In this paper, I aim to explore the structure of the exercise in the second part of the Parmenides. In analyzing the transitional section, I claim that in addition to diairesis, there is another method of division, namely, cross-division, which Porphyry terms chiasmus. On this basis, I explain how Plato uses chiasmus to divide the exercise into eight hypotheses, in which the subjects of the paired hypotheses (I–VI, II–V, III–VII, and IV–VIII) are the same and those (...) of the nonpaired hypotheses differ. In closing, I reconstruct the universal scheme of the exercise on the basis of Plato’s use of chiasmus. (shrink)

I address two seemingly unrelated topics: the first is the subject and formulation of the hypotheses and the second is the number of hypotheses. On the topic of the subject of the hypotheses, my position is that we are initially given an indefinite monad, a “one”, which is in no case “the one”, “the one itself”, or the form of unity. We are meant to read the hypotheses with the question in mind, “what one is this?” (...) If we do so, we are confronted with strikingly different answers, which, when taken together, point us toward key insights into the nature of intelligibility. On the topic of the number of hypotheses: we are led to expect four, but we are given eight. My position is that we are meant to disarm apparent contradictions between paired hypotheses, especially H1-H2 but also H3-4, 5-6, and 7-8, because doing so will help us further determine the different types of monad Parmenides has in view. In the end, two primary types of monad emerge from the process of disambiguation, namely, form and sensible particular, and we, having differentiated these types of “one”, will have gathered resources for understanding how sensible particulars are grounded in forms. (shrink)

Plato’s method of hypothesis is initiated in the Meno, is featured in the Phaedo and the Republic, and is further developed in the Theaetetus. His method of collection and division is mentioned in the Republic, is featured in the Phaedrus,and is elaborated with modifications in the Sophist and the Statesman. Both methods aim at definitions in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions. In the course of these developments, the former method is shown to be weak in its treatment of sufficient (...) conditions, and the latter is shown to be comparably weak in its treatment of necessary conditions. A third method, which avoids these difficulties, is introduced in the first part of the Parmenides and is applied in connection with the eight hypotheses that follow. This application yields a demonstration of serious shortcomings both in historical Eleaticism and in the Eleatically-inspired theory of Forms in the Phaedo and the Republic, along with a demonstration of comparative strengths in historical Pythagoreanism and in the Pythagorean- inspiried theory of Forms in the Statesman and the Philebus. (shrink)

But though the illumination cast on the text by this approach may be only a narrow band of light, it is nevertheless a brilliant one. The hypotheses do in fact, it is shown, lend themselves to treatment as a constructive "metaphysics of unity" in which each stage of the argument explores some further aspect of any entity which is one. This is a topic of genuine concern to all philosophy. Whether we are atomists or Hegelian idealists, our thinking involves (...) decisions as to what constitutes an entity--a "real" unit of being. And once we establish certain conditions as necessary for the existence of anything that is to be some one thing, we find we have made a far reaching and systematic philosophic decision or discovery. The thesis here advanced, that Plato's eight successive discussions of "the one" constructively develop necessary aspects of any unit that can exist, thus relates a problem of Platonic scholarship to philosophy more generally. (shrink)

An interpretation of the “Parmenides” is proposed in base to the Plato’s “unwritten doctrines”. The greek author demonstrates in this dialogue that with the One only is impossible to think (hypothesis I), and this is why a principle of difference is required; that with the ontological conception of this difference neither, because contradictory conclusions would be followed (hypothesis II); and that without the One isimpossible to think, too (hypothesis III). These conclusions suggest the reader that the One is necessary (...) to think, but another or other principles must be searched to stablish a dialectic. Plato confirms this way the parenetic character of his dialogues respecting at the same time the selfconstrained taboo of the “unwritten doctrines” (he doesn’t mention the undefinite dyad). To come to these conclusions the author ofthis paper proposes a plan of the second part of this work, that divides it in three hypothesis, not in eight, like is usual today, and analyzes the categories that sustain the argumentatives subdivisions of each one of the hypotheses: the structure of all the hypotheses is the same. All this in critical discussion with the actual bibliography about the topics. (shrink)

Parmenides is generally recognized as Plato's most difficult dialogue. This work argues that the key to unlocking the puzzles of Parmenides II lies in the proper interpretive pairing of the eight hypotheses under which its arguments are grouped.

A appreciation and critical discussion of RE Allen's Plato's Parmenides. I argue that, contra Allen, the Parmenides is not an aporetic dialogue and that the eight hypotheses are not governed by the so-called "dilemma of participation." Rather, the apparent contradictions between and within the hypotheses function to elicit from the reader a distinction in kind between the sorts of one that forms, on the one hand, and their sensible participants, on the other, are and to (...) illumine the 'relation' of participation. (shrink)

An impressive display of various modes and levels of argumentation, defending the view that the hypotheses in the Parmenides form an integrated set of indirect proofs that show the necessary presupposition of a doctrine of forms and the inevitable failure of understanding to articulate such a doctrine. To support his interpretation, Brumbaugh appeals to the historical context of the Academy, the aesthetic form of the Parmenides, and the relation of this dialogue to the rest of Plato's thought. (...) Brumbaugh offers his own critical edition and translation of the dialogue. A volume of noteworthy scholarship, offering an incentive for creative thought.--R. C. N. (shrink)

Dans le livre VI de son commentaire sur le Parménide, Proclus rend compte des interprétations des « hypothèses » du Parménide proposées par ses devanciers. Le présent article étudie l’exégèse des hypothèses par le premier commentateur que Proclus examine, à savoir Amélius, le disciple de Plotin. Après une présentation des vestiges de son commentaire sur le Parménide, j’analyse trois aspects particulièrement intéressants de son exégèse : 1) à la différence de la plupart des commentateurs néoplatoniciens, Amélius distinguait non pas neuf, (...) mais huit hypothèses. Je soutiens que, en considérant la dernière section (Prm. 165e2-166c2) comme dépourvue de tout contenu positif, Amélius la fusionnait avec la précédente – lecture du texte qui n’a pas été reprise par les défenseurs modernes d’une division en huit hypothèses. 2) Amélius suppose que chaque hypothèse décrit une réalité, mais le sens précis de certaines identifications est difficile à saisir : quels sont les trois types de matière associés aux hypothèses 5-7? Ces trois matières correspondent probablement à trois entités qu’Amélius trouvait dans le Timée : la chōra/matière première, le niveau des éléments-traces et l’univers ordonné. 3) Sur un point au moins, l’exégèse d’Amélius contrevient à l’ordre hiérarchique descendant des sujets des hypothèses (procédant de la réalité la plus élevée jusqu’à la dernière), qui était un présupposé incontesté de l’interprétation de tous les commentateurs néoplatoniciens. Je soutiens que cela est dû à un autre principe exégétique, selon lequel la qualité négative d’une hypothèse (à l’exception de la première) signifie une sorte de dégradation de l’entité correspondante. Puisque, dans la deuxième partie du Parménide, les hypothèses négatives alternent avec les positives, ce principe supplémentaire entre en conflit avec la disposition linéaire descendante impliquée par le principe hiérarchique. Dans la conclusion de l’article, je montre comment l’analyse de l’exégèse d’Amélius permet de mieux comprendre le développement ultérieur de l’exégèse ancienne du Parménide. (shrink)

