ÿþ<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><!-- InstanceBegin template="/Templates/Base.dwt" codeOutsideHTMLIsLocked="false" --> <head> <!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="head" --> <link href="../../SpryAssets/SpryCollapsiblePanel.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" /> <link href="tabs.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" /> <link href="cpstyl.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" /> <script src="../../SpryAssets/SpryCollapsiblePanel.js" type="text/javascript"></script> <link href="base.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" /> <link href="ovr.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" /> <!-- InstanceEndEditable --> <!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="doctitle" --> <title>PLATO HODIE - " !/</title> <!-- InstanceEndEditable --> <style type="text/css"> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:"Arial Black"; panose-1:2 11 10 4 2 1 2 2 2 4;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0mm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#1A1A1A;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:saddlebrown; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:saddlebrown; text-decoration:underline;} table.MsoNormalTable td p a { text-decoration:underline !important; } table.MsoNormalTable td p a { ; } p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate {mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char"; margin:0mm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:8.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"; color:#1A1A1A;} span.BalloonTextChar {mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char"; mso-style-link:"Balloon Text"; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"; color:#1A1A1A;} p.msochpdefault, li.msochpdefault, div.msochpdefault {mso-style-name:msochpdefault; margin-right:0mm; margin-left:0mm; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#1A1A1A;} .MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} @page WordSection1 {size:595.3pt 841.9pt; margin:20.0mm 42.5pt 20.0mm 30.0mm;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} p.LPar { font-family:Tahoma, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:11pt; } div.MsoNormal1 {margin:0mm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; text-align:center; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";} div.aff1 {mso-style-name:!5:F8O; margin-top:18.0pt; margin-right:0mm; margin-bottom:6.0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"; font-variant:small-caps;} div.aff2 {mso-style-name:>45@0B>@K; margin-top:0mm; margin-right:0mm; margin-bottom:6.0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"; font-variant:small-caps;} li.MsoNormal1 {margin:0mm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";} li.aff1 {mso-style-name:!5:F8O; margin-top:18.0pt; margin-right:0mm; margin-bottom:6.0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"; font-variant:small-caps;} li.aff2 {mso-style-name:>45@0B>@K; margin-top:0mm; margin-right:0mm; margin-bottom:6.0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"; font-variant:small-caps;} p.MsoNormal1 {margin:0mm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";} p.aff1 {mso-style-name:!5:F8O; margin-top:18.0pt; margin-right:0mm; margin-bottom:6.0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"; font-variant:small-caps;} p.aff2 {mso-style-name:>45@0B>@K; margin-top:0mm; margin-right:0mm; margin-bottom:6.0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"; font-variant:small-caps;} --> </style> <link href="../2014/tabs.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" /> <link href="../../design/plato.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" /> </head> <body> <!-- SPBU top panel loader --> <script type="text/javascript"> (function(){ var sc = document.createElement('script'); sc.type = 'text/javascript'; sc.async = true; sc.src = '//topbar.spbu.ru/loader.js'; var ls = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; ls.parentNode.insertBefore(sc, ls); })(); </script> <!-- /loader --> <table class="Pwrapper"> <thead> <tr> <td colspan="2"> <a href="../../index.htm">;0B>=>2A:>5 D8;>A>DA:>5 >1I5AB2></a></td> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td class="Pmenu"> <a href="../../index.htm"><img src="../../design/logo.gif" width="166" height="74" alt="Plato" /></a> <div><a href="../../ABOUTUS/index1.htm"> =0A</a></div> <div><a href="../../AKADEMIA/index2.htm">:045<88</a></div> <div><a href="../index3.htm">>=D5@5=F88</a></div> <div><a href="../../SUMMERSCHOOL/index4.htm">5B=85 H:>;K</a></div> <div><a href="../../PROJECTS/index5.htm">0CG=K5 ?@>5:BK</a></div> <div><a href="../../DISSERTATION/index6.htm">8AA5@B0F88</a></div> <div><a href="../../TEXTS/index7.htm">"5:ABK ?;0B>=8:>2</a></div> <div><a href="../../RESEARCH/index8.htm">AA;54>20=8O ?> ?;0B>=87<C</a></div> <div><a href="../../COMPANIONS/index11.htm">!?@02>G=K5 8740=8O</a></div> <div><a href="../../PARTNERS/index9.htm">0@B=5@K</a></div> <!-- <div><a href="../../INFO/index10.htm">=B5@=5B-@5AC@AK</a></div> --> <hr width="70%" /> <div><a href="../../pfsforms/index.html"> &laquo;;0B>=>2A:>5 D8;>A>DA:>5 >1I5AB2>&raquo;</a></div> </td> <td> <script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> function SetBodyProps() { document.body.onresize="BodyResized()"; document.body.onload="BodyResized()"; } var tInit = SetBodyProps(); </script> <!