A.b.cook - The Metaphysical Basis Of Plato's Ethics, 1895

VICTORIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

TORONTO, ONTARIO

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS PLATO S ETHICS

THE

METAPHYSICAL BASIS OF

PLATO S ETHICS BY

ARTHUR BERNARD COOK

M.A.

FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE

"Quis

ille

Natura

primus, cuius ex imagine

solers finxit

humanum

genus,

Aeternus, incorruptus, aequaevus polo,

Unusque

et universus,

exemplar

Dei?"

MILTON

DEIGHTON BELL & LONDON

CO.

GEORGE BELL & SONS 1895

V

B 392

CAMBRIDGE PRINTED BY JONATHAN PALMER

ALEXANDRA STREET

CONTENTS PAGE

PREFACE

PART

PART

PART

I.

.

THE PLATONIC THEORY OF MIND

i.

The Parmenides

2.

The Sophist

3.

Aristotle s Psychology

II.

.

ix

i

I

.

... .

.

17

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.23

HIGHER AND LOWER MENTALITY

.

.

54

i.

Purpose and Necessity

55

2.

Identity and Difference

68

3.

Theology

85

III.

METAPHYSICAL DESCENT AND MORAL ASCENT.

INDEX LOCORUM

113 153

PREFACE Ti

ovv

UKarwvos ;

TjfMf is

e/e

following essay

TOIOVTOIS

TT

PROKLOS

THE

Kal

roffovrois

firl

4pov/j.fv

Kal ri TrpoffQ^oo^v

Farm.

in

ed.

Cousin

vi.

30.

neither a systematic account

is

of Plato

s

metaphysics, nor an adequate exposition

of Plato

s

ethics.

Its

is

scope

a narrower one.

It

aims at clearing up the connection between the two.

And,

if

metaphysical scheme that

matured Platonism, to

me

the attempt has led

my

to reinterpret the

underlay the ethics of

purpose throughout has been

show how intimately and indeed vitally the was connected with the former. Thus far at

latter

least

I

find

myself

in

accordance with the general

tendency of modern Platonic

criticism.

For the sup

posed independence, not to say antagonism, of the several parts of Plato s philosophy,

the work of certain exponents, into disrepute. all

We

is

which

still

nowadays

mars

falling

are beginning to look askance on

constructions involving the philosopher in incon

gruous positions.

And

this

is

due

partly,

I

think, to

PREFACE. a growing appreciation

of the artistic side of his

thought, partly to special efforts that have been

made

to determine from theoretical content or linguistic style the true order of the Platonic writings.

former movement postulates that here, speculative system must

mean

if

The

anywhere, a

a harmonious whole

;

the latter has shown that sundry seeming inconsis tencies are but tide-marks of a progressive develop

ment.

But, whatever be

the precise causes which

have of recent times tended to discredit the patch work Platonism of the past, it will fairly be demanded of

any

fresh

doctrine that

endeavour to articulate the it

Idealist

represent that doctrine as an organic

unity.

This being admitted, the only safe course

is

to

regard the Platonic philosophy from the standpoint of

some

which Plato

opo? 6pto-#ei? /^eyas for

responsible.

Now

of

all

is

such opoi that which

himself is

most

constantly affirmed and most jealously guarded the reality of the Ideal world. The late Dr.

is

Maguire

has somewhere said that is

the corner-stone of

substitute the term

"the

Platonism."

"reality"

because the cardinal

objectivity of the Idea

dogma

that the nature of ovaia

is

I

should prefer to

as a translation of ovala.

of the Timaeus asserts

to be at once ravrov

and

PREFACE. i.e.

Odrepov,

And

here

preamble,

it I

in

dicating

xi

not only objective but also subjective.

may conduce

sketch the main the briefest

if,

by way of

my

essay, in

to clearness

of

drift

possible

manner how

this

theory of objective and subjective ova ia furnished a satisfactory

foundation

the

for

of

superstructure

morality.

Plato conceived the universe to be a VOTYTOV

containing within

such to

itself a series

oW, whether supreme

make good

its

of voyra

wa.

,wov

Every

or subordinate,

if it

is

must (he says)

claim to real being

pass from the objective phase of self-identity into the subjective phase of self-differentiation. state

consists

thought

;

in

the

intuitional

The former

exercise

of

pure

the latter comprises the emotive presenta

But the knowledge, opinion, sensation. passage from the one to the other is a necessary feature of each and every VOIJTGV %wov. As regards tions

of

nomenclature, dition it

is

is

the supreme %wov in

the sovereign

the 6eol Oewv.

Mind

;

in its

its

lower condition

The subordinate

higher condition are the Ideas

;

in

higher con

coa

in

their

their lower con

dition they are particular specimens of the natural

kinds.

And

since

the

higher mentality

deemed superhuman, Plato

must be

calls the sovereign

Mind

PREFACE.

xii

ai&ioi Oeoi, in contradistinction to

and the Ideas

0eo?

particulars which are at best only

once significance of these remarks will be at

The

apparent

if

we

consider the case of a single vorpov

sa y that of

j, f<y

$ai/j,oves.

Man.

Man

being one of the sub

ordinate fwa expresses one aspect, viz. the humanity, of

the supreme

faculties,

named

aiaOrja-^.

As

%wov.

He

is

respectively vovs,

possessed of vovs

endowed with and he

four

eVicrr^/xT;, Sofa,

the Idea of

is

Man, an immutable entity correlating with, i.e. think ing and thought by, all entities of the same order.

As

possessed of

eVtcrr/jyUT;,

Sofa, aio-Orjcns,

Man

lapses

from permanent thought into transient knowledge,

no longer functioning as a unitary

opinion, sensation,

Ideal Mind, but as an indefinite plurality of particular

These particulars in their turn correlate with, apprehend and are apprehended by, particulars of

minds. i.e.

all

wa

the vorjra

them

ijrin^at,

:

as actively apprehensive

as passively apprehensible

we

we

call

call

them

Further, the world of absolute being (the sovereign

Mind +

the

whose

elittov

starry

gods

And

Ideal is

+

Minds)

is

termed a

Trapd$6iyiJ,a,

the world of relative becoming (the

all

specimens of the natural kinds).

just as metaphysics insists that the former

must

PREFACE.

xiii

demands

pass into the latter, so morality the

to

latter

best

towards the former.

and

partial

this

Mind,

of

their

ability

that the

must return

But since the Ideal Minds are

serial

determinations of the sovereign

demand

of conformity to their appropriate

Ideas implies the desirability of attaining, so far as be, to the condition of the sovereign

may

Such attainment and limited after

the

s

their

own

a

;

possibilities

end

ethical

the present

life is

perforce

itself.

meagre

but the theory of transmigration here-

opens up

Plato

in

Mind

ontology

for is

beyond compute.

particulars

In

determined

as

to minimise the difference

fine,

by

between

psychosis and that of the supreme 0eo?

quest which

leads

them through the

successive

stages of the Ideal series.

The

discussion of the system here summarised

has fallen into three divisions.

The

first

educes the

main outlines from a consideration of certain passages of importance in the Dialogues and elsewhere.

The

second emphasises the distinction between the realm of

objective

becoming. of the

being

The

latter

and

the

realm

of

subjective

third states the metaphysical view

as

deavours to show

a copy of the

how

former,

and en

that view impliedly incul

cates the rational treatment of individual souls

and

*

PREFACE.

xiv

bodies

the

accordance with

in

end above

ethical

mentioned.

obligations to

Jackson

x

statement that

my

teaching are not slight.

Dr.

from

be seen

will

It

Cambridge

this

papers in the Journal of Philology

s

my

to

xv) have,

established

thinking,

(vols.

beyond

reasonable doubt the chronology of the more im Dialogues.

portant Plato

s

Any

attempt

mature Idealism must henceforward be based P/iilebus, the

mainly upon the actetus,

Parmenides, the 77^-

the Sophist, the Politicus, the Timaeus, and

And

the Laivs.

those

who

set

about

themselves the burden of proving the

reconstruct

to

list

of Ideas,

whereby

"(i)

it

may

spare

a revision of

relations, negations,

and

products ceased to be regarded as Ideas and (2) a modification proper (aura KCL& avra eiBrj) artificial

;

between

of the conception of the relation subsisting

the Idea and tion

(fjueOegis)

stituted

Hind

its

s

particulars,

of the latter in the former

imitation

(/u/^cri?)."

interpretation of the

who have

ears

esoteric meaning, itself into a

whereby

for

to "

participa

was sub

Again, Mr. Archer-

Timaeus proves to

Plato

hear that, according to the one universal

multitude of

finite

all

s

Thought evolves

intelligences,

are so constituted as to apprehend not only

which

by pure

PREFACE. reason, but

also

by what we

xv

the senses, with

call

attendant subjective phenomena of time and

all their space."

some points

If in

of moment I have ventured to who propounded these weighty

dissent from those it is

opinions,

because

I

cannot but pursue to the end

the principle that the Ideal world 6Vra, understanding

by the word

is

composed of every case

ova-la in

a combination of objective with subjective thought.

One

great outcome of that principle has,

been hitherto overlooked

:

I

mean

I

believe,

the fact that for

Plato the unit of metaphysical and ethical measure

ment

is

neither the Idea nor the individual, but the

%wov

vorf-rov

a

personal

being

whose

intellectual

activity

comprises the two essentials of

namely

the

diffracted

unitary

yvaxri^

consequences of to

me

of this

vbya-is its

of the

particulars.

reality,"

Idea

and

the

To

press

the

fundamental doctrine seemed

not only legitimate, but necessary.

TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, July SM, 1895.

"

ERRATUM. Page

141, line II,

for T& Kvpros read rb KVTOS.

PART

I.

THE PLATONIC THEORY OF MIND. Before the ethical bearings of Plato s Idealism can be appreciated, it is of primary importance to deter

mine the

relation in

towards Mind.

which the Ideas themselves stand

This relation

essential as

it

is

to

a sound understanding of the Platonic system is nowhere explicitly set forth in the extant dialogues. Their author has more suo left it to be inferred either from the necessary presuppositions of certain broad from a few incidental passages of pregnant

tenets, or

meaning.

The

former,

among which may be men

tioned the doctrines of Metempsychosis and nesis, will

Anam

be more conveniently dealt with at a later

stage of the present argument. The latter call for immediate analysis, as enabling us to formulate

simply and directly the connection which we seek to ascertain.

I.

In

Farm. 132 B

to. secure the

The Parmenides.

the Platonic Sokrates, wishing of the Idea against the criticism unity seq.

THE METAPHYSICAL

BASIS

of the Platonic Parmenides, suggests that perhaps each Idea is a thought (v6r)/jLa) existent only in souls

To

(ev Tfrvxaty(i)

suggestion Parmenides retorts

this

That a voi^a must have a content, an

ov

:

n

;

vo^pa voel will be and therefore as described as the Idea previously

and that the content which

this

previously refuted.

That if on the one hand each Idea is a voi^a, (ii) and on the other hand particulars are related to Ideas then particulars as aggre may be said to consist gates of immanent Ideas CK vorjfjLciTwv, in fact to be themselves votjfjLara, objects

by

participation

(/Ae 0efi<?),

Hence

of pure thought. tives

follows one of

two alterna

either (a) all particulars are voovvra, or

:

(b)

some

in spite of their being particulars are not voovvra,

I understand vo-fj/mara ovra, avorjra elvai

1

of particulars ; for, phrase of Aristotle

if s

a thing

e/c

vori^o- ruv

(Parm. 132 eVrtV,

it

c) as

to

is

ffvvOea-is ris i)5tj vorjfjLaTwv tio-irep ev

spoken borrow a

t>vr<av,

and

Another logically correct would be "or there limb of the second the dilemma of interpretation But this are some Ideal j/oTj/uara which are not contained in minds."

may

justly

be described as

itself

a

v6rj/j.a.

:

seems to me inadmissible on two grammatical grounds (i) It involves a somewhat awkward change of subject from TrdvTa particulars to Ideas ; (2) the word o.v6i}ros is elsewhere used in a passive iW/jucn-a :

=

=

sense only h. horn.

R. and P. juei/

.

.

when

Merc. 80

.

v.

73

passivity #</>pa(rr

rV

^ev

is

7/8

distinctly suggested

by the context (e.g. Farm. ed. Plat. Phaedo 80 B

avdrjra Si7rA.6K6 Qavnarh epya,

cai/ ai/6-rjTov, avfavvfjiov,

vof]T(f Kal /j.ovoei5e? Kal o.Sia\vrcf

Kal 8ia\vT$, Dionys.

.

Areop. de

.

.

div.

T

r<$

8e

nom.

.

.

c.

.

I

avo^Tcp

KCL\

inrepovtrios

OF PLATO

ETHICS.

S

To

put the dilemma in other words. If we choose horn (a), we assume that voijfj,ara (i.e. par ticulars, regarded as aggregates of Ideas) must in

the

first

every

case

thereby we that

e.g.

possess

the

of

power

common

contradict

sense,

a palm-tree cannot think.

second horn

(b),

we hold

that

thinking If

common

and

;

which affirms

we choose the sense

is

right

and declaring e.g. a palm-tree to be dvorjrov thereby we deny the assumption that would equate all vor)para (i.e. particulars, regarded as aggregates of with voovvra. Ideas) in

;

Now

this

argument as a whole turns on the

acceptance of the equation between vorj^a and voovv. For the wording of the first alternative 77 Bo/celv aou K

6/cacTTOp

voriiJLdTtov

elvcii

implies that irdvia voelv etc

vorjfjudr&v e/cao-rov elvat,.

no

tive offers

Kal

"jravra

voelv

clearly

the natural consequence of And the second alterna

is

difficulty at all, unless

we

are convinced

vo^a must be a voovv that it does offer is shown by Sokrates answer A\\ ovSe

that every

:

J

difficulty

(frdvai, e^a \6yov. Again, it is noteworthy that Parmenides first retort the same postulate was

rovroj in

oiicria

Kal vovs avSr^ros

ical

[Alex.] in Arist. Met. ed. iro\\ol /A^ flvai

a.i/oT)Tcas

\6yos

Uppriros),

Hayduck

and not always then

(e.g.

27 rfc yhp vof\T\]v Kal Be iav In view of these objections I

p. 670,

aire<f>-f>vavTo).

have followed a simpler syntax, and given to av6tiros a meaning that Stephanus calls frequentissimum et passim obvium (e.g. Plat. Tim. 30 B, where, as in Gorg. 514 c, av6rjros is opposed to vovv "

"

THE METAPHYSICAL tacitly

made by the words

Ov%

BASIS

evbs TWOS, o eVi

rb vorjfia ITTOV voelj piav iiva ovaav loeav In short, both the language of the first retort and the fact that the second is couched in the form of /celvo

;

a dilemma

us

lead

Sokrates and his

tain that every vbrj^a

Whether

this

suppose that the Platonic were alike prepared to main must be a voovv. to

critic

assumption

is

an axiom or a paradox

depend upon the exact significance that we attri bute to vorjua. As with our own word thought," so in

will

"

the case of vorj^a

possible to distinguish a variety

it is

Proklos in Farm. ed. Cousin

of allied meanings.

147 observes \eyerai

<yap

vorj/jia

v.

KOI rb voyrbv avrb TO

vorjOev KOL TO evepyrjiia KCLI TO ryvwcrTMCov TOV VOOVVTOS.

the term vot^a

i.e.

is

applied

to the actual object

(i)

of thought, the thing thought of; (2) to the process of thinking, or more strictly to that process as exem plified

on any definite occasion

faculty of the thinker.

we

are concerned

the statement

If in the

vorjfia

vorj/jia

;

(3) to

the cognitive

passage with which

bears this third sense, then

voel is self-evident,

and further

enquiry is futile. But the usage of i/o^a to denote the "cognitive faculty" is poetical, as may be seen

from the

may

lexiccP\

and at

this juncture,

where much

hinge on the right selection of a single word, a

2

e.g.

Horn. Od. 215, Hes. Op. 129, Theog. 656, Empedocl. ed.

Karsten vv. 313, 316, 317.

OF PLATO S ETHICS. poet s licence would be utterly out of place. Had Plato meant the thinker or the thinking faculty," "

"

"

he would assuredly have used TO voovv or 6 vovs. Can it be then that vorj^a here bears its second meaning, process of thinking"? Two objec In the first place, tions at once suggest themselvds.

and denotes

if

A

thinks B,

thinking .Z?

s

"a

;

it

is fair

it

may

mind has a say that

fair to

to describe

also be fair to

A

or

A

s

mind

as

B

or

presume that

similar faculty for thought; but

A

s

thinking thinks

ion vorjpa voei thus interpreted

?

any

Has

is

it

the express

intelligible

mean

And in the second place, if we grant that by ing ? a laxity of phraseology such a statement might be made 3 it must be admitted that vQj]^a thus becomes ,

the equivalent of But it is difficult to believe that for a common and straightforward term Plato would have substituted a comparatively rare and v6rj<ri<;.

A

4 ambiguous one.

3

The

glance at

Ast s Lexicon

will

English language tolerates the following sen passing thought be the directly verifiable existent, which no school has hitherto doubted it to be, then that thought is itself the thinker, and psychology need not look beyond" (W. James, The tence

"

:

elasticity of the

If the

Principles of Psychology, i. 401, cp. 369). The nearest approach to this that I know of in Greek is a clause quoted by Stephanus s.v. vocp6s : "Mire

cum

ffoi jjifv

KOI 6 vovs

j/Jrjyua .

Byzantine bombast 4

It

407 a 7 v6fi<ris.

conjungit Niceph. Callist. H. E. vol. .

is

.

ad6\ti)Tos, fipvuv voepa. KCU 0eTa

i.

p.

SB,

j/o^/xaro."

(v

rj

But

foreign to the Parmenides.

might be argued, on the strength of Arist. Psych. A. 3. 13. TJ 8e v6ri(ris ra j/oTjjuaro, that i/oTj/uara is used as the plural of

But

(i) in that

passage

"thought is thoughts"

means

that the

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS show

that, as

seldom

compared with

vor)cr^ y voijfui

in the Platonic writings.

occurs but

Discounting

95 E, Soph. 237 A, 2580, as quotations

Meno

and Symp. 197

E,

an avowedly poetical passage in Agathon s speech, we meet with it again only in Politicus 260 D, where heralds

as

a

are

class

said

to

commands

issue

a\\nrpia voi^ara Trapa^e^ofievov. The word is appos ite there just because it has not a subjective but an the king entrusts his vorj^a to the objective value herald, as the manufacturer

the retail dealer.

It

hands over

appears to

me

his

wares to

certain, therefore,

that in the present passage also v6vj(j,a is used in the It first of the three senses enumerated by Proklos.

denotes

actual

"the

object

We may

of thought,

the thing however, raise the ques

still, thought whether voTjpa means (a) the object thought of."

tion

as

it

(b)

the

of,

independently of the

is

object

thought

of,

thinking subject, or as represented by the

thinking subject to his own mind. The former, to speak with all accuracy, is TO vorjrov or TO voovnevov, "

that which can

be"

or

"

that which actually

is

appre-

mental

activity of the thinking subject consists in representations of objects thought, not merely in repeated exhibitions of itself: where the process of thinking is entirely self-contained, etrrii/ r? voTjcris vo-fifffus v6f)<rts, not vo^^aros or vo-nndruv v6i)(ris ; (2) the plural wf)<rcis was available. To Arist. Probl. Iff. 7. 91 7 a 39 (quoted by L. & S.) and

Plut.

Mor. 6910, 1 1 20 A (quoted by Stephanus) add Porphyr. Op. ed. p. 66 ciy 5e cavrV irpbs rbv vovv ev TOLLS vo^ffea-t

Holsten

yiyvcrtu

tVtoC<ro

(sc.

TJ

^VXT]}

.

.

.

/coi

a! vofofis

OVK &vev

OF PLATO bended by

thought."

The

Plutarch de placit. phil. 5 Tao>a

ETHICS.

S

Thus

latter is TO vorjfia.

iv. 1 1

Siavoias \OJIKOV faov

says eWt a definition elsewhere 8e vorj^a

used to elucidate the Stoic term

<f>dv-

which also

\efcr6v,

was the mental representation This distinction between (a) TO voovpevov and (b) TO voovpevov y voovpevov would be important enough if we were dealing with objects sensibly perceived. But of TO d^^aivo^vov.

Ideas

in the case of the Platonic

because

us,

it

does not trouble

as Proklos, ibid. 140, puts

v vor)iLacn Tidlv ovcn&crdai ras

t

it

o

^Wpcm;? Q The one. The

Sea? v7re\a/3v.

Idea and Mind s thought of the Idea are former has no existence apart from the latter.

where the word ^avraa-^a^ implies the low ground of sensenot applicable, a level where less

have mounted to a so

in

as

far

level

it

is

perception,

We

venturesome theorists are not likely to linger Arist. Psych. I\ 3. 8. 432 # 12 TO. Se Trpwra vorj/jbara tivi :

rov

Siolffei

T(i(Tfj,aTa,

5

efts

fMrj

(f)avrd(7fjiara elvai

aXX

;

rj

ovbe

OVK avev ^avraff/jidrcov.

Ta\\a I

<$>av-

conclude,

Cp. Alex, de anini. ed. Bruns p. 85, 20 tyylvvrtu 5e TJ airb TTJS irepl ra ot vif r^v apxV faro. Sxnrep otyiv Tiva cnr avruv \afJL0dvovros rov Kado\ov

T<

/j.(Ta.&a<Tti>

/car

ap%as

/J.fv

v6r]fj.a

/cal

tvvoia /caAelrat, TrAeovorrai

0eeop7j-

Se

Kal iroXvrpoiTov yiv6iJ.svov, us SvvcurOai Kal roieiv 6

TOVTO, vovs

^5rj.

Cp. Alex, in Arist. Met. ed. Hayduck t

Se ats

T\

inr6<na.<Tis

and rb

p.

fivai OLVTUV cV

92,

T$

19,

22,

voeiffQai.

*V

na.1

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS meaning of vo^a as it occurs in this of the Parmenides may be satisfactorily

then, that the

section

defined as

"the

qualification.

interlocutors

that

viz.

We a

it

object of thought" without further the it is of such a vbrjpa that

And

by no means a the power of thinking.

assume what

possesses

is

truism,

impressed with the belief that has a capacity for vorjaw, and furnished with

set out, then,

vorjfjia

We

Sokrates suggestion that each Idea is a vo^/ma. are, however, hampered by the difficulty which Parmenides urged in the first horn of the dilemma, viz.,

that

if

the Idea

a i/o^a, and if particulars

is

rwv elSwv /uere^e^, particulars too consist may in fact, are vorj/jiara e/c vorj/udrcov and therefore be said

;

particulars

which

ought always

to

be

voovvra

a

result

This

difficulty disproved by experience. vanishes with the surrender of the immanence of the is

Sokrates

Ideas.

a\\7j ri?

TI

now

eltcaaOrjvai,

declares that the peOegis avrols (Farm. 132 D).

made up

particulars are no longer

a

way

vo^ara

in

such

as to be themselves the objects of pure thought

rather they jAijjirj/jLaTa

if

of

is ov/c

Hence

should be described as

of the Ideas.

It follows

o/jLoico/jLara

would

or

the conversation did not take another turn

particular as such

is

incapable of

vbr)(n<s,

;

or

follow,

that a

and we escape

the paradoxical conclusion that e.g. a palm-tree has the faculty of thought indeed, we confine these ;

voijfjicna

voovvra to the world of Ideas.

OF PLATO Having surmounted

this obstacle,

Two principles

our position.

deliberately admitted

must be a single Secondly,

we

reconnoitre

of importance have been

:

every instance of vbrjvis the voov^evov

Firstly, in

The

S ETHICS.

real existence,

vo^ara have

all

an 6v

TL.

a capacity for vorja^.

Idea, then, on this

showing (i) is a really Consequently it will be possessed of such properties and subject to such conditions as existent unit.

hereafter be proved essential to ovoria.

may

(ii)

It is

a thought that thinks. Now to the question, "What does it think ? we can but reply, Thoughts." And "

"

since "

every

Thoughts that

confined

now

are

that

think"

7

Oi>x

vo^ara

voovvra which

themselves 7 and one another,8

the range of

Note

itself

that,

when Sokrates answers

fv6s Tii/os, &

I8fav;

of

any given Idea

Ideal series, as at present

conceived, consists in certain

think

we have

the world

to

asserting that

Thus the

thinks Ideas.

as

Moreover,

think."

"Thoughts

we

Ideas,

answer means

our

a voovv,

is

vorjfj.a

7rl

iraviv ^/celVo rb

in the affirmative the question,

v6r)/j.a

tirbv voe?, /j.iav Tiva oixroiv

(Farm. 1320), it is not to the conception of the Idea thinking that Parmenides demurs, but to the reappearance of the Idea as

previously defined with

all its

former

disabilities.

8

In Phaedrus 247 C, D, soul is described as an . ovrws . Of this intelligible entity it is said Ka6opa pey avr^v fj.6vtf 6tar^ v$. Sutaioffwrii , KaQopa 5e (Tw(ppo(rvvTjv, KaOopif, 5e firia T f]HTjv 1 yevtcris .

ov<ria

:

oi>x

irp6cre<rTiv

.

.

.

r&\\a wo-avTws passage

is

oAAo r^v TO.

eV

ovra ovrtas

T$

6 Iffnv

Qfa<ra.^4vt]

applicable to the Idea as

it is

ttv

tivrus

K.T.A..

firio-T^fjL rjv

"?)

olffav Kal

Mutatis mutandis this

portrayed in the Parmenides.

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

io

mental activity being exclusively restricted to

this

the domain of Ideal truth

Parm.

A OVKOVV

134

fjiev

:

Kal

av e/eeo^s eirj eTTLcrr^jjirj av TWV eTTio T rj/jLwv ?}

Haw

;

<TTIV,

elrj

av

;

avrrj

aX ndeia^ aim)? Efcdo-rf] Se

ye.

TWV OVTMV^

efcdo rov

^ ov

eVicrTrJyLt?y

fydvat,,

eiricrTrjfJM],

o eariv eTricmjiJir), rfjs o ecrrtv

o

Nal.

Let us here pause to enquire from what sources these fundamental doctrines derive. The conviction that every vor^ia must be a voovv might primd facie be ranged under the general belief that like is known "

by

like,"

ance

appeal being

Phaedo 80

:

6eiw

/cal

dOavdrw

For

if

the soul

A, B.

/cal

made rae

vorjra)

.

resembles

presumably resemble the

.

to Plato s earlier utter rjfuv .

jfvaftaivei,,

o/jLoiorarov elvai

intelligibles,

soul.

But

fj^ev

^rv^v.

intelligibles is

it

TW

one thing

to assert that the object of thought is incorporeal (even the Stoics went thus far), and another thing to hold that the thoughts of the thinking soul must

be themselves capable of thinking.

This latter creed

was apparently based on the authority of the historical Parmenides, from whose poem two passages may be cited as illustrative of the point. (ed. R.

and

P. vv.

yap av ovre

39

40)

yvoirjs TO

<j>pdo-aw

ye

The

first

of these

is

/ur)

eov, ov

yap awarov,

TO yap avro voelv C&TIV r

Kal elvai.

n

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

The

We

9 can think general sense of the last clause is shows and the what exists of that, argument only if we can think of nothing but TO 6V, TO fj,rj ov will be "

"

;

In fact, Parboth unknowable and unspeakable. menides held that every thought has a truly existent content, inasmuch as TO voovpevov must ever be TO 6V,

And

what the Platonic Parmenides urges

this is just

in his

first

Farm.

retort to Sokrates tentative reconstruction

132 B TI ovv, $avai, ev etcaarov

*A\\a TWO?

L7reiv.

The second passage and P. vv. 94 96) TWVTOV 8 earl

;

Nal.

to which

"Ovros f)

I

allude

ea-Ti

OVK

:

rwv

6Wo<?

is (ed.

/

R.

voelv re Kal ovveicev eari

ov yap avev rov eoiro?, Iv

a>

TrecfraTiafjLei

evpijaeis TO voelv.

The argument here may be thus paraphrased, You do not find thought apart from TO 6V, wherein thought finds

[You do not

find

its

expression

thought

s

:

object apart from TO

6V:]

9

both

Literally, the for thinking

to fffnv

its

same both

words may be rendered

and

technical for

"

for being

=

"The

same thing

exists

(Datival Infinitive) : or possibly, giving "// we should translate // is the

meaning thinking and for being.

"

is," "

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS Ergo thought and thought sive 10

both are TO

s

object are co-exten

ov.

be observed that the two passages are complementary. The minor premiss, which is wanting will

It

exactly supplied by the first. The argument as a whole, led to the simple corollary that, if thought coincides with thought s object, that object in the second, is

may be

said to think. 11

And

this,

as

we have

seen,

was the substantial assumption of the Platonic Parmenides in his second retort. It is seq.

Plato puts into

when

Farm. 132 B the mouth of the Eleate the two

clear therefore, that,

in

weighty principles enunciated above, he is adducing tenets of the historical Parmenides as

the actual

10

It matters little whether we follow Simplicius (in Phys. A, ed. Diels p. 87, 17) and translate "Thought is coincident with thought s or adopt Mr. Burnet s version (Early Gr. Philos. p. 186) : It object," is the same thing that can be thought and for the sake of which the "

thought exists." In the former case we identify the subject with the object ofv6i]ffis, in the the latter the object with the subject. Whichever z, z, and_y rendering we choose, the argument will be the same, viz. x

=

therefore 11

=

x =y.

do not mean

to imply that Parmenides himself expressly drew spoke of rb %v as a vovs. We have no better authority for such an assertion than Plotinus Enn. v. i. 8, and Simplicius in Phys. I

this inference, or

A.

ed. Diels p. 143, i8ff. Moreover, there is the negative evidence of Plato, who, in Soph. 244 B, c, states that the Eleatics called their principle by the two names ev and &v, but makes no mention of vovs

as a recognised appellation.

My point is merely that the historical Parmenides identification of voov^evov and voovv paved the way for the Platonic Parmenides postulate of vo-fiftara voovvra.

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

own

corrective of his

13

unrevised Idealism.

And we

appreciate the dramatic propriety which begin caused him, at the expense of an obvious anachronism, to

to choose Parmenides as his

But the

critic.

significance of that choice has not yet If Parmenides held that the object sounded. been full

thought was also the subject thinking, he did so only because he identified both alike with TO ov. And similarly Plato,

who assumes

that every vo^pa.

voel,

assumption on the belief that in any of vorjcris the subject and the object are alike process

must base

his

That entity terms which corres

referable to a single underlying entity. is

by him elsewhere

described

pond

to the active

in

and passive functions of the Ideal

As they are Tim. 37 A ifrv%r},

Minds.

z/o^ara, so ra)V

It is

a vorjrov

voqrwv del re ovrwv

:

VTTO rov

rwv

yevvrjdevrayv. dpiarov dpicmy <yevofj,evrj are voovvra, so It is a vovs

As they

:

Phileb. 30 C ea-rw, a 7roX\a/9 re ev

aurot? atria ov

rovca

Laws 897

epi?*a/fcei>,

aTreipov

iravrl TTO\V Kal Trepas Ircavbv /cai Tt9

ra>

.

.

C

<j>av\r}

.