The Parmenides is arguably the pivotal text for understanding the Platonic corpus as a whole. I offer a critical analysis that takes as its key the closely constructed dramatic context and mimetic irony of the dialogue. Read with these in view, the contradictory characterizations of the "one" in the hypotheses dissolve and reform as stages in a systematic response to the objections that Parmenides earlier posed to the young Socrates' notions of forms and participation, potentially liberating Socrates (...) from his dependence on sensible simile and yielding a distinctively conceptual articulation of the difference and relation of forms and their sensible participants. The dialogue as a whole thereby functions as the means for the "conversion" of the soul to eidetic being for which Plato has the elder Socrates call in Republic VII. (shrink)

The subject of the paper is Plotinus’ theory of the One. The motif to work on the issue was the need of a systematic treatment of this problem, still missing in the writings of Slovak historians of philosophy. The intention of the paper is the presentation, analysis and critical interpretation of the remarkable origins of Plotinus’ theory. The paper deals further with the question of the sources of Plotinus’ theory of the One in Plato. The introductory general theoretical reflections on (...) the origins of Plotinus’ theory is followed by a detailed text analysis of the books 6 and 7 of Plato’s Republic and by the analysis of the first and second hypotheses of the second part of the dialogue Parmenides. (shrink)

This paper examines how the exercises offered to the young Socrates in the Parmenides can be understood as an educational practice, or a gymnastic that is prior to and instrumental for defining forms. To this end, I argue that the subject of the exercises given to Socrates can be understood as an open and indeterminate ‘one’, rather than a form per se. I show that the description of the gymnastic exercises, the demonstration of the hypotheses themselves, and the (...) language concerning the ‘one’, are consistent with an indeterminate subject ‘one’. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Plotinus and the Parmenz'des B. DARRELL JACKSON IN 1928 E. R. DODDSARGUED that the first two hypotheses of Plato's Parmenides are the primary source of Plotinus' doctrines of the One and of Nous. I Dodds' main evidence was a list of parallels between the Parmenides and the Enneads? He argued further that the Neoplatonic interpretation of the Parmenides as positive metaphysics was neo-Pythagorean in origin. (...) Several Plotinus scholars have accepted and extended Dodds' view of the importance of the Parmenides for Plotinus. This group includes ]~mile Br6hier, ~ A. H. Armstrong, 4 Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer, 5 and Paul Henry. n But Dodds' position is by no means universally accepted. Elmer O'Brien has recently argued that the Plotinian One was derived ultimately from Philo and mediated to Plotinus through Albinus and Numenius. 7 He says that Dodds' case, though good, is not convincing. It. A. Wolfson has been the great advocate of the Philonic origin of Plotinus' views. According to Wolfson, the doctrines attributed by Plotinus to Plato are not Plato's but mainly Philo's. 8 Others see Plotinus in varying degrees of dependence upon Plato. Philip Merlan holds that Plotinus is more in debt to the immediate successors of Plato and to Aristotle's interpretation of Plato than to the Platonic writings themselves. 9 C. J. de Vogel sees Plotinus as dependent upon Plato for a hierarchy of being which was accepted and elaborated by various middle Platonists and Gnostics. 1~According to de Vogel, the Parmenides wus not importan% in this hierarchy tradition, n In this article I shall re-examine Dodds' position. I believe the case for Plotinus' dependence upon the Parmenides can be strengthened. I shall try to do this by examining the systematic relation of Plotinus' thought to the Parmenides. Dodds x"The Parmenides of Plato and the Origin of the Neoplatonic 'One'," The Classical Quarterly, XXII (1928), 129-142. 2Ibid., 132 f. *In the introductions to Enneads V.3 (esp. pp. 43 f., 46 f.), V.5 (pp. 87 ft.), VI.4-5 (pp. 161163,165-168),and VI.7 (pp. 49, 60) in his Bud~ edition and translation of the Enneads (Paris, 1931-38). 4The Architecture of the Intelligible Universe in the Philosophy of Plotinus (Cambridge, at the University Press: 1940), pp. 14-28. In his article "Plotinos", Vol. 21, pt. 1 of Paulys Real-Encyclopgdie der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, 1951, cols. 552-554. eIntroduction to the second edition of Stephen MacKenna's translation of the Ennead.~ (New York: Pantheon Books Inc., n. d.), pp. xli-xliv. Elmer O'Brien (ed. and trans.), The Essential Plotinus (New York: Mentor, 1964),p. 15. 8"Albinus and Plotinus on Divine Attributes," Harvard Theological Review, XXXXV (1952), 115. 9From Platonism to Neoplatonism (2n ed. rev.; The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1960). 10"On the Neoplatonic Character of Platonism and the Platonic Character of Neoplatonism," Mind, LXIII (1953), 43-64. 11Ibid., 58. [3]5] 316 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY considered only parallel terminology. I shall in addition look at parallel argumentation and conclusions. Furthermore, since Dodds accounts only for Plotinus' first two hypostases, I shall consider the relation of the third hypostasis (soul) to the Parmenides. My primary interest is not the source of Plotinus' interpretation of the Parmenides but the way he carries that interpretation out. TM The former issue has often been focal in the literature on this subject. ~8It is certain thay many of the ideas used by Plotinus were already in circulation. But it is equally certain that in his combination of these ideas of a hierarchy, of transcendence, etc., Plotinus is original. I shall argue that this originality of combination is largely determined by an interpretation of the Parmenides. I should add that I am not concerned with whether Plotinus' interpretation is correct. ~4 In the following pages I shall attempt to show three things: (1) how Plotinus explicitly interprets the Parmenides, (2) to what extent he draws upon the language of the Parmenides, and (3) to what extent Plotinus' system may be understood by its relation to the Parmenides. I. Plotinus' Interpretation of the Parmenides The obvious place to begin an analysis of Plotinus' relation to the Parmenides is Enneads V... (shrink)

In the global academic capitalist race, academics, institutions and countries’ symbolic power results from the accumulation of scientific capital. This paper relies on the perspectives of system actors located at the institutional, national and international levels to assess the perceived importance of eight systemic factors in contributing to the comparative advantage of social-democratic regimes, namely Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. A deductive thematic analysis performed on 56 transcripts and a one-way repeated-measure ANOVA performed on 324 questionnaires confirmed the (...) class='Hi'>hypotheses regarding the positive influence of academic traditions and internationalization. This study contributes to the development of a varieties of academic capitalism approach to apprehend how political-economies condition higher education systems’ comparative advantage. (shrink)

