MEMOIRS OF SHONAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Vol. 37, No. 1, 2003 160d5 187a8 * Knowledge and Language An Interpretation of Plato s Theaetetus 160d5 187a8 Satsuki TASAKA* In the first part of Theaetetus (151d7 187a8), Theaetetus tries to define knowledge as perception. In the first half of this part (151d7 160d4), Plato explains the interrelation between this definition and the two theses, which are Man is the measure of all things, and All things really are in a process of becoming as the result of movement and change. And Plato argues that these two are based on the thesis Nothing is one thing just by itself. In the second half of the first part, Plato provides 9 arguments against the definition and two theses severally, so the definition is refuted. This paper attempts to clarify the structure of the 9 arguments, in addition to identifying the Plato s aim in refuting the definition. In my view of this paper, Plato argues that knowledge cannot be based on the thesis Nothing is one thing just by itself, because our use of language is in direct conflict with this thesis. (160d5 187a7) 9 (161c1 179b9) (181b8 183c7) (184b4 187a8) 1 * 14 10 17 1 FM. 2 M.F. 3 4 5 103
37 1 6 7 2 8 2.1 (161c1 162a7) (cf. 161c1 162a3) (162c2 163a6) (163a7 c4) 9 (163b1 7) (163b8 c3) 10 (163c4 164b12) (164c7 8) a ntilogikós, 164c7) (165b7 d1) (165d2 e4) 2.2 104
(166b2 c2) (166c3 4) (166c4 6) 2.2.1 (152d7 e1) (152c8 10) ( èn mèn au tò kaq au tò ou dén e stin 152d2 3) (153d8 154b6) (154a7 8) 2.2.2 (156a2 157c2) 156a4 5 157a8 9 (156e7 157a1, 157a7 b3) (157a1 4) (157a7 b1. cf. 156e8 157a1) (cf. 157b1 c2) 105
37 1 2.2.3 (160a6 b8) (160c4 6) 2.2.4 (168b3 7) 11 12 (164c8 9) 106
3 (cf. 166d1 167d4) 1 1 (167b1 4) 3.1 6 (168c8 171d8) 13 14 15 16 3.2 (152a6 8) (152b2 4) (152b3) (au tò ef autou tò pneu ma) (152b6 7) 17 (152c5 6) 107
37 1 (152c9 11) (152d2 3) (152d8 e1, 157b1 3) (160b8 c2) (cf. 167d3 4) 3.3 (tò dokou n kást tou to kaì enaífhsí, i pou w dokei, 170a3) w (cf. 170c3, 170d5 8) (cf. 170e7 171a5) (171a6 10) (cf. 171b1 9) (cf. 171b10 c7) 108
4 (177c6 179b9) (179c2 d1) 18 (179b2 4) (179b6 9) 4.1 (181b8 183c7) 19 4.2 (ou sía) (179c2 109
37 1 d5) (cf.152c5-6) (179e3 181b7) (181b8 c2) (181c3 d7) (181d8 182a3) (182a4 b8) (182b3 4) 20 21 1 22 1 (181e5 8) (182d1 4) (182d4 7) (182d8 e7) (182e8 183a1) (183a2 9) (183a10 b6) 4.3 110
(proseipeīn) (182d1 5) 23 1 (157b1 c1) 5 (183b8 c4) 111
37 1 (kaì o úpw sugcwro men a ut pánt ándra pántwn, crhmátwn métron e, u w i nai, àn mh` frónimóv tiv h,. 183b8 9) ( episth mhn te a ísqhsin o u sugcwrhsómeqa katá ge th`n tou pánta kinei sqai méqodon, 183c1 2) ([ h` ] e i mh [tí] pwv állwv QeaíthtoV óde légei. 183c2 3) ( ) 24 25 (180c7 e4) (161b7 179d8) (179e1 183c7) 112
(184b3 187a8) 6 1 (184b3 187a8) 26 1 113
37 1 1. 2 151d7 153a4 (hen auto kath hauto ouden estin, 152d2 3) 53 pp. 167 176. 2. Cf. F. M. Cornford, Plato s Theory of Knowledge, 1953, London, pp. 29 60. esp. 58 59. 3. Cf. M. F.. Burnyeat, The Theaetetus of Plato, Cambridge 1990, pp. 7 65. esp. pp. 9-10. 4. 1 157d7 160d4 35 1 2001 3 115 35, p 116 5 5. [1] 6. Cf. A, Silverman, Flux and Language in the Theaetetus, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy vol. XVIII, Summer 2000, pp. 109 152. Cf. D. Sedley, Three Platonist Interpretation of the Theaetetus, C. Gill & M. M. Mc- Cabe ed., Form and Argument in Late Plato, Oxford, 1996, pp. 79 103. 7. Cf. D. Bostock, Plato s Theaetetus, 1988, Oxford, pp. 48 51.; R. M. Polansky, Philosophy and Knowledge: A Commentary on Plato s Theaetetus, 1992, Bucknell University Press. pp 74 75; G. Fine, Conflicting Appearances: Theaetetus 153d 154b, Form and Argument Late Plato, 1996, Oxford, pp. 105 106, 108, 116 117; Bernard Williams ed., Theaetetus, 1992, Introduction by Bernard Williams pp. x xii; M. M. McCabe, Plato s Individual, 1994, Princeton University Press, pp. 133 161. esp. p. 133n4, 135 137. 8. Cf. M. Burnyeat, ibid., pp, 19 21., D. Bostock, Plato s Theaetetus, 1988 Oxford, pp. 84 85. 9. 10. 184b4 187a8 11. 1 12. 1 (151d7 152c7) (152c8 e10) (153a1 157c6) (157e1 160d4) (160d5 e2) 13. Cf. M. F. Burnyeat 2, Protagoras and Self-Refutation in Plato s Theaetetus, Philosophical Review 85, 1976, pp. 172 195; M. F. Burnyeat, 1 pp. 29 31. 14. Cf. Georgy Vlastos, Plato Protagoras, 1956, Indianapolis, pp. xiv; W. G. Runciman, Plato s Earlier Epistemology, 1962, Cambridge, p. 16; Kenneth Sayre, Plato s Analytic Method, 1969, pp. 87 88; David Bostock, Plato s Theaetetus, 1988, Oxford, pp. 90 92. 15. Cf. Bostock, op. cit., p. 90; K. Sayre, op. cit., pp. 85 91., esp. pp. 88 90; K. Dorter, Form and Good in Plato s Eleatic Dialogues: The Parmenides, Theaetetud, Sophist, 1994, University of California Press, pp. 84 86; R. Polansky, Philosophy and Knowledge: A Commentary on Plato s Theaetetus, Bucknell University Press. 16. 3 169d3 171d8 52 2003 3 3 17, 17. (a lhq h ) 114
(a yeudèv ) (152c5) 18. Cf. Burnyeat, op. cit., p9. 19. Cf. A, Silverman, Flux and Language in the Theaetetus, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy vol. XVIII. Summer 2000, pp. 109 152. Cf. D. Sedley, Three Platonist Interpretation of the Theaetetus, C. Gill & M. M. Mc- Cabe ed., Form and Argument in Late Plato, 1996, Oxford, pp. 79 103. 20. Cf. J. McDowell, Plato Theaetetus 1973, Oxford, pp. 179 184. 21. Cf. Cornford, op. cit. p. 95; Bostock, op. cit., pp. 101 110. 22. 1 p16 23. 24. 1 25. 2 pp. 170 172 26. 4 184b4 187a8 XLVI, 1998 4 22 32, 115