Abstract
The study of Plato may be likened to a passage or an attempted passage through a large and luxuriant grove. Through this grove an indefinite number of routes appear to be possible. Some of the apparent routes are blocked; others meander through a labyrinth and lead endlessly to no emergence; still others are well trodden, academically blessed. One of the possible routes will be explored in this book. At times the present route will probably cross or coincide with a familiar one; at other times it will not do so. Since our culture is essentially Platonic, almost any such exploration should be profitable. It is, I suggest, not certain that Western culture has completed this passage; it may even be that a complete passage is not possible. Perhaps, like the old Oedipus, we are destined to remain within this curious grove. At any rate, much remains to be explored before we can decide whether the grove is impassable or not, whether we have merely failed to discover the passage, or whether we cannot but fail to discover it.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
The Phaedrus may be viewed as a transitional dialogue; cf. J. Stenzel, Plato’s Method of Dialectic, trans. D. J. Allen, (Oxford, 1940), chap. IX.
Shorey argues that the chronology of the dialogues cannot be established unless one accepts as given some version of the doctrine and its supposed changes. He also points out that doctrinal changes are often argued for by appeal to chronology. In such instances the chronology concluded upon begs the question, (Cf. The Unity of Plato’s Thought, the Decennial Publications, first series, vol. VI, (Univ. of Chicago, 1904) passim; What Plato Said (Chicago, 1933) chap. II). C. Ritter uses stylometric methods to divide the dialogues into three groups. Platon vol. I, München (1910), cf. p. 273. The earlier group of Socratic dialogues ends with the Symposium and Phaedo. The middle group consists of the Republic, Phaedrus, Theaetetus, and Parmenides. I regard this group as transitional to the last one which begins with the Sophist. It makes no real difference to my argument whether the differences in Plato’s doctrines be the result of Plato’s own philosophical maturation or the consequence of dramatic or of pedagogi-cal design. My point is that if the dialogues be read in an order approximating to that indicated by Ritter’s grouping, that a philosophic development of importance can be discerned in them. Thus I accept this grouping and proceed with the interpretative task.
Unless otherwise indicated, translations of the dialogues will be taken from the Loeb Classical Library edition, (London, 1923–27) vols. I-X. These translations were made by H. N. Fowler, W. R. M. Lamb, and R. G. Bary, except for the Republic which was translated for the same series (1930–35) by P. Shorey. I shall use the conventional abbreviations of the titles of the dialogues and shall follow the practice of including the brief references to the dialogues within parentheses in the text. This practice is probably less annoying than requesting the reader continually to shift his eyes to the bottom of the page.
Soph. 251B. It is of interest to note that these sophistic views of language express in the linguistic context certain of the possibilities of blending among the forms which play so important a part in the Sophist (251D; cf. Theaet. 197D).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1965 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ballard, E.G. (1965). Introduction. In: Socratic Ignorance. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9432-7_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9432-7_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8645-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9432-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive