The analytic philosophers of the last century tried to do that and they made amazing progress. But it left many readers wondering whether Plato was somehow lost in the process. — magritte

No surprise. Analytic philosophy cannot cross over the dictionary meanings of words, suppose.

So I figure this thread might be worth reviving. — magritte

Good idea.

What's the difference and does it matter? — magritte

I am not well read on Plato, and even on the other ancient Greek philosophers, so I am not the best one to answer the question. But I like Jowett best for clarity and simplicity.
I bought a few old books on Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Lucretius and Heraclitus recently, so will do some reading on them.

Describing chora as a place or as an extension is un-Platonic primarily because these are plainer ideas that stray too far from the complexities of text. — magritte

A place or extension didn't quite make sense to me either. I chose the topic to study in order to understand Plato better, but perhaps it was a wrong topic, as it feels an advanced topic rather than basic or common topic. Hence the reason why I bought the Sallis book to read, but it wasn't much help in understanding the concept.

I was thinking on chora in the direction of the substrate of forms. Because forms must come from somewhere too. Forms have hierarchy, hence why not substrate? But then, I couldn't locate further intelligible resources for the information on the point, at which the inferring pursuit was left.

What is your definition, or rather, understanding of chora?

Analytic philosophy cannot cross over the dictionary meanings of words, suppose — Corvus

If they did they would lose an objective common ground of communication. The lexicon has its own biases as well but where would we be without it? Plato resorted to dramatics, personalities, irony, and metaphors to paint over large gaps with a broad brush where the fine strokes of reason lacked.

I bought a few old books on Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Lucretius and Heraclitus recently, so will do some reading on them. — Corvus

I need to do the same. Boundless apeiron and fundamental material substances as arche originated with those early physicists and I often wonder what that lost book by Heraclitus would read like.

What is your definition, or rather, understanding of chora? — Corvus

A definition might be too strict for something that mostly does not exist to be defined, it is an extended boundless dynamic field of inter-penetrating proto-substances constantly moving and changing into each other. According to ancient physics, if substances are self-generating and self-moving then they are necessarily imbued with soul and must be alive in some sense.

The chora needs to be an indefinitely active maelstrom, a background that cannot be sensed in any way that randomly moves and changes itself and everything in it. Otherwise Plato's philosophy doesn't work for him. — magritte

Well observed. That it takes "bastard reasoning" to approach the chora puts any effort toward a systematic view of the whole into question. For instance, Cornford's framing of a Theory of the Forms assumes a level of explanation that may not be on offer.

Yes, the chora must predate the gods and the entire creation story, just as the Forms must. Otherwise the demiurge has nothing to work with in creating the physical world, such as it seems. I'm not sure how that relates the heavens of the gods to the world though. — magritte

I am not sure either.

One feature that does not appear in the pure substrate model is the "wet nurse" role of the "receptacle".

Aristotle seems to find nurture as a reflection of the active agency and teleological aspect of Coming to Be. What is decided to be "prior" in the Timaeus, as a matter of likely stories, does not appear to satisfy Aristotle's view of time and place. Is that a disagreement about creation per se or a different view of Nous/ Not Nous?

If they did they would lose an objective common ground of communication. The lexicon has its own biases as well but where would we be without it? Plato resorted to dramatics, personalities, irony, and metaphors to paint over large gaps with a broad brush where the fine strokes of reason lacked. — magritte

A valid point. We use lexicon and analytic philosophy as a tool for clarification of ambiguous words or sentences in the arguments. But they are just a tool, not the end or goal of philosophy. Many eminent and deep philosophical ideas lie in the realm of chora beyond the words. :)

I need to do the same. Boundless apeiron and fundamental material substances as arche originated with those early physicists and I often wonder what that lost book by Heraclitus would read like. — magritte

I picked up these old books from the 2nd hand book shop for cheap, but they look very interesting books. I also thought that some of Platonic concepts could be coming from his predecessors like Parmenides, Heraclitus, Empedocles and Anaxagoras, but it was just an idea.

A definition might be too strict for something that mostly does not exist to be defined, it is an extended boundless dynamic field of inter-penetrating proto-substances constantly moving and changing into each other. According to ancient physics, if substances are self-generating and self-moving then they are necessarily imbued with soul and must be alive in some sense. — magritte

It sounds like Chora does things, moves, changes, generates imbued with souls and lives on, like God creates and time flows, but it may not exist in the material world for us to be able to perceive or sense.

Cornford's framing of a Theory of the Forms assumes a level of explanation that may not be on offer. — Paine

Do you mean his explanation for the exclusion of Forms from the Theaetetus? Cornford was a unitarian with respect to Plato's underlying metaphysics and believed that beyond the many things said there was deeper coherence. He also consciously excluded later Aristotelian interpretative influence. There is a review (here).

Plato seems to have deliberately hidden his metaphysics by sparingly spreading it throughout the dialogues, I have the strange impression that since Plato was his own editor and publisher, he periodically revised earlier dialogues stashing key pieces here and there. Consequently early readers like Aristotle could genuinely be obsoleted without their awareness. Furthermore the Academics might have had a later more complete copy of the works than the Lyceum.

