Abstract
The digression of Plato’s Theaetetus (172c2–177c2) is as celebrated as it is controversial. A particularly knotty question has been what status we should ascribe to the ideal of philosophy it presents, an ideal centered on the conception that true virtue consists in assimilating oneself as much as possible to god. For the ideal may seem difficult to reconcile with a Socratic conception of philosophy, and several scholars have accordingly suggested that it should be read as ironic and directed only at the dramatic character Theodorus. When interpreted with due attention to its dramatic context, however, the digression reveals that the ideal of godlikeness, while being directed at Theodorus, is essentially Socratic. The function of the passage is to introduce a contemplative aspect of the life of philosophy into the dialogue that contrasts radically with the political-practical orientation characteristic of Protagoras, an aspect Socrates is able to isolate as such precisely because he is conversing with the mathematician Theodorus.
- LSJ
Liddell, H./Scott, R./Jones, H. S., (with the assistance of R. McKenzie and with the co-operation of many scholars) 1940. A Greek-English Lexicon. Tenth edition. Oxford.
- Apo.
Apology
- Euthphr.
Euthyphro
- Euthyd.
Euthydemus
- Tht.
Theaetetus
- Prot.
Protagoras
- Phlb.
Philebus
- Rep.
Republic
- Phaed.
Phaedo
- Phaedr.
Phaedrus
- Tusc. Disp.
Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations
Åkesson, E. 1933. Episoden i Theaitetos. Göteborg.Search in Google Scholar
Annas, J. 1999. Platonic Ethics, Old and New. Ithaca, NY.10.7591/9780801466977Search in Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. M. 2004. “After the Ascent: Plato on Becoming Like God.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 26, 171–183.Search in Google Scholar
Ausland, H. W. 2006. “Socrates’ Definitional Inquiries and the History of Philosophy.” In A Companion to Socrates. Eds. S. Ahbel-Rappe/R. Kamtekar. Oxford, 493–510.10.1002/9780470996218.ch30Search in Google Scholar
Benardete, S. 1986. Plato’s Theaetetus – Part I of The Being of the Beautiful. Chicago.Search in Google Scholar
Burger, R. 1999. The Phaedo: A Platonic Labyrinth. 2nd edition. South Bend, IN.Search in Google Scholar
Burnet, J. (ed). 1924. Plato: Euthyphro, Apology of Socrates, Crito. Oxford.10.1093/actrade/9780198140153.book.1Search in Google Scholar
Burnyeat, M. 1990. The Theaetetus of Plato. Trans. M. J. Levett, rev. M. Burnyeat. Indianapolis.Search in Google Scholar
–. 2012. “The Passion of Reason in Plato’s Phaedrus”. In his Explorations in Ancient and Modern Philosophy, vol. 2. Cambridge, 238–258.Search in Google Scholar
Campbell, L. 1883. The Theaetetus of Plato: With a Revised Text and English Notes. Oxford.Search in Google Scholar
Chappell, T. 2004. Reading Plato’s Theaetetus. Sankt Augustin.Search in Google Scholar
Cooper, J. M. 1997. “Introduction”. In Plato – Complete Works, vii–xxvii. Indianapolis.Search in Google Scholar
Cornford, F. M. 1935. Plato’s Theory of Knowledge. London.10.4324/9781315822884Search in Google Scholar
Dillon, J. 1993. Alcinous – The Handbook of Platonism. Oxford.10.5040/9780300261912-0345Search in Google Scholar
Friedländer, P. 1960. Platon – Band III: Die Platonischen Schriften, zweite und dritte Periode. Zweite erweiterte und verbesserte Auflage. Berlin.10.1515/9783111443676Search in Google Scholar
Giannopoulou, Z. 2011. “Socrates and Godlikeness in Plato’s Theaetetus.” Journal of Philosophical Research 36, 135–148.10.5840/jpr_2011_7Search in Google Scholar
Howland, J. 1998. The Paradox of Political Philosophy. Lanham, MD.Search in Google Scholar
