Plato and the Other Companions of Sokrates, 3rd ed. Volume 3Grote, George
Philosophy
Plato and the Other Companions of Sokrates, 3rd ed. Volume 3
Grote, George
Philosophy, Ancient; Plato; Socrates, 470 BC-399 BC
[Footnote 16: Aristotle (Metaphys. A. 991, a. 20) characterises
this way of presenting the Platonic Ideas as mere [Greek:
kenologi/a] and poetical metaphor. See also the remarkable
Scholion of Alexander, pp. 574-575, Brandis.]
[Footnote 17: Plato, Parmenid. pp. 132-133.
This is again a repetition, though differently presented, of the
same argument--[Greek: o( tri/tos a)/nthrôpos]--enunciated p. 132
A.]
[Side-note: If Ideas exist, they cannot be knowable by us. We can
know only what is relative to ourselves. Individuals are relative
to individuals: Ideas relative to Ideas.]
5. Here are grave difficulties (continues Parmenides) opposed to
this doctrine of yours, affirming the existence of self-existent,
substantive, unchangeable, yet participated, Forms. But
difficulties still graver remain behind. Such Forms as you
describe cannot be cognizable by us: at least it is hard to show
how they can be cognizable. Being self-existent and substantive,
they are not _in us_: such of them as are relative, have their
relation with each other, not with those particular objects among
us, which are called _great_, _little_, and so forth, from being
supposed to be similar to or participant in the forms, and bearing
names the same as those of the Forms. Thus, for example, if I, an
individual man, am in the relation of master, I bear that relation
to another individual man who is my servant, not to servantship in
general (_i.e._ the Form of servantship, the _Servus per se_). My
servant, again, bears the relation of servant to me, an individual
man as master,--not to mastership in general (_i.e._ to the Form
of mastership, the _Dominus per se_). Both terms of the relation
are individual objects. On the other hand, the Forms also bear
relation to each other. The Form of servantship (_Servus per se_)
stands in relation to the Form of mastership (_Dominus per se_).
Neither of them correlates with an individual object. The two
terms of the relation must be homogeneous, each of them a
Form.[18]
[Footnote 18: Plato, Parmenid. p. 133 E.]
[Side-note: Forms can be known only through the Form of Cognition,
which we do not possess.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account