The purpose of this paper is to reassess some mathematical examples in Plato’s dialogues which at a first glance may appear to be nothing more than trivial puzzles. In order to provide the necessary background for this analysis, I shall begin by sketching a brief overview of Plato’s mathematical passages and discuss the criteria for aptly selecting them. Second, I shall explain what I mean by ‘mathematical examples,’ and reflect on their function in light of the discussion on παραδείγματα outlined (...) in theSophistand theStatesman. Against this framework, I shall move to a close examination of specific examples drawn from theTheaetetus(154c–55d), theRepublic(523c–24d), and thePhaedo(96d–97b, 100e–101d). By placing these examples in the broader context of pre-Euclidean mathematics, I shall show that their mathematical content is often less elementary than might appear at first sight. Moreover, by placing emphasis on the specific philosophical concerns that motivated their introduction, I shall argue that the examples are not merely nonsensical jokes. Even if their illustrative purpose is not always immediately clear, and even if they can sound playful and bizarre, they in fact fulfil an important function: by virtue of their power to generate wonder or confusion, they serve as exercises and act as a trigger with respect to the difficult philosophical issues they are intended to clarify. (shrink)

This paper presents a new interpretation of the objects of dianoia in Plato’s divided line, contending that they are mental images of the Forms hypothesized by the dianoetic reasoner. The paper is divided into two parts. A survey of the contemporary debate over the identity of the objects of dianoia yields three criteria a successful interpretation should meet. Then, it is argued that the mental images interpretation, in addition to proving consistent with key passages in the middle books of the (...) Republic, better meets those criteria than do any of the three main positions. (shrink)

L’article met en lumière la continuité intellectuelle de l’Académie à propos d’une question précise, les rapports entre philosophie et géométrie. On soutient d’abord que, dans les livres VI-VII de la République, Platon ne cherche pas à réformer les pratiques des géomètres mais identifie les contraintes incontournables de leurs raisonnements (constructions, hypothèses), qui constituent et limitent leur objectivité. On montre ensuite que cette analyse constitue le cadre des réflexions académiciennes ultérieures sur la géométrie. Speusippe reprend et développe l’analyse platonicienne des constructions (...) géométriques, qui est appliquée (de Speusippe à Crantor) à la cosmologie et même à la doctrine des principes, afin d’expliquer comment elles saisissent leurs objets éternels depuis le devenir, de manière indirecte. Si la Nouvelle Académie d’Arcésilas et de Carnéade critique les mathématiques, on fait l’hypothèse qu’il s’agissait pour elle – dans le contexte des débats philosophiques hellénistiques sur les usages des mathématiques –, de rappeler les limites de leur objectivité contre toute idéalisation dogmatique de la méthode géométrique. (shrink)