Abstract
In this paper I examine Socrates’ argument that presupposes an audience familiar with Forms and explains why the sight-lovers are not philosophers. It is divided into three parts: the first part (476a1–6) shows why each Form is one in number; the second part (476a6–9) distinguishes Forms from their sensible appearances; and the third part (476a10–d6) draws an analogy between philosophers – people being awake and sight-lovers – people being asleep. Remarkably, the argument works only for opposites, which are mistakenly identified by the sight-lovers with sensible things. Also in this paper I suggest an alternative interpretation of the so-called ‘Two Worlds Theory’ which is based on the distinction between the objects of knowledge and opinion.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Alexander Nehamas for his detailed and helpful comments, oral and written. I would also like to thank Christos Kyriacou, Vassilis Livanios, Christos Panayides and Pantazis Tselemanis for their remarks on an earlier draft of this paper, as well as the two anonymous referees for their comments on the final version of it.
References
Adam, J. 1902. The Republic of Plato, Vol. I & II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Allen, R. E. 1961. “The Argument from Opposites in Republic V.” The Review of Metaphysics 15 (2): 325–35.Search in Google Scholar
Annas, J. 1981. An Introduction to Plato’s Republic. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Baltzly, D. 1997. “Knowledge and Belief in Republic V.” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 79: 239–72. https://doi.org/10.1515/agph.1997.79.3.239.Search in Google Scholar
Brentlinger, J. A. 1972. “Particular’s in Plato’s Middle Dialogues.” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 54: 116–52. https://doi.org/10.1515/agph-1972-0202.Search in Google Scholar
Broadie, S. 2021. Plato’s Sun-Like Good. Dialectic in the Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781009025379Search in Google Scholar
Cooper, N. 1986. “Between Knowledge and Ignorance.” Phronesis 31 (3): 229–42. https://doi.org/10.1163/156852886x00137.Search in Google Scholar
Cross, R. C., and A. D. Woozley. 1964. Plato’s Republic. A Philosophical Commentary. Hampshire & London: The Macmillan Press LTD.Search in Google Scholar
Fine, G. 1978. “Knowledge and Belief in Republic V.” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 60 (2): 121–39. https://doi.org/10.1515/agph.1978.60.2.121.Search in Google Scholar
Fine, G. 1990. “Knowledge and Belief in Republic V–VII.” In Epistemology, edited by S. Everson, 85–115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gallop, D. 1975. Plato. Phaedo. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gerson, L. P. 2009. Ancient Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511801730Search in Google Scholar
Gonzalez, F. 1996. “Propositions or Objects? A Critique of Gail Fine on Knowledge and Belief in Republic V.” Phronesis 41 (3): 245–75. https://doi.org/10.1163/156852896321051620.Search in Google Scholar
Gosling, J. C. B. 1960. “Republic. Book V: τὰ πολλὰ καλά etc.” Phronesis 5: 116–28. https://doi.org/10.1163/156852860x00045.Search in Google Scholar
Grube, G. M. A., and C. D. C. Reeve (trans.). 1992. Plato: Republic. Indianapolis & Cambridge: Hackett Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Grube, G. M. A., and C. D. C. Reeve (trans.). 1997. “Phaedo.” In Plato: Complete Works, edited by J. M. Cooper, 49–100. Indianapolis & Cambridge: Hackett Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Harte, V. 2011. “Plato’s Metaphysics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Plato, edited by G. Fine, 191–216. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195182903.003.0008Search in Google Scholar
Harte, V. 2018. “Knowing and Believing in Republic 5.” In Rereading Ancient Philosophy: Old Chestnuts and Sacred Cows, edited by V. Harte, and R. Woolf, 141–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108163866.010Search in Google Scholar
Lombardo, S., and K. Bell (trans.). 1992. Plato. Protagoras. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.Search in Google Scholar
Moss, J. 2021. Plato’s Epistemology. Being & Seeming. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198867401.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Mourelatos, A. P. D., ed. 2008. The Route of Parmenides. Revised and Expanded Edition. Las Vegas & Zurich & Athens: Parmenides Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Nehamas, A. 1973. “Predication and Forms of Opposites in the Phaedo.” The Review of Metaphysics 26 (3): 461–91.Search in Google Scholar
Nehamas, A. 2019. “The Academy at Work: The Target of Dialectic in Plato’s Parmenides.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 57: 121–52.10.1093/oso/9780198850847.003.0004Search in Google Scholar
Penner, T. 1987. The Ascent from Nominalism: Some Existent Arguments in Plato’s Middle Dialogues. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing.10.1007/978-94-009-3791-8Search in Google Scholar
Politis, V. 2021. Plato’s Essentialism: Reinterpreting the Theory of Forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108986243Search in Google Scholar
Rowe, C. 2012. Plato. The Republic. Translated with an Introduction and Notes. London: Penguin Books.Search in Google Scholar
Scaltsas, T. 2006. “Sharing a Property.” In Remembering Socrates: Philosophical Essays, edited by L. Judson, and V. Karasmanis, 142–56. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/oso/9780199276134.003.0010Search in Google Scholar
Shorey, P. 1903. The Unity of Plato’s Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Shorey, P. 1930. Plato: The Republic, Vol. I (Loeb Classical Library). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Slings, S. R. 2003. Platonis Rempvblicam. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Smith, N. D. 2000. “Plato on Knowledge as a Power.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 38 (2): 145–68. https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.2005.0082.Search in Google Scholar
Smith, N. D. 2019. Summoning Knowledge in Plato’s Republic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198842835.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Stokes, M. C. 1992. “Plato and the Sightlovers of the Republic.” Apeiron 25 (4): 103–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/apeiron.1992.25.4.103.Search in Google Scholar
Vlastos, G. 1973. “The Unity of the Virtues in the Protagoras.” In Id., Platonic Studies, 221–65. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Search in Google Scholar
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Ricordo di Thomas Alexander Szlezák
- Articles
- Ferecide l’oscuro
- Geometrical Oppositions as Coordinates for a Heraclitus’ Circular Cosmology
- The Distinction between Philosophers and Sight-Lovers: Socrates’ First Line of Argument in Rep. V 476a1–d6.
- Aristotle on τύχη and εὐτυχία
- La botanique d’Aristote
- Why Did Plato not Write the ‘Unwritten Doctrine’? Some Preliminary Remarks
- On a Unique Christian Appropriation of Plato in the Dialogue Ammonius by Zacharias Scholasticus
- Reviews
- Rossella Saetta Cottone: Soleil et connaissance. Empédocle avant Platon
- Daniela Taormina: Plotin. Traité 41: Sur la sensation et mémoire
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Ricordo di Thomas Alexander Szlezák
- Articles
- Ferecide l’oscuro
- Geometrical Oppositions as Coordinates for a Heraclitus’ Circular Cosmology
- The Distinction between Philosophers and Sight-Lovers: Socrates’ First Line of Argument in Rep. V 476a1–d6.
- Aristotle on τύχη and εὐτυχία
- La botanique d’Aristote
- Why Did Plato not Write the ‘Unwritten Doctrine’? Some Preliminary Remarks
- On a Unique Christian Appropriation of Plato in the Dialogue Ammonius by Zacharias Scholasticus
- Reviews
- Rossella Saetta Cottone: Soleil et connaissance. Empédocle avant Platon
- Daniela Taormina: Plotin. Traité 41: Sur la sensation et mémoire