Abstract
Plato is widely considered as the methodological progenitor of philosophy by introducing the rigorous pursuit of universal definitions through endless revisions and generating intricate deductive arguments. The dialogue format is ideal for displaying intricate arguments, with sub-arguments, rebuttals, revised arguments, revised rebuttals, and so on. These arguments are considered to display the paradigm of deduction. However, examining under the surface reveals that embedded in the deductive arguments are abductions of various sorts, such as hypothesis generation and inference to the best explanation, as well as inductive reasoning through persistent examples is in the crevices of these arguments. Hence, in Lorenzo Magnani’s Abduction, Reason, and Science, Processes of Discovery and Explanation (Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, 2001) “abduction–deduction–induction cycles” are unveiled. In the Phaedo, with its four-staged argument for the immortality of the soul, and in the Parmenides, with the dilemma of participation and the largeness regress as two objections to Plato’s theory of Forms, though the overarching arguments are deductive ones, the author finds, in the layers of their independent premises, as well as in some of the inferences in the sub-arguments, an abundance of abduction of various varieties as well as induction. Magnani’s term can be employed for hybrid “deduction–abduction–induction” chains to characterize the arguments in these two dialogues. First, a descriptive synopsis of the main arguments is presented; then a linear quasi-diagrammatic display of the arguments in the context of the entire dialogues is sketched. The conclusion is that the overarching arguments in both the dialogues may be captured as a De⇒Ab—De—In structure in which the arguments are deductive with embedded abduction–deduction–induction cycles.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, J. P. (2009). Platonic chronology and writings. http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/platochron.html. Accessed 17 Feb 2022.
Allen, R. E. (1959). Forms and standards. The Philosophical Quarterly, 9(35), 164–167.
Allen, R. E. (1980). Ideas as thoughts: Parmenides 132b–c. Ancient Philosophy, 1(1), 29–38.
Allen, W. (1975). My apology. In W. Allen (Ed.), Side effects. Random House.
Bailer-Jones, D. M. (1999). Tracing the development of models in the philosophy of science. In L. Magnan, N. J. Nersessian, & P. Thagard (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 23–40). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bluck, R. S. (1957). Forms as standards. Phronesis, 2(2), 115–127.
Brandwood, L. (1990). The chronology of Plato’s dialogues. Cambridge University Press.
Cecílio, G. C. A. (2017). The third man in Plato’s “Parmenides”: Argument structure and a solution proposal. Kriterion. Journal of Philosophy, 58(138), 557–576.
Cherniss, H. (1951). Plato as a mathematician. The Review of Metaphysics, 4(3), 395–425.
Cohen, S. M. (1971). The logic of the third man. The Philosophical Review, 80(4), 448–475.
Corfield, D. (2021). http://128.2.67.219/davidcorfield/show/deduction%2C+induction%2C+abduction. Accessed 23 Feb 2022.
Denyer, N. (2007). The Phaedo’s final argument. In D. Scott (Ed.), Maieusis: Essays in ancient philosophy in honour of Myles Burnyeat (pp. 87–96). Oxford University Press.
Dorter, K. (1976). The Phaedo’s final argument. Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplementary, 2, 165–188.
Dragulinescu, S. (2016). Inference to the best explanation and mechanisms in medicine. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 37(3), 211–232.
Gentner, D. (2002). Analogy in scientific discovery: The case of Johannes Kepler. In L. Magnani & N. J. Nersessian (Eds.), Model-based reasoning: Science, technology, values (pp. 21–40). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gertz, S. (2015). From ‘immortal’ to ‘imperishable’: Damascius on the final argument in Plato’s Phaedo. In S. Delcomminette, P. d’Hoine, & M.-A. Gavray (Eds.), Ancient readings of Plato’s Phaedo (pp. 240–255). Brill.
Harman, G. (1965). Inference to the best explanation. The Philosophical Review, 74(1), 88–95.
Hunt, D. P. (1997). How (not) to exempt Platonic Forms from Parmenides’s third man. Phronesis, 42(1), 1–20.
