Abstract
Contemporary philosophers find Plato's discussion in the Sophist about the problem of negation and falsity as interesting and difficult. It is interesting in the sense that in this dialogue, and others that are considered by Plato scholars to belong to the late period dialogues, we seem to find a Plato who makes less use of the theory of Forms (a distinguishing feature of the middle period dialogues). It is difficult in the sense that It invites us to use the notational convention of modern symbolic logic to provide a coherent picture of Plato's view. Charlton prefers a Platonizing Interpretation on the issue and quantifies over Forms (and not over concrete objects). Given this context, the paper inquires whether logical quantification is the correct (or at the very least, the best) route to pursue in order to better understand the Forms. It will also discuss the crucial role of Plato's theory of Forms in the middle and late period dialogues in relation to knowledge and its very possibility.
Highlights
In the Sophist, Plato offers us (1) an account of what a sophist is and (2) a method through which we can arrive at (1) if we pursue a sustained philosophical inquiry
It is interesting in the sense that in this dialogue, and others that are considered by Plato scholars to belong to the late period dialogues, we seem to find a Plato who makes less use of the theory of Forms
While it is true that in reading the Sophist, we usually focus on (1) and (2), it is worth noting that in the dialogue, Plato tackles a significant number of questions that contemporary philosophers find to be both interesting and unquestionably difficult
Summary
In the Sophist, Plato offers us (1) an account of what a sophist is and (2) a method through which we can arrive at (1) if we pursue a sustained philosophical inquiry. Logical quantification and Plato's Theory ofForms focus on (1) and (2), it is worth noting that in the dialogue, Plato tackles a significant number of questions that contemporary philosophers find to be both interesting and unquestionably difficult Some of these questions concern Plato’s theory of Forms and whether or not Plato still attributes to the Forms the kind of importance and ontological status that he attributes to them in what is usually referred to as the middle period dialogues (e.g. Phaedo, Republic, Phaedrus). Having considered Plato’s realism to be excessive, it is important to note that Charlton’s remark did not stop him from offering his own view on the proper analyses of negation and falsity and why he thinks that Plato is reluctant to quantify over concrete objects. The second point explains why Charlton considers Plato’s realism as excessive (It is clear, at least on the orthodox view, that Plato goes beyond objectivity-claims since he attributes an ontological status to the Forms.). I will provide a critical appraisal of Charlton’s proposal
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
