of

But

thought.

cruder

The

affirmation of the

so

Plato's

in

and

of nominalism

forms

normal

the way

generalterms.'*"

of

use

as

practical
working instrument

still to

was

29

Shoeey

to the
by captiousobjections
theory of ideas,then, often appears to
conceptapartfrom expUcitinsistence

be

on
merely, an
of
issue
its
But
the
is
n
ature.'*'
main
or
psychological
theory
ontological
any
Even
if he had
of
Mill
been
with
the
unaffected by this fact.
analysis
acquainted
and Taine,'**
Plato would
have continued
to ask : Are
the good and the beautiful and

similar

something or nothing?"' Can everythingin the idea be explainedas

and associated sensations?"'
Is not man's power
the natural
product of remembered
of abstraction something different in kind from any facultypossessedby the brute?"'
of the new
Not
all the refinements
psychologycan disguisethe fact that the one
form of Plato the
alternative commits
the other to some
us
flowing philosophers,"
For
the answer
that the "good" and the "beautiful"
tonism.
are
only concepts of
which
commends
itself to common-sense,
is an evasion
but which
will satisfy
the mind
essences

"

thinker.

serious

no

conceptsare

to the Platonic

return

we

If these

idea

for

"

the

correlates
subjective

Plato,it

remembered, does

be

must

ties,
realiobjective

of

not

say

and real."* If the

sense
only that they are in some
objective
natural
of
casual
accidental
eddies in the
the
associations,
products
concepts are
of sense, the "flowingphilosophy"receives us again."'Moreover, though this
stream
the

what

are, but

ideas

Adyots itiiroSia;15 A, 13DE;

PJiileb,, 14 D, ir^oBpa rots
167A,
Thecetet, 157AB,
SppA., 251BC;

1S2

135C;
Parmen.,
180D; Euthydem.,

301 A and

I83i?ep"6., 596A;
by

describe

the

Phoedr.,

265, 266, 270 D

424 C; Laws,
CTCt/tyl.,
To

18*
"

ideas

Mill

minds

minds

genious

from

that

really thinkable

light

in

theories

on

the

of the

But

JwreiVei.

inpro-

it is not

wAiji' "v

....

^v\^,

Parmcn.^

iynSov, etc.
Themtet., 156, 157, 184D, el noxkai

t.."

aWa
iv Bovpeioi^ 'innots aiaOjjaetiiyKddTjvTtu,

t^r)

fiet KoXelv navTa

iSiav, elre \livxriv
eire
o
rt
ravTa
oiirepical /SMirojxo' (c/. oiirtp
Tim., 51 C, ri ravra

So-a

130 D),

ipfev, Bep.,

515B; Parmen.,
earl
altrdavoiifda,
p.6va.

"ia toO

aAAn

re

dXij^eiai',

exovTa

ToiavTijv

iSTPhcedr., 249 B, Set yip iv9pmirov (vviivai Kar' elSos K^yoU iro"Mtv iov aiaBrjacciv tii Iv Koyi.aii.ii
^vraipoujuei-oi/.

ii.tvov,

toCto

ii

ianv

opSois 6

75

phmdo,
^5

Cratyl., 399 C, fidi'oi'

ruv

ai-ajiinjcris, etc.

B,

vivra.

on

ra

uvop.dtrSij,dvadpSn'

avOptairiK avdpuTro^

eneiVov
aifffl^Veaii'

ei- Taii

Bripiav
oirwirei'.

re

hpiytrai,

Io-tii/Xirov,
etc.

Sophist, Politicus,

"understand"

not

in

of the

conception

author

subject."

arisen

generalization."

and

of original

dark

have

which

imperfect

(249 B) did

Phoedrus

and

let

to
"

an

abstraction

of

cesses

the

to

belong

fiiav rtca

Platonic

300) the

p.

the first efforts

as

dy

"rw/AaT05

Discuss., IV,

(Diss, and

inventive

and

They

894 A, 965 C.

only interesting

are

that

all passages

"

koX

iv rnjiZv
toairep

of generalization
and division
SopA., 226 C, 235 C, 253; Poitt., 285A;

method

Kal koXov

96B;
leepftcecto,
immediately

B, though

249

Philebus^ 16 D, and

avajUKija-lf ;

true

passim.

Phcedr,^

followed

iiriSivayaBov elvai nrjBe Kokov

130B,

i"'

the

Parmen.,

common-

and
explanation of the universal through abstraction
generalization. He rejected it, on the contrary, precisely

''"
"

"

o*"

"

St-to! f,ov/c

oUiH,;

132, ydw""
''"" """'" """

"

Iv

-"ovM^-o^

o^tos;

elvai,ie.

to

oy

sense

accepted
to

have

any

."'

T.

Theoetet^ 157

eo-Ti

Kcu

6a

Tb

yiyvtaBai
ouoTj?

ovv

phUosophy,

D,

ayaOov, 100 B,

"a.

"l

cot

apcVxet

to

/caAo.
fir} n

avrh

avTo

avro

etC. Philcb.y 55 B,
fiiKatoavrf^c,

aWa

yt
Tt
ir"s

ovj..; 76E,

KaB^

elvat
,

.,,
ovS,v

rj "rn.

^pay^.

""ato.

Cratyl., 4^B, ei 66
aya96v. Sophist, 247 A-B, t6
tlvai
iravrus
KM.
attoyCyvetfOa.t.
KoJ^ov,

"""'

ayagoy.

k^

'''"'"';

this

interprets
91. "2,

Lutoslawski,
that

'^ ^^^

Cf. Zblleb,
p.
thoughts
are

and

things must

think, is generally
Euthydem.,

287DE.

problem,

see

my

429 6 26 in 4. J. P., Vol.

^^

The

668.

^^y^^_

metaphysical

Ritchie, Plato,

it is conclusive

ideas

and

403, misquotes

p.

Peofessoe

passage.

113, recognizes

ceptualism.
^^^^

C,, S"acoav.,
65D, "a;... n eira.

330

PAosdo,

ayaehv

the

terms.

^^Protag.,
^pay^a;
77 A, "aK6y

and

out

matter, it leads
which
he would
not

of

account

ultimate

Mill's

straight
on

final

the

as

carried

that, if consistently

foresaw

he

beoause

"""

against

further

mis-

pp.
con-

objection

things partake of them,

treated

as

But,

for

discussion

XXH,

pp.

verbal

of

equivo-

underlying

the

Aristotle

de

161 ff.

yiyv^aSai.act

eort

fie to

Svvarov

Kokov,

t^i irapa-

^ijtrova'iv

x'cvoi'Ti

....

ovk

aXoyov

^^^Cf.
enalism

eo-rt

the

characterization

in .Rep., 516
^aAioraf

vopeveaOai.

otra

re

CD,

of

KaOopuvri

positivism
to.

irpdrcpa avriav Kal

Cf, also PACBdO,

irapiovTo.
varepa

or

phenom-

koCi fxinjfio-

eltoOei cat

96 B C ; Gorff., 501 A B.

afia

30

The

Unity

Plato's

of

Thought

made
point is not explicitly
apart from objective
by Plato,a conceptof the mind, even
order.
either is or is not an entityof another than the natural or sensuous
reference,
If it is,we
driven back upon Platonism.
are
For, though the Platonic ideas are more
than thoughts if thoughtsare
only decaying sense, thoughts, if radicallydifferent
from sensations, become
entities that may
the rSle of Platonic ideas,as they
assume
do

the

in

ultimate
and

tonists,ancient
Plato's

not

affirms

his wise

saying is

only

than

is necessary

some

sense

of ideas

as

well known

objections.But

this

and

critics cannot
who

the

in

faiths

more) was

so

And

it is to his critics.

it

was

hard

anticipatedtheir
was
similarlyparadoxical,
he

has

something equally and

to a philosophywhich he and
the majorityof his modern
The
burden
of
rests
heavily,then, on those
proof
accept.
he did or could abandon
or
modify it. A survey
seriously

will not
time

discovers
dialogues

That

necessary.

'"''

as

purposes.""The objective

and

doctrine, or

affirm that at any

of the

for his fixed

(but no

to him

is the sole alternative

and

renunciation

more

no

in
reality

modern, who

doctrine,but

acquiescein

of those Plainterpretation
This is
the ideas as thoughts of God.
conceive
who
it
those
cannot
of
by
development
plausible
Plato
of systematicdogmatism."" In these matters

philosophyof Aristotle,and

evidence

no

supportof

in

such

contention.

the dialoguesfall into three (orfour)groups:

For this purpose
(1) Those that
supposed to precede the doctrine ; or (2)to lead up to it ; (3) those in which it is
it is criticised
affirmed or mythicallyembellished; (4)those in which
most
specifically
are

or,

say, abandoned

some

as

is often

argument
other

terms

made

elsewhere

repeatedlywarned
transcendental

modified.

or

to

In the

of the first and

case

the

turn

meaning
upon
distinctly
appropriatedto the

that the

doctrine.

mere

This

is obvious

fourth

IBea is

no

group

the

elBo';,
IBea,and

assignedto

transcendental

et8o9 and

of the words

use

to be

idea.

We

evidence

are

of the

but it is

of
equallytrue that the possibility
presumption that they must be taken

conceptualsense raises no
and that the doctrine was
absent from Plato's mind
at the
sense
exclusively
Such
critics in the interest of theories of
time.
an
assumption is made by modern
free
to
as
as
or
dialogues
development,
possiblefrom the dis'tasteful paradox.
many
to
the
at
But Plato was
terminologyof the ideas conceptuallyfor
always
liberty use
in the transcendental
the practical
even
logicaluses of definition and classification
Phcedrus."'
All Platonic ideas are concepts. It does not follow that they are
ever
than concepts. And, in any case, the absence
of the
in Plato's intention
more
no
than does the virtual absence from the
theoryfrom any given dialogueproves no more
later
the
of all metaphysics,including
Laws
theory of ideas.
takingthese
in

words

in

that

"

"

"

190

Cf. infra. Part

191

Jfeno,

II, Philebus.

86 B, "cal ri

^e^

Yt

t^^^
"^a

S.y

ovK

Tou
iirif,

Irani

etc.
\dyo" Sutrxypiaai^rii',

i92Kep., 532D, 476A;

Tim., 51 C D
193

infra,

soon

p.

iSe'a

237D,

409, infers

135BCj

Phileb., 15AB;

p. 36.

237 C, 249 B, 263 E.

"I5o5 and

XXX.V,

"

Parmen.,

238A,
that

t^^

ceive

Republic; LtJTOStAWSKl
(pp. S", 341),
later,because, if we interpret rightly,we
get quit of the riddle of self-existingideas " and per-

that

identical

Cy. also
253

the

CD.

the

loose

popular

NATOfip,

Phcedrus,

"

must"

use

Hermes,
be

of
Vol.

earlier

3^^

p^^^

tij^t it must

"

be

iSea and

with

the

e'Sos
idea

as

are

used

in

conceived

Of course, Kant's
concept of reason."
here
and
all Lutoslawski
misapplied

"concept,"

a
meaning
by Kant, a

ideas
means

of

is

is

-which
necessary

reason
"

are

Begriff,"

The

32

Unity

Thought

justiceand temperance
and so becomes
which
he contemplatesas existingin the transcendental
world (e'"et),
and
different
virtue.^"*
of
artisan
in
an
imagery,
Expressed
political popular
slightly
this is the function of the statesman
in the Politicus,309 C (c/.
308 0 D). He is to
implant in those rightlyprepared by education,fixed,true opinionsconcerning the
The thought and the imagery belong to Plato's
and the good.'"'^
honorable, the just,
stuff
plastic

the

into

the true

conceives

in the

in the material

the ideas upon

Timceus

ideas of

or

Gorgias, 503 E-504

statesman

teacher, artist,or

embody

he strives to

the forms

nature

find them

We

stock.

permanent

of human

Plato's

of

with

ideas
contemplating

as

which

the matter

Here, too, Plato

D.^""

he

works, even

forms, which

or

the

as

of

Demiurgus

of

generation.
stamps
firstsuggestion,
or
proof of the theory of ideas is variously
exposition,
origin,
sought by different critics in the Meno, the Cratylus,the Thecetetus,or even in the
Phcedrus, Parmenides, and Symposium.
ObviouslyPlato could at any time argue
the
ideas
of ontologyand epistemology.
in
of
as
indirectly support
necessary postulates
is with the hypothesisthat the expositionof some
dialogue
Our chief concern
particular
marks
The
doctrine
of
iscence
remina date in the development of his
own
thought.
in the Meno
of a puzzle allied to the
to meet
is introduced
eristic use
an
of
if
do
not alreadyknow, shall
we
How,
problem
recognition."
psychological
definition
truth
when
have
found
it?"'
Socrates repliesthat
a
or
we
we
recognizea
all thingsin its voyagings through eternity,
and that all our
the soul has seen
learning
in the case
of mathematical
here is but recollection.^"' This theory is confirmed
ideas
in eliciting
of the Pythagby prudent questionsa demonstration
orean
by Socrates's success
from
Meno's
slave.""
The
Phcedo
refers
to this
distinctly
proposition
ignorant
describes
argument as a proof of the realityof ideas,^"and the myth in the Phcedrus
of true being.
lows
the ante-natal vision of the pure, colorless,
It folformless,essences
ideas
not
there
the
are
mentioned, the reminiscence
explicitly
that,though
spoken
refer to them."'
But it is extremelyimprobable that this repremust
of in the Meno
sents
and historically
Plato's first apprehensionof the doctrine.
the
Psychologically
of the Socratic concept
originof the theory is to be looked for in the hypostatization
Heracliteanism."*
Its
association
and the reaction
with
against
Pythagoreanismand
the

The

^^

"

'^'^

204

ev

Cf.

e/Airotoicr,

T,

7-i

FoUt.y

onnt^

aJd

"

1",

touto

doctrina,

rum

Trpby "Ktlvo a5

....

^.,

arOpwn-ois

Toiff

80 D ff
ji/e/io^

Cf.

SiKaLotrvvTii, Cf.
koX

207

TLdei'ai

....

aTTOjSAeTrotej'

eKarepwcre

ay

TTVKva

".'.,",

avBptoiriavrj"rj

koX
"Tit"ti"potrvyj}v
t"

....

501 B,
h

opif /leAeT^irai ct9

elect

iritLLovpyov

onn

Mnth

dissertation

my

ideOr

i)e Platonis

15 ff.

zlWouTe

"

iriTtivouTc

auTO

pp.

anopciv

'

"

Sext.
rrpoAi)i/(fco5,

avev

"

ti

Empir.

^7

e/iiroiEic,
'"'
205

tinn

This

not

Tafis and
here

TevKuco!
.

.1

..!_

the

that
passing
ric might be

it ignores

the

the

basis

ottws

....

an

the

=
^

elfiosri

ideas

soul

^Kiiriav^etc.

true
(I

Goro"M
art.

av

icd"r^osof the

irpb? ravra

ffia^po(rvv7}

""

"

pent
I^'^i^'s
chercherais

pas,

dire

The

(1)

itoXitikos.
1

already

popular
as

of scientific dialectic

body,

trxrt toOto
then
to the

tfietf
e.

The

And

we

ptjrwpaya-Soi
it

recognizes

rhetoric
ideals

is

that
none

in

note

may
i

C/. PoZtt., 278 D;

Cf. infra p 43

211

rheto-

(Gorgias), (2)
(.Phoedrut).

'

trouvfi.'"

Tu
"

Tim., 41 E,Ti,^To07raiT65*vViK

73 A.

v""nntr
^^^ 647

oinn

II., 249

because

do Pascal

m'avaisdfij^

ne

odii.

is StKaLoavvri and

"

ethical

aurw

le Dieu

comme

tu

si

FouiLLfiE.
.......

Tt

The

soul.

as

""

aT^o^AET^(l"f
Trpos
epya^eTOLi. This is applied first to the

"cdl

ednca-

higher

206

to the

refer exclusively

affirms

Zeller

as

'

does

213

The

justify the
2U

C,

TOUTO

t.

0"

"

"

effTti'

realistic terminology
same

Cf. supra,

inference.
p. 28.

"

arauFTjo-ts
'

of

the

Qf. 74,75.

"

"Keii'wi',

'

etc.

definition

would

the ante-natal

life of the soul is

33

Shobey

Paul

applicationto the
of
a
problem of the a priorielement
secondaryconfirmation
its truth."'
Nevertheless the Meno, which John Stuart Mill pronounces
a littlegem,"
is admirably adaptedto serve
introduction to the Platonic philosophy. It exemas
an
plifies
mythical embellishment
in human
knowledge is

; and

its

"

in brief compass
that

the Socratic method

suggeststhe

and

logicof

the

ideas,touches

the

definition

in

nology
termi-

theory of recollection

thingsin the

on
higher
and
the dramatic,ethical,
priori knowledge,and clearlyresumes
of
that
for
the
of
the
Socrates's
mention
political
puazles
Republic.
teaching
prepare
the ideas at the close of the Cratylus as something of which
tive
alternahe dreams
as
an
to Heracliteanism
duction
is taken by some
critics to indicate that we have here an introto or a first presentment of the doctrine/''
considerations
:
They overlook two
(1)the theoryis taken for granted at the beginning of the dialogue,as we have already
seen;"' (2)there are no traces of immaturity in the thought of the Cratylus. The
polemic againstthe flowingphilosophersand the forms of eristic associated with them
is,in a jesting
form, as sharp,and the apprehension of the real issues as distinct as
it is in the Thecetetus and Sophist."'

and

the

problem of

scholars

Some

look upon

while others
ideas,"'
speaking,neither view can
mentioned, there
explicitly
take

form.

ayaOov

The

technical

almost

and

it

the

Thecetetus
the

marking

as

as

introduction
to the
propaedeutic
to the later theory. Strictly

transition

ideas

be correct,since, though the

to show

enough

is

kuXov, claimed

for the affirmation

of

for
the

being

Platonic

the

dence.

Cf. 439 D,

Zelleb,

654-6, for

pp.

the

on

in his

Susemihl

once

suggestions

theory.

Genetieche

in later

dialogues

eVri

Si

....

TO

avrb

Entwickelung,

The

terminology

Si rb

ideas.

notions, conceptual
to

irot ^AeTrco;.
"^";"r"i,
389, tl ii

ayaBSp, eVri "" eV eVaarov riv

phrases might conceivably be used

KoKoy, i"m

For, according

t6

tVn,

All these

(440 B).

o..TOr

ideas

to be the

proves

L., it

But

holds

this

except

the

parts of the Republic, and he is

Pftcedo, and
Symposium,
His real object is to eliminate the
of them.
not quite sure
self-existent idea altogether.
Cf. supra,

identical

furthermore
218

429

386, 439, 440.

"^

with

On

the

a., cf. infra, p. 53.

90C;PAiie6.,43A.

ini
On

is
He

new

the
and

subdivision

important

fails to note

that

"

doctrine

that

of

ov

the

of

"..n,Tti

discovery

the argument

"

of

and

"

CratyL,

Bepub.,

In fact, the
was

'o"
"sed

an*

"C"'"

"^e

a'ter

refutes

the

hinges
""' the

m"'

on

and

It is not

Laws,
.^,

^^
.^

^^

^^^^

in

not

included

in

the

finds

ff.,which
fact

olassiflca-

of the

late

Cratylus

does

the argu-

it only

.^^_

^. ^j, ^^^.^^^

^^pjj^.j^.j^^^ ^^^ Cratylus

only
and

PhiUbv^

kinds

ten

L.

"

of

Ti

that

explicitly again
"

the

893, 894, and

.^^ ^.^^

formal

precisely as

be-

y.iv iWov
The

argument

It appears

Thecetetus.

380 E

Kiytlra,.

"

Both

pely,etc., are

v;rb

explicit in

the distinction

qualitative

Plato.

oi.oS-

Kal

re

whole

The

and

motion

Cf. Bepub.,

meanings.

*" *""" Parmenides,

Tinuzus.

of the

context

^eraPo\rj and

"discovery."

L.'s

nothing.

Passage

....

LSea^ {cf.

avrov

whole

with

The"Btetus

'"X""^"5"'"" iAAoioflrai
is slightlymore
ThetBtetus

is

596 A fl.

"

of

commonplace

freely in both

^^"^^

yiyvotro

aWotov

C/. the

association

always
"

qualitative change,

Kal

useofun-e^epxcatiCrafyl.i^D;
Thecetet.

change

"

non

389,

Sep., 380 D).

the

182 D.

"

440 A, aXAo

by

motion

by implication

in
in

which
.^^^^^ iKKoui^T,,
or

Bepublic.

Sofa fallacy,
i/(evS^5

p^^c,

Lutoslawski

Phcedo,

367) that

The

31.

p.

and

Republic,

the soul grasps

439 E, tniSevi^iarafievov t^s

etrrtv.

Tim., 50 B, and

the
217

tl

ye

^^"^ P""^

much.

too

proves

all dialogues

of

inroloy

and

pel includes

tto-vtil

toioutoc,

on

argument

the ideas
I, p. 161. LCTOSLAWSKI,
pp. 224, 225, thinks
which
not formulated
even
here, but only a something

iscomplete-eWos,

of

pre-Socratic influences

So

216

are

tinctly implies that

suggestion {Plato^ pp. 86, 87)

generalization of the Pythagmathematics
is unsupported
by eviis

See, however,

of other

Vol.

Ritchie's
idea
of

treatment

orean

A B

to

Pbopessor

215

that

very

The

186
between
anything else. And the close parallel
523, 524, admits no other interpretation.Among the vor)Tdwhich

hardly refer

or

in its normal

againstbecoming in 157 D, is
of 176 E can
TrapaSeiy/iara

as

ideas. '^"

often

not

are

of the doctrine

the presence

into
of the

cf. 411 B
affirms

*opa and

with

(pp. 366,
aWo;".a"

Thecetetus, 181, C.

of Cratylus, 339, 340, dis-

"''W.

J. Aleiandeb

sJeewe, p. 179,thinks
ideas,

error

^"Supra,

arises
u.

in

Stvdies

its teaching
from

185.

imperfect

to be

Dedicated
:

knowledge

i,'i^vr,a,,.

to Gilderis

of the

34

The

and
herself,^^'

whose

the
ova-ia,

Sophist.

But

and

and lastly,
;^^'
as in

KaKov

also,as

of these

and

the 6

in the

argument

no

for

for

concede

of

that the Thecetetus

avofioiov, the

ideas to be

ethical

'^^^

be, not

may

This

introduction

an

as

the oixrla

But

sense.

conceptsthat would

mere

impossible.

is

course

the erepov of the

and

ravrov

opposition/^''

of

relation

ideas,kuXov, aiaxpov,ayaOov,
of sense, aKXrjpov and pLoXaicov!^^''
qualities

the

the

holding these

Republic, which

the

Thought

Republic,the
of course
through
oppositescomes
is
Republic, apprehended by the mind

actual sensation

ia-rov,
as

and

ofioiov

Parmenides,

in the

The

ti

Plato's

of

apprehended through their

is

essence

after

mentioned,

are

Unity

There

idea.

an

not

the

prove

point established,we
the

to

ideas,but

is

same

may

indirect

an

The
polemic against Heraclitus is
argument in support of the familiar doctrine.
of it,the statement
that
always that.^^* And, though Plato himself may not be aware
of its elements,but fiiaIhea a/j.epia-TO';,
embodies
the syllable
is not the sum
the principle
and justification
of a realistic logic.
The
of
conceptualwhole is not the sum
^'

parts,but

its

What

part of
main

entityand unity.^^*

new

has been

said of the

the Parmenides

is

purpose

contradictions

absolute

indirect

an

argument

contradictions

resulted

from

antithesis of the

for

in the

the

and

theory

ideas.

from

being.

the

But

the second

this is not

Zeller

the

mistaken

was

being of

the one,

while

the Platonic

idea is

always

And

the many.

that

That

And

sequel.

followed

its not

^^'

Zeller's

appliesto

will appear

of the Parmenides

statingthat only relative

in

Thecetetus

in the

eighthhypothesis,
and "others"
164 B ff.,the "one"
are
no
longertreated with dialectical impartiality,
be regarded as the symbol of the idea.
but there is a hint that the one
try
Symmemay
is not (relative
other things
leads us to expect the argument that,if the one
/u.^
6v),
both are and are not all contradictory
predicates.Instead of "are" we find appear"
Other
indefinite
bulks that break
seem."
or
things are
inspectionand
up under
other predicatesthat derive from
to partake of unity and
only seem
unity. These
of
the
world
uninformed
matter
the
by ideas,
being" of the
suggest
07/cot certainly
materialists which
the friends of ideas in the Sophist call
becofning" and break up
the statement
be other than
into little bits.^^" And
the (nonthat, as they cannot
existent)
of
the other
of aX\i]\oK
another, reminds
one
awus
one, they are
the

suggested by

one

"

"

"

"

....

C/. 187A;

^ i^ux^l86B.

221 avrri

65 C;

Phmdo,

Bep,, 524

222 tV
ivavTionrroLirpbtiW^Kio.
Of. Sep., 524 D, " liiveii
Mr.
Henry
i)t.aTols ivavrioit iavrolt i^mmei.
Tijv ala-eriiTi.i'
this special use of TrpbtaXX.)A"i
Jackson
and others confound

irpdiTi, relative

tA

with

133 C.

men.,

modorus's
TI, which

The

Zbllee

(p. 706)

130 B after o^oidn)!.

224

186 B with

",.,,,,_
Phileb.

course

The

found

^23-6, with
the

,.

BepuftJtcis

in Plato.

cal

and

problems

This

iu
the

is

"^

which
"

(525 A) that
It does

the

not

u
bases

ofc

same

ideal

logical method
But

unity.
Bep.,

the

thought
is,indeed, repeated

eXvai h/ airo KaS'' avTo, etc.

elvai tl
of the
ideas

157 A is the
KaKbv

"

205

C,

of
in

avrh

diametri-

aiiTo,

Ka0'

203 E.

object

sport with

"^^ L.

,
also
J^. J. P.,'
r,

ii
Vol.
^

ovk

the

229Set
''""s

forth

of his

History,

246
230Spp7i.,

"t

No.
i

in his Platonic

B.C.

but

now

""

iroWiiiV

rmv

apa

tt-ittt

XXII,

misapprehen-

and

Phcedo, lOOB.

See
J

made
are
Sc6rifj.tvii.eya

in Bep., 523-6.

and

leads

mathematics

525 D E.

^^^Cf. Parmen.,151J),
that

with

less mature,

not

how

of abstract

education.

opposite

227

Jl/eno,74D,says
are

apprehension

psychology

226 ovSky

irpd?

iSep. 524A.

Bepublic mentions
perceived as one and many.

sion.
is

,UT3,

is not

says

and

show

to

on

passes

to the

Fhilebus, 14 D "E.,is concerned

Her-

of

source

evavria.

npo^

but

mind

Phileb., 56 E =Bep.,

aid of Par-

the

is the

passage

of jrpbsirepa into

223

dialectical

generaUy, by

terms

rfteoetettM

distinction

225THOMPSONon
in

paradox,
the

B C, 526 B.

"

oiiSe

navTtav

TO

"-""""'.

-Ic

2,
p. 158.
i f
"""

Studies

and

the

virtually withdrawn.

earlier

edi-

Paul

Shobet

35

SeSeffdaiin the
the

in Thecetetus,160 B.
Similar hints
theory of pure relativity
the supposition
that
hypothesis,157 B, which deals with aWa
on

fourth

is."

The

ifKridr]

iv oh

to

introduces

which

ev

$v
fii]

and

directed

aXXrjXa

against the

; and

to be

sought in

The

the

are
one

relate

objectof

main

the doctrine

the

of relative

suggestionof polemic here and there

without unity of the materialists,
But obviouslythe first originand expositionof
that deals with problems and diflBculties arising

Phcedo, Phcedrus, Republic,and

affirmation
explicit

here

detain

Plato

world

ideal,and
he

describes

the

dialoguesthat

of the transcendental

fullest

are

idea, need

not

In

his exaltation of pure thought and the dialectical method

the ideas in all the contradictory
attributes of a sensuous,
aesthetic type,

is
inconsistency
elsewhere

Symposium,

mythicalembellishment

or

long.

us

clothes

ethical

an

se

per

the doctrine.^''

from

in

While

of ideas and

is

indefinite

work

one

it is the

that,having parts,these parts must

Sophist,there

infinite and

and deniers of the ideas.

relativists,
the ideas is not

emphasized is the fact that aXKa

they are airetpa (cf.Phileb.)
; that

to illustrate the communion

forth in the

set

is

evi, that

ovk

the

is indicated
then, admit all contradictory
predicates

iv6";tivo"s, 6 KaXov/iev 6\ov.^

Parmenides, then, is
01/

What

Tre/jo? Trpo?

iud";Tcvbi lBea"sKoi

to

that aXXa,

briefly(159A).

very
.

conclusion

main

in

occur

common

warns

He

metaphysicalnoumenon.
to all philosophies
of
not
to
the
take
us
myth

the doctrine

and
familiar,^'*

as

is

absolute.^"

too

reminds

of this,and

aware
perfectly

the

In

the

the

Phcedrus

as

.^^
seriously

In

the

Phcedo

he

that

not

insist upon

the

us

he does

nology
preciseterminology,but only on the central fact.^" In the Republic every termithe most
is employed from
naitve
to the most
severelylogicalor the most
transcendental.'^
Despite these facts,attempts have been made to extract evidences
of contradiction
or
development from the varying imagery and terminologyof these
dialogues. The unity of the Republic has been broken up and its books variously
of the theory,or
its presence
in an
dated
"earlier"
or
according to the absence
"later"
form.
It has even
been gravelyargued in defiance of all psychological
and
that the Symposium, which
in consonance
historical probability
with its theme
tions
menthe Platonic
the idea of beauty only,represents
a stage of development in which
Belative

232

The"etet.

233

Cf. infra. Part

ov

203

234JowETT's

behold

they

objects of sight.

can

no

235

265

C,

go.""

objectors

This
Vol.

tA jiiei'aAAa

Tu

literary

and

I, p.
oiTt

the dome

upon

invisible

is because

tact have

for all: "When

once

stand

intangible,

not

force

the

of heaven
which

essences

the

an-

are

of language

412.

to

Those
in only

who
one

jj^e interval

ireiraio-Soi.
iroiiSif

think

that

the

ideas

preceding dialogue,

as

have

truth

pa^j ^f ^g
of

theory
^^de

in

public

the Meno

or

tioned
men-

Syni'

ovk

between

is that

has

to

the

To

often

433A).
idea

the
said

of

The

refer to

doctrine.

On

Gorgias

and
tA

Where

any

the

is reference

that

good

versations
con-

limited

Phcedo.'

time

discussions

49 A B 7
Plato

are

by

aitrd-^'

Tats

is to

they

the

ahy

familiar

what

"V

reference

and
at

as

TO.

unless

Meno

is Sucaio"rvVi|
? (Sep.,

oKiyajci^ that

the

case,

may

beliefs

development,
Crito, 46 D, and
Where

that

the

Plato

ideas, is refuted

ava^epuy

....

the whole

permanent

1 1

irparTeii'

been

exercised
much
by the Sa/xa Ae-yeiKof 72 E, the
are
epv\ovpi"v iei of 76 D, and the voKvBfvK-itraof 100 B. Lniosrefer to
LAWSEi's
statement
(p. 292) that these terms
may

posium,

concepts, not Platonic

(19Totavnj ovo-i'a
suggestion
etc.). The

simple

heard
236

ethical

abandons

their steeds

the

further

treat,

II.

common-sense

and

Socratic

^^" context

204.

literal-minded

swered

charioteers

Koivrnvia.

admitting

231

to

has
is the

BeairoS

Glaucon

tJt^yurrov

7 (.Bep.,504 E).
li.ieriii.a
''^' '^
238

^"

596, 597, 5g5, 534, 532, 514-17, 505-11,

485 B, 476-80.

500

B-501

B, 490 B,

The

36

philosophycontained
and ontologywhich
any

but

problemsof psychology

if the

idea,as

the

hypothesisthat

the

transcendental

one

Thought

theoryof ideas soughtto meet or evade could have been in

of one
by
hypostatization
concept! We have glancedat such
and shall meet
them
reasoningalready,
again. At presentwe pass on to

of

methods

Plato's

op

the

advanced

wise

Unity

the Parmenides

contains

of the

criticism

leads to

which

ideas

of
theoryin the fourth
ides
dialogues.This hypothesisrests on the assumption that the criticism of the Parmenbound
either to answer
it or give up the ideas, and that,
is new, that Plato was
idea is not found in the later dialogues. These
of fact,the transcendental
as
a matter

the abandonment

transformation

or

assumptionswill

objections
brought

The

enough, and,

Jowett

as

forth

ideas in the

against the
imanswerable

are

says,
How

the real.

from

of the

latest group

critical examination.

bear

not

and

obvious

are

separatesthe

anybody who

nomenal
phe-

relation with
bring the absolute into intelligible

we

can

by

Parmenides

("the Gods") take cognizanceof us or we apprehend

thought?^" How can we without self-contradiction
adapted
More
or
knowledge?''"'
apply to it unity or plurality,
any other predicateof human
transcendental
if
the
ideas
how
are
can
we
unities,
predicatemultiplicity
specifically,

the relative?
what

their

to

them

shall

How

the absolute

can

is

partsof

or

How

must

wo

as

in
thingsparticipate

that

of every

and
particular,

of the idea and

the

form

is
objections

of these

with

due

so

to

we

not

the ideas

assume

are

is the

late
correpostulated
explainthe likeness

idea to

?"^
regression

in infinite

on

idea
an

phenomena ?"'
presentin things,or

and with

another

one

imitate the ideas ?^*^ If the

or

multis,why should

in

idem

them

to connect

that
figurative
expressions

the
interpret

we

what

To

the

extent

of
the misunderstanding
or
contemporary critics,
Their
substance
is
an
unprofitable
inquiry.
the Phcedo, the Euthydemus, the Timceus, and

is
students, or the precocityof Aristotle,
the

in

Republic, not to speak of

Their
presentationin the Parmenides, then, does not mark a crisis in
thought callingfor a review of his chief article of philosophicfaith. Plato

Philebus.'**
Plato's
does

and

not

cannot

he admits

them, but he

answer

does
evidently

that it would

take them

not

marvelous

to sift and

man
though
requirea
Here
as
They arise from the limitations of our finite minds."'
the assumption of ideas
bids us disregardthem, and proceed on
239

Par-men.^ 134,

Sophist,
142 A;

2'OSopft.,2M, 245; Parmen.,

212

(Tio^aTu^

oAAj

Others

aAXoji', and

Pickwickian

admit

the

in

of

it, as

who

order

reads

fact

to

the tenth.
that

ideas, and

u.

