Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T01:30:58.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perception, Relativism, and Truth: Reflections on Plato's Theaetetus 152–160

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2010

Mohan Matthen
Mohan Matthen
Affiliation:
The University of Alberta
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

My purpose in this paper is to investigate the ontological structure of the theory that Plato ascribes to Protagoras in the Theaetetus (152–160). My interest is not just historical—what I wish to do is to explore the contemporary significance of Plato's Protagorean thesis, especially with regard to the theory of truth and the theory of perception. Even so, I shall attempt to say quite a lot about the text—I think that certain recent interpreters (especially M. F. Burnyeat [1982]) are on the wrong track with regard to Protagorean relativism, precisely due to their misjudging the relation of the Theaetetus doctrine to more recent philosophy.

Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , Spring 1985 , pp. 33 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beare, J. I. (1906), Greek Theories of Elementary Cognition from Alcmaeon to Aristotle (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Burnyeat, M. F. (1976), “Protagoras and Self-Refutation in Plato's Theaetetus“, The Philosophical Review 85.Google Scholar
Burnyeat, M. F. (1979), “Conflicting Appearances”, Proceedings of the British Academy, London 65.Google Scholar
Burnyeat, M. F. (1982), “Idealism and Greek Philosophy: What Descartes Saw and Berkeley Missed”, The Philosophical Review 91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornford, Francis M. (1957), Plato's Theory of Knowledge (Indianapolis and New York: Bobbs-Merrill).Google Scholar
Crombie, I. M. (1963), An Examination of Plato's Doctrines (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).Google Scholar
Devitt, Michael (1983), “Dummett's Anti-Realism”, The Journal of Philosophy 80/2.Google Scholar
Field, Hartry (1982), “Realism and Relativism”, The Journal of Philosophy 79/10.Google Scholar
Fowler, Harold North, trans. (1921), Plato, Theaetetus, Sophist, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Harman, Gilbert (1982), “Metaphysical Realism and Moral Relativism: Reflections on Hilary Putnam's Reason, Truth and History”, The Journal of Philosophy 79/10.Google Scholar
Irwin, T. H. (1977), “Plato's Heracliteanism”, The Philosophical Quarterly 27/106.Google Scholar
Kahn, Charles (1979), The Art and Thought of Heraclitus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul A. (1963), “Semantical Considerations of Modal Logic”, Ada Philosophica Fennica 16, and in Linsky (1971).Google Scholar
Lewis, David (1983), “Individuation by Acquaintance and by Stipulation”, The Philosophical Review 92/1.Google Scholar
Linsky, Leonard, ed. (1971), Reference and Modality (Oxford: Oxford Readings in Philosophy).Google Scholar
Matthen, Mohan (1982), “Plato's Treatment of Relational Statements in the Phaedo”, Phronesis 27/1.Google Scholar
Matthen, Mohan (1983), “Greek Ontology and the ‘Is’ of Truth”, Phronesis 28/2.Google Scholar
Matthen, Mohan (1984), “Relationality in Plato's Metaphysics: Reply to McPherran”, Phronesis 29/3.Google Scholar
McDowell, John (1973), Plato: Theaetetus, Clarendon Plato Series (Oxford: Clarendon Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Norman Kemp, trans. (1933), Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (London: Macmillan).Google Scholar
Yolton, John W. (1949), “The Ontological Status of Sense-Data in Plato's Theory of Perception”, The Review of Metaphysics 3.Google Scholar