I myself became interested in textual work when I began checking the logical rigor of Plato’s Parmenides hypotheses. To my great surprise, the proof patterns were not simply valid, but as woodenly uniform and rigorous as Euclid’s Elements. Such rigor was exactly what a Neo-Platonist like Proclus would have expected, admired, and possibly imposed; it is not paralleled anywhere else in Plato. At that time, it was believed that the three primary manuscripts containing this dialogue—Oxford B, Venice T, (...) and Vienna W—came from a common archetype of a date as late as the fifth century, and that the only other records of the text of any extent—the lemmata in Proclus’ Commentary and the quoted passages in Damascius’ Problems—were, or at least could be, equally late. Only some evidence that the text as the ninth century manuscripts have it had been in this rigid form before the fifth century could finally settle the question of whether it was Plato’s own or that plus stringent re-styling. I thought that if there were traces of independent descent from some earlier archetype or archetypes, a dragnet technique applied to a collection of all the reported variant readings ought to catch them. (shrink)

This paper argues that the resolution of the dilemma of participation presented in the first part of Plato’s Parmenides is a central purpose of the arguments of the first hypothesis and the beginning of the second hypothesis in the second part of the dialogue. I maintain that the training demonstrated by Parmenides in the first and second hypotheses, by shifting the consideration away from sense objects to intelligible objects and away from forms to the one, enables (...) class='Hi'>Parmenides to develop an understanding of what it means for anything to be one. This understanding shows that multiplicity is not inimical to the one remaining one when participated in. It argues for an intelligible one that is divisible and still remains one when divided. The model of participation in the second part of the dialogue differs from that in the first part where the dilemma of participation initially arises, insofar as there is a strong ontological connection in part two between the one and whatever participates in the one, a connection that is not present in part one, where sense objects participate in intelligible forms. I conclude by taking stock of how far the resolution of the dilemma of participation has been progressed to resolution by 144e7 and what problems still remain to be analysed and resolved. (shrink)

1. The principal question I want to raise is that of the interpretation of what you call Parmenides' "wildly paradoxical conclusions about the impossibility of plurality and change." An argument that leads to a truly paradoxical conclusion is always open to construction as a reductio ad absurdum. And the biographical tradition represents Parmenides--quite unlike Heraclitus, for instance--as a reasonable and even practically effective man, not at all a fanatic. It therefore seems natural to ask, if he maintained a (...) paradoxical doctrine, whether it did not possess for him an interpretation that made some sense. Further, setting aside this not very weighty prima facie argument, I think the search for plausible interpretations is worthwhile in any case: for to make a rational assessment of the historical evidence one needs the widest possible survey of hypotheses to choose among; since conclusions in such matters are always uncertain, a list of possibilities may retain a kind of permanent value, as the best we can do; and readings which are even dismissed as unsound on adequate critical grounds may still be of interest, both for the understanding of historical influence--I have in mind in the present case especially Parmenides' influence on Plato--and for our own philosophical edification. (shrink)

Journal Name: Apeiron Issue: Ahead of print.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Parmenides’ Lesson: Translation and Explication of Plato’s ‘Parmenides’ by Kenneth M. SayreHenry TelohKenneth M. Sayre, author and translator. Parmenides’ Lesson: Translation and Explication of Plato’s ‘Parmenides’. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1996. Pp. xx + 383. Cloth, $50.00.Kenneth Sayre has written a masterful translation and commentary on Plato’s Parmenides. The translation is literal but readable, and the commentary is informative, challenging, (...) and close to the text. Sayre’s main concern, and what he takes to be the “main problem of interpretation” (xi) is “what to make of Plato’s treatment of the several hypotheses that constitutes the second portion of the dialogue.” Sayre devotes over half of his book to the second half of the Parmenides, and anyone who knows Plato’s text will infer correctly that this is not a book for novices, but rather one which will yield ample reward to serious students of Plato. The book would have benefited from signposts which would locate Sayre’s intricate analyses of passages within his larger scheme of Plato’s development, an account of Plato’s more mature theory of Forms, and a [End Page 524] discussion of how each section of the Parmenides connects or fails to connect with the later. (Granted that we can obtain Sayre’s views from his other works.)Sayre’s book is not only an analysis of Plato’s text; it is also an engagement with important commentaries on that text. He carefully outlines and criticizes Miller, Meinwald, Allen, and Cornford (being most indebted to Cornford’s statements about the Pythagorean elements in Plato’s mature theory). Sayre maintains that the first part of the Parmenides questions the immature theory of Forms which is found in the Phaedo and Republic (68). Sayre believes that this immature theory is in need of more careful articulation and revision, and that the Parmenides begins the process. (Note that Sayre does not worry about whether there are multiple theories of Forms, or developments and changes in a single theory.) The major tenets of the youthful theory are that Forms are: (1) real in that they are “themselves in themselves,” (2) the causes of determinate characteristics in sensible things, (3) paradigms for the naming of their participants, (4) directly known by mind or reason, and (5) absolute in the sense of being independent of their participants (75).Sayre argues that Parmenides’ arguments in the first part of the Parmenides show that (1)—(5) need more elaboration and interpretation. The sections on the sail, day, and participating in a part of a Form force revisions of (1) and (2); Forms must be free of contrary predicates, they cannot be divisible spatially, and hence Plato must rethink participation. The point of the third man argument is that since “.… Largeness has lost its self-determinate status by virtue of being 'demoted' (in thought) to an object of appearance, it is no longer capable of providing determination to the shared features of this augmented group of individuals” (81). Sayre claims that Largeness is no longer one, and that it is “indefinitely multitudinous” (82), and hence that Largeness lacks definite properties. I am unclear about what Sayre’s point is here. Does he mean that Forms come to have contrary predicates—Largeness is both one and many—and each of these predicates is definite enough, but confused when found in the same entity, or that these predicates are themselves indefinite, whatever that might mean? The first interpretation seems to fit Sayre’s overall theory best, and if this is correct, then the third man argument shows that Plato needs to reinterpret (1) and (2) above. The second third man argument shows, Sayre claims, that both participation and resemblance are unexplained in the immature theory, and thus that (3) needs work. The section on our knowledge of the Forms reveals that (4) and (5) must be rethought. Sayre states that Plato rejects radical separation for the position that forms are distinct from their participants. I concur with this last claim, but Sayre needs a sustained discussion of what this claim means. Sayre concludes that the point of the first part of the Parmenides is that... (shrink)

Even though the discovery of the regular polyhedra is attributed to the Pythagoreans, there is some fascinating evidence that they may have been known in prehistoric Scotland. In the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford University there are five rounded stones with regularly spaced bumps. The high points of each bump mark the vertices of each of the regular polyhedra. The stone balls also appear to demonstrate the duals of three of the regular polyhedra. For example, if the six faces of the (...) cube become points, they become the six vertices of the octahedron. If the eight faces of the octahedron become points, they become the eight vertices of a cube. Remarkably, groves in the Ashmolean stones indicate each of the duals, including the fact that the tetrahedron is its own dual. Instead of assuming that these ancient Scots were experts in solid geometry, we have hypothesized that they must have discovered all of this by sphere stacking, which will be demonstrate later in this article. (shrink)