8*

irpafeuK

rwv

c/"ure"r9ai
ticcwTTo^.
ignore

iAA'

this
who

Badham,
ofAi^v

Plato

that

always

argued

it at

pas-

One

"

and

15DE.
many

of ideas

were

the

he

Philebus

find the

idea

one

obstructing

the

of

way

rpiVos ivifiajTOi is dis-

597 C, and
"

301 A, and

pMlgb.,

communion

"epormen.,

{Journal

rather

in

"

precise

meaning

PAcedo,

100 D.

Tim.,
^

to

31 A,

the

as
,

is

irupovo-ia

in

In

Sophist 251 BC, the reference

things, but the application to
immediately follows.
in

is
the

135AB,

2*7

Tim., 52BC, 34C;

Phileb., 151), rav
XoyuiTlie 5opftt"f does not really contradict
jra9otivtiii.lv.
Tim.,
38 A B,
Absolutely ov and (iij ov remain
a mystery
(251A,
251 D, 254 C).
The
Sopfttsf merely flies the practically
conventions
of logical discourse
about them
necessary
toc
Adyoi',""" toIs wop' ^^iv Aoyois, etc., 251 A, 251 D,
.

the
of

than

recognized

length

Ub

^^ j^e

in Republic,

giving

the

in

Similarly

all."*

analyzethem

to

pedants

it.

seriously,"'

reads

the fifth book

Anything

"

of.

E"tM,dem"8,

(Pfato, 96) takes it

avoid
"anticipating

it to prove

uses

than

Some

144 B.

122), ElTCHTB

sense

obvious

wo\ki

emend

Biwatee,
p,

elvai,tr

eKovrov

KOKvayia

Parm.en.,

Sophist." PpiiEiDEEEB
the iJepubiic is later
"communion"

2"132A,132E.

iv
ii.iv

wantonly

0/ PTis!.,Vol. V,

j-^

dilhculty

132 D.

iXA^Xa)^

Kai

Cf. Phileb., 15 B;
sage.

A,

476 A, airt

S"Bep.,
"al

131

Parmcn.,

_,

"

only because

^^ denying

tinctly implied

i,Tj
.,
PAjie6.,15B.

,"
24iPormen.,131;
".,

1"^"

Tim., 37 E, 38 A.

very

in

the
the

"

Paul

and

The

text of

apply to
The

species."'The

all its

enumerate

the Parmenides

specialform

any

not

bear

theoryor

suggestionthat there may be some

is repudiatedfor good Platonic

the

out

be

can

classes

by

of

The

reasons.

which

to

concepts

^^"

of

change

sequences.""
con-

objections

that the

assertion

met

its total

judged by

be

hypothesismust

does

of the

37

Shobey

terminology.
idea

no

that
interpretation

sponds
corre-

ideas

the

for
was
a priori impossible
rejected,
merely conceptsis distinctly
in
Timceus^^
the
affirmation
of
the
their
by
objectivity
positive
that the ideas are
Socrates's explanation
irapaBeiyfiara,
patternsof which phenomena

henceforth

to be

are

Plato, and

is refuted

off to his model

is familiar

terminologyof pattern,copy,

The

likenesses,is nothing new.

are

and

looking

artist

used of the
whether
"early" dialogues,
There
definition or the idea.
is no hint in the correspondingpassages of the Philebus
that such a variation
of terminology
affect the problem. It is not
could in any way
as
a new
doctrine,but merely as a different metaphor to
proposed in the Parmenides
it is a mere
evade the difficulty
foimd
of nerexeiv
in the literal interpretation
gloss
of
But
formidable
difficulties
confront
the
this
equally
meaning
fierexeiv.
upon
way
of putting it.^^''And
there is no
systematicchange of terminology in the "later"
dialogues,which, like the earlier,
employ in a purelynatural and non-technical way the
and metaphors which
Plato used to express the inexpressible.^^'
various synonyms
is easily
The challengeto find the ideas in dialogues"later" than the Parmem'des
than the Timceus.'^* The alternative is distinctly
met.
explicit
Nothing can be more
of
the only realities and is the supposition
the
of ideas
sense
proposed: are
objects
the

throughout

"

talk ? ""

mere

opinion and

And

They

voov/ieva

{i jrXciu

eav

fL"T^ap^Bfiov,
136

2*9Parme7i.
",".".-"
250
130

as

have

we

n'

r,

See

D.

to

play of fancy, and

"

-J

T"

is to make

it of all

deprive

But,

is any
conceptual
the theory a mere

there

that

idea

an

."

700, 701, for lists of ideas.

admit

to

seen,

.."...".

Zeller,

referable

unity not

101 D.

Phoedo

"

and

psychological

lar in the
an

252

51 C.

Cf.

The

ovTtitv

aei

""^^

'^^

in

ifieairS"v
no

ofTuf

bpietraiTts

Kai

that

suggestion

The

ownership,

the

There

discrimination

no

terminology

or

of

slavery

slavery
in

us

makes

is

general difficulty

to

is related

only

"'

of

class

of

and
(1) 6/iot'w"rts

descent

from

fiiTexovTej

are

the

ideas

merely

ticipation somehow

two

(2) tieQe^tt tov

to the
sides

of their

251

51, 52.

255

51 C, rb Se

individuals.
of

the

same

op-oMiiara

fact

"

the

the

256

that

separable

more

elinovTa

koI

In both

cases

and

the

as

e^iovTo.rSiv
have

we

metaphorical

Vol. X, No. 1, p. 66.

1887, No.

Akad.,

ap' V

oiSiv

Zblleb,

13.

For

t^'I" ^"Yos.

Socratic

"

as

Abcheb-Hikd's

Me.

tioned

in

"

concept

attempt

exhaustive

the

contained

ideas

in
be

cannot

argues,

the
see

is

impossiin

note

my

such

other

ideas

and

iSiovund
to

prove

Idee."

der

in

it.

Mr.

men-

the

There

PhiUmische

no

{Das

39 E does

of animal

Archer-Hindis

the

or

which

to look

PlaUmische

vojirbv (aov is

further

not

294.) It includes

reason

"o"rjiidt
votito!, Marburg,
that

the

of modern

of the world
p.

of

of fire he

figment

universal

is

given

idea
But

paradigm
P., Vol. IX,

J. Hoeowitz

his assertion

on

of fire is not

an

the

f^a.

voTiTa

is

Vol.

is based

seriously here.

is simply

ivov

of Phil,,

there

idea,

idea," which

living thing. (.Cf.

A. J.

all subordinate

idea

an

supreme

meant

as

(Jour,

this passage

enumeration

the

supreme

living thing, and

par-

of the particu(elreown 5^ TisavrdnflcTttt)

no

ra

XXXV, pp. 49 ff.)to "circumvent"

misinterpretation of 39 E. Since

The

in

o/ioiu/iaros

are

hint

no

-4. J. P., Vol. X, p. 65.

Flatonists.

us.

is

relatloH.

d. Berl.

Sitzunasber.

in

aura

than

iaA.J.P.,

note

my

"

e"i"i).
(Cf. A. J. P., Vol. IX, p. 287). Nor are there, as Jowett
and
Campbeli.
affirm (Bepublic, Vol. II, p. 313, u. 1) two
stages

See

speak of the

aira. "a9'

There

o|u""^f''"'"'
are

stage

ideal

to

only to the ownership

here

any

133 C

passage,

the

is

There

D,

misunderstood

Ideal

terms.

eiSo^,

eKeurrov

Tt

special application

relative

is

avTo

form

new

a.

much

The

bilityof taking Advos

188.

Other
is repeated in 132 DE.
ii-SpcoTTos
the
final summing
follow, and
up, 135 A, is
the most
general terminology : ei eitriv atrai at

difference.

merely

n.

the distinction between

as

of Timceus, 50 C.
fiiti-^iJLaTa
'*^"" ^"*^ *^"
particular

Bxpresslon

onto-

TpiTos

difficulties
couched

supra,

idea.

intermediate

logical meaning.
2ii

certain

exist Ka9' avrd.'^^

and

894 A, iv elSeo-t Kafislv

aptdiitjiratievovi.
Laws,

TavTa

are

(y. PAoedr., 270 D,

2"8135BC, Pftiieft.,16D.
"15?;"XH

is as
reality

it is affirmed that their

science.

arguments

for

voiyrhv
1900) fails

"

die

Welt-

merely

pre-

38

The

they are

Unity

concepts,or thoughts of

mere

and

elements

as

the

in

Thought

Plauo's

op

On

God.
of

creation

contrary,God

the

soul.''"

the

They

them

uses

terns,
pat-

as

characterized

are

in

applicableonly to pure absolute Being, and the familiar terminologyis freely

employed. Three things,Plato repeats,must have existed from all eternity:the
and space, the medium
or
receptacle.
pure Being of the ideas,the generatedcopies,
The attemptsof modem
eliminate
elements
scholars to
these
or
identifythem with
We
statements.
other categoriesfound in other dialoguescontradict Plato's explicit
scintilla
is
not
For
this
there
ov.''^
that
often
told
the
a
is
are
OuTepovor fit}
space

terms

^^

^^^

of evidence.^"

Plato

says of space:

even

TavTov

calls

(50B),and

ael irpoaprjTeov

avrrjv

other"
in a
and the
TpCrovav yevoi 6v ro tjj? ")(mpa'iaeC. The "same"
appear
the
of
the
and
in the creation
are
obviously
categories
soul,
wholly different connection
and
ence.^^
differof the Sophist attributed to the soul to explain its cognitionof sameness
dental
in a dialogue that reaffirms the transcenof these categories
The occurrence
not incompatible,
the two pointsof view were
idea proves that to Plato's mind
must
from
the
Phcedrus.
We
for
the
is
obvious
interpretthe
which,
rest,
enough
nology
the termitreat
Sophist,Politicus,and Philebus in the lightof this presumption,and
The Republic (476)
of the doctrine.
of the ideas as prima facie evidence
"

it

"

with

that the transcendental

states

already

"

"

demand

must

logic

absolute

all

from
absolute

Being,or

Sophist formulates

The

their communion.

of

unity

ideas.

is somehow

all the concessions

philosophiesof

Platonic

ideas

the

the

minimized

compatible
working
"

it absolute

absolute,be

Plato

which

relativity,

the inevitable

ency,
inconsist-

working logic does not

exaggerate
of
the
But
the
character
idea.
language of 248 A,
emphasize the transcendental
and (j)p6vr]cn";
247 A B, distinctly
are
impliesit.^'" The statement that hiKaioa-vvt}
dered
engenthat
does
not
in the soul [iyyiyverai)
mean
are
se
obviously
they
concepts
per
and

Nor

of the mind.

which
any

metaphysics

is the

from

yoria,,

terpreted

as

maker

ideas

in

to Plato.

metaphysics

Lutoslawski's

ideas.

cannot

"f

258

28 A

52 A, 27 D,

Ixovra

ravTi

"ari

respond

B,
;

".

50 C, M'/x,^aTa,

"

".

Cf. 39 E,

29 B, 30 C.
48 E
and

"T,

",

"r,

37B,Ta

..rrc;

to which
jrapa6"waTo,,
31
52 A,

om"""m.o.

o^otov

CO

26" E.

g.,

cor-

A, the

allusions

obscure

p. 116.

719 "E.,733,
prove

nothing.

with
iireipovof the Philebus
remains the argument
There
ideas
matter

are

iv and
must

be

phenomena
ni

or

Mi

ou

^^^^

matter

Aristotle's

in the

that, since

breaks

down.

BepjMic

(ierofi

"

SrTot and

neither

by

the

(lij
oi-Tot,
i-iivs

nor

they change, and

because

they

^l^to
Pl"y^"=|
a

kind

sec.

117

beare

the

offspring
forced, how-

are
was

matter

beside

being

or

that
God
true

matter

^^

37 ABC

space.

Km.,

52C.

is
the

plainly a psychological myth or allegory

results of the analysis of the Sophist.
Cf.

Tftecetet.,194 B.
Koyiaiioi Si "lnxi irpos

"i"ravTus ix'^v ^uti

"^o^e""s
^,

and

that there
is God, or
is something
eternal,uncreated.") So far is it from

existence in

mSii
^i^i

are

of eternity to

Principles,

ov
(*))

imparts ^S, 5. to pAcEnomena

that, on
explicitlysays that phcenomena,
being
somehow
j^^^^^^ ^j;^g ^^ ^^^^^^^
(^._^.^^j
through

^^^^^j

also

The

intermediate

contrary, Plato

....

are

apprehended

assign

are

either

^^^^^

j^^

identification of the

The
and

none.

Phcenomena

not
I"

terminology

in this way.

"

expressing

produces

predicates

same

is

'82

pp.

because

space

their

by Eitchie,

^i, oy

and

^P^f'-(^A Beekeley

Tj

261Zeli.be,

logic.

Plato's

But

in

passages

Tfiroi iyBpanoi.
259

to

reluctantly,to

""^

which
"

belongs

from

of its context

-"a""^^^f^J"^

real
."

out

o^

'''"

""'

argument

'""'
_

(52 B)
v60tfi

used

bo

tween

Trep.X,".- (27E, 29 A, pp. 474, 477) in"

is a simple mistranslain thought

^eri Wyou
"included

concepts

mere

problem

Zellee, p. 665, n. 2, adds

irrelevant, and Bep., 596 A "f.,where

of the

are

but Aoynriacprtvi
aio-^Tjo-ty,

"

believes

35 A.

C,
is

247, which

Phmdr.,
God

SOB

himself

who

anyone

it.

the

conceptualism

common-sense

attributes

or

29 A,

28 A

257

to

competent

not

are

infer that

we

can

objections of

the usual

sent

will not
interpretation

sound

";^^^

jrorepov

jj"^"j"

oparav

dipara.

rnv

ivrat
oiv

ovaiar, fiv aeX

Kara

xal ^poSuauoailvTit
icol aTrrti'(c/.Tim., 28 B) tXvai ^aai.
ou"r,!

The

40

250

B,

dWa

offa

and

This

is

the
precisely

they

are

and

61 E

impliesthe

the world

the Parmenides."''

263 A B,

and

bids

Philebus

the

that

be apprehended

must

Phcedrus, 250 BCD

of

There

is

us

hint

no

then,that the language of 58 A, 59 0,

assume,

may

and

of sense,

already seen

disregardthe difficultiesof

only concepts."'We

that

Thought

doctrine

have
We
controversy.'''^'

and

ideas

assume

Plato's

of

have no copiesin
yfrvxal's),

Tifiia

by reason.
ought to end

Unity

ideas. "^
PSYCHOLOGY

III.

in Plato's

Supposed variations

psychologyhave

been

used

tion
the evolu-

to determine

thought and the relative dates of the dialogues. The chief topicsare:
immortality of the soul; (2) the unity of the soul, or its subdivision into
faculties; (3) the general argument that the psychology of the "later" dialoguesis
richer and more
precisethan that of the earlier.
and an ethical
1. The immortalityof the individual soul is for Plato a pioushope,"'
of his

(1) the

rather
postulate,"*

than

demonstrable

He
certainty.""
and

essays various

demonstrations,

myth,
proofsattempted but one is
affects to leave the question
repeated. In the Apology Socrates,addressinghis judges,
antedates Plato's belief in
infer
from
this
that
the
cannot
But
we
Apology
open.""
of
of
he had prePythagorean sources
inspiration,
immortality. For, to say nothing
sumably
second
read Pindar's
Olympian with approval;and Socrates's language in
Meno"
in the tone of the Gorgias and the Phcedo.'^^^ The
Criio, 54 B, is precisely
for a priori
the immortalityand the priorexistence of the soul to account
assumes
of
Phcedo
series
The
a
or
proofs. The Symposium
presents complicatedproof
knowledge.
tality
to recognizeonly the subjective
seems
immortalityof fame, and the racial immoralone agree in a proof
and the late Laws
The "early" Phcedrus
of offspring."'
with

nearlyalways in connection

but

of all the

It is easy to foresee the

conceptionof the soul as the self-moving."*"
hypotheseswhich an ingeniousphilologywill construct from these facts. Krohn, Pfleiderer, and Eohde
gravelyargue that Book I of the Republicmust be very earlybecause
the aged Cephalus neglectsthe opportunityto supplement his citation from Pindar with
tells us that the Phcedrus
a scientificproof of immortality. Horn
representsthe first
based

the

on

p. 44.

269Fora;'a)i"'iI(7ismthePoiiKcMsc/.m/ro,
A. J. P., Vol.

2"

See

271

Ldtoslawski,
of notions

union
eternal

ra

'.

a-VTcL

w"7Te

into

"

TT"plTO
,

or

ideas

icai

273

Phoedo,

274

Sep.,

Si

OVTO.

Gorg., 522 C D, 526 E

eCTTi.

of

ravTov

Kara

the

eiri

wcraUToj?

66 A,

to the
m

114 D, XP^J

608Cff.;
eftaffTOr
iiiJ.aii'

'""^ ToiauTa

ovTa

86 A B

rT)V

method
ov

j")Te

yi,yvoit.eva.

aei.

Cf. 62 A,

Ta

aiSiof

^vtriv,

....

kot' elSiiTejireiv,

fallacy,

see

infra,

iinrirep
iirqSeLv
eavT^,

Phcedo,

elmt

toi'

aei

with
959AB;
881A, 967DE,
iBavdrov
[eirai]iliyxv",cf.
oPTujt

Laws,

275

276

85 C,

;
to

idea,

the
is

959

B,

that

the

only

just life in this world, cf.

Onto, 54 B.
iikv o-ai^e;tlSiuai 4v

^ irayx'''^'"''".

107 A B ;

Cf.

tu

vvv

Tim.,

fiia^ iSvua.
72 D ; Memo,

Phcedr., 265 C.

4Q Q,

Cf. also Pkcedo

^^^Cratylus,

i) "e

exovTa."

Tt

to

an

p. 36.

Cf. supra,

6e "ai

in relation

discussion

mind.
orTW?

ravTa

constitutes

this

"

II.

Part

Tor

the

fuller

to

kol

ilcravTcos afliKToTnTa

o
aiiTrjsirepi 6c"aio"n"V7js

and

units, and

higher

aTToAAu'iLLera,"aTo

For

467, mistranslates, or, if he prefers,

of thought
nature
requires the

the

necessity of the human

272 TTji'
yap

p.

15 D

misinterprets,

and
115 DE;
with
Po^Seia at the bar of Hades

Phmdo,

p. 279.

IX,

403

DE,

91 B.

implies the

doctrine

of

Phcedo,

(57 oa
'

'

{t7fl S"! r^
"-1 ^"

279

207

inference

D,

208 B.

could

be

Too
drawn

much

is made

from

Laws,

of

this,for

721

and

the

is implied, 192 E, and

there
popular belief in Hades
a
hint, 212 A, that the philosopher may be immortal:
ical KeiV^.
iewaTij.
tc? a^Aij.i^Spcuirui280

245 C
Pftajdj.,,

iaws, 894, 895,

same

773 B.
is

The
even

elirep

Shobey

Paul

41

the Symposium
apprehensionof immortality,

youthfulenthusiastic

the mood

expresses

this life,
while in the Phcedo
old age. waitingfor death,
to
the
Meno
the proof of
reserves
According
immortality.
Thompson,
the
outlines
Phcedrus
it merely asserts;
what
a
general proof,the Republic later
the
another
far achieved,ignoresthe subdissatisfied
with
all
ject
so
Symposium,
;
attempts
taken
and
the
is
the
Phcedo.
the
other
i
n
finally problem
Zeller,on
;
up seriously
identical,
thinks,as we have
hand, while holdingthat all the proofsare substantially
that
the
the
and
later
But
to
refers
than
also
the
Phcedrus.
is
Phcedo,
Republic
seen,
it is evident
that the proof given in the Phcedrus
to Lutoslawski
and repeatedin the
Laws
he also can
discern that the Symposium, in the first flush of
is the latest. And
idealism,could dispensewith the personalimmortalityof the Gorgias,but that later,
in the Phcedo
to affiliate
when
the theoryof ideas had grown
familiar,Plato undertook
of sober manhood
craves

with

content

real

of

it the old doctrine

upon

immortality.

than
these arbitrary
of the
is the analysis
profitable
Hardly more
speculations
Zeller
that
all
is
in
amount
they
right saying
separatearguments. Broadly speaking,
of the soul to live. But
this generaltruth
to this,that it is the nature
essence
or
when
the distinct arguments of the
becomes
a fallacy
employed to identifyabsolutely
The gistof the argument in the tenth book
Phcedo, the Republic,and the Phcedrus.
of the Republic is a fallacy
employed also in the first book (353D E), the equivocal
excellence of the soul in relation to its epyov, its function
of the aperi]or specific
use
is defined
in terms
In both cases
the epyov
of mere
while
and essence.
life-vitality,
referred
the
moral
But
far
the
of
the
to
life.
in
is
the aperij
so
as
epyov or essence
and persistency
of life
larly
Siminot justice.^"
soul is mere
life,its aperi] is intensity
and Laws, identifyinglife with self-movement, prove
the eternity
the Phcedrus
of motion, and assume
it to include moral and intellectual qualities.^'^
of the principle
Plato's belief
these arguments.
But there is a certain pedantry in thus scrutinizing
of sheer
a
nd
moral
conviction of the psychological
in immortalitywas
a
impossibility
faith in the unseen,
the spiritual,
the ideal. The logical
broad
and
a
materialism,'*'
of
obvious to him
demonstration
as
obstacles to a positive
personalimmortalitywere
as
they are to his critics. If we must analyzethe arguments of the Phcedo, the
They prove, at the most,
analysisof Bonitz is,on the whole, the most plausible.^"
"

of ipiioviain Phcedo, 93,94, to

that, on
the
physical elements
of
is life,and the harmony
examination,

equivocal

Of. the

281

hypothesis under
spiritual qualities that
282

Laws,

896 C D.

283

Laws,

891

use

of

composition

the

denote

objections by establishing

the inherent

soul

as

form

involves

add

that

the

Kill

"ai

Y^y

KivSmevei. ya/i

TheoBtet., 155 E,

30A;

"ai

oirep

r, TauTa,

Sophist, 246Aj

184 D;

^AeTrojiei-

i^ova

....

S8io("

eti-tti.Cf. Phileb.,

^yeiaflaiTilv irai-Tior

ie'paTrpuTu

iriipKai

6 \iyai/ TaSTa

iml

51 C,

Tim.,

ToidvTtiv

IxovTa

aA^Seiav.
28i

admit

same

merely
as

that

argument
that

before

the

ex

state

birth.

rStv ivavrCtav
of the
The

soul

argument

Ta

ivavria, 70 E ff.,

after

death

from

ff.,supplements this by the proof that before

soul possessed intelligence. The final argument
73

divided

is the

irajinjo-w.
birth
meets

the

all

TO

the

and

as

bqj

the particular
there

tion
and
But

"

are

the

affected

it does

device

affected

not

the

by
How

the

by the idea.
"

idea
as

can
we

justify the duplication

here

to

could
subto

seems

particular,
(C/.SMpra,n. 252.)
in the

idea, and

of

or

at

of the

"

the

participain itself

once

seen,

mystery,

idea, which

and

presumably

of the

argument.

only,

the purpose

be
have

be

aurb

then

This

the

things:
presence

that

is

evavriov

the idea

I may
may

ivavTia

to,

TJ)^vaei.

"

be,

may

it is said

to
ei-

TO

of life.

argument

txovra

Auto

ideapcrse,

particular

employed
consciousness, for
a

ra

really only two

in the idea.

in

from

iv ij/xii'
and

yield three things:

103 B

of the

immortality

the idea

ingenious

In

ways.

its opposite.

into

particular

J. "., the

proves

fallacy in this
distinguished

as

evavTiof,
never

C,

always

in various

analyzed

is virtue.

that

with
For

is
full

by its

42

The

the

immortalityof soul,not
expecthim

cannot

we

which

of

Unity

to

obviouslyassume

of the
so

say

Plato's

of

by

Thought

This

individual.

presumably knew, but

in the ethical myths,

Plato

of Socrates

the death-bed

or

mental
But neither this unavoidable fundaimmortality.'''*
ambiguitynor the fanciful variations of the eschatological
myths convict Plato
serious inconsistency,
evidence
for
of
the
the dating
or
supply any
dialogues.
individual

2. In the

Republic Plato bases the definitions of the virtues and the three classes
division of the soul,which
he warns
strated
is not demonus
populationon a tripartite
but sufficiently
for the purpose
in hand.^'" A poeticalpassage
of
absolutely,
the tenth book hints that in its true nature
the soul is one
and simple,but that we
cannot
tions
perceivethis so long as, like the sea-godGlaucus, it is disguisedby the accreof its earthlylife.^" The
in
division
embodied
is
the
of
the
tripartite
myth
if
we
PhcBdrus, which,
pedanticallypress the poetical
implies the preimagery,'*'
of the

existence

of the

even

Demiurgus,

the

In the
appetites.^''

mortal,which

falls into

the immortal

Timceus

soul is created

parts,spiritand

two

by

the

ters.^"
his minis-

appetite,
by
Aristotle would
as
bipartite,
have it.^"' But we
that the revelation of a god would
be required
to affirm the absolute scientific truth of this division,
and to distinguish
the
precisely
mortal from the immortal
the
In
the
whether
the
Laws
is
dv/j.o';
an
part.^''*
question
affection or a distinct partof the soul is left open.'""
As Aristotle says, it makes
no
difference for ethical and political
to
tality,
immorThe
Phcedo,
theory.^*
attempting prove
naturallydwells rather upon the unityof the soul,as does the tenth book of the
of the Republic,the three types
Republic. But it distinguishes,
quitein the manner
of character, the "j)i\da^o"f)OV
the
and the (J3i\oa-coor
or
^iXdrtyito?,
(jyiXofiad'^, "pi\apxo";
Phcedo, 79 B 0 E, does not affirm that the soul is absolutely
fj,aTO"; or "f)iXoxfyi]fJ'aTo";.'^^
akin to the composite,and the
simple and uncompounded, but that the body is more
soul to the simpleand unchanging. The contradictions
found by Krohn
and Pfleiderer
in the psychology of the Republic, or between
the Republic and Phcedo, on this point,
From
all this it appears
are
sufficiently
explained by Hirmer.""
(1) that Plato
affirmed nothing dogmaticallywith regard to the ultimate
psychologicalproblem.
That
his
classification
distinction
between
the
the
and the
was
(2)
primary
pure reason
lower faculties subordinate
to reason
and dependent on the body. (3)That for ethical
found
and political
he
classification
most
theory
helpfulthe tripartite
spirit,
reason,
Here

the

division is
tripartite
warned
are
explicitly

subordinated

to

"

life in the

aid the

entity between

individual

life per
immortal

pronounced
admit

its opposite.

in 106

Eff., aWvaToi/

is posited
and

se

because,
Another
is

like

an

life per

of putting

way

equivocally

does

not

admit

death

(while Ufe

does

not

admit

death

at

41

as

used

for (1) that

is present),

in the

Natoep,
of the

287

Hermes,

gods

procession,

are

do

(2) that

Plat,

611 C

Vol.

XXXV,

tripartite and
not

see

the

mBC;

612 A.
p.

that

Phcedrue,

not

three

that,

290

ideas

00,

which
^.

the

horses, though

Scsbmihl,

in the

says

that

Rep., X, must

be

immortality

Phoedms

later

belongs

than
to all

parts of the soul 1

34 B c

Nev"

tjui

69 C ff

"t'

-.

.0

^'"'^ ^' ^^' ^'

l^.'^^'

"

"'"''

"

'""'

"''"l""'

'"'^'"

'^'""' "

...

''

292

72Di

^^^

^3

^^*

Eth.

^^^

^8

296

"

Tim.,

430, objects that

I

33,

p.

for

which

288246A1I.

the

Forsch,,

and

all.

286435CDff.
289

se, it will

it is to say

38! Gorff., 524 ff.;iJep.,

614 ff. Of. Laws,
taapid/ioviToU tttrrpots, etc.
D, yf/vj^ai

souls

intermediate

living individual,

the

c/. PA"Bdr., 248 A.

^1

C,

"'"

Vt

fitpoi Stv

6vii.6s.

82 C.

Entstehung

JahrbUcher

irddo? elre

Nic., 1,13,10,oiSiv Sia(i""pei,Trfi6i

to
jrapai/.

und

Komposition

der

Plat.

fUr Phil., Suppl., N. F,. Vol. XXIII,

Politela,"
pp.

642, 643.

Paul

which

appetite
"

(4)That,

also embodied

he

in

while this classification may

will,it
feeling,

is beside

exact
psychologically

and

Shoeey

the

43

the

myths of the Phozdrus

profitably
compared with

be
mark

to

exhaustive.^"

criticise it

We

cannot

as

and

establish

He

as

distinct

sometimes

associates

reason."'

the

to

part of
But

the

soul

from

the fallible faculties of

with
sense-perception
he

also,when

gence,
intelli-

meant

were

fixed

any

of the cognitive
soul and the hierarchy
faculties
tripartite
Plato
etc.''''
treats
sometimes
Bidvoia,
S
o^a,7ria-Ti"s,
eiriaTrfiirj),
elKaaia,
reason

Timceus.

the modern

if it

the

between

the

wO?

"

the
and

sense

to

be

relation

(vorjaK,
inerrant
^^

opinion.

antithesis
appetitein common
identifies (true)
purpose, virtually

sensuous

it suits

his

The
opinion with reason, in oppositionto the impulsesof instinct and appetite.'"'
associated
it
with
be
distinct
cannot
to
with
dviw"i,
a
though
opinion,*'^
assigned
part
of the soul.'"' Nor can
it be identified with the "feeling"of the modern
psychologist.
The will as a facultydistinct from the impulsesof appetite
and the judgmentsof the
in
has no place
Plato's system. (5) That we
fix the time at which
the
cannot
reason
notion of the tripartite
soul first occurred
to Plato,nor
variations
we
use
apparent
may
in order
in the mythologicaldress of the doctrine
and Phcedrus
to date the Phcedo
to each
relatively

other

to the

or

Republic.

ment
changes allegedin Plato's "later" psychologyare: (a)the abandonof avd/jLvrja-K;
(b)a different conceptionof the relation of mind and body, more
the nature
and seat of pleasureand pain; (c)a fuller and
as
concerns
particularly
of
the
more
preciseterminology
cognitivefaculties and the degrees of knowledge.
in the Philebus.
It is not enough to
This later psychology must
be sought chiefly
detail.
The
in
r
ich
that
the
Philebus
out
is
psychological
subject
especially
point
called for it,and we cannot
expectall the dialoguesto be equallyfull in every topic.
of earlier dialogues,
What
is required is contradictions
or
new
thoughtsnot hinted at
3. The

chief

And

in them.

a)
34 B,

no

The

proves

of the
avdiJLVT]ai"i

all

but

without

See

298

not

Tqs

JowETT,

the
Vol.

of recollection

case
special

not

be recollection of the ideas.

in the Philebus,

p.

