LATO did not think in an intellectual vacuum. Some of his
profoundest and most original ideas resulted from the attempt to
solve problems bequeathed by his predecessors, in whom he took
the liveliest interest. Aristotle speaks of Plato’s philosophy
as resembling the Pythagorean, but with certain features of its
own. This is in the first book of the Metaphysics, where
he is discussing the contributions made by previous philosophers
to his own doctrine of ‘causes’,[54]
among which he counts the Platonic theory of Forms. Its
distinctive character, he says, it owed, first; to early
reflection on the Heraclitean view that the whole sensible world
is in constant flux and cannot therefore be the object of
knowledge. Impressed with this, Plato listened to Socrates who
had abandoned the study of nature for ethics but in that field
was seeking the universal and directing attention to the
importance οf definition. Both views seemed to Plato right, and
to reconcile them he supposed that the definitions which
Socrates demanded must apply to non-sensible realities; for he
thought it impossible that the common definition could belong to
anything in the sensible world, since such things were always
changing. ‘Realities of this kind’, continues Aristotle, ‘he
called Forms [in Greek ideai, whence our ‘theory of
Ideas’], and he said that sensible things existed apart from
them[55]
and were named after them.’ Aristotle then goes on to make
comparisons with Pythagoreanism whose accuracy is controversial.[56]
Ι mention the passage now only to make the point that besides
what we can learn from the dialogues themselves there is also
external evidence for the influence of other philosophers on
Plato’s mind which may be worth examining and assessing. For the
Pythagoreans we know also of the personal ties with Archytas and
others which he formed and maintained on his visits to the West.
LATO did not think in an intellectual vacuum. Some of his profoundest and most original ideas resulted from the attempt to solve problems bequeathed by his predecessors, in whom he took the liveliest interest. Aristotle speaks of Plato’s philosophy as resembling the Pythagorean, but with certain features of its own. This is in the first book of the Metaphysics, where he is discussing the contributions made by previous philosophers to his own doctrine of ‘causes’,[54] among which he counts the Platonic theory of Forms. Its distinctive character, he says, it owed, first; to early reflection on the Heraclitean view that the whole sensible world is in constant flux and cannot therefore be the object of knowledge. Impressed with this, Plato listened to Socrates who had abandoned the study of nature for ethics but in that field was seeking the universal and directing attention to the importance οf definition. Both views seemed to Plato right, and to reconcile them he supposed that the definitions which Socrates demanded must apply to non-sensible realities; for he thought it impossible that the common definition could belong to anything in the sensible world, since such things were always changing. ‘Realities of this kind’, continues Aristotle, ‘he called Forms [in Greek ideai, whence our ‘theory of Ideas’], and he said that sensible things existed apart from them[55] and were named after them.’ Aristotle then goes on to make comparisons with Pythagoreanism whose accuracy is controversial.[56] Ι mention the passage now only to make the point that besides what we can learn from the dialogues themselves there is also external evidence for the influence of other philosophers on Plato’s mind which may be worth examining and assessing. For the Pythagoreans we know also of the personal ties with Archytas and others which he formed and maintained on his visits to the West.
