theaetetus in bad company - c. j. f. williams

8/12/2019 Theaetetus in Bad Company - C. J. F. Williams

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theaetetus-in-bad-company-c-j-f-williams 1/4

Royal nstitute of Philosophy

Theaetetus in Bad CompanyAuthor(s): C. J. F. WilliamsSource: Philosophy, Vol. 67, No. 262 (Oct., 1992), pp. 549-551Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Institute of PhilosophyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3751707 .

Accessed: 25/03/2014 16:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press and Royal Institute of Philosophy are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to Philosophy.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 192.167.204.6 on Tue, 25 Mar 2014 16:55:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rip

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3751707?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/3751707?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rip

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup



Theaetetusn BadCompanyC. J. F. WILLIAMS

How did a nice boy like Theaetetusgetmixedup withthose twodreadfulldmen,Protagorasnd Heraclitus? ommentatorsnPlato s

Theaetetus avefor long ime eendiscussing uestionsike his, ndnonemoreassiduously hanProfessorMylesBurnyeatn his recentedition f thedialogue. Theyhaveconcentratedn thequestionofwhat xactlyherelationships erebetween he hree f hem, r whatdid Plato, or Socrates n thedialogue,supposethemto be. UsingTheaetetus ,Protagoras nd Heraclitus s thenames,respectively,of thetheses Knowledge s perception ,Man is themeasure f allthings and Everything lows ,the debate is whetherTheaetetusimpliesProtagoras,which tselfmpliesHeraclitus, rwhether er-

aclitusmplies rotagoras, hich tselfmplies heaetetus, r whetherbothalternativesretrue. Other ombinationsndpermutationsrepossible.The debate is notpurely priori.Commentators o notmerely rgueoverwhich ofthesedoctrinesught o be regarded sentailingwhich,but theyare interestedn determininghatPlatothought f the matter. ocrates s made to comment imself n thelogicalrelationships etweenthevariousdoctrines,nd he maybesuspected f hiftingisground n this ssue s thedialogue rogresses.

My concern s a differentne. I am notaskingwhatPlato scon-

sidered iew s aboutthe ogicalrelationshipsetween he hree. amasking owthey vergot nvolvedwith achothernthefirst lace,ormoreprecisely, ow did Theaetetusget nvolvedwith heother wo.Whydid Platoconnect heaetetus s irstnswer o thequestionWhatisknowledge? ith hetheories fProtagorasndHeraclitus? avingplacedhisbet It seems to me thatknowledges nothing ther hanperception15 e), heimmediatelyinds imselfssociatedwith Manthe measure nd panta rei .Whatbroughthem ogethernthefirstplace?

The very irstxample ntroducedySocrates o test hethesis hatknowledgesthesame as perceptions thesituation here nepersonclaims hat he wind s chilly ndanother erson laims hat tis notchilly. t is supposedthat achreportsccurately hat heperceives;but t s mpossiblehat oth houldbe said toknowwhat hey ay hey

1The Theaetetus fPlato (Indianapolis/Cambridge:ackettPublishingCompany990), -10.

Philosophy7 1992 549








Discussion

perceive, ince The wind is chilly nd The wind s notchilly recontradictories.hat s known strue, ndsince hese wopropositionscannotbothbe true, hey annotboth be known.So ifbothexpresswhat sperceived,tcannot e the ase that verythinghat sperceivedisknown. o Theaetetus shorsefalls t the first urdle.

Butarethey ontradictories?o becontradictories,ropositionsikeThe wind schilly nd The wind s not hillymust e so related hatthe neassertsndthe ther enies heveryame hingf heveryamething.f say Thatman sugly ndyou ayThatman s nteresting ,

youarenotdenyingwhat amasserting,ecausetheman nquestionmaybe interestingithout ailingobe ugly.Buteven f say Thatman is ugly and you say That man is not ugly ,we mayfailtocontradictach otherbecause it turns ut thatwe are notspeakingaboutthe sameman.

Protagoras nd Heraclituscome on to the scene as rescuersofTheaetetusfrom heobjection hathe has committed imself o theview thatcontradictoryropositionsan bothbe known.Protagorassays hatwhat hepersonwhosaysThe wind schilly ays f hewind

is notwhat hepersonwho aysThewind s not hilly enies f t. Thepersonwhosaysthat hewind schillyhouldreally e representedssayinghat hewindfeels oris) chilly oher;and thepersonwhosaysthat hewind s not hillyhould eally erepresentedssayinghat hewinddoesnotfeel or snot)chillyoher.2 ndbeing hillyoMargaretis notthe same thing s being chilly o Paula. Protagorasan saveTheaetetusby denying hat the two propositions ave a commonpredicate.

Heraclitus,n theotherhand,denies hat t s the amewind. He is

concerned ot omuchwith hepredicate f hepropositionswith hesubject.Even ifthepredicatenthe one person sproposition as ischilly ndthepredicatenthe otherperson sproposition as is notchilly ,hepropositionshemselves ouldnotbecontradictoriesnlessthe ubjectwasthe ame.Buthow, sksHeraclitus,an thewind hatfeelbe oneandthe ame as thewind hatyoufeel?Nothingsin tselfone 152d) is thevery irst lause ofthe secret octrine hat ocrateslater ttributesoHeraclitus.Whereno twopropositionsan havethe

2 There remanyonfusionst worknthis assage. ne arises romhefailureodistinguishetweenxperceiveshat sF andy ppears tox . Iwonderf his oesnot ive ise o nother.ocratess made o ay, ot hatxperceiveshat sthe ame s Itappearsox that , ut hatItappearssthesame s perceivethenfinitive).ould tbethatnpassingromaisthanetai(einai) topneumapsuchron o phainetai einai) topneumapsuchron eau-t6i hetookpsuchroneautoi obewhat henew diom resenteds themoreaccurate)descriptionf he ontentf he erceptionlappearing,akingheau-toi toqualifypsuchron ather han phainetai ?

550








Discussion

same ubject heres nopossibilityf ontradiction.ven fyou ay ustIt s chilly nd I say It s notchilly ,we do not contradictach otherunlesswearespeakingt the ameplaceandat the ametime.Buthowina world fHeracliteanbecoming s identityfplaceand time o bedetermined? eraclitus, o essthanProtagoras,as etTheaetetus ffthehook.

That,at the tart,sall we cansay bout herelationshipetween hethree octrines.t isnothingotights entailmentf neby nother,rbyeach oftheothers, et alonemutualentailment feachbyeach.

Rather, here are situations requentlyccurringwhichwe shouldnaturallyescribensucha wayas to constitutehem nobjection oTheaetetus s hesis.Redescribednthewayrequired ythedoctrine fProtagoras,rthatofHeraclitus, heyno longer onstituten objec-tion.The oldmen have cometo the rescueof theboy.Theirdefenceneednot be theonlymeansofescapeavailable ohim. ndeed,sinceeither yhimself rovidesTheaetetuswitha sufficienteply o theobjection, hetruth f neither octrineanbe regardeds a necessarycondition fTheaetetus s heory eing ccepted.Closerrelationsmaybe developed ater.But this s howthethree etto know achothernthefirstlace.It isnotreallyomysteriouss some ommentatorsavethought.3

UniversityfBristol

3 I amgratefulo MichaelWelbournendChristopherowefor heircommentsn a draftf hisnote.

551






theaetetus in bad company - c. j. f. williams

Documents