Plato's moral realism rests on the Idea of the Good, the unhypothetical first principle of all. It is this, as Plato says, that makes just things useful and beneficial. That Plato makes the first principle of all the Idea of the Good sets his approach apart from that of virtually every other philosopher. This fact has been occluded by later Christian Platonists who tried to identify the Good with the God of scripture. But for Plato, theology, though important, is subordinate (...) to metaphysics. For this reason, ethics is independent of theology and attached to metaphysics. This book challenges many contemporary accounts of Plato's ethics that start with the so-called Socratic paradoxes and attempt to construct a psychology of action or moral psychology that makes these paradoxes defensible. Rather, Lloyd Gerson argues that Plato at least never thought that moral realism was defensible outside of a metaphysical framework. (shrink)

My dissertation is a reading of Plato’s Timaeus that centers sexual difference and in particular femininity. I analyze the role of sexual difference in the framing of the dialogue as well as its accounts of body in the first and second discourse and its account of health in the third discourse. I argue that sexual difference, and, in particular, sexual reproduction, serves as a guiding paradigm of Timaeus’ entire project. I argue in each part of my dissertation that various aspects (...) of the Timaeus depend on a certain notion of sexual difference—even aspects which are seemingly causally prior to the issue of sexual difference (e.g., the nature of cause itself, structure). The dissertation consists of three parts. In the first part of my dissertation, I give a new reading of the myth of the origin of women at the end of the Timaeus and bring it into conversation with the dialogue’s opening in order to give an interpretation of the dialogue’s framing. I analyze the concept of sexual difference presented in this myth and argue that its philosophical richness has been overlooked, with many considering it to be either a joke or a sexist account. Focusing on Timaeus’s account of the woman’s relationship with her womb, I argue that womanhood in this myth is constituted by features that are elsewhere characterized as essentially philosophical (e.g., collaboration, making room, recognizing the complex structure of things, and nurture). In the second part of my dissertation, I introduce the two paradigms for the origin and composition of the cosmos in the Timaeus: the first discourse’s craft paradigm that construes the cosmos as a crafted artifact, and the second discourse’s genetic paradigm that construes the cosmos as a birthed organism. I am especially concerned with each discourse’s account of body. Here, I argue that the second discourse’s genetic paradigm is a significant revision of the first discourse’s craft paradigm. While some scholars have found that Timaeus’s insights in the second discourse are a further development of the groundwork he lays in the first discourse, I argue that the genetic paradigm’s focus on femininity and the mutual collaboration of masculine and feminine capacities is incompatible with the craft paradigm’s androcentrism. Finally, in the third part of my dissertation, I analyze the way that the Timaeus centers women’s bodies in its account of health in body and soul. Here, I argue that the Timaeus characterizes health by drawing on ideas about women’s bodies that are framed as symptoms of feminine disease in the Hippocratic texts (e.g., disequilibrium, flux, and porosity). Taken together, the three articles of my dissertation constitute a reading of the role of sexual difference in each part of the Timaeus. (shrink)

The Sophist, with its ostensible goal of locating and defining the sophist, is among the Platonic dialogues often read by rhetoricians. Plato’s Timaeus, less so. This has been an oversight because the Timaeus provides a metaphysical explanation for Plato’s anxieties about sophistry and rhetoric. When read together, the Sophist and Timaeus warn of the dangers of sophistry, though they do so in contrasting ways. The Sophist directs us to the external world while the Timaeus directs us inward toward an eternal, (...) unchanging reality. We learn from the Timaeus that sophistry causes both corporeal and metaphysical wandering, a type of motion which runs counter to that of the natural order of the universe and which Plato associates with opportunism and instability. He contrasts wandering with the circular motion associated with philosophical steadfastness. Reading these dialogues in tandem reveals a set of overlapping dichotomies which connect the Timaeus to other dialogues in which Plato addresses sophistry and rhetoric. (shrink)