<70(f)la

rj

teal

gvfjiTrao-a

?r

KOfffjiovcrd re real avvrdr-

vovs \eyofj,evrj SiKaiorar av.

ovpavov 6809 apa Kal

(f>opa

Kal rwv ev avrco ovr&v aTravrcov vov Kivijeei Kal 7repi<f)opa

Kal \o^La-^iol^

Ofjioiav

<f>v(Ti,

This conception of a vorjrbs vovs and of voovvra may well have been the source of Aristotle statements concerning ra avev

v\r)<$

vorjrd

:

s

I

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

4

1072 b 2O eavrov Be voel 6 vovs /cara rov vorjrov" vorjrbs yap ylyverai 0iytea vowv, ware ravrbv vovs KOI vorjrov.

Met. A.

7.

a

ov% erepov ovv rov vov, ova /JLTJ vXrjv

Ibid. A. 9. 1075 jjLevov

/cal

earau KOI

6Wo<?

3

voxels TO) voovpevu)

f)

/tat

avro? 8e vorjros

yuef

7p

TWZ/ a^eu

TO avro-

e^et, /juia.

2 oVep av^^aivei eVl TOU

430^

Psych. T. 4. 12.

rov voov-

ecmv waTrep ra

;X?;9

TO auTo

eo-Tt

voTjrd.

z^oO.

eVl

TO voovv /cal

TO VOOV/JLVOV.

Porph.

/

Categ.

Busse

ed.

14

p. 91,

Xe7a>

6Vt

aljiw[iai avrbv (Aristotle) on, KVpLcorara Kara avrbv /cal fjud\t,(TTa real TrpcoTft)? \eyo^evwv TrpooTwv

OVGIWV TMV vov

TOV vorjTov Oeov

vorjrcov olov

/cat, eiirep elcrlv

/cal

rov

KOI TWV ISewv,

t 8eat,

TrpcoTa? ovala? e^rj Ta? eV Tot?

may, unlocked for results have been reached. When Sokrates threw out his sug gestion that the Idea might be a yo^a, he probably But, be that as

it

meant no more than a human thought or concept.

By

the aid of Parmenides

come

questions

to see that the Ideas are

particular cognition

Farm. 134 B elo*ct)v

We

must

we have now

beyond the reach of

:

Ov/c

apa

ovSev,

VTTO

eVetS^

in fact conceive

ye

TJ/JLWV

avrfjs

them

ryiyvtocnce-Tai

iTriavf)^^

ov

to be a plurality

OF PLATO

S

ETHICS.

15

of Minds into which one supreme itself,

reproducing in them

its

Mind has multiplied own essential features

of thinking and being thought.

Hence, if they are primarily because they are the thoughts of that Intelligence which is their under called vofaaTa,

it

is

lying cause Plut. de placit. phil. :

oucr/a?

ra?

10 IlXarwv ^copto-ras

i.

t

Sea?

Kal eV rat? T6(7Tt,

TOV VOV,

eV

rf)$

rot?

TOV Oeov, rov-

<j>avTaa-iais

V(f)(TTC0<TaS.

i6a (Aetios), ed. Wachsmuth i. p. n^aTcov ISea 8e ovcria 19 Apto-TO) vos

Stob. Eel. 127,

v7ro\afA{3dvei,

I.

ao-(*)fj,aTO<;

x.

.

ev TO?? vorjfjiacn

.

.

Kal rat?

rov Oeov.

Proklos in Farm. ed. Cousin

apa aXX^Xot?

o re i^oO? Kal

Gvyyeveiav TavTrjVj 6 2(0KpdTr)s TCL

a>?

efjuol

v.

ra

148 et&q* Kal e/5 TTJV

SoKel, d7ro/3\e7T(i)v Kal

iSrj vorj/jiaTa a<pa)plcaTO.

secondarily because they mentally regard themselves and one another.

A

scrutiny of

Farm. 132 B

then, to the following conclusion.

when he

has brought us, Plato, at the time

scq.

reconstituted his early theory of Ideas, held

on the one hand that the object of any process of pure thought must be a single real existence, and on the other that such an object must itself possess the power of pure thinking. These two articles of belief

he had adopted from the writings of Parmenides, a

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

16

whom he entertained the deepest And further, he had adopted them on

philosopher for reverence.

12

the original ground of their validity, recognition of one underlying entity

namely the

:

Farm.

128

A

Mav0dva>, .

IIapiJ,evi&r],

ev

<$9

/caXto<?

As result

.

&v pev yap

.

elvai TO irdv, Kal

re

TOVTWV

TOV Zcofcpdrrj,

o>

ev rot? TKjjLrjpia

/cal ev.

applied to his

own

Idealism, their immediate

was to warrant him

Mind

etVew/

in positing

a single

really

and conditioning cause of a the series of really existent Minds called the Ideas, or itself Mind for of being any given object thought formulated relation thus Mind. The other may any be denoted, at any rate provisionally, by the accom existent

as basis

panying diagram

:

vovs

= The

voovvra.

12

Supreme Mind.

The

Series of Ideas.

Cp. Theaet. 183 E riop^evi Sr/y 5e p.oi Qaiverai, rb TOV re /j.01 ?yat o/ta Seivds re ... KOI pot ft ados

al5o"i6s

<f>dvr)

ytvvcuov, Soph. 237

A rbv

n

TOV iraTpbs Hapnevtiov \6yov

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

II.

17

The Sop /list.

Thus far the components of the Platonic scheme have been characterised as oWa and as voovvra

may now be shown

It

voovpeva.

involve

teristics

certain

further

that these charac properties, without

which any account of real and phenomenal nature would be altogether inadequate. In Soph. 248 A the el8&v draw a distinction between yevea-Ls and ovcria the changeable nature of </\ot

:

the former

we apprehend through our body by means

of sense-perception

;

the changeless nature of the latter our soul by means of reasoning.

we apprehend through Again,

248 C these same adherents of

in

dcroofjiaTa

ei&rj

declare

cvcrla without, the

that yeveo-is

domain of

iroielv

While passing these opinions

vorjra

teal

within, true

lies

KOL Trda^etv.

in review,

the Eleate

s

remarks are supplementary rather than destructive. He points out that, if the Idealists hold, on the one

hand that ovaia that ovaia

yiyvtocriceTai,,

is a-Tratfrj?,

then

and on the other hand

to avoid inconsistency

they must by the process which they describe as TO <yi<yv(ixTKeiv

different

<yL<yv(ti<rtceiv

Stranger

they

rf

TO

<yi<yvto(TKe(TQ(u

from a

s

7roir)/j,a

rj

mean something TrdOos.

If,

totally

however, TO TI and the

point of fact Troielv words hint that such is the case is

in

will allow

must be Trao-^ew

that Tt,

its

and,

then

correlative TO yiyvwo-KeaOcu still

holding to their doctrine 2

THE METAPHYSICAL

18

that ovffia

is yiyvcoa-Ko/jLevrj VTTO

admit that

icaO*

oaov

BASIS

they will Kara TOGOVTOV tcivelrai

TTJ? 7^c6cre&)?,

yiyvaya-fteTai,

Sta TO irdo-^eiv.

In this paragraph the Eleate s critique of Idealism brings before us two conceptions :

That

(i)

if truly known some sense of the word know

and

ovffia is aTraBrfs,

must be known ledge which transcends the in

"

"

trdBos properly

71-0/77^,0, f)

attached to any process of yiyvcaaKeiv

yiyvaMTKecrOai.

rj

higher intellectual state may be we are not yet told, but bearing in mind the ovra of the Parmenides, which were further determined as voovvra

What

this

we

presume that it is vorjcris, pure thought, and our presumption will be justified by the immediate sequel. and

voovfJLeva,

That

(ii)

shall

ova-ia

and that therein In accepts (i)

As

(ii)

As

la

the

effect

his

Arist.

Kal

7^w<rt?,

that

its

is

own

and

rjp^^ ia.

Theaetetus

vorja-^

the subject and object of yvwcns

/j.epi(TTai,

t

a-rraOf is

Se as flvai,frag. 184.

yap Kal

151004

avrals

aitivriTOi

to

be cnraBe is in Met. A.

M.

8.

1083 a

9.

9.

ruv Hence

Se

991 b 26 ouSey

Compare

at

kv elef al

e<m

irdOos, ibid.

is

$oicov<nv

eri Siaiperal

olaai airadels, Diog. Laert. III. 12, 13 v6f]/j.a Kal irpbs TOVTOIS airades.

monads are said oUv re virapx^v

:

it

it

flSuv fv GKaffTov aiSidv re Kal

Ideal

it

called,

double-faced

subject and object of

Topica Z. IO. 148 a 2O

as

least

rightly so

rules,

ovcrla

at

far

departs from

Stranger

ruling,

the

tSeat roTs \syovffiv itieai

it

so

Trda^eL,

provides an object for

yap>

Aristotle s

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

Can

we, however, reconcile these opposing con

Can we predicate both aspects alike of ceptions ? the same ova-la ? This is the problem to which the

now

Eleate

addresses himself in a passage of unusual

lucidity and directness.

He

contends (249 A) that TO Tra^reXw? bv cannot

be cepvov Kal

we

present,

And

ayiov, vovv ov/c e%ov.

be forced, he

shall

if z/ou?

be

admit also

says, to

and tcivqa K. At the same time we must far), be careful to retain that element of erracrt?, without which vovs could not anywhere exist. ^t>%77,

Ovcrla then, wherever

it

found, will be

is

endowed

with two qualities which are evavTiwrara d\\r)\ois,

namely

:

with arda-^j in which case we have 1/01)5 with Kivrja-is, in which case we have far; and

(i)

;

(ii)

Soph. 249 .

.

.

D

ro3

Kara

8?;

TTJV

.

0\ocr6<ft>

TWV nrai^wv

Kal KKt,vrjfjLeva TO ov T

teal

.

.

Trdcra

dvdj/crj

ev^rjv ocra dtcivrjTa

TO 7rav gvva/jL(j)6Tepa u

\eyeiv.

own

doctrine

O7ro06s

f<rnv,

:

n

Psych. A. 4. 14. 408 b 29 6 8e vovs fooos Qei6rep6v Kal F. 5. i. 430 a 17 Kal OVTOS 6 vovs (the vovs iroiyTiKts)

ibid.

Xopio-rbs Kal afj.iy^s Kal 1 1

which predicates

aKlvrjTos

Ed. 14

airad-f)s, rrj ovffia

airaOes Kal

Kal Kexpto7i"?

I. Ixi.

i,

ed.

T^"

Wachsmuth

This explains

why

&v evepyeia, Met. A.

ava\\oiwrov of the ala-Bijruv. i.

.

.

.

7.

has 6 vovs

the definition of ovrus final.

$>v

1073 a

aiSios Kal

Hermes (quoted by

p. 275, 17)

248 c was regarded as provisional and not

ovffia

Stob.

a-rraO-fis.

given in Soph. 247 E,

Whatever possesses

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

20

result

this all-important

Applying

of last section,

to the issues

that the argument from the

we note

It Partnenides dealt with only one side of the truth. of vo^a-is, regarded ova-la as the subject and object

without taking into account any lower intellectual The or \o^icrfio^. faculty, such as that of yvwatf

such neglect. Sophist warns us against persisting in of the It bids us to observe that the supreme i>oD?

but also a voyrbv

is not only a 1/01)9, Tim. 39 E iva roS Cp.

Philebus

Kal vorjrq)

Phileb. 30

ecrOcu

and that the only

D

OVK.OVV eV

$t>a

TTJV

o/jLoiorarov

&><?

Trpo? TTJV TT}?

co&>

rr}<?

.

.

.

rfj

vorj/jLaTa,

TOV Jto?

31

A

fJiipr}(Tiv

e/aet?

</>

vorjTa

Parmenides are not

%wa

Cp. 7Y;#. 30 C ra yap 8^ vorjra ev eavrw TrepiXafibv e%et. 7foV/.

TCO

alrias

ideal vori^ara of the

but also

77

Statoma?

fwa

iravfa

eicelvo

TO 7ap irepie^ov Travra, OTroaa voTjTa

o^ fcoa.

inasmuch as every

you?,

whether supreme or sub-

power of doing or suffering would indeed aptly characterise oltrla qua subject and object of yvuxris. But qua subject and object of v6r](rts this same ova-la was admitted to be ccTroflfc. Consequently, unless or Svvafjus can be taken to denote the power of passing from the first static into the second or kinetic condition, we must substitute the "

the

amended

definition implied in

249 D.

ffi

2

OF PLATO

own

pass out of

ova-la to

the

and

TroirjfjLara

23

by the necessary nature

forced

is

ordinate,

ETHICS.

S

of

tranquil airddeia into

its

of animation. 15

TraOrj/jiaTa

its

Thus

emphasising the fact that, wherever pure thought found, there will its shadow the lower mental

by is

phase be found

also,

previous scheme as

diagram.

Aristotle s Psychology.

III.

Having

enables us to extend our

it

in the

learnt in the preceding section that all

ovaia deserving of the name must necessarily pass from higher to lower phase, we have yet to enquire

15

For Plato

s

conviction that vovs must be attached to tyvx^ see the Phileb. 300 /J.TIV Kal vovs avev ^VXTJS OVK &v

following passages 7TOT6 yfvo urdrjv,

ovSanov ainif

Tavra *ye

<f>

/J.fv

a5

on

B

(vovs

X U P^ S ^ U X^ J fj.6v(f)

4. 4. 4290;

TUV

/u^

ci Swi/

tyyiyvfffOai &\\o6t

and

avrb %X flv oura;

OVTWV $ vovv Psych. F.

(ro<pia

TTpoa-f}KTj

aju</>oT6pa

fi<ToiJ.v

vovv S

:

Farm. 132

^0)77)

b.v

TOVTWV

fKa<rrov 77

Ae-yo/iei/,

frepov fX

l

ou

Tp6irov

afivvarov irapayeveaQai ry, Ibid.

KTOLcrdai

Trpoo"f]Ki,

27 Kal fv ty

ol

\fKTfov

^ivx^]v.

\eyovres ryv ^t/xV

voT]/j.a,

Kal

249 A ciAAa

iv tyvxais, Soph,

eV^r aur

TtV

/cal

4)

/Arjv ;

cV tyvxfi

Tim. 30 K

46 D TUV yap

Compare

^vai

Arist.

TOTTOV eiSuv,

ic AAo Svvd/nei TO, elfSyj, r} vorjriK-f], ovrt 4vrf\fx f t Tao-o oAA o vovs, Archytas in 1070 a 26 TJ ^vx^l frag. phil. Gr. ed. Mullach i, 565 afoQacris fj.fv Iv (report yivfrai, vaos

TT\))V

Met. A.

ovrt o\r] d\A

.

3.

^

8 16

vovv

See Soph. 249 B

wSfvl

ire pi

&vtv rovrtDV

wo eris

6

ovv,

&

eo/Trjre,

aKiv^rwv T ovruv 249 C Tt 5 ;

flvai ^Sa/jiov, the counterpart of

rov Kara ravra K.T.A.) vovv xaQopas ovra ^ yev6/j.fvov

(sc.

if Kal btrovovv

uyuau ei

;

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

24

how it

this passage may be effected, transporting us as does from the realm of serene intelligence Tim. 5 2 A TO Kara ravrd eZSo? e%oVj &y&Wov Ka ^

ovT6

dva>\e6pov,

eavro

et?

a\\o0ev ovre avro

ft?

Trot lov,

aXXcw? aval(T0ijTOV, TOVTO o

teal

to the world of

complex

Laws 896 E ovpavov crecriv,

ay 61

ical

doparov Se

Brj 1/6770-6?

sensitivity

[lev teal

yfjv

a\\o

elo-^e^of^evov

a\\o

ra Srj ^w^r] Trawra Od\arrav rat? avrrjs

Kivrj-

at? ovofjuard IVTL /SovXecrQai,

,

\VTTOV/jievrjv, Oappovaav,

(f>oflov-

Trdaais

ical

crrepyovaav,

fjbiaovcrav,

ocrat,

ra? Sevrep-

Trpwrovpyol Kivr](7^i^ ovpyovs av TrapdXafjiftdvovcrai Kivr)Gi<$ %vy<yvels f)

ayovo-i,

Kal

irdvra

et?

av^cnv

Kal

fcal <j>6iaiv

<rvy/cpi(Tiv.

The method

of transition

will, I think,

lowed by the aid of a vexed paragraph Psychology.

I

shall first state

argument of that paragraph justification for the

;

what

fol

in Aristotle s

take to be the

I

and then

meaning which

be best

I

some

offer

assign

to

its

several parts.

Aristotle s thesis

those thinkers, in

who

is

TO yivcoo-Keiv

witn their

(Psych. A.

find the

dp^

Kal

TO

2. 6.

main

404^

al<r9dve<r6ai,

or ap^at.

8)

that

characteristic of

identify

Empedokles,

for

OF PLATO

S ETHICS.

25

example, constructs the percipient soul out of the same six elements which go to form the percepts of

And

his system.

may

In the Timaeus Plato

(i)

TCL

that Plato acted in a similar

be inferred from three considerations 17 out of the same elements

TTpdyfjiara

to

combining

Odrepov,

makes both

produce

77

(sc.

way

:

^nJ\r]

and

ravrbv and

ovo-ia).

In ra irepl $t\ocro(/av \e^6^eva he distinguishes four stages in the evolution of the percipient Idea corresponding to four stages in the evolution of the (ii)

These four are

percept Ideas. Trpwrov (iii)

ei

o? ZSea,

and

TTp&Tov TrXaro?, irpwrov fiddos. percipient Idea thus evolved apprehends

JU.T}*O<?,

The

by means Sofa,

TOV

77

of four faculties (namely

i/ofc,

and

which correlate with four

cucr0rj<n<i),

eirtffrtffjLr),

eiSrj

TOW

with things grouped according to the irpayiJidrwv, said four stages in the evolution of the percept Ideas. i.e.

like

For these reasons Aristotle concludes that Plato, Empedokles, constructed the subject and the

17

I

append the exact words

8e Tpoirov

yivdxTKea-Qai

y&p r$

e|

fidQovs,

avrys TO.

TT}S

v$, TO. 8

OVTOl

T&V

16 TOV avrbv 2. 7. 404 * T^V ^vx^v 4* ruv (TTOI^ MV irotet

Psych. A.

Ti/j.ai(f

TJ

ftpoiov. TO. 5e

6/j.oi(p

<pi\o(ro<l)ias

Trpdy^ara IK ruv apx&v elvai. Siupiffdifj, avrb JJLSV rb

\9yofltvotS

TOV tvbs iSeas Kal TOV irpuTov p-^Kovs Kal irXaTovs Kal ert 8e Kal a\\ws, vovv n\v TO 4V, op,oioTp6Tr<as.

TO Svo

fj-ovax^s

y&p

5e T~bv TOV o~Tpfov

at<rQi}<nv

apxal f\4yovTO /jLfV

:

r$

a\\a

5

firio T fjiJ.rfV 5

86j-av,

Iv

5e Kal Iv rols irepl

6/jLoia>s

<aov

UXdrwv

KO.\

tlffl

8

^7r/(TT7)fi77,

e/c

TU>V

TO.

Sc

*v

*

>

4"

of p.ev

,/fptVerot 5e TO. Tfpa.yp.aTa TO.

o-Totxfiw 86i;T),

TO.

T ^ I/ &* rov eVtTreSov apiO/mbr oura Kal apid/JLol TO. eftr;

yap

8

alo~0-f)fffi

ftSr;

8

of api6fj.ol

THE METAPHYSICAL

26

object of cognition out of the

BASIS

same

constituents and

parallel processes, thereby preserving the law ytva)a-KtcrOai TO opoiov rc5 6/W&) (Psych. A. 2. 20. 405 b 15).

by

The

i.

of the three clauses here summarised

first

represents Plato as arguing to this effect (a)

Like

(b)

ra

TT

known by

is

pay par a

(i.e.

:

like.

things in general, the object

of knowledge) are formed IK. rwv dp^Mv. too (the subject^ of knowledge) (c) Therefore tyvxh

must be made IK rwv

crroi^eiwv.

This conclusion, says Aristotle, is to be found in the Timaeus. And we can hardly doubt that he refers

on the one hand to Tim. 35 A, where the cosmic soul is composed of ravrov and ddrepov, which coalesce to produce ovaia and on the other hand to Tim. 41 D, where the subordinate souls are compounded of the ;

same seems

ingredients,

though

in

a less pure condition. It by ra Grro^ela Aristotle

certain, therefore, that

here denotes the principles of Identity and of Differ ence, which are represented in the Timaeus by the

symbols ravrov and Sdrepov. Again, the force of the argument depends on the It has, identification of these o-rot^eta with al ap^al. indeed, been suggested that ra cnoiyzla are ravrov, Odrepov and ovcria considered as the elements of the 18

roivvv

Cp. Simplic. in Arisl. Psych, ed. Hayduck p. 29, II (is TOS a.px-s ra re yixaara TTOJ/TO, rovrfffri TO 6Vro,

TOVTUV

8vvd.iJ.fiS

/cai

ras

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

27

material world, whereas at ap-^ai are the same prin ciples considered as the constituents of the immaterial soul

view

;

but

to find adequate support for such a

fail

I

in either Platonic or Aristotelian diction.

to be drawn, 19

If

any

should prefer to say that distinction ravrbv and Od-repov regarded by themselves as ulti mate principles are apxai, regarded as the elements is

I

of derived existences are aroi^ela cp. Arist. Met. N. 4. 1091^ 3 Sta TO TO ev apyj)v KOI :

dpxn v Ibid.

N.

(rroi^elov KalTovdpiO^oveKTOV lOQI^ 19 TO i*ev $dvai Trjv

&>?

4.

elvai,

ev\oyov

d\ij6e<;

elvaf

1/69.

TO

rovro, GTOiyziQV re rj JJ,TJ KOI (TTOi^elov dpiOfjLwv, dSvvarov. nraaav aroL^elov Ibid. N. 4. IO92# 6 elvai TO ev,

et

dp^v

TTOLOVCTI,.

However

that

employed by of Platonism

Met. N.

may

be,

both terms are regularly

Aristotle to describe the :

I.

TO

same two bases

e.g.

1087$ 12 d\\a /JLrjv KOL Ta? dp^a^ a? Ka\ovGriv ov /taXw? d jro^iSoaa iv ol /JLeya

ical

TO

fiitcpbv

\eyovres

/JLCTCL

TOV

rpia ravra (noi^ela TWV dpidjjiwv. Ibid. M. 9. 1086^: 26 eVet ovv \eyova-i Tives roiavTa9 elvai Ta9 t 8ea9 KOI dpiOpovSj Kal ra Toi>9

TOVTWV aroL^ela rwv OVTWV

elvai,

o-TOt^eta Kal

K.T.\. 19

Stob.

Ed.

i.

x.

i6b, ed.

Wachsmuth

i.

p. 128,

rjyovvrai

14 has

ol

^v

olv

THE METAPHYSICAL

28

And

BASIS

the substitution of rwv dp^wv for TWV within the bounds of a single argument seem strange, it is

if

corroborated

Met.

M.

/.

by the

similar case of

!O8l# 31

avdyrcrj

8

,

ffrai TO

eVetTrep

el 5 dSvvara Sua? (Troi^ela. f) dopKTTO? rd crvfJijBaivovTa, real ra? ap%a? iivai Tavras

ev KOI

dBvvarov.

The outcome

of this

first

clause, therefore,

is

that

is an ova-la inasmuch as it is composed and of ravrou ddrepov has for the content of its cognitions objects formed of the same constituents as

ty v xtf

itself,

which

in

short other psychic

ovcriat,.

And

whereas,

when dealing with vorjo-is only, we concluded that the object of thought for any given Mind is itself or any other Mind, we have now extended the same con clusion to the whole ^rvxn whereof i/oO? is the static phase, and are prepared to affirm that the object of

cognition for any such eptyvxov

is itself

or

any similar

Moreover in the terms ravrbv and Odrepov we have obtained a convenient notation 20 for higher and lower psychosis, which permits us to re-edit our scheme in the appended form. ii.

The

precise import of the second clause

20 Foreshadowed 249 B TO Kara ravra

/cal

TV

effiovs

fTfpav Qixriv TOV

in dialogues earlier than the U<TO.VTWS

(=

/cal irepi

Tim. 35 A

is

less

Timaeus, e.g. Soph. rb avr6 K.r.K. Farm. 1580

TV

Qarepov

fyvffiv).

OF PLATO

S ETHICS.

31

and widely divergent views have been advanced, of which some account must be easy to determine

;

rendered before further progress

22 8

is

possible.

Simplicius (in Arist. Psych, ed. Hayduck seqq.} takes the whole clause 6/W<o? Se /cai

a\\a

....

known

:

yvwcrrifcd, the subjects lines, ol

fjuev

yap

.

ra

<yi>a)orrdj

rov rov

Se

ai(r6r]cnv

.

be descriptive of ra the next words, ert Se KOL a\\ws

ofuiOLorporrax; to

the objects

28,

p. .

knowing .

apiOfjLol

.

then

crrepeoO,

.

:

denote ra

and the concluding rwv rrpaj-

ol dpiBfJbol ovroi

between object and But, apart from the fact that (a) the words subject. en Se teal a XAw? clearly mark a third exposition the

point

fjbdrwv,

parallelism

coordinate with rov avrbv oe rporrov tc.r.\. and oyiWw? oe Kal AC.T.X. rather than a mere sub-section, this division

(b)

introduces

special

we

passage with which

difficulties

into

the

are immediately concerned.

granted that by avro ro wov is meant the 21 to ra avro(6 I^OT/TO? 8^*007x09 intelligible world a\\a the knowable and ra etoij), by opinable and sensible world (ra \oirra rr}? rwv yvcocrrwv For,

e*>

21

I fail to see

any such

justification for the

term as Mr. Wallace

205) finds in Tim. 308 ovrtas ovv 5^ Kara \6yov SeT \eyeiv r6v5f rbv K6<r/J.ov oaov ^fj^v^ov evvovv re rrj

(ed. Arist. Psych, p.

Sta

TOV

described as a

Qeov

yeveffdai

of eTrto-T^Tci, So^acrrd, ajVflTjra

exclude

;

trpovoiav.

uov in so far as

for these

he finds

in

its

and

The cosmos can

only be

intelligibility implies the evolution

this is just

T& &\\a.

what Simplicius would

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

32

ra

Bo^aara ra atffBrjrefy, is constructed

eTTKrrrjrd TO,

said that the latter

can hardly be o/jboiorpoTrw? with it

regard to the former. Simplicius himself acknow rwv et Scoi/, ledges ra a\\a to be 6fc rwv dp^wv fjiev

ovKen

etc

rwv avroap^wv er)

to?

Themistius,

Y)iJLevwv

who

larly finds in the

009

e

<

.

.

.

etc

<7Tot^e/ft)i/,

aXA, ef

alrlwv rwv

>

(66 B, ed. Spengel p. 2oseqq.) simi

words

^at

e

6/Wo>?

.

.

.

o^oLOTpoirw^

a description of the cosmos as object thought, and in the succeeding clause an account of the soul as sub ject thinking,

is

(a)

same

liable to the

that in the words

oyLto/w? Be KOI

.

.

objections, viz. .

o/jLoiorpoTrcos

we

expect to discover a comparison between 7^w(TToi/, not between different kinds of

and and

(6)

that the phrase ra 8 aXXa

over-statement

22

an

6yu,otor/307rco9 is

of the case.

Nor does Philoponus (C. fol. 2 A) improve upon this by understanding ra a\\a of such ill-assorted elements as ra

vorjrdj

ra

Trendelenburg remarks

(frvffiKa, "

and ra

alffdrjrd.

Neo-Platonica

satis

As

olent."

Lastly, Sophonias gives, along with much irrelev ant matter, the view of his predecessors (de Anim.

paraph, ed. 22

IS fas

p. 13, 6),

making both members

Themistius

KOfffJLOV

TUV

Hayduck

explanation is T& ^tv olv avro&ov, TOV VOTIT^V, ^K tlTo lOW apX&V, TO. TTp(t>TUV TU>V

vQei/jifvui

avrwv

&ffirep

yap

irpbs oAA^jAas

rck a(V0i}rck

row cert

M

rbv

/uLfpOUS

fK

*x ei VP^ &\\T)\a. OUTW xal ras

*x flv ( e d. Spengel

p. 21).

OF PLATO

ETHICS.

S

33

of the clause under discussion descriptive of the object rov of cognition rerrapa yap avrq) oroi^eta .

:

^LaKoafJLOV TreTroirjvrat,^ ev

vorjrov

rb avroev, MVTrep

deft

avrobvds,

f)

r)

.

.

avrorpids

al&OrjTbs ouro?

/col 6

teal at

UTT alrlov TOV vorjrov

.

.

rb rwv ISewv

(o

fcal

KOO-/JLOS

rj

.

ir\r]-

avrorer-

r/pr^rat co?

dp%al avrov efceWev.

Passing from the older commentators to more

we

recent interpreters,

find

Trendelenburg

in several points correcting their

misled by them

argument "

as

to

extravagance

sequence of the

the

still

main

:

Ita et Plato,

quemadmodum

similibus

cognoscerentur,

avTo^ooov utraque altera

fecit,

pergitur, ut similia

eosdem

eosdem menti

numeros

indidit.

Sic

pars artissime coniungenda, neque

loci

ab altera divellenda, quasi ab

KOL a\Xo)5 novi quid

The

though

illo ert 5e

2

incipiatur."

result of this misconception

is

that he fails to

explain the words ra 8 a\\a o/zotorpoTTG)? Quae fuerint haec reliqua, non definimus, univer:

"

sas

tantum

ideas,

ne quid Platoni obtrudatur,

24

intellegentes."

He

is

has

little

aware that the explanations propounded by but Simplicius and Philoponus are unsatisfactory, to offer in their stead.

23

Arist.

deanima, 24

ed. 1877, P- l8 7-

Ibid. p.

1

88.

THE METAPHYSICAL

34

BASIS

Others have seen that the key to the passage lies in the very divulsio which Trendelenburg deprecates. "

"

Dr. Jackson, for example, proposes to translate avrb by "the universal Subject"^ and ra d\\a by

TO %wov

This is a distinct move in universal Object? "the it is, however, open to criticism the right direction on the following grounds :

:

(a) is

An inexact and

therefore unsatisfactory

ing universal Subject

avTo nev TO TTpCOTOV

ffiov e f fjLlj/COVS

ai/r?}<?

T?}?

TOV

Kal 7T\aTOV 9 Kol

avrrjs TT}? TOV ez/o? /Sea?

loosely used

for

^05 ZSea? KOI TOV ftdOoV<$.

would thus be

0/05.

term avTo TO tyov merely the Idea from which a particular in Aristotle the

animality, the Idea of "animal," Met. Z. 14. 1039$ 9 16 iroKka ecrrai CLVTO TO

animal derives e.g.

avTov TOV

Elsewhere

signifies

"the

"

:

The phrase

(/3)

mean

attached to the words which describe

wov avTo

its

M.

1085^ 26 TTOTepov TO avTov rj eTepov ^toov^frag. 184. 14 fl fAV Kal %WOV (7Ti, /i6T6%Ot CLV Kal UVTOV TOV (t)OV. Plato himself employs the plural of the same term to K.T.\.

ev To3

ibid.