The Parmenides has long been thought of as one of Plato's more mysterious dialogues. The first part is an attack on the Theory of Forms while the second is an apparently bewildering discussion of the One and the Others. It is the contention of this project that in the Parmenides Plato points out and begins to solve a serious difficulty generated by assumptions about being and the Forms made in the middle period theory. ;The dissertation has three major (...) divisions. In the first, several aspects of the middle period Theory of Forms are examined. It is first shown that his acceptance of the Parmenidean analysis of being, combined with Heraclitean views on change and Socratic assumptions about definitions, leads Plato to separate Forms from particulars. There follow a discussion of a particular interpretation of self-predication with an analysis of its role in the Theory of Forms and an examination of the relation of participation. The first section closes with a discussion of certain problems in the first part of the Parmenides. ;The second part of the thesis discusses the arguments of the First Hypothesis, showing that the middle period claim that a Form, the F-itself, must be only f and can neither be nor become its opposite is so strong as to undermine the theory, since it prevents the application of any predicate to a Form. ;The third section examines the arguments of the Second Hypothesis and shows that in that hypothesis Plato begins to solve the problem posed by the First by introducing participation at the level of the Forms, allowing two types of predication to be applied to Forms. The thesis closes with a discussion of the nature of this new relation of Form-participation and the implications of this new relation for the Theory of Forms. (shrink)

In this paper I shall attempt to enter part of the way into the microstructure of the account of truth in the Parmenidean fragment 8, and to reveal that account as a dialectical sequence of affirmation and denial involving various kinds of modal utterance. The sequence will then be put into parallel with the first four hypotheses of the second half of Plato’s Parmenides as well as with Zeno and some of the later tradition.

The Parmenides is, quite possibly, the most enigmatic of Plato's dialogues. The dialogue recounts an almost certainly fictitious conversation between a venerable Parmenides (the Eleatic Monist) and a youthful Socrates, followed by a dizzying array of interconnected arguments presented by Parmenides to a young and compliant interlocutor named “Aristotle” (not the philosopher, but rather a man who became one of the Thirty Tyrants after Athens' surrender to Sparta at the conclusion of the Peloponnesian War). Most commentators agree (...) that Socrates articulates a version of the theory of forms defended by his much older namesake in the dialogues of Plato's middle period, that Parmenides mounts a number of potentially devastating challenges to this theory, and that these challenges are followed by a piece of intellectual “gymnastics” consisting of eight strings of arguments (Deductions) that are in some way designed to help us see how to protect the theory of forms against the challenges. Beyond this, there is precious little scholarly consensus. Commentators disagree about the proper way to reconstruct Parmenides' challenges, about the overall logical structure of the Deductions, about the main subject of the Deductions, about the function of the Deductions in relation to the challenges, and about the final philosophical moral of the dialogue as a whole. (shrink)

Limits of the Conversation about Forms. Types of Knowledge and Necessity of Forms in Plato's "Parmenides". - Forms (ideas) are among the things that Plato is serious about. But about these things he says in his "Seventh Letter": "There neither is nor ever will be a treatise of mine on the subject." (341c, transl. J. Harward). Plato's statement suggests the question, why one does not and never can do justice to the Platonic forms by means of a written text (...) about the forms. Another big question of Plato research is whether the conversations documented in the Platonic dialogues are also affected by this verdict. This paper aims to provide, as far as possible, newly substantiated answers to these two questions. To this end, the systematic limits of the discussion about forms, which are particularly evident in Plato's dialogue "Parmenides", are examined in eight steps: First, two types of knowledge are presented that play an important systematic role in Plato's philosophy with regard to the limits of conversation: knowledge-how (practical knowledge) and knowledge-that (propositional knowledge) (I). Then the Socratic model of these two types of knowledge is interpreted, which is drafted in the tenth book of the "Republic". This model uses the example of bridle, bridlemaker and rider to explain the primacy of practical knowledge and the limits of propositional knowledge (II). Subsequently, it will be shown how the dialogues "Republic" and "Parmenides" are connected with each other in content and form (III). The gradation of the two types of knowledge, which is indicated by the motifs of the bridle and the horse on the image level of the "Parmenides", proves to be the structure that systematically underlies the structure of the entire dialogue (IV). It also makes clear why the conversation about the forms in the first part of the "Parmenides" has to fail (V). The assumption that the two parts of the "Parmenides" express two different types of knowledge in dealing with forms is supported by the results of a logical analysis of the last defence of the acceptance of forms (135b-c). This analysis shows why, for reasons of principle, it is impossible to speak adequately about forms (VI). Forms have the function of being presuppositions of 'talking about something'. Thus forms are always presupposed in conversation when one talks about them, and thus elude appropriate discussion in conversation (VII). That this is not only a methodical insight of the Platonic Parmenides, but can also be attributed to Plato himself, is demonstrated by the concluding reinterpretation of the central sentence of the critique of writing in Plato's "Seventh Letter". It will become apparent that, contrary to the now widespread view of the representatives of the Tübingen school, philosophical and also good philological reasons speak for the fact that Plato related his criticism only to the communicability of forms through treatises, i.e. tract-like writings (VIII). (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Book Reviews Kenneth Dorter. Form and Good in Plato's Eleatic Dialogues: The "'Parmenides," "Theaetetus," "Sophist," and "Statesman." Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1994. Pp. x + 256. Cloth, $45.00. Dorter's title suggests an engagement with Eieaticism, and, certainly in three of" the dialogues, Parmenides was much on Plato's mind. In a book otherwise sensitive to implications of dramatic setting for the argument, little is (...) said of Eleaticism. If the "Eleatic" in the title was selected instead of "critical" for purposes of neutrality (x), "form" and "good" are more revealing of Dorter's approach. The introduction gives a rendering of revisionist and unitarian arguments about the late dialogues, pondering the effects of interpretive style, while Dotter attempts to retain some element of interpretive neutrality without disguising his own preference for finding a reaffirmation, not a critical rejection of the forms. About the forms Dorter would extract two fundamental claims, conspicuous throughout his commentary: forms are "universals, instances of 'sameness' in reality" and "values, articulations of the goodness of reality" (l 5)Keeping these two points in view, Dorter sees all four dialogues united by the method of hypothesis as outlined in the Phaedo, supplemented in the latter two by the more rigorous method of division. Dorter follows the analytic interpretive tradition in taking the Parmenides to raise serious criticisms against the theory of forms; all criticisms have, however, rejoinders anticipated in the middle dialogues. It seems Socrates, being but a boy at the time, is too young to formulate responses to the attack, if not too young to fully and accurately articulate the theory under attack. The generation of contradiction upon contradiction out of the hypotheses about the one illustrates negatively that the unity of form, in particular the form of the good, is indispensible. Forms are recovered in a hypothetical exposition carried on throughout the subsequent three dialogues, each representing a hypothesis that responds one step more adequately than the previous dialogue in the series, each dialogue itself comprising a progression of hypotheses. The Theaetetus argues by reductio for the forms. While the theory of universal flux allows that all things are produced by mixture, a process of"parentage" (75ff.), knowledge is missing one parent, the forms, which are not admitted in the dialogue. Nevertheless, each failed account of knowledge comes closer to the truth, the most promising account being the definition of knowledge as true opinion with an account, where the account is an analysis into parts. This fails in Dorter's view because, in assuming the whole to be nothing other than the parts, it does not say how parts can be intelligible apart from a prior whole. A reader might find it as hard to say how this is a hypotheti- [679] 680 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 33:4 OCTOBER 1995 cal advance over the criticisms of the Parmenidesas to say how the Theaetetusshould be called an "Eleatic" dialogue. The Sophist then reintroduces form, but in its epistemological aspect alone. Extensive use is made of the method of division, presented in the commentary as a rigorous method for precise definition, yet the Sophistfails to distinguish sophistry from philosophy. Two reasons are given. The final division locates sophistry under the productive, rather than the acquisitive arts. (The commentary indicates no surprise at sophistry being categorized as an art at all.) Moreover, the method of division makes no use of value, the real distinguishing feature of the two types of art, although Dorter argues that allusion is made to value through references to the Republic'stheory of soul. The Statesman fills in the missing feature by introducing measurement against the standard of the mean as opposed to relative measurement, finally reintegrating both features that Dorter considers salient aspects of Platonic forms: universality (sameness) from the Sophistand now value (the mean) in the Statesman. The commentary finds that the use of division in the Statesman, where it is not strictly dichotomous, evidences a "decline from the rigor and precision of the divisions in the Sophist"(l 8 l), despite the rejection of division by strict halving in the Phaedrusand in Aristotle. Lack of rigor is not, however, a reproach in Dorter's... (shrink)

