Plato: Change

The Parmenides is the locus of Plato’s theoria motus abstracti (that is, abstract kinematics) for it is here that Plato gives a mereological and locational analysis of motion (First Deduction: 138b7-139b3) and discusses the famous puzzle of the instant of change (Second Deduction: 156c1-157b5). But there is another scholarly very neglected text from this dialogue that provides us with great insights about Plato’s theory of change: the Fifth Deduction (160b3-163b6) and its answer to the Eleatic argument against coming-to-be. I shall (...) devote my paper to Plato’s discussion of the coming-to-be (γένεσις) of beings from what is not; first, by expounding what Plato says in the Fifth Deduction, second, by putting his theory in a bigger philosophical ecosystem (the quarrel between Eleaticism and Creationism). Then, I shall argue for two points: first, coming-to-be as described in the Fifth Deduction is, at first sight, incompatible with Plato’s account of motion given in the First Deduction; second, the logic behind the Fifth Deduction - if consistent - must be a non-classical temporal logic that restricts Leibniz’s laws of identity to some but not all properties. (shrink)

I argue that Plato thinks that a sunaition is a mere tool used by a soul (or by the cosmic nous) to promote an intended outcome. In the first section, I develop the connection between sunaitia and Plato’s teleology. In the second section, I argue that sunaitia belong to Plato’s theory of the soul as a self-mover: specifically, they are those things that are set in motion by the soul in the service of some goal. I also argue against several (...) popular and long-standing interpretations, namely, that sunaitia correspond to Aristotle’s idea of hypothetical necessity, that sunaitia are the ‘how’ in an explanation (whereas the true cause is the ‘why’), and that Plato’s causal views should be read through Aristotle’s fourfold schema. I conclude the article by surveying the history of sunaitia after Plato’s usage. (shrink)

At Phaedo 105c, Socrates introduces a type of explanation (αἰτία) he describes as “clever.” Rather than explaining a body’s hotness in terms of the body’s participation in the Form Hot, for example, the clever αἰτία attributes a body’s hotness to the presence of fire in the body. Traditional interpretations argue that the clever αἰτία accounts for the interaction between fire and the body in terms of logical entailment relationships among the Forms. On this view, fire makes bodies hot because fire (...) participates in the Form Fire and the Form Fire entails the Form Hot. In Part One of this paper, Jelinek shows that this traditional interpretation yields problematic results. In Part Two, Jelinek considers the possibility that the clever αἰτία is a hybrid explanation that invokes both Forms and particulars as irreducible sources of explanation. Though an explanation that invokes particulars as explanatory modes may seem at odds with Plato’s Form-based metaphysics, Jelinek shows that this kind of explanation can be plausibly attributed to him. This novel interpretation of the clever αἰτία attributes to Plato a more complex and nuanced understanding of explanation than previously thought. (shrink)

This paper examines how Plato’s rejection of the friends of the forms at 248a–249b in the Sophist is continuous with the arguments that he develops shortly after this part of the dialogue for the interrelatedness of the forms. I claim that the interrelatedness of the forms implies that they are changed, and that this explains Plato’s rejection of the friends of the forms. Much here turns on the kind of change that Plato wants to attribute to the forms. I distinguish (...) my view of the sort of change that the forms experience from other kinds of change—such as ‘Cambridge change’—that scholars have believed Plato has in mind in rejecting the friends of the forms. On the view that I advance, a form experiences a change (which I call ‘perfect change’) in its association with another form that distinguishes it as the distinctive being that it is—that is, through its possession of its distinctive properties. (shrink)

In Plato’s Timaeus, two different theories – the Receptacle theory and the geometrical particle theory – are presented to explain change in the natural world. In this paper, I argue that there is tension between the two theories. After examining several possible solutions for this tension, I conclude that Plato does not present it as something ready to be solved within the dialogue but, rather, as something to be understood in a way that maintains both theories. Finally, I also argue (...) that the contrast between the two theories in the Timaeus derives from a similar contrast in the Phaedo. (shrink)

