Herds of Featherless Bipeds: Division and Privation in Plato’s Statesman
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249X_34_S5Keywords:
Plato, Division, Privation, Humans, StatesmanshipAbstract
This paper explores privation in the Statesman, first from a methodological point of view, and then politically. I begin (§1) with the Rule of Bisection (262a-e): classes should be bifurcated by form, which apparently excludes division by positive and negative terms (e.g. human and non-human). The significance of the restriction is debated. I argue that the correct interpretation must take into account the preponderance of privative terms in the subsequent divisions of animals. According to one definition, humans are two-footed, non-interbreeding, hornless land animals; according to another, they are featherless, two-footed land animals (264d-266e). On my reading of the rule, classes should be bifurcated with reference to constitutive features of the resulting subclasses; while negative properties never satisfy this requirement, privations are in some cases partly constitutive of the target class in division. This insight allows me to offer a charitable reading of the Eleatic Stranger’s definitions of the human herd, which others have disparaged, as relevant for political theory (§2) and tightly linked with the Myth of the Ages (268e-274d) that follows these divisions (§3). In the final section, I sketch a unified outlook on the dialogue as concerned with effective political collaboration, under the supervision of a statesman who expertly integrates each member into the self-protective fabric of society (§4).
Downloads
References
BENARDETE, S. (1986). Plato’s Statesman Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
BROWN, L. (2011). Negation and Not-being: Dark matter in the Sophist In: HERMANN, A. (ed.). Presocratics and Plato: A Festschrift for Charles Kahn Las Vegas, Parmenides Publishing, p. 269-91.
BURNET, J. (1900) Platonis Opera Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CAMPBELL, L. (ed.) (1867). The Sophistes and Politicus of Plato Oxford, Clarendon Press.
CLARK, S. R. L. (1995). Herds of Free Bipeds. In: ROWE, C. J. (ed.). Reading the Statesman: Proceedings of the III Symposium Platonicum, Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag, p. 236-52.
COHEN, S. M. (1973). Plato’s Method of Division. In: MORAVCSIK J. M. E. (ed.). Patterns in Plato’s Thought Dordrecht, Reidel, p. 181-91.
CRIVELLI, P. (2012). Plato’s Account of Falsehood: A Study of the Sophist Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
DORTER, K. (1994). Form and Good in Plato’s Eleatic Dialogues the Parmenides, Theaetetus, Sophist, and Statesman Berkeley, University of California Press.
FINE, G. (1993). On Ideas: Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato’s Theory of Forms Oxford, Clarendon Press .
FRANKLIN, L. (2011). Dichotomy and Platonic Diairesis. History of Philosophy Quarterly 28, n. 1, p. 1-20.
GILL, C. (1995). Rethinking Constitutionalism in Statesman 291-303. In: ROWE, C. J. (ed.). Reading the Statesman: Proceedings of the III Symposium Platonicum , Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag p. 292-305.
GILL, M. L. (2010). Division and Definition in Plato’s Sophist and Statesman In: CHARLES, D. (ed.). Definition in Greek Philosophy Oxford, Oxford University Press , p. 172-201.
KLEIN, J. (1977), Plato’s Trilogy: Theaetetus, the Sophist and the Statesman Chicago, University of Chicago Press .
LAMB, W. R. M. (1967). Plato. Plato in Twelve Volumes, vol. 3: Laches, Protagoras, Meno, Euthydemus Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
LANE, M. (1998). Method and Politics in Plato’s ‘Statesman’ Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
LAWRENCE, G. (2021). Trailhead: 257a1-259d6. In: DIMAS, M.; LANE, M.; SAUVÉ MEYER, S. (eds.). Plato’s Statesman: A Philosophical Discussion Oxford, Oxford University Press , p. 25-51.
MCDOWELL, J. (1982). Falsehood and not-being in Plato's Sophist In: SCHOFIELD, M.; NUSSBAUM, M. C. (eds.). Language and Logos Cambridge, Cambridge University Press , p. 115-34.
MIÉ, F. (2021). Defining the Statesman by Division: 259d7-268d4. In: DIMAS, M.; LANE, M.; SAUVÉ MEYER, S. (eds.). Plato’s Statesman: A Philosophical Discussion Oxford, Oxford University Press , p. 52-70.
MILLER, M. (1980). The Philosopher in Plato’s Statesman Netherlands, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
MORAVCSIK, J. M. E. (1973). Plato’s Method of Division. In: MORAVCSIK, J. M. E. (ed.). Patterns in Plato’s Thought . Dordrecht, Reidel , p. 158-80.
MUNIZ, F.; RUDEBUSCH, G. (2018). Dividing Plato’s Kinds. Phronesis 63, n. 4, p. 392-407.
PROIOS, J. (2022). Plato on Natural Kinds: The Promethean Method of the Philebus Apeiron55, n. 2, p. 305-27.
ROWE, C. J. (1995). Plato. Plato: Statesman Warminster, Arris & Phillips.
SAYRE, K. M. (2011). Metaphysics and Method in Plato’s Statesman . Cambridge, Cambridge University Press .
SCODEL, H. R. (1987). Diaeresis and Myth in Plato’s Statesman . Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
SKEMP, J. B. (1987). Plato. Plato: the Statesman Bristol, Bristol Classical Press.
VIDAL-NAQUET, P. (1978). Plato’s Myth of the Statesman, the Ambiguities of the Golden Age and of History. Journal of Hellenic Studies 98, p. 132-41.
VLASTIS, J. (2021). Division, Syllogistic, and Science In Prior Analytics I.31. Ergo an Open Access Journal of Philosophy 8.
VLASTIS, J. (2023). The Puzzle of the Sophist Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 105, n. 3, p. 359-87.
WEDIN, M. V. (1987). Collection and Division in the Phaedrus and Statesman Revue de Philosophie Ancienne 5, p. 207-33.
WEISS, R. (1995). Statesman as επιστήμων: Caretaker, Physician and Weaver. In: ROWE, C. J. (ed.). Reading the Statesman: Proceedings of the III Symposium Platonicum , Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag , p. 213-22.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Sarale Ben-Asher
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Given the public access policy of the journal, the use of the published texts is free, with the obligation of recognizing the original authorship and the first publication in this journal. The authors of the published contributions are entirely and exclusively responsible for their contents.
1. The authors authorize the publication of the article in this journal.
2. The authors guarantee that the contribution is original, and take full responsibility for its content in case of impugnation by third parties.
3. The authors guarantee that the contribution is not under evaluation in another journal.
4. The authors keep the copyright and convey to the journal the right of first publication, the work being licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License-BY.
5. The authors are allowed and stimulated to publicize and distribute their work on-line after the publication in the journal.
6. The authors of the approved works authorize the journal to distribute their content, after publication, for reproduction in content indexes, virtual libraries and similars.
7. The editors reserve the right to make adjustments to the text and to adequate the article to the editorial rules of the journal.