9.

a)w

describe the Ideas of animals generally

23

:

That is, the supreme Nous in its passage into cosmic existence, as opposed to that cosmic existence which originates from the evolution of the supreme NoOs.

OF PLATO Rep. 532

A

7T/309

{3\e7T6lV Kal I

avra

S

ij^rj

ETHICS.

35

wa

ra

ejn^ipelv arro-

7T/905 CLVTCL CLCTTpa tf.T.A,.

conclude, therefore, that to restrict the phrase to universal Subject" is a limitation unwarranted

"the

by

either Aristotelian or Platonic usage.

Mr. Wallace,

who "

subject knowing "the

objects

i.e.

known"

interprets avro TO

as

"

the

the microcosm, and ra a\\a as i.e.

first

of these objections

(the

microcosm)

is

oi>

the macrocosm, escapes the because the particular foW

of course the given Idea

(97

rov

<h>o?

But IBea) as it appears in three-dimensional space. he too traverses the terminology of Aristotle, who

by

ctvro TO

foW

elsewhere denotes not a particular 26 but

an Idea.

Another suggestion takes both avro TO fcooi/ and the contrast between subject "subjects"

ra a\\a as

and object being not expressed but only implied in the sentence. The former will then mean the supreme

&W from

;

the latter the subordinate wa. its liability

This view, apart I have brought

to the objections which

against Dr. Jackson s version, seems to me to destroy the balance of Aristotle s triple argument. should

We

have him adducing three clauses for the express pur pose of pointing out the similarity between subject 26 Plato, according to Mr. Archer-Hind &ov of the individual animal in Tim. 89 B shall see, may be taken differently.

s :

rendering, uses auri rb but the passage, as we

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

36

and

object,

and then omitting to make any mention

of that object

in the central clause of the three.

27

think, possible to rectify all these flaws the absolute as understanding avro TO

It

is,

I

"

by

a>o*>

any given vor\rov ^wov (whether it be the iravreXes &ov of Tim. 3 1 B, or one of the eV and ra a\\a as tlie of Tim. 30 C), /zepou? et Set wa

animal"

that

is

"

remaining absolute animals? This somewhat obvious rendering of the words ra a\\a is suggested by Philo-

ponus (C. 2 ra S aXXo- o/xoiorpoTrci)?, ra aXXa, rjrot ra a\\a rra palely para, olov TO avroicaXov, TO avrodvand strongly ^pt7T09, Kal eVt TWV \onra)v o/^o/co?) .

.

.

TI

supported

8 aXXa? by the variant readings (Themist. 66 B) and T? aXXa? 6//,otoT<?

C.

(Philop.

2),

which

refer

That the phrase

clearly

is

to

remaining ISeai. may be gathered from such expressions as the lowing

the

a natural one fol

:

Tim. 3OC ov

Ibid.

e

cm raXXa

90 E ra yap

a\\a

Phaedr. 247 E KOI

1

o>a

a)a

ra\\a

fj

tcaO"

ev ical

<yeyovi>

av

Kara ye

tc.r.X.

waavrcos ra ovra

K.r.\.

27

This

is

in a

manner the converse of Trendelenburg

s error.

For

both parts he, following the lead of the Greek commentators, held that of the clause referred to the objects of cognition ; and the present sugges tion makes both parts refer to the subjects of cognition.

OF PLATO Both the given coa as

ing in

every

S

ETHICS.

37

and the remain

fwoi/ as percipient

percepts are constructed o/zotorpoTrco?, since case an absolute animal if subjected to

form

logical analysis will be found to consist of that

of TO ev which article

T?}<?

is

appropriate

to

itself

(hence the

rov evbs ISeas) and the successive dimen

sions through which

evolved.

is

it

This interpretation escapes the two objections urged on p. 34 by admitting the claim of any and every intelligible animal to the title avrb TO instead of confining the term to the supreme It preserves too the symmetry of the argument

fwoz/, 28 woi>.

;

and

that, not only by emphasising Aristotle s main con the similarity between percipient and percept tention but also by identifying the subject of the present

with that of the preceding sentence clause

we saw

that

any given

for in the first

:

whether

eftTJrvxov

it

be the whole cosmic &ov or one of the partial Ideal is formed out of the same elements as the other wa. which constitute the objects of its cognition and now in the second clause we see that any given whether it be the whole cosmic animal or avrb CJMOV

e^v^a

28

;

As a matter

the supreme avrb rb &ov.

&ov

excluding Tim. 89 B, at present subjudice not elsewhere, either in Plato or Aristotle, called however spoken of as aurb faov in Tim. 37 C, D us

of fact is

It is

&v

5e mvriQev aur&

/col

aiSiov ov

which

Tim. yov

/C.T.A..,

40^

I/OTJT^

TrotoujueVwi/.

is

lv6-n<Tf

.

.

.

KaOdirfp ovv

aur2>

rv-yx^

1

uov

Proklos on perhaps the passage referred to by

Travruv curia

/cal

V fal avro^uiov

TrapaStiy/jiaTiKTi Siet

TOVTO /ca\e?v

r<av

6

UTT&

rov

U\O.TUV

5rjfj.iovp-

ftit

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

38

one

of the partial Ideal

animals

is

same

four stages as the other tute the objects of its cognition. conceive, is exactly parallel in the

the

and

raises a

presumption that

it

developed through which consti o>a

The argument, first

will

two

I

clauses,

be so

in the

third also.

But before passing to the last consideration we must enquire further concerning the nature of the four stages that have hitherto been mentioned without comment. Aristotle alludes 2.

1077*2 24

eVt

e-ri

al

them again

in

Met.

M.

Trpwrov JJLW jap 8 et? re\vraiov TrXarov, there his remarks both And

76i>e<76t?

yiyverai, etra

fjLrjKos

to

&r)\ovcrw.

7rl

/3a#o9, Kal reXo? ecr^ev.

and here are best elucidated by a reference to Plato

s

Laws 894 A Trdvrcov ryeveaw, fjViK

rj

SrjXov &)? OTTOTCIV

ap%^

av ri 7ra#o?

Sevrepav e\6r) peTdpaGiv, Kal diro Tavrrjs Kal

TT\i)(riov,

rot?

^XP

1

OK,

From

oirorav jmevp-

these citations

et9

Tpi&v eXdovaa alaOrjcriv fjL6ra/3d\\ov

alcrdavofJbivoLS.

Kal fjLTaKivov{jievov

77 ;

\a/3ovcra avr]v et? rrjv

<yL<yveTai

perapaXov I

fjue

Trdv eart Se 8e et? a\\r)v e

conclude that the Platonic

Idea possesses four phases or conditions, whereof the first is opposed to the remaining three as OVTWS ovaia to rj

As 6W&>5 bv Aristotle calls the Idea aurrj yeveais. rov evbs ISea and Plato adds that it fjuevei (= the ;

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

39

As 7*71/0/^6^0^ Aristotle of Soph. 2496, c). couples it with space of one, two, and three dimen sions and Plato adds that it is developed through ;

same stages

these

(=the

29

ical

/jLera0d\\ov

^ICLKIVOVILGVOV

KivTjax of Soph. 249 A, B).

Thus, on the one hand, the separation between Ideal ovaia and

phenomenal yevecrw, enquired after by the Platonic Parmenides Farm. 1 30 B avrbs crv ovrw Siyprjcrai co? Xeyet?,

k

fJLev

el S?;

avTa arra, %w/H9

Se TCL

TOVTWV

and affirmed by the elSwv 0t\ot Soph. 248

A

<yev6(TW)

pevoi \eyere ls still

;

rj

vrjv Se

yap

retained in Plato

Idea eaTW

6Wo>?

ov

ovaiav %wpt5 TTOV

Nai

;

mature ontology

s

;

for the

^era(Ba\ov 8e 6t? While, on the other

^vy

oTrorav

e&v ^ie^OapTai iravrekw. the Ideal nor the neither hand,

a\\rjv

phenomenal world is for crrao-t? and correlative

complete apart from its /civrjaiSj although eWzmcoraTa

;

aXXrJXot?,

both

are

every case ovo-ia, former the of evolved from the single state through essential

factors

which

of

the threefold condition of the

There are two further

latter.

reflections suggested

passage from the Laws, which 29

[Alexander] in Arist. Met.

16 TTptrepov yap fireiTa ets TrAaros,

firl

HTJKOS

elra ets

in

is

M.

yiverai

may

by the

be briefly

2.

1077^ 14 ed. Hayduck

r/

a#|7?<rts

^

6\ws

indi-

p. 731,

THE METAPHYSICAL

40

BASIS

cated here, (a) In the first place, without discussing the details of the context in which that passage is set I may point out that by the dpxn of Laws 894 A Plato

means

Thus much

tyvxn-

is

clear from the similarity

of the language that follows in 896 A, B eri

dpa

ov

7ro0ovfjL6i>

/z?)

/cal rrjv Trpairrjv

/cal

iKavws BeSel^Oat, ^evecnv KOI

"^v^v

icivr)aiv rwv

tyeyovorwv KOI ea-o^evwv KCU rrdvrwv av r&v

evavrleov TOVTOIS, eTreiBtf 76 avefydvr]

KOL Kivrjaews airaarfi air la arraaiv l/cavcorara ffvrdrr),

e$Lfcrai,

(fraveiad

tfaov,

;

rrpecr-

my

contention that

the subject of the second clause in the

distinguished from in

re

OVK, d\\a

76 dp^rj Kwrja-ews.

argument from Aristotle clause

/jL6ra(3o\rj<^

iravrwv

royv

tyv^rj

This identification 30 supports avro ro

ravrov

re OVTGOV

s

^rvx>l,

Psychology, the subject

same argument

the

;

is

not to be

of the

inasmuch

as

first

the

four stages assigned by the PsycJiology to the avro to -v/ri^. tfaov are by the Laws attributed (b)

Secondly, the calls Trrjyrj

full

both aspects of 30

phrase dpyri Kwiiaew, which re

the language of earlier days (Phaedrus 245 c KOI dp^ Kivija-ews), may be taken to include -v/ru^

the rjpepia of

its

higher,

and

If it be objected that Aristotle (vid. p. 27) uses the term apx^i to denote not ^vx?i but the elements of which \^vx^i is constructed, I answer that the pupil s usage is no voucher for the master s. Indeed Aristotle himself (Psych. A. 2. 7. 404^ 24), as we shall see directly, complains that Plato "calls the api6fMol efSrj /cai ap al whereas X they really are

K TUV

OF PLATO the

Kivrja-is

of

its

ETHICS.

S

41

lower intellectuality. The compiler not far wrong when he

of the

Platonic opoi was

defined

vorjcris

as ap^rf brurnjitifi,

and

aiadr)cns as

vov KivrjGis.

But the mention of the diverse reminds us that we have of Aristotle

The

iii.

still

faculties of ^rv^rj

remainder

to analyse the

argument, which treats of them seriatim.

s

third clause

is

epitomized by Dr. Jackson

as follows

We

reduce things to apid^oi (i.e. Ideal Numbers), and therefore to the elements of these aptOfJioij sc.

to

i. 2.

3.4.

Again, the processes of mind are expressed by the

same elements,

1.2. 3.4.

This interpretation, though furnishing the needed parallelism between subject and object, labours under

two

serious

drawbacks

:

The

(a)

numbers

aroL^ela of the Ideal apiO/Aol are not the 1.2. 3.4., but the principles of Identity and

Difference, which were technically

name

;

see, for

Met. N. \eyovr

I.

$

known by

this

very

example, io8/ fjiera

14 rov

peya KOI TO e^o? rpia ravra ol TO

TWV (13)

IJLa-rwv,

aplOfjLWV. Either the words

eiBtj

8

ol dpid^ol ov-roi Trpay-

or the words ol ^ev yap apiOfMol

become superfluous without them. Nor do plete

alcrOrjcret,,

.

... ra

&

the argument is com we mend matters much ;

THE METAPHYSICAL

42

if

we

BASIS

two sentences.

invert the order of these

For,

that transposition granted, the passage will run "And these numbers (sc. 1.2.3.4.) are forms things

for

;

known

as

:

of

on the one hand the Numbers were Ideas and

the absolute

first

principles,

and they are constructed out of their elements (sc. while on the other hand things are appre 1.2.3.4.) hended some by vovs, some by eTncrr?}^??, some by ;

Sofa,

some by

But that

aiadrjvw"

etoij

&

ol

api6 jjuol

Trpay/jLcircoi should be followed immediately eXeyoi/ro, a sentence by ol fAevyap apiO^ol TCL eioq in which both leading words are repeated in a different

ovroi

TWV

.

is

sense,

.

.

hardly credible.

In the face of these difficulties retain the text unaltered,

I

should prefer to

remarking that

if

the words

fjuev CLOT) avra Kal ap^al e\eyoi/TO, elal apiOfJiol 8 etc TWV o-roi xelwv had stood alone, they would have The etBrjTiKol aptQpol been interpreted without fail

ra

ol

<yap

"

:

were spoken of as the absolute Ideas and principles,

though

in point of fact

they are compounded of the

Moreover, the expression etc rwv aToiytiwv would have been understood here in 404$ 25 as it was elements."

understood a few lines higher up in 404$ 17 elements TavTbv + 6drepov=ovcrla." Again, it to suppose that the

word

the last sentence,

intented to

faculties just

is

ovrot,

"

is

of the

natural

added to ol dpiBfiol in connect them with the

enumerated and to distinguish them from

the Ideal apiO^oi

Lastly, the statement that these

OF PLATO four

numbers

S

ETHICS.

43

(1.2. 3.4.) represent eiSrj

TWV

Trpajfjidrcov

must balance the statement that the percipient has four modes of cognition symbolically denoted by the same numbers (1.2.3.4.); and since a quasi-spacial account of those modes has been given already the words e7rtcmjfjLr)v 8e ra %vo fiova^a)^ yap e $

(in

V

rbv Be rov eTTiTre&ov apid/jiov So^av, ai(r6i)crw Se rov rov crrepeoO), it is probable that these el Sr? rwv Trpay^drwv are things in general grouped according to the four stages 31 through which, as we learnt from the second clause, percept Ideas pass into the region of ato-Ovais certainly the broad meaning thus assigned :

to the

word

eZSo?

=

the fact that the

"

"

class

or

"

"

article, prefixed to the

by when used above in its technical sense is here absent. The argument, I take out as follows

is

group

supported

same word et 8?;

(ra it,

may

aura),

be

set

:

Again, the one

is vovs,

the two

is

eiTKTrrjfJL rjj

the no. of the plane (i.e. three) the no. of the solid (i.e. four)

is

Sofa,

is

at<70i?<rt9.

Now, on the one hand (/*/) the Numbers were called the fundamental Ideas of the Platonic system though, to speak with 31

all precision,

Simplic. in Arist. Psych, ed.

&vra ov Kara

TrActros,

a\\a Kara

Hayduck

)8a0os, fts re

they are con-

5e p. 29, 12 Hijpovir

ra

vorjra

/cat

rd re

eTriar^ra Kal

So|ao-To Kal alvQyra, Kal 6/jLoius ras yvaxreis fis vovv Kal eirKrr^/j. rjv Kal at<rQt](nv.

THE METAPHYSICAL

44

structed out of the crroL^ela

(sc.

BASIS

ravrov -\-6drepov

over (a)

and they apprehend things by means of the four faculties above mentioned.

On

the other hand

numbers

1.2. 3.

4.,

(Be)

these four numbers

(z>.

the

representing the four faculties) are

groups of things. In brief, Aristotle s point is that the percipient Ideas evolved as aforesaid apprehend by means of four faculties, and that these faculties correspond to four stages in the spacial evolution of the percept Ideas what those stages are we already know. :

The

recognition of the planes of consciousness symbolised by these numbers I. 2. 3. 4. throws light

where

is

light

technical term

much needed

Be/cds.

upon the use of the Aristotle more than once affirms

that certain Idealists continued their Ideal

Met. A.

1073 a 20

8.

&)? rrepl

Ibid.

M.

8.

rrepl Be

rwv

dpiO/juwv ore

direlpcov \eyovaiv, ore 8

1

084*? 12

Numbers

&>?

Be

el

TOVTO yap Bel \eyecr0ai, ov fiovov cm, ; d\\a KOI BIOTI. u\\a IJLTJV el fjue^pi rijs Be/cdBo? 7ro(7ov

6 dpiOfJios, wcTTrep rives

ra ,

Kacrros

eiBrj

r/9 carat,

(f)acrii>,

irpwrov

olov el GCTTLV

r)

dpiO^o^ avrolrrrros

diQos ^ei

Be/cdBos.

/j,ev

ra)(v

rpias avrodv;

avrb yap

OF PLATO Ibid.

M.

S

ETHICS.

1084^: 29 ert aroTTOv

8.

45

el 6 apt^/xo?

r^9 Be/cd&oS) fjuaXkov TI ov TO ev Kal eZSo?

pe au

7779 SetfaSo?.

Ibid.

N.

pr)

eo"n

Phys. F.

Now

1088^ IO

I.

olov

17

SeKas TTO\V,

el

rav

r

JT\elov.

206 b 32 pexpi jap

6.

the statement that Ideal

Setcd&os Troiel TOV

Numbers were con

tinued pexP T ^ ? SeaSo? is open to two interpretations. On the one hand, it might mean that there are but 1

ten Ideas in the Ideal series. It was, in fact, obviously so understood, or misunderstood, by certain crude followers of the

on the point

is

first

rendered explicit by

[Alex.] in Arist. Met. ed.

yap

at

l&eai,

dpiOftoi,

Hayduck 6

Sefcdbos laTaraij al ISeai

But

to

Aristotle s evidence

Academy.

B

p.

apt#/i.o<?

dpa

700, 27

&XP

Aware

el

T *? ?

Se/ea.

impute such puerility to Plato himself

out of the question.

1

is

surely that his materials for a

comparative study of nature were as yet scanty in the extreme, he probably refrained from delivering any exact dogma with regard to the number of absolute Ideas

:

Met. A.

8.

o TL Kal

1073 # <ra$e9

1

6

Trepl

TrX^ou? ovSev

elprjrcaaw,

eiTrelv.

At most he may have vouchsafed

the remark that the

Ideas were ^vpia^ in order to prevent the supposition

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

46

that they were aTretpa.

This limitation

alluded to elsewhere

Aristotle

Met. N. 1*>V)

i.

io88

by II

6(7TL 7T\eloV,

Yj

olov

is

possibly

:

Se/ca? TTO\V, el TOUT?;?

rj

TO, flVplCL.

In any case Plato cannot have ignored the palpable absurdity of a system comprising only ten infimae

On

species.

the

other hand, the phrase /xe%pt a different interpretation.

Se/eaSo? is susceptible of

may imply itself

Plato

It

that each individual Idea contains within

number

the perfect real

s

TT}?

And

ten.

meaning appears Rose 1477

Aristotelian fragment (ed.

by Philoponus

that this

from an

in Arist. Psych. A.

\ejei ovv (Aristotle)

(frdo-fcew

Pythagoreans) ort i

interesting

b 40) preserved

2. 7.

404

1

8

:

avTovs (Plato and the

TO. etSr;

e/cacrrov

was

apidpoi

elcriv,

apiOpol

yap rwv elSwv SeicdSa

Recent exegesis has regarded the testimony of Philoponus either as erroneous and without founda tion (see reliable libris p.

Trendelenburg de an. ed. 1877 p. 189), or as and important (see Brandis de perd. Arist.

49

seqq.}.

Those who

credit the assertion have,

however, been put to strange view. p.

69

"The

Maguire,

for

example,

shifts to

in

support their The Platonic Idea

obtains his decad in the following fashion Idea as I is the result of II the combination of

seq. t

III the Indefinite

:

and of IV Unity ____

The Idea

OF PLATO is

ETHICS.

S

a Result of a Combination of

which the former

47

Two

and the

indirectly,

Elements, of

latter directly,

That is to say, The IV presupposes The III The III presupposes The II The II presupposes The I; while The I is selfon an absolute

rests

Basis.

.

.

.

;

;

sufficing,

and verges on the absolute.

But, since

we may

see how, in Plato s mind, The Ten denoted not only the highest form, but also the living sub stance of Supreme Reality." I do not think that

we need

resort to such subtleties for a satisfactory

If every Ideal Number possesses four explanation. phases of consciousness denoted respectively by the

numbers

i.

2. 3. 4.,

then

it is

evident that in a sense

every Ideal Number is the sum of I + 2 + 3 + 4, or, in other words, is a Se*a9. 31a In short, the problematic use of the term

as applied to the Platonic Ideas finds a simple solution in this third clause of the Seara?

argument from Aristotle

The

s Psychology. of that clause general bearing

illustrated. 31

We

32

particular

Philoponus, then, fjitv otiv 8icb rovro

is

be thus

men, who fancy ourselves

"

apiO/j.ol

may

partially right

SeKaSiKol 8e

when he adds

5tck

TIJV

(he.

cit.)

r\fi6r-rira

T<av

fiSav. The TravT\(as bv of Soph. 248 E was found to involve the and the symbols of development of vovs into ^Trio-T^^r;, SJ|o, these four stages produce the decad, which the Pythagoreans named at<rdr)<ris,

Tlavrf\eia (Stob. 32

Ed.

I.

ed.

Wachsmuth

For the ensuing description

Hayduck

p. 29, 2

0^70^

cp.

i.

p. 22, 5).

Simplic.

5e els ras etSrjrt/cas

in Arist. Psych, ed.

apxas Kal ras tyvxixas

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

48

separate entities, are but the Ideal animal Man re garding itself on the plane of aiad^cn^ what we see is therefore a plurality of men moving in three:

dimensional

about things, we

them

to ourselves

moving

by

:

pluralities, but pluralities two dimensions, a flat and it may be

in

that of eVto-T^/iu?

he so to speak goes yap

"

rraffas yyucreis,

TOV airfov

ets

of cognition,

T^V n\v voepav &s naff 5e iri(TTr}fJ.oi/iKr)V us

T&V avTcov 68evov

^vya/jLtv avrijs

presentation

yur/

ets

Trpoayo/JLevrjv,

(/jLovax&s

and though

evuxriv a/AepHTTov orvvaipov/j.fvr)v ave\i(r(rofj.evT]v nal

us

cbrb ere pou

&s 5e KOI 5ia Tb airwaves Kal

T^V SvdSa, T^V 5e 86av

aAAa Tore

eVi rb avrb aet,

;

thing,

"

straight to the point

TV

Tb aiTiaTbv

individuals

method when a man knows a

:

ev] in his intellectual

6(j)

els TT)v juoj/aSo,

8ja

As

life.

are capable of a yet higher

namely

opinions

a higher level and portray a kind of mental delineation

rise to

delusive picture of surrounding

we

entertain

shape themselves as

still

they

When we

space.

del

rpidSa Sia rb T^JV rb d\7j0es Tore 5e

fls r))V

fiej/

M

rb tyevSos K\iveiv, fls Se rrjv rcrpaSa r}]V ouaQ^aiv 5td rb (rcafJ-dTuv flva.1 avTik-rjirriK^v. Themist. in Arist. Psych, ed. Spengel p. 21, 17 e^e/i e TTJS TOV cvbs tSe as avr-fjv (sc. r^v tyvxyv) 8t/>(^OVTO, cirl

^

ev Kal TJ eVc rys vpuTijs Svdtios tubs yap yap TWV irpordcrfcav fTrl rb <rv/j.Trepaff/J.a, rfyv 8J|ov 5e e /c T^S irpurtfjs rpidSos, ttffos ^v Kal TOV eVnre Sou api6fj.6s TTJS yap 8^775 IjSt] Kal rb oA7j0es Kal rb i^evSos IK rwv irpordaewv, atffOrjffiv 5e aTrb rrjs 5e

fTTi<rri]fji-riv

a<p

airb

irpwTfjs

TOIOVTOV P-

I 3>

rerpdSos ^| ^s Kal ffta/j.a

f)

afod-rja-is.

37 Sues yap TO

8e ^ 8J|o-

TOV ffTcpeov aujj-aTos tSe a* irepl yap Tb Sophonias in Arist. Psych, ed. Hayduck

f)

firi(TTTJiJ.oviKa

TptTTa yap Kal

TO.

V afcr8r)a i.v t fai irepl

Tb -noQev

TTT)

Sopiffp.4vws

e^ovTO

So^affTa Sia Tb apqippeirfS

Tb

(Toi/io,

ft

TeTpaSi a

a-rrb

Tpias Se Trjs

.

OF PLATO Aristotle 33 scoffs at those

the soul

modern

s

S

ETHICS.

who

knowledge as a

49

are content to regard of lines, yet the

series

science of psychophysics has certainly tended

to confirm Plato s acute conjecture. eTTio-rij/Jir) is

To

rise

above

impossible for us

Laws 897 D

fArj

roivvv eg evavrias olov

et<?

ijXtov

aTro^XeTro^Te?, vvK-ra ev pea-rjpfiplq eira yo^evoi, rrjv

7roir)(7a)fjLe6a

aTTOKpio-tv,

vovv

&>9

Trore

o/tfiacriv oifrofievoi re Kal

inasmuch as particular thinkers are the Ideal animal actively functioning in the

next stage

mode

of Qdrepov, and in the

particulars coalesce into the Idea.

1/6170-19

reserved for the Idea itself to enjoy that direct intuition of which the neo-Platonists said 34 voel ov It is

We

all

are now in a position to combine the results of three clauses and to indicate the advance made by

the passage as a whole. From the critique of the fittingly 33

supplemented by

Platonic Parmenides, that of the Eleatic stranger,

M. 2. 1077 a 29, Psych. A. 4. 17. 409 a 5. It is, however, to be observed that in 407 a 29 Aristotle has himself been guilty of much the same conception as that which he ridicules: al 5 Kal OLTT

fj.fl

Met.

airoSfi^eis apx^s, Kal fgoiKrl irus re\os, T^tv <rv\\oyKT(jLbv t) rb o-vfjurepa(Tfj.a- et 5f TTfpaTovvTai, a\\ OVK avaKci/jnrTovfri ye ird.\iv ^TT apx f}

5 34

del /j-fGov Kal aKpov

Plotinus

Enn. V.

i.

tvQviropovtTiv. 4, cp.

V.

i.

10,

V.

v.

i.

4

THE METAPHYSICAL

50

we had conceived

BASIS

the ground-plan of the universe as

a single ovcria multiplying itself into a series of oveiai. Each ovcria was a vorjrbv %wov, whose nature necessarily

comprised two functions

;

on the one hand a power

of

passionless thought, that might be named voycns on the other hand a power of active and passive thought, ;

that might be

named

<yvwcri<s.

In the case of the

vorjcris was represented by the supreme the case of the series of ovcriai., vorjais was

universal ovcria,

NoO?

in

;

by the Ideas. The argument from

represented

viewed

in

Aristotle s

Psychology,

connection with certain corroborative state

ments, has amplified this theory as follows (1)

re

Ovcria

is

now

identified

:

with ^ru^rj 35

single all-embracing ov with the Trai/reXe?

the

woz>,

the

assemblage of partial or Ideal ovra with the eV uuepov? The higher and lower mentality, which effiei <wa.

are thus together formed the ovcria of a VOTJTOV equated with ravrbv and Qdjepov, which together form the ovcria of an Ideal e^v-^ov. Further, the objects woi>,

of cognition for any such eptywxpv are declared to be the remaining and similarly constructed e^v^a. (2)

Every absolute animal, whether

it

be the whole

cosmic animal or one of the partial arid subordinate animals, evolves itself through four phases or con-

^ otiv

Cp. Simplicius in Arist. Psych, ed. Hayduck, p. 10, 33 Uvday6peioi Kal Tl\dTwv ovffiav avr-fjv (sc. r^v tyvxyv) <t>d<riv.

of

-PI

I? I

152 o

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

53

immutable being of 97 rov

ditions, viz. [a] the

ei/o?

t

Sc a,

and

the mutable becoming of the same in space of ({3) Its objects of cogni one, two, and three dimensions. tion are again the remaining and similarly developed animals. (3)

Each Idea

in its perceptive evolution acquires

four planes of consciousness

:

As endowed with vovs it voel As passing into eV^crTTJ/u,?; it eirurraTai, As passing into it Sofafet, As passing into aiaBrjais it alo-ddverat,. ;

86<z

Moreover, the object of these four stages

is

its

perception throughout

any other Idea, perceived

by 1/01)9 as an by eTTco-jij/jLTj as a by Sofa as an by aiardrjcris as a arepeov. Thus the passage as a whole enables us

to

fill

complete the outlines of the Platonic scheme.

up and

PART

II.

HIGHER AND LOWER MENTALITY. At the outset of the present enquiry I proposed to analyse certain incidental passages of pregnant meaning in order to obtain some simple and yet adequate formula for the interrelations of Plato s Idealism.

This analysis has established the main

that Mind is operant in two different ways within the limits of Platonic ontology. For, in the first place, Mind is a Unity self-pluralised into a

fact

conclave of Minds, which are objective i.e. really existent And in the second place, on pain Ideas. claim to real existence, Mind passes everywhere out of its own condition of permanent and immutable thought into the transitory and of forfeiting

its

mutable phases of knowledge, opinion,

sensation,

thereby producing subjective i.e. phenomenally exist ent particulars. In the words of Proklos iraa-a r) :

TCOV

T

tyvx&v rdfys

e/!?

Bvo raura? avijprrjrai, 77777^9, rtfv

6 Srjfuovpyitcrjv /cat rrjv Zwoyovi/crjv.^

So

far the outlines of the theory.

36

Proklos in Tim. 3 19 A.

It

remains to

OF PLATO indicate

the

ethical

S

ETHICS.

colouring

55

of the whole.

before attempting this further task,

will

it

But

be well

afresh the to secure due perspective by emphasising in the I shall, therefore, salient points of view. endeavour to illustrate from the

present chapter Platonic dialogues

thus

contrast

the

formulated

of Mind, subjective aspects while illustration, successive in the hope that each of use the in exhibiting Plato s technical consistency the non-technical terms, may bring into clearer light

between the

objective

and

moral significance of his design.

Purpose and Necessity.

I.

Sta vov Timaeus 47 E discriminates (a) ra and dvdvtcr)* wvfava, Hiovpwt** from combined the product declares that the universe is

^

W

of both

:

pepiwtvri

ef avdyrcris re

Now

(a)

teal

7P

V

CSe rov Koa^ov ytveaK

vov o-vardaetoS eyevvrjOr].

the creations of vow, as

we

learnt from

of subordinate

comprise a series in a single Minds called the Ideas, which are unified and basis ground as their supreme Mind conceived

the Parmenides,

work.

Again,

(b)

rd

&

1

dvdyic^

y^vo^va

are the

the necessary passage of brought about by of -being" into the said Minds from the higher mode this lapse, this lower mode of becoming" and

results

"

the

;

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

56

is

deviation, r]

as such 37 referred

in

the Timaeus to

TrXavw/iievrj alria.

It is clear, therefore, that Plato, contrasts ra Sia vov SeS^/uou/yy^eW with ra

when he Si

dvdjKr)? yiyvofteva,

aspects of

and

describing just those two

is

Mind which

I

have termed

And we

"subjective."

"

"

objective

are confronted

by the

on what principle of distinction is the question latter and not the former assigned to (ivdy/cr) ? :

The

reason of the change is not, I think, far to is dvdyKy that the supreme Mind should pass from the ravror^ of vovs into the erepor?;? of seek.