The

imagery

to the

been

410 ; Zbllee,

to be

and

terminology

of

of the

literary machinery

so

we

p. 846 ; Lnioa-

Sep., 511 D, 534 A,

Bepublic,

and

are

800PAcedo,65, 66.

association

of
avdfivqai';

is worth
3M

Phileb.,60

302

This

while

as

to dwell

237 D
D j P/wjedi-.,

is probably

an

of the ideas

Moreover,

find the doctrine without

overlooked,it

the meaning

of ideas generally,

example that
is avdjivrjai'^,

the word

occurs

the word

in the

upon
;

Every

it.

infray p. 4S,

u.

357.

of a\r)9tvT)is
Joftjs eraipot,

the
antithesis
253 D, despite
aXa^oreiaj eraipos.
=
is used of So^a
opinion in Themtet., 187 C ; Phileb.,
oXijSivii

Phcedr.,
37 B.

pressed.

299Bep.,478AB, 602E-60SA,
to
^e'Tpa ouk av
i/fux^s
Ty Kara

and

S' iarlv

phrase tovto
Philebus.'^
Plainlyall recollection

pointhas
I,

p. 278.

liAWSEI,

belong

of the

the doctrine
As

as

the consecrated

need
avdfiVTjaK

Politicus.
297

in

ideas

employs

fits the definition

ordinarypsychological
meaning of avafivrfai'; in Philebus,
of the peculiarPlatonic doctrine than does the
The Phcedo
itself treats
in the Republic,604 D.
that sense
the

the abandonment

of the word

and

to be found.

not

are

of
explanation

more

occurrence

the

these

to

iropi ri (nVpa

etij toutoi'.

apa

{ofi^ov

303

of the
304

37 B C, "of "" and irio-Teitbelong

soul.
Barepov in the immortal

In Km.,

73D.

to the circle

4:4

The

we

man,

told,knows

are

This

at

dreamlike,bnt
to

all

once

D.

Thought

things as

in

In the Meno, too, it is said that this

is converted

show, by the

Plato's

of

edge.'"^
dream, thouglihe fails of waking knowlrecalls the fjt^fuiOtjKviai;
of the locus classicus
airavra
tjj? '^v)(rj":

avdfivj)m";,
Meno, 81

on

Unity

the elenchns

by

into true science.*"

of Plato's favorite illustration of letters

use

that,despitethis antecedent

knowledge

is at first

Politicus

The

goes

on

how it is
"elements,'""'
in the study of complex

or

knowledge,we

and how
go astray,
example and comparison will enable us to recognize
the identity
of the same
form or idea everywhere,so that we shall have a waking and
not a dreamlike knowledge.
Children,knowing their letters in some
sort,distinguish
them rightly
in easy combinations,but blunder
until by compariin long hard syllables,
son
with the easy they learn to recognizethe same
letter everywhere. So our
soul,
a
ffected
and
toward
nature
the
elements
of
all
sometimes
similarly
by
things(theideas),
in some
thingsis settled and fixed by truth concerningeach one, but at other times and
in other thingsis driven to and fro
forms
it somehow
them
all,and of some
among
the
fails
to apprehend these same
combinations,but
rightopinionsamong
thingswhen
transferred to the long and difficult syllables
but
of facts. Not only the generaldrift,
the language and imagery of this passage
must
be understood
of the recollections of
the ideas.
The phrase Tainov
tovto
fifiwvr] "^vxt)"f"vcr"i
wepX to, toiv ttcivtodv
crrot^^eta
and difficultthingsthe

of

rightuse
*"'

ireiTovdvla does

refer

to error, as might be supmainly or solelyto our liability

posed
from Campbell's "is naturally
liable to the same
from Jowett's
or
infirmity,"
"has the same
uncertainty."It refers to the whole precedingcomparison of which the
all things in a sense, even
the children know
is that the soul knows
as
starting-point
ireirovOvlaappears
all their letters imperfectly.That this is the meaning of (jivaeu
redearat
further by comparison with Phcedrus, 249 E, "jraa-a
y^vxri(j"va-ei,
fiev avOpayirov
The doctrine of avdfivrjai";,
ra
ovra.
then, repeatedin the Politicus,is not abandoned
tion,"
recollecThis conclusion
in the Philebus.
might have been affirmed a priori. For
the
associated with the ideas and the pre-existence
of
soul,
once
indissolubly
is assumed
in the
would not be given up while they were
retained.
But pre-existence
not

....

"

the

Laws,^' and

ideas,as

the TimcBus, which

also

h) The

D,

277

Kivfivfeuet yap

a.i ira\i.v i"(T7rep

vTrap

matters

thinking
with
like

easy

must

and

p.

As

examples

we

have

ct"fa"9
airafTa

306

143, misapprehends
the

"

and

of all

are

reaffirmed

in

things,in language

lie of approxi-

body

85 C, Sarirepovap

Meno^

201 B*

Tim.

though

dogmatize without

307iJep"6., 402AB;
f^f

is involved

seen, the Timceus,

soul,declines to

immortal

olov ovap

CKOtrTos

it with

prior knowledge

of the relation of mind

in difficult
examples, not because
it is permissible to fall back
"pictureupon
and
only by beginning
symbolism," but because
We

knowledge

the whole

7}fiwv

ayvoeZv. RITCHIE,
he associates

when

this passage
mation.'^

soul's

partsof the soul.

to the mortal

separateseats
305

the

in the Politicus^^" and

occur

Politicus.'^^

generalproblem

immortalityand

seen,

impliesthe

and

the Phcedrus
recalling

have

we

48 B

apri

KeKLVTiVToi. al

in that of
it

assigns

the

assur-

Bo^ai a^rat.

cf Soph., 253A; Phileb., ISC;

Thece-

etc.

nse

can

into

parallel,of

all things is only the

learn

we

real

which
first

how

knowledge.
the

point.

to convert
The

dreamlike

yap

our

308

E,

rexvjl

'iva,iilrap avT^
yv"iipt^ii,v,

^"*i ^*"'

dream-

introduces

knowledge

278

yiyvriTai.

siogupra,
of

311

41

E,

p. 39.

t"|v

toO iravTb? (JuffiieStife

ovct'paroc 7ip.tv

Paul

of

Shoeey

45

questionwhether the partsof the soul

real parts or functions.'" Of the dependence of our
are
cognitivefaculties on bodily
Plato
knew
much
little
know.'"
tablet
the images of the wax
In
as
or
as
as
we
organs
all psychologies
lection,
recoland aviaryhe anticipates
that explainmemory,
and
association,
and the distinction between
latent and actual knowledge,by material analogies.'"
ance

But

god, and

the Laws

materialism

sheer

and

it failsto account

because

leaves

it

an

open

sensationalism

for many
rejects,
synthetic
unityof thought."*The

for the

through which, not the faculties by

he

which,

we

know.'"

reasons"^

other

are

the organs

some

purposes

senses

and

Sometimes

for

and

of sense."' In other moods, he

thought freed from all contaminations
that
human
takes
from
immediate
start
its
aiaOrjaK
or
perception."'
thought
recognizes
He pointsout that the contradictions of sense
give the first awakening stimulus to the
he

exalts

pure

admits that our

minds
to attain to
too weak
activities of mind.'^" He
are
generalizing
and
the
aid
of
without
concrete
experience,'^' require
examples in order to
knowledge
the prenatal
vision of the ideas only
apprehenddifficult abstractions.'^ We can recover
their
strenuous
association
with
And,
sensuous
discipline.'^'
"copies,"or by
by
logical
that
is the best evidence
sense-perception
though knowledgeis not sense-perception,
will
these
criticism
treat
literal-minded
of
cessions
conhave
a
we
some
Only very
things.'^*
as

contradiction of the

apotheosisof

is the claim
plausible

Slightly

more

and
seat of desire,pleasure,

thought in

pure

that Plato

the Phcedo.

himself in

contradicts

regard to

and

The
pain.'^^

"early" Qorgias
body,is the seat of desire.'^'The
that desire is dependent on memory.'" The
adds the psychological
reason
further explainspleasureand pain as mental states arisingfrom changes in
sudden
enough or violent enough to affect the mind and pass the threshold
and

nature

affirm
explicitly

Fhilebus

snSupra,

a.

the

soul,not

of the

iJep., 612A, elre iro^veiSiitelre

293 ; cf. also

271 A,

3i3Pft(Bdo, 96BC,
artft ri

the

Die"Bte"., 191 D

31*

al/ii kariv

TT"Tepoi'TO

Note

Trvp, etc.

To

322poZtt., 277D,
oiiK exovre^

Phcedr,,
ftoyoeiS-^^f

irony of the whole

fl. (cf. FTwEdr.,

275

323

^ 6
4ipovovii.iv,

A, TvVio^),

197

D,

,'

the

Cf. Phcedr.,

262 C,

body

of

sciousness,
con-

to

the

the natural

restore

or

pftcetJo, 75A; PoZtt., 286A;

Philebus

jrus
i^iAils

Aeyofiev

iKava irapa^elyfiara.

diaXe'veo-flmivranw

passage.

Philebus

unfavorable

phrase.'^Pain results from movements

from those that preserve
body, pleasure

modem

in

condition

"natural"

that the

the

"late"

the

fidi/j)
av

',.

'-

Bep., 533A,

icai

ii)

.,"

,,,,.-

i] to5

on

!iv viv

^"ivii.^viiiireipifovTi

197B-200B.
^^^TheCBtet.,

80B, 96; Phileb.,30; Tim.,

n^Phcedo,

51 C; Laws,

^^^

^^^^^^

234D,

koX ".i

Ttiiv ovriav.
itttdirTeaBat,

Thecetet., 184 D.

816

201 B, Stv ifiorTt Ikovov

889.

The

TAecetet., 184 C

3"

ns

65

Phcedo,

D,

"

"

"

79 C ; Tim., 67 B.

^^^^^ ^^^^^

rg
(cf. Theostet., 187 A), 66 A, eikiKpivel
liiKurra iiro roB aii/iaTot rhv
67 C, t6 x^P'^e'''
o
"

Phcedo,

SMvoCa;

65 C

'h'xvv.
319

Koi

at

also

Thecetet., 179 C,
TOVTO!

to

Sofcu.

iraphv "a"rTo)
Charm,,

7ra9o! e| "v ai aiffS^crew

nva
159 A, oi(r9i)"nV

ef flsfidfo av Ti's aot nepl auT^s "11?. Phileb., 249 B,

I'ov aXv6ri(rvaveis "^ AoytCTjitoi
^vvaipovti."VOV.

825(Jrote, Jowett,

320

Bep., 524 B C

3'a

TheCBtet., 149

Ka^tlv rixvv"

"^

""'

326

iroWav

i)

glials aaBevtaripa
avtpiairivri

come

to truth

nearer

than

deeds.

See

Mr.

Henry

rejects the Philebus,

pain and

says

Jackson,

and

(p. 380) that

pleasure

others.
it assigns

to the body.

toOto iv "Jimivpiiai.eiffi. So
Gorg., 493 A, t^i 6e "/""X^s

Tim., 69 C.

Thecetet., 186 A B.

C, oti
if"te'P"5.

who

desire to the soul, but

iropex""!
ex

(thought)

Jfeno, 87B.

HOBN,

KOTO

andJJep.,473A,

of PAoedo.lOOA,

tradictionwiththethonght
"

elBevat a\Xtit";Se

itir^v

raen"j.ir.,vivay.aiop.ivov, ivapyC,
whole
is in seeming
conpassage

3jg

TO!

p^ jj^p ^j C, 584 C, ol ye Jii toO aap-aiivxnv Ttivovuai. "oi \ey6p.tvai.^Sovol. Cf, Laws,
; Tim., 45 D (of sensations).
T^t "I'vxv^

33^ ^^ ^3 g q

eirl Tiji'

6'3 A, jiexP'

46

The

state.'^' This

Unity

is also the doctrine

Plato's

of

pleasuresof the mortal

are
body as pleasuresof
by
body
through
permits
precise,^**
occasionally
Plato, though usuallyscrupulously

And

to

speakof

the

the

necessitated

and

the

come

body.

with the

the "soul"
it is natural to identify

discussion,
however,
religious
wO? or immortal
soul,and
higher intelligence,
the

anywhere.

contradicted

of the Timceus, and it is not

In ethical and

soul which

Thought

three kinds of mixed

speaking. The Philebus enumerates
emotions; (2)
pleasuresand pains: (1) merely mental, as in the pleasurable-painful
of body,
of
mind
those
when
arise
that
accompanies
pain
pleasure
merely bodily; (3)
if
of
the reverse.^' In a few cases
the "bodily" pleasuresare spoken
as
they were
or
in assuming that only a careless
in or of the body."
But
Plato was
justified
literally

himself

this inexact

captiousreader

or

of

way

would

misunderstand

produce pleasureand

explainedthat bodilystates
^''

of consciousness.

threshold

hardly three pages back he

pain only when they cross

For

him.

There

also two

are

three

or

in

cases

had

the
In

the Phmdo.

highly wrought, ethical passage

a
phrase "appetitesof the body" is used
preacher,with no implicationof
preciselyas it might be employed by a modern
in the refutation of the hypothesisthat
psychologicaldoctrine.^'* The second occurs
To refute this objection
the soul may
be a "harmony" of material states or elements.
wO?
from
in
to
used
the
Socrates
the
distinguish
Republic
employs
very argument

in

the first the

Ovfwi;.^

and
iiriOvfiia
controls

vad"v,
The

as

The

soul

superior. The

the

it rebukes

that which

with

and

being controlled,vtto t"v tov aafiaTOi

be a "harmony" composed of them.
nology,
termiin order to refute,in its own
iraOrjiiaTa

it cannot

material

appetitesare treated as
the hypothesisthat

identical
of

soul,instead

Therefore

of them.

is master

be

cannot

soul

is

compositionof material iraOrifiaTa.The

the terminologyof the Republic. If the

argument would lose its force if stated in

it would
to decide which
soul were
be necessary, first,
explicitly
recognized,
tripartite
tution
and
the
be
not
to
to
immortal; secondly, prove directly,
equivocalsubstiby
parts are
soul cannot
be a
of "bodily" appetitesfor states of matter, that the wvs
or
in
the
of
material
elements.
For
these
identified
soul,
Phcedo,
tacitly
harmony
reasons,
the literary
with vov'i, is opposed to body as a whole, includingthe appetites.But
of this way of speaking having once
cannot
and aesthetic necessity
been perceived,
we
of the psychological
truth clearly
stated in the
earlier"
treat it as a contradiction
"

"

6taXv(7"coy

Tou

already

(TwiuaTos.

doctrine

the

verting

ImTim., 64 CD, 66C, 68A.

Cratyl,, 419 C, ijre Auwt) airb t^s
Aristotle, Eth. Nic, 10, 3, 6, contro-

"E.,42D;

31D

s^Phileb.,

plied perhaps

"

in

that

pleasure

is

-yeyco-ts, says

et

""

to!

tion

koh-u

harmful
diction

-yeVeiis merely

....

that

they

changes
of the

the

are

in

psychic

the

reference

body.

preparatory
correlates

to the

It is obviously

of ^Sov^ to the

explana-

of beneficial

a-neipov

no

or

contra-

in 31 B.

Qf.

rjSovri,
ev
i^ ij avatrkiqfKocriit A, J P., Vol. IX, No. 3, p. 284.
tftvtnvavan-X^ptocris
oi SoKtZ
toOt' if Kol riSouro- to ai,ii.a
ipa- ov "o"e: Se, where
333 43 g q
a!i,i.ci
C/. 33 D, 9" Ti;- irepl
ira9i,/iaT"oy
to
often Plato's opinion.
as
expresses
^i ^l" ^^ ^^ aci^aTi /carao-^e^vvjie^a
tSj^^vxv^ JiefeXOeli..
"t'
irpl"
o-ol^aTO! r,SovS,v. So 45B,
3^ophileb., 39 D, rS,v 6ii tov
This is the doctrine
of Tim., 64 ABC,
and
it is
already "
implied in TAeoetef., 186C, oo-a 8ia toS o-ojuoito!
Phcedo, 65A; Tim., 64A; Sep., 584C, 4S5D; Phileb., 45 A,
irae^finTueirl

5^

effTt

Kara,

TOU

....

"

oi irtplTO
442 A;

So Pftcedr., 258 E.

"T(una.

64 A;

Tim,,

Rep,, 584 A,

to

ye

Phileb., 41 C,

^5v

ev

E-50D, 46C,

331

47

332

46BC,

statement,

50 D.

^XV

to

Cf.,Cratyl.,404:A.; Bep.,
trUiia^v to jrapexo/iei'oi';
442 A.

yi-yyofievov;

reivei.. PAilei".,55 B, explicitly affirms that pleasxjnixriv

is in the soul only: wit ovk aAoyo;' inTi. /j.riSei'
iyaOhv elfoi.
evTav9a
ij.6vov,
it\i}ver i/'i'xn
"at
ijSovtjv

3^^Q"C,KaX

Prodicus

Phileb,, 31 B, that

ure
....

47 C D.
So

rriv

in

ProtOff., 337 C.

pleasure

and

pain

The

originate

irapexei

to

yap

iroKenov^

o-ijiaical oi

^^^Phcedo, 94B

tovtou

ft.;Pep.,

Koi

araaets

KaX

eiriSufiial.
441

B,

390 D.

^a;^a;

ovSel/ oAAo

48

Unity

The

the processes
of

vow,

term

on

the

from

describes

for

and

hand,

imagery and hypotheses.^*"

images of "imagination."^But he

and
images,''"

facultyintermediate

sense-perception,
on

which
(pavrd^eTai,

that appears

include

abstract

between
other.

the

of

all forms

naturallyused

verbal

or

its color

and
illusion,

opinionand

has

thought,

takes
"f)avTaa{a

For

So^a.^^ But

of

true, is most

thought,

inferior to the pure

are

sensuous

on

merely a disparagingsynonym

notion

any

they depend

memory

Thought

the sciences, which

and

imaginationas

one

and
(^aiverai

often

that

in
dialectic,

Plato
no

of mathematics

Plato's

of

it is

^aiverat,though applicableto

of the

of sense,

appearances

and

and
^avracTia is preferablythe form of ^o^a that accompanies sense-perception,^"
defined
infallible
be
Pure
Koi
a-vfifu^i^
as
Sd^a?.^^'
as
an
ala-Orjaeco';
knowledge
may
so

ideal

be

must

be

cannot

from

sharplydistinguishedeven

and
defined,''^'

the vision of the

ideas,and

true

in this life.^*

is unattainable

Strictly
opinion.'^^
speaking,it
it may
be described
Poetically

be said to

approximateto it in proportionas we
"recollect"
the ideas by severe
dialectic.^' Practically
knowledge is true opinion,
sifted and tested by dialectic,
and fixed by causal reasoning.*^"
"True
opinion" may
be disparagedin contrast
with the ideal,or praised as a necessary
stage toward its
as

attainment.**'

It is

we

may

mechanical

very

finds

that

criticism

contradiction

ency
inconsist-

or

here.
There
discover

is

limit

no

to the contradictions

in Plato's

psychology.
I will
foregoing summary.

the

can
developmentsthat a false subtlety
are
by implicationexplained away in

or

of them

close with

two

"

Susemihl
PhoBdrus

that the Theceteius

argues

because

it includes

itself elsewhere

Thecetetus

distinction

the

iJep., 511 D, 53i A.

See

39C; Ptodo,

snphileb.,

at

any

Kal
"'l"l^oZ,
*''

avToO, eto.

Phileb.^ 39 C,

3^^

fantastic

irept

the

Grote, expecting

71 A B.

and

sensation

Wyo. and

the

teristic of Plato
and

the

are

not

of

the

beliefs

probably
faint

primary

and
the

verbal

judgments
3*')

Sola?.

put the image

images

after

the

Moreover,

everywhere.
of

real

In

order:

judgments,

the

perception,

mature

soul, and
of

human

it is charac-

here

images

which

are

in-

visualizations
mind

this

is

(perception), (2)
(1) sensation
ing
(3) vivifying of specially interest-

by imaginative

Theostet., 161

in PhiUb.,

idea, the word,

the

but imaginative
aIo-9rj"j-is,

hopes.

sen-

paints images

6dfac. But

visualization.

E, ikiyx^i-f

Tat

iWriXmv

ni^i

the

toI,

TO

but

the

sense-perception,
koX ai"r"i)o-ii
niiTor
Kae'

iv

tj

airnv

ail 7ri"o! ; i. e. it is here

by belief.

ToiovTo.-

percept

identify

seen,

Soph.,26iA,iTav

tolovto,,.

image,

it

have

modern

'"''*^''""'""^ri rm

memory

^'
,

order

\6yo, in the
who

could

the
the

accompanied

40 A

of the

atomistic

supervenes

corresponding

to

judgment
in Plato's

eluded

modern

first write

that, secondly, a painter

these

functions

idea, judgment, is surprised that

sation, image,
39, memory

B, and
Uyer, Tim.,

rSiv fteWovTutv;

....

of the

account

or

ThecBtet., 152C, i^avratria

apa

i^

Sr

"cos

be

time

not
the

must

psychologyof
Bo^a.^^ But

the

on

SoKeiv

in

230 ff.

pp.

Thecetet., 191D,

73D;

advance

an

to

"'^^

elSoiXov

TO

exampleswhich

further

for only so
aia6i](n";,
As we
aca-drja-c;
ima-Trifir].

definition

o/ Good,

Idea

them

al"Tdr)"n^
may

for
futile,

is

marks

Wahrnehmungsurtheile

attributes

Protagoras'stheory with

iv^

three

or

for all.

stand

S46

Most

i/iavrao-iar
7"

"ai

^^-

^"P^-

^enoe

here

D, 4,avTa,rU,and

263

^' *'""-"""*"" (= imagmations

^"^^

^^^^

*" ^'i"i'

Psy^olosy

i-^"!""?
no

P^"^^

^^^^

^"1""'

*""""'

P^"ebm,

*'^"*^

sometimes

^""i falsehood.

conceiTes

affirmation

"w

40 A

^"

"
""'

B,

"

belief.

or

Anima,

says,

Phileb.,

expectations)

Modern

images"

as

atomistic

mere

Aristotle

pictures
to

seems

ex-

432a, 10, eVri "" i,^.a^ra^U

"'""("""'""5-Bit
he

imaged

or

in 428o, 12,

thinking

of

"" "j.avraaia.K
yCvovrai ai n\Uavt

ai

'''"'"'"
^^^

Tim,, 51 D E.

36*

Phc^do, 66, 67

353

Laws,

Thecetetus, infra ; supra,

897 D,

vovy

p. 43.

e./,,Tor5
5^^a"r.K

^oTt

hijioiitvai.,
^*^

Supra,

n.

323.

^^T

Supra,

n.

301.

3^NeuePlat.Forsch.,p,b2.

366

infra,

on

the

Th^wtet.

369209 3.

Paul

includingjudgment,and Bo^a

may

49

Shorey

always be

used

belief that accompanies

either of the

the operationof the mind

as
opposed to sensation.
koX fieyia-TTjv
in Politicus,281 C D, of KaXKvTTqv
Campbell thinks the rejection
definition
is
advance
is
207 D, where the sun
an
on
iraamv
as
a
Thecetet.,
satisfactory
But
the pointis simply that made
defined as the brightestluminary,etc.
"already"
t"v avOpeoireieov
of
as
a definition of the matter
irpayfidTcov
fieyiara
againstGorgias's
in Sophist,
rhetoric.^
Again, Campbell thinks the mention of Bo^avand "f"avTa(7iav
of
or
aicTdr}(n";,

But
the Thecetetus
impliesan advance on the Thecetetus.
the words
The
does not identify
by using them once or twice as virtual synonyms.
to
the
264
as
a
A, temporarilydistinguishes
(jiavraaia
mind,
judgment present
Sophist,
Bidvoiau
St' ato-^Tjff-em?,**'
while Bo^a is a judgment,iv ^^vyriKara
fier^aiyri";.
260 E,

as

distinct

faculties

....

But

to

this would

press

too

prove

much

the Sophistfrom
by distinguishing

the late

also.

Philebus

"*^

that the Phcedrus

and Thecetetus are later than the
Lastly,Lutoslawski
argues
i
n
first explainedin Republic,
because
BvvaiM";
a sense
employ
they familiarly
Eepuhlic,
of the word
in CharHe overlooks Protag.,330 A, and the five occurrences
477 C.
and
abstract
that
cited
from
in
the
as
as
a
metaphysical
fully
mides, 168,
passage
is a mere
Republic. Indeed, the case cited from the Phcedrus, 246 D, irTepov Bvvani";,
like ^ re toO
periphrasis
158 E closelyresembles
power
the

do

the Charmides,

and
potentiality,

or

Charmides,
330 A

Protagoras,

finds in

Lutoslawski

248 C,
"f"va-i,"s,

vrepov

185

C, ^

and

ye Bia

the

Thecetetus,

generalsense

it of the senses,

of
as

Kal ukoi^v),
the Republic, 477 C (oy{nv
and the
(uko^,o-^ts),
(o(/)^aX/w's
"Ta). Of equal value are the developments which
the use of BioKeKTiKr],
p,e0oBo";,
"f"i\oa-0(f"ia
r) tSiv Xoycov Te^vrj, etc."'

168 D

dialogueswere
in

variations

or

from

cases

in the vague

uses
ttJ?yXdnTri^BvvafiK,

PAKT
The

of the two

using the word

composed in some
thought will often
That

real,historic sequence.

is not

conception of Plato's

the

II

order,and

studyof

to indicate

seem

their

dences,
coinciparallels,
plausible,
possiblythe

of this paper.

purpose

philosophyis not

the

I wish

to show

appreciablyaffected

(1)

placingthe

by
Sophist,Politicus,Philebus, and possiblythe Parmenides
is at
and Thecetetus
after,rather than before,the Republic; (2)that the evidence
and
"middle"
of
the
"earlier"
Platonism,
present insufficient to date the dialogues
of the content, it does not
from the pointof view of the interpretation
and that, again,
lies
chief value of such negativeresults is that the way to them
The
greatlymatter.
of Plato's true meanings.
througha further positiveinterpretation
certain
There
are
perennialpuzzles of language or thought that present themthat

our

dialectical

dialogues
"

the

"

360

"

Gors., 451 DE.

361C/. Themtet.,mC;

s"pm,

p.

48, u.

In earlier

every

350.

about
362

Pp. 331, 396.

363

Cf. the

that

statement,

phrase, Thecetet,

184

C,

p.
"t"

373, d, propos
o
"^uxV ""

of the
ti

innocent

Bel Ka\eiv

that:

works

Plato

ambiguity.

Here

the

existence

the existence

48 A, Uklvo

Tt

ij\l/vxhvyap

ri

of
of the

used
we

the

the
see

soul.

soul

Ul bvofj-Mai.

He

is called

ttot' co-tI,
etc., or
ti

soul

term

already

free

as

might

as

in question

by Symp,,

from

of doubts

trace

well

say

by Crito,

218 A, riji'
KapSiav

50

The

selves

to

Plato

logicalmethod;

as

roughly enumerated

forms:

op

Plato's

Thought

sophisms;as hindrances to a sound

and metaphysics. They may
be
serious problems of epistemology
of
the problem of Being and not-Being,or the true nature
as

three

in

Unity

as

mere

eristic

thought and things of the one and the

change, rest and motion ; the nature
part,permanency
many,
of self. They are
and possibility
of real knowledge, and the meaning of consciousness
of
in
all directly
i
nvolved
the
also study them
but
we
or
ideas,
indirectly
theory
may
most
in the group
of dialoguesin which
they are
prominent.
The Euthydemus presentsa broad
burlesqueof all the chief sophisms of eristic.
The Parmenides
systematically
concerningthe one and the
exposes all the antinomies
be deduced
from the abuse of
the whole and the part,rest and motion, that can
many,
Thecetetus
with
the forms
of
the ambiguity of the copula. The
covers
persiflage
with one-sided
theories of knowledge,especially
materialism
eristic associated
and
solve
serious
to
and
makes
effort
the
extreme
a
Heracliteanism,
epistemological
problem.
Here
perhaps,and here only,does the Socratic avowal of perplexityexpress
Plato's own
The Sophist makes
state of mind.
explicitthe lessons implied in the
eristic so far as it
Parmenides
and Thecetetus,and
finally
disposesof fourth-century
of practical
The Politicus applies
affects the presuppositions
logicand sound method.
from a
of the Sophist to the definition of the true statesman, reaffirming
the method
in the ideal,the chief doctrines
different pointof view, and perhaps with less confidence
the true logicalmethod
restates
of the Republic. The Philebus
that emerges
eristic or
from
metaphysicaldebate and appliesit to the ethical problem of the
predicationand

negation;the

the whole

and

antithesis

in

and

the

bonum.

summum

begin with the Sophist,which contains the fullest expositionof method

eristic sophism. For our
explicit
analysisof the fundamental
purpose
method
of
definition
the
there are three topics
by dichotomy ; (2)the problem of
; (1)
Being and not-Being; (3)the logicaland grammaticalanalysisof the sentence.
of the Sophist and Politicus lend these dialogues
formal
dichotomies
1. The
a
aspect. They may be said to be characteristic of Plato's "later"
very un-Platonic
far as this can
be true of a feature that is less prominent in the Laws
than it
so
style,
Phcedrus.
Their
for
Plato's
later
is in the Gorgias or
significance
thought is very
this we
must
distinguishthe elaboration of a definition by
slight. To understand
from the more
successive dichotomies
general logicaluse of distinction,
division,and
Aristotle is at great pains to prove
that the method
classification.
of dichotomy
We

and

will

the most

assumes

and

does

not

establish the definition.^

His

criticism

may

have

been

needed

pupils of the Academy. Plato obviouslyis amusing himself

againstliteral-minded
He
with
the
method.'**
mies
clearlyrecognizesthat formallycorrect dichotoby playing
the
half-a-dozen
definitions
of
lead
to
same
object.^"All depends upon the
may
the original"one," the concept to be divided,is chosen,**'
tact with which
and the
suj_nal.Pr.,31;
"'65 See

BONITZ,

"MiiSoph., 231.

Anal,
pp.

Post., II, 5; Part.

180 ff.

An., 1,2 B.

3"7

md.,

232

B,

croi/mrTTjr
"ipi]fi"viav.
i^vioi'.

aWi'
ev

axoAi/Sco/iev tv irpuroi' tUv irepi rot

ydf" Tt jiioi /laAio-Ta KaT""ttdvTjavTot

Paul

insightthat selects at each turn*^ the most

process of dichotomy is only a mechanical
of all relevant

Sophist

and

Timceus,

or

distinctions.'*' The

Politicus
and

Laws,

episode.

mere

of

is the

thing

of subdivision.
The
significant
principle
and
the
aid to exhaustive
search
discovery

elaboration

is therefore

different

very

is

51

Shobey

of it

It

as

broader

of the

use

the

in

up

"later"

Plato's

importancefor

no

of definition

method

followed

is not

method

the

in

Philebus,

thought.
of

avoidance

for the

inarticulate empirior
equivocationand the correction of hasty generalization
cism.
of clear
To distinguishand divide for these purposes
is still the only way
of
thought and accurate
speech,and Plato's insistence upon it as the one principle
logicalsalvation is worthy of the keenest dialectician that ever lived. But in this
kut' etBr]
confined to the Sophist and
means
larger use the method
refiveiv is by no
Politicus.
There
hints of it in the Symposium?^" The
are
Gorgias employs it with
and the Thecetetus.'^*
the Cratylus,^^^
ostentation.'" It is found in the Phcsdo,^''^
some
is the Phcedrus,
Its terminologyand use
familiar to the Bepublic."^ Most explicit
are
not
which
ostentatious
an
displayof divisions and subdivisions/"but
only makes
resembles
the
in language that closely
describes the entire procedureof true method
summing up of the whole matter found in the Philebus.^^^ But side by side with
eristic

368

Note

KwriSelv,Soph., 232 A; Poiit., 266 E, etc.

