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'>Kezhou Liu</span><span class='pcAffil'>, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich</span><span class='pcPosition'>, doctoral student</span></p> <p class='pcTitleD'>The Ontological Status of Demiurge: An Ancient Debate and Contemporary Echoes</p><p class='tcSumma'><I>Timaeus </i>is, fairly enough, one of the most influential Platonic texts in the ancient Platonic tradition. In this dialogue Plato tells  a probable story (µ0º| »Ì³¿Â or µÍ¸¿Â) about how the divine craftsman, the Demiurge (´·µ¹¿ÅÁ³ÌÂ), brings the visible universe into existence. Yet the ontological status of the Demiurge has been peculiar resistant to interpretation ever since ancient times. The most obvious reason is that some passages in <I>Timaeus </i>appear to contradict each other. On the one hand, the Demiurge is said to impose order upon the material cause, the Necessity, and to turn chaos into the sensible cosmos by  always looking at (²»­Àɽ µ¯) the divine paradigm (<I>Tim</i>. 28a7); on the other hand, the Demiurge seems absent in Plato s sketch of ontological scheme, where only the paradigm, the sensible cosmos and the receptacle are mentioned (<I>Tim</i>. 50c7 d4).<br />This (at least apparent) contradiction brings us to the substantial divergence of two models: The Demiurge is either an independent principle besides formal cause (the paradigm) and material cause (the Necessity) or only a mythological symbol of the former, for the equivalence of the Demiurge and the Necessity is evidently impossible. Plato does not discuss in detail the relationship between the Demiurge and the paradigm, leaving a lot of room for discussion. Already touched upon in the Old Academy, this issue occupies a central position in Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism. Some Platonists tend to think that the Demiurge is something other than (prior or posterior to) the paradigm (Atticus, Plutarch, Porphyry etc.). On the contrary, there is still a voice saying that the Demiurge is actually nothing else than the intellectual Paradigm, at least an aspect of it (Alcinous, Plotinus etc.). This ancient debate is the origin of almost all different interpretations of the Demiurge nowadays.<br />I will try in this paper to show, why the second model is preferable. At first, I will briefly depict (Section 1) Plato s own description of the Demiurge in <I>Timaeus </i>and the reception of this figure in the Old Academy. Then, I will proceed to (Section 2) two basic models of the ontological status of the Demiurge, particularly in Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism. After that, on the basis of Plato s text (not only <I>Timaeus </i>but also <I>Republic</i>, <I>Philebus </i>etc.), I will give explanations (Section 3) of why the second model is better than the first. Finally, in light of contemporary discussion in Platonic studies, I will clarify (Section 4) why this interpretation could deepen our understanding of Plato s ontology in general.</p><br /> <p class='hcAbstract'><I>Timaeus </i>is, fairly enough, one of the most influential texts in the ancient Platonic tradition. In this dialogue Plato tells  a probable story (µ0º| »Ì³¿Â or µÍ¸¿Â) about how the divine craftsman, the Demiurge (´·µ¹¿ÅÁ³ÌÂ), brings the visible universe into existence. Yet the ontological status of the Demiurge has been peculiar resistant to interpretation ever since ancient times. The most obvious reason is that some passages in <I>Timaeus </i>appear to contradict each other. On the one hand, the Demiurge is said to impose order upon the material cause, the Necessity, and to turn chaos into the sensible cosmos by  always looking at (²»­Àɽ µ¯) the divine paradigm (<I>Ti</i>. 28a7); on the other hand, the Demiurge seems absent in Plato s sketch of ontological scheme, where only the Paradigm, the sensible cosmos and the Receptacle are mentioned (<I>Ti</i>. 50c7 d4).&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>This (at least apparent) contradiction brings us to the substantial divergence of two models: The Demiurge is either an independent principle besides the formal cause (the Paradigm) and the material cause (the Necessity) or only a mythological symbol of the former, for the equivalence of the Demiurge and the Necessity is evidently impossible. Plato does not discuss in detail the relationship between the Demiurge and the Paradigm, leaving a lot of room for discussion. Already touched upon in the Old Academy, this issue occupies a central position in Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism. Some Platonists tend to argue that the Demiurge is something other than (prior or posterior to) the Paradigm (Atticus, Plutarch, Porphyry etc.). On the contrary, there is still a voice saying that the Demiurge is actually nothing else than the intellectual Paradigm, at least an aspect of it (Alcinous, Plotinus etc.). This ancient debate is the origin of almost all different interpretations of the Demiurge nowadays.