Plato S Theory Of Explanation

Here is the question: what constitutes a good explanation of phenomena? Whereas true being (forms) can be known through dialectic, concrete phenomena can only be explained. An explanation is verisimilar of dialectical knowledge as concrete things are images of eternal ones. Ashbaugh shows how Plato subtly develops the notion of imaging and explaining, accounting for how physical things can be different from forms and how they are connected to forms.

Here is the question: what constitutes a good explanation of phenomena? Whereas true being (forms) can be known through dialectic, concrete phenomena can only be explained. An explanation is verisimilar of dialectical knowledge as concrete things are images of eternal ones. Ashbaugh shows how Plato subtly develops the notion of imaging and explaining, accounting for how physical things can be different from forms and how they are connected to forms.

Here is the question: what constitutes a good explanation of phenomena? Whereas true being (forms) can be known through dialectic, concrete phenomena can only be explained. An explanation is verisimilar of dialectical knowledge as concrete things are images of eternal ones. Ashbaugh shows how Plato subtly develops the notion of imaging and explaining, accounting for how physical things can be different from forms and how they are connected to forms.

"Julia Annas provides an incisive exploration of the many-sided and elusive genius whose wide-ranging, bold, and influential ideas continue to challenge, provoke, and inspire us today"--Page 4 of cover.

Blake E. Hestir's examination of Plato's conception of truth challenges a long tradition of interpretation in ancient scholarship.

Among all the writings of Plato the Timaeus is the most obscure to the modern reader, and has nevertheless had the greatest influence over the ancient and mediaeval world. The Critias is a fragment and it was designed to be the second part of a trilogy. Timaeus had brought down the origin of the world to the creation of man, and the dawn of history was now to succeed the philosophy of nature. It tells us about Atlantis and Critias returns to this story, professing only to repeat what Solon was told by the priests. The war of which he was about to speak had occurred 9000 years ago. One of the combatants was the city of Athens, the other was the great island of Atlantis.

Of all Plato’s dialogues, the Parmenides is notoriously the most difficult to interpret. Scholars of all periods have disagreed about its aims and subject matter. The interpretations have ranged from reading the dialogue as an introduction to the whole of Platonic metaphysics to seeing it as a collection of sophisticated tricks, or even as an elaborate joke. This work presents an illuminating new translation of the dialogue together with an extensive introduction and running commentary, giving a unified explanation of the Parmenides and integrating it firmly within the context of Plato's metaphysics and methodology. Scolnicov shows that in the Parmenides Plato addresses the most serious challenge to his own philosophy: the monism of Parmenides and the Eleatics. In addition to providing a serious rebuttal to Parmenides, Plato here re-formulates his own theory of forms and participation, arguments that are central to the whole of Platonic thought, and provides these concepts with a rigorous logical and philosophical foundation. In Scolnicov's analysis, the Parmenides emerges as an extension of ideas from Plato's middle dialogues and as an opening to the later dialogues. Scolnicov’s analysis is crisp and lucid, offering a persuasive approach to a complicated dialogue. This translation follows the Greek closely, and the commentary affords the Greekless reader a clear understanding of how Scolnicov’s interpretation emerges from the text. This volume will provide a valuable introduction and framework for understanding a dialogue that continues to generate lively discussion today.

The Republic is Plato's most famous work and one of the seminal texts of Western philosophy and politics. The characters in this Socratic dialogue - including Socrates himself - discuss whether the just or unjust man is happier. They are the philosopher-kings of imagined cities and they also discuss the nature of philosophy and the soul among other things.