We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
In Professor Ferguson's renewed study (above, pp. 190–210) of these similes he has introduced a very detailed and careful analysis of Plato's analogies in order to explain and support his interpretation. He has also attacked the view which I put forward in 1932, and I should like to say something in defence of that view, not in any polemical spirit, but from a perhaps too obstinate belief that my reading of the passage does rest on solid foundations. I will not attempt any comprehensive discussion of Professor Ferguson's theories, either in their earlier or their present form, but merely try to indicate what seems to me the real issue between us.
page 211 note 1 He complains that I have already misunder stood and misrepresented his views, and I am anxious to express my regret for any misstate ments I may have made. Perhaps I may say that, while it would have been impossible for me to have passed over in silence recent articles which had deservedly attracted so much attention, yet I had no space to deal with them fully and could only select certain points where, as it seemed to me, the difficulties came to a head. I hoped that the contexts of the statements which I picked out for discussion would be supplied by the reader; but if I have myself misunderstood the meaning of those statements in their contexts, I can only hope that Professor Ferguson's present article has removed any false impression I may have given.
page 212 note 1 Cf., e.g., 485d for the psychological side of this doctrine.
page 212 note 2 It should not be assumed that I hold any of the views about ⋯παιδευς⋯α which Professor Ferguson criticizes, even if I cannot accept his. ‘Ingenuous levels of perception,’ so far as I know, either do not exist or, if they exist, are not normally to be found in children. Ingenuousness of apprehension I should take to be a high level of achievement.
page 213 note 1 See especially the natural and easy grouping of the terms in the recapitulation of the ‘Cave,’ 532b.
page 213 note 2 If I had space to deal with doctrinal issues, I should be more concerned to defend my view of ε⋯κασ⋯α as not being the indirect vision of a solid. It seems rash to argue much from Plato's physical treatment of reflections in Timaeus 46 (as cases of indirect visibility), considering that among the ε⋯κονες mentioned in the ‘ Line’ are expressly included shadows, to which this treatment can scarcely apply. But it would be impossible to explain ε⋯κασ⋯α without a much closer study of the logical theory involved in this passage than my allotted space permits.
page 213 note 3 It is not accurate to treat this stage as one of mere bewilderment; the released prisoner is dazzled by the sudden brightness, but we are told that he has in fact gained much (⋯ρθοτερονβλ⋯πει) by the change (515c and d). The same thing happens again when he is taken to the upper air (515e sq.).
page 213 note 4 Professor Ferguson tries to avoid this, if I understand him, by supposing that the ratios of the ‘Line’ apply only to shadows (etc.) made by sunlight; but I can find no support whatever in the text for his restriction.
