{"title":"同一个词。","authors":"B. Suzanne","doi":"10.14195/2183-4105_23_6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Answering articles by Smith (PJ 18) and Matoso (PJ 22) about the Divided Line, I argue that the problems Smith raised and Matoso pretended to solve don’t exist in a proper reading of the analogy and the ensuing allegory of the cave in light of one another and stem from a misunderstanding of the expression ἀνα τὸν αὺτον λόγον at Rep. VI, 509d7: the λόγος to be used to split both segments is not the one used to split the line in the first place, and it is not a numerical ratio, but a logical rationale.","PeriodicalId":53756,"journal":{"name":"Plato Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ἀνα τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον\",\"authors\":\"B. Suzanne\",\"doi\":\"10.14195/2183-4105_23_6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Answering articles by Smith (PJ 18) and Matoso (PJ 22) about the Divided Line, I argue that the problems Smith raised and Matoso pretended to solve don’t exist in a proper reading of the analogy and the ensuing allegory of the cave in light of one another and stem from a misunderstanding of the expression ἀνα τὸν αὺτον λόγον at Rep. VI, 509d7: the λόγος to be used to split both segments is not the one used to split the line in the first place, and it is not a numerical ratio, but a logical rationale.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53756,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Plato Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Plato Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14195/2183-4105_23_6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Plato Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14195/2183-4105_23_6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Answering articles by Smith (PJ 18) and Matoso (PJ 22) about the Divided Line, I argue that the problems Smith raised and Matoso pretended to solve don’t exist in a proper reading of the analogy and the ensuing allegory of the cave in light of one another and stem from a misunderstanding of the expression ἀνα τὸν αὺτον λόγον at Rep. VI, 509d7: the λόγος to be used to split both segments is not the one used to split the line in the first place, and it is not a numerical ratio, but a logical rationale.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