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>I will try in this paper to show, why the second model is preferable. At first, I will briefly depict (Section 1) Plato s own description of the Demiurge in <I>Timaeus </i>and the reception of this figure in the Old Academy. Then, I will proceed to (Section 2) two basic models of the ontological status of the Demiurge, particularly in Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism. After that, on the basis of Plato s text (not only <I>Timaeus </i>but also <I>Republic</i>, <I>Philebus </i>etc.), I will give explanations (Section 3) of why the second model is better than the first. Finally, in light of contemporary discussion in Platonic studies, I will clarify (Section 4) why this interpretation could deepen our understanding of Plato s ontology in general.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'><I>I.</i>&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Plato himself is mysterious about the real ontological status of the Demiurge, when it comes on stage in <I>Timaeus</i>:  Now to find the maker and father of this universe is hard enough, and even if I succeeded, to declare him to everyone is impossible. (<I>Ti</i>. 28c, trans. Zeyl).<sup><a name='ret40_1' href='#ftn40_1' class='ftnLink'>1</a></sup> Despite this, he pays much attention to depict how the Demiurge makes the sensible cosmos into an orderly system. From Plato s own descriptions of the Demiurge some features of this mysterious role can still be traced.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Above all, the Demiurge does not create the universe out of nothing but rather work together with some other principles. This makes it different from the Creator in the Christian tradition. According to Plato, the Demiurge uses the Paradigm as model, when he is bringing the perceptual world into existence. This Paradigm is apparently the Form that is often mentioned in Plato s middle dialogues. Besides that, there s still a receptive and material principle called the Necessity, from which elements as water, fire, earth and air are generated. The story told by Timaeus is evidently Plato s ontological analysis of the origin and the constitution of the perceptible cosmos, where there are at least two principles that play crucial roles in this process: Form and Necessity.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>It is quite clear that the Demiurge as a craftsman who has the capacity to act could not be identified with the Necessity or the Receptacle. The question on the ontological status of the Demiurge, therefore, turns into an either-or choice: it is either a mysterious character that represents the Form, or a third principle besides the Form and the Necessity. The central problem at this point lies in the fact that textual evidences on both sides of the debate could be found in <I>Timaeus</i>. The beginning of Timaeus story seems to imply the differentiation between the Demiurge and the Paradigm.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'><p class='hcQuote'>Which of the two models did the maker use when he fashioned it? Was it the one that does not change and stays the same, or the one that has come to be? Well, if this world of ours is beautiful and its craftsman good, then clearly he <i>looked at </i>(²»µÀµ½) the eternal model. But if what it s blasphemous to even say is the case, then he <i>looked at </i>one that has come to be. Now surely it s clear to all that it was the eternal model he <i>looked at</i>, for, of all the things that have come to be, our universe is the most beautiful, and of causes the craftsman is the most excellent. (<I>Ti</i>. 28c-29a trans. Zeyl)</p>&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Here not only the choice between two kinds of model, but also the glance of the Demiurge on the model is discussed. It seems impossible to identify the divine craftsman with the Form, because the Demiurge is acting as an efficient cause, while the Paradigm looks like a formal cause.<sup><a name='ret40_2' href='#ftn40_2' class='ftnLink'>2</a></sup> It is curious, however, after a few passages, Plato speaks of the similarity between the generated world, i.e. the copy of the eternal model, and the creator itself.