The four most prominent myths of Plato’s Republic oddly share a common motif, namely, the depiction of a subterranean locale to and from which individuals are depicted as traveling. This analysis offers an account of this motif that complements the themes of the “ascent” and “descent” of the philosopher, but draws more deeply upon katabasis mythology to reveal a subtext about individual transformation that enriches our understanding of justice.

This essay responds to D.C. Schindler’s “Language as Technē vs. Language as Technology,” which argues that, for Plato, language is a craft that has for its subject matter being itself. While Schindler’s thesis is consistent with what we know as the Platonic philosophical project, it raises several questions. First, does being, as the subject matter of language, constitute a determinate subject matter, such as is required by all crafts? Second, does the ordinary language user meet the epistemic bar of a (...) true craftsman, who possesses a rigorous knowledge of his or her subject matter? And third, in as much as Plato himself expresses doubt about our ability to master reality through language, is it feasible to see linguistic competence as a form of technical mastery? (shrink)

This essay presents an argument against human cloning. The thrust of the argument is that cloning is morally impermissible inasmuch as it violates thedignity of the clone who, as a person, is as yet an end in himself or herself. This violation of human dignity is made possible by a confusion between what Aristotledescribes as things that are “by nature” and things that are “by art.” By attempting to “make” a person, the technique of cloning superimposes the logic of artupon (...) the domain of natural reproduction. Corresponding to the efficient, formal, and final causes in art are three specific ways in which the dignity of the clone isviolated. Notably, however, these same three violations of human dignity occur in the attitudes and practices of parents in natural reproduction, indicating that theproblem of cloning is but a symptom of a more deep-seated malaise. (shrink)

This essay presents an argument against human cloning. The thrust of the argument is that cloning is morally impermissible inasmuch as it violates thedignity of the clone who, as a person, is as yet an end in himself or herself. This violation of human dignity is made possible by a confusion between what Aristotledescribes as things that are “by nature” and things that are “by art.” By attempting to “make” a person, the technique of cloning superimposes the logic of artupon (...) the domain of natural reproduction. Corresponding to the efficient, formal, and final causes in art are three specific ways in which the dignity of the clone isviolated. Notably, however, these same three violations of human dignity occur in the attitudes and practices of parents in natural reproduction, indicating that theproblem of cloning is but a symptom of a more deep-seated malaise. (shrink)

This dissertation attempts to identify the presence and role of myth in Parmenides' philosophical poem. It is argued that the myths of the poem are neither extrinsic to, nor entirely in service of, Parmenides' reasoned account. By virtue of the traditional significance which they possess, the myths of the poem determine both the form and content of Parmenides' philosophical presentation, with the result that Parmenides' philosophy should be viewed as an attempt to sustain traditional tales with philosophical argumentation. Primarily two (...) myths are identified as operative in the poem. The first is that of a mortal's chariot-journey on the path of the sun to a region of life, light and understanding. It is in the context of this archaic myth that a number of otherwise puzzling features of the poem are explained, including the detailed imagery of the prelude, the presentation of the search for knowledge as a "path," the goddess' advice on "ways of seeking," and the characterization of the poem's argumentation as "signs along the way." The second myth takes its point of departure from the first. Parmenides' conception of reality is, at its core, a mythological view of the cosmos as a whole, as associated with the vantage-point of the all-seeing sun at the apex of the sky. A dose examination of the "signs" of what is in Fr. 8 reveals that Parmenides' argumentation constitutes a defense of the notion of the cosmos as a single, animate, corporeal, possibly sentient, being. Mortal ignorance is accordingly explained as an error of perspective for Parmenides, i.e., the inability of charioteer-mind to arrive at an insight into the cosmic whole, the enduring unity from which all things come and into which they return. It is suggested that Parmenides does not deny change and plurality at the level of the phenomena; what he does deny is that change and plurality have reality from the perspective of the unity and totality of all things, in so far as that totality is conceived as a single, ever-living being. (shrink)