Plato＇s lifelong confrontation with Parmenides and his metaphysical mire of believing that nothing （το μη ǒν） does not actually exist, gradually in the Sophist comes into finish, insofar as the philosopher a...Plato＇s lifelong confrontation with Parmenides and his metaphysical mire of believing that nothing （το μη ǒν） does not actually exist, gradually in the Sophist comes into finish, insofar as the philosopher after facing the foe and having the last laugh simmers down. In this paper after giving an interpretation of what Parmenides says, I shall present an analysis of Plato＇s drastic answer to him （Sophist, 259 e4-6） to see how Plato opens the impasse way created by the Eleatic philosopher. Here the intercommunion of Forms is regarded as the final answer by which Plato devastates Parmenides infamous thesis. Since hitherto no in-depth analysis is given by the scholars who are puzzled with the subject, I have tried to analyze the intercommunion of Forms philosophically. Plato＇s Eleatic challenge has always been crucial in Plato himself and philosophical development after him. As while as Parmenides thesis （Sph., 238 a8-9） provides the sophists opportunity to reject the falsehood, Plato＇s theory of Forms in contrast in order to cross off the extremely sly sophists tries to make Parmenides come down. In my opinion, the intercommunion of Forms, as the last step of the theory of Forms, basically determines Plato＇s late ontology tightly knitted with logic. Vindicating this proposal depends on true understanding of the intercommunion of Forms. Since Plato＇s late ontology, in my opinion, is closed to Frege＇s ontology and discussion of language, we are armed to interpret the intercommunion of Forms with recent recent logico-philosophicus achievements, I think. In this respect, this is what I have done in my paper： analyzing sentence from Plato＇s logico-metaphysical point of view. Ultimately, I have tried to show how the aim of the intercommunion of Forms, which Plato himself states, is demonstrating the possibility of dialogue and discourse. This statement explicitly sets forward that the discussion is bound up with several logical approaches, according to which finally full bright light is shed on different implications of the subject such as universals.展开更多
文摘Plato＇s lifelong confrontation with Parmenides and his metaphysical mire of believing that nothing （το μη ǒν） does not actually exist, gradually in the Sophist comes into finish, insofar as the philosopher after facing the foe and having the last laugh simmers down. In this paper after giving an interpretation of what Parmenides says, I shall present an analysis of Plato＇s drastic answer to him （Sophist, 259 e4-6） to see how Plato opens the impasse way created by the Eleatic philosopher. Here the intercommunion of Forms is regarded as the final answer by which Plato devastates Parmenides infamous thesis. Since hitherto no in-depth analysis is given by the scholars who are puzzled with the subject, I have tried to analyze the intercommunion of Forms philosophically. Plato＇s Eleatic challenge has always been crucial in Plato himself and philosophical development after him. As while as Parmenides thesis （Sph., 238 a8-9） provides the sophists opportunity to reject the falsehood, Plato＇s theory of Forms in contrast in order to cross off the extremely sly sophists tries to make Parmenides come down. In my opinion, the intercommunion of Forms, as the last step of the theory of Forms, basically determines Plato＇s late ontology tightly knitted with logic. Vindicating this proposal depends on true understanding of the intercommunion of Forms. Since Plato＇s late ontology, in my opinion, is closed to Frege＇s ontology and discussion of language, we are armed to interpret the intercommunion of Forms with recent recent logico-philosophicus achievements, I think. In this respect, this is what I have done in my paper： analyzing sentence from Plato＇s logico-metaphysical point of view. Ultimately, I have tried to show how the aim of the intercommunion of Forms, which Plato himself states, is demonstrating the possibility of dialogue and discourse. This statement explicitly sets forward that the discussion is bound up with several logical approaches, according to which finally full bright light is shed on different implications of the subject such as universals.