369

The

imagery

the

of

Cf. Soph., 235 C

this throughout.

and

Sophist
;

397 B,

375

implies

Politicus

Polit., 258 C, 260 E, 262 A,

iv rots
TOTf
StTrXaai'otffiTa
7j^i^i"re"rt.v
et9
vvv
"v
^TjTovfiei'oi'
effTt
nav,
Soph., 229 D, ei aTO/ioi' 1^677
yj Ttva
iroi^ffet^rjTfttTdai;
a^Lav 6iTtavVfj.ia^i
Phoedr., 227 B, Kar' tlSrftiexpi
exov ht.aipeiTLV

Svo elSi);440 E, 445 C.

ra

fita rb jLti)SvvatrOai

precisely

in Polit., 285 A.

as

470 B, 5vo

Again, cf. Hep.,

....

Phileb., 13, 14 B,
aT/l^TOU TifjLVeivs

Tou

Toivvf

Tliv

StOM^opoTijTa;

fLopiov
Kara

a^eAovTcs

"1605

rt

ol ^ev aWj] rpeirdjuefoi

anpopLadev to ?repl
etSos tdi/res. Cf. Polit., 262 D, to fief
ev
rt
,

Kal

a^aipoucTe?

....

....

",

Svo

Sophist,

by

454

pp.

464, 465.

pp.

462

219 A;

B.

Soph., 222 A,

definition

not-art, 462 BC,

or

division

four-fold

found

be

to

is

which

sub-divisions.

of

It starts

Sophist,

divided
of

art

branch

obtained

79

Tts

"v6

....

avev

the

Soph.,
of

the

sponding
corre-

by two

t^? irepltous

eari.
Cf. Phileb.,
XoyoviTexVTjir 75 D, oI" e7ri(rijipayt^6p."9arovTOO
26 D; Polit., 258 C.

373

In

424

subdivision
are

CD,

the

of these

further

division of

required

letters

to examine

KUTi

eiSijand

the things

to be

named

and then apply

eiSij,
by letters and see ei iv avToIff tvetrTiv
set of eiSi)to the other, precisely as in Phcedrus, 277 B.
374

147

D, iireiSi)aiTEtpot

Phileb., 18 B,
(fif.

etc.);

147 E,

OTac
tov

tis

TO
to

irA^flos

aneipov

aptOfioviravra

the

of Philebus, 18 B C,

method

eUr) is the

....

with

KtiTai.

580 D,

eiSecrt KcifTat;

ef

Tpixs*

....

with

one

ivKkafieZv eiv iv

avayKa"r9jjTrpStTovKap-fiiSixa dieKa^op-ev,etc.

than

that
of

basing

to consistency

rhetoric

upon

irepl00
SrjtiOViroijj,
of

of

that

scholarship

of their
Ttav

paKiaTa

tUv
and

ovTioi/

(262B).

270 D).

We

(265 D;
7ia.pp.iva.

To
The
must

being

method

do

method

opiCop-evot

only injure the

Phcedrus

iroieZadau

OfiOiOTtjTai

this

know

must

we

is twice

first reduce

cf. Phileb., 16 D,

to
aei

of

all theories

(262A; c/. Soph.,

SiiiSivai

terms."

necessity

of the Phcedrus

will
The

propounders.

are

dialectic,that point

edf^j)). But

dialogues

the

definitions

(265 D, 'iv iKatnov

the

between

the

"

division

of debatable

use

and

there

irepi Tas

Phileb., 13AB).

in the

del SlSatrKftv

ovTtav

and

Socratic

of

Phcedrus

definitions

"later"

the

op.oiOTi)Ta

TTaVTUiV

av

distinction

sharp

and

of the

emphasized

is naturally

Bury,
Sophist

of the PhcedrtLS, in which

generalization

discovery

the

to

the. subject

Jackson,

(Jowett, Natorp,

of the Philebus, Politicus, and

methods

merely
view

Well,

271 D.

B,

affirmed

advanced

more

applied

Sophistic is finally
D, of the quadripartite

eISt],
etc.; 90 B,

inroaainep

....

Tr,v

Compare

fcal

the method

etc.) that

Tijv

A, OStfifv

E,

in

^avTaiTTiKov,
372

It is often

also

Similarly

Soph., 268
part, indpiov.

244

377

complementary

from

rirpaxa,

260C,

with context.
BtitTTrjKev
elSet SLa(f"av"Z
TiVL
ev

irjj

253 C, 210

376

in

rhetoric,

like

Polit,

oi/Tto(eat ypvx^
elST],

rpio

as

denoted,

455 A, frequent

-ko^,

is found

It

successive
to be

in

eiSi)are

two

of the

pseudo-art KoAoiceuTtK^,
to

avTO

humorous

vein

(science)

258

elvai.

and

01

is

adjectives

art

Polit,

-yecos

cISi)eSifief. The

in the

alternative

v^iv,

544 C D,

SL^pi)Tat,
Kara

(i)Sev

Tim., 60B,yivOi iicnivTiai' iijiopiaSivi

Soorates's

ff.,is

"V

ev

D.

SopA.,229C, 257 0,268

371

....

....

PoiJ*.,258C;
iicTpe'irecrSoi';

We

ei

....

PoZif., 285 B, Sitw^opas

205BCD,

^T^Symp.,

the

^eaTeoi*

Texi^f

with

TTola SijeiSijSUanjKev;

Kara

Phileb., 23D,

cf. 504A;

further

etc.

Se

TLVolv Bia^opaiy; 532 E,

which

X^ydp-tvovkiri.ftKOTtilv,

Cf. Phileb., 17 A; SopA., 253D.

ejrl
ofTa
hvoiiara
TavTa
ra

TO

Svoiv

In 454 A, eristic arises

eiSi)fiiatpoujucf
ot to

kot

Tljf

piav

Ta

iUav

i^vXaKiqv;

Jo-tiv tKoxnov

described

unity

requires
231 A, SeZ

(265,266,

iroAAaxn Sieo^irepl irafToi

to
This
Unity we
are
cf. 26 D).
itfTeZv;
flejiei-ovt
divide
ap9pa n Ti"t"vKt(265 E; cf. Po!i"., 262, and with
icaT
subdivide
and
xaTay^vVaicf. Polit, 287 C, 265 D, icaTaflpaueii')
distinguishing and following up
(266 A, TtpLvaiv oiiK eirafij/te),
endffTOTe

the right- and left-hand paths (266 A, Sejii

Toiirl Se|la del (lepos
icaTa
dpUTTcpa; cf. Soph., 264 E, TTopeiieirSai
and of our
praise
till the object of our search
T)jr|W"'TO!),
TOU

separately

....

52

The

what

to

seems

the
species,
the

most

In
objectivity.'"

their

transcendental

Thought

of the

ideas

of the

the

face

Sophist

of

the

emnly
sol-

Timceus

facts,it is impossibleto

these

evidence of

are

and

conceptualgenera
them; the Republic announces
as

picturesthe prenatalvision of
with regard to any and every universal;and

realism

that the dichotomies

maintain

Plato's

of

purelylogicaltreatment

Phcedrus

naive

reaffirms

the

the

us

Unity

in which

later doctrine

for the genera and speciesof

of interest may
shift from dialogue to

naivelyrealistic idea is discarded

or

conceptuallogic. The
dialogue the doctrine

and

emphasis

the

remains

"

center

same.

pointsof view cannot be denied or disguised.

one.
only as reflected in things,butjsjubdiyidedJbylogic,it is many.
By a natural and inevitable metaphor both Plato and Aristotle
of
and lower speciesas partsof the higher conceptualwhole to which
speak
particulars
they are subordinated.
By the theory of ideas,as we have said,each of these parts,
and the lowest
subordinate
concept,is an idea,not only the summum
genus
every
mammal
and
intermediate
animal and dog, but the
as
quadruped, etc.
species,
groups,
The Aristotelian
that the one
dog will thus embody a whole series of ideas
objection
dismissed
have
with
the
we
metaphysicsof the subject.The relation of the particular
And
have
to the idea is a mystery.
once
we
accepted the metaphors "presence,"
of
ideas
be reflected by or present in one
number
can
"participation,"
"pattern,"a
But

The

oppositionbetween

the

noumenal

But

idea is

thing as easilyas

not

idea.

one

can

the two

logicaland scientific classification brings up the difficulty

For the theory of ideas any and
less easilyevaded.
and more
in a new
apprehended as a conceptualunit by the mind is an idea."'
every subordinate
group
classification only true genera and speciesare ideas
and
scientific
For sound
logical
of the mod'fern naturalist,
but in the sense
"true
not necessarily
species" in the sense
classes
based
and relevant
and
of the Platonic
that
on
is,
significant
logic;
groups
be
idea
view
to
the
From
the one
distinctions.
we
an
point of
expect every part
; from
us
other, Plato explicitly
warns
ments
fragagainstmistaking for true ideas what are mere
shows
that he felt the difficulty.
Sound
or
parts. His embarrassment
But

elaboration

the

of

form
specific

"

^^

and

blame

aiiTtZ

SuLLftovvTa?

look

is found
,

If

615

132

men.,

235 C,

ewl

Kol

A,

Tiff

Mta

ovTai

Ttiiv

TTjv

^e'^oSoy)

iravTa

of

it has

many

(266A;

cf. Soph., 235C, iwdKoXovOelv

emairep

av

is

iToXXa.

At)(^0^). He

dialectician

investigation
must

cISt),
we

the

and

simple

enumerate

them

""
tis
liTimJ-ifcvi;Cf. Phileb., 16 D, V"
toO ijreipov
"al
re
Trai-Ta
Kartfj)tov ij.tTa(v
subordinate
each
ev
(cf.Phileb., 16 D, Kat

iraXii/

tmv

its

ilo-avToij)
as

we

do

the

in relation

247 DE)

to

other

psychological application
It is

270D;

one

method

which

Phileb.,Vo-l%;

manifold.

or

ipLBftov

tov
tov

or

enjs),and

things.

"

avroi

treat

passive; cf. Soph.,

in

cance
375

We

cannot

But

these

for the

evolution

^y^^y^^

35

to

have

himself

repeat

little

or

signifi-

no

of his thought.
238

Plato

expect

variations

S7

is

special

Phxzdr.,

265, 266,

Cratyl.,i2AC; Soph., 226C, 2350,253,

A., 479 D; Soph.,

^'""Bep.,596
""""'"""/"aurb

256

225 C,

iiriov

ravra

^iv elSo?,

is irepov iv 6 Advos,

SUyvmntv

irap eirai^v^ia?
viv v^' ii^liv-nixtlv ofior. PAtJeft., 18 C D, the Stir^ds of
o""
association
in our
minds
makes
hence
idea
a unity, and
an
^^ ypa-fifiariKj].

i. e., study

of this general scientific method.

is described

others.

verbatim.

If

rStv iv iiteivtavsKa-

Rhetoric

the

(270),the

(270 D, raCra ipi9-

original unity

potentialities (5uVa/xi9,active

ejrt

Each
894AA,
etc.; PoUt., 285A, etc.; Laws,
963D, 965C.
in
dialogue brings out some
aspect of it less emphasized

point of view

dialectic

is either

Kal

Te

iKoxna.

at it from

of rhetoric

thus

can

; cf. PariSovTLfSoph.,

iravra

8vvafj.dviav
ixerUvat, Koff
than

who

{266 B C

elvai eirl

laiot SoKeZlSea

Again, looking

rather

of science

object

380

PoUt.,

287

C, implied

c/. Polii., 262 B.aAAa

likely to "meet
and
(fiKroTojieiK)
we

attempt

with

the insistence

on

ideas"

proceed

to separate
ra

"

"

already

/Ac'pos
ajuta elSos

to

if

we

by successive
the

"i.eo-a

ultimate

in PMJeh.,

in Phoedr.,

exeroj.

We

bisect

the

17 A.

at

more

universal

dichotomies,
species

265 E ;

are

than

once.

if

Cf.

Paul

method

requiredhim

its nature.^'
would

The

to

Shoeet

53

emphasize the distinction.

But

he

quiteunable

was

to define

nominalistic

logicof the modern "flowingphilosophy"of evolution

and the tentative speciesof
problem by making both "true species,"
relative
to
erroneous
alike
the purposes of man
generalization
working

the

meet

imperfector
and range, employed by thought in
hypotheses,instruments of greateror less precision
the effort to shape in its own
check
for
ends the ever-flowing
its
stream
own
image or
"

of

change.
Plato would

have

philosophy. But

his
of

preferredmystery and self-contradiction to

to it than
logical
practiceapproaches nearer
from

this

as

does

ultimate

an

diate
interme-

any

Aristotle to the nineteenth

compromise
logically
century. Psychoand
all universals,
as
ontologically
opposed to sensations and images,are
for them
not.'*^ In
equallynoumenal
or
ideas,whether
language providesa name
a
nd
scientific
the
ideas
whether
named
worth
or
not,
logical
only
practice
recognizing,
those that embody significant
distinctions relevant to the purpose
in hand.^^
The
are
counters'** and do not always stand for (relevant)
recognitionthat words are mere
''^

ideas

is

Republic

common-sense

apparent, but

an

that

we

assume

the occasional

seen,

Plato's

and

real,contradiction

not

idea

an

inevitable

of the

formula

abbreviated

word.*'*

for every

of the

have

Similarly,
already
conceptuallanguage is no derogationfrom
cepts,
logicand psychologymust treat ideas as conas

we

of

use

philosophicrealism.'*' Practical
else or more
they may be.
The
puzzle that false speech and erring opinion are impossiblebecause we
or
opine that which is not, is nothing,must be translated into Greek to
say
in disposing
of seriousness.
To appreciatePlato's achievement
a semblance

whatever
2.
cannot
win

even

of it forever

we

have

must

studied

of Parmenides

it in the poem

and

in

the

contradiction

fourth

eristic

between

Our problem here is the seeming

century.''*
that it is impossible
avers
Republic and the Sophist. The Republic distinctly
the fallacy."'
The
is
to
that
which
thus
to
not
even
apparentlyyielding
opine
and the Sophist explainsit by pointing out
admirable
analysisof the Parmenides
of copula and substantive
and
function
that is, in its double
verb, is ambiguous,""
idiomatical
of the partito the convenient
Greek
that this ambiguity extends
use
of

the

the

"

Polit.t 263 A B, to distinguish genus

require a long discussion.

381

part

would

that, while

species

every

is

part,

(or species) and

can
only say

He

part

every

is not

Supra,

p.

37, n. 250.

383J2ep., 445 0,544 AD,

riva

aAXijv

iSiav iroXiTeitts,

ex""

Tim.t 83 C, "ts n-o\Aa /ittStai^avetTtvl KEiral;

pAejrctv,opal' 6" "v avToU ev yeVoff kvhv a^iov CTTiurua^". e^..vv^i"; 223 A,
,.;"; Soph., 229 D,
the ancients
for ideas often fail because
225 C, 267 D, names
elSij5iatpe(rccu9.Polit,,
Kar
neglectful of t^s tS"v yevuv
were
^Tts Kal
KoX

"V

eiSei

avoiioia

ivoita irepov airroi! TTapoiX'^priirai'Tti

263 C.
/iijairovSaiciv ejrlToil oi/d/iao-i,

ZeOE, aviiwiiov
261 E,
384

168

B,

to

"Already,"

Charm.,

ovojia;

Polit,, 261E;

163D;

184 C J Soph., 218 C ; Laws,

627

Polit., 263 C,
Sep., 454 A.

3S5Soph., 217 A;

iaxK

ee(reai.

oti

D,

and

iratri

tovtov

does

imply

con-

it may
not
be
for the classifica(afioi-eiru"'U|ni'a!)

implies
while

idea, though

an

in hand.

purpose

E. g., Phcedr., 263 D

jSiv

yt

E, iivayKairev^jiSs inoXafic'iv

....

^^j

ovTutv,

g^^

^^j

Xjj

^^

^^^

^^,

^^

"

"

132 B

389 478 B.
Cf. Parmen.,
Thecetet., 167 A, 188 D.

Thecetet,,

passim.

worth

or

of n-oAAa

name

common

etc.; Folit.^ 258 C, 5vo cIStjBiavorjQ^vai

7r}V
jroi^o-at;Phileb,^ 18 C D, 23 E, vo^ffat, n-fl jroTe ^v
tpyx^ivijtiSiV
Kal iroXXi eKarepov,
See SUpra^
aVTtov
fv
p. 39, n. 264.
gy

y.vajxo"
a.a."e^.v

Tiya;

ev, which

or
387

17

The

59$ A.

relevant
tion

species (elfios).
382

386

ceptual

390

Iv
.

pormen.,
.

en-oi'o/jia^cti'(rqfj.aivet

142 C,

oAA' ei Iv itrrip
r]

ovaiai

A. J. P., Vol.

"vf

ie

163 C,

ovk
to

Si

C,

164

A,

166

aiirrii"rriv i u7ro9eini,
ia-nv
/xij

airovtriav; 162 A B, with

XII, pp.

142 A,

....

my

349 S. ; Sophist., 256 D E

A;

ei if

ipi iirj
ti (!\Ko

interpretation,
"E.; Tim., 38 B.

54

The

and

ciple ov and /ir] 6v,ovja

not
nothing,but some
"

earlier

than,

Unity

Plato's

of

that

fii)ovra;
^'

other

If

thing.

Thought

firj

we

show

can

otherness;

nonentity,but

is not

ov

that

other

dialogues,
presumably

or
imply
contemporary with,the Republic,ridicule the fallacy,

or

given in the Sophist,we have established a prima faciepresumption

This is
of the Republic that will remove
the contradiction."^
interpretation
fallacies
of the
In the Euthydemus the jxrfov puzzle is one
of the stock
case.

the

answer

for

an

the

to it

To

eristics.

desire

he is not

what

make

to

Kleinias

to be.

wise is to wish

make

to

him

other

he is,

than

Ctesippus,but Socrates bids him

The

suggestionenrages
in support of the
the quibble is further invoked
cannot
that
and
s
ince
we
Bo^a are impossible,
Xeyeiv
y^evhrj
y}revBrj";
opine or
paradox
refutes
all
what
observes
that
itself
well
Socrates
is
this
as
as
others,
not,
opinion
say
where
elseand declines to take it seriously.^In the CratylusCratylusargues by a fallacy,
not

"

And
hia^epecrOai.^^

jxr) ovo/iaTi

"^

that

in Plato,
exemplified
a

false statement

observes

is

of

means

an

to B

and
is no name,
unapt name
Xe'yetv.^ Socrates dryly
supporters,is too subtle for him,*" and

law, an

no

it is

because

nfjto,

to

many

ovra

by
perfectlysufficient practicalexplanationof the difficulty
to
illustration analogous to the image employed in the Thecetetus^
confusion.
As you may
certain forms of mental
ture
wrongly assignA's pic-

for

account

law is

bad

statement,

no

this thesis,though it has

that

proceeds to

then

when

and

offer

B's to

A,

in the

so

of terms

use

it is

to applyX
possible

and

to A

Y to B

oppositedistribution would be correct, and, in the case of words, true.^

debate,Xva fii]
explanationCratylusis urged to accept in order to avoid (eristic)
iv rots
him
the
And
when
he yields,
Socrates commends
on
Xo'7oi9.*""
Haxa"ij''e0a
further
the
There
is
not
the
to
that
this
is
a
question.*"'
anticipation
place
ground
argue
the quibble are oyjniMaOei'}.*
of the Sophistin the suggestionthat those who insist on
the

when

This

391

Mill.

guish

to

not-Being;

from

otherness,

confuse

the

religious

ij-v ov

half seriously, he

in Greek
of

cases

resolved

was

its ontological

iv, besides

idiom

as

(o) negative

as

that

to preserve
can

be

embracing

predication, (b)

(2)

and

is

contrabetween

Plato

half

felt of
and

the

playfully,

for tlvai.

to

naturally

used

Any

other than the corresponding

particular /i-ijov is something
that ni ov is the other
say
may
ov
; and, generalizing, Plato
'
1
,
i,
11.
I,
that it IS it
the other
of. absolute
implying
of the ov without
in explaining the nature
of
For the same
reason,
Being.
he is justified in substituting for
and misstatement,
error
(affirmative) misthe
general category jii)ov a concrete
,

statement,
if

we

think

.^,

"

^.

Theaetetus

...

flies."

it only through

"

It all sounds

English

idiom.

crude
But

enough,
it

was

distinction

position

him

between

the

of e'i'atas

use

task

contrary

op-

Soph., 25TB,

ovk

"

it

as

would

copula, though the

of " Being " cause
(Tim., 38 B).
a

associations

metaphysical

to stigmatize

My

160BC;

Farmen.^

dlrdt^atrts
Ae'yijrattnjftalvetvtrvyxupijirofieBa),

orai'

he understands

392

and

contradictory

201 E;

(Symp.^

dp',evavriav
and

analysis of the fallacy in the form in which

of
is, for the rest, aware
presented it. Plato

inexact

"

be much

simplified if I could accept

Natoep's
view
(Hermes, Vol. XXXV, p. 425),that the relay^e
Being of the Sophist is distinctly anticipated in
ivrav to iiiviparov,n "e aei"".
But
Phcedo, 79 A, "iio tlS-nrav
;,.tco"'is not

to be pressed

393

Euthyd.,

^^

286

here,

283, 285 A.

tirj

all particular

misstatement.

the

usage

religious and

dif-

otherness

difference

which

meaning,
category

mere

it

terminology,

own

is something

necessity

associations

ontological

or

the

distin-

meaningless

as

contrary
the

ignore

note

simple copula

to define

fallacy in its

fails to

is just

between

criticisms

Plato

effective

most
Greek

John

Grote, in his criti-

negation

that

and

preceding

the

and

Being

(3) that
and

English idiom,

the

meeting

of

distinction

These

and

Greek

of pure

(absolute) other

dictory.

in

it perfectly.

Sophist, objects (1) that

absolute

ferent

ambignity

the

states

cited

passages

in its function

""TTLv

the

that

the

nowhere

explicituess of Aristotle

he understood

that
of the

cism

as

But

Plato
the

with

copula

Stuart
prove

that

It is tme

of the

the

C, where,
with

Protagoras

395

429 B ; c/. Hipp,

396

429 D.
,

in

as

the

malicious

",
397,oni((oTe))Oi
(levo

ma/or,

284

1, itaT

to

to iA^Seia.

E; J/jtios,314

Aoyos

it is attributed

Themtet,
aUusion

e(ie,

"

ff.

""

"

etc.:
C/.
SopA., 239B.
ioox..
v^.,
v.uviy".,
,

aogioiP
'"

*30

*"

430 D.

*oa

433

Tepoi' toC

D,

eirlSe Tolt i^ojiao-iTrpbsriZ op6r,vKal

401

A, fidf
ai/iev avT^ rjjaAijdei^
ovtw
Cf. Soph., 251 B, 259 D.

Scoi-toi.

iAi,9^.

431 a.
n-ws

ikuKv^ivat,
oi/iiot-

56

The

ignorance
the

Timceus, which

written

was

familiar to Plato.
about

between

Plato's

of

Sophist.*" Pure

it is in the

as

Unity

Its

at

Being

time

Thought

Being and not-Being

as

"

are

and

"

when

partakeof

drawn
both

Being

between

contrast

down

the

into

and

the two

phenomena,

not.*"

are
always changing they are
of mystic contemplationand enthusiasm
spirit
by
sense

of

It is not

process

are

is described

that

here

ideas

to and

thought,

concerned

the

to dash

the

move

tainly
cer-

bling
tum-

as

thingsof

two; the

necessary

reminder

the

of human

not-Being."' We

of the

mixture

Sophist were

results of the

the

when

the world
antithesis,

it is in

ideas,as

for the

is reserved

only with

selves,
them-

fro and
the broad

and the notions

of sense
of
say that the objects
of
is
and
another
not-Being, merely
saying
Being
way

worlds.

To

the

vulgartumble about between

that theybelong to the domain
of the mixed or relative Being
in the Sophist."* Only a deplorably
matter-of-fact criticism

and
can

not-Being described
find in this adaptation

of the

to the immediate
terminology
the
throughout
dialogues.And

literarypurpose a concession to a fallacy

ridiculed
the arguments that would
prove the results of
the Sophistunknown
to the author of the Republic would
apply almost equallyto the
the Sophist
Timceus; for there, too, Plato calmly reinstates the absolute ov which
banishes
from
human
than the absolute
/xi)
speech as no less contradictory
ov, and
treats as an
inaccuracythe expressionto /xtj-ov jxt)ov ehai,the practicalnecessityof
and the "other"
which
of the "same"
the Sophistdemonstrates."^
Yet the treatment
in the "^^vyp'^ovia
(35)proves that the analysisof the Sophist was familiar to the
of the

author

Timceus.

3. The

of ovo/Mara
of agentsand of pij/iara as
as
names
explicitdiscrimination
definition of Btdvoia is
is peculiarto Sophist,262.
So the special
confined
definition or
to the Republic,*^''
and
nearly every dialogue employs some
distinction which
Plato does not happen to need again. Even
if we
concede
that this
of
marks
and
the
Sophist as late,its
logicalanalysis
greaterexplicitness grammatical
for the development of Plato's thought is slight. It is not repeatedin
significance
in the Cratylus,where
it is
the Politicus or Laws,*" and it is virtually
anticipated
It is barelypossible,
but
twice said that Xoyo';is composed of prifiaTa and ovofiaTa.*^^
of "expression"or "phrase." Even
not necessary, to take prifiara here in the sense
include the verb.
of "name"
For ovo/jia is plainlyused in the sense
then it must
or
Lutoslawski's
to apply to the
"noun."
argument"'that "it would be unjustifiable
Cratylus a definition given only in the Sophist,"obviouslybegs the question. The
expression(425A), Kal cruWo/Sa? av crvvTi0evTe"ief "v rd re ovo/iara kuI to, prjfiara
of actions

names

seems
avvTidevrai,
*ll

477

A,

ov

^TjSoifin
; 478 D

asks
p.

to add

jra^rus

i iSvvarov

429, thinks

inquiry

kcX

would

"ofai7ai to

of the Sophist.

412

479 BCD.

413

Though

cf. supra,

p.

E, toS niyrm

^r,

oy,

did

Similarly

not

time

Apelt

pi^fiara
Not

OVT05.

think

it

neces-

in 478 B, when

which

unaccountable

be

and

put ovojxara

philology, Plato
third
or
a
(^TjSa/xJ

foreseeing modern
sary

to

he

LUTOSLAWSKi,

coming

after

on
41*

Cf.

Tim., 38 A B.

417

Lutoslawski

36, n. 244.

in the iAA^Awv

J. p., Vol.

A.

{Beitrdge).

j,"^s, 838 B.

Koiviavta of 476 A;

IX,

In

is unfavorable

416

sense

both

to

p. 307.

is mistaken

}" (.j^gdistinctive
the

plane and

same

415

Supra,

in saying

of predicate

places

it

means

in

h. 346.

that

pw"

Polit,

303

"saying,"

is used

C,
"

and

state-

ment."
418

it is hinted

the

425

A,

431

i"rrtv.
419

p. 431.

C, Aoyoi

yap

TTOU

ws

if rovTuv
iytaftat,

^vvdttris

Paul

the notion

of

progressionfrom

In 431

sentences.

B,

that

\6yoi must

then

of discourses
the

not

mean,

In

as

57

syllablesto words,

if fyqiiaTa

they as well
of
application phrases? And

statement

Shobey

words

from

may

evade

this

fact,it would

understand

or
we
"predicates,"
falselyapplied. But
difficulty
by takingpij/iara

be

"sentences," but "discourses,"and what

phrases and

to

"verbs"

means

ovofiara

if we

and

what
"

as

is

is

the
false

sentences,"

false attribution

be

easy to argue that the Cratylus takes for

is therefore later.
Our
is not with
concern

results of the

granted
Sophist and
such "arguments," but merely to show
that,conceding the utmost
the
difference
affects the relative maturityof
bear,
very slightly

that the texts

the

will

iu

thought

the

dialogues.*''"

two

THE

PARMENIDES

A great deal of ink has been spilled

the Parmenides, and the profoundest
over
mysticalmeanings have been discovered in its symmetrical antinomies.*^' To rational
certain
criticism nothing can
be more
than that they are in the main
a
logicalexercitation more
nearly akin to the Euthydemus and the Sophist than to the Timceus,
to be taken seriously
and that they are
not meant
except in so far as they teach by
indirection
preciselythe logic of common-sense
expounded in the Sophist.*^'In
the
Parmenides
if
"late"
h
owever,
few,
style,
presents
any, traces of the elaborate
of the Sophist,*^^
and this fact makes
the identity
of doctrine the more
manner
cant.
signifiBoth the Thecetetus
and the Sophist allude to a meeting between
Socrates and
in the Phcedrus
Parmenides."*
The method
of argumentationemployed is characterized
eristic.*^' Many passages closely
of rhetoric, and in the Sophist as mere
kind
as
a
which
ridiculed in the Thecetetus and Sophist,
resemble arguments and expressions
are
and which are
presumablynot serious here.*"^ The dialogue itself abounds in hints
420

Cf. supra,

Lutoslawski

p.

admission

that

the

given

by continuous

definite

exercise

of logical
75 A,

Merw,

ital

ti-a

and

Cf.

in the

fl.,gives

161

summary

Plat,

idearum

ideas, and

of

mech-

mere

The

n.
as

Xiyovn

equally

relativityof

irefioviiroiitiiiveiv
a/nj

clearly

as

See

also

on

p. 39.

of Phil., Vol.

of recent

discus-

Vol

ATP

159 A, leal

Hi

p. 54.

IX

Natoep,

DP

De

185

doctrina,

pp.

41 ff. ;

method

"Jam
'^^

290 ff

Archiv,

Vol.

XII.

Thecetet., 183 E; Soph., 217 C.

precede
nides.

the

on

or

follow

Natokp,

the

actual

Archiv, Vol.

tj^^
Either

allusion

composition of the
XII, pp. 291, 163, supposes

might
Parmethat

communion

antinomies
of ideas

/cal

to

/ieya

and

ravroF

koX

aiitKiiov

oJtos

iKcyxoi

ib "

to

etc.
i\rj0iv6$,

difficult when

knows

one

Cf. Parmen.,

xoAeiroi-KaTafevoijKm.

oviceVi x""''"'"Seup^ao/iev,and
iraflij

eyavria

to the Sophists

which

in the Euthyde-

picked

Ctesippus

their

up

(303 E).
g., the

"other"
idiom

g^me

quibble, Parmen.,

other

every

ri

reasoning

"

is the

"same"

applies

to

essence.

iripa Kara
to

day

is the

dem., 301 B, and

erepov

ti

with

ease

aira
It is

Soph., 259.

flare/ioi'.
C/. 259 D,

nothing

are
m

still debated,

naAanii8i,v (Zenot)

seriously the

the

Ti!

congratulations

Socrates's
rnus

ri

irai-Ta

irji
ouTe

259 C, eire

the trick.

to take

from

ye

....

contradictions

guch

Greek
423

afoftoiov

problems

rro\ki, etc.

(lij
oj/, and

oi-,

later,
to the

I to objections

Part

0aiVe"r9ai rois oitov'ovo-itA

koX

or

arise

i^oioi'

*26 E.

Cf supra,

to deny

in

sions.
422

foolish

Sv

to discues
much

Parmenides

o!!^ 'EAeaTiico^

rov

koI

i^^^oia,

that
(eravTicuo-eaii/)
the

devoted

laiJLivrixiTt Hare

ov"

,"i

s^",a

the

II to metaphysical

Phaedr., 261 D,

i2i

in

souls, supra,

Jour,

Part

and

is found

is

365.

mind

is implied

it is in the Phcedrus

as

useful

of

a.3n.

sv.pra,

Republic

of notions

Platonism,"

"Later

on

the

Themtet., 183 E, intended

of

his

Thecetet.,

in Pficedr.,

time

motion, but, writing

method

the method

as
on

here, but

new

454 A, 535 B, supra,

the ideas
on
p. 49; and

Sophist.

pp.

far

so

stress

See

"vvaij.K,supra,

XXIII,

is not

Dialectic

of the division

*2iBuKT

in

the

at

rest and

changed

of liiOoSot

that

Plato

be

meaning

than

says

may

But

etc., and
ye'niTaieroi (leXeTT),

Thecetet., 147 A ff.

the science

The

choice.

more

by the

as

by

He

teaching

in 217 C.

by dichotomy.

of definition

notion

well

as

is first found
same

made

points

philosophic

D, and Sep., 533 C ff.,except

Sophist and Politicus lays more

anism

further

misapprehensions.

lecture,

in Soph., 227 A, is not

the

all

that

question and answer,

167 D, recognizes the
270

The

33, n. 218.

nearly

are

the

This

both,

TavToj-

ff. (of which

because

the

and

word

is parodied

explained
p^c*

147 D

Alice's

only English analogue)

the

word
must

by Socrates

that

erepov

refer

in
to

in Euthy-

in Thecetet., 190 E, eireiJ))

to
p^""i
eo-Tii-.

