Abstract

It is controversial as to whether the ontology of Plato's middle dialogues--especially that of the Phaedo--is bipartite or tripartite . Another bipartite ontology attributed to Plato which is to be distinguished from these two employs only Forms and immanent characters, where sensible particulars are to be constructed as being nothing but 'bundles' of immanent characters. I term this ontology the 'bundle theory'. This thesis is primarily a defense of the attribution of a tripartite ontology to Plato's middle dialogues , and secondarily, is an attack upon the bipartite and bundle theory ontologies. ;In Chapter Two I construct a prima facie case for the tripartite ontology, based upon the text of the Phaedo. Chapter Three, in turn, presents a tripartite interpretation of the 'causation' section of the Phaedo . ;Chapter Four presents the immanent character theory of relations that Hector-Neri Castaneda claims to have found in the Phaedo, as well as David Gallop's criticisms of that finding. I resolve that dispute primarily in favor of Castaneda. Finally, I respond to the most vocal critics of the tripartite reading of the Phaedo; viz., Gallop, O'Brien, Shorey, and Verdenius. ;In Chapter Five I interpret the 'clever ' of the Phaedo in the light of the tripartite ontology and show the last argument for the immortality of the soul to be consistent with that ontology. ;I argue in Chapter Six that the "worst difficulty" argument of the Parmenides contains and extends the tripartite theory of relations Castaneda has attributed to the Phaedo, thereby supporting that attribution. ;In Chapter Seven I conclude the thesis by presenting an interpretation of the Timaeus, whereby we are to understand its ontology to be importantly similar to that of the Phaedo and Parmenides , thus supporting the tripartite thesis