Plato’s Phaedo and “the Art of Glaucus”: Transcending the Distortions of Developmentalism
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249X_31_19Keywords:
Plato, Phaedo, developmentalismAbstract
In a 1985 article entitled “The Art of Glaukos,” Diskin Clay suggested that the enigmatic passage at the beginning of the geological myth in Phaedoreferred toRepublic10, where the soul is likened to the sea-creature Glaucus whose true nature, like the soul’s, is obscured by the distortions imposed by underwater life. Starting with a defense of Clay’s ingenious suggestion, my purpose is to compare Phaedoto Glaucus, with its true nature obscured by traditional assumptions about the order in which Plato composed his dialogues, and thus how they should be read. At least part of the reason that Clay’s thesis has not been embraced is because it clashes with the dogma that Phaedocannot refer back to Republic; I want to challenge that dogma. Borrowing from Catherine Zuckert the notion that, since Phaedocomes at the end of Socrates’ story, it can usefully be read as the culmination of the Platonic dialogues, I will show how a “late” Phaedo—i.e., a reading of the dialogue that is open to the possibility that it refers to more than one dialogue generally considered to be later than it with respect to composition—recovers its true nature, presently encrusted with the oysters and seaweed of an outdated developmentalism that has obscured this culminating masterpiece of Plato’s dramatic and philosophical art.
Downloads
References
ADAM, J. (1902). The Republic of Plato, two volumes. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
ACKRILL, J. L. (1953). “Review of David Ross, Plato’s Theory of Ideas.” Mind 62, no. 248, p. 549-556.
ALMEIDA, N. E. D. (2019). “A Metafísica Platônica como Método das Formas.” Dissertatio 49, p. 175-245.
ANNAS, JULIA (1975). “On the ‘Intermediates.’”Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 57, no. 2, p. 146-166.
ANNAS, J. (1976). Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Books M and N; Translated with Introduction and Notes. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
APOLLONI, D. (1989). “A Note on αὐτὰ τὰ ἴσα.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 27, no. 1, p. 127-134.
ARSEN, H. S. (2012). “A Case for the Utility of the Mathematical Intermediates.” Philosophia Mathematica III 20, p. 200-223.
BAE, E. (1996). “Soul and Intermediates in Plato’s Phaedo.” Ph.D. dissertation in Classics: University of California, Los Angeles.
BARNEY, R., BRENNAN, T., and BRITTAIN, C. (eds.) (2012). Plato and the Divided Self. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
BLUCK, R. S. (1955). Plato’s Phaedo: A translation with Introduction, Notes and Appendices. Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill.
BOSTOCK, D. (1986). Plato’s Phaedo. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
BURNET, J. (ed.) (1901). Platonis Opera, volumes 2-5. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
BURNET, J. (ed.) (1911). Plato’s Phaedo; edited with Introduction and Notes. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
BURNET, J. (1930). Early Greek Philosophy, fourth edition. London, Macmillan.
BURGER, R. (1984). The Phaedo: A Platonic Labyrinth. New Haven, Yale University Press.
BURNYEAT, M. F. (2006). “The Truth of Tripartition,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 106, p. 1-22.
CHERNISS, H. (1944). Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato and the Academy, volume 1. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.
CLAY, D. (1985). “The Art of Glaukos (Plato Phaedo 108d4-9).” American Journal of Philology 106, no. 2, p. 230-236.
COOPER, J. M. and HUTCHINSON, D. S. (eds.) (1997). Plato, Complete Works; edited with an Introduction and Notes. Chicago IL, Hackett.
CORNFORD, F. M. (1939). Plato and Parmenides: Parmenides’ Way of Truth and Plato’s Parmenides. London, K. Paul, Trench, Trubner.
CROSS, R. C., and WOOZLEY, A. D. (1964). Plato’s Republic: A Philosophical Commentary. New York, St. Martin’s Press.
DENYER, N. (2008). Plato, Protagoras. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
DORTER, K. (1989). “The Theory of Forms and Parmenides I.” In: ANTON, J. and PREUS, A. (eds.), Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy III: Plato. Albany, State University of New York Press, p. 183-202.
DUKE, A. et al. (eds.) (1995). Platonis Opera, volume 1. Oxford, Clarendon.
FRIEDLÄNDER, P. (1958). Plato: An Introduction, translated by Hans Meyerhoff. New York, Pantheon.
FREDE, D. (1997). Philebos; Platon. Übersetzung und Kommentar. Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
FREDE, D. (1999).“Plato on What the Body’s Eye Tells the Mind’s Eye.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 99, p. 191-209.
GALLOP, D. (1975). Plato, Phaedo; Translated with Notes. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
GALLOP, D. (1982). “Plato’s ‘Cyclical Argument’ Recycled.” Phronesis 27, no. 3, p. 207-222.
