{"id":28612,"date":"2025-08-21T07:56:50","date_gmt":"2025-08-21T07:56:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/drdavidcring.net\/descartes-ideas\/?p=28612"},"modified":"2025-10-04T15:26:41","modified_gmt":"2025-10-04T15:26:41","slug":"platonic-topics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/drdavidcring.net\/descartes-ideas\/plato\/platonic-topics\/","title":{"rendered":"Platonic Topics"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Table of Contents<\/strong><\/mark><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

NOTE:<\/strong> Click on the titles below to jump to its section. Click on the blue Up Arrow box in the lower right-hand corner to jump back to the Top. Remember that you cannot trust any AI alleged verbatim quotations<\/strong> without first yourself confirming they exist in the source and that the citation reference and page number is correct.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

00. Meet Professor George H. Rudebusch<\/a><\/strong> \"Thein a video or read his NAU biography<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

0. About Dr. David C. Ring<\/a><\/strong> \"The<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I. What is the \u2018Separation\u2019 of Forms?<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

II. What is the \u201cThird Man Argument\u201d?<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

III. What Does Participation Mean in Plato\u2019s Theory of Forms?<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

IV. What is Self-Predication?<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

V. How Can an Abstract Platonic Form Be Like a Sensible Particular?<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

VI. What Do the Early, Middle, and Late Periods Refer To?<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

VII. What stylometric methods were used to determine the temporal order of Plato\u2019s dialogues?<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

VIII. What is the \u2018problem\u2019 of Socrates?<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

IX. What sources of information are there for finding the recent computational linguistic analyses establishing Plato’s temporal periods for the dialogues?<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

X. 53 Ideas from Plato\u2019s Parmenides<\/em><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

XI.<\/strong> Think It\u2019s Pointless? See How the Debate Over the Existence of Abstract Objects Shapes Your World<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

XII.<\/strong> Plato\u2019s Theaetetus<\/em>, Aporia, and the Theory of Forms: Two Traditions of Interpretation<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

XIII.<\/strong> Platonic Resources Topics<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

XIV.<\/strong> ChatGPT 5 Answers Questions on Plato\u2019s Theory of Forms<\/a><\/strong> \"An<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

XV.<\/strong> Eros As Required For Knowledge Acquisition In Plato With Grok 4<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\"A \"A \"A<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The passage below is taken from Benjamin<\/a> Jowett\u2019s<\/a> \u201cIntroduction<\/a>\u201d to The Complete Works of Plato<\/em>. Clicking on the \u201cIntroduction<\/a>\u201d can take a minute to download so be patient. The bold<\/strong> and bold italic<\/em><\/strong> passages below were not in the original.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n

