The relationship between mind and necessity is one of the major points of difficulty for the interpretation of Plato’s Timaeus. At times Timaeus seems to say the demiurge is omnipotent in his creation, and at other times seems to say he is limited by pre-existing matter. Most interpretations take one of the two sides, but this paper proposes a novel approach to interpreting this issue which resolves the difficulty. This paper suggests that in his speech Timaeus presents two hypothetical models (...) of creation, one with an omnipotent demiurge and one where he is limited by matter, so as to investigate their theoretical and empirical validity. Further, he shows that each model is ultimately an inadequate explanation of the first principles of the cosmos. Timaeus’ speech is therefore properly understood to be aporetic: it leaves its listeners aware of the difficulties inherent in the two models of creation, but without a more viable alternative. (shrink)

I defend, against its more recent critics, a literal, factual, and consistent interpretation of Timaeus’ creation of the cosmos and time. My main purpose is to clarify the assumptions under which a literal interpretation of Timaeus’ cosmology becomes philosophically attractive. I propose five exegetical principles that guide my interpretation. Unlike previous literalists, I argue that assuming a “pre-cosmic time” is a mistake. Instead, I challenge the exegetical assumptions scholars impose on the text and argue that for Timaeus, a mere succession (...) of events and the relations derived from it (before, after, simultaneous with) imply no time, given the narrow definition of the term used in the dialogue. For Timaeus, I explain, time is measurable, regular, and dependent on the motion of the celestial bodies. A mere succession of events like the one needed to understand the creation story and the pre-cosmos requires none of these elements. Readers of Plato erroneously assume that a succession of events implies time, but that is to impose a conception of time absent in the text. The chapter offers a detailed reconstruction of the pre-cosmic stage under a literalist interpretation and argues how it is compatible with the immutable relationship between the Demiurge and the cosmos. -/- This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC 4.0 license. chapter 4. (shrink)

Many assume that Plato's Form of the Good is a final cause. This might be true if one assumes an Aristotelian definition of final cause; however, I argue that if one adopts Plato's conception of final causation as evidenced in the Phaedo and Timaeus, the claim that the Form of the Good is a final cause for Plato is untenable.

افلاطون در مواجهه با مسئله شر بیش از هر چیز می‌کوشید تا تنزه و تعالی خیر و مثل را از دخالت در ایجاد شر حفظ کند. از این رو جز این که سبب برخی شرور را خود آدمیان برمی‌شمرد، از عنصری به نام ضرورت سخن می‌گوید که در کنار عقل در کیهان و ساماندهی آن نقش می‌آفریند. وجود ضرورت به مثابه مانع و مزاحمی در مسیر کار عقل، تبیینی برای بروز نظام‌مند شر در جهان است. در واقع افلاطون برای یافتن (...) راه‌حل بار دیگر به ثنویت روی می‌آورد. در این نگرش خیر می‌خواهد جهان را تا جایی‌ که برایش مقدور است بدون نقص بیافریند و تا جایی که کار به دست عقل است امور بر مدار خیر می‌گردد، ولی ضرورت با دخالت خود در این روند اخلال می‌کند. در این مقاله می‌کوشیم با تبیین و تحلیل ضرورت، نقش‌هایی که می‌آفریند، انواع شر، عناصری مانند ایده خیر و دمیورژ در نسبت با ضرورت، نشان دهیم که افلاطون به رغم کوشش‌های فراوان نتوانسته از زیر بار سنگین ثنویتی که در جای‌جای فلسفه او به چشم می‌خورد شانه خالی کند. (shrink)