The

extension

i^o/xoioTaToi'is deprecated

as

of this
eristic

in

The

58

that

to

It is recited

effect.

of Heraclitus's

that

Unity

of

by

whose

and

sun,

one

who

Plato's

Thought

lighthas

is devoted

now

completelythan
horsemanship.*"Parmenides
out

gone
to

more

gymnasticswhich it would be unseemly

it a TrpaynaTeimSrj
terms
to practice
in the
and explicitly
presence of the uninitiated,*^'
the ground that
"TraiBidv.*'''
He chooses as his respondentthe youngest interlocutor,
on
cination
ratioof
the flow
he will be least likely"TroXvirpayfioveivthat is,to interrupt
plausible

himself

characterizes

it

as

of intellectual

kind

"

like those

distinctions

by
the Euthydemus.*^
These
are
probabilities.The

in

deduced

with

fallacy

of

the stream

Socrates checked

which

proof is that the fallacies are symmetrically

ambiguity of the copula,and that Plato givesus
not
The
in the argument.
symmetry is of course
fallacies that arise from other equivocations.An
in detail would defeat its own
objectby wearying

of the

systematicabuse

by a
warning of this at each turn
and there are various minor
perfect,
analysisfull enough to show this
and
the reader
obscuring the main
design,which is not open to debate.*'' The
conclusions
deduced
from the hypothesisthat the One is and
of contradictory
groups
the equivocalmeaning of "is"
from
that the One is not derive almost wholly from
not"
the
absolute
"is
to
"is"
or
signifynow
uncommunicating Being or nottaking
and now
the relative Being and
Being which the Sophist dismisses as impracticable,
which
establishes
the
the
as
Sophist
only tenable use of the
not-Being,or otherness,
in human
terms
logic. And near the beginning of each hypothesiswe are distinctly
"is" and "is not"
in which
be taken.*''' This is perhaps
must
warned of the sense
it
of
will
the
with the Sophist
sufficient ; but another way
bring out
parallelism
putting
in two fallacies:
in the Sophistmay be resumed
stillmore
clearly.The eristic combated
is
of
idea
noumenal
the
with
tion,
The
incompatible
unity
(1)
any suggestionof change,relaThe ideas will not communicate
Predication is impossible.
or mix.
or multiplicity.
"Man
but
"Man
man"
is
is
and "Good
is good."*''
cannot
You
good,"
only,
say,
clear

"

that Kar' ovto

148 A, infers
Parmen.,
elij. Now, it is precisely the funcav

Phileb., 13D.

The

toOto

ojlioiov

airtun

airav

rhetoric

tion of deceptive
and

it is

precisely

Travrl

Tav

this

that

PftiJefcMS,13 A, stigmatize

Phcedr., 261 E;

ojmoiovr,

and

Sophist, 259 D,

the

eristic.

as

wo

the

Similarly

ThecBtet.^ 204, 205, and

with
Soph., 250C,

recall

On

the

"

(cii-eiffSaiTioi'

Sj

T.1

,.

of

antinomies;

,,

-Li

IT

J-

"

,_"v,

T
In

Tfterefef.,157 B.
_.

",

what

general

Te

OVTOS

..i

TreplKai

ii

D
Parmenides

'

mew

the Sop/wet terms, 245 E,

,,,",-

1JO

the
T0U5

"

real1 opinion

For
c/.SppA., 249 CD.
A
ici
-D
all intelligiblepredicates cf. 142A, 164B

absolute

"

"

255Ei

Wa

iiei'

Ta

.a.

ol
^

ii.
these

'

"

(woAvTrpoy-

"

"

"

/o\

cl

"i"n

."^^'
."?'

'V
aAA'

tv

""rTiv

r^'

-"''

"

Z\^:V!
(4) 157 C,

"'r'P"a.y."a.r..acr.rov..o,riX^a.a"J.^

""''

f^l'
^^^^'^O
"^r
;,""^*"
""7"Jf""'!,
"lvai; (6) 160 C,

^^

"

TdAAa

0"

Tov

"1/05

on

.,...

o**, orav

Ml?

oi.-,t"\

tmn

"7^'^'"'Aevot

ereaov

rt

exemplmes

c
"i"ucpiPo\o70vf"i'ovt

are

MOV

Tts

*P*

T'

^^

ioo4a

ci

/atj effTt,

7-

to

deduced;

"-

cnj^ati-et

iiTU"y

'^

"
.

"

"

i^

^.

t-

and

ucrevetl'

,00,-.

then

(7) 163 C, Ti"i"/ii)"(7Tii/

/
(cf. Ae.,, "a^'^,-,
Met,
ovo-iac
aTrovo'iai';
y.yi

confro

...

jj

"

OVffiaff

,n^

(cf.
Soph.,
\
j.'^^"--.,

Aevet

T,

"

...

this
t

.....

.,,
^^o

Kai

From

KWAvet.
j

"

'

^~

.,,'

oufiei'

1.

,
eii'ou

.-*

tv

"".n-c

".'
iroAAbtv

""^'

"."

X*^P^5

negation

ox

....

""

"-"

"jo
^
Soph., 248C;
n

this, saying:

discussion

Ta

taTavat,

of*

the

that

Apet.t, Beitr"ge.

i(Tr\v 71 uTTofleo'iy
"t I**ec

motion

with

words

oioiMevot

Plato's

show

ovTii)!',

rest and

"

nAi0t""5

ffauffwi'Tai

....

ggg

i,o/,\io7t"

162B,

..-,.,

axuTOTOuot

431

.*'!
^'."'r
'.".f

'"'^'

156E,

146A,

Thecetet., 180 D, the

In

The"ztet., 181-3.

Soph,, 245.

niisuDderstaiids

It is

antino-

miesofwholeandpartinl37CD,144E,145E,157E,159CD,
of. 139B

Lutoslawski,
p. 418,
only in the Parmenides
useless."
is declared
it.wkiv)
"

151

fi^.
"8

*"128

C.

"8

D,

135

to eristic

136 D E.

m^ybe

The

*M

137 B.

Euthydemus

hints

useful discipline. This

-..v.:_..'*,-""f
of the

of the intervention

misunderstood,

,,

^.i^

*!,.""

that

listening

is the meaning
."H"f9fKn
...!",""
SI!*!!'
"ff."
272
of 305 D, often
E, and
Sai/x(iKiav,

251B, 259E, 251 C; 2Tie"E"e(.,

201E-202A.
The
248 A (cf.246 B, 248 E), represent not so much
ifiAol,
'""^"
"? generalized tendency of thought.

='=^""!
% Platonists

dBSiv
a

par-

They

E eatics who
introduce
".'^^/'"''t.f'f
1"^
mto
logic Plato's (and Parmcnides's) poetical absolutism.
Plato's

criticism

is not

nism, for their dogma

himself

says

in

Tim.,

in

or

recantation

of

"

earlier

"

SppA.,248 C, is precisely what

38 A ; c/, supra,

p. 39.

Plato-

Plato

Paul

(2) The negative "is

unthinkable.*"

denotes

not"

Plato

absolute

59

non-existence,which

(1) We

substance:

in

answers

Shoeey

of
ideas,the seeming multiplication

idea

one

by

is unutterable

admit

must

with

communion

the

and
of

mixture

others,as

tion
condi-

of

speech. Without it we cannot even

predicateexistence,identity,
intelligible
and diversity."*(2)Absolute
less a problem than absolute
nor
not-Beingis no more
Being."" The only not-Being that finds a placein intelligible
speech is otherness
which
nine*^
is
in
that
is not this,but
other thing.*"Now,
the eight or
some
these two principles
and systematically
are
hypotheses of the Parmenides
alternately
drawn
in each case
out in exact
violated and recognized the consequences
being
to those indicated
in the Sophist. In the absolute
theses the ideas are
parallelism
"

"

taken

in
in self-identity,

parts,and the exclusion

of parts is found
all predicatesthat imply multiplicity,
to shut
out
space, time, or
since
number.**"
And
these are
the forms in which
cannot
even
we
Being appears,**'
of
In
absolute
it
is
that
is.**'
There
it.**'
the
nor
neithetL-kJi"wledge
speech
say
of ehai,with a similar result.***
negative theses fit) 6v is taken to exclude every sense
The
isolation,;^a)/)i'?.*"

hypotheses concerned
If we
reversed.
speak of unum

no

Being and not-Being the reasoning is

The
and alia,we
sense.
imply existence in some
has parts,and so by necessary implications
is two (unityand
existent one
existence),
of space, time, and relation.*** Instead of abiding in
in all the predicates
is clothed
the
isolation,the one
everywhere united with essence, ova la,is divided up among
it is explicitly
affirmed that this is true of the
of 6Wa.**" And
indefinite multiplicity
conceive.**' Similarly,
abstract and ideal unity that we
most
can
startingfrom the
6v (or /*"? ei*)
we
means
something, and something different,**'
assumption that iiij
of
defiant
and
t
he
in various
deduce
first "participation"
paradox
predicates,**'finally
is
of
that
the
of
relative
these
The doctrine
the Sophist that fir) 6v ian.*^
hypotheses
of
the preliminaryairopiai
absolute
is
that
of
the
The
hypotheses
Sophist.
reasoning
In

the

434

238 C-

241

435

252 c

256 A B

with

has

one

relative

442

A, etc.
259 E

141 E, ou6'

iii"t Plato

^"^^

etc.

apa

eo-Ttc

not

negate

Fhys., 88, 32, contradicts

436

250

437 257

itself.
tions

Tavrov,

fri

third

It is in

Br, to
sort

some

first two, and,

To5

139 E,

137 C,

Simplicius,

iv, but

Mm,

cf. Sqpft., 248 C ff.

443

142 A;

444

163 C, 164 B, oilTtiiSijiv

ff

of the

439

elvai. Damascins

ev

ir of

258 E.

DE,

The

438

oio-Te

ovTu)5

does

Se

by
Tfiinv Xiyat^iv, 155 E, stands
reconciliation of the contradic-

by impUcation,
ye

448

0i!irtvTo

akkav, etc.
Ap o5v oi x"P'" 1^^" " tt" Tav
284 A, iv fL^v KaKelvo y eo-Ti Tii- Sxtmi-, 6 Wy"

140 A, 159 B,

Cf. Euthyd.,
i^^".
xVs
f""

avro

4AXo

itaS'auTo

"a(7Tov

144 B,

6v

f".

apa

"

OVK

oT^iaiVov to

rt

Trivra

cti

144 C, irpbt airam

'

TftecBte*.,205 C, SioTi

142 C, it

oUv
5^ ^b Ik "n,|iiaiV"iv

OVK

"p.

ivra

ToAAa

irwff

exei

eVn

etc.
e'xeiv,

^ep,

of all.

iijal/ij
rriv

iv'os X"P'"

445

to5

Ir

ovSafXjj.
.

toioOtok

cf. Soph., 244 D fl.

oio-ia v,viM-r"^i,etc. ;

r,

UaKTTif Tiprij! oiiriat

fiepei irpoaeaTi

To

(y_ Soph., 245, 256 D E, 258 D E.

144 E, oO

HI

.^ ^^.^ ^^.

Kal aiiTo to
ipa. TO if ev iroXAa effTiK aWa
Republic, 525E,
cf. USA.
Siavey"pir,pii"'ov;

liovov

.^^^^

auTov
6p"i! ex"' irpoo-^epowa
however, points out that thought must restore the abstract
fallacy,irSi/iirb iravriK
iav av
KepnaTiiiji
x""p'fe'^,
unjty ^g f^gt as analysis divides it : iM'
doctrine:
385E,
iSi?
the
Cratyl.,
Protagorean
in
appears
iro^XairXoffioSaiy, eiXa^ovjievoi p.-f,
irort
ifavfto iv
^^^.^^Utlmi
Uiai
oiir9i)"rei5
elvai
auTii- ii oidia
Uaarif, Thecetet., 166 C,
For the use of "epna"iu here and in
iraWa
p.^ ly aWi
/iopta.

e'lT)
iavvBerov, Kal ovSi
"itrely. Another

form

to

eli/a.irepi

of this

sensational or
whether
yiyvovrai. Absolutism,
iKiartfiip.S"v
verbal
and ideal, destroys rational thought, and is refuted
where
this is apparent.
by pushing it to the extreme
142 A.

Similar

taking tv \"apU and

without

440

441

137 C

Tim., 52 B.

for
results follow
parts 159 B- 160 A.

tIAXo

^^^ Parmenides,

from

cf. Soph., 258 D.

"al

^^^

^^

^^ ,^^ .^^^^^^,_^^^Tb ^), 5^

^^

^^^

^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^

jgj A, Ser ipa airh SeapLov ixtiy to5 p.ri elvai Tb elxai p.r, iv.
of what
follows, see my
indispensable emendation

j-^y jljg
note

in A.

J. P., Vol.

lap.tvo Xeyei.

255 A B.

XII,

pp.

349 ff.

60

The

in

Sophist,237-46,

(rwaTrrerai

yap

and

Unity

it is well

Plato's

of

described

Thought

Thesetetus's

in

language there (246E) :

ae\
e'fdXKov, fiei^mKal ')(aXeK"OTepav
^epop irepltS"v ep/irpoa-dev

erepov

irXdvrjv.
pr)6evra"v
In

of these

view

their

Sophistby
of course,

it is idle
facts,
content.
philosophical

exclude

many

minor

to

attempt

The

differences

in the

of the two

dialogues.One objectof
the
both and neither
of
exhaustively
"

"

The

absolute

neither"
the

hypotheses issue

in

blank

attached

*''

to the third division

the

Parmenides,

for

be true

(the"both")can
"neither"
outside

belongs to

of time

to make

point of

view

not

say how

much

easy

of the

"

be

and
into

importancePlato
of the first

Contradictorypredicates
times.

of transition,the "sudden"

moment

It would
altogether."^

both

"

is introduced

different

simultaneously they belong to

the instantaneous

the

the contradictions
resolved.

not,

secondary purposes
trate
example,is to illusin the Euthydemus.

the absolute

argument in which
of all the others,are
hypotheses,and, by implication,

two

order

the

the

the eristic caricatured

to

does

of doctrine
identity
and

In

and

Parmenides

the

form
literary

negation.

some
plausible,
reasoningfrom
hypotheses. Again, it is

relative

date

to

substantial

which

The
is

read

a
plausiblepsychological
problem of change.*" But it
meaning into this ingenious solution of the Zenonian
of the theory of ideas.
Pure
cannot
Being
easilybe translated into the terminology
and the ideas as noumena
side
outadmits of neither of the contradictory
are
predicates,
But the "one"
is here spoken of as out of time, and
of space and time.
which
is apparentlynot the idea,but any one
of transition,
at the moment
without predicates
and the fact that the
in the ideas.
This consideration,
thing which may participate
it
mentioned
to
indicate
that
is
never
was
only a passing fancy.
i^aL"f"vrj';
again,seem
guity
Lastly,though the main objectof the dialogue is the illustration of the ambithe ideas,the one
is in some
of isolating
of the copula,and the fallacy
passages
of the Platonic
idea, and in others of the absolute Being which
a
representative
after its banishment
from logic. This explains
ontologyand mysticismrecognizeeven
the
of
neo-Platonists
and that of Zeller already
the interpretations
and partlyjustifies
of that here proposed.***
considered; but does not necessitate any serious qualification

THE

Politicus quotes the

The

possibleto

POLITICUS

and
Sophist,*^^

closelyrelated to
pathos and satire""' in
it as probably late.
But
is

the

Timceus

and

the

the reluctant abandonment

styleand its tone of "mixed
ideals*^'
mark
there
is
impracticable
nothing in
this view.*'' It cannot
be shown
that
the thought to necessitate or stronglyconfirm
led
into
in
P
ohlman**'
the
of
more
are
error
recently,
Zeller,Grote, or,
interpretation
the thought by their assumption that it precedes the Bepublic,and the attempts of
Its

Laws.

of

"i

between
of communion
B. ff., in 149 E-150 the denial
itAtji'
avT^j "r/ii"pdTi)TO!.
tr/iiitpbi'
: oiSi rt eo-rot

the ideas
"2

156

fitra^vT^S
153

See

B,

iAX' i "fai()"n)5aun)

KtvrjtTeia^

De

Plat,

Kal

trTatrtwq,

idearum

ec

doc,

Tts
i^uffi!aroiros
xp6v"a ovSevi oiaa,

pp.

44-6.

eyKa97)Tai

*54

Supra,

p'.34.

*55

45s

253

D,

266 B C.

*5'

158

For

the

ideas

theory

of

des

antiken

and

257 A, 266

Geschichte

284 B, 286 B.

iva/xvijo^is,
cf. supra,

p, 44,
*^9

D,

272 C, 301, 302.

Komraunismus.

Shobey

Paul

Lutoslawski

and

otliers to show

61

that the doctrine

be late

must

fallacious*"

either

are

of the dialogueis devoted

genuinely Platonic.*" Much
of the method
of dichotomy set forth in the Sophist.*^'
perfection
In form it is an attempt to define by this method
the true statesman
to discriminate
him sharplyfrom other rulers and caretakers,and in particular
from
the politicians,
who usurp the name
at Athens.
rhetoricians,and generals,
sophists,
This logicalprocess is illustrated and its tedium
relieved by a myth"* and by
and
the art of weaving which
also separates,
elaborate analogiesfrom
purifies,
re-combines.*"* Kemarks
made
the necessity
of thus mingling jest
with earnest,
are
on
The
and of employing concrete
illustrate
abstract
to
or
thought.***
imagery
patterns
Our
is anticipated.**'
objectis the elucidation of sound
charge of undue prolixity
at the most

prove

or

that it is

to the illustration and

"

'"^

method

and

for that

Plato

have

measure

and
another,*"

censure

such

That

sense.

that there

standards

absolute

of

exist

general,
and

number
of

ideas

types or

urement
meas-

thing against

one

standards

fixed,absolute

of

and

the

short

able,
suitterms

procedure. Long
no
meaning except in the latter
Plato cannot
delay to prove except by a

discussion
philosophical

distinct

measurement

art and

in every

measure

subjectto

things are

two

are

mathematical
in reference to

the measurement

or
justmean
appliedto

the

observe

suffice.*** In

would

theme

proclaimthat all

relative

purely

of the

treatment

who

men

neglectedto

:**" the

of

briefer

no

tells us, the clever

as

have

argument employed in the same

way to cut short discussion in the
bound
The
and Timceus."^
PhoBdo
propositionto be proved is indissolubly
up with
In
this
the
which
another proposition
case, as surelyas
opponent can hardly reject.
of fitness
the various arts and sciences exist,so surelyis the /lerpiov or absolute measure
This
has
often
it.
all
arts
and
sciences
For
postulate
simple thought
a reality.
*60

309

C, a\ri6riBo^av

yivei does
in

not

souls,"

divine

supra,
"

cf. supra,
of

notion

modem

Cratyl., 438

E.

death,

to

notions

is

in any

the

nor

royal

Koivi^veZv,is not

an

The
322D,Tb;.,.^,Sw^a^.";.a."ov5,ca.5",5^.T"x"."T""c.^

unity

universal

of

science'

Sophist, 257 C, except

concept)
is
"

is

merely:

science"

Cf. Soph.,
461

the

The

one

Shall
or

219

as

287 C, 281 CE,

the
"

already

from

term

of

periphrasis

in the
A

as,

e.

sible

that

g.,

Philebus, 27 A,
allied

an

sense

it did

context

not

ri
ij-iv

aA\o

used

in

the

Pha)do,

258 E,

is used

tor

SovKevov

to

occur

probable
vphich

eirri

to

eis

519 B.

It is pos-

Plato's

mind

that

deliberately

is far

alTiov

The

aiTitt,

yevetriv

in Gorgias,

t"

he

writing
pre-

in the

impressive

more
ovti.,

in

S' cKelvo ivev ot

aX\o

oiiK Slp iror' t'aialnov.

r'ooirMv
462

See

"3

in 267

Campbell

263 D.

on
,

the

statesman

only

J^* remains

to define

'"^

"'

dichotomies

successive
as

caretaker

have

distinguished

of the biped

his specific service

to

human

this

the

flock,

flock,287 B,

"'^ ^ ^"

"64269ff.
^^^^^^

j,"p,",^

characteristic

^^^

"j,_ 282BC

with

Platonic

S(vh.,

generalization
and

226D,

of

"already"

or

concept

cratyl.,mBC.

Cf. Phileb.,23T).

"6268D,

277fl.

*68

285

286.

469

283-5.

D,

46'283ff.

e)"r"ipio1

r^T.

99 B, for

Politicus,

Timceits, 46 C, and

periphrasis

to

occurs

Pftasdo, 99B, but more

ferred the periphrasis

are
apparently
Ko/j-'poi

The

C.
.

the

from

start

in

(like any other

The
question

idea

or

concept

462B

avvaiTLov

etc., and

nothing.

concept

in Sep., 438 C D.

other

some

A, with Gorg.,

affirmed

not

dichotomies

our

employment

technical

else,proves

"

is

in

the

rejected ;"

308 E, that

"

late

word

selection,

by

"

the

proves

to do with

are

/"))Swa/ierovt

tows

SvraiiK

science

statement,

The

of

use

for

259D,

Sophist,

nothing
a

up

and

genera-

ques"impossibility of proof in moral

is virtually identical with
Protag.,
case

of the

admission

tions," and

ot

308 C has

building

to

only for the first but

The

439.

n,

useless observations

puts

not

citation

p. 49.

c/. supro,

here

In 272 C, "rvvayvpitxtv
totality of individual

generation

from

Campbell's

time.

irrelevant;
nothing

is used

word

The

last

"while

39.

p.

ideal

an

mean

....

tion."

art

c/.

not

transmitted

endeavoTS

with

tfetav ^ijjiAt
yCyveaOcu
ev BoLtioviff
only
truth, etc., is " to be seen

....

that

mean

does
^"poirriireuK

the

of

form

summary

281

^^^^^^^^ i""^.Tpov.T",

The

seems

the

parallel

to have

been

Pythagoreans.

with

iJep., 531A,

overlooked,

1",
471284D, it

nowhere

the idea

""Trpit tt\X.)Ao,284B.

in

o/wius elvai,etc.

apa

etc.
iiyryriovijioi'iot,

Tim., 51 D.

Phoedo,

77 A, tit ri

62

The

been

misunderstood.*"

B,

The
fjuerplmv.
proves

it

implied in

only

avafierpovvTei,

it is

does

than

the

in the

the

Thought

ideas,*"in Plato's polemic

attributed to Prodicus
in Phcedrus,

doctrine

remark

re')(vqv' helv Bk

stated
explicitly
fact that

but

once,

Plato's

of

Xdyav

fact that

more

formulate

Bei

"v

avTo";

no

It is

and even
relativity,"*

againstmere
267

Unity

it is

it is

of

ovre

"for

the

first time"

clearlyinvolved

the

in

Politicus

happened to
again.
531
A, aWijXot?
Republic,

stated

never

^paxecav,aWd

oire

ixaKpmv

Plato

in

etc.

myth may be profitablycompared with the Timoeus, Philebus, and Laws,

Its service
of doctrine.
but cannot
be pressedto yielddevelopments or contradictions
the mythicalideal of a shepherdof the people,
to the argument is merely to distinguish
who playsprovidenceto his flock,from the modem
ruler who leaves other specialists
task of governto feed,clothe,and
house them, and confines himself to his specific
ment.*"
In other words, it emphasizes the demand
often repeated in Plato for a
function and service of the royalor kinglyart ; and,
precisedefinition of the specific
from
w
ith
touch
of irony ideals drawn
Zeller says, rejects
a
as
a
supposed state of
This ruler is further discriminated,as in the Euihydemus and
nature.
Gorgias,"'
the
from the pretendersor subordinate
his
ministers who
rhetorician,*"
name,
usurp
As impliedin the
the general,*'*
the dicast.*" Lastly,his specialtask is defined.
and Euthydemus, and stated in the Republic,he is to teach virtue and inculcate
Meno
And
that his teachingmay be effective and the seed fall in good
rightopinion.**"
ground, he is,like the rulers of the Republic and the Laws, to control marriagesand
with a view to harmonizing and blendingthe
the propagationof the race
especially
of the energeticand sedate temperaments.**'
oppositions
The accompanying classification and criticism of forms
of government imply no
that Plato was
bound
to repeat himself verbatim.
change of opinionunless we assume
The classification of the Republic is first the ideal state governed by philosophic
wisdom,
whether
and then in progressive
^aa-iKeiaor apiaTOKparia,^'^
decadence timarchy,
states :
oligarchy,democracy, tyranny. The Politicus apparentlyrecognizesseven
state
the
the
the
name
right
only Politydeserving
(302C),
one,
(293C),in which the
rulers are e-maTrjp.ove';. Six others are
obtained
the good and bad
by distinguishing
forms of the three types recognizedin ordinary
Greek usage.
We thus get monarchy
and oligarchy,
and democracy,lawful and lawless.***
or
royalty,and tyranny,aristocracy,
differences are
due mainly to the necessityof presentinga continuous
The
The

"

***

i'ii E.g.,

Griechen,

Siebeok,

by

pp.

92

who
ff.,

Untersuchungen

Phil,

nur

the analogies

over-emphasizes

d.

with

*'9

305B.

450

309 0 D

*"

309, 310.

'

the

ircpo!

of the Philebus.
,

,"_^

473The

looks,

is

^"Tpco"Y..e,r.5
virtually

.
T.
284ABto
"",

the

idea

which

ft

which
he

,.

every

tries

to

Gorg., 503 E.

^age,

four

times

in 283, 284 with

The,Btet.,

^^.j^gjj^^
482445 D.

160B,182B,Porme".,164C.
_

475

*76

274, 275.

"'304D, """Aj/dem.,
478304E,

289DE.

Euthyde!m.,2Sa'B.

Gorg., 517 B, 521 T},

Cy. Gorp., 464-6, 502 E.

460, and

",iii"g tj^^t^o
t^

iAA,Aa
"*Cf'rphj

The

recognizes the control

and
importance
difflcnltyot

ieeiwWic

artist

realize,

wA^Ods
433

^^-^^^
ye

ev

the

temperaments.
^^^^

j^^^^

503 C.

together.

It cannot

be

iSvWror

tlva.

iroAet TavTriP

iJep., 338 D.

ry]v

The

It does

not

Laws,

773 A

democracy,

mar-

recon-

happen
B, does.

*"Wo*o.

oiv iowl
Polit., 292 E, m"i'
Swarhv
iirtar^fxriv
elvai KTntraff"tu,
=

Pindar., Pj/"A., 11, 87.

iHiPolit., 291, 301, 302Cff.

because

of

64

The

Unity

Plato's

op

Thought

employed to
apparatusof classificationsand categories
is more
nearlyakin to the good is due, apart
pleasureor intelligence

that it exists.*"
decide whether

elaborate

The

to treat the problem

unwillingness
feeling
religious
requirehim to associate

Plato's interest in dialectical exercise,to his

from

good in isolation. His imaginationand

of order, harmony, measure,
with the principles
beauty, and
good of man
with the Timceus, but
We thus get many
analogies
interesting
good in the universe.
of the
The
direct classification and estimate
solution of the problem of ideas.
no
all
and
which
ethical
the
different speciesof pleasure
was
problem
intelligence,
to a larger classification of all things which, however,
is subordinated
required,*"
and ontological
relations of
deepens and enriches our conceptionof the psychological
of merely human
the elements
good and happiness."'
of the

the ethical

The

the air^a

the two, and

its

or

with

is
analogy. Ile/Jo?
of matter

by

reason,

for the purposes

concept
"

aireipov denotes

The

opposed

as

the

to

the
generalizes

Plato

the form

opposed to

But

far

the Platonic

it is not

unity

idea

of the

limit that

In this

shapes it.

of all generation
in the

Bepreeentative Men, "Plato," "No

Cf. Emeeson,
in
success
of genius has ever
yet had the smallest
remains.
But
The
perfect enigma
explaining existence.
for Plato."
this ambition
there is an injustice in assuming
result

net

23C

ff

600

So

Plato

Polit,
906 C,

Laws,

(19 B)

eiSij

ixix,,Euthyd., 271, 272 : k^A,o"

Awcvtk^, ibid., 290 B j Laws,
Bep., 3733; Soph, 221, 222; .rA.o.efia,

2990;

186 C,

cf. Symp.,

508 A;

Gorg.,

p.

4,

minor
601

Polit., 279, 280, 289.

examples,

ScHNELDEE,

p.

133, and

Siebeck,

p.

73, make

it

and
the idea
phenomena.
principle between
Platonever
speaks of the "idea," but only of the ideas

mediating
But
or

the

cause

of

limit,in
is the

whiteness
cause

nipas is itself

idea of something,

of

dog.

any

given

cause

of

case,

white,

idea

an

precisely
or

the

as

idea

and
the

is the
idea of

of dog

the

"equated" with
D.'"' (3)Indeterminate

Timceus,50

158 C.
Soph., 256 E; Parmen.,
SoHNEEDEE,
this meaning,
but still insists that
the
1, notes

n.

of

a7reipo"

the

primarily
is
rightly shows

Philebus

which

he

261), but

n.

denies

wrongly

indeterminate

means

not

to be

it-v ov,

5 (cf.

p.

virtually identical

^P^"!- See
''"^.
"Pli^Uy
it does
Vol.

does
not
Siebeck, p. 84. The Timmus
identify matter " and " space
merely because
SeeA.J.P
distinctlyseparate the two ideas.

p. 416.

But

whether

the -ra.{.x", the

603

the

not

IX,

X"P",

Soph., 226 C ;
yiviaK, Polit., 261 B, etc. ; JiaitpiTiK^,
the
KoKoKtia, Gorg., 463 BS.;
ibid., 222 C;
irtSai'ovpYiicq,
Phileb,, 24 ; and
comparative degree, rh ii.a\K6vre ital !ittov,

as

be

it may

sense

matter

262 D;

Polit,

"tp6,W,

lp"05,idid., 205 D, and

205B;

in Plato.^

elsewhere

(2) Indeterminate

passim;

many

"

147 D, tireiS))
Tftecetet.,
.(vXXaPttr
aireipoi to irAiffos
of Phileb., 15, 16. Cf. Sep., 525 A;
implies the method

fv

matter,

noir,".,,Symp.,

Laws,mD;

is

2uKpan)5, etc.

generaUzes

"v.T,), ibid., 289 E

(inM,'

introduction

the

appetiteby
speciesand sub-species.
of limit and
as
a priuciple
the hypostatization
of the

603

"is

tupra,

*89

823B;

of

i/uaT^vriSovrit
rfiiK

idea

in 29 D.

*^T

"8The

limitation

the
of

measure,

conceptionfound

"

aStfiafor "matter"

power

"yap (lot SoKi'i vvv

it be

of

is conceived

that

as

and

theory.""
metaphysical
other
of particulars
things (1)the indefinite multiplicity
among

mother

the space, matter, or

so

the

definite number

purposes

naturallyassociated
most
suggestion and

whether

"

order

of the

of

term
or

by

genus

Timceus,

chaos.

stamped upon

form

limit

the

of

mixture

ideas

is at

mean

of the idea of
generalization
of
the
by
principle

of the

idea

It is the

they may

form, of chaos

of the indetermiaate

or

for
represent,

terms

of the
generalizations*"

else

Whatever

words.

these

These

cause.

argument, characteristic Platonic

/mktSv or

the Tre/aa?,the aireipov, the

of this classificationare

terms

SiEBECK
the

it

compares
crepoi' of

we

mother

call it matter

of generationis
as

the

or

the

space,

one.

antithesis of the idea to

the

Sopftiat,the matter
or
space
the
Timcetis, the principle of necessity or evil, and
M
ore
ne'ya /cni (xiicpdi/.
precisely (p.89), the oVeipoi'is
mediating link between the Oirepov of the Sophist and
|;i"ioi',

x^P"

of the

this

in common,

ideas, but
we

the
mean

Timceus.

Plato

Now

that

these terms

they

employs

are

them

undoubtedly
variously opposed

in different connections

of
the
the
the

have
to

the
and

cannot

Siebeck
equate them.
(pp. 58 ff.)that
argues
absolute (i"i ov abandoned
in the Sophist (258 E) must

something.