It

It is avdy/cr}, too, that the eTna-rtf/AT], Soa, aiaBrjai^. subordinate Ideal Minds should similarly pass from But it is not avdyKij perfect to imperfect thought.

that the supreme Mind should multiply itself into the Ideas. That process of objective pluralisation is never in Plato described as dvaytcalov. It is on the

contrary

referred

directly

to @oi>\<r)ai<;,

the

very

38

of dvdyKTj. opposite In proof of this contention 37

p.

Mr. Archer-Hind seems to

167 n.)

that

though working

"Plato

calls

strictly in

me

avdyKij

I

may

cite first

ill-advised in stating (ed.

the

KKa.vuy.evT)

obedience to a certain law, it is if it acted from arbitrary caprice."

surely denotes nothing more than deviation., equivalent of 6a.Tpov as opposed to Ta.vr6v. 38

TT\av<a^.fv^

For

&ov\i]<Ttv

&ov\rj<Tis

yiyvo^evov

) (

is

Tim.

because, for the most

alria,

part as inscrutable to us as

term

Tim.

and

The is

the

avayKT] cp. Crat. 420 D where rb Kara TV opposed to rb avayKaTov Kal avrirvirov, irapa

OF PLATO 29 E

premising that

A

Phileb. 28

31

identified with

precisely the (6

A

is

S ETHICS.

the

supreme

the alrla

7-979

same function

is

which

i/oO<?,

in

must be

/ufe<w<?,

whom

the 0eo? to

57

the Timaeus

in

allotted

:

TO irav roSe fwtora?) irdv-ra on, ^aKicrra 6{3ov\r)0r) TrapaTrXrjcria

eavra>.

TCIVTTJV

t

KCLI Koo-fjiov fjid\ta-r

ea>?

av rt? dp%f)

1

dvSp&v

Trap

.ev

tt7ro8e^0yu,e^o?

<j>povlfj,a>v

av.

j3ov\ij0l<i

6

<yap

Trdvra, (frXavpov Be fwfiev elvai

OVTCI)

Kara

dyuOa

Svva/j,iv,

Trav QIJOV

r]

,

rjv opaTov 7rapa\a{3a)v ov% ayov d\\o Kivov^evov TrX^yueXw? KOLI efa rdfiv avro fyyayev etc T/}? araf/a?, >

M

eKeuvo

(29 E

6p0orara

0eos

3

/

/

rovrov

TTUVTWS

V

ajj-eivov.

A).

In this paragraph logical analysis lays before us the conception of a supreme Mind brought face to face with a visible chaos.

only with

Thus

far

we

are concerned

which compels vovs to degenerate but does not determine under what

dvdytcrj,

into ato-#??o-9, 39

forms such aiaOrjais shall work. At this point, how the supreme Mind ever, a new element is announced :

59

Laws 8l8 A

foiKfv 6 rbv debit irpurov

741 A, Protag. 345 D)

els

ravra

Trapoifj.ia(ra.p.fvos (cp. ibid.

airo/3\f\l/as flirew

wore

ws ovSe 6ebs avdyKrj

/j.-f)

pax&ptvos, ovai dftai ye, oT/iOi, rwv avayKtav eiffiv, K.T.\. Similarly the author of the Epinomis (? Xenokrates) 982 B avayKT] vovv KeKTf]fj.fvt]s airaaruv avayKuv TTO\V /jLeyiffrrj yiyvoi (f>avp

&PXOVCTO.

yap a\\ OVK

a.pxofji.evi)

THE METAPHYSICAL

58

is

BASIS

said to reduce the confusion to order

;

and

this

codification of anarchy, this marshalling of motion, distinctly ascribed to divine /BovXrjcris. be shown that et? TCI^LV ayeiv TO oparov

If etc

was the recognised function of the Ideal be justly urged that the existence of this lates a continued exercise of volition

the supreme Mind. Phileb. 1 6 C 17

A informs

then TT}?

it

is

can

dia^ias

series, it will

series

postu

on the part of

us that confusion

is

reduced to order by the interposition of a definite number of species between the one genus and the

These species are

indefinite plurality of particulars.

the TroXXa which connect the ev with the ajreipov, and ipso facto

distinguish

must not be KCIT

satisfied,

ev

dpxas

Dialectic

from

Eristic.

says Sokrates, ^e^piTrep av TO

OTL ev KOL iro\\a KOI

fjirj

We

aTreipd

eVrt

/Aovov i$y rt?, d\\a /cal OTrocra. The method is exemplified by the conduct of the

Creator both in Tim. 53 B ore S

eVe^etpetro Koo-fjuelaOai TO

KOI vSwp Kal

/cal <yi)v

arra, TcavTciTcacfl 76

^v

anal/, OTCLV airf)

and

in

/cal

Trvp

SiaKeipeva wcrTrep

TWO?

TavTa Trp&Tov T

TCCLV^

depa, fyvrj pev e^ov

#609, OVTCO $rj

Stecr^yLtaT/o-aro

dpid/jiols.

Tim. 69 B

TavTa

ardfCTO)?

7T/30?

auro

e%ovTa

/cal 7r/>o?

6

6ebs ev etcdo-TW re

aXX^Xa

Tore

OF PLATO oera?

crev,

a-vfJifieTpa

re KOI elvai.

rvvrj TL fjieTefyev,

ETHICS.

S

dvdXoya /cat, Tore yap ovre TOVTWV ocrov f^rj ovre TO rrapdrrav ovo^daai TWV OTTT)

OVVCLTOV

vvv ovo^aCp^kvwv d%i6\oyov v$a)p KOI ei rt

KCLI

TrpwTov

dOdvaTa

rjv

ovoev, olov rrvp

r)V

TWV a\\a)V d\\a iravra ravra

SieKoa-fJLrjcrev,

gvvearricraTo, tfiov 6vr)-ra

59

eVeir

etc

TOVTOIV irav ro8e

ev Jwa eyov ra iravra ev aurco

re.

will be discerned most application to Idealism The of the Parmmides. clearly from the latter part exercise educes, dialectical second hypothesis of that

But

its

among

others, the following results

ev el eariv, (a)

ev ov

each Part

If ev participates in

i.e.

is

:

a

is itself

ou<r/a,

then

Whole comprising Parts, whereof a ei; ov comprising lesser parts and ;

we by continuing this process of subdivision that the original ev ov is arceioov TO rrXfjBos.

may show (142 C

H3 A). ovaia)

from (not ev ov, but ev conceived apart of The owria, an undivided unity. possession

ev

(/3)

is

however, forces

ei;

into combination with TO eVepoi/,

and occasions the production of vvfyylcu, which may be regarded either as couplets or as triplets, according as we fix our attention on any two of their three factors, or

add the

third

which completes the given triunity

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

60

Further, the interaction of such factors produces

every imaginable number

eanv

eV) dvdy/crj ical

dpiOjjLov

fjirjv

and we conclude elvai.

dpiO^ov

ye 6Wo? TroXX av

rwv ovrwv.

(143

Every

(7)

;

A

144

eij] /cal

El apa \4XXa

Avdy/cij.

7rX?5#09 aireipov

A).

and has

dpiO/ubs participates in oucn a,

which likewise participate in ovaia. Thus the original ev ov is not an indivisible Whole,

ftopta, viz. units,

but a Whole that has Parts and of

its

TO ev

Parts.

1

is

equal to the

avro KeKep^arLa/jbevov

dp"

oucrm? 7ro\\d re KOL aTreipa TO

7r\rj66<$

sum

VTTO TT)?

eari.

(144

A

-I44E). (8)

Lastly, TO

^

r

40 apa ov >

Kal

ei>

may

be called Trepan and TreTrepaa-

a Trepie^ov o\ov. Hence TO ev f/x ev re earn TTOV Kai TroXXa, nai oXov /cat nopia,

so far as

(jbevov in

^

1

it

is

/

\

/cal

TreTrepao-fjievov

\>

/

\

\

(144 E

aTreipov rr\r)6ei.

145 A).

Again, the fourth hypothesis of the Parmenides maintains these propositions :

ev el eariv (a)

are not

On ev.

(i.e.

If ev participates in over la), then

the one hand TaXXa, being aXXa ToO On the other hand ra\\a f^ere^et, Try rov eV6<?,

e^o? in virtue of possessing

o\ov re

fjiopia,

which are

/jiopia

rov

/cal

40

Heindorf, Bekker, Schleiermacher, and the Zurich edd. wrongly bracket the word ov : it is just this possession of which renders ov<ria

possible

the subdivision

indivisible.

of

r2>

eV,

apart

from

ova-la

it

would

be

OF PLATO

Thus we

posit

S

ETHICS.

61

rt? l&ea ical ev rt, o

jjuia

cnrdvjwv ev reXeiov yeyovos (1571), E), and oXov, affirm that it is composed of vroXXa fjiopia which serve ef

to link

TaXXa with the

ev o\ov -reXeiov.

(157 B

157

E).

Both the oXov and each popiov may be said (/3) IJLere^eiv TOV ez/6?, and therefore to be erepa rov evos.

And

77

Tr\r)9ei.

erepa

<f>vais

(I57E

TOV

fl Sou?

ever be aireipov

will

1580).

(7) Lastly, ra a\\a rov e^o?, when combined with TO eV, give rise to a third class of existences, viz. ra fj,6pia,

which

Trepan

7rdpo"^

ing certain

fixed

relations

aXX^Xa, thereby

Trpos

limiting the aTreipta inherent in ra

aXXa and

with TO 6\ov.

establish

(1580

1580).

The argumentation

of these two hypotheses re

iterates the lesson of the Fhilebus.

Between

ev ov

and

aneipov TWV ovrcov must be ranged a series of vroXXa ovra related to the former as apiO^ol to ev or as to 6 Xoz^, to the latter as Trepa? Trape^ovra to 7rXr)#o5

These conditions being granted, knowledge

becomes a

possibility

follow Dr. Jackson

We may

(Farm. 1550).

when

in this class of

well

intermediates

he recognises the Ideas of Plato s own ontology. 41 It appears, then, that both in the Philebus and

in

the Parmenides the Ideas are regarded as a bond between the single objective Mind and the indefinity 41

The Journal of Philology,

xi,

318.

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

62

of subjective phenomena, their prerogative being to introduce the Trepas of the former into the cnreipia

The words

of the latter.

accurate ISea

of Aetios 42 are strictly

:

OVGICL acrco/Aaro?, avria

eo"T\v

Kal

TrapdSevyfjLa

vTrocrrdcrewSj avrrj f^ev

al<76ijTcov

eavTijv

atria

Tr)<?

TWV oia

rwv Kara

[>],

ea"Tiv

avrrj

e^ovrwv v^earwcra KCL&

(frvaiv

elKovi^ovaa Be ra? afjiopfyovs #Xa9 Kal

<yi<yvo/ji,ev7]

TT)?

TOVTWV StaTafea)9.

And since this very introduction of order into disorder is stated in the Timaeus to be the outcome of the divine intent,

it

results that the objective pluralisation

which produces the Ideal vorj/jLara is due to 43 to the sub Oeia fiovXrjais, and is rightly opposed

of

i>oO?

jective action of dvdy/cr] or

Tim. 68 E puts

it

%pr) $v atr/a?

77

7r\ava)jjLevr)

ah la.

As

:

el&r]

Siopl^ecrOai, TO /lev dvayfcawVj TO

Se delov.

And

here

we should misconstrue

lest

Plato s

deliberate recognition of fiovXrjais into an acknowledge ment of despotic caprice on the part of the Creator 42

43

Stob.

Ed.

I. xii. I a,

Unless, indeed,

hypothetical avdyK-rj.

we The

ed.

Wachsmuth

i.

p.

134, Qff.

hold that Plato like Aristotle recognised a latter author sometimes (e.g. Psych. B. 8. 10.

seq.) distinguishes avayKaiov from eVe/ca rov c5, but elsewhere de part. an. A. I. 642 a 32 TJ 8 avayKi] brl tnifudvtt 6n el ^Kftvo fffrat rb ov eVe/co. ravra avdyKT) etrrlv %x*u , ore 8e /c.r.A.) admits

420 b 19 (e.g.

a necessity of a conditional or hypothetical sort. Plato s Ideal series would be itself avayicaiov.

/xe</

In the second sense

OF PLATO S ETHICS. let

63

us recall the tenor of Tim. 41

o roSe TO Trav yevvrjcras

them of endless ov TI

fjiev

life

Srj

Now

e//% /SouX^o-ea)?

Oavdrov

en

^etfo^o?

Sev-

Kupicorepov Xa^oi/re? etceivcov, ot? or

the bonds wherewith the deal Oewv had been

bound

at birth

Tim. 38 E

Ibid. ev

And

:

\v6ricrea-0e ye ovSe rev^eaOe

poipas, rr)? teal

B. In that passage addressing the Oeol Oe&v assures

it

were those of ^vyr] and

oeoy-tot?

40 B fwa 6ela oina KOI TauTw (rrpe^ofjueva.

has been shown that

predicates of ovo-ia infer that the

The

when

//.e/&>i>

predicable of ovaia vorja-^.

eyLf^ry^ot?

trcwyLtara

di&ia

far)

it is

is

ical

:

cp.

SeOevTa

^wa

Kara ravra

and ^u%v are the

in a state of motion.

Seoyzo? will

when

inference

it is

^COTJ

be that which

in a state

of

supported by

rest,

I

is

namely

Tim. 48 A,

which denies the demotic creed ovSels dvdyK^ pel%ov affirming that vovs is lord even over

Thus Tim. 41 B corroborates the coextension of with vocals,

14

inasmuch as

it

Frag. Trag. adesp. 421 N. cp. Eur. Alk. 965 xpfiffffov ouSej/

-nlpov.

avdyKas

attributes to

THE METAPHYSICAL

64

BASIS

the former 45 a supremacy which is elsewhere ascribed to nothing less than the latter, and by the same

means provides the needed assurance

we

that

are

dealing with no arbitrary display of divine volition, but with the unvarying purpose of a Being whose eternal aim is the multiplication of his own inherent Plotinus has read Plato aright dXoyos rjv, ov&e TOV etV?), ovB

qualities.

:

8e 6e\7](7i^ OVK

r)

a\)C

7rr)\9ev avrcc,

o>?

e Set,

0)9

ouSei>o?

&>?

6Wo?

iQ

EK6L

itCr).

These conclusions accord with the wording of 41 A, where the supreme #eo? speaks of the handiwork of the deol sc. the rpla dvr/ra yevij $ecoi>,

a

SL

/JLOV

ryev6/j,va

dp/jLO(r6ev Kal

That could,

a\vra

by

76

/JLTJ

e0e\ovro$ TO

^

e^ov eu \veiv eOe\eiv

were he

the Creator

is,

e/Jiov

ovv &] SeOev irav \vrov, TO y e

/jiV

/ca^o?,

tca/cov.

not a

ceasing to will the existence of the Ideas,

at a single

blow abolish

1

their

dependent ^evofieva.^ not do so lies in the ethical

The security that he will character of his fundamental attributes.

45 The correspondence in point of diction with Cratylus 403 c is remarkable: Aeer^ubs (acp orcfovf, Sxrre jj.4vsiv dirovovv, TrSrepos ,

OLvdyKt]

46

Enn.

47

Cp. Tim. 32 C &\VTOV

vi.

viii.

f)

eiridv/nia;

HoAu

Siatpepei,

18. i/iro

rov &\\ov irX^v

inrb

TOV

vv8r]<rai>Tos

OF PLATO

The moral of no

I

shall

Here

ETHICS.

65

issues of the doctrine thus elicited are

To

trivial order.

would

S

follow

at this stage of

my

them out

have occasion to revert to them it

fiovXrja-Ls

must

suffice

1/0770-1?

For

Ideal world.

to

confines if

to

any length

argument be premature. that

say all

true

in the sequel.

the

volition

equation to the

neither knowledge nor opinion

nor sensation, but pure thought alone, be designated as the seat of action

is

follows that the unit of voluntary

will, it

no longer the particular but the

vo-q-rov

go>oi/,

since nothing short of the VOTJTOV %coov possesses the

prerequisite vorjaw.

Turning next from ra &a vov SeS^toupv^/oteW to TO,

St

dvdy/cTjs

^v^vo^va (Tim. 47

E),

we

find that

Plato regards the degradation whereby Mind lapses from the mode of Identity into that of Diversity as

The transition, taking place perforce. Creator in Tim. 35 A combines the psychic ingre dients rrjv Qarepov (frixnv Sva-fjiiKTOV ovaav et? ravrov

a necessary

^vvapnoTTtov /9/a. adjective

The

avar/tcaios

appearance of Mind

are

substantive avdyfcrj and the applied, primarily

in the three

to

the

lower planes, or in

popular parlance to the incarnation of tyvxtf, e.g. Tim. 42 A OTTOTC 77 e^vrevdzlev <ra)fjLa<riv

dvdy/erjs (al ^v^ai) K.T.\. Ibid. 68 E ravTa $rj Trdvra Tore ravTy

Tr

dvdy/cirjs 6 TOV Ka\\l(rrov re /ecu dplcrrov

ev rot? yiyvopivots irape\dfJL^avev /c.r.X. 5

ef

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

66

and secondarily to the states consequent upon that incarnation, whether they be physical laws, e.g. Tim. 79 B Kara TavTijv

avdyrcrjv irdv

rrjv

Trept,-

\avv6/j,evov K.T.\. Ibid.

68 B &v

(Jbrjre

\6<yov

bodily dispositions,

Tim. 75 A OGTOVV

e.g.

rrjv

Be

Trdcnv

896 TWV

etc

fJLv

aLO-Orjcriv

/Biaiwv

% dvdry/crjs

emotional concomitants,

D aXXo

ei,

<yevo$

.

Be

T

e.g.

re elSo? eV avra)

^^^J?

TT/OOCT-

eavTw

dva<yicalaev

%ov, TTp&rov ^ev rjftovrjv av Odppos Kal ert 8

.

.

.

eVetra

<>6/3ov

d\6yy Kal eTTL^eipTjTfj iravros L ravra dva<yicaLws TO

^vvedeaav.

piaiveiv TO K.T.\.

.

dvayfcciLOv

Tradrjfjidrciyv

TO Owrjrov, Seivd KOI

.

ical

jrvpl

e.g.

Tim. 42 A TTpwrov

690

eV

fyj&rjv

ef dvayfct]^ e%ety avTw.

sensory impulses,

Tim.

TTVKVOV

TrpoffBe^eraL

ovBa/jifj

(ftvais

%vvej3a,Lvev

Ibid.

elfcora

/c.r.\.

77 A

piav

dvdyKrjv pyre TOV

yap ef dvay/crj^i ^i^vQ^kin] KOI %vv-

TI

Tpe<pofjievr)

Ibid.

TIVCL

K.T.\.

6elov,

Kal Bid ravra o

TI

pr]

Trdaa

BTJ rp>

.

.

.

OF PLATO

S ETHICS.

67

or the broader conditions of morality in general, e.g. Theaet. 1 76 A a\V our drrdXeaOai ra /ca/fd Svvarov, a>

vrrevavriov

@e6B(0pe

ovr

dvdyKT].

Ovrjrriv (frixriv dvd<y

ev deals

/cal

Plato,

rt,

dyada) del

r<a

avrd iSpvaOat,

Be e

f

KT]<S.

though

its

derivatives

is

in

Arist.

E/jLTreSoKXrjs

KOL TT}?

.

peculiar

was seemingly prefigured by

it

Empedokles, who held that the essence of lay in the combination of JVet/eo? and $i\ia Simplic.

elvai,

rrjv

rovBe rov rorrov irepLirdKel

This usage of the word and to

yap

.

Phys.

ed.

avveKopv^wcre (evavriwaiv)

^>t\ia?

Diels

.

p.

TTJV .

^Avdy/cr}

et?

rov

197,

10

velteovs

(JiovdSa

Hippolyt. Ref. vii. 29 Avdy/crjv KaX&v TTJV e f ez/o? et? TroXXa /cara TO Net/co? /cal etc TTO\\COV et? ev /card rrjv

3>i\iav

iierajBo\r)V.

and spoke of the punitive incarnation of the heavenly beings as Avdytcrjs %pfjfia. To sum up. Plato recognises both an objective and a subjective aspect of Mind. In the former he dis cerns the purposive pluralisation of unitary thought ; decadence necessarily attached to

in the latter the

of every real intelligence. As to the importance of these two there can be no Be vov /cal eVto-Tq/-^? epaaTrjv d question

the

movement

relative

:

ra?

TT}<?

TOJ>

e/i.0/3oz/o9

QGCLI Be vrr

d\\cov

0ucrft)5 air Las Trpwr

fjuev

Kivovaevwv, erepa Be

e

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

68

8

KIVOVVT&V yiyvovrai, Bevrepa^ (Tim. 46 E). 49 nutshell when he says puts the matter in a

Hermes Trpovoia

v rdgis, dvdyicr) Trpovoia

6da

II.

Identity

and

Difference.

method of notation for the same two aspects of Mind may be found in the quasiHitherto I have technical terms ravrov and Bdrepov.

An

alternative

used these symbols to betoken respectively the one of psychic existence, higher and the three lower planes

whether conceived as actively cognising or as passively cognised and I have secured provisional consistency ;

avTo by adhering strictly to the statement that every &ov unites in itself ravrbv the mode of pure thought with ddrepov the mode of knowledge, opinion, sensa It seems, however, desirable to justify this tion. the matter somewhat more procedure by probing not unnatural tendency deeply, in view of a certain to confuse the issues of this terminology with the ev implications of the antithesis

To that

begin with,

we

it

KCL\

iro\\d.

must be kept steadily

in

mind

are employing neither pair of opposites in

48 Tim. 41 E ed. Wrobel p. 203 "iuxta Cp. Chalcidius in Plat. divina Platonem praecedit providentia, sequitur fatum," p. 204 sunt secundum his providproxima quidem atque intellegibilia quaeque "et

entiam solam 49

Stob.

(fiunt),

Ed.

I.

naturalia vero et corporea iuxta

xlL

I.

ed.

Wachsmuth

i.

p.

fatum."

277, 15.

OF PLATO widest acceptation. question ri Trorav vvv

For the

its

/cal

Odrepov

(254

;

E),

ETHICS.

S

69

Sophist, raising the

elprjicafjuev TO re ravrov makes answer that these signs

OUT&>?

denote general relations applicable to

heaven and

And

earth.

in like

all

manner the

things in PJiilebus,

declaring the conjunction of unity and multiplicity to be rwv \o ya)v avrcov dddvarov teal dyijpcov Trddos

n

i

(15 D), states that

ev teal

7ro\\d

Trdvrrj

vrrb

\6ycov yiyvo/jieva Trepirpe^ecv del KOI 7rd\ai

KaQ eicaarov rwv \&yofievwv

KOL vvv.

Our

business then

is

not with the broad logical sense

of these words, but rather with their narrower meta

And the restriction thus imported physical meaning. assumes the following specific form :

(A) In the Platonic ^jrv^oyo^ia the term ravrov is taken to denote that which does not, ddrepov that

which does, depart from its own identity. It is true that Parmenidean precision might have desiderated the full phrase ravrov eavrw as opposed to e-repov eavrov

compare e.g. Farm. 146 A KOI /JL^V ravrov ;

/col

Ibid.

avrb eaurcS

erepov eauroC K.T.\.

1460

TO erepwQi ov av-ro eavrov ev

eavro) OVK ical

But

Set elvai <ye

dvd<y/crj

erepwdi ecnai

for technical

purposes

it

TW

avrb eavrov erepov ;

"E/Aoiye

avra>

elvai y

Sofcet.

was obviously convenient

to adopt a shortened symbolism,

all

ambiguity being

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

70

avoided by the explicit reference of ravrbv and Odrepov to a single

Thus the metaphysical limits the Whereas the

ovo-ia.

logical usage

in the following respect.

appraising words at their current price predicates both ravrov and ddrepov of any thing or aggregate of things, whether real or phenomenal, on logician

the ground that it is the same as itself and different from all else, the metaphysician fixing the intrinsic value of the terms by a reference to the unvarying

standard of Odrepov to

asmuch

assigns ravrov to ovrws ovra

ova-la

as inalienable characteristics, in

<yi^vo^eva

as every

and

bv abides in eternal self-same

6Wo>9

ness, while every yiyvofjuevov

some permanent being 50

is

the fleeting projection of

vrpo? rd\rjdivov d^wfjiotw^evov

erepOV rOlOVrOV (Sop/I. 2^O A).

Now 6W&K

if all

ovcria

ravrort]? will

that lapses not from the identity of

termed ravrov, the domain of comprise on the one hand (a) the supreme be

fitly

Mind for the ordering of the chaotic universe could not impair the moveless calm of intelligence Tim. 42 E 6 /jiev $ij (#609, i.e. z/oO?) airavra ravra ;

:

epevev eV

rw eavrov

/card rpoTrov

rjdei*

$e voYivavres ol TralSes K.T.\.

and on the other hand for

(/3)

the series of Ideal Minds

they are as stable as the goodness that gave

birth

:

50

Vid.

e.g.

Tim. 520.

;

them

OF PLATO Tim.

5

A

2

6(j,o\o<yr}reov

ETHICS.

S

ev

fjuev

71

elvai rb

Kara ravra

dyevrjrov Kal dvwXeOpoVj ovre et? eavrb

>,

aXXo a\\oOev ovre avrb TTOL iov,

The

latter as

doparov

et?

aXXo

Be Kal a XXcu? dvala-Qrjrov, rovro

comprehended by the former constitute

the TrapaBely/jLaros eto?, vorjrbv Kal del Kara ravra bv

(Tim. 48

E).

Again, ovffia

will

be

that lapses from the identity of 6Ww? termed erepov, the domain of erepbr^

if all

fitly

comprise on the one hand

festation of the (/3)

the visible mani

(a)

supreme Mind, and on the other hand

the visible manifestations of the Ideal Minds.

comprehended by the former

constitute the

Kal TrapaBely/jLarov, yeveaiv e\ov

bparbv (Tun.

latter as fiifMT] fjua

The

49 A). In short, the terms ravrbv and Odrepov in their discriminate ontological significance serve to

primary

the dvrio-roi xa of Tim. 27 ovo-ia, the province of

6i>

aet,

Be

29 D

:

7 e v e a-

1

9

the province

7T/0-Tt9.

290. TO

D

ov/c

<yeve<riv

(27 D)

29

TO yiyvojAevov fiev del, bv Be ovBeirore (27 D)

TO Kara ravra e^pv (28 A)

TO 76701/69 (28 B)

TO Kara ravra Kal

TO 76701/69 (29 A)

(29 A)

TO dtSiov (29 A)

of

C.

TO 7670^69 (29 A)

THE METAPHYSICAL

72

TO

voTf]o~i /JLera

TO

Trepi-

\6<yov

ravra

XVJTTTOV, del tcara

BASIS

d\6yov

ov (2 8 A)

teal a7ro\\v{j,evov,

Be

ov

ovSeTrore

(28 A)

TO \6<yft>

Ka

acr-

\rj7TTOv icai

TO

Kara ravrd

teal

exov (29 A) fjiovi/AOv Kal (3ej3aiov KOI

yevvrjrd (28 B)

e?(29B)

There

are,

TO Trpo? pev exeivo d 0&, ov Be elicvv (290)

\

I

moreover, certain secondary applications

same terms, of which brief mention may here be made. For since TCLVTOV and Bdrepov correspond to ova-la and yevecns, each to each, they may by a of the

slight extension of

usage designate also the essential

properties of ovcria and

Thus

(a)

yeve<ri<;.

ravrbv connotes

Tim. 57 E vrdcriv

fj,ev

rest,

Odrepov motion

:

ev 6fjLa\6rrjri, Kivrjaiv Se et?

dvco/jLaXoTrjTa del TiOw/LLev air la be dvicroTTjs TT)? dvGD/ji,d\ov

Oarepov

<f>vais

is

Arist. Met. B. 4. 1001 & 23,

1088 #

15,

2.

av

(That CLVIGQTY]<$ here=r?J clear from its employment in

0uo-6ft>9.

1088

32,

N.

1089

I.

1087

6ff.,

5.

4ff.,

1092 a

29)-

Arist. Phys. P. 2. 201 & 19 or)\ov Be O-KOTTOVVIV TiQeacriv avrrjv eviotj

ereporrjra KOI d

a>?

OF PLATO S ETHICS. Kal TO

So

bv

fir]

Met. K.

9.

elvai TTJV Kivrjcrtv (cp,

<f>d(TKOVTes

51

1066 a

io).

passage Tim. 74 A

in the disputed

ev

7rpoa"xp(i)/j,evos

73;

aurot?

co?

Oarepov

rfj

ueo-y

evLCTTafjievrj

Bvvd/Ji 9 Kivrjffecos Kal Kdatyeays eve/ca it is not the number of parts that is insisted on, but "

"

rather their mobility and flexibility

Aristotle has

The

TWOS

drro

Kivricrews

e^eiv

ev

rat?

p%a?

T&>

Ka^irat^ as

52 (Met. Z. 16. 1040^ I2).

it

rationale of this usage

may

be found

in

Cratylus

439 E

avTo eVrt, TTW? ai/ (el Se del aya-avTcos e^et Kal TO

TOVTO

rye

/Ltera/3aXX(H

avTov t 8ea?

A.

3.

8.

12

406$ rj

fj

KLVOITO,

e^KTTdfjievov TT)?

eWrao-/?

KLvrjcns

(rraGa

KwdTai], or in Farm. 145 E p,ev TTOV, ecrrep

evl bv Kal IK 6677,

/jurjoev

OuSayuak) as contrasted with Arist. Psych.

;

TOVTOV

ev eavrcp.

avTo ev eavTw

ecrTt

146 A IGTIV.

oe

;

:

ev

yap av

pr) /jieTa(3aivov ev rc5 aurco

"EaTt

yap.

To

8e ye ev

T>

aurca

Hdvv

del bv e0TO? STJTTOU dvdyKrj del elvai.

Ti

roO

ye.

TO ev eTepw del bv ov TO evavTiov dvdyKi) ev TO) avTut elvai, fjujoerroTe Be bv ev ^

T&>

e

Again

(/3)

ecrTdvai,

JJLTJ

ecrro? Be KiveiaOat,

TavTov connotes good, OaTepov

;

OUTW?.

evil.

51 These passages probably refer to Plato notwithstanding Philop. in Arist. Phys. ed. Vitelli p. 352, 20 c\eyov 8e ot TIv8ay6pioi r^v fiv. /cat avi(r6T7)ra Kal rb

^

52

Arist. Psych. P. io. 8.

433 b 24

is

parallel only in appearance.

THE METAPHYSICAL

74

For

we have

this

Met. A.

6.

Aristotle s express testimony

988 # 14 en

Se rrjv rov eu

air Lav rot? errot^e/ot?

cnr&wKev A.

Ibid.

M.

Ibid.

8.

rov KCLKWS

and ddrepov)

/carepav.

e/carepois

ei/09

1084^ 34 ra

St8oa,o~tz/, otoi/

aXka

(sc.

/ecu

to ravrbv

1075 a 34 airavra rov $av\ov /xeflefet TO jap KCLKOV avrb Odrepov rwv

IO. roi)

efo>

BASIS

KLvrjcnv

(lev

yap

crrd<ri,v

a?ro-

rat?

