Page:Philosophical Review Volume 1.djvu/126

110 the first series rather than the second. It seems, however, from the nature of the subject-matter, much better to include it amongst the Dialogues on the trial and death of Sokrates, as in the first tetralogy of Thrasyllos. This chapter xiv as a whole appears the least satisfactory part of the book. The dialogues are not classified on any satisfactory principle, and the student gets very little instruction on the important question of the chronology, though, to be sure, a detailed discussion of this difficulty would not be in place in a work of this compass. Most students, we venture to think, will find the account of the Republic (pp. 146-150) rather meagre and not very clear. A good deal of space is taken up with the myth of the cave, which of course is very beautiful, but it does not give the student the salient features of the Republic. One expects rather some account of Plato's ideal state, which is given somewhat inadequately on page 169 seq. The sentence (p. 147): "Sokrates therefore will have justice 'writ large'" is unintelligible except in the light of page 169 seq. or to one otherwise familiar with Plato's doctrine of the state as an analogue of the individual. The Republic, Timaios, and Kritias fragment are classed together on some unexplained principle in what appears to be a fourth or fifth series (pp. 146-153). "Modern," in application to the philosophical system of Hegel (p. 159), would seem to be understood without additional specification. The author will not find many sympathizers with his view of placing the Philebos before Parmenides, though chronological considerations do not appear to have determined his classification. But if the character of contents was the basis of classification, why not treat the Politikos in the same series with the Republic? The reference to philosophers as "Kings" (p. 160) in the ideal state of Plato is misleading. Philosophers are, to be sure, the rulers, the guardian, or reigning class, but not "Kings" in his state; the employment of this word conveys the notion that Plato's ideal state was a monarchy, not an aristocracy.

We further take exception to the statement in reference to the Organon of Aristotle (p. 159), that it is "little more than an abstract or digest of the logical theses of these [i.e. psychological] dialogues." This does not agree with Aristotle's own statement as to the doctrine of the Syllogism (cf. Sophist. Elen., c. 34. 183, b; 34. 184, b. 1); neither do we find in these dialogues the doctrine of Aristotle's categories (if they be Aristotle's), nor the doctrine of propositions developed in the. What then is there left of the Organon to find in these psychological dialogues? It is true that in these dialogues definition, the concept, etc., are noticed, but is this not much like saying that the doctrine of evolution is only Anaximander's "slime" done over again? The attempts to identify the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle from Ammonios Sakkas on, have never met with much success, in the