The cosmological myth in Plato’s Statesman has generated several longstanding scholarly disputes, among them a controversy concerning the number and nature of the cosmic rotation cycles that it depicts. According to the standard interpretation, there are two cycles of rotation: west-to-east rotation occurs during the age of Cronus, and east-to-west rotation occurs during the age of Zeus, which is also our present era. Recent readings have challenged this two-cycle interpretation, arguing that the period of rotation opposed to our own is (...) governed neither by Cronus nor by Zeus, but is instead a separate rotational cycle during which chaos reigns before a divine ruler reestablishes control. We introduce a new constraint on any plausible interpretation of the myth. According to the Correspondence Principle, changes in fundamental cyclical processes that shape the way of life on earth (mode of generation, growth, aging, and mode of death) occur if and only if there is a change in the direction of cosmic rotation. We use the Correspondence Principle to defend a version of the standard two-cycle interpretation. (shrink)

In discussing Socrates's argument for Plato's principle of change in the Phaedo, Syrianus asks, To what kind of opposites is Socrates referring? I offer a new answer to Syrianus's question. I start from David Sedley's view that the opposites in question are converse contraries, which behave as converses in comparative contexts. I show that the quantitative pairs that Socrates cites fit Sedley's view because they are implicit comparatives. Nonetheless, I argue that Socrates's evaluative pairs are better understood as asymmetrical opposites (...) because the Phaedo and the Republic reveal that these pairs have independent, not relational, meanings. So my answer to Syrianus's question is that implicit comparatives and asymmetrical opposites are the kinds of opposites to which Socrates is referring. (shrink)

How did the ancient Greeks and Romans conceptualise order? This book answers that question by analysing the formative concept of kosmos in ancient literature, philosophy, science, art, and religion. This concept encouraged the Greeks and Romans to develop theories to explain core aspects of human life, including nature, beauty, society, politics, the individual, and what lies beyond human experience. Hence, Greek kosmos, and its Latin correlate mundus, are subjects of profound reflection by a wide range of important ancient figures, including (...) philosophers, poets and playwrights, intellectuals, and religious exegetes. By revealing kosmos in its many ancient manifestations, this book asks us to rethink our own sense of 'order', and to reflect on our place within a broader cosmic history. (shrink)

In this paper I investigate central temporal and spatial notions in the second part of Plato’s Parmenides and argue that also these notions, and not only the metaphysical ones usually discussed in the literature, can be understood as a response to positions and problems put on the table by Parmenides and Zeno. Of the spatial notions examined in the dialogue, I look at the problems raised for possessing location and shape, while with respect to temporal notions, I focus on the (...) discussion of ‘being in time’ and exaiphnês (the latter notion will be shown to be also an important influence for Aristotle’s Physics). In displaying a paradoxical character and taking up crucial notions from Parmenides, the second part of the Parmenides seems to display some resemblance to Zeno’s paradoxes. I will show, however, that in contrast to Zeno, the second part of Plato’s Parmenides also demonstrates Parmenides’ One to be problematic on its own terms. Furthermore, the dialogue presents not only important problems that these spatial and temporal notions seem to lead us into, but also establishes some positive features necessary to think of time and space. In this way, Plato’s Parmenides can be seen as contributing to the development of temporal and spatial conceptualisations in ancient Greek thought. (shrink)

In this paper I argue that in several passages Plato sympathizes with the following view: sensible particulars undergo continuous, pervasive physical change; as a consequence, where there seems to be one and the same object which is identical through time, there is in fact a succession of impermanent objects numerically distinct from each other but similar to each other. I illustrate the difference between this view—which invites interesting comparisons with modern and contemporary theories—and other, superficially similar views which Plato criticizes. (...) I also suggest that this view might contribute to explaining Plato’s contention that sensible particulars lack being and are confined to coming to be. Finally, I show that my interpretation was well attested in antiquity; and I put forward the hypothesis that part of the aim of certain Aristotelian claims about substance might be to correct Plato in this respect. (shrink)

