Timothy Chappell’s new translation of the Theaetetus is presented here in short sections of text, each preceded by a summary of the argument and followed by his philosophical commentary on it. Introductory remarks discuss Plato and his works, his use of dialogue, the structure of the Theaetetus, and alternative interpretations of the work as a whole. A glossary and bibliography are provided.

With the recent developments in the Human Genome Mapping Project and the new technologies that are developing from it there is a renewal of concern about eugenic applications. Francis Galton (b1822, d1911), who developed the subject of eugenics, suggested that the ancient Greeks had contributed very little to social theories of eugenics. In fact the Greeks had a profound interest in methods of supplying their city states with the finest possible progeny. This paper therefore reviews the works of Plato (...) (The Republic and Politics) and Aristotle (The Politics and The Athenian Constitution) which have a direct bearing on eugenic techniques and relates them to methods used in the present century. (shrink)

This collection of five essays, dedicated to the memory of Robert Daniel Miller, deserves more notice than it has hitherto received. Each of the papers represents some one "facet" of Plato's thought, and most make a provocative, if not always convincing, contribution to their subjects.

The Platonic School regarded the Alcibiades I as the most suitable introduction to Plato. Proclus' wideranging discussion includes later Neoplatonism as well as questions of Aristotelian logic. O'Neill's translation is always readable and his commentary helpful without being fussy.—D. J. B.

This little book contains lectures given by Vlastos in the summer of 1972 in the Danz Lectures series of the University of Washington. His theme relates to that often rather paternalistic exercise of plotting out the extent to which Science was Revealed to the Greeks. In his view, "it was not given to them... to grasp the essential genius of the scientific method." However, they did discover "the conception of the cosmos that is presupposed by the idea of natural science (...) and by its practice". This discovery, an intellectual "revolution," was of the view, upheld by the Presocratic physiologoi, that the world is characterized by "unbreachable regularities" which make the world a "cosmos," which "constitute the order of nature and, if known, would yield the ultimate explanation of every natural phenomenon". This was revolutionary since it rejected the traditional belief in an unlimited area of possible divine supernatural intervention in the world, a belief which made perception of the universe a perception of an "irrational universe". Thus, "for the first time in history", man achieved, with Presocratic physiologia, "a perception of a rational universe". In the remaining two chapters of the book, Vlastos examines Plato, represented as a "fierce opponent" of the revolution who appropriated the newly discovered cosmos, refashioning it "on the pattern of his own idealistic and theistic metaphysics". This interpretation of Plato is developed mainly through a study of the Timaeus and especially of the "Theory of Celestial Motions" and of the "Theory of the Structure of Matter". Plato appears as opposed to the "impiety" of the physiologoi, proposing himself in the Timaeus a transcendent god as his primary cosmological principle. At the same time, the Timaeus reflects, as Vlastos shows in a brief survey of earlier and contemporary Greek astronomy, an awareness of the "empirical facts" established by the astronomers and Plato’s desire to reconcile these facts with his metaphysical, theological, a priori convictions. This reconciliation involved postulating a system of celestial circular motions, a theory whose "scientific value" Vlastos does not doubt, despite its dependence on a "metaphysical scheme". Vlastos concludes that although Plato fully acknowledged a supernatural power in the universe, he guaranteed the regularities of nature against divine intervention. There is an unfailing natural law. However, its ground for Plato is not natural but supernatural. In examining the "Theory of the Structure of Matter", Vlastos again finds that Plato’s world-order resembles very much that of the physiologoi and, like theirs, is "safe from supernatural interference". The "elementarism" of the Timaeus is shown to be indebted to the Atomists, but also to innovate by opening the way to the intertransformability of elementary corpuscules. What "scientific value" does this theory of the transformation of elements have? It is neither entailed nor contradicted by observation. Vlastos suggests rather that its grounds are "aesthetic". At any rate, Vlastos concludes that although Plato opposed the physiologoi in reintroducing supernatural agency, he annexed their conception of cosmos. In his "perversely original way," he thus "sustained the faith that our world is cosmos. He gave rational men a pious faith to live by in two millennia all through which science was more prophecy than reality". Some of Vlastos’ more extensive footnotes are collected in an Appendix, which is followed by a Bibliography and Indices. (shrink)

Starting from Plato's statement in the Seventh Letter that Plato never intended to write down his philosophy in systematic form, Sinaiko conceives of the dialogues as attempts to combine the power of the spoken word with the written word while avoiding the limitations of either. Dramatic form and philosophic content are interdependent. The three dialogues are interrogated for statements about dialectic, and each dialogue's account of dialectic is taken to be complete in itself. It is not simply a (...) dialectical method which Plato is using; Being itself is dialectical, and there is no final philosophical system but rather an "infinite multiplicity of systems." While it is certain that philosophy for Plato can not be separated from the activity of philosophizing, Sinaiko's claim is far more controversial: that each dialogue "sets forth a complete ontology, an entire philosophical system." One might well disagree with that contention and other more detailed points of interpretation. But Sinaiko's position is defended ably and his book has a philosophical vitality which sets it apart from the usual pedantic efforts to expose this or that Platonic argument.—D. J. B. (shrink)

Pleidooi voor een metafysische visie op hedendaagse sociale en economische problemen.