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="MainContent" --> <blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'> <p align="right" style='text-align:right'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;'><a href="../index3.htm">  !!# $ &</a></span></b></p> </blockquote> <div style="text-align: center;"> <center> <table> <tr> <td> <img src="IMAGES/PPhS.png" border="0" alt="" /> </td> <td style="text-align: center; white-space: nowrap; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="text-align: center; font: Georgia; font-size: 40px; font-weight: bold; font-variant: small-caps;">The Universe of Platonic Thought<br /> #=825@AC< ?;0B>=>2A:>9 <KA;8</span><br /> <span style="text-align: center; font: Georgia; font-size: 20px; font-weight: normal; font-variant: small-caps;">26th International Conferecne&nbsp;&nbsp;&middot;&nbsp;&nbsp;XXVI 564C=0@>4=0O :>=D5@5=F8O</span><br /> <span style="text-align: center; font: Georgia; font-size: 14px; font-weight: normal">28&ndash;30 August 2018&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;St Petersburg, Russia&nbsp;&nbsp;&middot;&nbsp;&nbsp;28&ndash;30 023CAB0&nbsp;2018&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;!0=:B-5B5@1C@3, >AA8O</span> </td> <td> <img src="IMAGES/pla150.png" border="0" alt="" /> </td> </tr> </table> </center> </div> <hr /> <div class="d1"> <table class="ovrBtn"> <tr> <td class="c1" style="vertical-align:bottom !important;"> <img src="IMAGES/ovrbrd_11.png" alt="" /> </td> <td class="c1"> <img src="IMAGES/ovrbrd_12.png" alt="" /> </td> <td class="c7"> </td> <td class="c1"> <img src="IMAGES/ovrbrd_15.png" alt="" /> </td> <td class="c1" style="vertical-align:bottom !important;"> <img src="IMAGES/ovrbrd_16.png" alt="" /> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="c1"> <img src="IMAGES/ovrbrd_18.png" alt="" /> </td> <td colspan="3" class="c8" > <a href="upt26en.htm">Back to the Conference Program</a> </td> <td class="c1"> <img src="IMAGES/ovrbrd_19.png" alt="" /> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="c1"> <img src="IMAGES/ovrbrd_23.png" alt="" /> </td> <td class="c1"> <img src="IMAGES/ovrbrd_24.png" alt="" /> </td> <td class="c9"> </td> <td class="c1"> <img src="IMAGES/ovrbrd_26.png" alt="" /> </td> <td class="c1"> <img src="IMAGES/ovrbrd_27.png" alt="" /> </td> </tr> </table> </div> <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"> <tr> <td><img src="tabs/tii_48.png" border="0" /></td> <td style="background:url(tabs/tii_45a.png) repeat-x"></td> <td><img src="tabs/tii_56.png" border="0" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td style="background:url(tabs/tii_68.png) repeat-y"></td> <td width="100%" bgcolor="#F0FFF0"> <div style="text-align:right;font-family:Tahoma, Geneva, sans-serif;font-size:16px;"><span style="color:#555">5B @CAA:>9 25@A88</span></div> <div style="font-family:Tahoma, Geneva, sans-serif;font-size:14px;"><p class='pcAuthor'><span class='pcName'>Renato Matoso</span><span class='pcAffil'>, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro</span><span class='pcPosition'>, Assistant Professor</span></p> <p class='pcTitleD'>Perspectivism and Conciliation in the Reading of Plato s Dialogues</p><p class='tcSumma'>In recent decades a growing number of scholars have questioned the developmental approach to Plato that dominated scholarship in the 20th century. In this context, old strategies of reading the dialogues have been renewed and new approaches have been proposed. Basically, three different methodologies of reading the dialogues have been advocated: the still dominant Developmentalism, Unitarianism, and the literary (or Isolationist) reading. These different approaches are still largely taken as competitors and there seems to be no methodology available that systematically integrates these different readings. In my presentation, I will develop the  Perspective reading proposed by Kahn (2005), and Gonzales (2016) in order to present a methodology that integrate some aspects of these different approaches in a systematic and coherent way. <br />Perspectivism can be understood as the methodological recognition that the dramatic framework of the dialogues, the occasion of the conversation and the character of the interlocutors, are all conditioning factors for the arguments, theories, and doctrines presented by Plato. By this definition it is clear that a characteristic of the perspectivist reading is its emphasis on the irreducible diversity of the dialogues and its refusal to assimilate them to one narrative, whether it be a developmentalist or unitarian one. In this aspect, perspectivism is close to the literary reading that analyses each dialogue in its singularity. However, the idea that each dialogue presents a particular and limited perspective on the truth, conditioned by its specific context, aim and characters is not incompatible with the idea that we must look for the philosophical unity underlying a plurality of literary expressions. This way, by suggesting that the dialogues present different perspectives on one truth and that the differences in its literary expression do not represent fundamental changes in Plato s philosophy, the  perspectivist reading has also an affinity to Unitarianism. Finally, perspectivism is close to Developmentalism in that it also recognizes different presentations of a same topic; the difference is that a perspectivist approach will methodologically look for an underlying unity in Plato s philosophy while the developmentalist