There are only two places in which Plato explicitly offers a critique of the sort of theory of forms presented in the Phaedo and Republic: at the beginning of the Parmenides and in the argument against the Friends of the Forms in the Sophist. An accurate account of the argument against the Friends, therefore, is crucial to a proper understanding of Plato’s metaphysics. How the argument against the Friends ought to be construed and what it aims to accomplish, however, are (...) matters of considerable controversy. My aim in this article is twofold. First, I show that the two readings of the argument against the Friends that dominate the contemporary literature – the “Cambridge Change” reading and the “Becoming-is-Being” reading – lack sufficient textual support. Second, I offer an alternative reading of the argument against the Friends that better explains both the text of 248a4–249d5 and the role the argument plays within the Stranger’s wider project of demonstrating that non-being is. My thesis is that the Stranger’s argument against the Friends seeks to demonstrate that the forms must be both at rest and moved, where “moved” has the sense of “affected.” To participate in a form is to be affected by that form. I argue that since, according to the Stranger, every form participates in some other forms, every form is “moved” in the sense that it is affected by the forms in which it participates. Likewise, I argue that every form is at rest in the sense that its unique nature remains unaffected by the other forms in which it participates. (shrink)

This study examines Plato's dialogue on the good life and argues, most centrally, that the "pleasures of learning" exemplify, for Socrates, the possibility of good becoming or change.

The paper offers an interpretation of a disputed portion of Plato’s Theaetetus that is often called the Secret Doctrine. It is presented as a process ontology that takes two types of processes, swift and slow motions, as fundamental building blocks for ordinary material objects. Slow motions are powers which, when realized, generate swift motions, which, in turn, are subjectively bundled to compose sensible objects and perceivers. Although the reading of the Secret Doctrine offered here—a new version of the “Causal Theory (...) interpretation”—is not without problems, these problems are acknowledged in Plato’s text, confirming that this interpretation is correct. (shrink)

The paper argues that Motion and Rest are “greatest kinds” and not just convenient examples, since they are all-pervading. Thus Motion and Rest can be jointly predicated of a single subject and can be predicated of each other, just as Sameness and Otherness can. While Sameness and Otherness are opposites, a single subject may be the same in one respect, namely, the same as itself, and other in another respect, namely, other than other things. Thus they can be predicated of (...) a single subject, and they can be predicated of each other, as well, since Sameness is other than other things and Otherness is the same as itself. The same explanation applies to Motion and Rest, as the paper demonstrates: a given subject may be in motion in one respect while being at rest in another respect. This distinction is made in the Sophist itself, right in the passage concerning the greatest kinds. Thus Motion and Rest should be considered greatest kinds on par with Being, Sameness, and Otherness, and each of these kinds pervades all other kinds. (shrink)

The paper reconsiders Aristotle’s criticism of Platonic forms as causes together with its wider implications for the differences but also similiarities between the two philosophers. Analyzing the relevant texts of Metaphysics A 9 and Generation and Corruption II, 9, where Aristotle addresses the hypothesis of forms as put forward in the Phaedo, it discusses two interpretative options : that Aristotle takes these forms for an imperfect anticipation of formal causes, and that he sees them as an aborted attempt at grasping (...) the efficient causation whose proper discovery Aristotle claims to be uniquely his own. Although both readings have their virtues and can be defended from the Aristotelian perspective, their check against the text of the Phaedo reveals that, in this context, efficient causation distinct from material causation is quite plausibly the issue Aristotle has in mind first and foremost. This, however, is only one side of Aristotle’s broader critical stance towards forms as causes : while he seems to detect a split in Plato’s own understanding of the relation between the forms and causation, he is equally critical of the craft-like model as personified by the demiurge of the Timaeus. However, other passages from the Metaphysics suggest that some features of precisely this model, once it is carefully stripped of its personal aspect, may ultimately bear on Aristotle’s own conception of efficient cause. (shrink)

Plato's paradox of relative change in size and number (154e7-155c7) cannot be understood unless the text is emended (see Part i of this article) and unless full weight is given to shifts of mood and tense and to the play of particles. The critical reader will also need to adapt to a non-Fregean concept of equality and to a definition of change different from Geach's definition of "Cambridge change''. Only so will the structure of the paradox explain young Theaetetus' bewilderment, (...) while also showing that the author of the dialogue was not himself a victim of the paradox he has created. (shrink)

The text of Theaetetus 155b1-2 as recorded in the manuscripts and printed in current editions of the dialogue is marked by a syntactical anomaly (ἀλλά postpositum) and a logical non sequitur (arbitrary transition from a copulative to an existential use of εἷναι and vice versa). Attempts at emendation by Proclus, Stephanus and Campbell have all been unsuccessful. To find the way back to Plato's original text, the reader will have to fight his way through a logical tangle (the result of (...) a double negation) and abandon the modish, but erroneous, belief that there is no difference in ancient Greek between ``complete'' and ``incomplete'' uses of εἷναι. (shrink)