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'><p class='hcQuote'>He was good, and one who is good can never become jealous of anything. And so, being free of jealousy, he wanted everything to become as much like himself as was possible (Ä¿ÍÄ¿Å ´ ºÄx b½ À¬½Ä± EĹ µ¬»¹Ãı ²¿Å»®¸· ³µ½­Ã¸±¹ À±Á±À»®Ã¹± ±ÅÄ÷). In fact, men of wisdom will tell you (and you couldn t do better than to accept their claim) that this, more than anything else, was the most preeminent reason for the origin of the world s coming to be. (<I>Ti</i>. 29e-30a trans. Zeyl)</p>&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Without referring to the similarity between the sensible world and its model anymore, Plato emphasizes here that the Demiurge wants to make the cosmos according to its own image. Does Plato imply that the Demiurge can also play the role of the Paradigm? The answer may not be sure. At this point it is helpful to examine what Plato s students think of what the Demiurge is in the Academy.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Both Speusippus and Xenoktrates tend to identify the Demiurge with the Intellect (½¿æÂ). According to Xenocrates, for instance, the Intellect is nothing but the first principle of the universe or the Monad, whose contents is the Form. Roughly speaking, the Intellect is the Demiurge plus the Paradigm.<sup><a name='ret40_3' href='#ftn40_3' class='ftnLink'>3</a></sup> It may be well acknowledged by them that some difficulties would rise if man these two principles are differentiated thoroughly.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>It is well known that Aristotle does not make any comment on the Demiurge. His silence on this problem is odd if we take into consideration that he criticizes Plato for not differentiating between the formal and the efficient cause (<I>Met</i>. E), while the divine craftsman in <I>Timaeus </i>is often regarded as the latter. No matter whether Aristotle misinterprets Plato s view or not, his reading on <I>Timaeus </i>seems non-literal. Therefore, some scholars suggested that Aristotle says nothing about the Demiurge because he is clear that it s nothing else but the Form itself or at least the active aspect of the Form.<sup><a name='ret40_4' href='#ftn40_4' class='ftnLink'>4</a></sup>&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Plato s students in the Academy give few details of the ontological status of the Demiurge. One reason may be that this issue is relatively uncontroversial in the Academy. The focus of this discussion will be sharpened in the Middle Platonism.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'><I>II.</i>&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>The Necessity as an independent principle is certain for most readers of <I>Timaeus</i>. The crucial thing, therefore, is to clarify the relation between the Demiurge and the Form. In the story about the coming-to-be of the cosmos in <I>Timaeus</i>, it is the Demiurge who works together with the Form and hence brings the cosmos into being. Literally reading suggests, as in the first part mentioned, that the Paradigm is the formal cause and the Demiurge the efficient cause. But if we keep in mind that the story in <I>Timaeus </i>is only  a probable one, there seems to be no reason why the divine craftsman cannot be the efficient cause at the same time. In the discussion among the middle Platonists there are two models concerning the relation between these two causes, namely equation and differentiation.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Those who differentiate the Demiurge from the Form can either argue the priority of the Form or of the Demiurge. The former strategy is said to be the view of Porphyry.<sup><a name='ret40_5' href='#ftn40_5' class='ftnLink'>5</a></sup> But the exact account is not so clear. The latter, apparently far more promising, is to assume that the Demiurge or the God is prior to the Form. Supporters of this interpretation (Atticus, Plutarch) often identify the Demiurge with the Form of Good, the first principle, which is  superior to it (being) in rank and power (<I>Rep</i>. 508e). Accordingly, the Form as an inactive model is dependent on it and hence posterior to it, as Atticus suggests:&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'><p class='hcQuote'>The third point is that the maker, whom they take to be a principle, has nothing to do with Plato. For forms do not exist on their own separated from the intellect: rather, the intellect turning into itself sees all the forms. (This is why the Athenian Stranger likens the activity of the intellect to the revolution of a  ball made on a lathe [Lg. 898b].) They make the forms <i>inactive</i>, <i>like clay models</i>, existing on their own and lying outside the intellect.