GALLOP, D. (2003). “The Rhetoric of Philosophy: Socrates’ Swan Song.” In: MICHELINI, A. N. (ed.), Plato as Author: The Rhetoric of Philosophy,. Leiden and Boston: Brill, p. 313-332.
GEACH, P. T. (1956). “The Third Man Again.” Philosophical Review 65, no. 1, p. 72-82.
GERSON, L. (2000). “Plato Absconditus.” In: PRESS, G. (ed.), Who Speaks for Plato? Lanham, Rowman and Littlefield, p. 201-210.
GERSON, L. (2013). From Plato to Platonism. Ithaca, NY and London, Cornell University Press.
GREEN, C. T. (2014). “Is Platonic Rebirth Pointless?” In: HEATH, M., GREEN, C. T., and SERRANITO, F. (eds.), Religion and Belief: A Moral Landscape. Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, p. 57-75.
GREENE, W. C. (ed.) (1938). Scholia Platonica. Haverford, PA: American Philological Society.
GUTIÉRREZ, R. (2017). El Arte de la Conversión: Un estudio sobre la Républica de Platón. Lima, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.
HACKFORTH, R. (ed.) (1955). Plato’s Phaedo: Translated with Introduction and Commentary. Cambridge, UK, University Press.
JORGENSON, C. (2018). The Embodied Soul in Plato’s Later Thought. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
KAHN, C. H. (1996). Plato and the Socratic Dialogue: The Philosophical Use of Literary Form. Cambridge UK, Cambridge University Press.
KLEIN, J. (1985). “The Concept of Number in Greek Mathematics and Philosophy” (1939). In KLEIN, J., Lectures and Essays. Annapolis, MD, St. John’s College Press, 43-52.
KRÄMER, H. J. (1966). “Über den Zusammenhang von Prinzipienlehre und Dialektik bei Platon; Zur Definition des Dialektikers Politeia 534 B-C.” Philologus 10, p. 35-70.
LEE, D. C. (2012). “Drama, Dogmatism, and the ‘Equals’ Argument in Plato’s Phaedo.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 44, p. 1-39.
LÖHR, G. (1990). Das Problem des Einen und Vielen in Platons Philebos. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
MORROW, G. R. (1952). “Review of David Ross, Plato’s Theory of Ideas.” Ethics 62, no. 2, p. 147-149.
PRITCHARD, P. (1995). Plato’s Philosophy of Mathematics. Sankt Augustin, Academia.
RAVEN, J. E. (1948). , Pythagoreans and Eleatics. London, Cambridge University Press.
RIST, J. M. (1964). “Equals and Intermediates in Plato.” Phronesis 9, no. 1, p. 27-37.
ROSS, W. D. (ed.) (1924). Aristotle’s Metaphysics: A Revised Text with Introduction and Commentary, two volumes. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
ROSS, W. D. (1951). Plato’s Theory of Ideas. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
RUPRECHT, L. A., Jr. (1999). Symposia: Plato, the Erotic, and Moral Value. Albany, State University of New York Press.
RYLE, G. (1966). Plato’s Progress. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
SEDLEY, D. (ed.) (2010). Plato: Meno and Phaedo, translated by Alex Long. Cambridge, UK and New York, Cambridge University Press.
SHINER, R. A. (1983). “Knowledge in Philebus 55c-62a: A Response.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Supplementary Volume 9, p. 171-183.
SHOREY, P. (1903). The Unity of Plato’s Thought. Chicago IL, University of Chicago Press.
SLINGS, S. R. (ed.) (2003). Platonis Rempublicam. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
SMITH, N. D. (1996). “Plato’s Divided Line.” Ancient Philosophy 16, p. 25-46.
VLASTOS, G. “Postscript to the Third Man: A Reply to Mr. Geach” in ALLEN, R. E. (ed.), Studies in Plato’s Metaphysics. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul; New York: Humanities Press, 279-291.
WATERFIELD, R. A. H. (1980). “The Place of the Philebus in Plato’s Dialogues.” Phronesis, 25, no. 3, p. 270-305.
WEDBERG, A. (1955). Plato’s Philosophy of Mathematics. Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell.
WILSON, J. C. (1904). “On the Platonist Doctrine of the ἀσύμβλητοι ἀριθμοί.” Classical Review 18 no. 5, p. 247-260.
WOOLF, R. (2012). “How to See an Unencrusted Soul.” In: BARNEY, R., BRENNAN, T., and BRITTAIN, C. (eds.) (2012), Plato and the Divided Self. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, p. 150-173.
ZUCKERT, C. H. (2009). Plato’s Philosophers: The Coherence of the Dialogues. Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 William Henry Furness Altman
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.
