C O M M E N TAT O R First Response to Marshall Gillis Archana Murthy, Texas A&M University Plato’s theory of forms is the metaphysical foundation upon which an entire theory of Platonic philosophy is built and studied, even today. This paper on the blending of Change and Rest by Marshall Gillis discusses The Sophist, a Platonic dialogue in which it is debated whether the forms are being or coming-into-being – that is, whether they change or rest. This paper argues that the forms of change and rest (henceforth notated as Change and Rest) must blend together because this is the only way for anything to be known, or for knowledge to exist. Gillis claims that to know a form is to change it while its essential nature rests. (For example, if I know about the form of the good, the Good is changed because it is now known by me. However, it rests and stays the same because it is still the Good.) The first issue that becomes apparent in this claim is the way that Change, Rest, and knowledge are discussed. It becomes increasingly confusing as to whether change and rest are forms or properties. This is because they are treated as properties (they are applied to forms and applied to objects in a spatiotemporal space) but also called forms. If they are forms, then why do Change and Rest need to change and rest? This is not made clear. Furthermore, in the middle of the paper, Change and Rest are named “objects of knowledge” (Gillis 5). The meaning of this is even more difficult to discern. Is knowledge ontologically before Change and Rest, for them to be objects of knowledge? The bottom line is that if Change and Rest are not in fact forms, then the reason for discussing the necessity of these forms blending is brought into question. This same confusion is highlighted in Gillis’s argument against Leigh. Leigh claims that forms neither change nor rest because change and rest are only applied in a spatiotemporal space. Leigh seems to be referring to change and rest as properties while Gillis refers to them as forms, which makes any argument to this end ineffective. However, Gillis goes on to claim that forms do change and rest but gives an example of something that occurs in a spatiotemporal space (a football play), which does not address the argument. In fact, all his examples refer to tangible or particular forms (libraries, football passes) and none refer to universal forms (justice, love, intelligence). If nontangible examples were given (if that is possible) then the point being made may have been strengthened.
18
