The present paper aims to discuss how the Socratic method oper­ates with Euthyphro inside the Euthyphro. The first part of the article focuses on the character’s description, upon which it moves to analyz­ing the very method itself not only in terms of its argumentative form but also in terms of its psychological and social aspects. Euthyphro is shown to have been a supporter of religion that was entirely incapable of living up to the religious ideals that he so confidently advocated (...) for. Through his portrayal of Socrates’ refutation of Euthyphro, Plato seeks not only to redeem his teacher but also to criticize the then society. When describing the Socratic method, the present paper proposes to view it with a “calm distance” on the grounds of the fact that the distinc­tive feature of the method consists in creating an emotional distance between Socrates and Euthyphro. The purpose of such a strategy is to make Euthyphro realize the weakness of his position and embrace the purification through the socratic elenchos. (shrink)

This paper deals with the deuteros plous, literally ‘the second voyage’, proverbially ‘the next best way’, discussed in Plato’s Phaedo, the key passage being Phd. 99e4-100a3. I argue that (a) the ‘flight into the logoi’ can have two different interpretations, a standard one and a non-standard one. The issue is whether at 99e-100a Socrates means that both the student of erga and the student of logoi consider images (‘the standard interpretation’), or the student of logoi does not consider images but (...) that “consistency should suffice for truth” (‘the non-standard interpretation’); (b) the non-standard one implies the problem of the hypothesis, a problem analogous to the problem of the elenchus; (c) there is a structural analogy between Descartes’ ontological argument for the existence of God in his 5th Meditation and the final proof for the immortality of the soul in the Phaedo. (shrink)

This dissertation is a defense of a particular theory of the metaphysics of time which I call "accretivism", but which is popularly known in a form usually called the "Growing Block Theory". The goal of a metaphysics of time is to incorporate the various aspects of our temporal experience into a single, comprehensive whole. To this end I delineate five aspects of our ordinary experience of time: 1) The Tensed Aspect, in virtue of which objects are presented to us as (...) past, present, or future; 2) The Transitory Aspect, in virtue of which time passes or "flows"; 3) The Durational Aspect, in virtue of which entities have a certain temporal extent; 4) The Structural Aspect, in virtue of which entities are given as being in temporal relations to one another, and 5) The Differential-Repetitive Aspect, in virtue of which things are different from one time to another, and yet there is a certain recurrence of aspects of our experience form one time to another. I contrast the accretivist picture of time, according to which that which is past and that which is present both have ontological status, but nothing which is future has ontological status, and in which temporal passage consists in the coming-into-being of new entities at the temporal edge of reality marked by the present, with the two dominant theories of time in the contemporary literature: 1) presentism, according to which only that which is present has ontological status, and 2) four-dimensionalism, according to which time is to be understood on analogy with spatial dimensions. Accretivism, I argue, is superior to the other two views in virtue of the fact that it gives full status to both the Structural Aspect of Time, for which the presentist has difficulty accounting, and the Transitory Aspect of Time, for which the four-dimensionalist has difficulty accounting. I then defend the accretivist picture against a variety of objections that might be raised to it. (shrink)

The question concerning names and things discussed in Cratylus, repeats the old and fundamental philosophical subject of "phusis" and "nomos"; an essential issue which may be considered as the ground for many theories in Greek philosophy. The question In Cratylus is how relates a name to its object or thing to which the name refers. Are names by nature, i.e. is there any necessary relation between a name and its object, or as long as there is a convention, an object (...) could be called by any name. According to Socrates the true nature of anything is tobe found in its idea and not in its perishable material form. Thus the naturally correct name is that which imitates the idea and reveals it. (shrink)