will look for Plato s  last word on the subject. <br />I will propose the methodological distinction between a synchronic and a diachronic analysis of Plato s dialogues within the broader context of a perspectivist reading in order to integrate important aspects of the three above mentioned approaches (Unitarianism, Developmentalism, and Isolacionism). The synchronic analysis aims to do full justice to the literary and dramatic character of the dialogues, taking into account for the interpretation of arguments the circumstances and specific concerns of a particular dramatic scene. The diachronic analysis, on the other hand, aims to integrate each different formulation in search for the underlying unity or deep philosophical structure without loosing sight that this unity cannot be captured by any unique, definitive formulation. The task of a philosophical interpretation is to work out what these two analysis have in common, and what they add to one another when brought together. I will exemplify the proposed methodology through the analysis of important arguments in Plato s dialogues. <br /></p><br /> <p class='hcAbstract'>In recent decades a growing number of scholars have questioned the developmental approach to Plato that dominated scholarship in the 20th century. In this context, old strategies of reading the dialogues have been renewed and new approaches have been proposed. In this presentation, I will defend an innovative approach to Plato s dialogues that I am calling, in that lack of a better terminology,  perspectivism . The perspective reading, at least in the way I see it, is not an innovative approach to Plato s work in the sense that it proposes a general interpretation or understating of the Platonic philosophy or world view. In the end of this presentation I will have a few brief words on the relation between the perspectivist reading and the content of the platonic philosophy. But I would like to stress at this point that in the next minutes I will be defending what I take to be the right way of reading a dramatic literary texts with philosophical content such as the platonic dialogues. In this sense, perspectivism is just a methodology of reading Plato, not a innovative interpretation of his philosophy. And If any innovative understating of Plato s philosophy emerges from this way of dealing with his texts it should be considered and judged apart form the methodological thesis I will be defending here.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> My starting point would not deserve mention if not for the fact that many of the greatest interpreters of the 20th century surprisingly disregard it: Plato decided to present his thought in a very complex dramatic frame in which a great number of dramatic personae interact and every dialogue make reference to other dialogues either by the reappearance of the same character(s) or by the reoccurrence of the same themes and philosophical problems. These are internal fundamental aspects of the platonic <i>opera </i>and to disregard them should be considered so worrying as disregarding one of the platonic arguments. In this way, the definition of perspectivism provided by Kahn and Gonzales according to which perspectivism is  the methodological recognition that the dramatic framework of the dialogues, the occasion of the conversation and the character of the interlocutors, are all conditioning factors for the arguments, theories, and doctrines presented by Plato should be considered extremely satisfactory.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> This definition makes it clear that each phrase, argument or theory presented in the dialogues is shaped to fit a specific dialectical context, and further that each one of the platonic characters represents a different perspective on the issues debated in the dialogues. Because of that, a correct understating of any argument should take into account the character who formulates it, the dramatic frame of the conversation, and the dialectical context of its enunciation.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> As we now know, these aspects tend to be disregarded by those still operating under the developmental paradigm dominant in the last century. Since these interpreters tend to frame each dialogue in a pre-stablished narrative of discovery and development of the Theory of Forms, inconsistencies on the treatment of a given topic are not explained by the internal features of the platonic text, such as difference in dramatic settings or difference of conversational context. Rather, these discrepancies are explained by external considerations about the supposed state of mind of Plato at the time he wrote this or that specific dialogue. So, the fact that Socrates does not explicitly mention the transcendental nature of the ideas to Ion is not explained by the peculiarities of the platonic text, such as Ion s apparent incapacity to understand such a topic, or the lack of a conversational opportunity for Socrates to explain the intricacies of his metaphysics in his conversation with the poet, but rather by a consideration of the stage of development of the Theory of Forms in Plato s mind. It is not necessary to mention that such endeavor is very complex and could only be accomplish if we had a reasonably reliable (non-question begging) chronology of composition for the platonic <i>corpus</i>, what the last 50 years of scholarship seems to have proofed impossible to achieve.