The argumentative progression of the three definitions of figure in the Meno
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249X_35_32Keywords:
Definitions, Figures, Method of Analysis, Knowledge, MathematicsAbstract
The article examines the three definitions of figure in Plato’s Meno, relating them to the analytical method of geometry. The first defines in perceptual terms (colors of surfaces), useful for initial identification but insufficient for rational explanations. The second abstracts figure as the limit of solids, offering clarity but violating the simplicity criterion by explaining something simple through something complex. The third, implicit definition, describes by the lines that delimit it, surpassing the previous ones by using a simple element with explanatory power. The ordering of the definitions reflects the analytical method of geometry and the Socratic method of generalizations.
Downloads
References
BURNET, J. (ed.). (1900-1907). Plato. Platonis Opera 5 vols. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
CROCKER, R. (1963). Pythagorean Mathematics and Music. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 22, n. 2, p. 189-198.
FRIEDLEIN, G. (1967). Proclus. Procli Diadochi in primum Euclidis elementorum librum commentarii Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana. Leipzig, Teubner.
FINE, G. (2014). The Possibility of Inquiry: Meno’s Paradox from Socrates to Sextus Oxford, Oxford University Press.
HEATH, T. L. (1926). The Elements of Euclid 3 vols. 2nd ed. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. (Reprint: New York: Dover, 1956).
HEATH, T. L. (1921). A History of Greek Mathematics, vol. I: From Thales to Euclid. New York, Dover Publications.
HEIBERG, L. (1969). Euclides. Euclidis Elementa Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. Ed. E. S. Stamatis & J. L. Heiberg.
HIRSCH, E. D. (1967). Validity in Interpretation New Haven: Yale University Press.
IGLÉSIAS, M. (2001). Platão. Mênon São Paulo: Edições Loyola.
IGLÉSIAS, M. (2020). Platão. Teeteto São Paulo: Editora Loyola.
KNORR, W. R. (1986). The Ancient Tradition of Geometric Problems Boston: Birkhäuser. (Reprint: New York: Dover).
KNORR, W. R. (1991). What Euclid Meant: On the Use of Evidence in Studying Ancient Mathematics. In: Science and Philosophy in Classical Greece New York/London, Garland, p. 119-163.
LLOYD, G. E. R. (2004). The Meno and the Mysteries of Mathematics. In: CHRISTIANIDIS, J. (ed.). Classics in the History of Greek Mathematics Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 240. Dordrecht, Springer, p. 169-183.
MCKIRAHAN, R. (1983). Aristotelian Epagoge in Prior Analytics 2.21 and Posterior Analytics 1.1. Journal of the History of Philosophy 21, n.1, p. 1-13.
MENDELL, H. (1984). Two Geometrical Examples from Aristotle's Metaphysics Classical Quarterly 34, p. 359-372.
MENDELL, H. (1998). Making Sense of Aristotelian Demonstration. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 16, p. 161-225.
NEHAMAS, A. (1985). Meno’s Paradox and Socrates as a Teacher. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 3, p. 1-30.
MORROW, G. R. (1992). Proclus. A Commentary on the First Book of Euclid's Elements Trans. with intro. and notes by Glenn R. Morrow; foreword by Ian Mueller. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
ROSS, D. (ed.) (1964). Aristotle. Prior and Posterior Analytics: A Revised Text with Introduction and Commentary Oxford, Oxford University Press .
ROSS, D. (ed.) (1949). Aristotle. Metaphysics 2 vols. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
SCOTT, D. (2006). Meno’s Paradox Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Rafael Cavalcanti de Souza
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Given the public access policy of the journal, the use of the published texts is free, with the obligation of recognizing the original authorship and the first publication in this journal. The authors of the published contributions are entirely and exclusively responsible for their contents.
1. The authors authorize the publication of the article in this journal.
2. The authors guarantee that the contribution is original, and take full responsibility for its content in case of impugnation by third parties.
3. The authors guarantee that the contribution is not under evaluation in another journal.
4. The authors keep the copyright and convey to the journal the right of first publication, the work being licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License-BY.
5. The authors are allowed and stimulated to publicize and distribute their work on-line after the publication in the journal.
6. The authors of the approved works authorize the journal to distribute their content, after publication, for reproduction in content indexes, virtual libraries and similars.
7. The editors reserve the right to make adjustments to the text and to adequate the article to the editorial rules of the journal.