<i/>%at?

dyaQbv

/cafcov,

ra 8

rot? dpiO/jbois.

Phys. A.

9.

192

7roXXa/a? 01)7779

14

<2

az^

77

8 erepa fjuolpa TT}? evavriwaeco^

(fravracrOeir)

drevifyvn

ri^v

ra>

77/909

Sidvoiav

TO /caKOTroibv

oi)S

etz/at

TO

would by no means have shrunk from the conclusions of the reductio ad absurdum in Met. N. 4. Plato, then,

1091 b 25 It

was

10920 partly,

5.

no doubt, the

terms ravrbv and Odrepov

facility afforded

by the

for the expression of

such

secondary meanings (e.g. the common euphemism of = /ca:o?), which recommended their adoption as Tepo9

symbols (B)

may

for the

primary aspects of Idealism.

With regard

to the antithesis ev KOI TroXXa

it

be shown that the limitations imposed by philo

sophic usage differed at different stages of Plato s

development.

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

75

During the period to which the Republic and the Phaedo belong, the words are sometimes found in i.

.a

broadly physical sense to denote (a) the one particular with its many attributes : Phileb.

ora

140

OT-av rt?

(f>V(7i,

va

IIpwTapxov,

6fj,6 (f)fj

TroXXou?

<yeyov-

elvau ira\iv TO 1/5 e/^e /cal

evavTtovs aXX??Xot?, fieyav

afjuxpov Tt

ical

a\\a

KOI fSapvv KOI Kovfyov TOV avroVj KOI

5240, Phaed. 102 B Cp. the drift of Rep. 523 A 103 A, though the phrase does not actually occur in either passage the one particular with its

(j3)

Parrn.

1

29 C

fiov

8

ev rt? a7roSe/a ovra

e/z-e

rl Oav/jLacrTov, \eywv, brav

,

a

el

many parts :

a7ro<f)ati>iV)

ft)?

erepa

eV

erepa Se ra

<TTLV,

fiev

ft>9

(TV

KepfjuaTifys

avro

eicelvoi TToXXaTrXacrioOcrw/, ^>a^

But even

TO ev

firj

(sc.

afjia

K.T.\. <yap

TCLVTOV

TO TrX^^o?,

the visible

evXa^ov^evoi

aXXa TroXXa

ev

at this date they

fiovXrjTai,

ra eVl Sefta

api<rrepd

526 B, e.g. 525 A Cp. Rep. 5240 ev re opwfjLev teal co? caret, pa lav

fjuev

teal

/i-rj

5

25

E

unit),

Trore

fjiopia.

were normally confined

to a narrower and more directly metaphysical scope, 53 being the ordinary equivalents

(7) the 53

/JLCU

informing Idea

An

(cp.

Farm. 129 B dAA. ei iro\\a Srj eV, roDro ^5r; QavpaaoTro\\a ov5f TO TToAAo eV), where e^ and iro\\a

exceptional usage WTO iro\\a O7ro8e/ei

1290 ou T& ///^ /^/j

represent

e?/

^/"

for

and its informed particulars.

is

that of

/col

o5

ret

Unity and Multiplicity.

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

76

So, for example, in the

two cardinal rubrics of

immature Platonism we read Rep.

5 96

A

eZSo?

<ydp

TideaBai irepl

ovopa Ibid.

n

TTOV

ev etcacrrov

ra TTO\\U,

etcacna

ela>0afj,ev

ol?

ravrov

rfj

Se

eTTL^epo/jiev.

476 A avro Kal

/j,ev

ev e/caa-rov /cal

(JWfJbdrwv

avra^o/jieva

elvai,

Koivwvla

d\\TJ\a)V

7ro\\a

TWV

fyaiveaOai, etcacr-

TOV.

ii.

The

Philebits

marks a

All these

transition.

denotations are passed in review (Philcb. 140 150), the first two being summarily dismissed, the last

alone retained

as

serious discussion.

problems worthy of Subsequently, however, an im

suggesting

portant change of nomenclature is observable. For whereas 15 B drew our attention to the cruces of ev Kal TroXXa, the Sialpeo-is of

i6c

and embraces the three terms

E

is

ev,

yu,etoz/&>?

TroXXa,

8^77/377^6^77

and

aireupa.

Again, the ev KOI TTO\\CL of 1 5 B were expressly stated but to be the one Idea and its many particulars :

in

i6c

lectical,

E, though the application is primarily dia and the terms signify Genus, Species, and

evident from the sequel that Plato is also thinking of its metaphysical bearings and to the metaphysician ev denotes henceforward the single

Specimens,

it is

;

supreme Mind, 7ro\\a the subordinate Ideal

series,,

aTretpa the indefinite range of particular existence.

OF PLATO S ETHICS. iii.

In Plato

s

77

later writings the revised termin

It will be ology has become firmly established. remembered, for instance, that the eV, TroXXa, and 7retpa, educed by Parmenides TrXdvrj from Platonic

data, stood

Mind, the Ideas, and Particulars.

for

And

the same phraseology obtains throughout all the works posterior to the Philebus as distinct from those of the preceding period.

I

do not mean to

imply that the doctrine underlying the

earlier dia

logues ignores the unity of the supreme Idea and nor do I hold that the indefinity of particulars 54 ;

the teaching of the later dialogues fails to attain a higher conception of the singleness and indivisibility

of each several Idea: reader of Plato

s less

I merely contend that to the mature discourse the terms

/

*al TroXXa naturally suggest the one Idea and the many particulars, while to the student of his aKpiftffTpoi \6joi they represent the supreme Mind and the Ideal Minds a new term aireipa being added as

a truer description of particulars. iv.

It

may be

some extent

objected that this contention

invalidated

by

Aristotelian

is

to

evidence,

-which shows that the phrase ev eVt 7ro\\wv continued In point of fact I cannot find a satisfactory example of the supreme Idea, in the earlier dialogues. particulars, nor even of ec The nearest approach to the former seems to be Rep. 445 C \v pfv eJvai 54

=

elSos TTJS operas,

fadpa

5e rrjs Kaic ias.

from the use of the singular number.

The latter

is

of course deducible

THE METAPHYSICAL

78

to

be used

in the

BASIS

Platonic school as denoting

any

Closer inspection proves that the passages in which that collocation occurs, viz.

given Idea.

Met. A.

9. 990 and Z. 32)

are

directed

7, 13, 1

6.

991 a 2

1040$

against

(=M.

4.

1079 a 2

>

9>

55

29,

certain

Idealists

probably

followers of Xenokrates o vc06p6s bQ who despite the explicit criticism of the Parmenides adhered to the

ontology of the Republic.

Further examples of iro\\a particulars (e.g. Met. A. 6. 987 # 10,. be due to the same inaccuracy may

in the sense of

"

"

988 # 2, etc.) which caused the retention of the term ^e0ei? place of the more exact /u/^o-t? (Met. A.

M.

4.

1079 # 2

On

5>

Phys. A.

2.

209 b

the other hand Aristotle

6.

in

987

the

b 10,

35).

commonly

identifies

the Platonic aireipov with the material cause, and habitually speaks of the Ideas as dpiBpoi, a word

which we have elsewhere seen applied by Plato him self to their multeity

page 61) so that the regular Aristotelian terminology may be said to agree (Farm.

I.e.

:

with that of the later rather than with that of the earlier dialogues.

If the foregoing exposition

stantially correct,

physical parlance, 55

The

list

it

will

be seen

be accepted as sub that, in strict meta

ravrov embraces

in the 56

the ev

Index Arist. 618 a 25 Diog. Laert.

iv. 2. 6.

is

KOI

incomplete.

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

79

ddrepov the arreipa of later Platonism. The supreme Mind and the Ideal Minds, so far as they do not transgress the limits of their own noetic existence, are termed ravrbv so far as they pass beyond those ;

limits into gnostic phase, they are

And

termed Odrepov.

since the objective and subjective aspects of Idealism were distinguished by the same criterion, it is evident that ravrov and Odrepov may be regarded as apt sym

bols for the double operation of Mind. I

would end by anticipating two misconceptions.

In the

first

expression

place the erepoTT/s of the ev does not find For in the ravrbrr]<$ of the TroXXa.

ereporw always connotes the motion and imperfection of yvyvo/jieva, whereas the ravrbrrjs of the TroXXa i.e. the Ideal series is endowed with the permanence ovra. When, therefore, the and perfection of Aristotle on Greek commentators speak of the Ideas 57 as erepa, it follows that they are using the term in 6Vro>?

logical rather

than

its metaphysical acceptation, fact that the Ideas are a series the and are referring to 58 of different and differently constituted entities. But

its

57 26 ff., 147, 2 1 ff. E.g. Simplic. in Arist. Phys. ed. Diels p. 143. vov CK^O-TTJ iSe a, aAA* Plotinus, though right in saying oix erepa TOU vovs ol 6\os fj.ev & vovs ra iravra. 6^77, eitaffTov Se elSos e/caa-TTj vovs. commits a fatal blunder when he severs 6 vovs V. ix. eicavTos

from T&

w

8), (Enn. !*/ by means of r)

Ideal

Numbers ei/ T^ avry

M.

7.

ff.)

(Enn. V.

i.

i).

monads which

are at

apiBp-f aSta^opot oAArjAots

p.6va.i

are composed of

SiaQopoi, at 5

1081^ 35

irptarn erepJrrjy

/tc"

*

"

(Arist.

fa*V Met.

THE METAPHYSICAL

8o

BASIS

such differences do not entitle them to be described as Platonic erepa

(i.e.

erepa avra eavTwv)

warrant the use of the word aXXa Tim. 52 is

C,

;

at

most they

cp.

where of the particular phenomenon erepov 8e TWO? del

said

Sia TavTa ev

but of the Ideal eo><?

:

av TL TO

erepw kingdom

fJiev

aXXo

it

<f>eprai

TTpoaiJKei, TLVL

$, TO Be

ovSerepa) TTOTG yevofjievov ev

ev

aXXo, ovSeTepov

apa

TCLVTOV

teal

$vo

ryevrj&ecrdov.

In the second place the erepoTrjs of TO ev be confused with the IT 6/36x779 of TO, TroXXa.

is

not to

This

is

at first sight less obvious. It might have been thought that the demands of Necessity would be satisfied and

the Ideas alone passed into the sphere of OaTepov, and left the supreme Mind to that i/o^o-eo)? which it enjoys in Aristotle s

her law

fulfilled, if

vor)o-i<;

conception (Met. A. g. 10746 33). But that such is not the case appears to me certain from the following considerations (i)

:

Plato teaches that ova-la

alliance of TavTov with daTepov.

is If,

necessarily an therefore, TO ev

the evolution .acquires the latter element only through to the its existence of Ta TroXXa, then Unity owes

But we have already Ideas, not the Ideas to Unity. concluded that the permanence of the Ideal series depends upon the volition of the supreme Mind. Hence, though prepared to allow that Unity does

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

81

not as a matter of fact exist without the Ideas, we must deny that its existence is contingent upon theirs.

owe

Rather, the Ideas

as

its

their ova-ia

as well

its erepoTrjs

to a self-subsisting Unity.

TavTorrj?

Again, the Ideas are ovra, they possess Their TavroTrjs they TCLVTOTTJS and erepor^?. admittedly derive from Unity. Their ereporrj^ either (2)

z>.

both

is

or

is

not derived from the same source.

If

it is,

we

are justified in discriminating between the ere/cxm?? of TO ev and the erepor?;? of ra 7ro\\d. If it is not,

whence comes it ? Certainly not from the mere fact that the Ideas are a plurality that, as we have seen, makes them a\\a but not erepa. :

(3)

The

Ideal

Minds stand

supreme Mind would seem then

to the

in the relation of 7ro\\a to ev.

It

that they are to be considered multiples of an original Unit. As such, their TCLVTOTT]? presupposes its TCIVTOTTJSJ

Otherwise they would be nor integral powers, but utterly

their ereporrj^ its eTepor???.

neither fractional

incommensurate (4)

cosmic

Plato Jo>oz>

s

quantities.

own words suggest a erepotWt?

of the

as distinct from that of the subordinate

In drawing

a comparison between the in and sensible universe he declares that the telligible partial Animals embraced by the entire Animal answer to the particular specimens contained in a f<wa.

visible

cosmos

:

Tim. 30 C ra yap

Brj VOTJTO,

wa

Trdvra 6

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

82

ev

eavrw irepi\a^ov

oaa re d\\a Opea/uara 158 A makes

the

re

ra>

oXw

/cat

That

ov ;

is

opara.

%vve<Tr7)Kv

same point

:

Mere^eiv

rut aopla)

ere pa ovra rov evbs

w9 8

e^et, KaOdirep 6 Se 6 KO

i^eOe^ei

.

.

.

59

Pann.

Se 76 rov evbs

OVKOVV

Ovrcos.

ra fjuere^ovra avrov

to say that TO o\ov

;

rcav-

(=rb

reXe? tyov of Tim. 3 1 B) as well as ra popia (= ra eV

fwa of Tim. 30

/j,epov$ elBei

c)

passes into the sphere of

Odrepov.

30 D represents the Creator as having not only vovs but also ^v\r) OVKOVV ev fjbev rfj rov ftaa-ikitcrjv aev epels

Agreeably to

this

Phileb.

-<dio9

<f>va-ei

fBaGiXiKov Be vovv eyyiyvea-Qai, Sia rrjv r?}? air las

this

And Phileb. 30 A clearly distinguishes K.r.\. cosmic soul from the souls of its particular crea

tions

To

%fl. ;

1

Trap

1

rjfjJiv

FLPfl. Arfkov on, \aj36v, eiTrep

j

crwua ap ov ^v^rj

<f>rj(TOfjLev.

urj

%fl. IloOev,

w

TO 76 TOU rravros

ervy^ave, ravrd ye e^ov rovru> Kal en IlPfl. ArjXov w? ovSauoOev a\\o6ev, rrdvrrf Ka\\iova ; ov

Finally,

two

circles

we have the problematic assignment of Now the circle of to the mundane soul.

the Other (Tim. 360, 380) cannot represent the part icular souls of men, horses, etc., since they have

59

To

the

Wachsmuth

i.

same p.

effect

136, 10.

Arius Didymus in Stob.

Ed.

I.

xii.

2a. ed.

OF PLATO

S

ETHICS.

83

special irepioSoi, (Tim. 420, 430, 85 A, 87 A, 88B, 91 E),

which are expressly distinguished from those of the universe (Tim. 47 B, 900). Nor can it denote the Ideal

e^v^a

:

for,

so far as these possess vorjcrw they

do not belong to the realm of ddrepov

at

all,

and so

far as

they lapse into yvwo-is they are represented by It must, therefore, stand for the lower particulars.

phase of the cosmic soul as distinguished on the one hand from the Ideas, and on the other from their particulars.

be no perception of matter "by the apart from the perceptions of finite are of course driven to say No to the

If there

(5)

cosmic soul

we

souls,"

question of the Platonic Parmenides 9

Ap

ovv olos re av eVrat o

$eo<?

aKeiv avrrjv liriarrf^v e^ow

Sokrates awe-struck r)

6ebv

prepares evaded.

on

(Farm.

;

1

34 c)

\lav, tyrj, Oavfiatnos o \6yoSj el rt? rbv

rov elbevai.

And Laws yap

ovvrai,,

OeoL r

is

I34E)

(Ibid.

however, to find that in Plato

this decision

/JLCV

Trap* rjfuv 747^0)-

comment

aTroGTepr)<reLe

us,

judgment

ra

s

reversed, or at

maturest

any

905 D el&l teal

dvOpwTrcov

70)76 ov TravTCLTracri

repeats the assurance of Phaedo 62

D

</>au\o)5

av

rate

THE METAPHYSICAL TO deov ie elvai TOP

^efc

KOI

BASIS GO

7rL/jL6\ovfjL6vov

etceivov KTijfjiara elvai.

rjfjLas

The moral

bearings of this question call for further consideration for the present I proceed, noting merely :

that

the supreme fwcw can

if

pay separate attention unless the it must

to the individual souls of men,

argumentation of Parmenides be entirely groundless pass from the ravTorrj^ of pure thought into the Te/30T?7? of knowledge, opinion, and even sensation.

To

challenge that passage is indeed to obscure the connection between Plato s ethical speculations and their ontological basis.

Mr. Archer-Hind commenting on Tim. 86 E Absolute being, absolute thought, and writes (6)

"

:

absolute goodness are one and the same. Therefore from the absolute or universal soul can come no evil."

Had

"

repeated the word thought," no exception could have been taken to the dictum. As it stands, the second clause seems to me a specific

he

in lieu

of

"

"soul

denial of the evil world-soul described in the tenth

The

book of the Laws. cannot be ignored

description

there given

;

Trpoa-Xapovaa del Oeov 6eos ovcra,

opOa

TraiSaywyel Trdvra, avoiq Be Travra av Tavavria rourot?

/cal evSaifjiova

.

60

(897 B)

Cp. Phaedr. 246 E Zeus HiaKoffptav irdvra

ical

OF PLATO S ETHICS. and

forces

it

85

upon us the conclusion that the cosmic

soul qua cosmic functions not only in the

ravrov as perfect thought, but also in the

mode mode

OaTepov as imperfect thought. These are the main arguments which tend to that the ere/? or 77 9 of the either with the

the

Its

Many.

of

show

be confused

ravTortj^ or with the ereporrj^ of more precise determination will be

in the

attempted

One must not

of

succeeding section.

III.

Theology.

In discussing the evolution of 1/01)9 we have more than once had occasion to use the words 0eo? and

We are not, however, entitled to adapt theo terms to the purposes of philosophy unless we logical can return an affirmative answer to the vexed ques 0eto9.

tion

Did

Plato, or did he not, bring his religious

convictions

into

any intimate connection with

metaphysical views

?

Dr. Zeller,

who

where represents modern orthodoxy

his

here as else

at its best, holds

that theology does not rank with Dialectics, Physics, and Ethics, as a definite part of the Platonic doctrine ; that

it

cannot even be

sciences 61

classified

under any of these

the particular notions that, short, which bring Plato in contact with positive religion are in

;

61

Plato

"

and The Older Academy,

p. 494.

THE METAPHYSICAL

86

for the

most part mere outworks of

BASIS his system, or else

an inconsistent relapse into the language of ordinary 62 And yet there are certain a priori con opinion." siderations which militate strongly against the ortho

dox

position.

It is difficult to

believe that a speculator

so thorough-going and fearless as Plato would have shrunk from the attempt to base his own religion on

And

a sound intellectual foundation.

that foundation

must be observed

that, if lay ready to hand. For by a personal being is meant one conscious of uniting it

in itself a diversity of its

Mind and

own

states,

then the supreme

the Ideal Minds have substantial claims to

personality; and further, that in the said Minds is shall not vested the directorate of the universe.

We

then be sinning against antecedent likelihood,

how

far

material

Plato

if

for

we the

provides enquire expression of the Idealist creed in terms of divinity.

(A) Broadly speaking we may say that, in the Platonic scheme, the objective realm of TCLVTQV is characterised as divine, and Polit.

In

2690

its

TO Kara Tavra

ro?

denizens as deities

ical

:

ftxrauro)? e^euv ael

OeioraTOis

Kal ravTov

elvat,

fact, 1/0770-49

and OeioT^ are everywhere mutual

implicates

irdvrcov

:

63

Plato

and The Older Academy,

p. 505.

irpo-

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

Laws

897 B

vovv

"^rv^rj

87

a el Oebv

fj,ev 7rpo<T\a@ov(ra

#eo? ova-a K.T.\.

Phaedr.

And

2470 6eov

this

iavoia

vw

re

on the one hand

applies

supreme Mind, and on the other

e

ical

(&)

to the

(a)

to the

Ideal

Minds.

With regard

(a)

supreme Mind, we have

to the

already seen that the functions which the Philebus The assigns to it are in the Timaeus given to o 0e6?.

22 c) phrase TOV aXrjOivov apa ical delov vovv (Phileb. Zeus to of this i/ou? ftacrikiKos and the attribution

30 D) serve to link the two titles together. that in Plato s is, therefore, no room for doubt successorsimmediate his of teaching as in that (Phileb.

There

Mind

absolute

and

Godhead

absolute Aetios,

Stobaeus,

registers following view correctly in the words 6 Be Oebs

(b)

With regard

to the Ideas

coincide.

the

Platonic

vow

e er

we have

TOV

the evidence

of Tim. 37 c ft)?

8e Kivrjdev avrb Kal {fav evolve 76701/0?

63

Stob.

(Aetios)

Ed.

I.

ibid. p. 37,

forces &v, Ta.yaQ6v. <nreu5t.

20,

I.

i.

aya\iJ>a

Nous

x.

i6a

ai&lcov

o yevvrfaas

Wachsmuth

ed.

4 U\drwv Udvra tie

olv 6 eedr.

TWV

i.

TO,

Cp. Ed.

24, ibid. p. 31, 5 rt iror

p. 127, 20.

Ed.

I.

i.

29

rb p.ova$iK6v, rb rotavra ruv ovofjuirtav els rbv vovv

Se rb Hv, rb

iffrl

/toi/o</)ues,

I. vi. la (Menander) 8e6s; vovs.

ibid. p.

83,

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

88

where they are termed Oeol as being the first pluraland ai Stoi 0eol as being the first

isation 64 of

0eo<?,

pluralisation of that which

is

an

dlbiov tyov (Tim. 37D).

65

Mr. Archer-Hind well urges that Plato "used this strange phrase with some deliberate purpose in view." I cannot however agree with him that the signific "

ance of so calling them

Minds

the partial multiplies

The

is very hard to see." It a direct indication that the Ideas are

me

appears to

into which

Politicus perhaps allegorizes the

and Plurality of gods, when in the

by a

the universal

Mind

itself.

it

states (271

same Unity

D

seg.)

that

golden age the universe as a whole was managed

0eo5 apxowj

66

separate portions by Oeol a/^oire?. These departmental gods are spoken of in terms that its

Plato

certainly suggest

kinds

s

deification of the natural

:

ra

o>a

/cara yevij tcai a^yeXa? olov vofiel^ Oeloi SieiSal/toves, avrdptcrjs et? iravra

wv (B)

There

ot<?

auro?

eW/xei/.

(2/1 D)

But ravTov must of necessity pass into Odrepov. need, therefore, to examine the subjective

is

manifestation of these objective deities. 64

66

And

since

irpura. SiaKCKpifjieva rrjs afjLfpiffTQv fvctxrews, as Simplicius in Arist.

Psych, ed. 65

eAcao-ro?

Hayduck

p. 28,

Ed. Ttmaeusp.

Cp.

Polit.

22

calls

them.

nSn.

272 E

of

/corei

rovs roirovs crvvdpxovres

r$

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

89

we have

distinguished the eYepotWi? of the cosmic 0eo5 from that of the partial 6eoi, our enquiry sub

divides itself into two questions minor mode of the supreme 0e6<?

the minor (a)

mode

of the Ideal Qeoi

was shown

It

:

(a)

and

?

What is the (b) What is

?

the course of the last section

in

that the eTeporrjs of TO

v is

bodied forth as a Trepie^wv

which embraces

all particular animals, taking of their individual conduct, and being in cognisance rcoo-pos,

some

Now

sort responsible

the said

KoV//,o5,

for their

considered as the visible entire

Whether we hail from we are bound to recog

of course a unity. /, the Academy or the Lyceum,

of TO

is

nise eva ovpavov

7 ,

special deficiencies.

apart from

because

all

question

any physical totality may be logically 68 But to infer regarded as a single phenomenon. that this case we have an idea with only one of Idealism

"in

particular

corresponding"

me

seems to

premature.

When Plato mentions the externality of the supreme 0eo? in the singular number, it behoves us to ask first whether

it is

In Tim. 34 OUTO?

Srj

not this collective unity that

A

B, for

mi?

6Wo<?

is

intended.

example, ael \oyia-fibs Oeov Trepl

deov \oyw6els

.

.

.

reXeov

TOV

IT ore

etc

eiroi^ae. 67

Tim. 3 1 A, cp. Bonitz Ind. Arist.

68

Cp. Farm. 1640 07*01 eowrat,

Soph. 237

D

avdyirr)

r6v

n

p.

542 a

8.

cTs CKOO-TOS

Xsyovra tv yt

rt Xeytiv.

<pa.iv6nevos,

&v 5e

ov.

THE METAPHYSICAL

90

I

take

that o

it

eVoyu-e^o?

#eov,

cov del

6eb<$

contrasted with 6 vrore

is

God qua

i.e.

BASIS

eternal

with

God qua

Again, in Tim. 92 c opa,Tov ra 6 para Trepie^ov^ GIKCOV TOV #eo? alcrOrjTos el? ovpavos ooe

temporal.

.

and

in

.

.

Tim. 68 E

ravra

Br]...6

TOV Ka\\i(TTov re

o? ev rot? avTap/crj re

God qua we must

Creator

/cal

apiarov

r <yi<yvo/jU6vots

tfal is

jrape\diJi(3aveV) fjvifca TOV

TOV T6\(*)TaTOv Oeov eyevva.

opposed to God qua created.

But

not on the strength of such passages argue

that the supreme being appears to sense-perception as a unitary god. And this for the excellent reason

that such an appearance would impugn the very nature of particular existence. To explain. By a particular is meant a localisation of any given VOT/TOV ffiov by itself or

any other

The

VOTJTOV tfiov.

percipient

Animal

and the percept Animal, both functioning in the fourth plane of consciousness, provide what the Theaetetus calls KLvr)crea)s Svo ^vva/jbLv 8e

TO

/juev

clSr],

TrXrfOei

TTOIGIV e^oz/,

fjuev

This being so, a unique particular in terms inasmuch as the predicate ;

that the object tcivrja-i?

but

is

in its

ajreipov

e/caTepov,

TO Se irdcr^eLv. is

(156 A). a contradiction "

"

unique

implies perceived not in its shifting phase of permanent condition of o-rdat^ that

Hence in every is, not as a particular but as an Idea. case particularity connotes numerical indefinity. The

OF PLATO

S

ETHICS.

91

denial of a solitary specimen is confirmed alike the wording of Parmenides fourth hypothesis

Farm.

1

5

8 B

Ta

8 erepa rov

oe 76 7r\ela)

-E-Tre!

rov

ez>o?

7ro\\d TTOV av

6\ov

TO,

dvdyfcvj

7T\r)6ei ajreipa eivai

ez>o?

/jLeraXa/ji/BdvovTa TOV evos

Zi. 15.

1040

tf

25 eorrat

ISea elvai

/juere^ovra, OVK

aura 76

etcelva

ra

:

<yap

eVt rjr\ei6vwv /caTiyyoprja-ai

a\\a Trdaa

.

;

and by the testimony of Aristotle Met.

eirf..

e^o? ecrrt rd re rov evbs

fjiopiov real ijor)

by

r)

l&ea rt? e^o?.

rjv

a&vva rov

ou So /eel 8 6,

fieOe/CTij.

would seem, therefore, that the minor mode of the supreme 0eo? may indeed be regarded as a unity, inasmuch as it is a physical totality 69 containing It

within itself

all

Tim. 30 D (frvciv

the visible manifestations of the Ideal

oW

ev oparov, trdvO

oaa avrov Kara

%vyyevf) ^coa et To? e%ov eavrov.

but that nevertheless this Trepikyav /cocr/^o? must in some sense be an indefinite plurality, if it represents the ereporr;? of TO ev. And here we should avoid the error of supposing that the particular specimens of the natural kinds 69 Compare Cicero s description of Xenokrates theology: "Decs enim octo esse dicit ; quinque eos qui in stellis vagis nominantur, unum qui ex omnibus sideribus quae infixa caelo sunt ex dispersis quasi membris

simplex sitputandus Deus, septimumsolem adiungit, octavamque (De Nat. Dear. i. 13. 34).

lunam."

THE METAPHYSICAL

92

BASIS

supply the needed plurality. That would be to mis take the eTeporrjs of ra TroAAa for the erepoTTjs of TO ev.

The whole

visible universe

is

the

full

objective deol as viewed subjectively their

company

on the plane of

localised

concourse of

by any one of But aicrOrjais.

what we are seeking is the single sovereign viewed by the same spectator on the same plane.

0eb<?

as

Man

functioning on the fourth level apprehends the 0eo? Palm as a multiplicity of palm-trees, there is no reason why he should not then, the 0eo9

If,

as a multiplicity supreme of supreme 6eoL Only, whereas particulars are desig nated by the plural form of the name affixed to their similarly apprehend the

6eb<;

corresponding Idea, and whereas each of the Ideal 6eol has some distinguishing name Man, Horse, or Palm from which such a plural may be derived, the has no appellation of the sort. He supreme over the Ideal might, however, as a

supreme

0eo<?

#eo<?

be

Beoij

fittingly

Indeed he

so

is

titled

0eo? 6ewv,

named by

Platonic Theology The. Plat. ii. II.

God of

the

gods.

Proklos in his account of

:

eart

Oewv

p.

HO

cLTravTtov,

(o TT/OWTO?

Kol

&>?

was

#e6?)

o><?

$609

evda)Vj...ayio<}

ev aylois, rot? vorjTofc evairoKeKpv^jjievo^ Oeols. 70

Ed. (t>(i>v

Cp. the fragment from Porphyry 25 ed. Wachsmuth i. p. 31, 8 Kal debs CK dfuv. Zevs Se Kal

I.

i.

,

tin $

irepl

a.ya.\na.T<av

Zevs ovv 6 iras <5

<

Qe6s

>

,

cited

by Stob.

/c<fo>tos,

Ka6b vovs

faov IK a<p

ov

OF PLATO

When,

are tempted to find in

it

subjective indefinity) of

phrase

perfectly simple

ETHICS.

93

we meet

therefore,

far as the

S

the phrase Qeol Oewv we the plural (representing the

him who

itself is

is

So would be a

the #eo? 6ewv.

concerned, this

and straightforward

solution.

But

it

remains to be seen whether the nature and functions of the deal dewv, as described in the Timaeus, tally with those of the supreme vorjrbv &ov conceived as

the percept of particular percipients.

And rates

Tim. 34 B

as to their nature.

first

how the

original blend of -^u^r;

seqq.

nar

was compounded

of the three primal elements. It was used for the cosmic soul, being divided into the circles of the Same

and the Other. Tim. 410 tells how the second blend of tyw)(r) was compounded of the same elements, though in a less pure condition. It went to form the subord inate souls, each of which possessed a similar pair of circles.

Now

in

between these two brews we have

the planets described SeOevra

fwa

(38 E),

Kal dtSia (40

B).

as

Seoy^ofc

and the fixed

Whence

the animation of these %wa

it ?

e/^Jrt^ot?

aco/jiara

stars called

fwa 6ela came asked be may It

could not be fur

nished by the second mixture of -^f%7, since that had not yet been compounded. Moreover, the first mixture had been entirely used up (366) in the

making of the cosmic

soul.

It is obvious, therefore,

that the starry fcoa are the externalisation of the cosmic soul as distinguished from the subordinate souls.

THE METAPHYSICAL

94

It

was natural that

BASIS

their bodies should

be placed

of the Other to perform the not only planetary functions, but also in the circle of the Same to be a veritable KOCT/JLOS. For they are the exponents in the circle

of the

Godhead

in the sight of

forth the twofold aspect of

men

and by setting

;

"

"

act

their great original

as an everlasting witness to an eternal truth.