William F. Lynch, S. J. An Approach to the Metaphysics of Plato through the Parmenides, Georgetown University Press, 1959, 255 pp. $ 6.00 Robert S. Brumbaugh, Plato on the One. The Hypotheses in the Parmenides, Yale University Press, New Haven 1961, 365 pp. $ 6.50.

That i) there is a somehow determined chronology of Plato’s dialogues among all the chronologies of the last century and ii) this theory is subject to many objections, are points this article intends to discuss. Almost all the main suggested chronologies of the last century agree that Parmenides and Theaetetus should be located after dialogues like Meno, Phaedo and Republic and before Sophist, Politicus, Timaeus, Laws and Philebus. The eight objections we brought against this arrangement claim that to (...) place the dialogues like Meno, Phaedo and Republic both immediately after the early ones and before Parmenides and Theaetetus is epistemologically and ontologically problematic. -/- Key Words: Plato; chronology; knowledge; being; Parmenides -/- Introduction While the ancient philosophers, doxographers and commentators from Aristotle onward considered, more or less, the question of the date and arrangement of the dialogues (cf. Irwin 2008, 77 n. 69), they would not observe a firm necessity to consider the progress of Plato’s theories in dialogues, maybe because they did not think of any essential shift in there. We might be able to say, nevertheless, that the most prominent feature of the ancient attitude to Plato was its peculiar attention to the Republic and the Timaeus as the most mature works in his philosophy and also the consideration of Laws as a later work. This tendency can be discovered from the general viewpoint of the first chronologies of the early 19th century after starting to deal with the issue. That Schleiermacher observed Republic as the culmination of Plato’s philosophy and as one of the latest dialogues besides Laws and Timaeus could reflex the implicit chronology of the tradition in the first mirrors it found. Another tendency in Schleiermacher is taking the triology of Theaetetus, Sophist and Politicus as relatively early. From the last quarter of 19th century onward, stylometry helped scholars to establish a new framework to constructa new arrangement between the dialogues. Based on stylistic as well as literary findings, Campbell (1867, xxxff.) argued for the closeness of the style of Sophist and Politicus with Timaeus, Critias, Philebus and Lawsthat, especially because of the certain evidence about this last dialogue’s lateness, led to the consideration of all as late dialogues. Almost every other stylistic effort after Campbell approved the similarities between Sophist and Politicus with Timaeus, Critias, Philebus and Laws. The result of all such investigations led to a new chronology that, despite some differences, has a fixed structure in all its appearances. 1. The Standard Chronology of the Dialogues The chronologies that are now commonly accepted are mostly based on the arrangement of dialogues to three groups corresponding to three periods of Plato’s life, which became predominant after applying stylistic features in assessing the similarities between dialogues. The fact that all the stylometric considerations reached to the similar results about the date of dialogues while they were assessing different stylistic aspects helped the new chronology become prevailing not only among stylistic chronologies but also between those like Fine, Kahn and Vlastos who were inclined more to the content-based arrangements. Even this latter group could not neglect the apparently certain results of using the method of stylometry. This was the main reason, I think, that made what they called content-based chronology be under the domination of stylometry much more than they could expect. The division of the dialogues into three separate groups became something that most of the scholars took for granted so far as Kahn thinks this division 'can be regarded as a fixed point of departure in any speculation about the chronology of the dialogues' (1996, 44). Thereafter, all the chronologists are accustomed to divide the dialogues to three groups of early, middle and late corresponding to the three stages of Plato’s life. Nevertheless, some of them tried to make subdivisions among each group and introduce some of the dialogues as transitional between different periods and thus reached to a fourfold classification of the dialogues. Although theycould never achieve to a consensus about the place of some dialogues, about which we will discuss soon, the whole spirit of theirchronological arrangements is the same and thus compelling enough for us to unify all of them with the label of 'Standard Chronology of Dialogues' (SCD). We brought together some of the most famous chronologies in the table below to make a comparison easier and to show how all are approximately of the same opinion about the place of some dialogues. The following points must be noted about this table: 1. I divided the dialogues to eight groups of early, late early, transitional, early middle, late middle, post-middle, early late, and late. Although none of the chronologists applies this classification, it can be helpful to compare them. In this table, for example, if one of the chronologist’s beholds one of the dialogues as later than all the dialogues of middle group, it is considered here as late middle. Otherwise, if it is emphasized that it is after all of them, it is considered as post-middle. The same is true about the dialogues of the late group in which I regarded the first dialogues of that period as early late only in those who explicitly considered some dialogues as earlier than other ones in the late group. Though, therefore, some of the dialogues might have not been considered as forming a distinct class, they are distinguished here. A. SCD’s Early and Transitional Dialogues When we move from stylometric to content-based chronologies, the homogeneity between the dialogues of each group is more understandable. Guthrie (1975, v. 4, 50) distinguishes three groups, the first of them includes Apology, Crito, Laches, Lysis, Charmides, Euthyphro, Hippias Minor, Hippias Major, Protagoras, Gorgiasand Ion. In addition to Meno, Phaedo and Euthydems, his first group does not include Cratylus and Menexenus. Unlike Guthrie, almost all the other content-based chronologiesof our study desire to distinguish two categories inside the first group of which the latter must be considered as the transitional group leading to the dialogues of the middle period. Kahn distinguishes four groups of dialogues and arranges two of them before middle period dialogues. The first group including Apology, Crito, Ion, Hippias Minor, Gorgiasand Menexenus he calls 'early' or 'presystematic' dialogues (1998, 124). The second group he calls the 'threshold', 'pre-middle' or 'Socratic' dialogues including seven: Laches, Charmides, Lysis, Euthyphro, Protagoras, Euthydemus and Meno. Based on Vlastos’ arrangement we must distinguish Euthydemus, Hippias Major, Lysis, Menexenus and Meno as 'transitional' dialogues from the 'elenctic' dialogues that are the other dialogues of Kahn’smentioned first two groups plus the first book of theRepublic. Fine also distinguishes 'transitional' dialogues from early or 'Socratic' dialogues,but her transitional dialogues are Gorgias, Meno, Hippias Major, Euthydemus and Cratylus of which she thinks the last two dialogues are 'controversial' (2003, 1). Her Socratic dialogues are all the remaining dialogues of Kahn’s first two groups. In spite of all the differences between the mentioned chronologies, it can be seen that all of them are inclined to arrange the early dialogues in a way that: i) Besides the dialogues that are considered as late, it never includes Republic II-X, Theaetetus, Phaedrus and Parmenides. ii) It intends to consider the dialogues like Euthydemus and Hippias Majorthat look more critical as later among the earlier dialogues or as transitional group. iii) Those who do not consider Meno as a middle period dialogue place it in their second or transitional group. iv) None of the content-based chronologies considers Phaedo and Symposium as early. Stylometric chronologies also intend to put them either as last dialogues among their early ones or as middle. B. SCD’s Middle Period Dialogues Campbell listed Republic, Phaedrus, Parmenides and Theaetetus as his second group of dialogues, an idea thatwas accepted by Brandwood. Ledger’smiddle period dialogueshad Euthydemus, Symposium and Cratylus in addition to the dialogues that Campbell and Brandwood had mentioned as middle. Among content-based chronologies, Guthrie’s list of middle period dialogues did not include Parmenides but some dialogues which had been considered as early in stylometric ones: Meno, Phaedo, Republic, Symposium, Phaedrus, Euthydemus, Menexenus and Cratylus. In sofar as I know, Euthydemus and Menexenus have not been considered as middle by other content-based chronologists and Guthrie is an exception among them. That Phaedo, Phaedrus, Symposium and Republic were middle period dialogues almost all the philosophical chronologists like Kahn, Fine, Vlastos (except Rep.I), Irwin andKraut came along. The dialogues they do not string along about are Meno, Cratylus, Parmenides and Theaetetus. Those like Guthrie, Kraut and Irwin who did not consider Meno as early presumably posit it among middles. The same can be said about Cratylus in the suggested chronologies of Guthrie, Kahn, Vlastos and Kraut. Nonetheless, it is different in case of Parmenides and Theaetetus. Whereas all the mentioned stylometric chronologists like Campbell, Brandwood and Ledger set them among middle period dialogues,the philosophical chronologists, it might seem at first, did not arrive at a consensus about them. While Guthrie and Fine put them as the first dialogues of the late group, Vlastos and Kraut set them as the latest of the middle group, as well as Kahn who puts them as post-middle and amongst the late period dialogues. Regardless the way they classify their groups, their disagreement does not affect the arrangement of the dialogues: they all posit Parmenides and Theaetetus after the series of Meno, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Symposium and Republic and before Sophist, Politicus, Timaeus, Philebus and Laws. To sum up SCD’s arrangement of the middle period dialogues we can add: v) Republic and Phaedrus have been considered by all the mentioned chronologists as dialogues of the middle period. vi) All the philosophical chronologies have reached a consensus about setting Phaedo and Symposium alongside with Republic and Phaedrus as middle. vii) While Stylometric alongside some philosophic chronologists arrange Parmenides and Theaetetus among their middle period dialogues and mostly as the latest among them, other philosophical chronologists put them as the early among the late dialogues. We can conclude then that SCD intends to locate these two dialogues at the boundary between the middle and late period dialogues. -/- . (shrink)

