Plato's Forms in Transition: A Reading of the Parmenides (review)

This book is a fine example of analytic philosophy rigorously applied to the Platonic dialogues. As such, it is a model of disciplined philosophical writing on a familiar theme: the development of Plato's theory of Forms in the Parmenides. Rickless attempts a reconciliation of the two main parts of the dialogue: Parmenides' criticisms of the theory of Forms, followed by the extensive logical exercises (the Deductions). According to his reading, certain principles of Plato's "higher theory" of forms are rejected, while others are retained. This paves the way for new methods of defining the Forms. "They have been made more prosaic, laid low, sharing features with the sensible world they were originally meant to outshine" (240). Along the way, the reader is treated to an exhaustive reconstruction of every argument in the Parmenides.

There is much to admire about the book, not least Rickless' open admission that at least some matters, such as the use of philosophical reasoning, are in some dialogues "defended as a matter of philosophical doctrine" (7)—note the fearless employment of unfashionable terminology. Moreover, many readers will appreciate the attention to detail when Rickless turns to evaluate the arguments in the Deductions, for example his clarification of five distinct Principles of Elision which are essential to many arguments in the Parmenides and the Sophist (xiv, 61 n.4, 112–13). Furthermore, Rickless seriously considers alternative readings. A good example of this occurs when he considers the interpretation of διαλέγεσθαι at 135B5–C2 (97–98). Rickless translates this use as "dialectic" in the technical sense familiar from the middle books of the Republic. The claim would be that not believing in forms destroys the power of dialectic. However, he allows that the term may be used here nontechnically for "discourse" or "conversation" (97). The claim would be that there could be no discourse if forms did not exist (98); it is linguistic meaning that is at stake.

Nevertheless, there are a few questions. I am surprised by Rickless' claim in the introduction that the proliferation of rival readings among "analytically inclined Plato scholars" merely reflects insufficient detail and precision: "The proper cure for disagreement among analytically inclined commentators is not retreat into perplexity in the face of apparent imprecision, but simply more careful and more detailed logical scrutiny" (7). In my view, the "problem" is the inevitable outcome of decades of scholarly rigor applied to a challenging philosophical text (see the central books of Aristotle's Metaphysics). In many cases, the text under examination rather perversely underdetermines the process of philosophical interpretation. Perhaps Rickless considers the rampant logophilia of Plato's Parmenides as an exceptional case; certainly, few readers would deny that close readings are necessary.

In overview, I am reminded of Kant's remark in the preface to the second edition of his Critique of Pure Reason: "I have observed, with pleasure and thankfulness, in various published works—alike in critical reviews and in independent treatises—that the spirit of thoroughness is not extinct in Germany … and that the thorny paths of the Critique have not discouraged courageous and clear heads from setting themselves to master my book." I am still worried that Rickless' approach imposes too much precision on the Platonic dialogues. But his reading is conscientious and insightful. I am comforted by the spirit of thoroughness exhibited in Plato's Forms in Transition, and I am confident that it will stand as a model of scholarly virtue for many years to come. It is required reading for all students of Plato's "later" dialogues.