It

was

no mere access of astronomical ardour which led Plato to write

:

TWV vvv \6ywv

trepl

TTore epptjB T)

fjurfre

rov Traz/ro? Xeyofjuevow acrrpa pyre rj\iov

ovftels

fjujre

av

ovpavov

l&ovrwv (Tim. 47 A).

There

can, then,

whom

Tim. 41 A

be

little

identifies

doubt that the with these

Oeol Oe&v,

stars, are

simply a subjective pluralisation of the supreme Mind. Were we capable of pure 1/6770-49, we should apprehend them as a single

#eo<?

The same

6ewv.

lesson

may

be learnt from the

Laws

along with sundry practical corollaries. For it is more than probable that the gods, whose care over men is there vindicated by the Athenian, are identical with the

deal

evident, orav 7rpo<f)epovT$,

Be&v of the Timaeus.

This becomes

reKfj^ijpia \eya)/JLev co? el&l Oeoij

rfkiov re KOL creXrjvrjv KOI

ravra avra

avrpa KOI

yfjv 0)9

KOI Oela ovra (Laws 886 D).

71

Cp.

8<rovs

Laws 950 D

T^\iov...Kal rovs

&\\ovs

fleous,

828 C ruv

o5 Ocovs ovpaviovs tirovonaffreov, Crat. 397 C Qatvovrai

fj.oi

ol

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

And

in the conclusion

95

drawn by 899 B

hint that this synod of Xa/juirpol Bvvda-rai, embodiment of a single Mind

discern a

I

is

but the

:

Se

Kal

$rj irepi

real

/j,7)va>v

\6yov

epov/jiev

TrdvTcov teal

cre\rivr)<$

eviavTwv re

Traawv wpwv Trepi riva a\\ov rbv avTov TOVTOV, rj &>?

dyadal 8e Tracav apenjvj deovs elvai eire ev crftifJLacriv evovaai, %wa ovra, Kocrpovai iravra ovpavov e lre airy re Kal OTTO)? ; <j>ijcro/jL6Vj

note that, as in this passage and ^rv^al are used alternatively, so in those of the Timaeus which deal with the doings of parts the deal Oewv there is a constant oscillation between It is interesting to

the use of the singular and the plural number.

we have deoi (44 D)

(47 A)... 0fo j;

...0eo?

The

. . .

alternation

Oeov (44 E)

. . .

(47B)...0eo

may be

deoL (45 A)

(47 C)

...

Thus

6eos (46 c)

. . . 0ewz>

(47 C).

seen on an extended scale

from Tim. 69 C to almost the end of the dialogue. In 92 A the grammatical change is riot even marked, the subject of e^evvrfcav viz. Oeol being supplied from the

A

still more striking previous Oeov ySacret? viroTiOevios. anacoluthon is actual an in A where case occurs 71

irpuroi

ra>v

,

o.vty&K<av

ov<rirfp

affrpa Kal

rav

ircpl

vvv iro\\ol

T^V E\\dSa rovrovs

i*6vovs robs Ocovs

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

96

et Sore?

produced:

much

same way

into ol

avr6...deo^...^vve(7Trj(7

In

.

Tim. 28 A, 29 A, Bq/juavpyol of 75 B, 6 ^vviaras of

o oyfjLiovpyb? of

pluralised into ol

etc. is

29 E

the

72

8e

of /I D.

fucr<JT7;cra^T69

Again, Plato s later writings consistently denote the possession of Tavrorrjs by the term aQdvarov, that of erepoT?;? by the term Ovrjrov. If, then, the deal Qecov

were objectively existent as a plurality, they would doubtless be endowed with adavavia. But in Tim. 41 B

we

read

:

d6dvaroi pev ov/c TL

Sr)

i*,ev

yLto/pa?,

ecrre

73

ouS aXvroi TO

TrdfjLirav,

ov

\v0ijo-e00e ye ovSe rev^eade Oavdrov

TT)?

ySoi/X^o-ea)? jj,el%ovos ert

/jurjs

al Kvpiayrepov Xa^ovre^ e/cetvow, ols or

and this agrees with the tenor of Politicus 270 A, where the visible cosmos is spoken of as 72 The converse change from 1340 QVKOVV ei irapa r$ 6e$ avrt)

&v

77

SeffiroTeia

f)

fjftas yvoit]...oijT

73

^Ksiixav

VJ/JLWV

yiyv(txrKOVfft

e<rrlv

irore

TO

rj

aKpifieffTdrr)

kv Seo TrJo e/ej

,

ai Opwireia irpdyfj.ara

Tim. 690

Farm.

singular to plural occurs in

eiriffTrnj.r],

OUT &v

rj

ovr

firiffT^/jLT)

deol Sures.

r68e fui/eo-T^o-aro, ev *X OV T To-VTa ev O.VT$ dvtjTa aQa.va.rd re, and in Tim. 92 C Qvt]Ta, yap /col AfldVoTa \a&ii)v /cat |u^7rArjpa>0ets 38e 6 Koff/j.os K.T.\. the "immortal It follows that in

irav

>ov

a>a

"

<a

animals o0aj/aTo ra.in6v,

"

are not

as has

commonly been supposed

the stars. Rather,

= the supreme Mind and the Ideal Minds so far as they are = the supreme Mind and the Ideal Minds so far as floret aia oDa

become Odrepov. Cp. Arist. Top. Z. dpi&rai rb Qvt\T^v irpoadirruv fv rots ruv

they

10.

(a<av

olov avrodvBptairos.

1480; 15 &s

6ptff/j.o7s

Uhdruv

^ ykp tSea OVK

OF PLATO

S

ETHICS.

97

7* eTrio-Kevaarrjv rrapa rov Srj/j,iovpyov. These passages confirm us in the belief that the

existence of the starry gods as a plurality is merely subjective and phenomenal. In brief, the Bed 6e&v are related to the

supreme

0eo9 as particulars to their corresponding Idea.

account of that relation

muth

i.

p. 134,

in Eel.

xii.

I.

i

Aetios

a ed. Wachs-

9

loea early ovcria

a(ra)jj,aro<*

.

.

.

rrarpos e7re%ov(7a

TO?? aiV0?7Tot? Tfifyv

apparently founded on, and certainly justified by, Tim. SOD where the Idea is compared to a rrarrjp,

is

the particular to an eicyovov. Now in 42 E the Oeol flew with reference to the supreme #eo? are called ol Similarly in 37 C the latter is in 69 C the former are ra

rov rrarpo^.

TratSe?

6

75

and

yevvrjo-as Trarrfp,

eavrov

7Q

This coincidence of nomenclature,

<yevvr)fjiara.

As particulars their establishing the proportion Ideas:: the Oeol de&v the supreme #eo? certainly

by

:

:

favours the view

have put forward, that the 6eol Qewv are not an objective but a subjective pluralisation I

1 of their Creator}

Cp. 75

Cp.

Polit.

Polit.

273 E

273

0os

6

KOff/j.Tja as

....

aQavmov

avrbv

B.

70

Soph. 266 B has 0eoD yew-fi/taTa of particular

77

Chalcidius in Tim. 41

A

men

etc.

Wrobel p. 200 well remarks: non sunt intellegibiles sed sensiles

ed.

enim optimates, id est stellae, vero fabricator eorum intellegibilis

"Illi

adprime."

7

;

at

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

98

To

deal next with their functions,

4142

"

says

(i)

In Tim.

the 0eo9 addresses himself to the Oeol Oe&v and

:

Three mortal

tribes

have

to be created

still

may be complete. So far as their souls are imperishable and divine, they are mine to make yours be it to fashion their bodies and thereby

that the universe

:

cause such part of their souls activity as

is

necessarily

perishable."

Here Plato distinguishes the direct creations of the 0609 from the indirect creations of the Oeol Oewv.

To

the former belongs the task

immortal and passionless Tim. 41 C KCL& oo ov .

.

of providing the

self: .

CLVTWV dOavdrots

o^vv^ov

elvai Trpoo-rjKei, Oelov \y6/jt,evov rjyefjiovovv re

(nreipas Ibid.

real

...

virap^d^evo^.

42 E dOdvavov

dp^rjv OVIJTOV fyoov

= 69 C dp^v

tyvxfy dOdvarov to the latter that of

adding the mortal body and

attendant passions Tim. 42 D TO Se pera TOV airopov rot?

its

:

veois

78 Ovrjrdj TO Te e eoyLtara TrXarret^

TL rjv tyv %}? dvOpwirivr]^ Seov Trpoayeveadaij

rovro KOI TTOV& oaa dicoXovOa

78

It

may be remarked

TrAaTTOJf,

ftffoi

^pxetr,

which Rep. 41 5 A (a\\

xp va

"bv

eV rf) yevecrei

B. 5. 1264 12 6 irapa rov 6eov xp v Timaeus assigned to the 6eol Qeuv.

cp. Arist. Pol.

in the

that the office

/J.v V/J.UV iKavol

eiceivois direp^/a-

<*6s)

6 8ebs

vve/j.i}-ev,

assigns to the

OF PLATO S ETHICS. Ibid.

6gC

TO

eropveva-av

/juera

TOVTO dvqrov

.... d\\o re

TTpo(T(f>Ko^o^ovv

TO

This, as I understand

it,

<ra)/j,a

Sen/a

KOI

%ov.

means

:

men s

are due to the evolution of the absolute first

avrfj irepi-

eZ&o? eV avra)

OvrjTov,

ev eavru) TraOij/juara

99

or noetic plane, being brought about

very selves

Mind on the by

objective

men s

bodies and bodily affections are due to the evolution of the absolute Mind on the

pluralisation

;

remaining or gnostic planes, being brought about by subjective pluralisation.

This statement of the case involves one issue of If the ultimate consciousness peculiar importance. of every individual is a direct creation of the Artificer,

or

to drop

and

if

metaphor an objective multiple of Mind, the objective multiples of Mind are none other than the Ideal series, it follows that the souls of par be called truly existent, are not to be distinguished from the Idea of Man. The realisation of this truth throws light

ticular

men, so

upon several

now

see

why

far

as

may

they

We

details of the present passage. can the aOdvaTos ap^rj OVTJTOV coov was called

Oelov fyepovovv re (Tim. 41 C) plainly because the Idea, and as dwelling within the pale of is entitled not only to aOavavia but also to :

it

is

Again, when the Creator urges that, were he to make the perishable part of his creatures, their mortal would put on immortality and take rank with the gods,

THE METAPHYSICAL

I00

Tim. 41 C

he

St

declares

virtually

e

efjLov

BASIS

ravra

that the

<yev6fj,eva

distinction

and ravrbv would be abolished invade the dominion particulars would dd-repov

;

teal

/3/ou

between transient

Ideal

of

S eo be conceded that the immortal part of us identical with the Idea of Man, which Idea as it

But all is

if it

attached appears in the cosmos becomes subjectively to bodies and split into a seeming multitude of souls Trepl

ra aca^ara

<yiy

there are yet two

vo^evrj

pepicrTr)

(Tim. 35

A),

which should be

possible errors

signalised.

On

the one hand,

must be observed that

it

this

the unity of the Idea procedure in no wise imperils since the multiplicity of particular souls belongs only ;

to

potentially

the Idea

is

the

realm of Ideal ova La.

a single eternal Mind.

As

As

vovs,

eTno-r^rj or

manifold activities Sofa or aic-Qrja-v;, it passes into the latter But the of human thought. phase is dynamic the former is the implicit latent in the former ally

;

verity of the latter

Soph. 247

D

:

\eya>

8rj

TO

ojroiavovv KCKT rjfJLevov

teal

elr ek TO Trda-^eiv SvvafjLiv elV et? TO iroielv . . irav TOUTO oWcw? elvac ride/tat, yap opov opi^eiv .

.

.

.

ra 6Wa, 79

to?

eemz>

OVK a\\o TI

7T\rjv

This passage then furnishes a parallel to the use of Oeot 370 cp. also the terminology of the neo-Platonists

in Tim.

:

= (p.

"Ideas"

H2).

OF PLATO

On

unmoved. Idea of

soul

101

the other hand, the ancient landmark between

the soul and the

body of any given

Sokrates

Man

individual remains

a special localisation of the functioning in the mode of lower ment

As such he

ality.

S ETHICS.

is

a double being, comprising both His soul is the Ideal Animal con

and body.

is

ceived as actively cognisant on the planes of

yeveo-is

:

his

body or, to speak strictly, his bodily shape is the same Animal conceived as passively cognised on the same planes. 80 The one, inasmuch as its activity the procession of an Ideal Mind, Plato regards as the handiwork of God qua Being, viz. the supreme 81 The other, inasmuch as its passivity is the 0e6?. is

result of imperfect

apprehension, he

refers

to

the

workmanship of God qua becoming, viz. the Oeol Oewv. It may here be objected and the objection is a valid one that, allowing the body and its accom panying emotions to be the outcome of imperfect apprehension, we have as yet shown no reason why the Oeol Oewv rather than the lower phase of any other VOTJTOV %wov should be named as the cause of their

appearance. the Ideal

<wa

80

The

reason,

I

think, lies in the fact that

are multiples of the

supreme

whose

This doctrine was a refinement upon the teaching of the earlier e.g. Phaedrus 245 E irav yap aw^a $ ptv eca6ev rb Kive?<r6ai, Sf evtioQev avrcp avrov, f/j.\^vxov, us rairrrjs ofays tyvaews

dialogues,

81

Jifloz/,

Cp. Tim. 6QC

TOJJ/ fjifv

Be

i<av

avrbs yiyvercu

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

102

subjectivity therefore takes logical precedence of theirs.

Plato in fact goes more to the root of the matter by assigning the causation of the OwrjTov 76^09 to the

lower aspect of the supreme their

beyond

penetrates source

#609.

to

ulterior

Elsewhere their

he

ultimate

:

Tim. 41 A Seol ep ycov. Soph. 265 C

&5a

d\\ov TWOS vcrrepov (2)

41

A D

second

42 E

OecoVj

orj r)

&v

e<ya)

TTavra dvrira

6 eov

<yi<yve(r6ai

real

SrjfjLiovpyovvTos

Trporepov OVK ovra

office attributed to

may

877/^01^709 irarrjp re

;

the 6eol dewv in Tim.

be thus expressed.

The

Artificer

begins his task of providing the delov ^e^ovovv re portion of individuals by dividing the whole mass of soul at his disposal into -^rv^a^ laapiQpovs rot9 Bearing in mind what was said concerning

we

fjLepMTTr)

shall

expect Dr. Zeller

s

view 82 to prove

correct, viz. that these -fyw)(al are the souls of particular

men.

But the point may be certified by a considera word l<rdpi,0^oi, whose significance has, I

tion of the

believe, been

unduly neglected. of the terms o\ov and popia to denote the supreme ^wov and the Ideal %wa shows that,

The employment

in

Plato

s

view, the

sum

total of the latter represents

the content of the former.

83

Plato

and The

Older

Now

this equivalence

Academy

p. 390, n. 8.

was

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

103

not confined to the higher phase of Ideal ravroTrjs it applied also to the lower order of particular ereporrjs. :

Hence the Platonic Parmenides, 144 c) that ovala is himself and observes

OVK dp

after stating

ir\el<j-ra

(Farm.

pepr), corrects

:

1

dpn

d\rj6rj

fjt<epr]

evi.

Kal

split into

rj

ovcria

a\\

vevefjLTjTai,,

(1440

firjv TOL

eXeyopev, \eyovres

&>?

Icra, GO?

Ti\el(rra eoifce,

TW

E)

ye Trdvra

ovre TI irXeov ovre

/J-eprj

rd avrov TO

\arrov

77

ev eVr*, Kal

iravra.

(145 C)

From

these passages I gather that what Aristotle 83 calls ra 7ro\\a TWV (TVVWVU/JLCOV rot? e&eaiv correspond

numerically to the similar phase of TO ev, that is, to the 6eol 6ev. The meaning of the expression in Tim. 41 D will then be as follows. The ^ir^al lo-dpiO/Aoi rot? aorpois are the souls of

men which

divides and distributes to the

gods, that they universe. souls,

number of

the starry

severally learn the laws of the

may

Thus the

the Creator

Tfrv%al IcrdpiQ^Qi are particular

but particular souls considered as not yet embodied

and therefore

as

still

the direct handiwork of the

Their state of dynamic multiplicity is of course merely an analytical abstraction for, if the Creator.

;

body be but the soul passively apprehended by lower psychosis, actual multiplicity must synchronise with incarnation.

The 83

state

of

Met. A.

6.

potential

987 b

10.

plurality

is,

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

io4

however, recognised and described in Farm. i$6l) as TO efa/<z/779 84 a condition intermediate between ovaia

and

yevcn,s

Kara

Srj

KOI

:

TOV avrbv

K

\6<yov

TToXXftJI/ 6(

KOI ef evos

6V OVT

V

7ro\\a Ibv

eirl

CTT(V

OVT6 TToXXa,

ovre Sia/cplveTcu ovre o-vyKpiverat, (157 A). It may be added that the sojourn in the ^vvvo^o^ oifcrj&is

avrpov rationalises the influence over a

man s

character which ancient astrology universally attri buted to his birth-star. For the rest, having heard their destiny, these potential particulars are

sown

into

the planets where they are clothed upon with bodies by the subjective action of the late-born gods.

In

fine, this

examination of the nature and func

tions of the Oeol 6ewv enables us to determine their

metaphysical value with some assurance. They are not co-ordinate with the rpia Bvrjra yevTj, except in so far as they constitute the erepoiaxns of a vorjrbv ^wov, but are related to them as the supreme Now is to the Ideal vorjfjLara. If the term TrapdSeiy/jLa be understood to denote the cognitions of 84

Compare

the use of

rt Oav/jLaarbv r\\v tyvaiv

tai<pvris

na\6v

r^v xJ/vxV 9*povrra f^al^vris conceives the individual O.VTOV /j.ovoei5es del

in

^rv^

functioning in the

Symp. 2IOE 523 E avrfj

K.T.A., Gorg.

a.TroQa.v6vTos e/coo-rou.

mind confronting

that

rfj

The former passage

which

is

avrb naff avrb

the latter represents the disembodied soul of the particular man after death. Both depict a juxtaposition of the properties of ovcria and yeveo-ts, which except in a moment of transition

jucfl

is

impossible.

ftv,

OF PLATO

mode

S ETHICS.

105

of TCLVTOV, and the term elKwv to denote the

cognitions of ^f%^ functioning in the mode of Odrepov, then I conceive that the position assigned by Plato to the 6eol Oe&v may be fairly represented by the follow

ing diagram

:

eltccov

TrapdSeiyfjLa Oed?

Oeoi 0cu!v

Oeoi

rpia QvijTa

the question, What of the There is but subjective aspect of the Ideal gods ? one fitting term for a minor order of dlSioi Oeoi, namely (b)

Lastly,

Sat/move?.

And

we approach

this Plato

has used to describe the

reasoning powers of particular men Tim. 90 A TO 8e Trepl rov Kvptwrdrov Trap :

SiavoeicrOai, Set T^Se,

Ibid.

90 C are

&>?

rjjuv

apa avro

Se del depaTrevovra TO delov

re avrbv ev KeKocr^pevov rbv SaijULova %VVOLKOV ev avrq)

By 85

SaliJUtiv

SiafapovTws evbainova elvai. 86 then Plato means the intelligence

With the Platonic

compare

derivation from

Sa-fi/J-uv

Archil. 3, 4 TCIUTTJS yap Kfivoi 8ai/j.ovcs

in Crat. flffl

398 B L. and S.

fj-dx^s.

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

io6

that part of us which is the nearest approximation to 86 Ideal OewTTjs. called TO It is indeed sometimes

on grounds which we have already examined. But for the most part individuals are relegated to the 6elov

region of

and

ere/oor?;?,

their highest faculty described

as TO Oeiorarov TWV Trap rjjuv (Tim. 73 A)

TO OeioraTov TWV ev rjfuv (Ibid. 88 B) o detorarov

r

ovv (Ibid.

KOI T&V ev r^jMV irdvrtov Seo*7TOT-

eo"n

44 D)

TO eavrov deio-rarov (Rep. SSgE).

He who 0eto? (Rep. life

precepts deserves the name of 500 D, Epist. 340 c), and the resultant follows

".

TrdvTcov

is

its

TWV

deio-rcnos (Phileb.

/Slav

33

B,

cp.

Laws 766 A). Enough has now been

said to prove that a theo

logical designation of Plato s Idealism

The

objective aspect

hand by OeoL

of

Mind

the supreme 0eo?,

The

and on

subjective aspect

sion in the Beol 6e&v

;

is

is

not chimerical.

represented on the one the other by the Ideal

of the former finds expres

that of the latter in the

Sa///,oz/e?

of individuals. If

it

In what relation does this hierarchy Laws ? I should

be asked

stand to the evil World-soul of the

reply that, since vow is del 0eo? (Laws 897 B), Necessity or the force which produces the degeneration of 86

Tim. 41

c,

69 D, 720.

OF PLATO

S

ETHICS.

107

justly described not only as avoia, but also as TO aQeov 87 whether in the case of the supreme

may be

,

Mind,

Laws

897 B ^rv^rj...dvoia

TrdvTO,

vyyevo{jiei>r}

av

rdvavrta TOVTOL^ aTrepyd^erat,. Theaet,

I/6E

Trapa^e^yfjidrcDv,

o>

(f>i\6,

eV

TO>

own

rov pev Oelov evBaifjioveardrov, rov 8e

eaT(i)T(tiv,

ddeov dOXtwrdrov or

in

that of the subordinate minds,

Tim. 86 B voaov ^ev Rep.

58QE

rdra)

Thus the o?,

el

re

Brj

^u^?

avoiav

Se TO eavrov fetor arov VTTO teal

&ov\ovrai,...ovK

^napwrdrw

Oeoi Oewv, so far as

apa

they represent the

(Laws 8996), so far as perfection, are evil and respon

are dyaOol irdaav dpeTtjv

they deviate from his sible

the

for

of their

defects

dependent creations.

natural Similarly with particular specimens of the kinds so far as they approximate to their Idea, they :

are Bela and evbaipova

;

so far as they recede therefrom,

they are adea and

A

word or two may be added with regard to

subsequent terminologies. next to nothing is known

from

ev

;

Of Speusippos usage but his severance of vow

and rdyaObv must have produced theological

complications of a serious 67

sort.

Cp. Tim. 53 B 6Tav

8c6s. airy rii/bs

THE METAPHYSICAL

io8

With regard less

to

Aetios

scanty.

BASIS

Xenokrates our information 88

is

affirms of this philosopher s

religious theories that ra Trporepa Trapa rov TlXdrayvos

And

/jLTa7re<f)patcev.

if

we

identification of the Ideas with

bers

the statement

may

Xenokrates*

allow for

num

Mathematical

be accepted as

in

the main

At least all

the gods of the Platonic theocracy play their part in the comprehensive system of Xeno correct.

Corresponding to the objective deities we find supreme and unitary IVot)? called Zevs or

krates.

:

A

(a)

(/3)

TTpWTO? #609. Certain Swa/zet? or Oeiai Siwa/xet? inherent in elemental forms. 6eu>v

The (7)

place of the subjective deities is filled by The stars or OXv^Tnoi Oeol, which combine make a collective ovpavos also known as a

to

0eo<?.

These the

One and

the indeterminate

allegorical phrase,

(8)

The

between Zevs

men

souls of individual 89

/-toi/e?

between

stars are the result of a union

;

Dyad

Trarrjp

or,

are called

and even the beasts have some

in

and the

&u-

instinct

of the Divine. 90 38

Stob.

Ed.

i.

i.

29 b ed. Wachsmuth

89

Arist. Top.

90

Clemens Strom. V.

i.

p. 37, 2.

.6. 112 a 37. xiii.

87 KaQ6\ov yovv

rV v*pl

EevoKpciTTjs.. OVK aTTf\irici Kal eV rots a\6yois fyois

op. at. p.

592.)-

TOV Qelov Zvvoiav

(quoted by Zeller

OF PLATO

ETHICS.

S

109

opposition between the power that makes for good and the power that makes for evil reappears 91 perhaps in Xenokrates broad contrast between Zeu? Plato

UTraro?

s

and Zevs

But the

vearos.

further recognition

abparoi seems a mere concession On the whole, Xenokrates to popular superstition. their theology follows the Platonic outlines, though author s design is marred and obscured by the attempt of vTrocek rjvoi

SaiiJioves

ed innovations of his successor. Aristotle likewise held the truth of the

maxim 92-

But a modified system of Trdvra (pvaei e%et TL Oeiov. metaphysics caused certain changes in his theological

The conception

vocabulary.

of a creative

i/ou?

he

s account of the appears to have borrowed from Plato describes it by he his like master, supreme Mind, and,

the term #eo?

Met. A. 6

:

1072 b

7.

0eo<?

TI

6.

136^

28

6

fj,ev

C^.frag. 46, 1483 a 27 rov vov, Top. E.

1830.

vovs earlv

rj

eTre/cetvd TL

= 6 6ebs Pol.T. 16. 12870 7 %wov vor)Tov ovv rov vovv Ke\eva)v apxew So/eel Ke\eveiv y

End. H. dpxetv rov 0eov, Eth.

12.

1245 b 16 ov

yap OVTCOS 6 Oeds ev e%6f, d\\a @e\Tiov d\\o n voelv irap auro? avrov.

rj

w<7Te

Since, however, Aristotle s ontology recognises

91 Clemens Strom. V. xiv. 116, Plut. Plat. Qu. Phil. Gr. p. 287). (quoted by R. and P. Hist.

93

Arist. Eth. Nic.

H.

14.

1153^

32-

ix.

I,

2.

p.

no

1007

I

THE METAPHYSICAL

io

Xcopi&ral

he

ISecu,

is

BASIS

free to transfer the title Oeol

the Ideas to the starry spheres, without the

from

encum

brance of a neologism such as Plato s Oeol Oewv, or the confusion of equivocal names such as those of Xenokrates gods

:

Met. A.

8 14 Oeovs 1074 de mund. 2. 391 b elvau,

8.

ova las

.

ovpavbs

OiKrjrripiov

Oela Psych. A.

.

.

ra?

1419

Oewv

K.r.\. Cp. ra de an. A. 5. 32, part.

tovofjuaGrai

2. 17.

405 a

645 a 1

4, dvOpcoirov TroXv Oeiorepa Eth. NIC. Z. f. 141 a 34, ra Qavepa rwv Oeiw Met. E. I. 1026 a

ra Oeiorara TWV fyavep&v Phys. B. 4. 196^ 33, ra Oela crcofjiara Met. A. 8. 1074^ 30, de caelo B. 12. 292$ 32, and the more definite 1

8,

expressions of [Alex.] in Met. ed. Hayduck p. rocrovTot, QGCLL at o-fyalpai, 709, 28 ff. Oeol .

.

deiOTdrrj^ Kal

rfj?

e^rjpTTjfjLevot

.

Trepte-^ov TTJV o\ijv (frvcriv Kal ibid. p. ?2I, /jLevwv

apLerrjs ovarian,

709, 33 elvlv ovv Oeol Kal Oelov

ibid. p.

31

air La

els

Oeos eVrt.

Oeol

/J.ev,

rov anravia

ra yap rwv

a\\a

fteOegei

Kal

Tc3

rov Trpcorov Kal ftaKapicordrov e%ijp-

/3ov\rjfjLari,

rrjvrai z/oo?.

Again, Aristotle who is similarly impressed with the divine nature of thought (Psych. A. 4. 14. 408 b 29, Met. A. 8. 1074^ 1 6, de part. an. A. io. 686 # 28, de an. gen. B.

3.

736

27)

speaks of particular minds in

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

ill

terms that repeat the language of the Platonic dia logues Eth. End. H. :

Eth. NlC. K. Probl. AT.

is,

ing was pupil

TO ev r^fuv

6eb<$.

1

6 TWV 6V

9620 22

0i6rarov TWV It

A.o>

II77&

7.

7.

12480 27 opposes

14.

Oelov to ev ro3 6

irepl

TO OeiQTCLTOV.

9620

(cp. 9.

r)fj>as

rjfjLLV

of the

35) uses TO

human

head.

therefore, highly probable that Plato s teach the source of the saying attributed to his

:

Clemens Strom.

VI.

vi.

Ke XprjcrOai irdvTas

53

ApivTOTek rjs

av6p(i>irovs

aiv auTOt? irapa TOV xpovov

Saifjioo-i,

\eyet (TvvofjLaprovTT}?

eVo-ft)/>taTco(7eQ)9,

Trpo^rjTiKov TOVTO /jLadrj/jLa \a/3oov /cal /cara0e/jLvo^ els ra eavrov /3i@\la, fjurj o/xo\07jcra? o0ev v<j)el\-

ero TOV \6yov TOVTOV. Cic. defin.

ii.

40 "hominem ad duas res, ut ait ad intellegendum et agendum esse

12.

Aristoteles,

natum quasi mortalem

deum"

\oyiKov &ov TO Arist.frag. 187, 1511 a 43 TOU TO 8e avOpcoTros, TO 8e olov TlvQafjt,v ecTTt Qeos, .

.

.

76/909.

might be shown that the theology of the neoPlatonists in some measure revived the usage of the Academy. Plotinus, for example, mentions It

(a)

6 TTaTrjp Oeos 6

93 ,

i.e.

the supreme Triad of TO ev

vow + 93

Enn.

v.

i.

+

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

112

(ft)

The

voepal Swa/xet?,

which consist sharing (7)

The The

its

z>.

the Platonic Ideas,

the supreme IVoi)? and, as 94 animation, are termed 0eot in

.

6pa)jj,evoi 6eol

95

i.e.

,

and the

the stars. 96

of particular men. But to pursue the subject would carry us too far It is of more immediate importance to pass afield. (8)

SatfjLoves

6eol

from the theological aspect of Plato s philosophy to the moral deductions which he expressly drew there

mind that

from, bearing in

his ontology

to last intended to serve as a

was from

sound basis

first

for ethical

reflection.

94

Enn.

K<i\\os t

vofpoi (v. 95

4, cp. ibid. II. ix.

i.

ircd/ras /.

Enn.

Kal TO. 96

V.

rwv VOIJTUV Ofwv

Ka\bv

&\\a

Enn.

8e

i.

lamblichus too

calls the

Ideas

Prokl. in Tim. 94 C.

4, cp. ibid. V.

i.

2

errrt Se Kal

faios 0eJs, 6ri

e^vxos

t

&(TTpa.

v.

i.

Plotinus was himself guided by a 6e6s, according Mo/copjos c? 8fbv

2, 4.

to Porphyry, others rbi>

Oeovs voyrots.

votjToi) Qeoi ap.

V.

8 TTUS OVK &v ris &ja\fj.a fi/apyes V. i. 7 irav p.ev rb T&V

ibid.

ftiroi;

Sai/Jiova Kal ov

their respective Saifioves,

by

rou

v<pei/j.cvov

yevovs rbv

<rvv6vra

i\<av

(

Vit. Plot.

IO).

OF PLATO

S

PART

ETHICS.

113

III.

