Theaetetus , livre ebook

Pub One Info - Plato

Découvre YouScribe en t'inscrivant gratuitement

Je m'inscris

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

107 pages

English

Vous pourrez modifier la taille du texte de cet ouvrage

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

A propos
Informations
Extrait

Description

pubOne.info present you this new edition. Some dialogues of Plato are of so various a character that their relation to the other dialogues cannot be determined with any degree of certainty. The Theaetetus, like the Parmenides, has points of similarity both with his earlier and his later writings. The perfection of style, the humour, the dramatic interest, the complexity of structure, the fertility of illustration, the shifting of the points of view, are characteristic of his best period of authorship. The vain search, the negative conclusion, the figure of the midwives, the constant profession of ignorance on the part of Socrates, also bear the stamp of the early dialogues, in which the original Socrates is not yet Platonized. Had we no other indications, we should be disposed to range the Theaetetus with the Apology and the Phaedrus, and perhaps even with the Protagoras and the Laches.

Informations

Publié par	Pub One Info
Date de parution	06 novembre 2010
Nombre de lectures	0
EAN13	9782819934370
Langue	English

Informations légales : prix de location à la page 0,0100€. Cette information est donnée uniquement à titre indicatif conformément à la législation en vigueur.

Extrait

THEAETETUS
By Plato
Translated by Benjamin Jowett
INTRODUCTION AND ANALYSIS.
Some dialogues of Plato are of so various acharacter that their relation to the other dialogues cannot bedetermined with any degree of certainty. The Theaetetus, like theParmenides, has points of similarity both with his earlier and hislater writings. The perfection of style, the humour, the dramaticinterest, the complexity of structure, the fertility ofillustration, the shifting of the points of view, arecharacteristic of his best period of authorship. The vain search,the negative conclusion, the figure of the midwives, the constantprofession of ignorance on the part of Socrates, also bear thestamp of the early dialogues, in which the original Socrates is notyet Platonized. Had we no other indications, we should be disposedto range the Theaetetus with the Apology and the Phaedrus, andperhaps even with the Protagoras and the Laches.
But when we pass from the style to an examination ofthe subject, we trace a connection with the later rather than withthe earlier dialogues. In the first place there is the connexion,indicated by Plato himself at the end of the dialogue, with theSophist, to which in many respects the Theaetetus is so littleakin. (1) The same persons reappear, including the youngerSocrates, whose name is just mentioned in the Theaetetus; (2) thetheory of rest, which Socrates has declined to consider, is resumedby the Eleatic Stranger; (3) there is a similar allusion in bothdialogues to the meeting of Parmenides and Socrates (Theaet. ,Soph. ); and (4) the inquiry into not-being in the Sophistsupplements the question of false opinion which is raised in theTheaetetus. (Compare also Theaet. and Soph. for parallel turns ofthought. ) Secondly, the later date of the dialogue is confirmed bythe absence of the doctrine of recollection and of any doctrine ofideas except that which derives them from generalization and fromreflection of the mind upon itself. The general character of theTheaetetus is dialectical, and there are traces of the sameMegarian influences which appear in the Parmenides, and which laterwriters, in their matter of fact way, have explained by theresidence of Plato at Megara. Socrates disclaims the character of aprofessional eristic, and also, with a sort of ironical admiration,expresses his inability to attain the Megarian precision in the useof terms. Yet he too employs a similar sophistical skill inoverturning every conceivable theory of knowledge.
The direct indications of a date amount to no morethan this: the conversation is said to have taken place whenTheaetetus was a youth, and shortly before the death of Socrates.At the time of his own death he is supposed to be a full-grown man.Allowing nine or ten years for the interval between youth andmanhood, the dialogue could not have been written earlier than 390,when Plato was about thirty-nine years of age. No more definitedate is indicated by the engagement in which Theaetetus is said tohave fallen or to have been wounded, and which may have taken placeany time during the Corinthian war, between the years 390-387. Thelater date which has been suggested, 369, when the Athenians andLacedaemonians disputed the Isthmus with Epaminondas, would makethe age of Theaetetus at his death forty-five or forty-six. This alittle impairs the beauty of Socrates' remark, that 'he would be agreat man if he lived. '