Cornford's 'Platonist' sought out the metaphysical fragments then reread the entirety with an unerring guidance from that knowledge. Unfortunately only advanced scholars have the mental capacity to follow that plan. Certainly not me.

One feature that does not appear in the pure substrate model is the "wet nurse" role of the "receptacle". — Paine

That opens up Pandora's box.
The demiurge creates natural things by informing the chaotic substrate. I say things that are images, copies of their forms, that become, move, change, and perish like the substrate, yet retain formal identity. Things interact by kind, and have identity and temporal properties that can potentially be sensed. Things are less real than their perfect Forms and cannot be known because they move and change constantly.

The receptacle must contain and nourish objective things.

What pops out is the puzzle of subjective sensation and the objects of perception as contrasted to the things of the chora.

A Platonic reading recognizes this distinction, an Aristotelian reading does not. Aristotle sees substantial objects where Plato sees dynamic things and perceived objects.

It sounds like Chora does things, moves, changes, generates imbued with souls and lives on, like God creates and time flows, but it may not exist in the material world for us to be able to perceive or sense. — Corvus

Yes. Quite different from an empty infinite space or a container of sorts.
Interestingly there is a modern quantum version of the World Soul. The idea is that the universe is quantum computer busy calculating its and our future

Yes. Quite different from an empty infinite space or a container of sorts.
Interestingly there is a modern quantum version of the World Soul. The idea is that the universe is quantum computer busy calculating its and our future — magritte

So Plato might have been talking about the world soul and parallel universe 2300 years ago. That sounds interesting. Quantum computing is trying to find out what it was all about.

In regard to Cornford, we talked about this two years ago in this thread.

I need to ponder the Pandora box you opened before replying.

The quantum universe is proposed to be whole, and an intelligent agent in a Platonic sense. It is supposed to be acting instantaneously beyond our 3-D spacetime. Tempting sci-fi speculation but it hasn't been shown to be impossible partly because of real physics theories of extra space and time dimensions.

Could the quantum universe be in a possible world? Or would it be a legitimate existence in the universe?

You mentioned about "the World Soul". What is the World Soul? Do humans have souls?

Interestingly there is a modern quantum version of the World Soul. — magritte

Could the quantum universe be in a possible world? Or would it be a legitimate existence in the universe? — Corvus

The quantum universe is just another description of the physical universe but at the smallest quantum level. Consequent observable that change at human scales are the cumulative effect of countless quantum events. Just as the river is the sum of all the waters flowing by another name. It isn't any existence but the entire makeup of the whole of what can be.

What is the World Soul? Do humans have souls? — Corvus

Here, my only interest in Plato's World Soul is as a rational intelligent agent that after the original divine origin, continues to create natural observable things by mixing definite finite forms with indefinite primal substantial elements. Of course, human agency, people with intelligent souls can do the same as craftsmen. This is part of the metaphysical mechanism the passes formal identity and properties to objects, and in turn recognizes things in this or that form as objects.

Here, my only interest in Plato's World Soul is as a rational intelligent agent that after the original divine origin, continues to create natural observable things by mixing definite finite forms with indefinite primal substantial elements. — magritte

:ok:

Found an info page on Chora (Khora) in Wiki, which looks good. I am sure you must have seen the page if your main interest is Plato's philosophy. Do you agree with the content on the page?

Aristotle is known to have rejected the idea of Khora, and came up with his own version of the idea called hyle, as in this page Hylomorphism.

Alternatively, one could read the actual text.

Good point. But when the actual text is abstruse, preliminary readings on the academic commentaries and even ChatGPT sessions do help accessing the text later?

I don't want to broadly condemn any approach to reading texts.

I have found much value with starting with the original before reading other reactions. It makes it more of a matter of my perplexity approaching what is said.

My style of notetaking involves noticing connections and divergences that sometimes get picked up by others and sometimes not. Those notes connect me to texts I read decades ago. I still do not know the answer to a lot of those questions.

Happened with Kant's CPR. Tried start reading the original texts, but they were hard to bite in with convoluted archaic writing styles and word meanings from different versions of translated texts, which got me nowhere.

Put down the original texts, and read several academic commentaries, articles and ChatGpt sessions on the topic. They gave me clearer understanding on the whole picture of CPR, and now I am ready to get back to original texts.

Found an info page on Chora (Khora) in Wiki, which looks good. — Corvus

I like the two well-chosen Plato quotes there from the Timaeus.