<sup><a name='ret40_6' href='#ftn40_6' class='ftnLink'>6</a></sup></p>&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Here Atticus obviously consider the formal cosmos as a static model which lacks the active capacity. His main Reason to reject the identification of the God and the Form is recorded in another fragment: The God as the Monad must be unique, while the Paradigm is constituted of different forms.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'><p class='hcQuote'>Atticus, his [Harpocration s] teacher, immediately identifies the creator with the Good, although he is called  good by Plato not  the Good , and he is addressed as intellect  and the Good is the cause of every substance and is itself  beyond being , as we are taught in the <I>Republic </i>[cf. 509b]. And what could he say about the Paradigm? For either it is prior to the creator, in which case there will be something superior to the good, or it is in the creator, and the first principle will be many; or it is after the creator, in which case the Good is turned towards things posterior to it and contemplates them  which is it impious even to say.<sup><a name='ret40_7' href='#ftn40_7' class='ftnLink'>7</a></sup></p>&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>There is still an alternative to this model, whose advocate is primarily Alcinous. His interpretation is obviously non-literal and does not presuppose the separation between the formal and the efficient cause. His main idea is that the God or the Demiurge is the Intellect whose content is itself, namely, the Form.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'><p class='hcQuote'>According to his own will he has filled everything with himself, rousing the cosmic soul to wakefulness and turning it to himself, being the cause of its intellect. And that intellect, brought to order by the father, brings order to the whole of nature in this cosmos& The first intellect is supremely beautiful, so its object must be supremely beautiful; but nothing is more beautiful than it is; so it must take itself as its object, and the contents of its own intellection; and this, its activity, is form.<sup><a name='ret40_8' href='#ftn40_8' class='ftnLink'>8</a></sup></p>&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Not only the Intellect that thinks itself but also Alcinous argument sound not Platonic but Aristotelian: The Demiurge or the Intellect should be complete and  supremely beautiful , therefore its content of thought could be nothing else but itself, otherwise the God would contain something superior or posterior to itself, which is impossible. If it s just a generating capacity without any content, as Johansen suggested, it would be incomplete either, for it still needs the Paradigm.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Middle Platonists usually combine elements from philosophy of Aristotle or Stoicism with their interpretations of Plato, therefore, we should be careful about their arguments. Important for us is, however, that they have enumerated fast all possibilities of the ontological status of the Demiurge. Only Plato s texts could enable us to judge which interpretation is more preferable.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'><I>III.</i>&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>In fact, Plato himself has already described his understanding of the ontological structure of the universe. In <I>Timaeus </i>50c-d and 52d a trichotomy has been put forward,&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>i.e. the Paradigm, the Receptacle and the generated world. The Demiurge is absent here, which is very curious, for Plato regards it as  the best cause (<I>Ti</i>. 29a). Some commentator tried to consider this trichotomy as a description of the condition before the creation.<sup><a name='ret40_9' href='#ftn40_9' class='ftnLink'>9</a></sup> But this is hopeless, because the generated world has already been mentioned in the list, let alone that it is very problematic about whether the creation in <I>Timaeus </i>has a beginning or not. The most promising approach left is then the second model by middle Platonists, namely to equate the Demiurge with the Form.