Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:53:01.261Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ΔΙΑΝΟΙΑ and Plato's Cave

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

R. G. Tanner
R. G. Tanner
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle, New South Wales
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Part I of his paper Cooper gives indisputable evidence regarding Plato's use of the man-made image as a step to the apprehension of a Form under discussion, whether that image be in fact a diagram or a model, or simply a verbal picture, such as his imaginative account of Justice within a community, which we find used to provide us with in Republic 443 c 4 ff. However, Cooper goes on to assure us that the divided-line figure offers us only three types of object: ‘We have three kinds of objects which differ from one another in clearness and esteem, firstly, the Forms, secondly, the objects of ordinary sense-perception, and thirdly, images, shadows and reflections.’ Now the admitted fact that, as he notes, Republic 10 (597 b 5-e 5) gives the same three orders of reality, does not entirely absolve Cooper from all the implications of Plato's decision to divide his line into four parts rather than three; for it is made quite clear in 509 b 6–10 that the Form of the Good, is the source of being as well as of knowledge, so the Line must also classify both.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , May 1970 , pp. 81 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1970

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

page 81 note 1 CQ N.s. iii (1953). 22–32.Google Scholar

page 81 note 2 CQ N.S. xiii (1963), 188–93.Google Scholar

page 81 note 3 C.U.P., 1965.

page 81 note 4 CQ N.S. xvi (1966), 65–9.Google Scholar

page 81 note 5 Ibid. 67.

page 81 note 6 Ibid. 67.

page 82 note 1 Lindsay, A. D., The Republic of Plato (Dent [Everyman], 1935), 204–5.Google Scholar

page 82 note 2 Nettleship, R. L., Lectures on the Republic of Plato (Macmillan), 238;Google Scholarcf. Raven, J. E., Plato's Thought in the Making (C.U.P. 1965), 145.Google Scholar

page 82 note 3 Rep. 10. 596 b 6-e 4.

page 82 note 4 Rep. 4. 443 c 4–444 b 8.

page 83 note 1 Cooper, , op. cit., diagram, p. 69.Google Scholar

page 83 note 2 Ibid. 66.

page 83 note 3 Raven, J. E., op. cit. 188–90.Google Scholar

page 83 note 4 Phaedrus 247 c 3–4.

page 83 note 5 Phaedrus 247 d 1-e 2.

page 83 note 6 Phaedrus 249 b 5-c 4.

page 84 note 1 Raven, J. E., op. cit. 42–4, 71–5Google Scholar, suggests dating Meno to 387 B.C. On the interpretation, see Vlastos, G., ‘Anamnesis in the Meno’, Dialogue iv (1965), pp. 143–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 84 note 2 Cooper, N., op. cit. 67.Google Scholar

page 85 note 1 Nettleship, , op. cit. 218.Google Scholar

page 85 note 2 Cooper, , op. cit. 68.Google Scholar

page 85 note 3 Raven, J. E., ‘Sun, Divided Line, and Cave’, CQ N.S. iii (1953), 27.Google Scholar

page 86 note 1 Raven, J. E., ‘Sun, Divided Line, and Cave’, CQ, N.S. iii (1953), 28.Google Scholar

page 86 note 2 Nettleship stressed the educational element, though he saw the cave as an illustration of the native folly of humanity rather than as the fruit of a perverse educational tradition (pp. 259–61).

page 86 note 3 Raven, J. E., op. cit. 166–7.Google Scholar

page 86 note 4 Republic 515 b 8.

page 86 note 5 Nettleship, R. L., Lectures on Plato's Republic, 78.Google Scholar

page 87 note 1 CQ N.S. xvi (1966), 66.Google Scholar

page 87 note 2 CQ, N.S. iii (1953), 28.Google Scholar

page 87 note 3 Beck, F. A. G., Greek Education, 450–350 B.C. (Methuen, 1964), 80–3.Google Scholar

page 87 note 4 For this classroom practice, see Plato, , Protagoras, 325 e.Google Scholar

page 87 note 5 CQ, N.s. iii (1953), 28.Google Scholar

page 88 note 1 CQ, N.S. iii (1953), 27.Google Scholar

page 88 note 2 514 a 5.

page 88 note 3 Phaedrus 621 a 8–9.

page 88 note 4 Meno 81 c 5–86 b 5.

page 88 note 5 See also p. 82 above.

page 90 note 1 Nettleship, R. L., op. cit. 218.Google Scholar

page 90 note 2 Tanquerey, Ad.: Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae (Rome, 1913), i,Google Scholarde uno Deo, Cap. II, Art. II, pp. 264–6 (torn. 2).