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> In diametrical opposition to this risky methodological gambit, one of the most important characteristics of the perspectivist reading is its emphasis on the irreducible diversity of the dialogues. In this respect, perspectivism is close to the literary (or dramatic) reading that interprets each dialogue in its singularity, taking in consideration for the analysis of each and every argument the specificities of the dramatic frame in which the argument is embedded. I call the singularity of each formulation of an argument, theory or doctrine within the dialogues its  synchronic aspect. &nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> For the synchronic analysis of an argument only the immediate context of its enunciation is important. The dramatic nature of the platonic text provides us with clear limites of what is the immediate context of a given argument, and that is the conversation in which it is presented. Every platonic dialogue were written to be an independent, self contained piece of philosophical literature. So, for the synchronic analysis of the <I>Gorgias</i>, for instance, there is no point in asking if the socratic anti-hedonism of this dialogue presupposes, anticipates or is consistence with the hedonistic theory of the <I>Philebus. </i>Only the meanings the term <i>hedoné</i> receives within the <I>Gorgias</i> is important for the synchronic analysis of this dialogue, and the interpretation of these meanings should not be reduced or submitted to any external narrative about Plato s biography or conceptual development. &nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> It is important to stress that this immediate independence of each one of the platonic dialogues is not just an editorial convention, it is a feature carefully designed in the dialogues by Plato himself. Plato decided to write dialogues that can be read and understood independently, as well as he decided to leave us without any all-encompassing narrative that clearly subordinates one argument to another or unambiguously indicates which dialogue represents his final word on a given theme. &nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> Of course he could have done differently. He could have represented Socrates in the <I>Phaedo</i> saying something like:  In the past I thought that the human soul was tripartite, but that is wrong. Now I know that the human soul is an absolute unity, just like the Forms . So, the simple fact that we do not have any clear, unambiguous indications of any subordination of one dialogue or argument to another dictates the importance of the synchronic analysis for the correct understanding of the platonic text.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> In a way, the formal structure of the Platonic <i>corpus</i> is just a set of theories without any definite indication of which one is the final or true account. This is the formal structure of the dialogues as a whole, but also of each dialogue considered independently, the <I>Symposium </i>being the most paradigmatic case. Within the <I>Symposium </i>there is no definite indication of which discourse is the right one about Love. It is part of the reader s task to figure out what is the correct understanding on Love the dialogue intends to convey. And it is certainly a oversimplification to think that Plato intended his readers to see in Socrate s speech the whole truth on the subject, all the others speeches being just literary games without philosophical relevance.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> Just like there is no all-encompassing narrative subordinating one dialogue to another, there is no clear indication of which argument or theory within the limits of a single dialogue should be considered relevant or should be discarded as totally absurd. Of course, Socrates and the other main-speakers have an inherited priority on this matter. But the dialogues are full of philosophically relevant arguments, images, and theories presented by non-protagonist characters. Or would someone say that Meno s paradox or Protagora s myth on the origin of justice are not part of the philosophical content of these dialogues?&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> The reader of a platonic dialogue must, therefore, pay attention to everything that is said by the characters, in order to decide, on the one hand, which arguments are the most strong and, on the other hand, what elements of the other weaker arguments should be considered useful or philosophically interesting. That is not to say that everything everyone says in a platonic dialogue is to be considered true or even part of the true. The reader witness a confrontation of many perspectives on a given subject, and the dialectical confrontation in itself provides him with an objective criterion for which perspective to follow. However, just like in real life, sometimes the wrong person has a good point to make.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> Therefore, since there is no explicit indication of which character or argument represents Plato s view, I take that the formal structure of the dialogues demands us to carefully consider every perspective and argument in the search for Plato s philosophical message. Further, the lack of an explicit indication of which dialogue represents Plato s last word demands us to consider each dialogue equally as an autonomous and valid investigation on a given subject or set of subjects.