Scolnicov shows that in the Parmenides Plato addresses the most serious challenge to his own philosophy: the monism of Parmenides and the Eleatics. This work presents an illuminating new translation of the dialogue together with an extensive introduction and running commentary, giving a unified explanation of the Parmenides and integrating it firmly within the context of Platos metaphysics and methodology. The interpretations have ranged from reading the dialogue as an introduction to the whole of Platonic metaphysics to seeing it as a collection of sophisticated tricks, or even as an elaborate joke. Scholars of all periods have disagreed about its aims and subject matter. Book Synopsis Of all Platos dialogues, the Parmenides is notoriously the most difficult to interpret. In this new translation Scolnicov argues that only a line-by-line commentary does the work justice and reveals its finer details, so this is what he has produced. AAI8506355.About the Book There has been much debate over the aims and subject matter of Platos Parmenides, held to be the most difficult of Platos dialogues to interpret. QUIRK, MICHAEL JOHN, 'CONTEMPORARY ANALYTIC COMMENTARY ON PLATO'S 'PARMENIDES': A CRITIQUE' (1984). Plato's Sophist, Timaeus, Philebus, and other later works are shown to amplify the reductio conclusions of Parmenides. In support of my argument, I try to show the substantive historical breaks and continuities of Plato's philosophy with Parmenides' 'Way of Truth', and the continuing relevance of Parmenidean monism in Plato's later thought. I argue that the TMA's are best viewed as reductio ad absurdum arguments on self-predicative eide when placed in that context. I criticise the work of Vlastos, Ryle, Crombie, Strang, and Allen on the TMA insofar as they all indicate a neglect of the literary and historical context of the Third Man Arguments. I focus on the dispute over 'self-predication' in Plato's theory of Forms as presented in the Parmenides. Such a self-image, however, hampers the task of interpretation in that (i) it de-emphasises the all-important literary aspect of Plato's work, and (ii) it neglects the historicity of philosophy, the differences between Plato's philosophical problematic and that of analytic philosophy. Analytic philosophers have traditionally seen linguistic analysis as the true method of philosophy, one wherein perennial philosophical problems can possibly be definitively solved.

In this thesis I attempt to identify and criticise what I believe are serious deficiencies in contemporary analytic commentary on Plato, and to show how many of these deficiencies stem from a shared analytic 'self-image'. CONTEMPORARY ANALYTIC COMMENTARY ON PLATO'S 'PARMENIDES': A CRITIQUE

Parmenides by plato