Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T23:20:39.582Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Particulars in Phaedo, 95e — 107a

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

F. C. White
F. C. White*
Affiliation:
University of Tasmania
Get access

Extract

In this paper there are two claims that I wish to defend. One is that in Socrates’ much discussed “causal” theory concrete particulars are more central than Forms. The other is that these concrete particulars are held by Plato to be not simply bundles of characteristics, not mere meeting-points of Forms, but independent individuals, existing in their own right.

It will not, I believe, be questioned that from one point of view the prime concern of the Phaedo is with concrete particulars; not with Forms, characteristics, or anything else. For, the overriding aim of the dialogue is, surely, to persuade us each to care for his own soul; it is for this reason that arguments are put forward to show that souls are indestructible. But there is no doubt that these souls are particulars.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplementary Volume , Volume 2: New Essays on Plato and the Pre-Socratics , 1976 , pp. 129 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1] Archer-Hind, R.D., The Phaedo of Plato. 2nd.ed., London, Macmillan & Co., 1894.Google Scholar
[2] Burge, Evan L., “The Ideas as Aitiai in the Phaedo”. Phronesis, 16 (1971). pp. 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Cresswll, M.J., “Essence and Existance in plato and Aristotle”, Theoria. vol.37. (1971). Part 2. pp. 91–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Cresswell, M.J., “Plato's; Theory of Causality: Phaedo 95-106”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 49, no. 3. December 1971. pp. 244-49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5] Hackforth, R., Plato’s Phaedo, Cambridge. England 1955.Google Scholar
[6] Keyt, D . “The Fallacies in phaedo 102a- 107b”. Phronesis 8 (1963). pp. 167–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7] Kirwan, Christopher. “Plato and Relativity”. Phronesis 19. no.2 (1974), pp. 112–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8] Kripke, Saul A. “Naming & Necessity”. Semantics of Natural Language. Davidson, D and Harman, G (eds.). D. Reidel Co., Dordrecht-Holland, 1972. pp. 253–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Loux, Michael J.Universals and particulars. Anchor Boob. Doubleday & Co. 1970.Google Scholar
[10] O'Brien, D. “The Last Argument of Plato's Phaedo”. Classical Quarterly. Vol.17 (1967). pp. 198-231. and Vol.18 (1968). pp. 95-106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11] Schiller, Jerome. “Phaedo 104-105: Is the Soul a Form?” Phronesis 12 (1967). pp. 50–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12] Taylor, C.C.W., “Forms as Causes; in the Phaedo”. Mind 78 (1969). pp.45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13] Turnbull, R.G., “Aristotle's Debt to the ‘Natural Philosophy’ of the Phaedo”. Philosophical Quarterly 8 (1958). pp. 131-46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14] Vlastos, Gregory. “Reasons and Causes in the Paedo”. Philosophical Review, vol.78, pp. 291-325.Google Scholar