Dans le Parménide de Platon (135 c8 - d5), Parménide propose à Socrate un exercise dialectique, préliminaire à la recherche de la vérité, qui consiste essentiellement dans la vérification de la cohérence logique des conséquences déduites d'une certaine hypothèse et, ensuite, du renversement de l'hypothèse initiale, par rapport à l'objet de l'hypothèse et par rapport à son opposé. Dans un passage très bref (137 b 1-4), Parménide déclare que son examen sera consacré à l' « un lui-même » et qu'il (...) se déroulera à partir de sa propre thèse philosophique. Mais quel est l'objet de l'hypothèse de Parménide? L' « un lui-même », comme le texte semble l'indiquer, ou alors le principe de l' « unité du tout », qui constitue la thèse fondamentale défendue par l'Éléate dans le dialogue? Le but de cet article est justement d'éclairer le contenu de l'hypothèse de Parménide. In Plato's Parmenides (135 c8 - d5), Parmenides suggests Socrates to practice a dialectical exercise before the search for truth: this exercise consists in verifying the logical consistence of the consequences of a certain hypothesis and of its reversal, with respect to the object of the hypothesis and to its opposite. In a very short passage (137 b1-4), Parmenides states that his analysis will be dedicated to the « One itself » and that it will start from his philosophical thesis. But what's the object of Parmenides' hypothesis? The « One itself », as the text seems to mean, or the principle of the « Unity of the All », which is Parmenides' fundamental thesis in the dialogue named after him? This paper intends to clarify the content of Parmenides' hypothesis. (shrink)

This chapter begins to construct our space–time model of the socio‐cognitive network of individual actors. To do this, it formulates a number of assumptions about the structure and evolution of this network. The chapter first proposes six hypotheses concerning the structure of the network. These hypotheses will clarify our formalization of the cognitive universes of individual actors. The chapter then introduces eight additional hypotheses concerning the evolution of the network. The evolution of the network results, on (...) the one hand, from communications between individual actors and, on the other hand, from these cognitive processes internal to the actors that constitute their categorization operations. This distinction between inter‐individual communication and intra‐individual categorization is analytical, because in reality any communication concretely established between real actors has an intentionality dimension that itself implies a part of cognition. (shrink)

Summary A study of the metallurgy and manufacturing techniques of a group of eight astrolabes (seven from Lahore, one attributed to India) using non-destructive methods has produced the earliest evidence for systematic use of high-zinc (α + β) brass. To produce this alloy, the brass industry supplying the Lahore instrument makers must have co-melted metallic copper and zinc. This brass-making technology was previously believed to have been developed on an industrial scale in the nineteenth century in Europe. This work (...) hypothesizes that this technology was used in Lahore on an industrial scale as early as ad 1601. In addition, this work hypothesizes that the α + β brass alloy was used specifically for its ease in manufacturing the thin sheet brass required for astrolabe-component manufacture. (shrink)