He

finds

it in the

absolute

hypothesis

of

Paul

physical and
"states."

chemical

The

of matter

and

the "mother"

in the

both

jeveaeK,

form

of 7repa"! and

union

or

to

"

in the

met

is the mixture

fUKTov

the union
and

have

we

giving rise to various

senses

ideallyor mathematically defined

character of undisciplined
desire and appetite
Gorgias.^

as
opposed
"process,"

(4)The insatiate,limitless

conceptionwhich

65

Shoeet

in

aireipov

in the world

of matter

or

in souls.'^""

it may

be

"equated"with

the

Timceus.^^

As

the mixed

pleasureand

life of

all of these

any
and

of
"offspring"

As
idea

the

it
intelligence

not."*'

obviously
may

Alria is the

the cause
of the due
in general,
and in particular
principleof cause
and
be
in
the
Itfe.^
In
the
it may
one
sense
pleasure
intelligence
happy
identified with the Demiurgus who embodies
the principle
of cause
in the Timceus.^^"
Plato
is virtually
The ultimate cause
is conceived
beneficial
which
as
by
intelligence
with the good. He intentionally
life with
confounds
the good in human
synonymous
the good in the universe.
It is possible,
the
to
that
or
then,
God,
good, or
say
beneficent intelligence
is the cause
ordered
alike of the cosmos
world and of the
or
the
mind
with
well ordered life."* We
identify
(i/oiJ?) the Demiurgus of
may
supreme
in
and
the
Idea
of
the
the Timceus
Good
the ideas as
Republic. We may conceive
of his thoughts (vorjaK
and so
God with the sum
thoughts of God, identify
vo^o-ews)
ahia
of
ideas
under
the
causes."^
not
the
formal
but
efficient
as
principle
only
bring
But in all this we
are
mechanically"equating"the terminology and imagery the
machinery,so to speak,of three distinct lines of thought in three different
literary
to Plato
for the sake of attributing
a
rigid and ingenious metaphysical
dialogues,
his
to
spirit.
system wholly foreign
have alreadydiscussed the psychology and the main
ethical argument of the
We
of

mixture

"

the

Parmenidee

antithesis

of the

antithesis
iv must

Sophist
lute

oi-, as

it

metaphysical
*^

ing

matter

is,as

such

no

was

absolute

the

upon

with

"

it

as

purposes,

an

the

ve

for

the

then

and

the

proceeds

Bartpor with
as well

to

intelligible"

agery,

he

has

no

plainly the method

ligible " space

as

philosophers

forcing

such

of

i.
it

to

Plato

passages.

infer

an

But

infer it from

the

or

the

vtntrot

ro-nat, or

from

the

fact

that

move-

"

iv..
islight
equivocation

a
..
'

the

"

mixed

in

1
life of" pleasure

"

*" ^^^

j"i-"
"

the

j.assumption
"

nintelligence
1

..i.

and j

"* "'!"'" ^""^ "'"'""'"

'""""'

a"i'.,i^u,m\j.

In

world,

SOD

and

the

Cf. Idea
Schkeideb

with

of Good,

must

be

God.

We

have

is

for

plausible

the

the

modem

terpret
merely

and

the

are,

with

argues,

and

of the

the Idea
must

Good,

of

be real and

equates

distinct.

Perhaps

presented
order

lines of

to

Plato

to him.
does

Schneideb
in

of

therefore, thoughts
this theory, sMpra,

Ideas.

been

passages

and

soul

p. 38.

philosopher the
difficultyof positing two

the

it, if it had

combines

left unfinished

They

of its advocates,

particular

the

systematic

from
God

accepted

not

already considered

escape

majority

God

ideas, he

thoughts.

tinct noumena,
have

The

Demiurgus.

188, 189, n. 2.

pp.

identifies

the ideas.

they
It

the

"'

but

/StwriXi/tijK
'fnixn",etc.,

the airias Sivay.iv

E12

an

Intel-

"

is
^v

,,

^^"""^

(Supra,

identity of Sartpov and

space
because
the ideas
spoken of as '^living apart," or
are
"
the method
of
in a larger idea, or because
included"
dichotomy
proceeds to the right and leaves on the left the
Still less c"in
we
other of the particular idea pursued.
"

alone

'

j.i,

(27 D) that

mean-

identification

cannot

which

Eoonii,
ocs
There
,""t\\

"

to attribute

We

25

the

the

p. 24.

E, 26 B, "al iv ifr"xa" aJ ni^wokka,

equation, irreipoy matter.

D,

with
!

26 A.

27

""
of

is vicious.

space

60750D
u

quite impossible.

difficulty in finding

C,

imply

606

refutes

associate the logical i-nupav

and

space

25

in connection

of

measure

abso-

by pressing
phenomenal
space
of concepts
the logical relations
in which
all passages
are
mind
(p. 90). As the human
expressed in spatial terms
in spatial imnaturally thinks logical determinations
"

and

27 E, 31 A, Gorg., 492-4, supra,

261.)
SrEBECK

spoken

are

soiPWJefc.,24 B,

610
jj

measure

movement

605

religious and

for

many

Imotive

seen,

Parm^tdes
The

and

ment

ideas, and

absolute

vi

by

is
,

the

by

\.

5.",and

ha

we

the

is also
the

that

unthinkable.

reinstated
-i.

There

age.

and

was

",

every

which

true

is confirmed

seen,

this

Plato's rejection of it in the

unspeakable

have

we
"

From

matter

it is not

something.

is sincere, and

makes

which

But

as

it is

regarded

ev

ideas.

it with

idea.

mean

of -the

of the

step to identifying

easy

^r,

the

as

principle

of the

symbol

not

support

thought

which

most

dis-

would
Unlike
misinit.

He

Plato

66

The

Philebus, and
earlier
the

that neither

seen

There
dialogues."'

unrealityof

the shorter

only the questionwhether

remains

to the first branch

the view

to determine

the fuller discussion.

from

main

The

much

argument

in the

it

occupiesin the
presumption even

Republic is

scheme
of

of the

change

of the

It is

impossible

differences

The

between

exaggerated. The abbreviation of

sufficiently
explainedby the subordinate placewhich
entire work.
It affords no proofof the date,and no

have

been

of doctrine."^

THE

wealth

the Philebus

the

of the theme

treatments

of
a r6sum6
or
anticipation
of
Plato's
thought,as
part

an

the Phcedrus."*

and

date

the two

be the earlier.

must

Gorgias,the Phcedo, and

Bepublic

is

But

the

the

The

which

is
slightertreatment
doctrine was
always

the

of

demonstration

presupposedby,
probablylate,I am
this opinionis entirely

the Philebus

that the difiPerences between

priori whether

the

of the

Zeller still maintains, is

of the alternative.

sufficient to show

the doctrine

appreciablymodifies

or

pleasurepresupposes, or,
the Republic. Believing
that

in themselves

appears

contradicts

Thought

proofof

compatiblewith
not

Plato's

of

as

committed
logically

are

Unity

Thecetetus

has

THE^TETUS

been

debated

much

external

on

grounds.'" Its

of

thought and dramatic vivacityof stylemake it one of the most difficult

classify.In psychological
depth and dialectical acuteness it ranks with
the Sophist,Philebus, and Parmenides, many
it anticipates
of the thoughts of which
But
has
of
of
Socrates
it
their
is
or
manner.
nothing
suggests.'"
dogmaticfinality
still the midwife
deliveringingenuous youth of opinionswhich fail to stand the test
is an avowal
of the elenchus.
And
the conclusion
of Socratic ignorance.
in
Before
details we must
recall why this is so.
There
two
are
losingourselves
reasons:
(1)The formal quest for an absolute definition always fails in Plato."' (2)
It is not possibleto define knowledge or explainerror.
We
can
only describe and
different stages of cognitionand various forms of error.
All seemingly intelligible
classify
material
rests
like
Plato's
of
the
tablets
and
on
wax
explanation
images,
figure
the aviary. But these analogies
either commit
to sheer materialism
and the flowing
us
philosophy,or they explainnothing. No spatialimage can representthe synthetic
dialoguesto

''*

Supra,

pp.

^^^

Supra,

p. 24.

"ina
"i"

See

^nr.nn
Zellee,

Kjo
p. 548.

"

...
"l"pofri"TK
is the
.

or

24, 43, 45 ff.

513

reference

to

the

tween

the

and

Protagoras

good

iv,
I,
whether

cnj!T"\

It

Philebus.

and

f
question

(Sep., 505 B) need A

Phileb.

I.

not

%.
be

1
pleasure
o

table

merely

in

the

of agreements
the

proves

are

in the

Philebu^s,

that

no

LAWSKi's
that

other

dialogue

objection

the sought-for

of

our

must

be, is

to

the

the

Philebus

is

does.

no

On

(p. 470) that

does

the
the

not

than

stranger
other

that

the

Charmides,

refer

hand

body, but
,

or

n.

61.

Jackson

is not

slight motions

which

Tii^vit

But

the

*'"

See

Zelleb,

Lutoslawski,
the

to the

spe-

do

the

absolute

not

not

the

cross

ti--

threshold

i-j."

thought
a

implied
^

is

thought

quiet in the

in

ifec.
i-

^^

Of.
j

"

that

with

yet acquainted
implies

state

consciousness.

battle

Qf

406, n. 1

p.

It

p. 385.

in which

Corinthian

517

supra

pp.

is

; Campbell's

on

the

Theaetetus

33

34

55

209

E,

210 C.

13,

p.

16,

wounded

was

182

probable

more

to the year

179

nn.

Introduction

whole

394-387, than

war,

there
argues

^"' 161 AB,

^"^^^

Ldtos-

difficulty,iJep., 505 B,

reference, if reference

supra,

neutral

belongs
368.

389.

is the fact

toO aya.6ov is disposed

is "/ipdi'7j(rts
(^pdi'ijo-t?

observation

of by

That
of Good

Bepublic

the

be-

unity

Plato's
which
he
thought.
B^., 584D-585A-E,
586A-C,
cites, present, at the most, different imagery. The thoughts

cifically to the Idea

the

that

specific

is virtually raised

Zeller's

Gorgias.

Bep.

rri,
The

,"

that

619

p. 119

0/. supra,
"

We

p.

cannot

tion

of knowledge

and

that

for the

suppose
to

very

be

n.

JowBTT

86.

that

Plato

impossible."

reasons

suggested

But

Vol.

says.

thought
it is

V,

defini-

impossible,

by Plato.

Paul

unity of

conBciouBness

and

present impressionsin

except

in the

an

memory.

None

unextended

focal

we

hand, if we

we

iavoke

offer

can

circle.

unity of

mind

reaffirm

We

behind

that

can

sent
repre-

operates

now

On

the

imaginedmechanism,

our

faith in the immaterial

our

explanationof degreesin cognitionor

intelligible

no

None

consciousness.

of the

soul, but

psychological

of error.^^^

process

quest for

The
is carried

far

as Plato
then,fails,
definition,
expectedit to do.

analysis

the

of
psychologies

rialism
pure mate-

of the
treatment
practical
the Sophist." This and the immense
results
by the way are the chief positive

similar

fallacies in

psychologicalsuggestionscattered

of

But

and
;^^'(2)to justify
a purelylogical

So^a, and
6v, yjrevBr)'}

wealth

refute to Plato's satisfaction all

enough (1)to

relativism

or

fiT}

pointof

incorrectly,
resultingin error/"

now

the absolute
in

merely moving

are

explainthe comparison of past and

can

a
psychicalmechanism
vaguest poetic figure'^

yieldingright opinion,and
correctly,
other

67

Shobey

dialogue.'''

of the

repeatedlyanalyzedin detail.'^" As in the Gorgias and Fhilebus,^^^

argument is purely dramatic, directed only againstthe cruder forms of
the doctrines of conThe ingenious attempts to reconstruct
temporary
the theory combated.'^'
thinkers from Plato's polemic are more
apt to confuse our understandingof
Antisthenes.''" As
or
Plato than to add to our
knowledge of Protagoras,Aristippus,
Plato refers as
the contemporaries
to whom
Professor
were
Campbell says: "Whoever
at the whole relative side of Greek
he aims beyond them
of Protagoras,
the disciples
thought of which Heraclitus was the most prominent exponent."
identification of the dv6pcoiro"!
The
fierpov, the trdvra pet,and the definition that
is
knowledge is sensible perception, a part of Plato's literarymachinery which we
must
by nice historic scruples.Th^ dvOpmironfierpov is not a
accept untroubled
but a rhetorical paradox or truism
embodying a
scientific or philosophicprinciple,
It has been

much

is

of the

S2U

c/. Tim.,

621

Zellek,

AB, with Thecetet., 194

p.

590, thints

is aA7)9iis"o|a.

opinion

edge

is "right

",

or
or

in Plato.
jTiauu.

"digression"
"
"

problem
prooioiiiuir
it

only for those

to

that

It

is

-I,
"digression"

BONITZ
for

paper

length

assume

and.1

a"

y" TJjy

tov

Ttavra

all thought

and

Ktxclo-Oat ttido^ov.

ieristic
"

..

arguments
of i...r^M

to the
*!,"(.
that

,.c"it
negative result
himself ei".""n""

263.

the

of,

tone

16S-6,

1
j
employed
against

and

a:.",a".

"

Observe

UptolSSC
only so far
Hera-

speech impossible.

Philol., Vol.

^^^^
^.^^

thfnks
Urodyof Antistheues's
E
161 B-iek
^^,

j^er

'

supra,
j629

n.
1

^^^^^

1
employing

as

405, and

See

.^

"

it
the

Protagoras

(i") ox

.-ki-i.
quibble,

"i

Natoep's

acute
im

Forschungen
AUerthum,

zur

and

Joel,
PP-

Geschichte

his

Doppelgftnger," Philologus, Vol.

analyses. retain their value, even
possibUity of reconstructing"Protagoras.

"^

and
Der
""

the

TheiBtetus

echte

is
rw
Qf.

sein

thenes

himself
iota
167
A.

oocri C.
e,
286
j;"{fti/dem.,

Natoep's
the

Any allu-

^^ Antisthenes

p^^^^

eristic contemporary.
"

represented
"v^-''^

defense.

C being Protagoras's
^^

^^.^^^

",",

attack

Erkenntnissproblems

or

etc.

are

persiflageof 156,157,167 A, 179,180. Natoep,

l,

Plato

is refuted
and
atcrSijo-it
identity of iiT^iT-i,y.-r,
relativity
Protagorean
depends on extreme

Gkote,

.s

und

makes

p. 33.

cf. supra,

Joweii.

,,
especially

Note

7.

identification

^^^^^^

Plato

positive definition.

it

u.

j,

where
^^^

DePi^
of the

attached
"

that

Supra, n.
aTowedly

as

I
1
""
V
1
analysis
psychological

.,,.

naively

who
a

Supra,

628

appre-

",^;"
dis-

the

theory of ideas
Campbell,

137.

527

,"""

"""-^=the

17-19.) The
by the interest
justified
J

cliteanism, which
Kara

"

psycho-

623Sitpra,'p.34,n.283.
Cf. Theaitet.,\HG S.
as

-J

200AB.

622184CD

the

knowl-

mmd

possible 1

pp.

to the

^^

absolutely

the question

my

p. 55.

its relation

eiplaining

m".-appreAer""m

POSSibJity of
Cf.
(Pp. 83, 89

doc*rt".
is

reach

is

or

of ifrevSiit
Sofa and
"

provokes.

pected

affirming

in

the fact

""Jear"m

torn.

how

non-apprehension,

right

explanation.

logica

difiBculty
is
j

uj".ii.o"

from

much

so

ultimate

'jii.
if the

"

li.

Cf. supra,
On

^^

so, either

is not

JO.

624
525

knowledge
that

assumption

the

That
i

psychic unit,

tinguished
undoubtedly
is not

,i.

The
o-uo

as

from

only
opinion."

",,

lu

Aerute

Sofa
i)"6uS)i!

on

says

arises

false

B.

the section

that

that
of the definition
Testation
the diflSculty of
that
He

indirect

an

37

urui

der

see

the

phantastic

des

"Protagoras
L,

pp.

if

we

For

262 S.
doubt
Antis-

conjectures

xenophontische Sokratet,

Vol.

of

II,

68

The

practical
tendencyof
be overlooked
the
be:

no

it is bitter to him

that
probability

to
to

affirms the thoughtto

Plato, as Natorp shows, explicitly

(eachand every)man

to

Thought

repugnant to Plato's taste and feeling;This seems

50) and Gomperz, as
controversybetween Natorp (Philologus,

in the

meaning
thingsare

Plato's

of

age

of the formula.

to the sick man,

and

the

Unity

to him.

they appear

as

there

"

is

other

no

drawn
Protagorashad systematically

this proposition
in
generalizing

If sugar

But

test.

out

there
the

tastes bitter

is

no

evidence
of

consequences

He did
to ethical and logicaltruths.
application
and
that
the
other
meant
by dvdpanro^this,
cognitivefaculties in general. He took ovra, as he found it in Greek
man, or human
and
truths
idiom, without
though his simplest
distinguishingthings,qualities,
"that," but
examples would naturallybe qualities.By o"? he presumably meant
"that"
and "how"
in
are
closelyassociated in Greek idiom and are often confounded
did
to
in
Platonic
If
used
and
he
not
he
^aiverai
{ftavraa-iaprobably
popular
say
usage.
of
to me"
the "it seems
of actual.sensation from the "it seems
not distinguish
to me"
half
and
Plato
avails
of
for
the
himself
the
serious
"jrepiTpoiri]
ambiguity
any opinion,^*'
it is admitted
that since Protagoras's
"truth"
true to the majority,
does not seem
by
himself
to
oftener
false
than
be
true.'^'
Protagoras
ndvra pel Plato himself acceptsfor the phenomenal world."'
As a metaphysical
need

not

to

ask

himself

its

whether

he

"

dogma

it is tantamount

to

materialism

Heracliteans,though
Heraclitean

paradox it

As
speech.^'*

is the

in that all materialists

all Heracliteans

negationof

not

are

more

or

less

materialists.''' As

be

sciously
conneo-

universal,of rational logic

the ideas, of the

tion
symbol of the restless spiritof innovafor serious
refutation
which Plato detested.''" Before generalizing
and restating
of these catchwords,
what he conceives to be the common
psychological
presuppositions
them with persiflage
and assails them
with arguments which
he admits to
Plato covers
of these
is no
be rhetorical and eristic. There
that the representatives
probability
themselves
well as Plato
doctrines could have explainedtheir meaning or defended
as
has done it for them.
So far as we know, he is the first thinker who was
capable of
and generalizing
ideas, of noting the affinities
distinguishing,
dividing,classifying,
and differences of philosophicdoctrines,and of translating
them
freelyinto different
terminologies.All other earlythinkers, like the majorityof thinkers always,are the
and
in their own
can
sense.
Plato, as
only aboimd
prisonersof their formulas
barbaris war
Emerson
no
paint,for he can define and divide," and he
says, "needs
delightsto prickwith the keen pointof his dialectic the bubbles of imagery, rhetoric,
and antithesis blown
well when
he says that
by his predecessors.Heraclitus means
that the hands
at once
is united by disimion,""
draw and repel the bow."'
the one
or
under
But the epigram vanishes
discourse,in a
logicalanalysis. The pre-Socratics

and

it is the

p. 48.

630

Cf.

531

no, 171. Cf. Euthyd.,

supra,

rhetorical formula

need

288

C, taX

632Cra"2/Z.,439 D; Si/mp., 207 D;

tov's re

KTmiBiw,

AAou!

avinpinoiv

possim.

63*

Cratyl., 439, 440

635

Pateb,

",

"

637iJep
533r7iecEte".,155E,156A.

Plato

.""

439B.

and

_,

The

Thecetet, 179, 180

Platonism,

saying

"

Soph., 249 D.
16-20.

pp.

,.

is Heraclitean

in tone.

Paul

fine

about
imaged style,

plainman

formulas, like irdvra pel,irav

Absolute

sound,

Being,but

but

69

Shobey

ev,

Travrmv

be

fierpov

press for their

if we

''*

of their

meaning.
have an imposing
avBpcoTro^,
either truisms or paradoxes,

not

can

sure

interpretation,
prove to be
destructive of intelligible
speech.
It is an
for Protagorassome
subtle and nicely
ingenious sport to construct
modem
of
But
then
the purely
must
we
phenomenalism.
guarded
system
pass over
dramatic
and limit ourselves to his final and seriously
meant
partsof Plato's discussion,
"^'

arguments againstthe psychologyof materialism

neither Plato nor
two such arguments which
are
first is that the

sharply:(1) The
itself

impliesthe

"soul"

is conclusive

the

logicof

relativism.

There

careful to

distinguish
perception
organs
stood,
central "syntheticunity.""" This, if fullyunder-

senses

some

or

against the

and

his critics
of mind

are

and

that

sense

of Condillac's statue.

materialism

sensationist

are

But

objects
argument
sense.^'
of
that
But
perceiveonly through the specific
organ
of
the generalcommon
categories Being, not-Being,number, likeness,difference,the
and the other,"'
also ethical universals,
and the abstr-act definitions of sensuous
as
same,
Plato's chief interest

of each

sense

we

is in the

second

derived

from

(2) The

this.

can

""

subsidiaryorgans solelythrough the action of the

mind, and its reflections on the contradictions of sense.
Availing himself of the
double meaning of ovaia
truth, Plato argues, as in the
(1)logicalessence, (2)reality,
that truth and realityare attained only by the "pure" thoughtof the soul
Phcedo,''^
of the body.
actingindependently
A modem
Theaetetus,of course, might deny that abstract thought has no bodily
But
the
"real" than the perceptionsof sense.
more
organ, or that its objectsare
and ewiarrifiri is sufficiently
absolute identification of ato-^jjo-t?
refuted,and the suggestwith the
iveness of this definition having been
exhausted, a fresh start is made
definition "knowledge is true opinion." But this impliesthat we understand
erroneous
attempt to explainit calls forth
opinion,and error
proves to be inexplicable.The
is accounted
One largeclass of errors
analogiesand distinctions.
interesting
many
of present sensations
to stored up memory
reference
the wrong
for as arisingfrom
and actual knowledge postpones
images.'^ The distinction between latent or potential

qualities are apprehended without

'**

But
difficulty."'
"pure" thought. How

the final
in

either touches
intelligence

638

in the end
can

it must

thought

pure

touch

does not

or

Soph., 242, 243.

6390ra{jl., 439,440;

n9DE;

183AB,

Thewtet.,

be faced:

Soph.,

the

6*0

as

Empedocles

"

HA^Kav

D,

iv SoupEiow

""r6v

t;riro",

iSiav, .Ire ^xX"

6"185AC.

"Te

yip

^ov,

iroWiii

S, ir"i,"

tc"5

iv

S,a^,p
ji^lv,

aXAa
(tij"i!
atffS^ireiteyicaftiji'Tot,

"

",l Kol^lv, nivra

LUTOSLAWSKI,

TaSra

that

already

can

6"

jg, ^

^^^

y^^^j^j^

'"

Of- '"i*^"' V.55;u.

186 A B.

pj^,^^^

understand

remarked

"

occurs

bodiless

of the senses,

sens.,!, Dox.

C/. supra,

nn.

500.

221 and

222.

gS C.

riva

etc.
{v-ret-et,

276, 372, fancies

pp.

/iiov

We

Kpivciy,Theophr.

542185CD.
184

object?

objectof thought.

of fact

matter

misapprehendits

nerves, but
oi Svvatreai

249CD.

error

6""193,194. The

this

memory

520 with

image

text.
is treated

as

knowledge,

is

"

law
anticipation of the modern
"
already " glanced at
the senses,"

an

of

showing
law

could

progress
not

be

in

the

formulation

anticipated

without

of
in

specific energies
Bep., S52E, but
Sep.,

here.

The

knowledge

modern
of the

ei5i
lEi'al.
5*7197.

278, to meet
"iiieiSiviu.

This
the

distinction
invoked in JJutAyd., 277,
liJfVat %
eristic fallacy of the alternative

is the

70

Unity

The

the

confusion

of

Plato's

op

Thought

object with another, the misplacement of cognitions,only

one

in

of

is materialism again,and if taken

spatialimagery which, if acceptedliterally,
the
of
behind
the puzzlein
mind
it,and so renews
symbol implies
syntheticunity
infinite regress."*
Modern
by assuming aa infinite
metaphysiciansevade the difficulty
of
which
task
the
Their
then
is to preserve
is
our
a
thought
erring thought
part.
of a consciousness
This problem disappears
that is part of another mind.
iudividuality
in a mist of theistic language envelopingpantheistic
Plato does not soar
to
doctrine.
these heights,
but having carried the psychological
analysisto the limit,he disposes
of the equation,eTna-Trjtirj
distinction
\6yo"iakrjdiji,
by pointingout a sharp practical
between
and
True
be
imparted by persuasion
knowledge
rightopinion.
opinionsmay
and hearsay about thingswhich
we
can^know only if we have seen them."'
The third and final suggestionis that knowledge is right opinion coupledwith
view."'
TranPlato's own
Xo'yo?.*"This is for practicalpurposes
substantially
it
is
the
life
of
idea.
In
human
is
the
the
scendentally
knowledge
apprehension
dialectician's reasoned
and the
consistency,
mastery of his opinionsimplying stability,
render
the
to
terms
of
beliefs.
Plato
exact
account
reserves
knowledge,
power
unifies them by
his opinions,
who
co-ordinates
intelligence,
pure reason, for the man
defend
ideals,and "ideas," and who can
systematicreference to higher principles,
in fair argument againstall comers.**^ This is not a definition,but it is quite as
them
of his critics can
good a descriptionas the most modern
produce. This view is set
forth in the Republic in the context
It would
it
not
make
to
intelligible.
necessary
in the Thecetetus
have
suited Plato's design to repeat or anticipate
that description
is cast in the form of a dialogueof search.
which
Moreover, it is one thing to give a
general definition of knowledge and another thing to describe the state of mind to
science
which
the term
is applicable. Sensible perception
or
knowledge kut
i^o^riv
definition of knowledge,nor, accordingto Plato,knowledge in the
is not a synonym
or
But it is the most
certain and the only knowledge we
highest sense.
possess of some
kinds of objects.And
the recognition
of this fact in various
of
the Thecetetus
passages
in itself make
would
all-inclusive
definition
of knowledge impossible."'
a
satisfactory
Accordingly Plato brings the dialogue to a plausibleconclusion by discussing
various
of which
none
possiblemeanings of X6yo";,
(andrejecting)
yieldsa good definiterms
as

=^

20OAB.

S48

diated
as

the

chology

The

original
eifieVai ^

language

of 188 A and
and

is enriched,

end

analysis

our

and

brings
which

psychic apprehension

arose
a

"

from

kinds

nnme-

to

us

either

is

an
or

indivisible

act

to eirurT^fiT).In ethics fixed,

Aoyoi' SoCi-ai is opposed
is virtually a synonym
stable, true opinion
of ^poi'ijtrts
:
Laws, 653 A, ^/lovTiaivit "ol aAi)9eiiSofas /Se/Saioui.Strictly
exeii-

fallacy,

of cognition, but in
of

is not.

549201B; Grote triumphs in the admission

knowledge;
perception is, after all, sometimes
n.

the

conscious

PsyEuthyd., 277,278, shows.

practical fallacy is disposed

the

of grades

of, by the distinction

the

ajropCa

firi cifieVai

antithesis

speaking,

sense-

cf. supra,

are

three

grades

fixed

by judicious

(3) right opinion

fixed

and

tion and
that

there

(2) right opinion

is not

confirmed

right opinion

education

from

by the higher

youth

educa-

by the abilitySovvai. X6yov. But Plato

distinguish the last two.
They are both
(Mew), 98A; iJep., 430B, reading/idi'i^oi').
InPoJif.,
accompanied

careful

li-ovifLoi

(1) casual

to

56^av /x"Ta )3e)3ai(ucre(i)s

be referred
excluC, a.K-q9r)
cannot
sively to the philosophic
virtue
with
Zellee
It
(p. 5%).

309

324.
650

201 CD.

551

The

Timceus

Sofa, but
iA7|9i|!

(51 D)

adds

TO

sharply distinguishes

i.A
ii.iv

/leT

98A, right opinions

In the

Meno,

bound

oirias Aoywrj^y.

InSymp.,

aATiSou!A070U,
became

vom

ie

TO

knowledge

202A, opOaSofa^eti-

"

and

a\oyoi".
when
avcvroO

includes

the

appears,

e.

which

virtues

p., from

of fixed
the

is precisely equivalent

5525itpya,p. 17;

n.

habit

reservation

91 with

from

guided
ill

ve

ev

above,

as

iroAireio,309 E,

to ttoAituc^i'
-/":in Sep., 4S0E.
text.

n. 549.
BSSfif-jipj-a,

72

Unity

The

But

there is an

end

is later than

If

assume

we

to all use

work

which

is the

weakness

Thought

of Isocratean

if we
parallels
it explicitly
parodies.

Lysias,who

determined
precisely

more

date

Plato's

of

died

to about

of the

in

378,

the year

arguments

the date
be still living,

to

379.

for

infer that the Phcedrus

cannot

an

of this

strongestconfirmation

The
earlier

to take

it is hard

date, which

still

be

may

who recentlycalled Lysias a Xoyoypd(j)0'i

need not have
seriously.The politician
Archinos, and, if he was, Plato's use of evayyp'i may be merely dramatic.^*"
of
patronizingcommendation
nor
parody of his Gorgian style,
to him

Plato

at the
(ifit is Isocrates)

and

Isocrates

the tract

could

againstthe

never

Socrates

the

close of the
have

Sophiststhat

end""^ is not

at the

with

even

been

sharp rap
Euthydemus.

on

friends

incompatiblewith

the knuckles
Still less

been

The
a

sly

administered

can

we

say that

after the declaration at the close of

taught,or, for that matter, after

in their works.
Arnold, Frederick
Huxley, Matthew
any other polemicalinnuendo
and
other
Herbert
of
nineteenth
bined
Harrison,
Spencer,
knights
-century polemics,commuch
sharper thrusts than these with the interchangeof courteous or slightly
ironical compliments.
from
the thought. We
Our chief concern,
however, is with arguments drawn
less
have alreadyseen
that the dialectical method
is not appreciably
of the Phcedrus
there
than
that
of
the
Philebus
the
other
and that,on the
mature
hand,
or
Sophist,^^
tion
that necessarily
fixes its relais nothing in the psychologyor ethics of the Phcedrus
What
be
to the Republic,the Phcedo, or the Symposium.^
can
said,then, of
scholars to show that the thought of the Phcedrus
dates it
the attemptsof distinguished
The only one
that calls for serious consideration
ten years earlier ?
circa 392, or even
is Natorp'sargument" that the immaturity of the Phcedrus
is proved by the absence
of the notion of a supreme
in the Symposium,
found
science, or of ultimate categories
the
in
is that such a notion
Euthydemus. The answer
Republic,Sophist,and even
in
form
in
Plato
to
some
a
never
special
except
adapted
particular
argument.
appears
includes
different
under
this
The
rubric.
science of the
things
Natorp
very
supreme
of the idea of beauty as distinguished
Symposium is merely the knowledge of the idea
b
eauties.
That
of
is
from
the
of
the
idea
particular
Republic knowledge
of the idea of good as the o-kotto'; or aim of true statesmanship.That of the Euthydemus
dialectic
in
another
the
art"
is in one
implication
(290C),
"political
placeby
the
of
unity science is merely the unity of the concept or
(291C). In other passages
of the Thecetetus,Sophist,and ParmeniThe ontological
categories
idea,eVtcrT^/iT;.^"
of
and
have
different
line
des belong to a
a mainly logical
thought
significance.
They
with the notion of a universal science only in so far as they are
connected
are
hended
apprethe subject
of the Phcedrus
and discriminated by dialectic. Now
did not call
The
science.
for the explicit
or
a universal
assumptioneither of supreme categories
of commentators, is that
chief point in the myth, ignoredby Natorp and the majority
virtue

cannot

be

"

"

662
663

257 C

564

Supra,

566

Heemes,

Vol.

567

Supra,

460.

279 A,

Tout

Panegyricus,

but

"irix"ipei
may
anything.

Adyows

oil fiy

might

be

well

be

the

u.

n.

565

377.

XXXV,

pp.

Supra,

405 ff.

pp.

19, 43

; n.

152.

