| Summary: | 博士 === 國立政治大學 === 哲學研究所 === 96 === Abstract
The aim of this thesis is to show that how Plato might deal with the possibility for soul of knowing the truth. The historical reason for Plato positing the invariable Forms, which are totally apart from the variable sensible things, is remarked by Aristotle that: on the one hand, having been agreed with Cratylus and the Heracllitean doctrines that all sensible things are always in a state of flux and that no science of them exists, yet on the other hand, taking into account the Socrates’ efforts to find general definitions of ethical terms, Plato, having been inspired by both views, thinks that there must be some invariable things, i.e. Forms, which are totally apart from the variable sensible things and could only be thought with logos（or reasonable account）, as the causes of the sensible things. Therefore, the soul could recollect and think of Forms by perceiving these sensible things, which participate in the corresponding Forms. Hence, Plato saves the phenomena and secures the possibility for soul of thinking and knowing the truth by his theory of Forms.
However, there might be many problems that arisen from Plato’s theory of Forms. These problems are shown mainly by the three perplexities, which are encountered by the young Socrates in the Parmenides. First, the young Socrates is undecided about whether the base things could have their Forms, second, having been unable to solve the problem of the sharing between the sensible things and Forms, the young Socrates finally has to accept the impossibility of sharing, third, further, just owing to this totally separation that is between the sensible things and Forms, Forms finally could not save the phenomena and could not be known by anyone.
Actually, the three perplexities are the two topics of Plato’s way of truth, which is that how the lover of wisdom could know the Forms that are totally separate from the sensible things. The first topic is that, in what way the possibility of thinking and acquiring knowledge could be secured. That is, how the phenomena could be saved by Forms? The second topic is that, in what way the lover of wisdom could acquire the truth and becomes the real philosopher. As for the first, I think that Plato claims a kind of ontology, which has numerical character, in the second part of the Parmenides. This ontology provides deliberately the cosmogony of the Timaeus and the theory of the Principles in the Unwritten Doctrines that could justify the possibility of the phenomena that are saved by Forms. This possibility lies in the god’s nous and will, i.e. the world that has numerical character is fashioned by the god with Forms as model, and then the becoming phenomena that cling to the receptacle are saved and intelligible. Therefore, the god’s will is the supremely valid cause and principle of this possibility. As for the second, this exercise that can make the young Socrates as a real philosopher if he takes it into practice is the training, which takes Forms as its objects and be practiced in hypothetical method. I think the reason for Plato of using the hypothetical method is that this hypothetical method can make the lover of wisdom to cling to Forms when he is putting this exercise into practice, and in this upward process systematically, finally, he can fasten all the Forms with the final cause, i.e. the good. Therefore, when the lover of wisdom could show the real essence of each Form with reasonable account under the guidance of the good, he at that time is a real philosopher.
Under this solution, Plato justifies the possibility for soul of knowing the truth, and makes his way of truth possible. In this fighting, those with whom Plato fights are not those philosophers that are remarked by Aristotle in Metaphysics A 6.987a33-b10, but the philosopher of Elea, Parmenides. On the one hand, the key point of Plato’s theory of Forms is coming from Parmenides’ concept of Being, which is ungenerated and imperishable, yet on the other hand, the attempt for the possibility of saving the phenomena and for soul to know the truth is urging Plato to put Parmenides’ claim to the question. Then what Plato has done in this fighting, which mainly occurs in the second part of the Parmenides, is that as he is solving these perplexities, he at the same time is stepping upon another way of truth, which is different from Parmenides. In this fighting, saving phenomena is the main difference between Plato and Parmenides. The god’s nous and will is the supremely valid cause and principle of the saved phenomena and this most supreme cause is the coping-stone for Plato’s way of truth.
Keywords: Plato’s theory of Forms, separate, participate, the good, the hypothetical method, Plato, Parmenides, the Unwritten Doctrines, the Parmenides, the Timaeus.
|
|---|
