Report on the International Conference, Chôra in Plato’s Timaeus, September 19-20,
TOPOI Berlin.
The “third kind” or “receptacle” of Plato’s Timaeus remains one of the most difficult and
puzzling aspects of the dialogue, despite its centrality to the dialogue and, as
commentators from Aristotle to the present have claimed, to Plato’s natural philosophy
more generally. The character Timaeus introduces the third kind when he makes a
“second beginning” in his cosmology. Having previously drawn on two “kinds,” namely,
intelligible form as paradigm and sensible object created in its likeness, he here
recognizes the need for a third kind, which, however, is difficult to grasp and so must be
approached through consideration of the behavior and status of the traditional four
elements, earth, air, fire and water. Even at this stage, the role of the subsequent account,
and so of the receptacle, is controversial. Is Timaeus’ account mere myth, literal truth, or
something in between? And what is the function of the receptacle in this story? Some
have supposed that the receptacle is intended to safeguard and explain the ontological
status of perceptible objects, given that they are mere images of intelligible forms. Sarah
Broadie, in a far-reaching talk that set the stage for much of the subsequent discussion,
argued, against such readings, that the receptacle is a “cosmological requirement,” one
which in particular enables Plato to secure a place for the four elements in the generation
of the universe without granting them so much autonomy as would threaten the stability,
harmony and beauty of a universe created by divine intelligence. Georgia Mouroutsou
suggested innovative answers to both questions with her contention that the receptacle is
posited as part of a defense of the mere possibility of the perceptible universe’s
generation, thus securing a fundamental philosophical role for the receptacle without
necessitating a literalist interpretation.
We can get a sense of some of the central issues discussed at the conference by
considering the stretch of text from 48e-52d, which brings out at least two prominent
interpretive approaches. On one approach, the third kind is to be understood along the
lines of Aristotelian constituent matter (as Aristotle himself seems to have understood it);
on the other, it is to be understood as a concept of space, as that in which bodies exist,
perhaps accounting for their locatedness. Timaeus begins with a puzzle: As is evident
from the transformations between them, earth, air, fire and water do not exhibit the
requisite stability for being called “this”. That status is reserved for the receptacle, while
the elemental kinds are mere “suches” or “things so-qualified.”
A notable disagreement between Beere, Broadie, and Mouroutsou concerned the function
of the receptacle here. Is the receptacle needed (i) as a persistent subject for change, (ii)
as a stable “this” to ground the existence of mere “suches,” or (iii) as a minimal
requirement for the possibility of subject-predicate language? This disagreement was
reflected, for example, in the question of what kind of instability Timaeus takes the
elemental kinds, by contrast with the receptacle, to exhibit. Are the elemental kinds in
themselves so unstable as to resist a certain kind of linguistic representation (as “thises”),
recalling the Heracliteanism of the Theaetetus? Or does Timaeus assume (perhaps as
empirically observable) that a single thing remains the same through the elemental
transformations, and simply point out that however stable they are, none of the elemental
kinds is this persistent “this”?
Timaeus concludes that the receptacle alone, as that in which the elemental kinds cometo-be, is to be called “this,” and immediately supplements this claim with the example of
gold constantly being molded into different shapes. If asked “what it is” before us we
should answer “gold” rather than any of the shapes. Near the end of the stretch of text
48e-52d, Timaeus describes the third kind as (inter alia) “space” and, though not
perceptible, accessible in a dream-like state through the principle: everything that is, is
somewhere. Despite Plato’s reluctance to endorse this principle, the use to which it is
here put, as well as the term chôra, both suggest a spatial analysis of the third kind.
Jonathan Beere argued that the receptacle shares features with both space and
(Aristotelian) matter, but cannot be identified with either; notably, it is a subject for
perceptible forms, and so not mere space, but is not a constituent of perceptual bodies,
and so not matter. Mouroutsou shed new light on this stretch of text by showing that
Timaeus’ claims to precision and likelihood become progressively stronger as he
approaches the more straightforwardly spatial conception asserted at the end, thus
showing how a spatial interpretation might nevertheless accomodate passages suggestive
of a material conception. Edward Lee took his cue from Timaeus’ mother-chôra analogy
which appears twice within 48e-52d and argued that a “procreation model” operates, if
sometimes behind the scenes, throughout the second part of the cosmological account.
One of the virtues of this conference is that it brought together a variety of
complementary approaches. Different scholars focused to varying degrees on the analysis
of individual arguments, on shifting dialectical contexts, on the place of the Timaeus in
Plato’s philosophy, and on its use of literary devices. Perhaps most fruitful, however, was
the juxtaposition of the analysis of Plato’s text with historical approaches. While Lee was
concerned to bring out the influence of Hesiod and Philolaus on the Timaeus, and to read
the geometrical construction of the elements as an implicit critique of the Democritean
theory of atoms, George Karamanolis traced the interpretation of the receptacle through
middle and late Platonism. The latter’s contribution not only brought (back) to light
interpretative options for the receptacle – for example, as plurality, quantity or extension
– that have not prominently figured in recent scholarship, but also showed how the
“reception of the receptacle” has itself reflected different concerns in different periods.
All in all, the diverse and stimulating array of papers – to which I can hardly do justice
here – fostered spirited and fruitful discussion on a number of topics.
Andreas Anagnostopoulos, LMU München