METAPHYSICAL DESCENT AND MORAL ASCENT. In the foregoing chapter I have emphasised the between the objective and the subjective

distinction

aspects of Plato s ontology. The former was found to be the purposive pluralisation of a supreme Mind,

abiding in eternal self-sameness, and invested with all the credentials of divinity. The latter was the necessary eWTacrt9 of every such Mind, whereby it passed out of the sphere of identical being into that of diverse

becoming, and stooped from the sovereignty of an Ideal 0eo9 to the subservience of individual Saipoves.

This declension

however, counterbalanced by certain compensatory tendencies which must not be over looked. Metaphysics indeed compels a 0809 tcdra), is,

but Morality with equal insistence demands a 0809 avw and it remains to present the dictates of the one ;

in

such a manner as will satisfy the claims of the

other.

Now it will be remembered that we have repeatedly described the objective world as a pattern, the sub as its copy. And this language not applies only to particulars themselves which,

jective

world

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

u4

whether they be the 6eol Oecov or the rpia OVIJTO, are in any case semblances of higher verities, Tim. 39 E TOVTO Trpo? rrjv fjirep

TO Karakonrov aireip^d^ero avrov

8rj

rov TrapaSeiyfJLaros aTrorvTrovaevos

ovv

eVoucra? tSea?

1/01)9

7^77,

T&>

(f>va-iv.

o ecrrt ffiov, olai

re eveiai Kal oaaij KaOopa, roiavras KOL rocraura? elv

Kal roSe cr%eiv.

etcrl

Srj

rerrape?,

ovpdviov 06MV 76^09, a\\rj $e Trrrjvbv Kal e Kal aepoTropov, rplrrj Se evvftpov eI8o?, Tretyv

Xepaalov riraprov but also to the conditions of particular existence.

Time,

according to Plato,

is

For

an image of Eternity, and

Space a simulacrum of Ideal Otherness.

The former fact Tim. 37 D et/co) 8 Ka T

The

latter

where the

is

a/jia

ap(6fjLov

ov 8^ ypovov

a)VOfjLaKafjiev.

a legitimate inference from Tim. 520,

thesis that

following argument

A

:

ovpavbv iroiel fuevovros alcovos lovaav alaviov elKova, TOVTOV

we wrongly import

ceptions into the world of Ideas

"

many words

eVt^oet KLVTJTOV Tiva alwvos Tro^oYU,

Kal SiaKoafjicov ev evl

stated in so

is

is

spacial con

supported by the

:

particular has not an absolute but a relative existence it is in fact the mere phantasm of ;

another object in

which

it

:

hence

may

is

demands a something

appear, unless indeed

to be reduced to an

something

it

Space.]

utter nonentity.

But

it

is

[This

in the region of real

OF PLATO

ETHICS.

S

existence for one thing

(sc.

115

Idea) to be formed

another thing (sc. Idea 97 ) would be to make that other thing both one and two, which is in

[Therefore between the Ideas there no Space, but only Otherness.]" This amounts to saying that Space, the medium impossible. is

of subjective pluralisation, corresponds to numerical Otherness, the medium of objective pluralisation.

Thus the question

raised

by

Aristotle in Phys. A. 2.

209^33 TlXdrcovi /jLV70i Xeicreov iSr)

.

.

.

Sia rl ov/c ev TOTTCO

ra

KCU ol apiduoi, elirep TO /AeOeKTi/cbv 6 TOTTO?,

70V

176

fJLedeK7t,KOV

/J,<yd\OV

617

T7J?

KCU

7OV

uX???,

fJLlKpOV

to<77Te/3

V

6Wo? 70V Tft)

yeypafav will be met by the answer that the term TOTTO? rightly used

till

TifJbO,i(i>

is

not

Ideal alterity has passed into indi

vidual extension. It was this doctrine that particulars and the modes of particular existence bear to ideas and the modes of Ideal existence the relation of an ei/ccov to

97

Mr. Archer-Hind (ed. Tim. p. 171) paraphrases: "For true reason declares that, while the type is one, and the image another, they must be apart ; for they cannot exist one in the other and so be one and

two

at

Ideas K.T.A..

But surely rb

once."

:

fj.ev

and rb

Se are both forus ovra,

i.e.

shown by the whole form of construction eiKovi Se ovrcas ovn. It is no question of the old doctrine of

this is

/*>

"

.

. ,T<f

irapovvia,"

but a clear statement of the reason

extended, Ideas unextended.

why

particulars are

THE METAPHYSICAL

n6

BASIS

which determined the whole alle and so popularised the gorical form of the Timaeus,

its

irapaSevyfJia

belief that

"

This visible World

is

but a Picture of the

a Pourtraict, things are not and as they counter truely, but in equivocal shapes, invisible fabrick." in that substance real more some feit invisible, wherein, as in

it links the peculiar value of this imagery is that world of relative to the world of absolute being, and

The

thereby expresses just that aspect of Idealism which of might best serve as a basis for the structure In other words, the artistic setting of the has a special significance of its own, inasmuch Timaeus as the raison d etre of Plato s ethics may be said to lie morality.

in the simple reflection that, if the world as we know it is a portrait, it ought to be as exact a portrait as possible.

Meta show how the

f Starting from this point of contact between

physics and Morals,

I

shall

attempt to

mark out the rational larger lines of matured Platonism In so doing we should conduct. individual of end remember

thati-the true unit of voluntary action

not the particular but the VOIJTOV l&ov. &aXe7o//,e0a,

aAA ov

0eofc,

is

Nevertheless

and therefore

must translate our motives, like our speech, Into the lower phrase that suits the sense

"We

O

Let

the limitedly apprehensive.

Each It will

level

have

"

its

language

!

be convenient to begin by resuming the

OF PLATO

S

ETHICS.

117

constitution of the moral agent. Every VOTJTOV possesses four faculties, namely yoO?, e-Tn 0-777^77, Sofa, the three last being moments in the sub a0-#77<jt9, jective evolution of the to

yevecris

belong to the region of debarred from vorj&is they with 7ricmj/j,r), Sofa, and :

are,

as

however, endowed 98

though in the even these are to a greater or less ai<r0rj<ris

life

it

are consequently

<yi<yv6fjieva

lower forms of

to

Particulars which, as such,

over la.

6W&>?

and opposed

first,

,

extent in abeyance. This catalogue of the cognitive powers accords well with the usage of the more advanced Platonic In the earlier dialogues pure thought is not unfrequently ascribed to individual thinkers (e.g. Rep.

writings.

The Philebus adopts 5 1 1 C, D, 5 24 c, Phaed. 83 B. alib.). a half-way position for it expressly distinguishes the human i/oO? of 21 D, 22 c, 580, from the a\j]Qivo^ ical ;

Betas

vov<;

where" it

:

i>oO?

of 22

C,

28

C,

30

epao-TTJv (46 D),

98

But the Timaeus no

D.

speaks of the particular man as possessing describes him as being at most a vov teal

Cp. Stob.

Ed.

i.

Ixi.

I

& vovs fv Ttf 6*$, 6 \oyiv/j.b? ev

and

his finest faculty as

(Hermes) ed. Wachsmuth

T$

avOp<air(f.

i. p. 275, 16 Aristotle after describing

{Mel. A. 9. 1074 b 35 seqq.) the v6t]cris vo-^ffews of the supreme Being continues Qaivcrai 5 aid &\\ov i) liri<TT-}]i*.i) /col TJ atffdijffis Kal rj

$6a

Kal

99

It

fj

tv -rraptpycp.

does indeed use the phrase vovv

"sensible,

(90 D)

Sidvota, eouTTjs 5

etc.

But to

ex**"

(68 B), vovv

ex*"

(89 B )

=

and the compounds Ivvosiv (870), ttaravo^lv avoid them would have been mere pedantry.

reasonable,"

THE METAPHYSICAL

ii8

rov vov

Svvafus

fapo/jLevr)

females and the lower animals

BASIS

it

10

(7

1

B).

alludes in 91

To D

arranging them in a descending scale according as they approximate to or recede from that higher

92

B,

mentality vov KOI avoids d7ro@o\fj KOL /crrjo-ei, (92 B) while 77 B brings even vegetable life into the same

;

register,

0^77? pev

<w

vov

real

\oyio-pov

(

= eVto-TT;^?;?)

101

In like Se. alaOrjaeoos manner the second hypothesis of the Parmenides

re

/cal

yu-ereo-rt

TO

/JbrjSev,

enumerates the powers of the human intellect Farm. 15 5 D va ^ eTrtcmjfjLTj ST; eirj av avrov :

teal

86ga

Kal aladricris, eiTrep Kal vvv rj^el^ Trepl

avrov

TTCLVTCL

but, as

ravra TTpdrrofAev

we have seen sometime

since, this dialogue

confines the range of pure thought to the Ideal world.

Here, however, we encounter a difficulty which has beset the student of the Platonic system ever since

Farm. 134 B was penned.

existence

is /JLOVQ)

Oearr)

vu>

If the realm of true

(Phaedr. 247

C),

and

if

vovs

100 This strange expression seems chosen to escape the direct attri bution of vovs to a particular. Similarly in 51 D, where Plato calls the Ideas a*/o/<r07jTo rj/j.uv efty, voov^va. n6vov, the position of the u<

pronoun

is

instructive.

101

Simplicius (in Arist. Psych, ed. Hayduck p. 317, 11) states that plants %x ftv Al/J/ TWO. alffdrjffi^, a.fj,v8poTpav 5e t) KOTO TO &\\ws cD/To, xal &s UXdrtav olov Ka6cv8ov(rav atffBtiffiv. Similarly Empedokles (according to Sextus Math. viii. 286) TrdVro j}iov \oyiica rvyx&veiv, Kal f<j)Tj

ov

ua pAvov a\\a

Kal Qvrd, prjrus

ypaQuv

irdura yap

IffQi <f>p6vr)<riv

OF PLATO is

S

ETHICS.

119

not allowed to the individual as such,

how

is it

that

Plato himself feels so secure about his ground-plan of Mind existent both as a unity and as a

a supreme plurality

The

?

confidence which he displays

Tim. 29 B TOV vov

[lev

ovv

KOI (BejBaiov

JMOVI/JLOV

teal

per a

IAOVI/AOVS KOI

KaTa<j)avov<>

KO.& oaov [olov] re dve\6 elvai Kal diaviJTOis,

e.g. in

yifTOi<;

TOVTOV Bel

could only be justified by the actual intuition of an Ideal #eo<?

:

Tim. 7 2 D ra

fjuev

102

ovv irepl

^f%)9 ...

f fyu,^>/J(ra^T05,

a

TO ye

TO pen d\rj-

TOT av OVTO)

/aoz^o)?

etVo? /c.r.X.,

/JLTJV

and that

intuition is beyond the reach of the indi however vidual, great his genius and however unceasing his efforts.

As

Chalcidius

103

"

puts

adminiculo ipsa per se anima

nihil

sine divinitatis

valeat spectare

divinum."

atque intellegere

The

it,

was a

difficulty

real one,

and such as

to bring

a consistent thinker within sight of scepticism

Farm. I35C

ri ovv Trotrjo-eis

0i\o(7o^>/a?

Tptyei dyvoov/JLevwv TOVTCOV ; Plato meets it by two considerations, 103

Cp. Tim. 68 D 0ebs pev TO vo\\a

fls ev

TOVTWV iKavbs o&Tf

Herri

(<rrai.

103

In

Plat.

Tim. 41

E, ed.

Wrobel

p. 202.

Trepi,

The

;

apa

Trot

highest

tvytcepawvyai Kal

e{ cvbs fls TTO\\O. Sia\vetv iitavus ftriffrdfievos

iruv Se ouSels ovStTfpa

(i)

:

Trd\ti>

Kal SUJ/OT^S, avQpta-

vvv O&T

ciffavBis TTOT*

THE METAPHYSICAL human

eTrtcm^fy though

may

VOTJO-IS,

thereto

yet

be

BASIS

can never attain to divine

it

reckoned

an approximation

104 :

Tim.

5

1

E Kai TOV

/*ev

(sc.

avSpa fjL6Te%iv (frareoVj Be yevos ^pa^v TL.

The

761/0? in

ro)v

op&w?

Sogrjs

question is no doubt TO TWV KOI d\77&w? yevo? (Epist.

%

ye

Philosophers

inasmuch as

may

in

irdvra

d\7)0ov<>)

vov $e 0eou?

3 26 A).

a sense be said vov ^ere^ELv

their intelligence leads

them

to desiderate

certain transcendent fixities in nature as a basis for

the

eTTUTTijfjLr}

rav

fjLev

which they do possess.

l&eav vow /car

fjuara alcr6rj(Tt ical

this

1

eV terra pav

They apprehend ...

ra

S*

airoye vvd-

And

Sofa (Tim. Locr. 946). 105

it is

to

ayad&v dvBpwv o/jLo^pdSfjLcov 1/0770-4? when he wishes to establish any fundamental that Plato

appeals truth.

See, for example, the tenor of

Phileb. 28 C Trai/re? yap (TD^WVQIXTIV 01 z/ou? eVrt /3ao-t\eu? rjfiiv ovpavov re Kal

.

(ro(f>ol

fo>?

Nevertheless the wisdom of earth-born. "

It

cannot by

divinitatis adminiculum."

men

itself

is

.

.

777?.

at best

only provide the needed

Hence

Plato, half in jest,

half seriously, delights to invest his authorities with a

supernatural halo, and to speak of their contributions to knowledge as of a divine revelation. In Soph. 216 B 104

See the admirable remarks of Mr. Archer-Hind ed. Timaeus pp.

48-49. 105

Plat. Epist. d. 3 10 A.

OF PLATO S ETHICS. the

of

critic

KTUCOS

;

and

called in so

kind

immature Idealism is #609 rt? i6c the revised ontology

in P/iileb.

many words

"a

gift of the gods to

is

man

"

vOpwTrovs fj,ol,

6<n?,

o>?

76

Ka-ra<f>aiv6Tcu

Trodev CK Qewv Ippityrj Sid TWOS Ilpo/jirjOea)? TLVL Trvpi

(f>avordr(f)

ravrrjv 7ro\\(t)V

<f>?ifjLrjv

teal

ol fiev TraXaioi,

ejyvrepw Oecov

ical

fjfjLwv

Trape&ocrav,

OVTWV TWV uel

KOI aireipiav ev aurot?

The

123

&>?

oltcovvres,

ei/o? fjiev /cat etc

ef

Xeyofjievcov elvai, Trepas oe ^v/jL(f)urov

e^ovrwv.

phrase of this passage aptly expresses just that scheme which one particular man could not by his

last

unaided reason have descried in

which

appended diagram, Mind, and iro\\a the Ideal

ev

;

it

gives us the

denotes the supreme

series.

any one turns a deaf ear to this theory of inspiration, or quotes by way of retort Rep. 381 E (2)

But

av

if

VTTO

W,

TOUTODV

ox?

apa

TroXXot? feyot? fjurj

apa pev

et?

dvaTreiOo/jLeval

al /j,r}Tpes ra

6eoi rti/e? irepiep Xpv Tcu

teal

TrarroSaTTot? iv%a\\6nevoi, iva

0eoi>9

^Xaa^^waLv, apa

Be TOU?

TratSa? aTrep^d^wvTai, SetXcrepou? fall back on a less pregnable position. holds that the souls of individuals have before

Plato can

He

their incarnation stood face to face with the Creator,

THE METAPHYSICAL

I2 4

and learnt from

BASIS

his lips rrjv rov iravros fyvcriv

(Tim.

41 E). This they were enabled to do, because the souls of men conceived as not yet associated with

do not

their bodies

whose fall.

106

intuition

The

all

differ

from the Idea of Man, under

doctrine of Anamnesis

guard of Idealism.

would naturally

noetic existence

is

the safe

in fact

be denied

may

It

but

:

it

can

hardly be disproved, and as has before been hinted it presupposes some such relation of the ideas to Mind as

was

from the assumptions of the Parmenides. The confinement of pure thought to the world of elicited

Ideas cannot, then, invalidate the foundations of the Idealist system, because the individual philosopher

not only builds

upon the experience of previous

thinkers but also possesses an innate criterion of his

own

structure

:

Phaedrus 2496, C )

Set

yap avOpwirov %vvievai rovro Be ecrnv

^vvaipov^evov. e/ceivwv. teal

a TTOT elSev

rjfjLWv

r)

TO ov oVro)?. rj

Tov

eVetVot? del eari 0eb<f

106

i^vrifMrj

(fra/JLev

Brj

real

St/caiW

Sidvoia 8um/z>,

7T/305

dvafJ.6vrj

yap

vrpo?

a>

Diog. Laert.

ruv

8to

<f>t\oa6(j>ov

Kara

dvd/jivrjffis

^rv)(rj cv/juTropevOelara

vTrepiSovGa a vvv elval

TTTepovrcu

KCLT

CK 7ro\\(H)v lov aladrjcrewv et? ev

vot\T<i)V

iii.

38 iSmfrara

xal uvrus &VTUV

/j.ev

aofyiav

4iri(rTr)/jLir)v,

^v

vyc irai

<pT)(n

irepl

(sc.

Plato) eivai

OF PLATO

The removal clears the

way

S

ETHICS.

125

of this difficulty in epistemology also for ethical advance.

might have

It

been argued that to make the world as we know it conform to an Ideal pattern is a futile task for those

who have no acquaintance with that pattern. But if it be conceded that we can not only approach to such knowledge but also appraise our own progress, the individual

of

reduction

demands immediate

The foremost

conduct to directive rules

attention

down by

of these rules, as laid

Plato,

This was the general obligation of bpoiwai* indeed a duty inculcated at all stages of his philo sophic development, with the constant qualification of is

6ea>.

approximate success Rep. 500 C

#/&>

:

KOI

&rj

re Kal

fc6<r(jLi6$

ico(T/jbi(p

Oelos

6

-ye

TO

et?

faXocrocfros

6/u\<wv

Svvarbv dv@pa)7rq)

yiyverat. Ibid.

613 B

eTTiTrjSevcov

dperrjv

ocrov

efc

SWCLTOV

dvOpcoTTto bfJioiovddai dew.

Phaedrus 25 3 A KOLdOaL

avrov

?rpo<?

rfj

eviropovai

jjLVTJfjir))

dvovai ra

ia TO (rvvrbva)? rjvay-

rbv Oebv /SXeTret^,

edrj

ev0ov(n,a>vTes,

/cal ef;

Svvarbv 0eov dvQpayrra) /jLeraa^elv Theaet.

1

76 A,

B

etceivov

KOI ra eVtTT/Seu/u-aTa, ica& oaov (cp.

249

c).

Sto teal ireipacrdai %pr) evdevbe e/celae

favyeiv o TI Td%t,<7Ta. Kara TO Bvvarov.

Be <f>vyrj

THE METAPHYSICAL

126

Tim. 29 E Trdvra 6

BASIS

ri /-caXwra yeveo-dat,

(3ov\ij0rf

TrapaTrXtfcria eavrw.

Laws 716 C

rbv ovv

rc3

TOIOVTM

(sc.

Oew) TrpocrfaXf}

yevrjo-opevov et? ^vvafjuv o TI fidXicrTa teal

avrbv

TOIOVTOV dvayxalov yiyveo-Oai.

But with the modification of the earlier metaphysic it became possible to employ more precise definition. I

have said that

man

in

Plato

maturer view the individual

s

and body soul being the active, the function of the same entity. One body passive result of this is that the later dialogues, while deter consists of soul

mining the human reXo? emphasise

the

a twofold application, complementary nature of both its

The Timaeus,

aspects.

fuyLtyu-erp/a

in

for

example, affirms that

KOI a^etpia {Jbe^wv

r)

^U^T)?

avrfjs

avro (87 D), and insists on parallel develop as a mutual security. And the Lazvs, adopting

<r(t)jj,a

ment

the customary division of TraiSeva-is into Music and Gymnastic, interpret the former to mean ra TT}? (0)^7}?

T ^ ? tyv%i)s Trpo? aper?}? TraiSelav, the latter ra rov crco/taTO? dperfjs (673 A).

T?7<?

(A)

To speak

individual souls

is

first

not

of ^y%/;. The rational end for as we might have supposed

the minimising of the difference between their own eTTio-Tij/jir) and the VOTJGIS of their corresponding Idea. For the Ideas themselves are as Aristotle says (Met.

M.

6.

1080

12, alib.)

irporepov KOI vorrepov, that

is,

Numbers involving TO a definite succession of

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

127

Minds, each of which exhibits some part of the entire Mind and takes rank according to its noetic iroa-ov.

Hence Plato to the

finds the

supreme

summum bonum

in

conformity

0eo? rather than in resemblance to

any

of the Ideal OeoL

But how ticulars, as

is

this o/itotWt?

such, are

Qew to be effected

?

Par

debarred from rising to the

and timeless condition of pure thought. Happily for us, the supreme 0eo9 no less than the Ideal 6eo\ passes into space and time as a plurality

spaceless

possessed of eVtcrr^T;, Sofa, object

of particular morality

supreme

ctfafiijcri?.

is

The aim and

approximation

to the

Our

0eo? as revealed to us in the #eot Oewv.

eTria-TrjfjLT),

to theirs.

our Sofa, our afoOrjcri*;, must be made like Otherwise we shall have failed of life s true

purpose Tim. 90 D :

al TOU Srj

TO) 8 7raz>To<?

eV rjiuv 6eiw jfvyyevels

eld

Siavorjaeis KOI Trepifyopai

^vveTTo/jievov e/cacrrov Sel

ra?

Kivrjcreis

raurat?

Trepl TTJV

ev rp /c<f)a\f) rjfjuwv TreptoSovs OovvTa Sta TO Kara^avOdveLV ra? rov

e

ie<f>6apfjieva<s

dpfjLOvtas re Kal

7T6pi,<f>opa$

TO) Karavoovfjievq) TO

tcaravoovv efo/AOtwo-at Kara rrjv dp^aiav fyvaw, o/uLOiaxravTa 8e Te\o? e^eiv rov TrporeOevTos dvOpcoTTOt? U7TO 00)V dpiCTTOV /3/OU TTpO? T6 TOV

Kal TOV eVetTct 107

107

These

last

words are noteworthy. Had the bonum been defined it might have been inapplicable to

as approximation to any single Idea,

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

128

This statement supersedes all previous and partial It is introduced by words which determinations. epitomise the teaching of the Republic, the clause iravri

rj

(sc.

ot/ceta?

^f%}9

rrj<;

et Set)

ical

/td(TT<0 Tpo<j)a<;

(90 C)

recognising just that apportioned activity which is the mark of genuine justice. 108 Nor do we lose sight of the

fjLiKTos jSlos

advocated

in the Pkilebtis, for

with

this conception of the rational object is closely linked

a

ovce>Jri9

175

c).

evScu/jLovlas Kal dOXioTrjTOs (Theaet.

dv6pa)7rlvr)<;

As

in the

Republic

evSaijjLovia

was proportioned

to attainment of SucauHrvinj (Rep. 5806, later dialogues true pleasure

sation of the

human end

c),

so in the

depends upon the

reali

109 :

ev T&J OVTI e<7TO)TCt)^, 76 E 7rapa&i,yiJ,dT(ov 7ov JAW Oelov evBat/jLOveardTOv, TOV Se aOeov

Theaet.

1

.

Laws 664 B 0ea)v

.

.

rbv avrov JjBiaTov re Kal apurTov VTTO

j3lov

Xeyea-Qat,

$d<TKovre<$

dXrjOea-Tara

epovfjiev.

the particulars of that Idea in their future

may by metempsychosis change 108

M Cp.

irpais Kal

Rep. 433 E fj TOV oiiceiov re Kal tavrov efis re Kal kv 6fj.o\oyo iTO, 441 D Mj/rj/ioj/eureoj/ apa T]\uv, 6n fv avrtf sparry, Ka(TTos, KTOV kv ra avrov fKaffrov e.g.

SiKaioffvvT)

7)/Ji<av

TU>V

ovros Sfacuoy re 109 (sc. fj.ei>

life, because such particulars their status in the Ideal order.

Diog.

<rrai

Laert.

Plato)- reAos

yuci/

Kal

iii.

ra avrov irparruv. 42

irepl

5e

ayaBwv

t)

zivai r}\v ItyfUtlwriv rep 6cf-

eTvai -rrpbs evSai/Jtoviav K.r.\,

naKuv rotavra e\eye r^v 5

aper)]ir avrdpKrj

OF PLATO Ibid.

732 E

povov

ETHICS.

S

129

^

Sei 8rj TOV tcdXXia-Tov filov eiraiveiv

on

o-^rj^an Kparel vrpo? evSogtav, d\\a

T<a

... /cparel Kal TOVTW o Trdvres ^jTovfie^j

KOL

a)?

ro3

%alpet,v

eXarro) Be \VTrela-6ai Trapa

7r\eto>,

rov ftiov aTravra.

The

is

external manifestation of the supreme called collectively a evSafacov 0eo? (Tim. 34 B).

Mind The

philosopher who studies truth /crrjo-eax; eveica ev$al/j,ovos filovj KO.& ooov rjfjLwv T) <pva^ eVSe^erat (Tim. 68 E) may

win much

felicity in

Tim. 90 C are Se avrov avTO)

and

v

the present

life

del depairevovra TO 0elov e^ovra re

K6/co(T/jLr)]j,evov

8ia<f>ep6vTO)s

TOV Saifjiova ^VVOLKOV ev

evSatfj,ova elvai,

in the future

Ibid.

42 B 7rd\Lv eh

TTJV

TOV ^VVVO/JLOV i

11

do-TpoVj

oi/crjo-Lv

ffiov

evSai/jiOva

/cal

efot.

For

in truth the o-vvayvpfAos (frpovrfaews, the conversion

of opinion into knowledge, &i,a(f>epa)v

272

(Politic.

c).

is

pvpia) ?rpo? evScupoviav

Even on

the perceptive

plane conformity to nature s design is attended by Thus of sensation in general we read pleasure. :

Tim. 64 C TO 69

110

.

ftev Trapd tyixrw .

<f)V(7lV

The number

.

.

.

.

dkyeivov, TO S

f)$V.

6fuv must balance that of the rpla Qv-nra. the philosopher is said to travel to the of the star, not to become an actual star himself.

(see p.

103).

of the

fleol

Hence

9

THE METAPHYSICAL Tim. 8 1 D

E Kara

av yap TO

Ibid.

83

A

//.ez>

<])V(n,v

rdtyv rwv Kara

efe

77801^9

peO"

<f>v(T(,v

irapa

BASIS

d\yew6v, TO

fyvaiv

ovKer

pa /juev avra avTols Sea TO airoKavcnv eavrwv e^ew ,

^6

and of the single senses Tim. 66 B OTrorav Taste. :

^varaa-i^

rj

.

.

.

ol/ceia

Travrl TTCLV TO TOIOVTOV.

S me ll. ev

Ibid. .

.

Hearing.

.

67 A TO

1 O"

f)Si>

Kal TO Xwirrjpbv ... TO

(Buifypevov ... TO 8e ... tra\iv

Ibid. Be Tot?

80 B

fj&ovrjv

e^pocn ev

pev TO??

afypocriv,

ev<f)po-

Sia TTJV rrjs Qelas dpjjLO-

Ovrjrals

In the last extract 1780^

ir

77

is

vevofiewrjv

</>opat9

the emotion normally

accompanying that which conforms to nature to consciousness of that vvvri is the higher feeling due ;

ev(f>po-

conformity. (B) Secondly,

and conditions of

we have crw/ui.

to consider the character

Here a

distinction

The

must be

material out

made between matter and shape. of which our limbs are apparently constructed a portion of the whole U7ro8o^

7ez/e<re&>9,

is

but

borrowed

therefrom (Phileb. 29 c) and to be returned thereto

OF PLATO S ETHICS. (Tim. 43

a law of orderly development, akin

By

A).

131

to that which fixes the quadruple classification of the

natural kinds, this uTroSo^r/

is

figured throughout with

the forms of the four elements sent

not indeed

Ideas, but

still

forms which repre

any avra icaO certain avra e $

avTa, self-existent 111

eavrcov,

logically

In this substrate the transient shapes of particulars, the elaiovra ical egiovra of Tim. 5OC, are momentarily expressed. They are declared to distinct types.

be TWV

OVTCOV ael /xt/^^ara

already stated

for bodily shape the individual soul as viewed ;

is

as

by our

imperfect faculties, and the individual soul is but the Idea as it passes into the triple phase of genetic thought. This holds good, whether percipient and

percept belong to different species or to the same, or again coincide in a single personality. So far as

method

concerned

is

beholds a

star,

it

matters not whether Sokrates

or a friend, or himself.

a VOTJTOV

oW

In any case a on the plane

vorjrbv cognised by of sensation, and the result must be a localisation of cooi>

the former

Now

is

by the

latter in the vTroSo^rj.

of this localisation

enough that the material content is a fractional part of the whole

cosmic avo-racns.

What

it is

clear

is

not at once clear

is

the

determination of specific contour and its connection with the shape of the universe. Why, for example, 111

Tim. 51

B.

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

132

Sokrates

is

body

unlike that of a star, and

And how

?

mundane sphere

?

to distinguish from are all three related to the

means hard

rather than

explicit

Plato

in

If a particular

evitable.

though implicit seems in

to these questions,

The answer

s

shape

by no

that of his friend

writings,

a particular soul

is

it follows that appears to particular cognition, of difference of embodiment presupposes difference^ imita the is As law the In fact we formulate soul.

as

it

:

tion

of the active

passive o-w/im.

^v^,

so wil1 be the

unitation

f ^te

Individual souls were grouped under to viz. the fwa, according vorjra

certain definite types,

to the cosmic soul. their degree of approximation be similarly grouped Therefore individual bodies will viz. the natural kinds, tinder certain fixed forms, to the to their degree of approximation

according

A

being endowed with superhumanwill be apprehended not as a man say, stellar thought limits of each several but as a star. Again, within the of personal shape will be referred species differences allowance being to differences of personal attainment, soon to be tendencies certain

cosmic body.

made

retarding

for

noticed.

That

in

upon psychical Aristotle

view physical was thus dependent from development may be gathered

Plato

s

s criticism in

Psych. A.

3.

22-23, 407 ^ *S- 2 4

ov6ev Trpoo-SioptWre? 8ta TIV

alrlav

teal

TTW?

OF PLATO TOV

S

ETHICS.

KaiTot,

(rco/xaro?.

133

Bo^etev av

TOT*

dvayKalov elvai" Sia yap rrjv KouvwvLav TO fiev 7TOL6L TO 8e TTcicT^et Kol TO JJL6V KlVeiTCLl TO $ Kivel, TOVTWV 8 ovdev V7rdp%i TT/JOV a\\r)\a ol 8e /JLOVOV TV^pixnv. TTOLOV ri r) tyv)(r), Trepl $e rov

ou^e^

eVt

TrpocrSiop%ovcriv,

axrTrep

Kara TOV? IIvOcuyopiKOVS pvOovs

TTJV

L&IOV ex^tv e28o? Kal

here brought against the Timaeus, Koivuvia of an active soul with a the admits which of this theory are passive body, is that adherents

The

objection

when they have determined

satisfied

the nature of

the former and do not trouble themselves about the The objection is a typical one. fitness of the latter. It

amounts to a complaint that the theory not with

Plato

is

incon

but with

s

presuppositions, of Aristotle s rejection of them as is said elsewhere those who posit Ideal Numbers, S OVK vtroOecriv, \eyoveiv, 6

sistent,

:

op0w

Trpo? ftey TTJV

opOw 1082 b

7ro\\a

yap

X&>?

dvaipovcnv

(Met.