Paul

the

ecstasy of love

is due

Shoeet

73

of the idea of beauty. Unlike other ideas,it

speciality
by a not whollyinadequatecopy, the sightof which recalls
the beatific vision of the original.^ The
proof of immortalityrequiresonly the
of
and
that
self-moved
the
moved
by another.^" The absence of other
categories
here than it does in the Laws.
abstract logical
The method
categories
proves no more
to

is representedin this world

is described

of dialectic

in

its relation

to

rhetoric,which

is

regardedas

of

art

an

to ultimate

deceptivedialectic or almost eristic."" There is no occasion for going back

or
hypothesisbeyond hypothesis. The subjectabout which it is desired to
categories
effect persuasionis the starting-point."
The rhetorician's art is to bring this under
transition to praiseor blame."
a definition or
categoryfrom which there is a plausible
So

in the Philebus

even

Philebus

for

is not

alwaysdelayto

that

less mature

reason

tabulate ultimate

(1) as dialectic,
(2)as

than

the remark

between

connection

that those

who

science."

supreme

Plato

cannot

unityof science,whether
art."
"political
(3)as
main
once
positionby illustrating
the

the

idea,or

Natorp's other arguments merely confirm our

and typically,
the desperatestraits to which
more,
attempt to date the dialoguesby their thought.

the

and
inspection,

to

Phcedo."*

the

to reaffirm

or
categories

the vision of the

starts from

dialectical method

true

the idea, the ev, that it reveals

or
investigated,
ultimate hypothesis,
or
a
ontological
categories,

says nothing there of

it be

of the

account

a-jreipov to be

concrete

The

the

an

For

affirm

scholar

acute

is reduced

example,there

in the

is

obviouslyno
is the chief good
"^p6vq(Ti";

that

"j"p6vrjaii
(Rep.,505 B), and the enthusiastic declaration that
could be seen
measure
if wisdom
can)it
by mortal eyes (asbeauty in some
(^poVijo-t?)
the
first
250
Yet
Seivov"i
would enkindle
regards
Natorp
D).
eptoTat (Phcedr.,
to define

unable

are

what

....

as

passage

of and

distinct criticism

merely says

that

advance
could

if we
(j^pourjo-K,

upon

the latter.

But

it,would

be

only see

the Phcsdrus

sage
paslovable

still more

beauty. It does not affirm it to be the chief of goods,and, if it did, need not
of Laws, 631 0.""
for that reason
precede the Republic,unless we are to say the same
he
is said to
SetvoU
-Tria-T^
C
the
unctuous
ao^ol"i
in
245
fiev a'iri(no";,
phrase
Again,
ranks
Platonism
mature
knowledge
Plato's early,unscientific mood, because
mark
of knowledge
affirm the superiority
thinker may
But plainly
a religious
above ttio-tk.
to belief and
yet indulge himself in the ironical declaration that the "clever" will
disbelieve,but the wise believe,his proof of immortality. Similarlyin 247 C the
than

that

statement
to

no

poet

has

is

prove that the passage

568

570

669

250 BCD.
261 D

with

Sophist, 259

include

dialectic and

voupyiCT

embraces

""IJ
market,

*,,"

the

teaching

eristic,just

,,

all forms

T.""i..,-.
Lucianic

and

D.

"t
art

in

2450.

Rhetoric
as

in
-

is

fl,"
the

generalized

and

263 D E.

u-i;
higgling

r""r"=itB.
and
parasite, and

574

The

aWia

division
is given in

265, 266 A.

575

^^^

five

the

673

16 C D B.

categories

of the

Symposium,
Republic.

or

4.!""j
destined

t"

250 D,
pTtoedr.,
"u,u.,
.,
wv

LCTOSLAWSKI,
HOEN,

into ire'pas,
airnpoi', ^i.kt6v,
different connection, and has nothing

of all things
a

^^^

_p^^^^

*-k"
of* the

t,hB whole
whole
the

eristic of the Sophists.

672

science

to

.^^
571

with

common

supreme

Sopftist,222,223, !"""-

u
i.1.
the
of rhetoric,

"f
of

is taken

worthilysung the region above the heavens

of the theory of ideas.
Plato's first exposition

ever

seems
=".

i|"

p.

339,

misses

the

of

But

the

the

such

Sophist, the

viraleaw

of the

to "i";"i",",.t"",sr.
misinterpretation,

"n.""r*i.o,

..,,1
altogether, and

meaning

212,213, actually takes Seii-ovs Ipwraj (understand^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^

^
^^^^ ^^ p^^^^,^ _.^^^^^
images of other ideas than beauty, and objects that
pp.

^^'JJ^-^
^^^^

^^jj
the
would

passionate love of justice would

not be exposed to sensual excess

be
I

good,

since

it

74

Unity

The

prelude

is

commonplace

mere

Plato's

op

of

Thought

rhetoric,as

Phcedo, 108 C

in

239 C ;

Meno,

Polit, 269 C.
in 266 0 will not
term
argument that dialectic is first introduced as a new
bear scrutiny. In Philebus, 53 E, eveKci tov
is introduced stillmore
circumstantially.
led up to in Cratyl.,
The ideas are a dream
439 C ; dialectic is dramatically
in Cratyl.,
390; and in Sophisi,265, 266, an elaborate explanationhas to be given of what is taken
for granted in the phrase (pavrdcrfiaTa
Oeia,Rep., 532C.""
Natorp says "der Begriff
But
erst im
Dialektik
Phcedrus."
ist im
Gorgias noch nicht gepragt, sondern
StaXeyeaOaiis contrasted with prjTopiKrj in the Gorgias,448 D, and the term StaXe/crtand Ast, does not happen to occur
in the Symposium,
if I may trust my memory
ic6";-i],
It is begging the
Thecetetus, TimcBus, Parmenides,
Phcedo, Philebus, or Laws.
the
does
in
not
connote
that
true Platonic
to
Bia\ejea-6at
assume
Gorgias
question,then,
is not a word
There
about
"damobut only Socratic conversation.
BcaXeKTiK'^,
nischen BiaXcKTO'i" in Symp., 202 E, 203 A, and the notion of philosophyas the seeking
of knowledge occurs
not only in Symp., 203 D- 204 B,
rather than the attainment
"after"
the Phcedrus, but in Lysis, 218 A.
As for Xoywv rexvr), it is any "art of
The

words,"

actual

whether

ideal rhetoric,dialectic,
or

or

eristic.^" It is uncritical to

even

generalexpression.
immediately adds that there

lend
press the various meanings which different contexts
is called the Xdyav rexvrj in 260 D, but Socrates
Rhetoric
is

true

no

Xeyeiv Te^yr)

no

90 B ;

this and

the

method

of avvaywyrj

of

288

246

A,

strict

our

of Platonic

418 E, where
is established

type

outTTjs

negative,but
careful

which

is,of

Meno

in

the

idea,the replymust

"

course,

merely a

that

IBea is used

later"

iJepM"Kc

he adds

sense

be

that

this

vague,

further

firmation
con-

vaguelyin 237
and

Phcedo,

untechnical

D,

in

the

use

of

might be multipliedindefinitely.They do not establish a

they certainlycreate a presumption against all arguments of
scrutinyalways shows to be fallacious. And the experienceof

Adam,

of many

such

arguments

"misology" than
justifiable

more

Euthyd.,
ets

and

when

not, as

less technical

the untrustworthiness

See

But

illustrations

These
universal

'I'T

Gorgias

always possiblein Plato."" Omitting Thecetetus, 184 D, since Natorp

"early,"we find it in Rep., 507 E; Philebus, 64 E, and Cratylus,
"idea of good." Since the transcendental
idea
ayaOov IBe'adoes not mean
is the occasional use
for the Phcedrus, of what
of
possiblesignificance

IBea in

the word

5"

of Sophist,227 A,
\6y(oviJ,edoBo":

D."'

also

that

gians a

is,then,

\6yov";Te^^wysin Phcedo,

ISea is

elSo? and

the

the

thesis.

B, etc., and

253

A,

sense

thinks

main

There

dialectic.

without

irepltoxk

of rrj?

use

differs appreciably
Lastly,Natorp'sargument (pp.408-10) that
described
does not go far
in the Phcedrus
Biaipea-K

270

and

suggestionsof

the

the

said that the

of Phcedr.,
fiedoSo:;

the

beyond

it be

can

nor

from

i. e.,
aX'qOeCa^
rj"f"6ai;

tov

avev

between
inconsistency

to such

ad
288 A,

"s

loc.

iiMtTdpatrexriJI

aKpipeiav Adywc.

creates

that which

oiT(aal
....

9aviiim)t

cf.

H'SSee

in the minds

Plato

supra,

JoWETT

u.

of sober

deprecatesin

philolo-

the Phcedo.

377.
AND

Cahpbell,

Vol.

II, pp.

294 fl.

Paul

THE

In
of

vivacityand

thought

comic

"late."

Its most

CRATYLUS
^"'

the

verve

75

Shoeet

Cratylus is "early," in maturityand subtlety

of etymoluse
feature,the playfulallegorical
ogizing,

obvious

in many
Admirable
other dialogues/*'
is the art
anticipated
with which
etymologiesrecognizedto be little better than puns are made the vehicle
of a true philosophyof language,and a profound discussion of the relations of language
and thought.
With
this we
not concerned.
have
that the attempt to
We
are
already seen
the
the
of
Plato's
in
own
dialogue an earlyplace
assign
development
thought breaks
down.^
Plato is "already" in full possession
of the theory of ideas and of the essential
of
his
the
His
polemic against
flowing philosophers."'
arguments
repudiationof
if not as fully,
eristic fallacies is as distinct and as clearly,
expressedas it is in the
and
Sophist.^"*
Euthydemus
It remains
of
merely to enumerate, as a part of our cumulative
argument, some
resemblances
that link the Cratylus to its predecessors
the minor
and
or
successors,
it a sort of abbreviated
make
repertoryof Platonic thoughts and classifications. In
elvai
386 D there is a reference to the doctrine of Euthydemus: irda-i irdvra onoCoa'i
elSo?
ical
aei.
1
55
In
386
E.
In
387
B
rmv
are
an
D, Tr/aafets
cf.Thecetet.,
ovtcov;
ana
In 388 C ovofia dpa hihaaKaXiKov n icrrivopjavov
\eyei,vis TrpaTreiv, cf.Euthyd., 284 0.

is

recalled

or

tician
Trj"}ouCTwis, coupled with the statement, 390 B 0, that only the dialecSiuKpiTiKov
of
and
doctrine
226-31
this tool,impliesthe imagery
Sophist,
B, where
use
can
of SiaKpcTiKrj"!.
In 390 B the statement
the KadapcTKof dialectic and Sophisticis a branch
289
601
is
recalls
and
the
best
D;
is
D,
that the user
Rep.,
Euthyd.,
implied
judge
be compared
eTricrTdfjievov
274 E.
In 390 0 epcoTav Kal airoKpiveaOai
in Phcedr.
may

Kal

In 390

with Phcedo, 75 D.
In

Rep., 528 B.
396

C, op"crara

the

identification

the

the

suggests Euthyd., 290

iincndTri';^

of

good

the

view
against Sidgwick's
an

in

thought, as
In

493 A.

that
In 399

eristic.

dialectician

the
in

the

Phcedr., 249 B.

401

In

of

will breed
of the

(ipmrvriKoi
epm,

Rep., 455 D.
true.

With

golden race,
and

C ;

540 C.

and
In

cf.Symp.),which

rician,
dialoguesthe Sophist is a rhetofrom the brute by conceptual
distinguished

earlier
is

man

is that

recall Repub., 415 A

daemons

with
to

makes

in the later

the

men

is akin

rhetorician

of the

view

on

398 E

Gorgias,

as
dialectician,

capacityof women
that good men
probability
A-0
the image
398
D.
In
dvco,
cf.Rep., 509
392

cf.Rep., 415 B,

394 D

With

400 B

the

conceit

Kal aSoXeaxai,
rive;
iieTeapoXdyoi,

is

"TS)ix.a
arj/xarepeats

preciselyin

the

tone

(ftvaeaxs
irept,. In 401 C ovala ''Eiaria
of Phcedr., 270 A., aSoXeaxiaiKal fierecopoXoyia';
403, 404 characteristic doctrines of the Phcedo, Gorgias,
implied concerning the naked soul,the invisible world, death,imOvfiM
In

recalls Phcedr., 247 A.

and

Symp.

are

and the yearning of the soul for pure knowledge. Cf.Gorg.,523 C; Phcedo,
as "/7/io'?,
Kal -^jrevSTp
with the
re
In 408 C the association of 7^yo"ia\r]0^'i
83 C D, 67 E-68 A.
680NATOHP,
the lack
S81

however,

of dramatic

See

Jowett's

mise

Vol.

Archiv,
en

Index,

seine
"

s. v.

mark

XII,

p.

163, thinks

of lateness.

Etymology."

54, 56, 51, n. 373.

33, n. 218, n. 539.

682

s"pra,

pp.

''^^

Supra,

p.

'''*

Supra,

p. 54.

76

Unity

The

of

movements

the

All

repeatedin Tim., 45
In 419 C
In 422

recalls Tim., 37 B C.

Xrhrr)

A o-Totx"a

is used for

418 D, is
quibblevi^epa, ^/lepa,
Beov is explainedby Eep., 336 D.

The

aya6ov ISea

In 418 E

B.

rfjiBiaXvaea)^

airo

Thought

Plato's

op

ro

impliesthe doctrine
in

elements,as

Phileb.,81 D, and Tim., 64D.

of

Tim., 56 B

In 423 C D

Themtet, 201 E.

the
is virtually
the i^airarda-dai
avrov
In 4280
w^' avrov
"already"ij.iiitj(ti";.
"voluntarylie" of Bep., 382 A. In 436 D the emphasis laid on the apxv or hypothesis
recalls Phcedo, 101 D, 107 B.
(inroicetTai)

music

is

EUTHYDEMUS

THE

and in its attitude toward eristic,

Euthydemus in subtletyof logicalanalysis,
and
The
Thecetetus.^
Sophist
question.Can virtue be taught?the prosimilar discussions in the
art resume
discourses,and the quest for the political
treptic
To the partisansof development the
Meno, Protagoras,Charmides, and Gorgias.''^^
Either
this mature
logic must be assignedto an early
dialogueoffers a dilemma.
in a purelydramatic,
of styleand engage
work, or a late work may displaycomic verve
The

is akia

to the

art.^'
apparentlyunsuccessful,Socratic search for the political
But
after Bonitz, Grote, and Jowett.
A systematic
analysiswould be superfluous
the Euthydemus, like the Cratylus,is a repertoryof Platonic thoughts that link it to
273 C, avrov
"earlier"
and "later"
dialogues. A few of these may be enumerated:
axnm
^or)6elviv tow BiKaa-Tripioi";;
cf.Oorg., 509 B; 275 D, the captiousquestion,Are
of Lysis,218 A ;
o
l
? merely illustrates the doctriae
those who learn ot a-otjiol
f', afia6el"!

Symp., 203 E; Soph.,229 C,

method

Kara

to

imaT-nM': efw and

is used

as

/cttjo-j?;cf.277

280

Thecetet., 167 E;

E,

Be

to

C and
278

B;

165
Thecetet.,

in

ff.;do they learn

276D

elSevai rj firj elBevai of the

ovre

there

is

voel

yjrvxvvexovra

B, \eryeivis

216

D; Gorg.,
TrpoOvfiovfievov
a-o(f"ov

....

387

B;

287 A, if

to,

quibble suggests

The

voovvra.

ovv

Polit, 305 A, and

supra,

p.

290 C,

62;

dialectician,cf.Bep., 528 B; 291 B, Sxnrepra

of the

image

167

cf.supra,

426.

Sitpra,

B86

Of Idea

687

292; cf.mpra,

of Good,
that

assumption

sensibly adds :
Folgerung und

"

Ich
der

n.

iraiBCa

p. 204 ; supra,

71.

Bonitz,

Plato
erwahue

Erklaning

a.

p.

125, protests against

is really baffled
dies

nur,

^e^^

97.

weil

Platonischer

in 292 E, and
diese

Art

Dialoge

der
weit

tov^

to,

Thecetetus; 291

verbreitet

54, 58.

585

pp.

aviaryin the

100 A, Protag., 312 D;

0, Meno,

cf Charm.,
n.

of the

als

subordinated

mathematician

the

the

ist.

Frage

^'X'^

far

Supra,

sollte

doch

Sicherheit

mOglich

ist und

eine

nn.

hat."

547,548.

n.

supra,

jemand

Problem

"^'cht dargoboten
^^^

cf

Man
und

cf
the

to

KopvBow BimKovTU,
etc.,is
;

292

D,

199;

301

B,

Ziehen,

ob

C, cf. Polit.,259 D

301 A,

j^^e Euh6

of

metaphysicalproblem

the

D, cf.A. J. P., Vol. XXII, p. 161; 289 C, the art of the user and
maker, cf Bep., 601D, Cratyl, 390 B, 290 A, cf Gorg.,454; 290CD,

art of the

the

a^vicTa
in
irai^eiv

132

Parmen.,

the germ

in 276 E

eristic,as

cf Cratyl,

irpaTreiv,

the

between

TtVo? BiBdaKoXoi rjKere, cf. Thecetet.,161 E, 178 E; 287 D, irorepov

error,

no

ipaary

....

284

for

ayaOov; cf. Lysis,

ovre

icaKov

....

184 C;

yeve'a0ai,
cf. Symp.,

Themtet, 197 B;

with

278 A

BovXeveiv

467E; 282B, ouSei/atV%/3w

the distinction

and
Thecetetus,^'^

is used
"n-poairaii^eLV

(iri,recalls

fj a

eirCaTamat

in
der

Erw5gen

Discussion

ist,Mr

MOglichkeit

den
der

einer
sie

Frage

eben

LOsung

nur

sich

Paul

The

of
significance

of course,

be

can

his

have

We

sense.

also

date.'*" Plato is

proclaimsthe

of

of

both.'"

of
futility

of

man

aWo

-n-pm

the

(?) does

bad; (2) even

than

may

trivial
to

philosophyand

philosophyas

other

in

useful

logicaldiscipline.
tion
impliedby the interventhe gentlemen who
in

is

that

statement

the

dignifiedrhetorician

in

expressed.It

the

by

be

is

common-

determine

not

eristic with

replies(1) that
eristic

view of

criticism that such

The

sense.

that

Socrates

sKarepa.

pointof

againstthe

Socrates
a

the statement

Hepublic in

Crito from

man

Plato

Saifioviov
(272E) and

the

ayadov,but

attributed,like Isocrates,confounds

thought is implied rather

second

The

of the

Nothing,

and
xpjj/toTto-TtK^

that

(307A)

allusion to Isocrates
and

of the attention

majorityare

pursuitsthe

admission

the "contradiction"

that the

seen

the criticism is

whom

from

the casual

defendinghimself

unworthy

eristic is

from

both
are
iroKmKr) trpa^ii
worthy friend the business

philosophyand

with Crito is often missed.""

closingconversation

inferred

are
jyqropiKr}
ayaSov; or

speakingto

the

77

Shobey

""^

and who think the

phrase hold the borderland of philosophyand politics,
mauled
in
their
rivals
the
first
for
are
tion
badly
place,
privateconversaonly
philosophers
when they fall into the hands of eristics like Euthydemus."''
Socrates,on the other

Prodicus's

admitting defeat,has
hand, though ironically
what

eivai Kaff

vovv

dvev

OTi

think

such

of the Parmenides

intellectual exercise:

rt?

ovra

(136D), ayvoova-i
every

irepl

re

logicalexercise

evTVXpvra

welcomes
of personaldignity,
Socrates,regardless
eptoi Seivm ivSeSvxe t^?

do

to

oldv
Xeyofievoi"!

rots

dBvvarov
re kuI 7rXdvr}";
t^9 Slo,irdvrcavSie^oBov

TavTijs

But

exeiv.

multitude

The

throughout able
C:

Sophist,259

because, in the words

that is

But

unbecoming.
,

ikeyxovraeiraicoKovdelv.^

eKuarov

himself

shown

dialectician in the

of the true
is postulated

a\r}6d

tw

for

occasion

yvnvaaCa"{(ThecBtet,

tuvtu

C).

169

GORGIAS,

PROTAGORAS,

AND

FHMDO,

SYMPOSIUM,

MENO,

REPUBLIC

leading ideas of these dialogueshave alreadybeen studied,and it is not

in detail.'"" We
to analyzethem
acquiescein the presumption that the
may
necessary
and style"without
earlier in manner
somewhat
are
Protagoras, Gorgias, and Meno
The

689

cited

"

Geotb,

e-g., says

In the

is
Enthydemus
and
philoso-

epilogne

dialectic

of true

representative

the

as

^"^
590

Toit

"i

'

places

KpaTioToi!eicrirav

tea Vol.

593305D,
Theiztet., m
rhetorician

pher

the

or

echte

xenophontische

der

und

Sohra-

.V

Se

To"

or.

ay

is

cSto"

X.iyo" W

."., X070.Se, Sov...

helpless in

the

re

Cf

Cf. supra,

nn.

the

Gorgias
Nikokles.

to

the
He

year

Mua.,

philoso-

376 between

is refuted

pp.

79 fl.,who

are

courteously,

proposes
but

Index.

44, p. 52,
the

by DOmklee,
other

tries

To

sensibly, minimized

the

found

ObIso-

an

nothing,

in

common-

in

Bepublic

and
Euripides
by these methods

and

precedes

the

it (c/.Busiria, I, -wittSymp.,
the

upon

^j ^^^.^

^^^^^^^

^^pra,

^^_

very

critics

who

force

Bepublic, 586C, are

chronology, the two

almost

Plato, that

Ph"Bdr.,

apt to

the

calls this

and

the

einem

Schriften, I,

p.

Isocrates

71), and

that

in

in 0"yrgias, 463A, where

Isoc.

is wittily
t"'
SoJaffriKis
"i'*p'"5!
ifiuxi'
epyoi- t'vaji.
by ^"xi' *' "rroxaori"5tkoI irSpeiat. DOmmler
"nicht

banalen

einmal

for the
mark

wOrtliche

Gemeinplatz."

But

Uebereinstimmimg
the

very

point

in
of the

of the lower
word, o-roxao-rucS!,
intentionally employed by Isocrates
Sofaffnic^s
the
superiority of his S6(a to the pretended

jest lies in the substitution

to

by

^l koI

assign

parallels,which
or
rejected by

^j

^.^^y^^^

parodied
to

Mkokles

KleiTie

Isocratean

Helena

style prove

coincidence

to "prove"

contradicts

the

.^ ^^^

^^^^^
^g, a

117,426.

Bhein.

696SUDHAUS,

to

be

can

be easy

Strangely enough,

from

to

"a.

eristic.
''95 See

that

in Plato

Qorgian

follows

which

reference

..roWSo,^...
6.fa"r9a.. The

of either

hands

~.

...

B9"

ideas

It would

Sj/mposmm
198 D)

p. 634.

n,

in

or

Thucydides.

jjjjj^ijjjg Busiria

vvv.

Der

Joel,

B92See

iv

Enthydemus)

and

(Dionysodoms

ital oStoi

A,

or

"Isocrates").

". v.

references

inferred

^lyt^'i^S be

"*"

72

t"

305

Ml

type of thought

cratean

p]jy_ii

index,

Adam
(edition of Republic,
viously, barely conceivable

term

78

The

admittingthat
have

we

there

is any

Pfleiderer
includes

the

to the

or

Symposium

with

previouscareer,

He

many

in

sees

allusions

phase,"which
Symp., 209-12, a

"third

dialogueof Plato's
Laws.

"phases"

different

the

to

the Thecetetus.

and

Republic, the Phcedrus,

first

the

Philebus, Timceus, Critias, and

Plato's

of

review

the

thinks

Thought

development of doctrine.*" There is also, as

thought sufficient to date the Symposium and

the

in

other

to each
relatively

Plato's

of

traceable

evidence

no

seen,

Phcedo

Unity

Republic (p.46). So also Dilmmler, infra,n. 619. It suffices for our purpose
written
after Plato had attained maturityof years,
that all these dialogueswere
after 395,^" the Gorgias after Isocrates's
and
presumably of thought the Meno
the Symposium after the year 385,"""
the Phcedrus
probablyafter
Against the Sophists,
That
That
the
the Phcedo
cites the Meno
is probable."'"
Isocrates's Panegyricus.
and, having other
Republic alludes to the Phcedo is possible,but not necessary;"''
the
be
later
than
the
that
to
for believing
Phcedrus
reasons
Gorgias, we may assume
Phcedrus, 260 D, 261 A, alludes to Gorgias,462 B, without, however, admittingthe
yewaia
validityof such arguments as Siebeck's suggestion (p.116) that Ope/xfiara
of the

"

the Xoyoi

characterizes
intentionally
But

it is idle to pursue

The

chief witness

of his

later than

and

Timceus, and

it

that
please,

his fortieth and

its agreement

from

importantidea which
between

Plato

the other

with

Isocrates

was

will

sixtieth year

band, though

probably later, nothing

is in point of fact

of the dialectical

most

or

serve

(Phcedr., 269 D;

dicts
contra-

370,

and

we

say, if

may

of age, but

be

in

learned

any

But

Pfeoedo.
des

Pfleidekee

Symposion

Trauerklange

des

(p. 92) finds

die

auf

....

vorhergehenden

that

of

knowledge

of rhetoric,

rhetoric

make

69'Zellee

says,

the

assumes

"must"

later

be

than

But

Oorg., and

Phcedo

Lust
Lust

ist das

comic
the

the

at

In

Sterbedialogs

nunmehr

touches

the

good
20.

Lust

Hoen

the
aU
finds

ist nicht

about

returns
the

of the

in that

the
I

is to the

events

for his proof

das

identity

in

and

the
is

an

(1) Die

of the

that

just conceivable
Vol.

(Vermes,

XXXII,

418.

year

Plato

an

sees

faith

in

thinks

tragic

apology

announcement

and
for

73 A ; Meno, 82 ff.
illustrated

often

examination

in the

But

commits

no

we

that, as

102), the

p.

will not

WrL-

allusion

still waiting

are

intentional

anachron-

It is not

necessary,

ivafjvijirit
by

for Plato

geometrical

probcross-

school.

602iJep., 611B, oi

(Aoyoi) need

aMat

not

be

the

specific

proofs of immortality given in the PTkecJo.

603Siebeck, however

(3) Die
he

youthful

^'^'^

Protag.,

Gute.

Phcedo

of

^i

pleasurable,
subsequent

Lutoslawski

Symposium

dialogue

It is, of course,

affirms

which

Protagoras,

and

life from
age

end

p.

600193 A.
amowitz

Lebens-

isms.

Phaedr., Symp.,

middle

the

psychology that
opinion, knowledge

following Denkfortschritt

(2) Die

rules

and

Gorg., 495 ff., and

the

which

discussion

poet
comic

to

the

supra,

BOsel
in

away

immortality
that

c/.

Gute.

ist das

falling

of

possible

Isocratean

discourse.

527, that

p.

identity

dialogues.

dialectic

of the

various

of the

art in Plato's

an

of the subject-matter

closely the

too

knowledge

"

"das

schwermtltigernsten

the

pressing

by

of eirwrr^nTj

meanings
might

17) in

Sophist^

we

date

well."""

that
Harmonien
einer wiedergefundenen
eirttrr^juiij,die verklArten
commonplace
and "^va-ts
It's a poor
are
that
indispensable to the complete rhetor.
stimmung folgen lasst."
jLteXenj
argument
in any pursuit,
work
both ways
1
They are requisites of the ifcaebs avwvtffTTjs
Nor is anything
is distinctly stated in Bep., 374D E.
to
as
699go A.
^^^Supra, pp. 19, 40 S., 43.
Isoc.

and

Laws

but they do not

dialogues,
distinctly
suggest."'

fifty-five
years

as

Allegro

the

it does not

and

about

of the

be

can

380

than

completesrather

it

its results.""* It is earlier than

somewhere

On

of the metaphysicians.
67rii7T^iiiT|
the Phcedr,

all

publishedwhen

was

but
dialogues,""

imply

probablythan

dated
generally

It is

between

Socratic

methods

their

it,and they developno

contradict

inferred

most

of the minor

most

them,

unity of Plato's thought is the Republic,the great work

complete synthesisof his teaching. It is presumably

to the

the

maturityand

Ausgearbeitetes."
Herangepflegtes,

"etwas

as

further.
aKiafiay^Ca

this

the

fuller discussion

avflir 6e Treplovtou,

ea^v

(p.126),thinks

of courage

^ovKji

en

that

"promised"
KaWiov

the

Laches

is

in iSep.,430 C,

SUnev.

*"*

C/.

"^^

Supra,

nn.

606

See

dates
it in 375.
(pp. 551 ff.) who
The
the Ecclesiazousae
the Bepublic and
between

coincidences

supra,

Zelleb

pp.

14, 15.

244, 375, pp.

34, 36, 42, 46, 55, 62.

,

so

The

would

be

not

that in which
To

easy to
we

suggest a
read

now

variations
(2)slight
The

471 C
in

VII.

But

from

to all men,

the
C D

aiwviov
fiedrjv

the rewards

; and

the

to

few

part is

good

will not

366 A B

sake.
is

no

and

ideas

to

added

be

soul

is

ignoredin

D ; and

is assumed

bear

on

verses

at future rewards

point.

part,II- V,
form

in its sublimest
Tode

dem

nach

kom-

unwarranted

an

representdeath

always have

Plato would

second

the

the earliest

is
(III,cap. iff.),
that

of doctrine.

psychologyhas

Plato's

"Was

scrutiny.

as

terrible

repudiated.The

the
against low ideals
virtue
that
proving
nBr)ave7ri"f)6ovov
(612B) to add

directed

are

that

at the time ; and

differences

here

may

posed
com-

(1) it is assumed

"

of first
to emphasize the necessity

intended

there

presentationthan

Republic were

the

serious

imply

to

beachten"

idea which

an

"

own

of

to the author

known

not

theory of

words

fallacies

other

polemicagainstHomeric

are

or

"

for its

effective order

and

to two

taken

are

nicht
"f)v\aKe"i

and

is desirable

in any

arguments

die

Plato's

even

in 363

sneers

his

soUen

moge,

inference

as

Thought

fact,the "parts"of

immortalityof the
a paradox in X, 608

the

; first appears

VI,

men

is had

this method

that

says

of

matter

phrasing

considered.""

alreadybeen

natural

more

recourse

in

of
application

Rohde"'

mentioned
explicitly

is not

Plato's

of

them.

prove, then, that, as

at different times

what

Unity

When

that

is

done, it

in
inconsistency

more

is

in
reintroducing

nobler

form

the

drawal
gods bestow upon virtue after death than there is in the withthe
tion
affirmain
a
nd
that
the
to
be
is
man
unjust,
just
reputed
supposition
that in fact honesty is the best policy,
though that is not the sole or the chief
for practicing
it."^
reason
of all reference to immortalityin the first nine books would
The omission
prove
nothing. It is equally ignored in the first nine books of the Laws, and is first
in XII, 959.
mentioned
Glaucon's dramatic
surpriseat Socrates's confident
explicitly
The idea is familiar to the Gorgias
assertion of immortalityproves nothing for Plato.
And
if we
and
Meno.
even
deny the reference of 611 B to the Phcedo, and with
Rohde
place the Phcedo after the Republic,the tenth book of the Republic knows the
and cannot
therefore be placed before the Gorgias
the rpiTO'; dvOpcoiro^,
ideas,and even
make
of
from
who
those
use
development. In speaking of immortality
arguments
by
and limit the doctrine of the tripartite
soul."' He can
Plato naturally
tries to qualify
in
its
fall
and
affirm
his
faith
that
true nature
back
the
poetical
imagery
only
upon
of
soul
must
be
and
It
of
is a waste
one
the)
simple.
ingenuityto
(immortalpart
find
consistent
this
to
in
in
the
a
Phcedrus;
chronological
development
point
attempt
IIand
is
It
Timceus.
that
Diimmler
V, X; Phcedo,
true, as
Rep.,
argues,"*
perfectly
which

premiums

the

of the

eioSMpj-a,

pp.

true, find
Socrates
the

36,-40 S.

en

(p. 144) and

612SIEBECK
fault

this

with

of the tenth

hypothesis

like

book
a

psycAe,

DOmmlee

too,
does

lawyer,

on

not
and

the

588 ff.

pp.

(Vol. I,

p.

ground

248), it is
that

the

point of
repeat every
forgets the stipulation

the unjust man

to have
the power,
if detected,
was
to buy off the gods.
defy punishment, or the wealth
also objects that " nachdem
Dflmmler
die Perspektive auf

that
to

die

Ewigkeit

als myiuTa

SSAa

der

Tugend

bezeichnet

war,

kann

irgendwelche

mehr

interessieren."

utilitaristische
Terrible

i"

logic 1

Begrflndung
Are

modem

nicht

believers

consideraimmortality wholly indifferent to utilitarian

als Zugabe
! And
had
Plato
interest
in the
no
life is, even
in this
psychological proofs that the virtuous
world, the most pleasurable, given in the Laws, the Phili'
*""i and the ninth book of the iJep"6IJc?
tio^is

"

"

^^^Supra,
61*

Vol.

pp.

I, pp.

42, 46.
256 S.

Paul

if the soul is

meaning. But
nothing for the
produce
and

"inconsistencies"

such

definitions of the

virtues

soul?"*

Lutoslawski, while

the
rejecting

the

that

first book

doctrine.