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> But that is just half-part of the story. For if it is true that the dialogues were conceived to be independent, self-contained pieces of philosophical writing, it is also true that Plato s work is full of inter-textual references. Every single dialogue points to other dialogues, either by its dramatic frame or by the reoccurrence of themes and characters. Again, these inter-textual references are not just accidents that are due to the dramatic nature of the dialogues. These are textual features carefully designed by Plato. Because of theses inter-textual references, the nature of the platonic text demands, not only a synchronic analysis, but also a diachronic analysis.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> The aim of the diachronic analysis is to integrate different arguments, theories or formulations in search for the underlying unity or deep philosophical structure that relates them. Of course, the diachronic analysis represents a second and deeper level of interpretation, and should never be used to erase the synchronic aspects of the dialogues. After all, the lack of a clear textual indication of what is Plato s final position requires us to look for this deep structure without loosing sight that it cannot be captured by any specific formulation. In this sense, the diachronic aspects cannot prevail <i>over</i> the synchronic aspects, but must be conceived as a theoretical unity <i>under</i> the different arguments, and theories.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> Well, enough of the pure methodological discussion. I will use the time I have left to put in practice the principles of interpretation that I just described. My aim is to check if the distinction between the synchronic and the diachronic analysis is useful.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> To begin with, I will analyze a rather trivial argument from the <I>Gorgias. </i>In this dialogue, Socrates presents the following argument:<i>&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'></i>(1) whoever has learnt building is a builder.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>(2) whoever has learnt music is a musician.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>(3) whoever has learnt medicine is a medic. &nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>This principle is now generalized:&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>(4) whoever has learnt a particular subject has the quality conferred by &nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>the knowledge of that subject (460b4-5; tr. following Dodds). &nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>From this generalization follows: &nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>(5) whoever has learnt justice (or the things relatives to justice ı ´¹º±¹±) is just (´¹º±¹¿Â).&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> &nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> The proof of course does not hold; the induction (4) on which it is based has no justification whatsoever in the dialectical context of the <I>Gorgias.</i> Because of that, we must conclude that the argument is a sheer fallacy in its synchronic aspects. However, a frequent reader of the dialogues will recognize that the induction is justified by the Socratic doctrine that knowledge alone is a sufficient condition for virtue. In this regard, the diachronic analysis shows that, from Socrates' point-of-view, the argument is sound. Speaking somewhat loosely, then, our hypothetical proof is either fallacious or valid, depending upon one's point of view. The point of view of Gorgias and Calicles overlaps with the point of view of those reading only the <I>Gorgias</i>. The Socratic perspective, on the other hand, can be accessed through the employment of tacit premises and doctrines Socrates expounds in other dialogues. &nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> In this case, we have two different understanding of the same argument, and both of them should be considered right. In other to correctly evaluate the conversation depicted in the <I>Gorgias </i>it is necessary to see that Socrates is here using a fallacy. However, the diachronic confrontation with other dialogues gives us access to a second level of interpretation, in which the argument is not a fallacy, just an enthymeme. &nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> I want to move now to a more complex case. Consider, on the one hand, Socrates exposition of the theory of Forms in the <I>Phaedo</i>, and, on the other, his search for the definition of Piety in the <I>Euthyphro</i>. In the first case, we see Socrates using the term <i>eidos</i> to refer to the eternal, separate Form, while in the second case we find the same Socrates using the same word to refers to the aim of his search for definition. As we all know, these two uses of the term <i>eidos</i> are very different in their synchronic aspects. But, could we find a underling unity between them? My claim is that we can. &nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> From Socrates point-of-view the <i>eidos </i>he is trying to define in the <I>Euthyphro</i> has always being a separate Form. And he gives us signs of that. He says, for instance, that it is a paradigm, and he presents a whole argument to explain that not even a good nominal definition of the word  piety would do for him, since he is looking for the <i>ousia </i>of piety, the cause of piety in every pious thing. In the <I>Phaedo,</i> on the other hand, Socrates explains the Forms as  these things we usually use the seal  <i>to ho esti</i> to designate , in a clear reference to the answer for the definitional question  <i>ti esti</i> .