Timothy A. Robinson

I conclude that the interpretive method of the cognitivists is but an application of Plato's own philosophic method; that the supradiscursive meanings conveyed by the dialogues are identical with Platonic Forms; and that the analogical account of participation may serve equally as the complement to and the justification of the cognitivist approach. ;Pursuing this possibility, I propose that participation be interpreted as a species of organic unity explicated in terms of a certain kind of analogy. This interpretation, conjoined with my account of Plato's method, yields a characteristic pattern for Platonic inquiry. And the appropriate instrument for reporting the course and results of such an inquiry will be one which illustrates a Form in precisely the way that a Platonic dialogue, on the cognitivist view, adumbrates supradiscursive meanings. ;The Apology offers a nontechnical description of Socrates' method. If Plato's method is the same, then what is central to his philosophy is the conception of the human condition expressed in Socrates' claim to "human wisdom." Plato's method is then that kind of inquiry to which this conception gives rise. And Plato's metaphysical doctrines can be viewed as essentially the articulation of the presuppositions of this method. A corollary is that the class of Forms is of much wider membership than formerly supposed. The possibility thus arises that the class may include the secondary meanings posited by the cognitivists. Hence the relationship between secondary and primary meanings could be an instance of participation. ;With regard to methodology, contemporary interpreters of Plato can be divided into two schools. The traditional approach ignores all formal characteristics of the dialogues other than their logical aspects. The more recent view insists on the role of the "dramatic" aspects in conveying philosophic meanings. This newer school can be subdivided into three factions. The aim of the dissertation is to elaborate and defend the methodology of one of these. ;After examining the views of Schleiermacher, a progenitor of the new school, I make an inventory of the formal characteristics this school has emphasized. From this survey emerges the central claim of the new school, that the dialogue form was essentially designed for the communication of certain meanings which stand to the obvious meanings of the texts somewhat as metaphorical meanings to their literal vehicles. Divisions within the new school concern the nature of these "secondary" meanings. ;The interpreters selected for further examination allege that the meanings Plato sought to convey were supradiscursive meanings which defy accurate signification by literal or metaphorical language, but can be adumbrated by a discursive form which is semantically luxuriant. Nonetheless, they claim, there is an essential continuity between these supradiscursive meanings and the cognitive meanings of ordinary discourse. But the nature of the continuity is left unexplained by these "cognitivist" interpreters. ;If what is lacking in the cognitivist methodology can be supplied from Platonic sources, the completion of the methodology will serve simultaneously as its defense. The most likely Platonic sources appear to be Plato's own methodology and his doctrine of participation