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 (in “Kripke on Private Language”, Philosophical Studies 47, 1985, 23-28) 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

The argument used by Socrates to refute the thesis that piety is what all the gods love is one of the most well known in the history of philosophy. Yet some fundamental points of interpretation have gone unnoticed. I will show that (i) the strategy of Socrates' argument refutes not only Euthyphro's theory of piety and such neighboring doctrines as cultural relativism and subjectivism, but nominalism in general; moreover, that (ii) the argument needs to assume much less than is generally thought, and finally that (iii) while Socrates' argument, properly understood in its full force, appears to be inconsistent with the goal of his own inquiry, his own 'Platonic' position escapes the inconsistency.

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.