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>This interpretation is actually not strange at all as it seems to be. Plato also implies this thesis in <I>Timaeus</i>. At the end of this dialogue, he describes the generated cosmos as  the perceptible God &nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'><p class='hcQuote'>This world of ours has received and teems with living things, mortal and immortal. A visible living thing containing visible ones, perceptible god, image of the intelligible Living Thing, its grandness, goodness, beauty and perfection are unexcelled. Our one universe, indeed the only one of its kind, has come to be. (<I>Ti</i>. 92c trans. Zeyl)</p>&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Here are two points for the equation-model significant. First, the visible cosmos is said to be a God, therefore its model, the Form, should also be an active God rather than an inactive Paradigm. Plato has continued to stress the similarity between the perceptible and the ideal cosmos. If the Form, the model of the generated world, is not the Demiurge itself, which else God could it be? Second, the Paradigm is characterized as  the intelligible Living Thing , which means that the Form should not be only regarded as a formal cause, an inactive model, without being an efficient cause at the same time.<sup><a name='ret40_10' href='#ftn40_10' class='ftnLink'>10</a></sup>&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>In another important passage that may implies the equation-model, Plato only speaks of two principles of the universe: Intellect and Necessity.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'><p class='hcQuote'>For this ordered world is of mixed birth: it is the offspring of a union of Necessity and Intellect. Intellect prevailed over Necessity by persuading it to direct most of the things that come to be toward what is best, and the result of this subjugation of Necessity to wise persuasion was the initial formation of this universe. (<I>Ti</i>. 48a trans. Zeyl)</p>&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Not as the trichotomy in <I>Timaeus </i>52d here only two principles are mentioned. This Intellect is evidently not an inactive Paradigm but rather represents the whole rational realm, for it can  prevail over and  persuade Necessity. Plato emphasizes that the rational principle has the ability to act on the receptive principle. As previously mentioned in the first part, Plato s students like Speusippus and Xenocrates equate the Demiurge with the Intellect. That s may be Plato s own idea, at least in this Passage. Some scholars try to argue that the Intellect as the Demiurge is something outside the ideal cosmos and the cause of the order. An important evidence for them is that the Intellect in <I>Philebus </i>is the limit of unlimited.<sup><a name='ret40_11' href='#ftn40_11' class='ftnLink'>11</a></sup> But this is not convincing either, for the ontological division in <I>Philebus </i>takes place not outside, but in the range of the ideal world.<sup><a name='ret40_12' href='#ftn40_12' class='ftnLink'>12</a></sup>&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'><I>IV.</i>&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>As we have seen, the Demiurge and the Form are actually two aspects of the same thing,&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>i.e. the Intellect. What could we learn form that? The most significant consequence may be the ontological dualism: According to Plato, there are two kinds of principles that are fundamental for the constitution of the universe. On the one hand, the Receptacle or the Necessity represents the material, receptive, and irrational principle that lacks limitation, from which elements as fire, water, earth and air originate. On the other hand, the Intellect, manifesting itself as the Demiurge and the Paradigm, rules the irrational principle and brings it into an orderly system. This basic structure of Plato s cosmology could also be seen as his response to conflict between Heraclitus and Parmenides.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>This result reminds us one of the most significant and controversial issues in the Platonic studies of the twentieth century, namely the theory of  unwritten doctrine . &nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>According to advocates of  unwritten doctrine , there should be two basic principles for Plato s ontology: The One or the principle of determination, and the Indefinite Dyad or the principle of indeterminacy. This dualism is consistent with the ontological structure in <I>Timaeus</i>. Nevertheless, the One and the Indefinite Dyad should be more basic causes or principles than the Intellect and the Necessity. Therefore, the solution to identify the Good or the One with the Demiurge (also one version of the first model in the Middle Platonism), is less attractive. The former is a transcendental principle that is beyond the realm of Being, while the divine craftsman is not. In general, the story in <I>Timaeus </i>is just a  a probable story and a cosmological metaphor of the theory of Form. That s why most supporters of  unwritten doctrine regard the Demiurge as the Form, not the Good, for Plato does not refer to, but only allude to the highest principle that determinates everything.