In this uncertainty about the place of theTheaetetus, it seemed better, as in the case of the Republic,Timaeus, Critias, to retain the order in which Plato himself hasarranged this and the two companion dialogues. We cannot excludethe possibility which has been already noticed in reference toother works of Plato, that the Theaetetus may not have been allwritten continuously; or the probability that the Sophist andPoliticus, which differ greatly in style, were only appended aftera long interval of time. The allusion to Parmenides compared withthe Sophist, would probably imply that the dialogue which is calledby his name was already in existence; unless, indeed, we supposethe passage in which the allusion occurs to have been insertedafterwards. Again, the Theaetetus may be connected with theGorgias, either dialogue from different points of view containingan analysis of the real and apparent (Schleiermacher); and both maybe brought into relation with the Apology as illustrating thepersonal life of Socrates. The Philebus, too, may with equal reasonbe placed either after or before what, in the language ofThrasyllus, may be called the Second Platonic Trilogy. Both theParmenides and the Sophist, and still more the Theaetetus, havepoints of affinity with the Cratylus, in which the principles ofrest and motion are again contrasted, and the Sophistical orProtagorean theory of language is opposed to that which isattributed to the disciple of Heracleitus, not to speak of lesserresemblances in thought and language. The Parmenides, again, hasbeen thought by some to hold an intermediate position between theTheaetetus and the Sophist; upon this view, the Sophist may beregarded as the answer to the problems about One and Being whichhave been raised in the Parmenides. Any of these arrangements maysuggest new views to the student of Plato; none of them can layclaim to an exclusive probability in its favour.
The Theaetetus is one of the narrated dialogues ofPlato, and is the only one which is supposed to have been writtendown. In a short introductory scene, Euclides and Terpsion aredescribed as meeting before the door of Euclides' house in Megara.This may have been a spot familiar to Plato (for Megara was withina walk of Athens), but no importance can be attached to theaccidental introduction of the founder of the Megarian philosophy.The real intention of the preface is to create an interest aboutthe person of Theaetetus, who has just been carried up from thearmy at Corinth in a dying state. The expectation of his deathrecalls the promise of his youth, and especially the famousconversation which Socrates had with him when he was quite young, afew days before his own trial and death, as we are once morereminded at the end of the dialogue. Yet we may observe that Platohas himself forgotten this, when he represents Euclides as fromtime to time coming to Athens and correcting the copy fromSocrates' own mouth. The narrative, having introduced Theaetetus,and having guaranteed the authenticity of the dialogue (compareSymposium, Phaedo, Parmenides), is then dropped. No further use ismade of the device. As Plato himself remarks, who in this as insome other minute points is imitated by Cicero (De Amicitia), theinterlocutory words are omitted.
Theaetetus, the hero of the battle of Corinth and ofthe dialogue, is a disciple of Theodorus, the great geometrician,whose science is thus indicated to be the propaedeutic tophilosophy. An interest has been already excited about him by hisapproaching death, and now he is introduced to us anew by thepraises of his master Theodorus. He is a youthful Socrates, andexhibits the same contrast of the fair soul and the ungainly faceand frame, the Silenus mask and the god within, which are describedin the Symposium. The picture which Theodorus gives of his courageand patience and intelligence and modesty is verified in the courseof the dialogue. His courage is shown by his behaviour in thebattle, and his other qualities shine forth as the argumentproceeds. Socrates takes an evident delight in 'the wiseTheaetetus, ' who has more in him than 'many bearded men'; he isquite inspired by his answers. At first the youth is lost inwonder, and is almost too modest to speak, but, encouraged bySocrates, he rises to the occasion, and grows full of interest andenthusiasm about the great question. Like a youth, he has notfinally made up his mind, and is very ready to follow the lead ofSocrates, and to enter into each successive phase of the discussionwhich turns up. His great dialectical talent is shown in his powerof drawing distinctions, and of foreseeing the consequences of hisown answers. The enquiry about the nature of knowledge is not newto him; long ago he has felt the 'pang of philosophy, ' and hasexperienced the youthful intoxication which is depicted in thePhilebus. But he has hitherto been unable to make the transitionfrom mathematics to metaphysics. He can form a general conceptionof square and oblong numbers, but he is unable to attain a similarexpression of knowledge in the abstract. Yet at length he begins torecognize that there are universal conceptions of being, likeness,sameness, number, which the mind contemplates in herself, and withthe help of Socrates is conducted from a theory of sense to atheory of ideas.
There is no reason to doubt that Theaetetus was areal person, whose name survived in the next generation. Butneither can any importance be attached to the notices of him inSuidas and Proclus, which are probably based on the mention of himin Plato. According to a confused statement in Suidas, who mentionshim twice over, first, as a pupil of Socrates, and then of Plato,he is said to have written the first work on the Five Solids. Butno early authority cites the work, the invention of which may havebeen easily suggested by the division of roots, which Platoattributes to him, and the allusion to the backward state of solidgeometry in the Republic. At any rate, there is no occasion torecall him to life again after the battle of Corinth, in order thatwe may allow time for the completion of such a work (Muller). Wemay also remark that such a supposition entirely destroys thepathetic interest of the introduction.
Theodorus, the geometrician, had once been thefriend and disciple of Protagoras, but he is very reluctant toleave his retirement and defend his old master. He is too old tolearn Socrates' game of question and answer, and prefers thedigressions to the main argument, because he finds them easier tofollow. The mathematician, as Socrates says