open access

https://hdl.handle.net/2115/35036

Some Problems of the One over Many in Plato's Parmenides

英語

2005-07-17

The Philosophical Society of Hokkaido University

Annals of the Philosophical Society of Hokkaido University

41

1-24

Western philosophy erupted in Greece in the 4th century BC. The most influential of all the Greek philosophers was Plato, (427 BC- 347 BC) who was a student of Socrates, the teacher of Aristotle and a prolific writer who started the Academy. The style of Plato's writings is that of dialogues. In Plato's early dialogues, Socrates plays a lively role and participates in an exchange of questions and answers with other characters in the dialogue. The earlier dialogues present Socrates' views on ethical matters such as justice and virtue. In the middle dialogues, Plato expresses his own philosophy through the character of Socrates. In the latter dialogues Socrates doesn't speak very much, he may be present, but he remains silent. The Parmenides, one of the last of the middle dialogues, has challenged scholars as to its meaning for over 2000 years. There are nine characters in the dialogue. Among them, there is the young Socrates, and he engages in a philosophical discussion with two other philosophers, Zeno and Parmenides, who are from Elea. Eleatic philosophy started with Parmenides in the 6th century BC, and is distinguished by its doctrine of an unchanging, indivisible reality. "All is one" is what the Eleatics professed. At the beginning of the dialogue, Zeno reads his treatise, which is a defense of Parmenides' monism. This defense is aimed at those who believe in plurality and say that Parmenides’ one results in absurdity and contradiction. Zeno states that if there is a plurality, then things that are like will be unlike, which is impossible because opposites cannot be the same. Socrates does well in his reply to Zeno by positing the Forms. There are sensibles that we perceive to be a multiplicity, and there is also a separate realm of the Forms. The Forms are what all things participate in, that is, an act is just because it has a certain relationship to the unchanging and incorporeal Form of Justice. Because of the Forms, a man can be both a plurality and a unity. He may have many parts, but these parts make up a complete whole. This is due to participating in the Forms of Unity, Plurality, Likeness and Unlikeness. In the remainder of the dialogue, Parmenides continues as the interlocutor. The Form of Unity is analyzed by Parmenides in a barrage of arguments. Throughout these arguments several points are raised that show Plato's Theory of Forms to be problematic. There is no clear conclusion at the end of the dialogue, and we left wondering what Plato thought about the problems posited in the dialogue. In this paper I propose that Plato took these problems seriously, yet they were not damaging to his Theory of Forms. Surely, Plato would not have published this dialogue if he believed the objections in it destroyed his Theory of Forms. The Forms are central to Plato's philosophy and metaphysics. By analyzing Unity, I believe that Plato wanted to show that there are two different types of predication. One type of predication is things in relation to themselves. The other type of predication is things in relation to others. Unity is analyzed, and by doing so, Plato answers the problems that were raised in the early part of the dialogue, such as the Third Man Argument. By using the dialogue and presenting his philosophy in a dramatic act, Plato compels the reader to draw his own conclusions. The dialogue must be seen as a unity because only then can we see Plato's intention in writing it. The Forms for Plato did exist, yet he was aware of the problems that arise with his theory. By writing the Parmenides, Plato wanted to show us that the objections to the Forms were not insurmountable.

紀要論文

Version of Record

0287-2560

AN0015042X