In this paper I ask how Timaeus explains change within the trianglebased part of his cosmos. Two common views are that change among physical items is somehow caused or enabled by either the forms or the demiurge. I argue for a competing view, on which the physical items are capable of bringing about change by themselves, prior to the intervention of the demiurge, and prior to their being turned into imitations of the forms. I outline three problems for the view (...) that physical things depend on the forms for their causal powers, and show how the view I propose solves each. I then add further arguments for my view, based on (a) statements by Timaeus that seem to favor my view directly, (b) implications of Timaeus’ positions that favor the view, and (c) Timaeus’ explanatory practice in the second half of his speech. (shrink)

In his well-known essay, ‘What Is a Sign?’ (CP 2.281, 285) Peirce uses ‘likeness’ and ‘resemblance’ interchangeably in his definition of icon. The synonymity of the two words has rarely, if ever, been questioned. Curiously, a locus classicus of the pair, at least in F. M. Cornford’s English translation, can be found in a late dialogue of Plato, namely, the Sophist. In this dialogue on the myth and truth of the sophists’ profession, the mysterious ‘stranger’, who is most likely Socrates’ (...) persona, makes the famous distinction between eikon (likeness) and phantasma (semblance) (236a,b). For all his broad knowledge in ancient philosophy, Peirce never mentioned this parallel; nor has any Peircean scholar identified it. There seems to be little problem with eikon as likeness, but phantasma may give rise to a puzzle which this paper will attempt to solve. Plato uses two pairs of words: what eikon is to phantasma is eikastikén (the making of likeness [235d]) to phantastikén (semblance making [236c]). In other words, icons come into being because of the act of icon-making, which is none other than indexicality. Witness what Peirce says about the relationship between photographs and the objects they represent: “But this resemblance is due to the photographs having been produced under such circumstances that they were physically forced to correspond point by point to nature.” (Ibid.) Thus the iconicity which links the representamen (sign) and its object is made possible not only by an interpretant, but also by idexisation. Their possible etymological and epistemological links aside, the Peircean example of photographing and the Platonic discussion of painting and sculpturing in the Sophist, clearly show the physio-pragmatic aspect of iconicity. The paper will therefore reread the Peircean iconicity by closely analysing this relatively obscure Platonic text, and by so doing restore to the text its hidden semiotic dimension. (shrink)

Plato's Timaeus is one of the most influential and challenging works of ancient philosophy to have come down to us. Sarah Broadie's rich and compelling study proposes new interpretations of major elements of the Timaeus, including the separate Demiurge, the cosmic 'beginning', the 'second mixing', the Receptacle and the Atlantis story. Broadie shows how Plato deploys the mythic themes of the Timaeus to convey fundamental philosophical insights and examines the profoundly differing methods of interpretation which have been brought to bear (...) on the work. Her book is for everyone interested in Ancient Greek philosophy, cosmology and mythology, whether classicists, philosophers, historians of ideas or historians of science. It offers new findings to scholars familiar with the material, but it is also a clear and reliable resource for anyone coming to it for the first time. (shrink)

This paper argues that processes in the sensible realm can be in accord with reason in the Timaeus, since rationality is understood here as being based on regularity, which is conferred onto processes by time. Plato uses two different temporal structures in the Timaeus, associated with the contrast there drawn between Greek and Egyptian approaches to history. The linear order of before and after marks natural processes as rational and underlies the Greek treatment of history. By contrast, a bidirectional temporal (...) structure is the basis for the Egyptian approach to historical processes: present actions are not only determined by preceding ones in the past, but can also be influenced by the future (plans, aims). This latter temporal structure is shown to be necessary for learning from history, which makes human actions more regular. (shrink)