Jetli, P. (1998). Relations in Plato’s Phaedo. In F. Orilia & W. J. Rapaport (Eds.), Thought, language and ontology: Essays in memory of Hector-Neri Castañeda (pp. 297–311). Kluwer.
Jetli, P. (2014). Abduction and model based reasoning in Plato’s Meno. In L. Magnani (Ed.), Model-based reasoning in science and technology: Theoretical and cognitive issues (pp. 221–245). Springer.
Jetli, P. (2016). Abduction and model-based reasoning in Plato’s Republic. In L. Magnani & C. Casadio (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in science and technology: Logical, epistemological, and cognitive issues (pp. 351–374). Springer.
Kim, S. (2020). The third man argument in Plato’s Parmenides: On the limits of human thinking. Cogito, 90, 261–284.
Lipton, P. (2000). Inference to the best explanation. In W. H. Newton-Smith (Ed.), A companion to the philosophy of science (pp. 184–193). Blackwell.
Magnani, L. (2001). Abduction, reason, and science: Processes of discovery and explanation. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Magnani, L. (2004). Model-based and manipulative abduction in science. Foundations of Science, 9(3), 219–247.
Moravcsik, J. M. E. (1963). The ‘third man’ argument and Plato’s theory of Forms. Phronesis, 8(1), 50–62.
Okasha, S. (2000). Van Fraassen’s critique of inference to the best explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 31(4), 691–710.
Olsen, S. (2002). Plato, Proclus and Peirce: Abduction and the foundations of the logic of discovery. In R. B. Harris (Ed.), Neoplatonism and contemporary thought part one (pp. 85–102). State University of New York Press.
Otto, K. D. (2017). Resemblance and the regress. Apeiron, 50(1), 81–101.
Peirce, C. S. (1931). In C. Harthshorne & P. Weiss (Eds.), The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Vol. 1). Harvard University Press. https://colorysemiotica.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/peirce-collectedpapers.pdf. Accessed 21 Feb 2022
Peirce, C. S. (1932). In C. Harthshorne & P. Weiss (Eds.), The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Vol. 2). Harvard University Press. https://colorysemiotica.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/peirce-collectedpapers.pdf. Accessed 21 Feb 2022
Plato. (1989a). Apology (H. Tredennick, Trans.). In E. Hamilton & H. Cairns (Eds.), The collected dialogues of Plato (pp. 3–26). Princeton University Press.
Plato. (1989b). Phaedo (H. Tredennick, Trans.). In E. Hamilton & H. Cairns (Eds.), The collected dialogues of Plato (pp. 40–98). Princeton University Press.
Plato. (1989c). Parmenides (F. M. Cornford, Trans.). In E. Hamilton & H. Cairns (Eds.), The collected dialogues of Plato (pp. 920–956). Princeton University Press.
Plato. (2007). Euthyphro (C. Woods & R. Peck, Trans.). https://philosophyintrocourse.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/plato-euthyphro.pdf. Accessed 17 Feb 2022.
Scolnicov, S. (2003). Plato’s Parmenides: Translated with introduction and commentary. University of California Press.
Sharvy, R. (1986). Plato’s causal logic and the third man argument. Noûs, 20(4), 507–530.
Taylor, A. E. (1903). In the first part of Plato’s Parmenides. Mind, 12(45), 1–20.
Vandoulakis, I. M. (2009). Plato’s “third man” paradox: Its logic and history. Archives Internationales d’Histoire des Sciences, 59(162), 3–51.
Vlastos, G. (1954). The third man argument in the Parmenides. The Philosophical Review, 63(3), 319–349.
Vosniadu, S., & Ortony, A. (1989). Similarity and analogical reasoning: a synthesis. In S. Vosniadu & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 1–18). Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Jetli, P. (2023). Deduction–Abduction–Induction Chains in Plato’s Phaedo and Parmenides. In: Magnani, L. (eds) Handbook of Abductive Cognition. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10135-9_69
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10135-9_69
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-10134-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-10135-9
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsReference Module Computer Science and Engineering