"This

P. 277:

law

first time

of

being

of

treatment

and

is

....

holds
Pfleiderer,
the

very

of

and

arguments

first time

for the

the

progressive

the force of his

''Here"'

P. 318:

it possible

Gorgias

and reveal traces

formulation

logian
theo-

earthlystate

his

occurs

law of contradiction

of the

in the Phcedo

law of

thought,while

books

of the Republic

it

was

as

and

earlier

metaphysical

law."

word

be

must

The

poetry.

left to cancel

of Krohn

man

prove

modern

any
in

Republic falls between

for the

but

Can

apply to

follow the Phcedo

important step."

Lastly,a

II-V.

illustrates
followingparallel

The

Phcedo,^"

in

as

law

as

fancies

general formulacontradiction,""not only as

thought

of

will

thought, and

human

in

Books

and

sharp

tion of the law of

a

and
that

of the

Phcedo, and that the remaining books

development of

parts loses all

its

relation between

inherent

are

relative dates of Book

to the disembodied

to show

as
justice

the definition of

reallyone,

81

Shoeey

But

the whole

development in Plato's
employ this method
might be

to

attempt
of those

contradictions

another."'

one

of the

said

trace

who

uncritical.

procedureis
when

Plato

he

always

was

have

no
might
praised
poeticgenius,and there was
the
he
But
.*^''
an
as
without
imitator,
Homer
always
regarded
poet
conspicuousirony
ethical teaching must
be interthan
the good, whose
preted
is pleasure rather
aim
whose
fine sayings are
the product of
and
whose
controlled by the philosopher,
or
the
The
of
than
rather
Apology''''^
anticipates Republic in
knowledge.
"inspiration"
in the
whereof
they speak,and the Phcedrus
the doctrine that the poets do not know

sensitive

time

to

Gorgias, 502 BOD,

theory of poeticinspiration.The
of

the

poetry upon

601 B,

stripsfrom

value

poetry

of words

is

is

615

itself

announces

Laws;

discussed, and

where

the

third

and

hints that there is

Cf.

pp.

supra,

6, 7, and

the

p. 641.

HiRMEE,

Republic,

of the

6i8Rn9'P'

(!i7inoT?

.,.,""_

Lutoslawski

veloped

after

Republic
^

the

praises

Homer

Symposium,

and

later

is therefore
without

Plato's

that

says

the

than

and

irony,

of poetry

scorn

the

that

the
1-

earlier

tenth

book

of

Phcedo,
-i,
than

jj^^^^.

4.T,"

J.1--

"

been

while

written
DOmmleb

after

the

in it

Da

,""",,",,620
p/tcedo,

"f
Of

"

r,^n""..

rejection of poetry in the Republic ;

after
the Symposium

(Vol. I, p. 269) places

^''^

the tenth

and

ist

from

calmer

auch

er

The

return

und

Lykurg

95A,

^"t.i"uo,

E"t,
7".,P/KEdrns

"r.+;"afa

1^^

Republic

iSepufclic to

^^^^^ anderen

^^^

as

of the

third book.

ovts

the

and

bitter

more

gerecht

Solon

fact that

andere;

gegen

sieht

er

mood

generous

unter

sich,

"

ouoXovoiaef'*

avTOt

av

."
,

Ttdc

i.

irotTjTuc

J^

.
"

_,
i^aWS,

7j/Lttf ttUTOt?;

"3^ttf

'ext

OUT6

'_

/*.

yap
tc_
.

ij

i-i_i.ir

^^^^

come

Gratylus,

classified

psychologicaldistinctions
that
questionto assume

Hesiod,

^^^

books

of the

-which

take for granted the low estimate

TftecEtetMS, which
,V.T
rtf
+1
1
of f".Q
the
ofX other
thinking
passages
But
Natokp,
thepoet.
could not have
dialogue
a
is positive that such
Phcedrus,

and

,"

Republic,

adornment

the

sees

and

mmd;

deof

and

Gorpios

state
619

influence

like

/xovo-ikt] is

to

more

as

and

the meretricious

profounderdiscussion, based on
But it is begging
brought out in the interveningbooks.
discovered by Plato after the compositionof the
they were
book

the moral

is sufliciently
/tti]u''?o''?
implied in

tenth

the

between

deals with
and

Republic

poet'sdiscourse

third book

pressed. The

be

of the

tone

of the
that

doctrine

differences

fjiifiriai"!.The
cannot

body

the mimetic

where

423,

masses

the

The

poeticdress.

in the

not

in

both

23 C

622

394 D, lirm Si

cf. the

Ion.

and

"at

n^^eto.

Mem,
e-rt

99 E.

rourtui/.

Petto

seriously,

passages

"

"",V''
6e
776 "/, x"

-i,
shows.

'"

OuTjptd

as

TrOfnTn
-

j,
trot^toTaTOs
iv

the

con-

82

Unity

The

Plato's

op

Thought

poetry Plato carelessly

A far more
imitative,proves nothing.'^'
important
speaks as if the former alone were
the
in
made
book
in
the
tenth
is
new
Protagoras
implied
point
alreadydistinctly
the antithesis between
the principleof measure
in the soul and rj tov
(f)aivofievov
differs
mood
of
the
makes
The
to which
its
Svm/it?,""
Symposium
appeal.'^^
poetry
in

emphasizingthe

distinction

and

dramatic

between

narrative

"

from

that of the

the

and

Gorgias

But

Republic.

this does

prove either that

not

the

A banquet at
Symposium is earlier,or that Plato had been mellowed
by success.
which
the
not
and
host
placefor a
Agathon was
Aristophanes a guest was obviously
tician
of the dialecpolemic againstdramatic poetry. But even here the ironical superiority
defend
of the poetsto interpret
their art is
is maintained, and
the inability
or
"^"

revealed.

IDEAS

CONCLUSION.

The

value

that in the

of Plato's life-work

weakness

of extreme

AND

would

old age

NUMBERS.

affected even
if it were
slightly
lightof his philosophydid

be very
the noble

"

It

is not

the

true

go out

the
fog
mysticalPythagoreanism."
prevalenceof the notion is due mainly (1)to the uncritical acceptance of the tradition
concerningPlato's "latest" doctrine of ideas and numbers; and (2)to the disparaging
estimate of the Laws
or
expressedby those who care only for dramatic charm of style,
A word
bigotry"of a few passages.
by radicals like Grote, who are offended by the
in

of

LAWS

THE

in

least true, however, and

"

be said

must

each

on

1. Aristotle's

for Plato

numbers

discussion

of
of ideas

Zeller may

and
Aristotle,
numbers

to

reportsof

no

was

the

often

625

Rep., 602, 603.

626

S" Sai/(pare9,
oiSiv
201 B, KH-Svi/evio,
ye

chooses
much

and

twelfth

I do not

books

of the

62*Pro"aff., 356D.

This

comic.
eiSivat

mv

Tore

eiiroi-.

S" "Ayieui/. Cf. also 223 D, where

elTTes,
"t"avai.,

and
to admit
toC
Aristophanes
compels Agathon
avSpo^ elvai, KtafitoSiavKai TpaytoSiav iiriirrairOai,iroicl*'.
to contradict
is thought
Bepub.^ 395 A, but the contra-

diction

is removed

is

man

in what
by pressing rix"'ri

follows.

One

'^^e

both

This
*t

IS

make

to

by

were

a
as

even

the

the

relation

"

the

upon

No

tragic
of

"

plausibly conjecture

Oe

de

Plat,

id. et numeris
id, doctrina,

much

pretation
the inter-

would

reader
another

muse,

Ion,
to

interpreter
be

limited

be the

doctritia,1828.
pp.

Academy.

by

science, the poet

scientific

inspired

about

justhow

enter

matter

passages

The

only conjecture.

628

himself

deny

of the

it clear

Metaphysics.

forms,

^^"^ Plat,

not

the testimony

be refuted.

"inspired"

may

we
was

tradition

I did not

intend

not, like
we

In

need

that the

the scholastics

If poetry

would

Plato, but

can

not

But

Socrates
avTOv

do

first,that

Plato, and

opinion.
by

logomachy

that

and

of the whole

accept it

to

debated

to Plato.

in

source

of

matter

Zeller
subject.'^"

ideas; second, that the doctrine

to be found

the chief

has

numbers

writings,but adds
thingsof sense.

extant

points:

other

and

the

on

misunderstood

and

is not

been

intolerable

393 C, 394 D.

KaAis

who

doubtless

623

fiT|v

have

one

eleventh

of ideas

ideas

establish two

to

first pointis

he attributed

nonsense

of the

Kai

entities

well

The

numbers.

Aristotle's
of this

intermediate

as

misled

ideas and

subject

I tried

the

in

between

to the relation of mathematical

as

of numbers
which

^'^

testimony of Aristotle,who

accept the
clear

of the

found

is not

intermediate

entities

are

later identification

Trendelenburg'sdissertation

that the doctrine

rightlypointsout

not

points.

of Plato's

account

generallyaccepted since

been

my

of these

31 H.

of

the

could

poetry

to Homer.

meaning.

But

Paul

follow me,

results could

no

be

83

If Aristotle's

won.

testimonybe accepted,there

is

controversy. Plato taught in his lectures the doctrine of ideas and numbers.
to test the argument that
point is not so elusive. It is possible
do
extant
not
of
mathematical
numbers,
writings
recognize an intermediate class
Now
Zeller
students.
yet might easilysuggest the notion to mechanical-minded

end

an

and

Shoeey

of

But

the
and

the second

in his fourth

edition

confounds

the

two

questions.

givesthe impressionthat he
and
Philoponos. He wholly

He

answering me
by a Quellenbelegefrom Aristotle
of a number
of specific
Platonic passages, which
he apparignoresmy interpretation
ently
I have no
takes for the mere
misunderstandingsand blunders of a beginner.'^^
hope of convincing Zeller,nor do I wish to force myself into a polemic with the
master
of all who study Greek
honored
philosophy. But, as Mr. J. Adam, a scholar
whose
scrupulouscandor makes it a pleasureto argue with him, has expressedsurprise
is

of
opinionin spiteof the mass
evidence, I will endeavor tb state my meaning more
plainly.
The
of
the
of
all
ideas,
granted,numbers
hypostatisiation
concepts,once
theory
The
do not differ from
other ideas.
apiOfJ^wp
phrase,ireplairrSiv rmv
(Rep.,525 D),
in his edition

denotes

of the

ideal numbers

are
apidfiov"}

ideas

there is

it

purposes

and

is all

That

will
interpretation

that this

mathematical

that

exovrai

aw/jLara

number.**'

participantin

sense

is true

fj aina

opara

Platonic passage

extant

no

to my

of numbers,

things,things of

educational

For

fit.

the

or

numbered

there is of it,and

I still adhere

Republic that

holds

science

not

mediate
inter-

an

Mathematical
dialectic
and
the
perceptions of sense.
place between
to abstract
525
the
best
abstractions
t
o
ev
are
iid6rj"ri";,
irepl
propsedeutic
Rep.,
A)
[r/
and
other
them
reasoning generally.But there is no distinction of kind between

/[toXa/coV
abstractions,ff"Xi7poi'
(Rep.,524 A
the

between

midway

of its method

vow

pure

the reliance

"

objectsare
are
plainlythe abstract, ideal
Those

It may

"29

read

have

who

only

since, to mention

criticised

sentence

slight
himself

but

makes

nical) and
to

adds

to have

seems

attention,

more

p. 745

on

on

refer-

not

ideas

wholly

between

distinction

{rH iv i^aipeacL Aeyd/iera, almost

illustration

In

ideas.

other

clear

edition

Aristotle

be mentioned.

may

Zeller's interpretation

of De

of

^jt., 432a2,

TOW

tech-

objected

this I

ei-

the

My
usage

te

Begrifle ")

objection

was

showed

that

Begriffe (in

the

ital

otra

oo-a

both

that

rdv

German

Tuv

aicrSi)"!'efew

grammar

and

oltrB-riTiov,
etc., are
or

English

sense

being

v"ntra

divided

into

and

sentence

still

question

of Flilchtigkeit to

of

numbers

the

stands,

classes

two

by

scholar,

competent

any

The

re-ztai.

to leave

quite willing

am

the

translates

Bodier, who

530

translates

^^^m

selves,"which
"

themselves
^^ infra,

by

opiS^ii^,

tok

right.

proved

are

My
the

For

numbers.

point
context

Adam's

"

numbers

is that
and

"

them-

by Philebus,

further

argument

p. 84.

KOI

ira"r).

Aristotelian
also
of the

abstralc-

words).

"

ou7,/",

.^

"

'"'""' "CXI!-

"''"''

^^^

Fhileb., 56 BE.

i"

71-

""

...

,,,"t^

ont

numbers

eiaeo-i To"

fitrpuv

les

les

avTai"

is quite

gg j,^j^ ^^ y^^j

"

to

e. g.,

anssi bien
intelligibles,
concepts abstr-.its (on mathfimatiqnes) que (ceox qui
etc."
objet) les qnaiitfis,
pour
M.

",

abstrakten

its

then

numbers

philosopher.The

the

Another

dissertation.

the

p. 49 of

third

p. 547 of the

from

significant point

mathematical

he

with

he

cases,

he omits

p. 30 ; and

on

that

Tpiroi ai-Spujro!to Bepublic, 596, 597,

the interpretation of their significance

Tim., 31 A, with

and

to add

dissertation
two

In themselves

"mathematical"

learned

of the

" propoB

given

yet

permissible

be

parts of the

other

ence

not

of

-sense.

Bidvoia is

as

that is because

But

hypotheses.

The
voijTa."^^

numbers

science

things. There is no trace of a third kind of number."^''

to apprehend abstractions
mockingly ask the mathe-

numbered

concrete

Bo^a of

the

diagrams (images)and

on

stated to be pure
explicitly

vulgar are

ff.).Mathematical

of dialectic and

84

Unity

The

Plato's

of

Thought

tovtcov
is,irepl
(Rep.,5 26 A), Trept iroloov apiOfimvSiaXe^eade;and the answer
wv
BiavorjOfjvai
an
fiovov iyx^P^h coupled with
expositionthat recalls the Parmenides
stood
of the pure idea of unity.''^ Simple as all this appears, it might easilybe misunderfrom
Mathematics
intermediate
an
was
by the pupils of the Academy.
educational
In cosmogony
numbers
and
geometricalforms are the
point of view.
mediators
between
chaos and the general idea of harmony and measure."^* The
of the vulgar and numbers
of the philosopherwould
numbers
expression,
(arithmetic),
lead a perverse
ask
of
the
in
the
words of the Republic,
to
mathematicians,
ingenuity
of "dyad" and
"triad"
convenient
as
SiaXejecrOe
Trepliromv
apiOfiSiv
; Plato's use
idea
of
and
three
would
for
the
be
two
mistakenlysupposed to imply
pure
synomyms
koI to
innocent
av
a distinction."^^ The
question{Rep.,524 C),rt ovv ttot' eVrt ro fii'ya
would
technicus
for
ultimate
that
it
terminus
was
a
some
(TfiiKpov,^^
mysterious
suggest

maticians

and set students

philosophical
principle,
through the dialogues,and, inasmuch

and

its supposed synomyms

indubitably 2, it might
well be identified with the indeterminate
or
dyad and its supposed equivalents,
any
set a-going,there
other "principle"positedin antithesis to the one.""
The follyonce
limits to its plausible
are
no
developments. All the unanswerable
questionsas to the
relation of ideas to thingsmay assume
specialforms for specialclasses of ideas. Plato
himself

The

of the

problem

of the Academy.
oyfrifiadeh
"before

no

"idea"

in

relations

much

after"

and
of

"Before

in the

million

and

misunderstood

after"

is essential to

Other

inherent

ideas

of the

passage

things,of

rich feast for the

is
Multiplicity

ideas.
be

of numbered

numbers, and of ideal numbers, offered

mathematical

is

/leya -f-a/jLCKpov

as

this for ideas of relative terms

shows

Parmenides.^"

the

hunting it

upon

the supposed
quibblersand
but

number,

in

there

but

number,

the

be

imperfectlycopied by
may
five entirely
of this
things,but is not the number
present in five things? Echoes
scholasticism are
But what
preserved for us in the metaphysicsof Aristotle.
pitiful
there be for attributing
it to Plato?
Adam
himself
can
possiblereason
(Vol.II, p.
oh to ev olov
ev
^ia\e"yea6e
160) repeats the disconsolate question:ireplttoicov apiOyiSiv
Trainl Kal ouSe afUKpov
ttclv
asks:
vnei'Sa^iovTe eanv, Icrov Te eKacrTOv
Siacjiepov
; and
even

"Are

then

we

to suppose

to the
precisely,

phenomena, but t^
the theory of ideas.
unity of
number
633

liovaSot enoo-TTj!

Tail'

p.

are
are

many

ideas of 'one' ?"

many

ideas

every idea is per se

aWi^Xcop Koivavia appears
As

againstthe

the idea.

of Good,

there

that

of instances, we

0/. Idea

one.

that there
that

extent

(Rep.,476A)

seen

must

But

when

forced

are

222; Phileb., 56 E,

ei i^v

to

use

imviSa

iKKfiiSia(/iEpovi7dv
Ti!
oAAijj'
/xvfiiojr (iTjSefiiiiv

when

Phcedo,

636

Plato
he

101 C ; Parmen.,

is using
says

the

terms

(Principles of

149 C j Phcedo,

precisely
Human

as

104.

Berkeley

does

Knowledge,

XI):

the

the

involved

plural.

and

changing

sense

varies."

We

contradiction

phenomena,

nowhere

is:

answer

anything."

idea

"Again, great
exist

The

have

yet, not merely as

The

many.

find

we

Tim., 53 B ff.; Phileb., 66 A.

635

and

of
multiplicity

eii"i.
634

one,

of

Plato

and

as

the

is inherent

in

in

visible
the indi-

on

ideas in

other

does not, however, here

small,

without

with

already

reflected

insist

we

"Yes,

the
frame

637

De

638

133 C ff.; cf. A. J. P.

swift and

slow

are

allowed

to

mind, being entirely relative,

or

position

Plat, id., p. 37.

Vol. IX

p.

288.

of

the

organs

of

in terms
one,

the
pluralize

"one."

He

Paul

Shoeey

says:

Of

i. e., the idea of one,

presentin

complex idea,etc. ?

Of course,

more

and
number

still

of others.

this

all;but only as

in

more

each

85

what

as

do you

numbers

essential

and

constituent

speak

of units
multiplicity

implies

easilyevaded than that

imagery of patternand

copy,

any

while,in

part of that into which

the

second

the

case,

idea

KoivwvCa
we

is

an

the

part of

in each

may

the

ber,
num-

it appears

idea is multiplied
when
of the idea tt) tS)v awnaTcov
multiplication
t^ dXKrjkav Koivavia,because in the first case

The

in which

is
use

essential

in

more

the
stituent
con-

paradox
specialcase
from the path of philoglaring. But Plato is not one to be frightened
sophical
verbal.
In
which
he
a
as
paradox
rightlyregarded
largely
consistencyby
of
itself
Parmenides
he amuses
himself by showing that the idea
one
apprehended
it enters.

In the

of numbers, the

is still more

the

"

"

hiavoCa

TTj

Kaff"

fwvov

breaks

avTo

up

into

many."''This

does

make

not

necessary

mathematician

the

to

pxire absolute

idea

it the

less

apprehend
unity and
restore it as fast as it is disintegrated
by analysisor the senses.""
will
2. Despite many
of
statelyand impressiveeloquence,the Laws
passages
remain
for those who, like Lucian, read Plato mainly for the
the type of "frigidity"
Our
the
dramatic
of
Phcedrus
the artistic beauty of the Symposium.
or
vivacity
of
mark
the
Plato's
mood
and
that
is not to deny the altered
style
masterpiece
purpose
be safelyneglectedby
that it may
old age, but merely to protestagainstthe notion
different from that of the
the serious student, or that it presentsa doctrine essentially
for the

of

Republic.
If Plato

not

was

studies should

assume

the

Republic,it

the

to rewrite

of

form

was

almost

of detailed
project

political
Greek
possible
will have
postulates

inevitable

that

for
legislation

his

city. But even here, while recognizingthat many of his theoretic

he holds fast in principleto the ideals of the earlier
to be mitigated in practice,"'
and Republic,however, though not a difficult task,
work.''^^ A harmony of the Laws
be given to it here. We need not delayto examine
would demand
more
space than can
siderable
to our
the contribution
of the Laws
knowledge of Greek institutions,or the very conof Aristotle and later
the speculations
it exercised upon
which
influence
have
of the dialogueswe
to students
One
service which it renders
Greek
thinkers.
alreadyoften

noted.

irony,of the game

of eristic.
illustration or
of the dramatic
of questionand answer,
polemicalanalysis
evades
or
contemptuouslyexplainsaway
in the earlier dialogueshe sometimes
Even
refutes.*" In
he
dramatically
portrays or elaborately
an
equivocationwhich elsewhere
often be
the Laws
this is his habitual
the Laws
mood,""and in consequence
may
dramatic
art
Socratic
which
or
of
solution
Platonic
true
irony
problems
quotedfor the
As

the years

wore

on,

naturallygrew

Plato

weary

of Socratic

the

unsolved

to leave

seems

While

acknowledging this
6"Bep.,525E;

639U3A,144E.
642

739 c

Cratyl,

in the earlier

ff., 807

B.

431 A ; Symp.,

6i3Eep.,

sjtpra,
436 C D

187 A ; Euthyd..

277 E.

dialogues.'"

change

n.

E,

647.

of mood,

6"746.

437 A, 454 A;

6"

we
627

must
B,

e*:- Supra,

be

on

our

guard againstthe

627 D, 644 A, 864 B.

pp.

13, 19, nn.

70, 71, 293.

86

Unity

The

exaggerationof

significance
by Grote, Mill, and Gomperz.
substantive
thought at any stage. He cared

of Plato's

the real Plato.

treatment

of the

Republic.

punishment
of
superstitions
imfortunate

In

the

of the

case

in Grote's mind

who

and

the

as

an

end,

the work

to be leader

was

of

of the opposition
in

even

appears

his criticism

prominent in

stillmore

dramatic

Plato's
truths

of natural

the

this

speak of

cannot

which

vision

he treats

the

to

means

view, which

This

little appreciation

only for
a

"ceased

has

had

feelingis intensified by the deep

for the conversion
whimsical
provisions

Laws

by

denied

He
vulgar."**

the

page;

Torquemada

Grote

was

expositionof positivedoctrine

Gorgias and Thecetetus,is

of those

or

author

the

to the ministerial benches."

of the

aroused

repugnance

for

dogmatic Plato who

"

passed over

Grote's

This, which

The

totallydifferent person
and

Thought

its

illustration of the elenchus.

for him

Plato's

of

or
religion

the Laws

the

upon

without

alludingto that
aged Plato as the
to the real significance
view was
accepted
both to misapprehend

of the

conjuredup

he

traded

blind
Pythagorean mysticism makes him totally
of what in wealth of content
This
is Plato's greatestwork.
Mill
from
and
from
leads
them
Mill, and it
by
Grote,
by Gomperz
the true relation of the Laws
his second
to the Republic. Mill says: "Tn
it
is
of
the
that
no
longer mentioned; it
imaginary commonwealth,
Leges, [dialectic]
forms no
Similarly
part of the education either of the rulers or of the ruled.""'
"Plato
old
from
dialectic.
In
the
the last
in
:*'*
his
Laws,
averse
Gomperz
age grew
product of his pen, he actuallyturned his back upon it and filled its vacant placeat
the head

of

of the

statements,

of education

curriculum
if

even

concede

we

false impression,
as
totally
Laws

will show.
But

Republic.

of dialectic and
that

^vXaKa'i
book

to

Plato

not

clearlyas

as

highereducation

complete
TOiK

in

to the

sense

letter,
convey

of the twelfth book

last pages

and

the sixth

in the earlier work

in the state.

astronomy.""' These

the

necessityand

Even

in the first book

state

the

organizationof the

books

seventh

founder

we

must

of the
of the

function
warned
fore-

are

set

over

it

Se St'akri6ov"s
Bia "^povrj(Tea"";
t'oWa?.*^" In the twelfth
tov?
h6^r]"!

fiev

....

the

true

to rewrite

care

and

mathematics

they are
slightstudy of the

does

defines

he

the

with

that

introduced

to these

guardianswho

knowledge and

merely
nocturnal
council which
is to be the anchor of the
a
right opinion. They compose
of the earlydialogues,"^^
state."^' Recurring to the imagery and the manner
Plato tells
the physician,
the general represent intelligence
that as the pilot,
us
appliedto
{vow')
the definite ends of their respective
arts,so this highestcouncil is the head, the soul,
the mind of the state,possessingknowledge of the political
true end of rule.'*'
or
o-"o7ro?
we

are

646

908-10.

648

Greek

cjon,
649

650

a
ir7".,""
like effect
Zellee,

632 C.

There, too
assistants.

of

The

parallelism

{412A, 497 C D)

guardians
In

Laws,

who
818

289.

is

the
a

"

Republic

similar

is obvious.

anticipation

of

as

it is not
There

any

needful
is

no

for the

occasion

for

recent

ii.c'

wiU

of the
higher
surely be able

",

t,

,-^-

Sopftist,Phtlebus,a.ua Pohticus.
between

false point.
g^j ^^

not

practice the dialectical

ui^

iw

t^ distinguish
jg

element

other

of ^povTjo-w will

possessors

Teix (630 E) and

distinguished from the

anticipation
A, there is another
Mathematics
only is mentioned
know

mentioning
"^^^

956.
955, ortc

with

there

p.

p. 466.

occ

pp.

higher education.
Plato is explaining that
because
multitude
to study it profoundly.
of the

KiscMSs., Vol. IV,

x)ms. and

1-1

To

the need

647

Thinkers, Translation,

to possess

are

and
((.pdi/i),r"

is used
"^i"ovr,aK

education.
/car'

elSij^tj-

methods

r,

Zelles's

"

of the
i.i

attempt

the voSt of the Republic

in PAcedo,

69 B.

"

""2Proto0., 311 B;
Bep., 333.
653961,962.

Gorff., 447, 448, 449 E

Sitaj/d., 291 C

88

The

Unity

Plato's

of

Thought

illustrated by his return in the pages justanalyzed to some

of
thought is strikingly
the favorite ideas of the Republic and earlier dialogues.
It is not necessary
to prolong this study. The
Timceus, so far as it affects our
I have
studied
as
a whole
argument, has already been considered.""' The TimcBUS
""

elsewhere.''^"

objectof

The

easilybe
I have

misunderstood.

not

moods,

this discussion

and

therefore

I may

expression"unity of Plato's thought"may

in conclusion,to repeat that
be permitted,

the aid of
reject

and

sober

inevitable

and

to

minor

the

sophisticate
away the obvious
beliefs from youth to old age.

meant

would

and

Nor

the

in

critical method

of

in Plato's

variations

ment
study of such developstatistics.""
My
style
type of thinkers whose

simply that Plato on the whole belongsrather to the

rather
philosophyis fixed in earlymaturity(Schopenhauer,Herbert Spencer),
thesis is

the class of those

tried to show

who

receive

that the method

revelation

new

And
(Schelling).

decade

every

proceedson

which

than

to

I have

interpretati
contrary assumptionleads to mis-

the

writings. The illustrations given are merely typical. There has

the opinions of contemporary Platonists.
been
no
attempt to catalogueexhaustively
The polemic is,I trust,not discourteous, and is,I am
disloyal.
sure, not intentionally
In any case, it turns generally
the meaning or relevancyof specific
on
passages and can
in Mill's statement
for its prominence may
be found
easilybe tested. Some excuse
mind
and purpose
that "there
so
few, if any, ancient authors concerning whose
are
Plato."
false
are
as
current,
demonstrably
opinions
concerning
many
of his

667GOMPERZ

supports

of Plato's

tendency

his

mind

view

in the

of

kind of antilogy.
the Sophist to every
another.
The
thing and dialectic
one
chus

is described

from

eristic

indicated

(230BfE.); and
the keenest
its

own

and

hoih

dialectic

ground

the
in

anti-dialectical

the

by the

Laws

But

surely eristic is
elen-

Socratic

true

diificulty of distinguishing
a

locus

the Sophist
in order

the

to meet

iSoph., 259 CD).

in the

classicus

and

In

it

Sophist
employ

PoUticus

and

defeat

eristic

the

Philebus,

thinks

Goraperz

hostility of

on

which

of truth

and

Timceus

with

is still the

Plato

it is unreasonable

dialectic,and
Laws

late, dialectic

{Phileb., 58). But

had
to

repetitions

for all in the Sophist, PoUticus,

once

668

e.

669 a.

p. 37.

Supra,

6'OAs,
Anwendung
etc.,1903.

g., that

auf

of

Platon

expect

interests
him

of what
and

to

had

than

fill the

been

said

pp.

395 "f

Philebus,

J. P., Vol.

"Die
Eittee,
und
Goethe,"

science

highest

other

IX,

in

Sprachstatistik
N"ue

Jahrbiicher

INDEX
AfilivriiTK,
32,43,44,19,n. 109.
AvdptajTOqfL"Tpov, 67.
Cardinal
virtues, 12.
15.
Charmides,
of, 54.
Copula, ambiguity
Courage, 11, 15, n. 43.
Cratylus, 75 "E.,54, 56.
Definition, 13, 16, 66, n. 86;
50 S.
by dichotomy,
Dialectic, 74, 86 ffi: negative
S.
17
goes too far,
50 S.
Dichotomy,
Eristic, 13,14, 19 n. 108,50, 77,
n.667.

Ethics, 9 ff.
Euthydemus,

54.
76 ff.,
Euthyphro, 12, 31.
tional,
Fallacies
of Plato, inten4, 6, 20, 23 n. 137, 54,
57 n. 426, n. 32, n. 42, n. 70,
n.
106, n. 528, n. 548.
Freedom
of the will, 9.
500.
n.
Generalizations,
Good, idea of, 16 ff.,74.
Gorgias, 22,31,32, 25 n. 167, 77.

forms
Government,
of, 62.
and virtue, 25 ff.
Happiness
20.
Hedonism,
Hedonistic
calculus, 23.

Heraclitus, 28, 68.

Hippias Minor, 10 n. 38.
culties
Ideas, theory of, 27 ff.; diffiof, 36, 52, 84; not
concepts merely, 29, 30, 38,
of God,
39; not thoughts
30, 38, 65jn. 512 ; origin of,
late"
dialogues,
32; in
83 ff.
37 ff.; and
numbers,
Isocrates, 71, 72, 77.
Laches, 15, n. 603.
Laws, 85 ff.
tary.
Lie, voluntary and involun10

38.

n.

19
(epu/?),

Love

Lysis, 18, 19.

Materialism,
Matter

or

ff.

68, 69, n. 283.

not firi 6v,

space,

503.

502,
38,
Merw, 32,33, 77.
Mi) Of, fallacyof, 53 ff.
n.

n.

Method
(icaT eifiij,
etc.) 51.
Minor
dialogues, dramatic,
13, 15.
Negative dialectic,goes too
far, 17 ff.
'OvofJ-araand p^/xara, 56.
57 ff.,34, 36, 37.
Parmenides,
ndvTO.
pel, 68.
Phcedo, 35, 41, 77.
Phoedrus, 71 ff.,19.
Philebus, 17 n. 93, 22, 23, 43,
46, 63 ff.

Pleasure,22; negativity of,

23, 24 ; in mind,
45,46.
Plato's
Poetry,

toward,

not

body,

attitude-

81 ff.

Political
art, 17, 62.
PoUticus, 60 ff.,44.
12 n. 48, 20, 21,
Protagoras,
77.

Psychology,
(Thecetetus)

40

ff., 66

ff.

Psychologicalterminology,
47 ff.

Republic, 78 ff.,14, 26, 35 n.

238, 41, 42, 55, 51, n. 375.
Socratic
ignorance, 6; in
minor
tic,
dramadialogues
15.
Socratic
paradoxes,

Soul, immortality

9.

of, 40 ff.,

80.

Soul, tripartite,42.
Sophist, 50 ff.

Sprach-Statistik, 1, 5,

n.

10,88.
SufaiTioi/,n. 461.
15.
2u0po(riivTj,
Symposium,
19, 77.
the two, 12
Temperaments,
n.
59, 13 n. 70, 62 n. 481.
66
ff.,
Thecetetus,
33, 55.
Timceus^ 37, 88.
Utilitarianism, 20 ff.
Vice, involuntary, 9.
Virtue, is knowledge, 10;
unity
of, 10; coincides
with
*25 ff.
happiness,