“Moreover, a third kind is that of the Khôra (χώρας), everlasting, not admitting destruction, granting an abode to all things having generation, itself to be apprehended with nonsensation, by a sort of bastard reckoning, hardly trustworthy; and looking toward which we dream and affirm that it is necessary that all that is be somewhere in some place and occupy some khôra; and that that which is neither on earth nor anywhere in the heaven is nothing." — Plato, Timaeus, 52a-b
"So likewise it is right that the substance which is to be fitted to receive frequently over its whole extent the copies of all things intelligible and eternal should itself, of its own nature, be void of all the forms. Wherefore, let us not speak of her that is the Mother and Receptacle of this generated world, which is perceptible by sight and all the senses, by the name of earth or air or fire or water, or any aggregates or constituents thereof: rather, if we describe her as a Kind invisible and unshaped, all-receptive, and in some most perplexing and most baffling partaking of the intelligible, we shall describe her truly."[4] — Plato, Timaeus, 51a

I complained before about the necessity of bringing a point of view to reading Plato. Even in the original, one can't tell whether a speech or argument is actually Plato's belief or just that of the dramatic speaker in the dialogue. Is the receptacle part of Plato's overall scheme or is it a tall tale from the Pythagorean sophist Timaeus? When it is emphasized as likely, is likely to be taken positively or negatively?

This sort of judgment needs to have its own justification on some basis, be it dramatic, psychological, political, historical, religious, or whatever might seem relevant to the reader. I try to base my reading on coherence to other things Plato said elsewhere in other dialogues hoping that his philosophy was logically founded.

My preference is for something like the SEP article Timaeus written by two experts who have a definite approach to Plato. Their view however is still only their view.

In its own right it is (part of) a totally characterless subject that temporarily in its various parts gets characterized in various ways. This is the receptacle—an enduring substratum, neutral in itself but temporarily taking on the various characterizations through traces of the four elements in it. The observed particulars just are parts of that receptacle so characterized (51b4–6). — D.Zeyl & B.Sattler

I complained before about the necessity of bringing a point of view to reading Plato. Even in the original, one can't tell whether a speech or argument is actually Plato's belief or just that of the dramatic speaker in the dialogue. Is the receptacle part of Plato's overall scheme or is it a tall tale from the Pythagorean sophist Timaeus? When it is emphasized as likely, is likely to be taken positively or negatively? — magritte

Plato's original texts had been written in archaic Greek, which even Greek folks living now don't understand unless they study the archaic language.

So for us non Greek readers of Plato in English translated copies, they must be translated from the original archaic Greek to modern Greek, then translated again from modern Greek to English. Hence unless one reads them in the original archaic Greek, could it be seen as reading the actual text?

I try to base my reading on coherence to other things Plato said elsewhere in other dialogues hoping that his philosophy was logically founded. — magritte

When I read the classic philosophical texts, I try to read them interpreting from my own view rather than trying to understand them under officially accepted interpretation. Not sure if this is good way of reading them.

My preference is for something like the SEP article Timaeus written by two experts who have a definite approach to Plato. Their view however is still only their view. — magritte

That looks a good article for the topic too. Thank for the info.

which we dream and affirm that it is necessary that all that is be somewhere in some place and occupy some khôra; and that that which is neither on earth nor anywhere in the heaven is nothing." — Plato, Timaeus, 52a-b

Derrida mentions Khora as the images we see in our dreams, which sounds interesting. Is that where our dreams come from?

Where did you read that?

I have a few old paperback copies by Derrida. It is "The Derrida Reader - Writing Performances" - Edited by Julian Wolfreys, Edinburgh University 1998. pp.231 - 232.

I complained before about the necessity of bringing a point of view to reading Plato. Even in the original, one can't tell whether a speech or argument is actually Plato's belief or just that of the dramatic speaker in the dialogue. Is the receptacle part of Plato's overall scheme or is it a tall tale from the Pythagorean sophist Timaeus? When it is emphasized as likely, is likely to be taken positively or negatively? — magritte

Those are good questions. I think there is a relationship between Timaeus and the Sophist in this regard. The Stranger brings into question the absolute separation of Being and Becoming put forward in the Timaeus. But the contrast does not resolve as one ground closer to the truth than another. That is what made Cornford's head explode.

"The Derrida Reader - Writing Performances" - Edited by Julian Wolfreys, Edinburgh University 1998. pp.231 - 232. — Corvus

This book has a chapter titled "Khora".

I will look for it.

John Sallis refers to that text in his Verge of Philosophy, saying:

My discussions with Jacques Derrida about the khora go back to 1982-83. At that time he gave me a copy of the typescript of his text Khora, which appeared in print only in 1987. This generous gift was not entirely unsolicited, as our mutual interest in the Timaeus had, more than once, come up in conversations that year in Paris.

Many years later, referring to our dialogue, he wrote that the Timaeus is "a text which we both feel possesses an implosive power which it keeps in reserve." It is not of course a matter only of the single word. Derrida insists on contextualization; he stresses that the development of a concept, indeed its very delimitation, requires, not mere designation, but inscription within an extended discourse, within a text.

Nonetheless, there can be little question but that, within the text of the Timaeus, preeminently within the second of Timaeus' three discourses, the word Khora bears the weight of what is there thought, of what is thought in a thinking so exorbitant that what is there thought can no longer even be called-except very improperly-a concept. This word, if it be a word in this context, is the fuse that would have set off-and that now again could be made to set off-the implosion of the dyadic structure of intelligible and sensible that otherwise Platonism would be taken to have bequeathed to the entire history of metaphysics. This no doubt is the implosive power Derrida had in mind. — John Sallis, The Verge of Philosophy, Chapter 3