&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> As in the first example, not every reader will be able to see the relation. But a Platonic student must read and reread the dialogues to access their deep structure, and I think that was exactly what Plato intended. The diachronic aspects of these two different dialogues represents a deeper understanding on the nature and function of the platonic <i>eidos. </i>For someone who have carefully read both dialogues it will be clear that the aim of the definitional quest of the <I>Euthyphro</i> is a platonic Form. As well as it will be clear that the Form of Equality in the <I>Phaedo</i> represents, among other things, the correct answer for the question  what is equal? (<i>ti esti to ison</i>).&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> Now, the problem is: how to explain this difference in presentation? Why Socrates use the same word  <i>eidos</i> in so different manners? Usually, interprets answer this question subordinating one formulation to another in regard to a external, ultimately unverifiable narrative, such as the development of the Theory of Forms in Plato s mind or his alleged pedagogical project. However, it seems to me that the synchronic aspects of these dialogues can explain this discrepancy without having to subordinate one formulation to the other.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> In the <I>Phaedo, </i>Socrates is talking to his most familiar friends, people who is certainly acquainted with the tenets of his philosophy, and therefore able to receive specialized information about the nature of the Forms. The occasion of his death, as well as the willingness of his audience, gives Socrates the opportunity for long expository speeches on many fundamental aspects of his theory. Euthyphro, on the other hand, does not seem to have any previous knowledge on the Theory of Forms. Because of that, Socrates uses his method of questioning (<i>elenchos</i>) in order to prove that Piety is itself an <i>ousia, </i>something that really exists, and is totally different from the many pious acts and persons. That is not to say that the theory of definition in the <I>Euthyphro </i>is just a step toward the theory of Forms in the <I>Phaedo</i>. The theory of definition we find in the so called socratic dialogues is as much a part of the Theory of Forms as any other theory from the middle-dialogues.<i> </i>They represent different perspectives on the same problem, in this case the nature and function of the <i>eidos. </i>These perspectives are mutually illuminating; we understand better the <I>Phaedo </i>reading the <I>Euthyphro, </i>and<i> vice-versa.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> </i>In all these examples, the unity between different theories or arguments is stablished by the textual fact that the same character expound them. But there are other protagonists in Plato s dialogues. Should we look for a underlying unity between the Eleatic stranger method of division, and Parmenides dialectical exercise on the One, for exemple? &nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> I think we should, since in these cases we have a thematic unity. All the Platonic protagonists discuss the same set of philosophical problems. Actually, the fact that we have many characters with similar approaches discussing the same kind of problems is just another indication that we must relate their theories without loosing sight that there is no definite, final formulation. Timaeus, the Eleatic Stranger, Socrates, Parmenides, and even the Athenian are all thinkers with the same general understanding about the philosophical problems they discuss. This general understanding is what we call platonism. Nonetheless, there is no ultimate philosophical champion between them. There is nothing in the platonic text justifying the choosing of one theory over the other or the election of any particular formulation as the absolute truth on these matters. Rather, there are many indications that the different formulations must be considered different perspectives, all of them philosophically relevant, all of them part of the true. The platonic doctrine cannot be captured by any of these formulations, but must be searched under all of them, as a general understating about reality or a more or less specific set of philosophical positions.</p> </div> </td> <td style="background:url(tabs/tii_69.png) repeat-y"></td> </tr> <tr> <td><img src="tabs/tii_72.png" alt="" /></td> <td style="background:url(tabs/tii_74.png) repeat-x"></td> <td><img src="tabs/tii_79.png" alt="" /></td> </tr> </table> <p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style='text-align:right'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;'>© ;0B>=>2A:>5 >1I5AB2>, 2018 3. </span></p> <p align="right" style='margin-top:0mm;margin-right:3pt;margin-bottom: 0mm;margin-left:-36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:right'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;'><a href="../index3.htm">  !!# $ &</a></span></b></p> <!-- InstanceEndEditable --> </td> </tr> </tbody> </body> <!-- InstanceEnd --></html>