Heraclitean flux plays a large role in Plato 's « Theaetetus » and « Cratylus ». Yet Heraclitus himself did not hold the same conception of flux. The question of how the two thinkers differ, and why Plato treats Heraclitus as he does, is significant because the notion of flux has figured in subsequent philosophical conceptions of the persistence of identity through change. Comparison of Heraclitus, frr. B 12 and B 125 DK reveals that flux is not motion simply, but (...) motion productive of stability ; the unity of stability and flux is the « unapparent connection » that it is Heraclitus ' mission to reveal. Analysis of Tht. 179 C-181 B and Cra. 402 A 3-8 and 411 B-C shows neither any exegesis of Heraclitus ' words, nor any evidence that Plato has in mind any historical Heracliteans. The playful way in which Plato handles Heracliteanism, with comic and hyperbolic imagery, suggests that his audience would have recognized Heraclitean flux as a familiar theory from the context of contemporary oral dialectic. (shrink)

Dans le Timée, l'hypothèse de la khó̱ra, qu'il faut se garder d'identifier avec la húle̱ aristotélicienne, permet de rendre compte du fait que les choses sensibles sont radicalement différentes de leur modèle intelligible. Or, la constitution mathématique des éléments à partir de la khó̱ra mène à la contradiction suivante : dans l'univers platonicien, il faut tenir compte à la fois du continu qui doit caractériser la khó̱ra, et du discontinu qu'instaurent inéluctablement les polyèdres réguliers auxquels sont associés les éléments. La (...) physique platonicienne n'est donc ni un atomisme, comme celui proposé par Leucippe et Démocrite, ni une physique du continu, comme celle admise par Parménide et Zénon. In the Timaeus, the hypothesis of khó̱ra, which we must refrain from identifying with Aristotelian húle̱, enables us to account for the fact that sensible things are radically different from their intelligible model. Yet the mathematical constitution of the elements from khó̱ra leads to the following contradiction : in the Platonic universe, we must take into account both the continuity that must characterize khó̱ra and the discontinuity inevitably introduced by the regular polyhedra with which the elements are associated. Platonic physics is thus neither an atomism, like that proposed by Leucippus and Democritus, nor a physics of continuity, like that held by Parmenides and Zeno. (shrink)

This appears in a supplementary issue of the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, entitled "Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus.".

In this dissertation I propose a new method of interpreting Plato's Phaedo based upon Socrates' description of the "summoner" at Republic 522e--525a. I elucidate the summoner paradigm as a four step process in which one notices an apparent contradiction in perception, separates two opposites from one mixed perception, realizes the priority of the opposites, and recognizes their transcendence. In the Republic , its primary purpose is to move the subject from pistis to dianoia and from dianoia to nous. The summoner (...) method of interpretation looks at how Plato sets up contradictions within the text and implicitly argues for models of resolving them. ;Using this method of interpretation, I, in performing a close reading of the Phaedo, argue that early in the dialogue Plato introduces contradictions and suggests models of resolution which he later applies in the arguments for immortality of the soul as he attempts to resolve the soul as summoner. He avoids contradiction in the cyclical argument by treating the soul as if it were a substrate in which characteristics alternate and in the recollection argument by applying the summoner paradigm in an attempt to separate out form. When neither of these approaches is successful, he uses the affinity argument to show that the soul is some kind of an intermediate. In the final argument, Plato resolves contradiction by locating the ontological level of the soul and altering the summoner paradigm so that it separates out intermediates, thus making the soul an intelligible object that may be grasped by the intellect. ;In conclusion, I argue that, though I show limitations of all of the arguments individually, each plays a significant role in directing and refining Plato's inquiry into the nature of the soul, and that the arguments work dialectically to help us move from opinions of the soul to some degree of knowledge of its status and degree of intelligibility. (shrink)

Abstract ‘PLATO’S THEORY OF CHANGE: A POPPERIAN RECONSTRUCTION AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE FOR TRADITIONAL AND EMERGING DEMOCRACIES,’ The International Journal of Applied Philosophy, Vol 8 Winter/Spring 1994, No.2. -/- This paper argues that in the midst of the unprecedented actual and potential socio-political and economic changes and transformations in our world toward the end of the 20th Century, the need for some philosophical grounding and guidance has become an imperative if only to avoid a global disaster or change for its own (...) sake. The changes cited include the collapse of the Soviet hegemony and the emergence of pro-democracy movements throughout in Eastern Europe, Latin America, South East Asia, and Africa including the post-Apartheid South Africa. Other changes mentioned include the integration of EEC members into a political unit, the threats from international terrorism, the increasing socio-economic gap and anti-Black racism in the US, and the changes promised by the new US President, Bill Clinton. The paper initiates discussion about the prospect for such a philosophical grounding and guidance by focusing on Plato’s Theory of Change and the possibility of utilizing it as a fulcrum for the ongoing global changes. Following Karl Popper’s lead, (in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol .I, The Spell of Plato) Plato’s Theory is critiqued on account of its inherent historicism, totalitarianism, and social injustice. Unlike Popper who stops at the criticism however, this paper proceeds with a reconstruction of Plato’s Theory of Change in the light of the criticism as well as the criticism of Popper’s own inaccurate representation of Plato’s Theory. The new theory of change, aptly called, The Plato-Popper Theory of Change is applied to analyzing and theoretically solving or minimizing some of the problems within traditional democracies like the US and Emerging democracies in the Third World. Finally, the paper also presents a challenge to professional philosophers, especially those skilled in ethics and socio-political philosophy, to shift their focus from solving the abstract problems in some possible worlds to solving the real problems of this world in which we live and die. [312 words] . (shrink)

