Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T11:24:43.898Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paul Seligman Being and Not-being; an Introduction to Plato's Sophist, (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1974)

Review products

Paul Seligman Being and Not-being; an Introduction to Plato's Sophist, (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1974)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

J.M.E. Moravcsik
J.M.E. Moravcsik*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Critical Notice
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , December 1976 , pp. 737 - 744
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For useful bibliographies see the appropriate parts of Frede's, Michael Predikation und Existenzaussage, Gottingen, Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967Google Scholar, and Kostman's, James “False Logos and Not-Being in Plato's “Sophist” in Patterns in Plato's Thought,ed. by Moravcsik, J. Dordrecht, Reidel 1973.Google Scholar

2 For details see Moravcsik, J. “The Anatomy of Plato's Divisions” in Exegesis and Argument (Festschrift for G. Vlastos) ed. by Lee, E. Mourelatos, A. and Rorty, R. Assen, Van Gorcum, 1973, pp. 324–348Google Scholar.

3 Frank Lewis, “Did Plato discover the ESTIN of identity?” mimeogr. 1975.

4 Seligman criticizes repeatedly, among others, the earlier work of this reviewer. It will be clear from the above to those familiar with the controversies that on some points I have changed my views and that on others I remain intransigent. There remain many points on which Seligman indicates disagreements with me; it did not seem to me appropriate within the confines of this review to respond to all of these.