Dividing Plato’s Kinds

In: Phronesis
View More View Less
  • 1 Departamento de Filosofia, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Av. Pres. Antônio Carlos, 6627, Pampulha, Belo Horizonte – MG – CEP 31270-901, Brazil
  • 2 Philosophy Department, Northern Arizona University, 803 South Beaver Street Room 104, PO Box 6011, Flagstaff, Arizona 86011-6011, USA

Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

€25.00$30.00

Abstract

A dilemma has stymied interpretations of the Stranger’s method of dividing kinds into subkinds in Plato’s Sophist and Statesman. The dilemma assumes that the kinds are either extensions (like sets) or intensions (like Platonic Forms). Now kinds divide like extensions, not intensions. But extensions cannot explain the distinct identities of kinds that possess the very same members. We propose understanding a kind as like an animal body—the Stranger’s simile for division—possessing both an extension (in its members) and an intension (in its form). We find textual support in the Stranger’s paradigmatic four steps for collecting a subkind.

  • Berthiaume, G. (1982), Les rôles du mágeiros. Étude sur la boucherie, la cuisine et le sacrifice dans la Grèce ancienne. Leiden.

  • Black, M. (1948), Frege, ‘On Sense and Reference’, Philosophical Review 57: 209-30. [Translates Frege 1892.]

  • Brown, L. (2010), ‘Definition and Division in Plato’s Sophist in D. Charles (ed.), Definition in Greek Philosophy (Oxford), 151-71.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Carnap, R. (1928), Der logische Aufbau der Welt. Leipzig.

  • Carnap, R. (1947), Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. Chicago.

  • Cohen, S. M. (1973), ‘Plato’s Method of Division’ in Moravcsik 1973c, 181-91.

  • Delcomminette, S. (2000), L’Inventivité dialectique dans le Politique de Platon. Brussels.

  • Eckroth, G. (2007), ‘Meat in Ancient Greece: Sacrificial, Sacred or Secular?’ Food & History 5: 249-72.

  • Frege, G. (1892), ‘Über Sinn und Bedeutung’, Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100: 25-50.

  • George, R. A. (1967), Carnap, The Logical Structure of the World, and Pseudoproblems in Philosophy (London). [Translates Carnap 1928.]

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Halmos, P. R. (1960), Naïve Set Theory. New York.

  • Moravcsik, J. M. E. (1973 a), ‘Plato’s Method of Division’ in Moravcsik 1973c, 158-80.

  • Moravcsik, J. M. E. (1973 b), ‘The Anatomy of Plato’s Divisions’ in E. N. Lee, A. P. D. Mourelatos and R. M. Rorty (eds.), Exegesis and Argument: Studies in Greek Philosophy Presented to Gregory Vlastos (Assen), 324-48.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moravcsik, J. M. E. (1973 c) (ed.), Patterns in Plato’s Thought. Boston.

  • Muniz, F. and Rudebusch, G. H. (2004), Philebus 15b: A Problem Solved’, Classical Quarterly 54: 394-405.

  • Varzi, A. (2016), ‘Mereology’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. E. N. Zalta. URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/mereology/>.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wedin, M. [1987] (1990), ‘Collection and Division in the Phaedrus and Statesman, Philosophical Inquiry 12: 1-21.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 240 72 4
Full Text Views 176 28 0
PDF Downloads 78 18 0