No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
ΔΙΑΝΟΙΑ and Plato's Cave
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
In Part I of his paper Cooper gives indisputable evidence regarding Plato's use of the man-made image as a step to the apprehension of a Form under discussion, whether that image be in fact a diagram or a model, or simply a verbal picture, such as his imaginative account of Justice within a community, which we find used to provide us with 
in Republic 443 c 4 ff. However, Cooper goes on to assure us that the divided-line figure offers us only three types of object: ‘We have three kinds of objects which differ from one another in clearness and esteem, firstly, the Forms, secondly, the objects of ordinary sense-perception, and thirdly, images, shadows and reflections.’ Now the admitted fact that, as he notes, Republic 10 (597 b 5-e 5) gives the same three orders of reality, does not entirely absolve Cooper from all the implications of Plato's decision to divide his line into four parts rather than three; for it is made quite clear in 509 b 6–10 that 
the Form of the Good, is the source of being as well as of knowledge, so the Line must also classify both.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1970
References
page 81 note 1 CQ N.s. iii (1953). 22–32.Google Scholar
page 81 note 2 CQ N.S. xiii (1963), 188–93.Google Scholar
page 81 note 3 C.U.P., 1965.
page 81 note 4 CQ N.S. xvi (1966), 65–9.Google Scholar
page 81 note 5 Ibid. 67.
page 81 note 6 Ibid. 67.
page 82 note 1 Lindsay, A. D., The Republic of Plato (Dent [Everyman], 1935), 204–5.Google Scholar
page 82 note 2 Nettleship, R. L., Lectures on the Republic of Plato (Macmillan), 238;Google Scholarcf. Raven, J. E., Plato's Thought in the Making (C.U.P. 1965), 145.Google Scholar
page 82 note 3 Rep. 10. 596 b 6-e 4.
page 82 note 4 Rep. 4. 443 c 4–444 b 8.
page 83 note 1 Cooper, , op. cit., diagram, p. 69.Google Scholar
page 83 note 2 Ibid. 66.
page 83 note 3 Raven, J. E., op. cit. 188–90.Google Scholar
page 83 note 4 Phaedrus 247 c 3–4.
page 83 note 5 Phaedrus 247 d 1-e 2.
page 83 note 6 Phaedrus 249 b 5-c 4.
page 84 note 1 Raven, J. E., op. cit. 42–4, 71–5Google Scholar, suggests dating Meno to 387 B.C. On the interpretation, see Vlastos, G., ‘Anamnesis in the Meno’, Dialogue iv (1965), pp. 143–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 84 note 2 Cooper, N., op. cit. 67.Google Scholar
page 85 note 1 Nettleship, , op. cit. 218.Google Scholar
page 85 note 2 Cooper, , op. cit. 68.Google Scholar
page 85 note 3 Raven, J. E., ‘Sun, Divided Line, and Cave’, CQ N.S. iii (1953), 27.Google Scholar
page 86 note 1 Raven, J. E., ‘Sun, Divided Line, and Cave’, CQ, N.S. iii (1953), 28.Google Scholar
page 86 note 2 Nettleship stressed the educational element, though he saw the cave as an illustration of the native folly of humanity rather than as the fruit of a perverse educational tradition (pp. 259–61).
page 86 note 3 Raven, J. E., op. cit. 166–7.Google Scholar
page 86 note 4 Republic 515 b 8.
page 86 note 5 Nettleship, R. L., Lectures on Plato's Republic, 78.Google Scholar
page 87 note 1 CQ N.S. xvi (1966), 66.Google Scholar
page 87 note 2 CQ, N.S. iii (1953), 28.Google Scholar
page 87 note 3 Beck, F. A. G., Greek Education, 450–350 B.C. (Methuen, 1964), 80–3.Google Scholar
page 87 note 4 For this classroom practice, see Plato, , Protagoras, 325 e.Google Scholar
page 87 note 5 CQ, N.s. iii (1953), 28.Google Scholar
page 88 note 1 CQ, N.S. iii (1953), 27.Google Scholar
page 88 note 2 514 a 5.
page 88 note 3 Phaedrus 621 a 8–9.
page 88 note 4 Meno 81 c 5–86 b 5.
page 88 note 5 See also p. 82 above.
page 90 note 1 Nettleship, R. L., op. cit. 218.Google Scholar
page 90 note 2 Tanquerey, Ad.: Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae (Rome, 1913), i,Google Scholarde uno Deo, Cap. II, Art. II, pp. 264–6 (torn. 2).
- 9
- Cited by