Kahn, C. H. 1981. “Did Plato Write Socratic Dialogues?” Classical Quarterly 31, 305–320.10.1017/S0009838800009617Search in Google Scholar
–. 1996. Plato and the Socratic Dialogue. The Philosophical Use of a Literary Form. Cambridge.Search in Google Scholar
Klein, J. 1965. A Commentary on Plato’s Meno. Chapel Hill, NC.Search in Google Scholar
Labriola, D. 2012. “Plato v. Status Quo: On the Motivation for Socrates’ Digression in the Theaetetus.” Apeiron 45, 91–108.10.1515/apeiron-2011-0013Search in Google Scholar
Lännström, A. 2011. “Socrates, the Philosopher in the Theaetetus Digression (172c–177c), and the Ideal of homoiôsis theôi”. Apeiron 44, 111–130.10.1515/apeiron.2011.009Search in Google Scholar
Mahoney, T. 2004. “Is Assimilation to God in the Theaetetus Purely Otherworldly?” Ancient Philosophy 24, 321–338.10.5840/ancientphil200424244Search in Google Scholar
McDowell, J. 1973. Plato: Theaetetus. Translation with Notes. Oxford.Search in Google Scholar
McPherran, M. L. 2010. “Justice and Piety in the Digression of the Theaetetus.” Ancient Philosophy 30, 73–94.10.5840/ancientphil20103015Search in Google Scholar
Miller, M. 2004. The Philosopher in Plato’s Statesman, with a New Preface, Together with “Dialectical Education and Unwritten Teachings in Plato’s Statesman.” Las Vegas, NV.Search in Google Scholar
Mintz, A. I. 2011. “Four Educators in Plato’s Theaetetus.” Journal of Philosophy of Education 45, 657–673.10.1111/j.1467-9752.2011.00828.xSearch in Google Scholar
Nightingale, A. W. 1992. “Plato’s Gorgias and Euripides’ Antiope: a Study in Generic Transformation.” Classical Antiquity 11, 121–141.10.2307/25010965Search in Google Scholar
–. 1995. Genres in Dialogue. Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9780511582677Search in Google Scholar
–. 2004. Spectacles of Truth in Classical Greek Philosophy – Theoria in its Cultural Context. Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9780511482564Search in Google Scholar
Polansky, R. M. 1992. Philosophy and Knowledge: A Commentary on Plato’s Theaetetus. Lewisburg.Search in Google Scholar
Robinson, R. 1953. Plato’s Earlier Dialectic. Second edition. Oxford.Search in Google Scholar
Sedley, D. 1999. “The Ideal of Godlikeness”. In Plato 2 – Ethics, Politics, Religion, and the Soul. Ed. G. Fine. Oxford, 309–328.Search in Google Scholar
–. 2004. The Midwife of Platonism: Text and Subtext in Plato’s Theaetetus. Oxford.10.1093/0199267030.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
–. 2010. “Plato’s Theaetetus as an Ethical Dialogue.” In Ancient Models of Mind – Studies in Human and Divine Rationality. Eds. A. Nightingale/D. Sedley. Cambridge, 64–74.10.1017/CBO9780511760389.005Search in Google Scholar
Snell, B. 1924. Die Ausdrücke für den Begriff des Wissens in der vorplatonischen Philosophie. Berlin.Search in Google Scholar
Stern, P. 2008. Knowledge and Politics in Plato’s Theaetetus. Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9780511551246Search in Google Scholar
Rozema, D. 1998. “Plato’s Theaetetus: What to do with an Honours Student.” Journal of Philosophy of Education 32, 207–223.10.1111/1467-9752.00088Search in Google Scholar
Rue, R. 1993. “The Philosopher in Flight: The Digression in Plato’s Theaetetus.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 11, 71–100.Search in Google Scholar
van Kooten, G. 2008. Paul’s Anthropology in Context. Tübingen.10.1628/978-3-16-151521-7Search in Google Scholar
Vlastos, G. 1983. “The Socratic Elenchus.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 1, 27–58.10.2307/2026548Search in Google Scholar
Zuckert, C. H. 2009. Plato’s Philosophers. Chicago.10.7208/chicago/9780226993386.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
