Plato’s Timaeus reveals a cosmos governed by Necessity and Intellect; commentators have debated the relationship between them. Non-literalists hold that the demiurge, having carte blanche in taming Necessity, is omnipotent. But this omnipotence, alongside the attributes of benevolence and omniscience, creates problems when non-literalists address the problem of evil. We take the demiurge rather as limited by Necessity. This position is supported by episodes within the text, and by its larger consonance with Plato’s philosophy of evil and responsibility. By recognizing (...) the analogy between man and demiurge, the literal reading provides a moral component that its non-literal counterpart lacks. (shrink)

One aim of this paper is to bring to the surface the problems with the traditional, non-literal interpretation of the pre-cosmos in the Timaeus. Contrary to this traditional interpretation, I show that Necessity is an ateleological cause capable of bringing about the events in the pre-cosmos, and that Intelligence is a teleological cause that produces effects only for the sake of maximizing the good. I conclude that there are no grounds for supposing that Intelligence is a causal force operating in (...) the pre-cosmos, and that the account of the pre-cosmos should be taken literally: it is an account of the works of Necessity alone. (shrink)

At Plato’s Phaedrus 270c, Socrates asks whether one can know souls without knowing ‘the whole.’ Phaedrus answers that ‘according to Hippocrates’ the same demand on knowing the whole applies to bodies. What parallel is intended between soul-knowledge and body-knowledge and which medical passages illustrate the analogy have been much debated. Three dominant interpretations read ‘the whole’ as respectively (1) environment, (2) kosmos, and (3) individual soul or body; and adduce supporting Hippocratic passages. But none of these interpretations accounts for the (...) Phaedrus’ rhetorical method. A better reading sees the whole as the genos ‘soul,’ as the Phaedrus’ taxonomies divide that genus. (shrink)

At Phaedo 105c, Socrates introduces a type of explanation (αἰτία) he describes as “clever.” Rather than explaining a body’s hotness in terms of the body’s participation in the Form Hot, for example, the clever αἰτία attributes a body’s hotness to the presence of fire in the body. Traditional interpretations argue that the clever αἰτία accounts for the interaction between fire and the body in terms of logical entailment relationships among the Forms. On this view, fire makes bodies hot because fire (...) participates in the Form Fire and the Form Fire entails the Form Hot. In Part One of this paper, Jelinek shows that this traditional interpretation yields problematic results. In Part Two, Jelinek considers the possibility that the clever αἰτία is a hybrid explanation that invokes both Forms and particulars as irreducible sources of explanation. Though an explanation that invokes particulars as explanatory modes may seem at odds with Plato’s Form-based metaphysics, Jelinek shows that this kind of explanation can be plausibly attributed to him. This novel interpretation of the clever αἰτία attributes to Plato a more complex and nuanced understanding of explanation than previously thought. (shrink)

I advocate the use of small group learning in the philosophy classroom because it engages a broad cross-section of students and because it proves to be an effective way to teach critical thinking. In this article, I suggest small group activities that are useful for developing philosophical skills, and I propose methods for circumventing common logistical problems that can arise when implementing small group learning in the classroom. Ultimately, I show that small group learning is a pedagogically powerful and logistically (...) feasible supplement to traditional teaching methods. (shrink)

Many assume that Plato's Form of the Good is a final cause. This might be true if one assumes an Aristotelian definition of final cause; however, I argue that if one adopts Plato's conception of final causation as evidenced in the Phaedo and Timaeus, the claim that the Form of the Good is a final cause for Plato is untenable.

Brandt addresses what has been called an “embarrassment” in Socratic studies: in the Crito, Socrates claims that he is only persuaded to act on the basis of propositions that appear to him to be best upon rational examination (45b). However, in several other dialogues, Socrates appears to contradict himself: He obeys the commands of his supernatural daimonion, thereby suggesting that divine command - something that is not the product of human reasoning - can also persuade Socrates to act. Herein lies (...) the apparent conflict: If Socrates is the paragon of rationality, why would he unreflectively obey the commands of his daimonion, an extra rational source? After exposing the weaknesses in arguments from the recent scholarship on this issue, Brandt undertakes the formidable task of proposing an alternative way of understanding Socrates as the “ideal rational agent.” While Brandt’s project is admirable and creative, I argue that parts of it are inconsistent with essential theses of Socratic philosophy. I address four issues that concern me. (shrink)

I argue for a view that departs radically from the long-held assumption that "to know the good is to do the good". On the view I shall defend, the role of the Form of the Good in the 'Republic' is greatly demoted; I argue that Plato thinks that knowledge of the Form of the Good is in fact 'insufficient' for the philosopher-king to rule. Instead, I argue that Plato thinks that knowledge of the Forms must be complemented with a type (...) of "practical wisdom". I define "practical wisdom" as the ability to discern information about a 'particular' circumstance and the capacity to choose the best 'actions' that will bring about ideal ends for that circumstance. (shrink)

In the Timaeus, Plato’s creation story, Plato describes an entity he refers to as the chora. The Greek word chora is translated as place, room, or space, but Plato’s descriptions of the chora are so notoriously enigmatic that there is disagreement about what, exactly, he intends to indicate by it. In this paper, I address an interpretation of the chora according to which the chora is a kind of cosmic mirror. I argue that this interpretation results in an uncharitable reading (...) of Plato’s explanation. Alternatively, I contend that Plato conceives of the chora as space, place, and matter all at once. The upshot of my view is that it attributes to Plato a more nuanced understanding of space and place and a more coherent explanatory account. (shrink)

Can Plato’s ethical theory account for the goodness of actions? Plato’s Form of the Good is regarded as the ultimate explanatory principle of all good things, which presumably includes good actions. And this is indeed a standard view. However, in this paper I argue that the theory of the Form of the Good cannot explain the goodness of actions. This is a highly contested claim because, if it is accurate, it suggests that there is a significant deficit in Plato’s theory (...) of the Form of the Good - the transcendent principle of all goodness. The success of this thesis may seem to be bad news for Plato, for if the transcendent principle of all goodness fails to account for the goodness of actions, something seems to be awry in Plato’s ethical theory. However, not all is lost. In the second part of this paper, I argue that Plato’s ethical theory is nonetheless viable, because Plato has another, distinct type of explanation that does the explanatory work that the Form of the Good cannot do. This is what I call the Platonic Teleological Explanation, Plato’s own version of a teleological explanation. The Platonic Teleological Explanation is not reducible to an explanation in terms of the Form of the Good; it is an independent and non-dispensable type of explanation. Ultimately, I shall argue that only the Platonic Teleological Explanation can account for the goodness of actions. (shrink)

Liu argues that Plato’s account of phantasia in the Sophist reveals Plato’s “deep epistemic worry about perceptual experience” (Liu, 2016, p. 175). The purpose of this paper is to identify more precisely the nature and extent of Plato’s epistemic worry. Liu claims that Plato is worried about phantasiai because, “one’s perception-based belief reflects a distorted picture of things,” but by not fully explaining the nature of this worry, Liu leaves the reader with the impression that Plato regards all phantasiai as (...) inherently faulty and inferior (Liu, 2016, p. 182). This is reminiscent of Cornford’s claim that Plato would likely give the advice, “To find reality you would do better to shut your eyes and think” (Cornford, 1937, p. 31). I argue that this is not at all what Plato would advise. In what follows, I will clarify and emphasize certain details of Plato’s account of phantasia so that we can understand more precisely what Plato’s “deep epistemic worry” really is. (shrink)