The selections in this anthology range from Plato to Tolstoy, concentrating mainly on the Greeks, Kant, and representative figures from eighteenth-century Britain. All of the standard authors are included and speak for themselves. Sesonske has contributed a short but insightful introduction suggesting that a myriad of questions really underlie the seemingly simple question "What is art?" and showing that in each historical period of aesthetic theory there is a shift of terminology and interest. Professor Sesonske has also drawn up (...) an extremely useful bibliography.—D. J. B. (shrink)

The essays collected in this book, which deal with aspects of the philosophy of Plato, Abelard, Aquinas, and Kant, are intended to uphold the "eternally present tradition of Hellenic-scholastic thought" in the midst of the present philosophical crisis. Despite the probing insights, the reader frequently has the impression that the elaborate dialectic obscures issues.--J. D.

‘All the difficulties in the theory of forms arise from their separation.’ This recurrent criticism of Aristotle's is, of course, one of the principal obstacles in the way of any reconstruction of the Platonic metaphysic. To begin with, it is flatly denied by Plato himself in the use of such words as μέθεξις, παρoυσία and κoινωνία. It must also be rejected by the orthodox account of the Forms which takes them to be immanent, constitutive principles in the world of (...) everyday life, like a Law of Nature or the Concrete Universal of Hegel. Finally, modern philosophy has made it clear that this view of universals is right and necessary if thought and language are to exist, and it is therefore tempting to attribute it to Plato. (shrink)

A vexing problem in contemporary epistemology—one with origins in Plato’s Meno—concerns the value of knowledge, and in particular, whether and how the value of knowledge exceeds the value of mere true opinion. The recent literature is deeply divided on the matter of how best to address the problem. One point, however, remains unquestioned: that if a solution is to be found, it will be at the personal level, the level at which states of subjects or agents, as such, appear. (...) We take exception to this orthodoxy, or at least to its unquestioned status. We argue that subpersonal states play a significant—arguably, primary—role in much epistemically relevant cognition and thus constitute a domain in which we might reasonably expect to locate the “missing source” of epistemic value, beyond the value attached to mere true belief. (shrink)

Onderwerp en gezegde, door D. M. Bakker.--Enkele opmerkingen over het Godsbegrip van Justinus Martyr, door J. den Boeft.--Heidegger, Descartes, Luther, door J. van der Hoeven.--"Geschichtlichkeit" bij Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, door G. Horsman.--Menselijke ontmaskering en Bijbels démasqué , door R. Huson.--Kleine geschiedenis van het begrip "niets" in de antieke wijsbegeerte (tot e met de Sofisten en Plato), door P. A. Meijer.--De structuur van opvoeden en opvoedkunde, door J. W. Mojet.--Individualiteit in de fysica, door M. (...) D. Stafleu. (shrink)

West takes issue with the traditional interpretation of the Apology, according to which Socrates’ conviction on charges of impiety and corruption of the young was unjust, the manner of his defense noble and beautiful, his rhetorical manner a model of straightforward simplicity and truth. West’s account bears an affinity to a more recent interpretation which holds that the politically reactionary Socrates was justly condemned for being out of tune with the progressive Athenian democracy. Yet this agreement is a superficial one. (...) While he argues that Socrates was guilty as charged, West is no simple partisan of democracy. His criticism of Socrates is based on a thorough understanding of what the original charges implied; he may be characterized as a critic of the Socratic enterprise who is himself informed by Socrates’ questions. "In order to understand Socrates, it is necessary to contradict him; those who accept what Socrates says without question will never learn the truth.". (shrink)

The cumbersome title of this argumentative and often tedious book is illustrative of its intention, which is to offer a Marxist interpretation of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. By presenting history as the progressive unfolding of the course of dialectical materialism, the authors are enabled to argue that political philosophy is best understood in the context of the ever evolving class struggle that constitutes that unfolding. The ancient world is conceived of as being divided into two hostile camps: reactionary, authoritarian (...) aristocrats on the one hand, and progressive, or liberating democrats on the other. As Athens became more of a polis, that is, as political life within it became more public or democratic, class lines between the "producers and appropriators" hardened. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, political partisans of the first order, were the articulate, although morally obtuse apologists for "the increasing class consciousness of the aristocracy." More often than not, the projection of this recent concept upon the distant past has the effect of reducing the thought of the past to simple ideological cant. (shrink)