M.

7.

32).

the Platonic standpoint to determine the also to determine the TTOiOTns of a given soul was as that body is the TTOIOTW of its body, inasmuch This account of the rela visualisation of that soul.

From

tion

subsisting between

the two

is

confirmed

by

THE METAPHYSICAL

I 34

BASIS

Tim. 91 D 92 B, a passage which implies throughout that the nature of the body depends upon the nature of the soul.

with the priority always as analytically contrasted

It agrees, too,

assigned by Plato to with awfj,a, e.g.

Tim. 34 B, C

^rv^

rr)v Se Sr) tyvxfjv

7n^ei,povfjL6V

ov%

vvv vvrepav

o>?

e^^av^aro

oi>To>9

\e<yeiv,

KOL

o

ou yap av apyeadcn, Trpea-fivrepov

#eo9 vewrepav

%vvep%as eiaaev. op#w? apa Kal /cvpia)s d\r)9e(TTaTd re

VTTO vecorepov

Laws 896 B KOI

reXecorara

av elpev ^rv)

elprjKores

Trporepav yeyovevai creo/zaTO?

repbv re Kal va-repov icara

TJ/JLLV,

cra>//,a

^^779 ap^o

(frva-iv.

Moreover, it justifies certain materialistic descriptions of soul which occur for the most part in the Timaeus

and are sometimes almost obtrusively In 87 A, for example, that,

when

/j,7roi,ovcn. <r<f)o$p(t)s

rrjv

And

in

ra?

unspiritual.

said of bodily

is

avrwv ar^iSa

a$>

aeiovcrat,

it

rfi

humours

TT}?

43 D sensations are described as So too the TT)? ^v^ij^ irepiobovs.

bonds that bind soul to body are mentioned strangely tangible and visible connection

in

a

:

TOVTOIS gv/ATraaiv ap%rj [lev <yap

rov

(Biov

Iv

Secr/Aol

TOVTW

76^09 (73 B )

f)

TOV fiveXov

T^?

^^7)9

SiaSovfjuevoi,

<yevecn<s

TO)

ol

o-(t)fj,art

Kareppi^ovv TO

OF PLATO

S ETHICS.

135

These and similar examples of verbal license is never weary of attacking his motive if

Aristotle

we may

;

being the elimination of all metaphor and inexactitude from the domain of rigid science trust his followers

:

Simplic. in Arist. Psych, ed. Apia-TOTeXrjs

.

.

.

Hayduck

ael euoOw?

avrrjv TTJV a\r)6eiav,

a\\a

.

.

.

OVK

.

28,

p. .

.

n

avaipelv

JJLQVQV

26 Still, when in Psych. A. 3. n, 406 23, 407 25 he refutes at length the manner in which o Tifiaios it is hard to (frv&toXoyei rrjv "fyvxrjv K-WZIV TO <r&>/Aa,

him of ignoring the language, namely Plato s another aspect of mind a acquit

real justification for

belief that matter

belief

such

is

only which warranted the

extension of physical terminology to psychical pheno mena, and even palliated the chiasmus of the cosmic soul.

There is, however, one difficulty besetting this view of the relation between mind and matter which has not yet been examined. as apprehended

by

If the

body

particular cognition,

is

the soul

how can

there

be any such disproportion between soul and body as is contemplated in Tim. 87 D ? la"xypav

teal Travrrj

etSo5 oiav

yd\r)v a&Oevea Tepov

i

fjn~

0^77?

KOLI

Ka ^ orav av rovvavriov

TOUTO), ov /ca\bv oXov TO

woz>.

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

136

At

first

sight this passage certainly appears to gainsay

the rule enunciated above

"

:

As is the

imitation of the

active ^v^r), so will be the imitation of the passive

But a little reflection will show that the two statements are quite compatible. If a and p denote the active and passive aspects of the individual o-wyu-a."

Sokrates on the plane of

en-Krrqfjuj,

a

and/

the

same

and on the plane of aspects on the plane of Sofa, ala-Orjo-is, then the law concerning the parallel develop ment of ^f%?7 and crw/za may be represented by a a"

p"

series of equations

:

5.

Suppose now that Sokrates, though intellectually superior to the average man, suffers from some T&V o^^drwy. By the law physical defect, say TO efo>

of correspondence this peculiar conformation of the eyes must accurately express a limitation of the power of sight.

But such limitation may well coexist

with,

or even be brought on by, unusual mental develop ment. Indeed it is just this sacrifice of one set of faculties to another that Plato here deprecates.

Let

us, he says, have no ill-conditioned disparity between If a be fully developed higher and lower functions.

and

a"

starved, or

if

a be starved and

a! fully

developed,

OF PLATO

S

ETHICS.

in either case there is a lack of

"va

awr^pia

Srj

fjbla

avev fjs,

symmetry about

TO

o KaXovpev.

o>oi>

%vvafjL<j)6Tepov,

Tim. 88 B

137

0"a>/*flT09

TT/JO?

Mvelv

a^co, fJLr)T

afAVvo/Jieva) rylyvrjo-Oov

fjbrjre

(Tw/jba

la-oppoirco

rrjv

avev KOI

vyirj.

a practical precept, both yL6e\eT?; Siavoia, the exercise of active thought, and o-cofjLao-Kia, the cultiva tion of a healthy frame, are alike enjoined upon one

As

who would

imitate the

the result being a

example set by the Universe of life more harmonious than

mode

the high-souled but somewhat ascetic aspirations of the Phaedo:

Phaed. 67 D

TO

/ieXeT??/x<x

avro

rovro

ecm

KOL

Soul and body are indeed distinct, but the distinction Rather it is the is no longer to be an antagonism. Active contrast between inseparable complements.

and passive functions are to the particular what and voel&OaL are to the Idea.

voelv

condition is deter Granting, then, that physical mined by psychical development, we return to consider the effect produced upon the one by the graduated

attainment of the other.

The nearest approach to the vo^ais of the supreme 0eo? is, we hold, to be found in the sublime intelligence

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

138

of the Beol

u2 6ea)i>

Consequently the best imitation

.

of that circularity which symbolises 113 pure thought will be the spherical shapes and revolving orbits of

the ovpdvioi 6eol

:

Tim. 40 A

TW .

.

Travrl

e

Kivr)<rew

ev TXVTO)

Trpoa-eiKa^tov

evtcvicXov

Be &vo Trpoarj^frev e/cdcrTq), rrjv

Kara ravra

Trepl

TWV avrwv

del

ra

eavra) SiavoovfJLevq), rrjv 8e efc TO TrpoaOev.

myth

Aristophanes ov\o<f)Vis

TVTTOL of

makes the

the

turns

to

account the

similar

Empedoklean cosmogony. He and the

children of the sun, the earth,

bear the impress of their divine origin Symp. iSQE, 190 B o\ov rjv eKacrrov TOV d TO elSo? V&TOV teal TrXeupa?

moon,

still

:

<TTpo<yyv\ov,

.

&v

.

.

7rpL<f)6p rj

Se

rjv

KOL avra KOI

fj

Tropeia

Sta TO Tot? yoveva-w ofioia elvai.

As

regards the present human frame, the #eol 6ewv have confined the revolutions of immortal soul in a terrestrial

cosmos

body, whereof the cranium

Tim. 44 D Ta? TOV TravTos ^9

ev

s,

They

c.g.

113

a copy of the

ov

a^rjfjLa aTro^fjirja-d/jLevoi, o-coyua

67rovojjtd%o/Jiev,

rMV

8uo oucra? TO

fiev $rj Oeias irepio^ov^

<7^>atpoetSe?

Ke<j>a\r]v

112

is

:

eveSrjcrav,

irept,<f>epe<s

TOVTO

o deiOTCLTOV

T

o

CO-TL

vvv teal

irdvTwv

are repeatedly said to follow the example of the supreme

Tim. 410, 42

E,

69

C.

Tim. 34 A, Laws 898 A.

OF PLATO Tim. 73 C

... TO Qelov

Trjv

\ovarav e%eiv ev avrrj

The 440) T)9

rest of the yet,

;

a/jLd

body

o-Trep/JLa

7Tpi(f>eprj

139

olov apovpav /ue\-

Travra^fj TrXaaa?.

a mere vTr^peaia

is

inasmuch as

tyv-xfis, it

ETHICS.

S

avT(*>

(

Tim.

contains TO \onrov KOI Bv^rov was fashioned of the next best shape it

:

(TTpoyyvXa

/cal TT poorer)

11 *

SiypeiTo (r^fiara (73 D).

marked by two curious The head is held in position by sinews expressions. which the Creator TrepicrTijcras KVK\W Trepl TOV rpd^rjXov This difference

in dignity is

whereas in making Ko\\7)crev ofjLoioTTjrt, (Tim. 75 D) the vertebral column he acted ry da-repov :

7rpo<7%p&>-

Swd/jiei (ibid. 74 A). Apart from one another these expressions are barely intelligible. Viewed together, they recall Tim. 57 E crrdo-iv nw ev .

/j,evos

.

.

ojjLoXoTrjTL,

Se

Kivr](Tiv

atria Se dviooTrj^ av

et?

r^

showed from Aristotle Barepov

backbone

is

is

scruple to apply the evaifjia

.

.

that in

del

<ucreet)9,

is

awo-oT???

TiQ^^v

where

as

equivalent to

I 77

Plato means that the

short,

his faith in the

human body

Ta Se

dvca/jbaXov

flexible, while the

So strong of the

In

Svva/j,w.

dvco/jLaXorrjra

head

is

not.

microcosmic structure

Tim. 81 A he does not

word ovpavbs

to

it

:

TrepLeC^rj^^eva axnrep VTT* ovpavov e/cdarov TOV feoou, rrjv TOV .

i <f>opdv.

114

For is

irp6iJ.r}Kfs

as a deterioration of o-^atpoetSes cp.

re Kal iravroias

apyias iKavrwv al TrepupopaL

Tim. 91 E

THE METAPHYSICAL

140

The significance of we consider that,

BASIS

phrase will become clearer not only does the vibration of the vTroSoxrj correspond to the due motions of the this

if

body, Tim. 88 C

D

Ibid. 88

lav Se

irpoaei jrofJLev

r]v

dei

e\eyo/jLv,

Tpo<f>bv

.

.

/cal

rMvrjv

teal

TO

ayeiv ea,

GfjuTroiwv avTay

TTpbcrOev .

rt?,

Y](TV)^Lav

Tim?

Kara TOP

re

pi^Tai

fj,ev /jLTjSeTTOTe yu/oi ?

OepairevTeov^ TO TOV Travrb?

teal TCL fi^prj

.

.

crco/u-a

Kivfj Se /cal .

/caraKocr/jifj,

\6yov, bv Trepl TOV

vyleiav Trape^et,

but even the concentric spheres of air and fire, which form the mantle of the universe, find their counterpart in the fiery

and airy envelopes of the human frame,

This, I believe, is the purport of the Platonic theory of respiration, the main points of which may here be

summarised.

The passage in which that theory is set forth (Tim. A 78 79 E, cp. Tim. Locr. 101 D) has a reputation for which

difficulty,

had two

facts

it

would

been borne

not, in

I

think,

mind.

have gained

To

begin with, the whole apparatus of breathing is independent of the animal organism 115 the &ov was already ir\aa6ev ;

115 "

We

This

is

not so puerile a notion as

it

seems at

first

sight to be.

can as yet hardly say what are even the local boundaries that

OF PLATO S ETHICS.

when

141

the contrivance was added to

it (Tim. 78 c). the in 78 A show remarks secondly, preliminary that TTCLvra ocra ef eXarrovwv fiWcrTarat areyei ra ra 5 K fjLeityvwv ra G/jLi/cporepa ov &vvarai hence

And

:

/u,ei&>,

human body

the structure of the air

and

but

fire,

fire

which

is

is

pervious to both

rrdvrwv yevwv

o-^iKpofjuep-

ecrrarov excludes air.

According to Plato, the Creator constructed a 116 which olov ol Kvprot network or bag (irXeyiJLa ), .

.

.

was apparently formed of two layers (TO /cvpros) of fcvpros

air,

the inner one of

was subdivided

(ey/cvpna) also

made

into a couple of smaller bags

of

The

air.

whole,

impletion and depletion, swings to and divide the organism from

its

the outer one

This TrXe^a or

fire.

fro

When

environment.

by

alternate

through the

does the

air in

our

a constituent lungs begin to belong to us, and when does it cease to be of the body ? (Lotze Microcosmus i. 136). "

116

By

a /eupros

is

meant a basket of wicker work with a wide mouth

but a comparatively narrow neck, used for catching fish see the illus trations in Rich Diet. Ant. s.v. nassa, Daremberg & Saglio Diet. Ant. :

Prof. Cook Wilson in his polemic on the Timaeus mouth of the trap adopts M. Th. H. Martin s view that the must have the ends of the reeds pointing inwards. But he himself admits that "there is nothing about such a hindrance in Plato," and it seems more probable that Kvpros here denotes that form of fish-trap a lid ; for we should thus obtain a parallel between which was closed s.v.

p.

78

colum.

seq.

by

the lid and the closing of mouth and nostrils. with a lid gives a full account of this Kvpros

fisherman claps to the

lid

and

lifts

Ka\vvTi

KV<t)ffffovra.s

|

e5 apap6s

avfipvffev.

341370

iii.

when

the trap is full, the the whole out of the water WHO.

ykp iro\\oi re Kal cfanrees reAeflaxn, 7rot>fj.a

Oppian Hal.

|

5$J

:

r6r avfy Kvproio irepl ffr6(ia vffrdnov ireirr nwTas

TOVS 5 tvSov eV

e>Kt

\

THE METAPHYSICAL

142

body

et? TJ]V

IK T/}? KoiKias

crrl

ra?

BASIS

(f)\efta<;

The

vSpelav.

process may readily be followed by the help of the appended illustration. It comprises two movements, and (b) avairvor). (a) Expiration. We (a) eKTrvor) start with our eyicvpna full of air

(fig.

This

i).

air,

heated by the fiery envelope, escapes upwards by the nearest way ets- rrjv avrov %a)pav TT/JO? TO %uy<yve$. ef&>

The it

nearest

way

issues thence,

is

Kara TO

arofjia KOL

As

ra? plvas.

would leave a vacuum behind

it

it,

did not the principle of TrepiwGis come into operation. By this principle the whole Kvpros is compressed, so

was just outside the body, enters Sia /jiav&v T&V crapK&v and occupies the position described as TO rwv crrrjOcov K.OLI rov 7r\ev/jLovo<;. (b) that the air at A, which

B

Inspiration.

The

air at

B

(fig.

ii)

is

now

in its turn

heated by the fiery envelope, and rushing out the nearest way Sia pavwv TWV crapK&v sets up Trepiwcris

The

again. Kal

T<z9

Treplwcris forces fresh air

pivas into

the

Kara TO

crro/u-a

eyKvpTia, and we reach our

original position once more.

This arrargement of air and fire in concentric layers recalls the elemental \r)%ei 9 of Tim. 5 3 A, 63 B seqq., and the oscillation of the whole is described in

terms which tally with the alcopa of Phaed. 1 1 1 E Sia Tim. 78 E Siaimpovfjievov KoiXlas.

:

.

.

.

TT}<?

Ibid.

80 D TOV

TTvevfiaTi, Koi\ia<s

Trj

Trvpos,

alwpovfjievq)

^vveirofjievoV)

TCLS

.

(frXe/Bas

.

.

T

eVTo? CK

TW TTJS

PIG.l. To fa.ce page

FIG

2

OF PLATO

ETHICS.

S

143

Indeed, Plato himself draws out the comparison Phaed. 1 1 2 B KOI wa-irep rcov dvaTrveovTwv del eKTrvel :

re Kal dvairvel peov TO J~waiG)poviLt,voi>

TGO vypoi)

Trvev/Jia,

TO

ovrco

iTvevfjLa Seivovs TIVQSS

Kal dfjbTvxdvGvs irape^erai, Kal

So

far the

human

The shapes

form.

Kt

Kal

elcriov

Kal

of the lower

animals are similarly proportioned to their degree of intellectual

activity.

Indulgence

of

spherical cranium

trail

the body in the dust,

apaOias eV^aT??? eV^aTa? oiKtjoeis elXrj^oit into the impurities of subaqueous

SLKTJV

Tew

and increases the number of earthly

Lower passions

props.

or

Flighty conceits beget wings. and appetite distorts the

emotion

plunge

life.

Moreover, just as the differing grades of soul s intelligence were accompanied by differing grades of evSaL/jLovta, so the approximation to cosmic sphericity

an approximation to perfect beauty.

entails

evKVK\ov

\icrTov

crw/jia .

.

.

of a star

KO&IJLOS

is

\afjL7rp6raTov ibelv T6

d\r)0ivos

(Tim.

40

The Ka\Other

A).

particulars reach a positive or comparative degree,

according to the rank of their corresponding Idea

and

their

own conformity to it. In more or less beautiful

products are

more

fact, all

or less accurate copies of Ideal types

Tim. 28 A orov

fjLev

ovv

TO Kara Tavra e%pv

av

o

/3\e7ro>z>

natural

since they are :

SijiJLiovpybs

Trpo?

aet, TOIOVTCO rtvl

THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS

144

rrjv ISeav fitv

amov

a.Trep ydfyj Tai,

airoreketadai,

Tim. 30 A

Ka\bv

KOI Svva-

dvdjK^

e

Xo7tcTtt//,ei>o<?

ovv evpia/cev

ere

TWV Kara

oparwv ovbev dvoTjrov rov vovv

fyvcLv

OVTCOS

TTCLV.

eftovros

6\ov o\ov rcdXXiov eaeo-Oai irore epyov. In a word, Plato looks upon beauty as the visible manifestation of that goodness which attribute of mental activity

is

the essential

:

Tim. 87 C irav STJ TO dyaObv Ka\ov. Herein he outstrips contemporary art, which, while carrying to completion the principle of unity in variety, omitted that other necessary feature of beauty, viz.

We

may surely regard Plato s fusion expressiveness. of the two, a fusion ultimately derived from his identi fication of TO ev with rdyaOov, as a distinct anticipation of the

modern

aesthetic judgment.

Our examination

of the

human

re\o9 in

its

twofold

application to soul and to body has brought before us in clear relief the conception of the individual as a

microcosm, of the universe as a macrocosm. In using these terms I do not necessarily imply that the former resembles the latter in the important respect of being

an animal comprising other animals, but merely that the individual is a miniature a better or worse copy At the of Mind as it passes into cosmic existence.

same time

I

point out that, just as the opening Timaeus reassert the valid parts of the

may

sections of the

OF PLATO

S

ETHICS.

145

Republic, so the triple division of the soul in Tim. 69 c seq. recalls the threefold simile of Rep. 588 B seq. and

suggests the image of a man containing diverse animal natures 117 within himself:

The Timaeus.

The Republic.

= lSea

TO Qdov

fc

avOpoairov (5880).

Sea Xe o^TO? (588 D, cp.

590 B

= ISea

avrl

(hjplov Troixikov /cal

(5880).

help to explain the "curious quasi-personiFor if fication of sexual impulse" in Tim. 91 A seq.

This

may

the various mental states of the individual stand to

him

in

somewhat the same

to the cosmic

%wov

eii fyvxpv

it iwoi>,

7ndv^rjrLKov evov distinct

which :

117

relation as the Ideal

?<wa

legitimate to use the phrase

of such a definite state as that indicated

by the passage mind a

is

in

cp. e.g.

Cp. also the

The

in

question.

rfjs

Trai&oirouas (Tim. 91 C)

reminiscence

expression

of the

is

to

wov

my

7ro\v/ce<f)a\ov

the Republic symbolises TO eTriOvthe drift of Rep. 5 90 A

|u^<f>irros

8vvafj.i$ viroirrepov

e6yovs re Kal

of Phaedrus 246 A.

10

THE METAPHYSICAL

146

OVKOVV

fcal

TO aKO\ao~Tatvetv

tye<yeo~dai,

TO

em

otet

Sia Toiavra rrdXat,

avierai ev TOJ TOLOVTM TO Sewbv

eiceivo

fjieya

BASIS

/cal

7ro\ueiSe9

dpe/jufjua

Trepa TOV

with Tim. 91 B s

re KOI auro/cpare? 7670^69, olov ,wov avvrrtj-

KOOV TOV

It remains to investigate one further result trace able to the law of correspondence between ^tn^r) and I do o-wjjia namely, the belief in Metempsychosis. 118 that such a belief not hold with Mr. Archer-Hind "

has no essential connexion with the Platonic onto

logy."

For

if

the localised activity of a given VOTJTOV which is the

Z&ov attains that degree of excellence

external manifestation of the next higher $ovj or sinks to that degree which marks the next lower fwoi/,

the particular shape under which the said activity was seen must of necessity undergo a corresponding change. To take an example. The Ideal being Man

on the plane of sensation perceives himself as a diverse multiplicity of men. One member of this multiplicity say,

genius.

is

Orpheus

When

pensating form

apprehended as possessing poetic form perishes, a com

his particular is

bound

118

to appear

Ed. Tim. p. 344;;.

somewhere within

OF PLATO

ETHICS.

S

And

the limits of the cosmic JoW. tion is ever towards TO o^oiov

Laws 904 E i/ru^a?,

/cafcici)

a/jbeivo)

147

since transmigra

Ta? Katciov$

i^ev ryvyvo^evov Trpo?

8e

Ta? a/zetVou? Tropevo-

Trpo?

11!

fJLGVOV

the

new form

will appear in the presentations of that the paradeigm of the acquired qualities, What has happened is this. say, the Idea of Swan.

Idea which

The Idea

is

of

Man

has not become the Idea of

Swan

;

an eternal being oine eh eavrb etVSe^a\\o a\\o6ev ovre avrb et? aXXo TTOL lov (Tim. opevov 52 A). But one e%iov of Man has vanished and one

for every

elcriov

of

Idea

Swan appeared

Ideal series But,

is

it

is the

will

in virtue of the fact that the

unitary

Mind existent

be asked,

if

the

as a plurality.

body

is

such an

why do not acquired characteristics gradually display themselves in form and features ? How comes it that Horace s fancy is infallible

index of the soul,

not a commonplace fact "

lam iam pelles, et

?

residunt cruribus asperae in alitem

album mutor

superne, nascunturque leves

per digitos humerosque

plumae."

119 Stobaeus Ed. I. xlix. 60 (Porphurios) ed. Wachsmuth i. 23 observes that, according to Plato, the soul eV TOIS \eyofj.fvai

(T^fi Kal

T&

fj.eTaK6(Tfj.Tfj<riv

TTp6(T<pOpOV

Kttl

OlKe lC

els e repo

p.

445,

THE METAPHYSICAL

148

BASIS

not a satisfactory answer to this question to reply that the natural kinds are permanent types between It

is

which no hybrid means

may be

and that the

inserted,

species of the individual is determined by the prepon derance of his characteristics. For, once allow that

the soul as passively apprehended on the level of sense-perception is the body, and it follows that all traits whether they preponderate or not must, so far as they are apprehended, take shape as corporeal The truer reason is, I take it, that during deviations.

a man

life-time certain restrictions are laid

upon of his and influence fellowmen, society which prevent him from rising or sinking to any very marked extent. 120 But in TO egatyvrjs, the moment s

him by the

of transition soul

is

which we

call

death,

the

individual

121

not distinguished from the idea {BovXyais comes into play and, the limitations of :

therefore

;

humanity being removed, that particular fraction of the entire Mind leaps into sudden realisation of faculties towards which it had previously felt but an incipient tendency.

120

In Tim. 76 E he has the rudiments of a bird and beak.

s

talons,

not the

feathers 121

Cp. Stob. Ed.

i.

Toivvv ttfrlv euStos vr^j v)

/car

K.a&"

avr^v

xlix.

6 (Hermes) ed. Wachsmuth

J/OIJTIK)]

/xeVct,

ovffiav (/cu/rjcns)

ouata

.

.

.

OUT^ IOUTTJS

a7raAAa*yr<ra

olffa.

i.

p. 324, 5

5e TOV QVITIKOV

OF PLATO

ETHICS.

S

149

Other questions relative to this transition suggest themselves. It is brought about, according to the a failure of Timaeus, by bodily conditions, a relaxation of the bonds

by which we

are

bound

to a certain

Accident or disease or mere portion of the VTTO^O^. old age may so disorder or dislocate the complex of

make up the material of a becomes no longer a fit tene has sometimes been held that, in

elemental triangles, which

man

members, that

s

ment

for him.

Plato

s

It

it

theory, the molecular angles are dulled and

blunted by the wear and tear of life till they can no longer retain the soul. This, I think, is an inexact statement of the case. For (i) if triangulation is the expression of a law, ever to be warped

we should "

"

no

not expect the triangles

or malformed.

When

pressure

"

takes place shearing the into double number of they simply crystallise sides. The octahedron does not become two fouris

applied,

distortion or

"

;

sided pyramids, as it would if a model were cut with a knife, but two t/iree-sided pyramids or tetrahedra

(Tim. 560). TpLjwva to 7T/309

a\\T]\a

Again,

(2)

Plato himself explains icatva

mean la^vpav /ceKTrj/jueva

whose hamation

is

TTJV

v<yK\i,(riv

(Tim. 8 1 B), that

as yet unimpaired.

is,

CLVT&V

triangles

Hence

in 81

C

the 7ra\aiorepa KOI acrOevecnepa must be those which are no longer so securely interlocked and in 73 B a&rpafifj will denote the opposite of <7T/aa/3o?, "dis ;

located."

Agreeably

to

this

in

81 C

we have

the

THE METAPHYSICAL

150

BASIS

phrase fjpi^a TWV rptywvwv %a\a, a double metaphor intended to recall the wording of 73 B :

TOVTOIS ^vfjiTTacnv dp%r)

yap TOV fiiov Bov/jLevr)<;

ev

TO 9VT]TOV

Thus

fjuev

TOV

T)

^^77?

Secr/jLol TT}?

761/09.

8 1 C declares that,

when

that,

ol

rc5

TOVTW &ia$ov/j,vo

when the

spinal chord are loosed, fyOivei

adds

fj,ve\ov yevecris

same

the

TTCLV

triangles of the

%wov: and 81

way

triangles give

D

alto

gether, then death follows.

But that

I

if

death ushers

in the

sudden transpeciation

have described, what enables the dead body to

retain the lineaments of

rap^evdev (Pkaedo 80 hypothesis

?

Again

humanity

C)

?

How is the awpa

explicable on the Idealist refer to the distinction

would

I

already drawn between the matter and the shape of our bodies. At the moment of death the soul s activity ceases to impress with

its

appropriate shape that portion of the vTroBo^rj to which it has hitherto

been confined, and begins to imprint another portion of the same susceptible medium with new-born out lines. Nevertheless the previous portion is left with a certain definite arrangement of

triangles,

naturally subsists

by other

this

neither soul nor

122

till it

is

dissipated

arrangement of inanimate matter

Cp.

ibid.

73 C

body (though

a"irepfj.a

.

.

.

&povpai>,

it

forces

the corpse

may

846 TWV

which :

is

popularly be

fri^iav,

86 C SevSpov.

OF PLATO termed the

latter),

S

ETHICS.

151

but a mere congeries of elemental

123

triangles part and parcel of the cosmic whose store-house it has been returned. ,

may

say with more truth than ever

PJiaedo

1 1

5

D ovKen

u-TroSo^?)

to

Sokrates

:

vfuv Trapa/jLevw, aXA, ot^fjcro/uat

aiTLCov et9 fMaicdpayv 8/7 Tivas ev^ai^ovla^.

For the soul escapes and the bodily form though not the matter which it once impressed attends its ;

124

flight.

Reappearance involves change of place

Laws 9040

fjLTa(3d\\ovTa Se ^eperot

ia%iv KOI

:

Kara

oyu/cporepa

vofjiov.

Trjv TT)?

TWV

fjiev

/jLera/3d\\ovTa ekdrTW Kara TO aTTOpeveraLj 7r\ela) 8e et?

/3d9os

/cal

T6 Kara)

TO,

TOTTfOV.

In other words, the supreme

Mind transforms and

deserts transports individual souls according to their

Laws

903 D eVel Be

del

^f%7

cvvrerajfjievr}

Tore pev aXXw, Tore 8e aXXw, ftera^aXX o/a? //,6Ta/3o\a?

123

the

The same "

"house

and

i

eavrrjv

rj

Si

erepav

all artificial objects explanation must be given of which are not fytotcfyxaTa of Ideas but colloc ring "

"

ations of inert material. 124

Alexis Olympiad, frag. com. ed. Meineke iii. 455 rb 5 aQavarov ttfpf irpbs atpa. 0V7JT&J/ alov ^eVero,

j.v

<ru>/j.a

rbi>

|

ov

ffoX^ TlXaruvos

;

\

ravr

152

METAPHYSICAL BASIS OF PLATO S ETHICS. epyov TO

fj^ev

apeivov yiyvofjievov

TOTTOVj ^elpov Se et? TOV ^eipova^ TTpeTTOV CLVTMV Ka<TTOV ico

-

so that particular

supreme %wov Tim. 89 B

life is

justly said to

r}6o<$

els

Kara TO

depend on the

:

tear

1

avro TO ^wov

el/juap/juevov

ef

e^ov TOV ftiov

Thus

in the last resort

and have warrant

we come back

to the #609 Oe&v,

for describing Plato s ethical theory

as the moral synthesis of a metaphysical analysis, the return of Unity towards itself, a process that is discrete rather than continuous,

journey towards the the

w

inasmuch as the

aTreipa

through the several stages of

INDEX LOCORUM Alex, de anim. ed. Bruns p.

85,20 in Artst. Met. ed.

duck

-

p.

p. p.

PP-

p. 92,

27 27 28

670, 700, 709, 709. 721, 73 J

Hay-

19,

22

ff

33 31

l6 Alexis Olympiad, frag. com. p.

ed.

Meineke

Archilochus

3.

iii.

455

4

Archytas in frag. phil. Gr. ed. Mullach i. 565 Arist. de an. gen. B. 3. 736 27 decaelo B. 12.

demundo

2.

292* 32

391 b 14

de part. an. A.

32

-

*

645

5.

A.

10.

19

6420

I.

4

6860 28

Eth.Eud.H.

12.

1245*

16 14. 12480 27 Eth.Nic. Z. 7. 1141034 - H. 14. 1153* 3 2

K.

7.

11770 16

frag. 46. 14830 27

-

184. 184.

15100 4 15100 14

187.

1511043

apud Philoponum Met. A. 6. 987 b 10 6. 987* 10 6. 987* 10 6.

988

2

no

154

INDEX LOCORUM.

INDEX LOCORUM.

155

I

56

INDEX LOCORUM.

INDEX LOCORUM.

157

158

INDEX LOCORUM.

INDEX LOCORUM.

159

INDEX LOCORUM.

i6o

J.

PALMER, PRINTER, ALEXANDRA STREET, CAMBRIDGE.

FEB1 5 Q84 NOV

1

9

CT

1980

7 195,

flTT

S 5 Cf>

CvJ

*

10