While the argument of Plato’s Cratylus supports both the claim that there is a natural correctness of names and the claim that correct names need not be descriptions or imitations of their referents, the protagonists of the Cratylus find it infeasible to reconcile these two claims. In my paper, I account for this puzzling observation by elaborating a novel interpretation of the Cratylus. I show that the protagonists of the Cratylus are unable to make sense of the results of their (...) joined investigation because they rely on a mistaken preconception of what a correct name is. Based on this diagnosis, I contend that Plato wants his readers to comprehend and overcome the dialectical predicament of his protagonists. I thus illuminate both the internal logic of the Cratylus and the philosophical agenda Plato pursues in staging a dialogue with this particular internal logic. (shrink)

This paper offers an interpretation of Plato's Cratylus 427d1-431c3 that supports a reading of the dialogue as a whole as concluding in favour of a conventionalist account of naming. While many previous interpretations note the value of this passage as evidence for Platonic investigations of false propositions, this paper argues that its demonstration that there can be false (or incorrect) naming in turn refutes the naturalist account of naming; that is, it shows that a natural relation between name and nominatum (...) is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for reference. Socrates secures this outcome by using demonstratives and their concomitants to show how any putative natural imitative link between name and object may be overridden. Furthermore, Socrates' employment of demonstratives and context-dependent statements in his case-studies of false naming speaks in favour of a reading of this passage as primarily focussing on naming rather than on propositions in general. (shrink)

This article updates “The State of the Question in the Study of Plato” (Southern Journal of Philosophy, 1996) based on research covering the years from 1995–2015. Its three major parts examine: (1) how the mid‐twentieth‐century consensus has fared, (2) whether the new trends identified in that article have continued, and (3) identify trends either new or missed in the original article. On the whole, it shows the continuing decline of dogmatic and nondramatic Plato interpretation and the expansion and ramification of (...) the more literary, dramatic, and nondogmatic “new Platonism.” What was a growing insurgency twenty years ago can now be described as a, if not the, dominant approach. (shrink)

Me propongo discutir la teoría del lenguaje que Platón sostiene en este diálogo. Su punto de vista busca evitar tanto los peligros del enfoque naturalista de Cratilo como el convencionalista de Hermógenes, aunque considero que su posición es más cercana a Hermógenes, quien destaca el carácter práctico del lenguaje (387c ss.) El horizonte que guía su indagación es la relación epistémica entre lógos y cosa (on y pragma), esto es, la pregunta sobre qué me permite conocer el lenguaje de las (...) cosas y del mundo. Las partes etimológicas del diálogo muestran que partir de la palabra atómica es erróneo, ya que una palabra desvinculada de la frase no crea conexión alguna entre lenguaje y mundo. Sólo podemos conocer o mostrar la esencia de algo mediante un entrelazamiento de palabras, en la que la oración es la unidad mínima significativa del lenguaje, a saber un sustantivo y un verbo. Por esto es importante, para mi lectura, el pasaje 432d11 – 433a1, en el cual se muestra el carácter indispensable del lógos para mostrar lo que una cosa verdaderamente es. (shrink)

Near the beginning of the Cratylus (385e-387d) Plato's Socrates argues, against his friend Hermogenes, that the standards of correctness for our use of names in speech are in no way up to us. Yet this conclusion should strike us, at least initially, as bizarre. After all, how could it not be up to us whether to call our children by the names of our parents, or whether to call dogs “dogs“? My aim in this paper will be to show that, (...) although Plato's argument does not succeed in establishing this apparently bizarre conclusion, it may well succeed in establishing an equally momentous conclusion: that the standards of correctness for our use of concepts in thought are in no way up to us. (shrink)