I show that Socrates' mature philosophy must be read as a reaction to and fulfillment of Parmenidean monism. I take my departure from Parmenides' assertion in the dialogue that participation must be a true account, as he says, for otherwise dialogue would be rendered impossible. I claim that the Socratic account can only achieve its proper truth once it appreciates the grounding Eleatic insight that the effort to name Being is riddled with aporias, which Socrates learns on his own (...) terms through the dialectical "training" in unity demonstrated in the dialogue. I show that Socrates here gains the resources to see ideas as hypotheses, securing the knowledge of his own ignorance as a science of sorts by which he learns to abide by the limits, failures, and breakdowns of human understanding within a rigorously "scientific" context. The Parmenides is thus to be located at the stage of philosophical education where mathematical training gives way to dialectics, and subsequently prepares the philosopher's return to the "cave" as described in the Republic. Practice in the dialectically inspired art of epistemological collapse later gives Socrates the power to help his interlocutors confront the limits of their own knowledge and become open to freedom through the work of self-examination. (shrink)

With the fast expansion of urbanization, temporary migrants have become a large demographic in Chinese cities. Therefore, in order to enhance the social integration of the migrant population, scholars and policymakers have an urgency to investigate the influencing factors of the integration progress. Prior studies regarding social integration have neglected to examine this topic from the perspective of social participation. Empirical research is conducted based on the data of 15,997 migrants across eight cities in the 2014 wave of National (...) Migrant Population Dynamic Monitoring Survey in China. Hierarchical linear models were used to test the hypotheses regarding the impacts of formal social participation and informal social participation on social integration. Community type, neighbor composition, hometown pressure, withdrawal guarantee, and constraints of hukou were examined as moderators. FSP and ISP possess different features such as operating with distinct modes, providing different services. Members within the organizations also entail different rights and responsibilities, providing them with different types of social capital and psychological perceptions. Hence, this study strived to identify the effects of social participation behaviors on social integration from a social capital perspective. The results revealed that social participation is positively linked to social integration. We also distinguished between FSP and ISP of migrants to investigate the boundary effects of different types of social participation on social integration. The findings provide both theoretical and practical implications for scholars as well as policymakers on issues regarding the social integration of migrants. (shrink)

Petrarch In exactly a hundred years had passed since Jacob Burckhardt published his famous essay The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, ...

Revonsuo proposed an intriguing and detailed evolutionary theory of dreams which stipulates that the biological function of dreaming is to simulate threatening events and to rehearse threat avoidance behaviors. The goal of the present study was to test this theory using a sample of 212 recurrent dreams that was scored using a slightly expanded version of the DreamThreat rating scale. Six of the eight hypotheses tested were supported. Among the positive findings, 66% of the recurrent dream reports contained (...) one or more threats, the threats tended to be dangerous and aimed at the dreamer, and when facing a threat, the dreamer tended to take defensive or evasive actions that were possible and reasonable. However, less than 15% of the recurrent dreams depicted realistic and probable situations critical for one’s physical survival or reproductive success and the dreamer rarely succeeded in fleeing the threat despite important and appropriate efforts. The findings thus provide mixed support for the threat simulation theory. (shrink)

Three studies test eight hypotheses about (1) how judgment differs between people who ascribe greater vs. less moral relevance to choices, (2) how moral judgment is subject to task constraints that shift evaluative focus (to moral rules vs. to consequences), and (3) how differences in the propensity to rely on intuitive reactions affect judgment. In Study 1, judgments were affected by rated agreement with moral rules proscribing harm, whether the dilemma under consideration made moral rules versus consequences of (...) choice salient, and by thinking styles (intuitive vs. deliberative). In Studies 2 and 3, participants evaluated policy decisions to knowingly do harm to a resource to mitigate greater harm or to merely allow the greater harm to happen. When evaluated in isolation, approval for decisions to harm was affected by endorsement of moral rules and by thinking style. When both choices were evaluated simultaneously, total harm -- but not the do/allow distinction -- influenced rated approval. These studies suggest that moral rules play an important, but context-sensitive role in moral cognition, and offer an account of when emotional reactions to perceived moral violations receive less weight than consideration of costs and benefits in moral judgment and decision making. (shrink)

According to the “orthodox” version of Parmenides’ Poem, version generally accepted as vox dei, the “Way of Truth” begins in fragment 2 of the Poem (because fragment 1 is only a kind of introduction) and ends at verse 50 of fragment 8. The “Way of the Doxa”, on the other hand, begins at verse 51 of fragment 8 and ends at fragment 19. We believe it will not an be exaggeration to say that this text could be signed by (...) most specialists interested in the Parmenidean philosophy, even the most eminent ones. Now, apart from a few words, this passage implicitly supposes a whole series of hypotheses, generally accepted without prior justification, hypotheses which, once analyzed, necessarily lead one to support the non-existence in Parmenides of either a “Way of Truth” or a “Way of Doxa”. (shrink)

Abstract The goal of the study was to investigate the current situation with Human Resources (HR) systems in the Saudi market on the basis of survey conducted among 100 organizations. Their HR and IT experts were to fill out a questionnaire that allowed receiving their expert opinion and make conclusions considering the HR systems usage in this country. In the course of the study, eight hypotheses were investigated and proved: the number of companies’ users of Human Resource Management (...) (HRM) systems does not exceed a half of the staff; most companies use additional resources for HR management apart from HR automated systems; many companies use systems developed by their specialists for HRM; companies are satisfied with the level of HRM systems’ performance; companies are ready to implement new, more effective systems in their practice; Saudi market is not ready for SaaS model; companies are not ready to implement SaaS model; companies have high development potential despite impediments. The results have shown that the Saudi market is ready for implementation of the new technologies, while the level of satisfaction by the current solutions is comparatively low and requires urgent measures. New developments, preferably on the basis of SaaS model, are required to improve the situation and make a step towards successful future. Content Type Journal Article Category Original Paper Pages 1-14 DOI 10.1007/s13520-012-0015-7 Authors Bandar Khalaf Alharthey, Department of Management, Faculty of Management and Human Resource Development, University Technology of Malaysia, 81310 UTM, Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia Amran Rasli, Department of Management, Faculty of Management and Human Resource Development, University Technology of Malaysia, 81310 UTM, Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia Journal Asian Journal of Business Ethics Online ISSN 2210-6731 Print ISSN 2210-6723. (shrink)