(3) The conclusions at which Dr. Jackson has arrived are such as might be expected to follow from his method of procedure. For he takes words without regard to their connection, and pieces together different parts of dialogues in a purely arbitrary manner, although there is no indication that the author intended the two passages to be so combined, <\/strong>or that when he appears to be experimenting on the different points of view from which a subject of philosophy may be regarded, he is secretly elaborating a system. By such a use of language any premises may be made to lead to any conclusion.<\/strong> I am not one of those who believe Plato to have been a mystic or to have had hidden meanings; nor do I agree with Dr. Jackson in thinking that ‘when he is precise and dogmatic, he generally contrives to introduce an element of obscurity into the exposition’<\/strong> (Journal of Philology<\/em>). The great master of language wrote as clearly as he could in an age when the minds of men were clouded by controversy, and philosophical terms had not yet acquired a fixed meaning. <\/strong>I have just said that Plato is to be interpreted by his context; and I do not deny that in some passages, especially in the Republic and Laws, the context is at a greater distance than would be allowable in a modern writer. But we are not therefore justified in connecting passages from different parts of his writings, or even from the same work, which he has not himself joined. We cannot argue from the Parmenides to the Philebus, or from either to the Sophist, or assume that the Parmenides, the Philebus, and the Timaeus were ‘written simultaneously,’ or ‘were intended to be studied in the order in which they are here named (Journal of Philology<\/em>) We have no right to connect statements which are only accidentally similar. Nor is it safe for the author of a theory about ancient philosophy to argue from what will happen if his statements are rejected. For those consequences may never have entered into the mind of the ancient writer himself; and they are very likely to be modern consequences which would not have been understood by him.<\/strong> ‘I cannot think,’ says Dr. Jackson, ‘that Plato would have changed his opinions, but have nowhere explained the nature of the change.’ But is it not much more improbable that he should have changed his opinions, and not stated in an unmistakable manner that the most essential principle of his philosophy had been reversed?<\/em><\/strong> It is true that a few of the dialogues, such as the Republic and the Timaeus, or the Theaetetus and the Sophist, or the Meno and the Apology, contain allusions to one another. But these allusions are superficial and, except in the case of the Republic and the Laws, have no philosophical importance. They do not affect the substance of the work. It may be remarked further that several of the dialogues, such as the Phaedrus, the Sophist, and the Parmenides, have more than one subject. But it does not therefore follow that Plato intended one dialogue to succeed another, or that he begins anew in one dialogue a subject which he has left unfinished in another, or that even in the same dialogue he always intended the two parts to be connected with each other.<\/strong> We cannot argue from a casual statement found in the Parmenides to other statements which occur in the Philebus. Much more truly is his own manner described by himself when he says that ‘words are more plastic than wax’ (Rep.), and ‘whither the wind blows, the argument follows’. The dialogues of Plato are like poems, isolated and separate works, except where they are indicated by the author himself to have an intentional sequence.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

It is this method of taking passages out of their context and placing them in a new connexion when they seem to confirm a preconceived theory, which is the defect of Dr. Jackson’s procedure. It may be compared, though not wholly the same with it, to that method which the Fathers practised, sometimes called ‘the mystical interpretation of Scripture,’ in which isolated words are separated from their context, and receive any sense which the fancy of the interpreter may suggest. It is akin to the method employed by Schleiermacher of arranging the dialogues of Plato in chronological order according to what he deems the true arrangement of the ideas contained in them. (Dr. Jackson is also inclined, having constructed a theory, to make the chronology of Plato’s writings dependent upon it (See Journal of Philology<\/em> and elsewhere.).) It may likewise be illustrated by the ingenuity of those who employ symbols to find in Shakespeare a hidden meaning. In the three cases the error is nearly the same:\u2014words are taken out of their natural context, and thus become destitute of any real meaning.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

I. What is the \u2018Separation\u2019 of Forms?<\/mark><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\"An    Platonic scholars discuss Plato\u2019s<\/a> theory of forms<\/a>. They often mention the topic of the \u201cseparation of forms.\u201d What do they mean when they use this phrase, and what are its philosophical implications?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"An    See Daniel T Devereux<\/a>, \u201cSeparation and Immanence in Plato\u2019s Theory of Forms<\/a>,\u201d in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy<\/a><\/em> 12, ed. C C W Taylor<\/a>, (December 1994), 63\u201394.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"An    Peter Wallace Wakefield<\/a>, \u201cOn the Separation of the Forms<\/a>,\u201d PhD diss., Brown University, Providence, RI., 1989.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

ChatGPT-5<\/mark><\/a> \"For<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Platonic scholars use the phrase \u201cseparation of forms<\/a>\u201d to refer to the idea that Plato\u2019s Forms<\/a> (or Ideas<\/a>) exist independently and apart from the physical objects<\/a> that participate in or instantiate<\/a> them. This concept is central to understanding Plato\u2019s metaphysics<\/a> and epistemology<\/a>, as it highlights the ontological status of Forms<\/a> as distinct, non-physical realities<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Meaning of \u201cSeparation of Forms\u201d<\/mark><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n