Gregory Vlastos has argued that Aristotle and other commentators on the Phaedo have mistakenly interpreted Plato’s Forms to be efficient causes. While Vlastos is correct that the Forms by themselves are not efficient causes, because of his neo-Kantianism he has misunderstood the close connection between the Forms and the explanation of change, including teleological change. This paper explores the connection in Plato’s Phaedo between the Forms, the nature of change, and efficient causality, and argues that Aristotle’s remarks are not as (...) misplaced as Vlastos claims. (shrink)

Studies of Plato’s metaphysics have tended to emphasise either the radical change between the early Theory of Forms and the late doctrines of the Timaeus and the Sophist, or to insist on a unity of approach that is unchanged throughout Plato’s career. The author lays out an alternative approach. Focussing on two metaphysical doctrines of central importance to Plato’s thought – the Theory of Forms and the doctrine of Being and Becoming – he suggests a continuous progress can be traced (...) through Plato’s works. He presents his argument through an examination of the metaphysical sections of six of the dialogues: the Euthyphro, Phaedo, Republic, Parmenides, Timaeus, and Sophist. (shrink)

The theory of forms makes a very poor theory of universals. It-or at least the "phaedo's" version of it-makes excellent sense as a theory of the elemental stuffs from which everything is made. This is shown by a detailed examination of all that this "phaedo" has to say about forms.

There are three main views of the development of Plato’s distinction between being and becoming which have been defended in recent times. Most scholars have thought that Plato always held the same version of the distinction despite appearances to the contrary. But some who have taken this position have thought that Plato took the realm of being to consist of things which never change in any way, and the realm of becoming to consist of things which are never stable in (...) any way. Others have thought that Plato’s account of things in the realm of becoming was not so extreme. They have maintained that the realm of being is made up of things which never change in any way, but that the realm of becoming consists of things which constantly change while they exist in many ways. The third view belongs to those who have held that Plato did in his middle dialogues take the extreme view of becoming and the extreme version of the distinction which that entails. But later, they claim, he discovered that the distinction was incoherent. He therefore abandoned it, and the metaphysical doctrine of degrees of reality which he had based on it, altogether. (shrink)

The so-called ‘cyclical argument’ for immortality in the Phaedo represents an endeavour to give philosophical respectability to the ancient religious doctrine of the cycle or wheel of rebirth. According to this, the soul is reincarnated after the death of its body and a short period in the ‘other world’ in a purely disembodied state. Socrates sets himself the task of proving that a soul animating a new body must previously have animated another body whose death antedates the life of the (...) new body. (shrink)

There are two mutually indispensable ways of doing it. The first is to study the development of Plato's literary style. The second is to follow the sequence of his thought from one dialogue to another. Neither test is infallible; that is why Platonic scholarship goes happily on and on. In the course of a brilliant article concerning the place of the Timaeus in the order of the dialogues, Mr. G. E. L. Owen has shown how a merely statistical study of (...) stylistic mannerisms may seriously mislead; and as for thought sequences, they notoriously depend on hypothetical intuitions and vary widely from one critic to another. But along both lines a certain advance is possible. Since Owen, mechanical stylometry is discredited; and no one would now do what Schleiermacher did in his time--place the Phaedrus chronologically first among the dialogues on the ground that it contains in brief the whole of Plato's philosophy. There is progress in these matters, if not finality. (shrink)