<sup><a name='ret40_13' href='#ftn40_13' class='ftnLink'>13</a></sup> Without standing on the stage, the ultimate principles still stay behind the scene. &nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> <p class='pcEndnotesSection'>&nbsp;</p> <p class='pcFootnote'><sup><a name='ftn40_1' href='#ret40_1' class='ftnLink'>1</a></sup>&nbsp; The English translation follows D. J. Zeyl (trans.), <I>Plato: Timaeus</i>, Indianapolis and Cambridge 2000. The Greek text is form Burnet s OCT edition.</p> <p class='pcFootnote'><sup><a name='ftn40_2' href='#ret40_2' class='ftnLink'>2</a></sup>&nbsp; More recently, scholars like Johansen used this strategy to argue that the Demiurge as ĭǽ· is an independent principle besides the Paradigm and the Necessity. See T. K. Johansen, <I>Plato s Natural Philosophy. A Study of the Timaeus-Critias</i>, Cambridge 2004, p. 69-91.</p> <p class='pcFootnote'><sup><a name='ftn40_3' href='#ret40_3' class='ftnLink'>3</a></sup>&nbsp; See J. Dillon, <I>The Heirs of Plato: a Study of the Old Academy (347-274 B.C.)</i>, Oxford 2005, p. 107; H. Krämer:  Die Ältere Akademie , in H. Flashar (ed.), <I>Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie. Die Philosophie der Antike, Band 3: Ältere Akademie  Aristoteles  Peripatos, 2. Auflage</i>, Basel 2004, p. 51.</p> <p class='pcFootnote'><sup><a name='ftn40_4' href='#ret40_4' class='ftnLink'>4</a></sup>&nbsp; See J. Dillon, <I>The Heirs of Plato: a Study of the Old Academy (347-274 B.C.)</i>, p. 25:  One might ask him (Aristotle) what he takes the Demiurge to be. The answer to this, I think, is that Aristotle, despite his polemical resolve to take the <I>Timaeus </i>literally, knows perfectly well that it was not so intended, and that the Demiurge is a figment, being no more than the executive aspect of the Forms, or the Paradigm. </p> <p class='pcFootnote'><sup><a name='ftn40_5' href='#ret40_5' class='ftnLink'>5</a></sup>&nbsp; See Longinus fr. 19 = Proclus, <I>On the Timaeus </i>i. 322.20-4. Texts of middle Platonists are from George Boys- Stones, <I>Platonist Philosophy 80 BC to AD 250</i>, Cambridge 2017.</p> <p class='pcFootnote'><sup><a name='ftn40_6' href='#ret40_6' class='ftnLink'>6</a></sup>&nbsp; Atticus fr. 28.1-7 = Proclus, <I>On the Timaeus </i>i. 393.31-394.8 (listing objections that Porphyry had to  followers of Atticus )</p> <p class='pcFootnote'><sup><a name='ftn40_7' href='#ret40_7' class='ftnLink'>7</a></sup>&nbsp; Atticus fr. 12 = Proclus, <I>On the Timaeus </i>i. 305.6-16.</p> <p class='pcFootnote'><sup><a name='ftn40_8' href='#ret40_8' class='ftnLink'>8</a></sup>&nbsp; Alcinous, <I>Didaskalikos </i>10.</p> <p class='pcFootnote'><sup><a name='ftn40_9' href='#ret40_9' class='ftnLink'>9</a></sup>&nbsp; T. K. Johansen, <I>Plato s Natural Philosophy. A Study of the Timaeus-Critias</i>, p. 79-83.</p> <p class='pcFootnote'><sup><a name='ftn40_10' href='#ret40_10' class='ftnLink'>10</a></sup>&nbsp; Even Aristotle himself admits that the efficient and the final cause sometimes could be the same with the formal cause. (<I>Phys. </i>II 7, 198 a25-27).</p> <p class='pcFootnote'><sup><a name='ftn40_11' href='#ret40_11' class='ftnLink'>11</a></sup>&nbsp; S. Menn, <I>Plato on God as Nous</i>, Carbondale and Edwardsville 2002, p. 7.</p> <p class='pcFootnote'><sup><a name='ftn40_12' href='#ret40_12' class='ftnLink'>12</a></sup>&nbsp; G. Striker, <I>Peras und Apeiron: das Problem der Formen in Platons Philebos</i>, Göttingen 1970, p. 78.</p> <p class='pcFootnote'><sup><a name='ftn40_13' href='#ret40_13' class='ftnLink'>13</a></sup>&nbsp; See K. Gaiser, <I>Platons ungeschriebene Lehre</i>, Stuttgart 1963, p. 193; J. Halfwassen,  Der Demiurg: seine Stellung in der Philosophie Platons und seine Deutung im antiken Platonismus , in Ada Neschke-Hentschke (ed.), <I>Le Timée de Platon. Contributions à l histoire de sa réception. Platos Timaios. Beiträge zu seiner Rezeptionsgeschichte</i>. Peeters, Louvain und Paris 2000, 36-62.</p></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>