George Hilding Rudebusch

The sentence setting the stage for the philosophical investigation within the Philebus is, naively translated, “He says that to enjoy is good.” Instead of the predicate adjective “good,” most interpreters prefer to translate with a definite description, “the good,” with consequences that affect the interpretation of the dialogue as a whole. Part one defends the naïve translation, both in the context of Socrates’ first seven speeches and viewing the dialogue as a whole. Part two considers and rejects the reasons given against the naïve translation on the basis of grammar, idiosyncratic Platonic style, immediate context, and later restatements.

A dilemma has stymied interpretations of the Stranger’s method of dividing kinds into subkinds in Plato’sSophistandStatesman. The dilemma assumes that the kinds are either extensions or intensions. Now kinds divide like extensions, not intensions. But extensions cannot explain the distinct identities of kinds that possess the very same members. We propose understanding a kind as like an animal body—the Stranger’s simile for division—possessing both an extension and an intension. We find textual support in the Stranger’s paradigmatic four steps for collecting a subkind.

In the Protagoras, Socrates argues that all the virtues are the very same knowledge of human wellbeing so that virtue is all one. But elsewhere Socrates appears to endorse that the virtues-such as courage, temperance, and reverence-are different parts of a single whole. Ambiguity interpretations harmonize the conflicting texts by taking the virtue words to be equivocal, such as between theoretical and applied expertise, or between a power and its deeds. I argue that such interpretations have failed in their specifics and in general, as I defend an alternative that takes into account Socrates' higher purpose in testing others, namely to show them their ignorance of virtue.

Plato's Theaetetus rejects four explanations of how someone could falsely believe something. The Sophist accepts an explanation of how someone could falsely believe something. The problem is to fit together what Plato rejects in the Theaetetus with what he accepts in the Sophist, given the intended unity of these two dialogues. ;The traditional solution is to take the Sophist's explanation of false speech and belief to be Plato's last word on the matter, to take that explanation as somehow overreaching the problems raised in the Theaetetus. I argue that this solution is unsatisfactory: Using the Cratylus, I point out a 'match-up postulate' needed for false speech, namely, that a person can 'match-up' x with y in some way or other whether or not x and y really belong together in that way. But The Theaetetus rejects this postulate. And This rejection is canonical, that is, Plato is there arguing in his own person. Now Nowhere in the Sophist is any reason given to accept this postulate, nor is it compatible with certain parts of the Sophist. Thus The Sophist's explanation does not overreach the problems raised in the Theaetetus. ;Having rejected the traditional way of fitting together the Theaetetus and Sophist, I suggest the following new way. Instead of taking the explanation of the Sophist to be Plato's last word on false speech, I take his last word to be the rejection of the various explanations in the Theaetetus. ;I motivate this suggestion by comparing Plato's peculiar style of dialogue--as found, for instance, in the Laches and Meno--with the modern, expository style of presenting philosophy. The aim of my comparison is to show that, whereas in an exposition the arguing is done in the middle followed by the conclusion at the end, in Plato's dialogue style the arguing is done in the middle followed by a denial of the conclusion at the end

Paul Hoffman argues that Kripke’s Wittgenstein fails in his solution to his own sceptical paradox. I argue that Hoffman fails to see the importance for Kripke’s Wittgenstein of the distinction between agreement in fact and judged agreement. Hoffman is right that no solution to the sceptical paradox can be based on agreement in fact, but the solution of Kripke’s Wittgenstein depends upon judged agreement. An interpretation is given: by ‘judged agreement’ Kripke’s Wittgenstein does not mean understanding oneself to judge agreement but having a feeling of agreement. On this interpretation Hoffman’s argument fails.

Intellectualism about human virtue is the thesis that virtue is knowledge. Virtue intellectualists may be eliminative or reductive. If eliminative, they will eliminate our conventional vocabulary of virtue words-'virtue', 'piety', 'courage', etc.-and speak only of knowledge or wisdom. If reductive, they will continue to use the conventional virtue words but understand each of them as denoting nothing but a kind of knowledge (as opposed to, say, a capacity of some other part of the soul than the intellect, such as the will or the appetites). Virtue intellectualists may be pluralists or monists. If pluralist, they identify the virtues with distinct kinds of knowledge. If monist, they identify all the virtues with one and the same kind of knowledge. In a number of dialogues-including the Euthyphro, Apology, Charmides, Euthydemus, Laches, Lysis, Protagoras, and Republic I-Socrates gives arguments that support Reductive Monist Intellectualism (RMI) about human virtue. I disarm an influential objection to RMI as the correct interpretation of Socrates.

After defining dramatic prefiguration, I show how (1) the initial meeting between Polemarchus's party and the smaller group of Socrates and Glaucon prefigures the Republic's theme of how to install the philosophical element in its proper place as ruler in the soul; (2) the relay race of torches carried on horseback prefigures the theory of the soul as tripartite, containing reason, spirit, and appetite; and (3) the opening image of Socrates descending to the Piraeus prefigures the descent of the reasoning element back from the forms to give birth to works of wisdom

The success of relativism as a solution to skeptical problems depends upon the relativist's object of knowledge being invulnerable to the same skeptical doubts which we might have about the undiscovered world. Naturally, therefore, a traditional Platonic response is to argue that the relativist's selected object of knowledge cannot be known apart from knowledge of the undiscovered world. This indeed is the Platonic thesis of this article, as it applies to tradition. I begin by giving a philosophical analysis of tradition.