Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Plato's Treatment of Relational Statements in the Phaedo

1982; Brill; Volume: 27; Issue: 1-2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1163/156852882x00069

1568-5284

Mohan Matthen,

Classical Philosophy and Thought

It has been claimed that Plato neither recognized the need for nor formulated a theory of relational statements as we should understand that term.' As against this I want to argue that any attempt to solve the puzzle formulated at 102 bc within the parameters there set down would, eo ipso, be an attempted theory of relational statements. At 102 b 8, Plato claims that 'Simmias's overtopping of Socrates isn't expressed those words according to the truth of the matter' (David Gallop's translation2). Literally. I suppose, this means that 'Simmias overtops.Socrates' is false, but it would be wrong to take Plato this way. More likely the claim is that the sentence is not ontologically perspicuous, that it needs clarification and analysis. The need for clarification is expressed the speech just preceding, where Socrates says: 'Whenever you say that Simmias is taller than Socrates but shorter than Phaedo, you mean then, don't you, that both things are Simmias, tallness and shortness.' A curious inference, but one sanctioned by a principle stated at 100 e 5: 'It's by tallness that tall things are tall, and taller things taller, and by shortness that shorter things are shorter.' (By the way, it is clear from the lines preceding and succeeding this statement that Plato means that it is by tallness and tallness alone that taller things are taller, etc.) We have, then, the following antinomy: Simmias is taller than Socrates. Therefore, by the principle just stated, Simmias participates the tall. Simmias is shorter than Phaedo. Therefore Simmias participates both tallness and shortness. But tallness and shortness are opposites. How can Simmias participate opposities? (We can ignore for the moment the further inference that opposites are Simmias.) It is not unreasonable to conclude that the lack of perspicuity 'Simmias overtops Socrates' relates to this antinomy: the clarification therefore will show how the antinomous situation can come about. Having stated the problem Plato goes on immediately to give us the parameters of its solution. The fact that Simmias overtops Socrates is not explained by Simmias being Simmias nor Socrates being Socrates 'but because of the shortness Socrates has relation to his tallness.' Much has been made of these words. 'Socrates being Socrates', it is said, is a reference to the essence of Socrates as opposed to his accidents; 'the shortness Socrates has' is a reference to an immanent character neither the form nor the participant but a third thing in the latter. Perhaps; but the point I want to draw attention to is that Simmias' overtopping of Socrates involves, according to Plato, two things and not just