Performance Generating Systems (PGS) are rule- and task-based approaches to improvisation on stage in theatre, dance, and music. These systems require performers to draw on predefined source materials (texts, scores, memories) while working on complex tasks within limiting rules. An interdisciplinary research team at a large Western Canadian university hypothesized that learning to sustain this praxis over the duration of a performance places high demands on executive functions; demands that may improve the performers’ executive abilities. These performers need to continuously (...) shift attention while remaining responsive to embodied and environmental stimuli in the present, they are required to inhibit automated responses and impulses using the rules of the system, and they strive towards addressing multitasking challenges with fluidity and flexibility. This study set out to test the mentioned hypothesis deductively and identify mediating processes inductively, using mixed empirical methods. In a small sample experiment with a control group (28 participants; 15 in intervention group, 13 in control group), standardized quantitative tests of executive functions (D-KEFS) were administered before and after an eight-week intervention. Participant-reported qualitative observations from the praxis were also collected throughout the intervention for grounded analysis. Within the limitations of small sample data, we found both statistically significant and trending effects on inhibition, problem-solving initiation, fluidity, and cognitive flexibility. Examining the mediating process, we found that participants experienced significant challenges sustaining the practice halfway through the intervention. The participant-reported solutions to these challenges, which emerged as the strongest behavioural patterns when coding the qualitative data to saturation, were strategies of problem-solving and of re-directing attention. These strategies support and advance our understanding of the effects measured in the standardized tests. In terms of application, our results identify characteristics of PGS that could potentially maintain and strengthen executive functions over and above less demanding performing arts interventions. The results also deliver new insight into how PGS works, which may contribute to the development and teaching of this artistic practice. (shrink)

Summary A study of the metallurgy and manufacturing techniques of a group of eight astrolabes using non-destructive methods has produced the earliest evidence for systematic use of high-zinc brass. To produce this alloy, the brass industry supplying the Lahore instrument makers must have co-melted metallic copper and zinc. This brass-making technology was previously believed to have been developed on an industrial scale in the nineteenth century in Europe. This work hypothesizes that this technology was used in Lahore on an (...) industrial scale as early as ad 1601. In addition, this work hypothesizes that the α + β brass alloy was used specifically for its ease in manufacturing the thin sheet brass required for astrolabe-component manufacture. (shrink)

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) as investigational intervention for symptomatic relief from Alzheimer disease (AD) has generated big expectations. Our aim is to discuss the ethical justification of this research agenda by examining the underlying research rationale as well as potential methodological pitfalls. The shortcomings we address are of high ethical importance because only scientifically valid research has the potential to be ethical. We performed a systematic search on MEDLINE and EMBASE. We included 166 publications about DBS for AD into the (...) analysis of research rationale, risks and ethical aspects. Fifty-eight patients were reported in peer-reviewed journals with very mixed results. A grey literature search revealed hints for 75 yet to be published, potentially enrolled patients. The results of our systematic review indicate methodological shortcomings in the literature that are both scientific and ethical in nature. According to our analysis, research with human subjects was performed before decisive preclinical research was published examining the specific research question at stake. We also raise the concern that conclusions on the potential safety and efficacy have been reported in the literature that seem premature given the design of the feasibility studies from which they were drawn. In addition, some publications report that DBS for AD was performed without written informed consent from some patients, but from surrogates only. Furthermore, registered ongoing trials plan to enroll severely demented patients. We provide reasons that this would violate Art. 28 of the Declaration of Helsinki, because DBS for AD involves more than minimal risks and burdens, and because its efficacy and safety are not yet empirically established to be likely. Based on our empirical analysis, we argue that clinical research on interventions of risk class III (Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency) should not be exploratory but grounded on sound, preclinically tested, and disease-specific a posteriori hypotheses. This also applies to DBS for dementia as long as therapeutic benefits are uncertain, and especially when research subjects with cognitive deficits are involved, who may foreseeably progress to full incapacity to provide informed consent during the required follow-up period. (shrink)

The value of this book lies in its aspiration not to be a doxography, but to help us recover the tradition of the humanities or liberal arts, which Kristeller believes is presently threatened. It is easy to agree that this end would be promoted by a recovery of the original meaning of liberal education, as well as how it differs from the humanities and especially from humanism. The author intimates the rise of platonism in late medieval and renaissance thought signifies (...) a turn away from Aristotle's "divine science" and scholastic scientific theology to the study of man. The humanities would then take their origin from a change in orientation toward theology. While these opinions may be sound, this study does not show us that they are, for it rehearses opinion without exhibiting either its ground or import. Kristeller might have fulfilled his aim had he imitated the scholarship of the men he studies rather than that which thrives on the loss of the meaning of "liberal education." The eight philosophers are: Petrarch, Valla, Ficino, Pico, Pomponazzi, Telesio, Patrizi, Bruno. The appendix on the medieval antecedents of renaissance humanism is the best part of the book.—H. C. (shrink)

This book, originally a doctoral dissertation directed by Gottfried Martin and presented to the University of Bonn in 1970, concentrates on the problems which the Parmenides has triggered for more than two thousand years: Is the dialogue a mere dialectical exercise or an introduction to Plato’s own metaphysics or what? Are the hypotheses which constitute its second part logically valid or fallacious? Does Plato seriously intend the apparent contradictions within and between them? How closely related is the second (...) part of the dialogue to the first? Koumakis attempts to solve them in several ways. He substitutes "Wie-Frage" for "Was-Frage". In Ch. 11 he semantically investigates on in Plato and Zeno’s paradoxes. In subsequent chapters he turns to the hypotheses themselves: Plato’s introduction to them in 136A-B, their philological and philosophical underpinnings, the syntactical identity between hypotheses 1 and 2, the possible localization of the one in itself and in the other. In the final section he acknowledges failure in coping with the paradoxical dialogue. Lest anyone be turned away from the book by this acknowledgement, he should realize that it is worth buying for its bibliography alone, as well as for its helpful digests of that literature. Slip-ups in proofreading occur mainly in English quotations.—L.S. (shrink)

Summary A study of the metallurgy and manufacturing techniques of a group of eight astrolabes (seven from Lahore, one attributed to India) using non-destructive methods has produced the earliest evidence for systematic use of high-zinc (α?+??) brass. To produce this alloy, the brass industry supplying the Lahore instrument makers must have co-melted metallic copper and zinc. This brass-making technology was previously believed to have been developed on an industrial scale in the nineteenth century in Europe. This work hypothesizes that (...) this technology was used in Lahore on an industrial scale as early as ad 1601. In addition, this work hypothesizes that the α?+?? brass alloy was used specifically for its ease in manufacturing the thin sheet brass required for astrolabe-component manufacture. (shrink)

Excerpt from The Fragments of Parmenides Two dollars per volume; single number, fiftyfienfgs; three volumes (or three copies of either volume), five dollars; first four volumes (015 feur copies of either volume), six dol lars; ten copies of Vol. III. Or IV. For ten dollars. Vols. I. And II. Bound in one volume, in [muslin, $4 50; Vol. III. In muslin, $2 50. Back numbers may be had at fifty cents apiece. All subscriptions should be addressed to the Editor. (...) About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works. (shrink)