My Supplementary Answer to Prof. Hua-kuei Ho's Question in section A5.

Byun Ji-Yun

29 Nov 2020

View counts 83

Thank you for your question, Prof. Hua-kuei Ho.

I think my answer at the time of the presentation was insufficient, so I would like to make up for it.

If I understood correctly, you asked me how the ratio of the original or the imitation relates to the meaning of the verb "be (einai)."

I consider proportions to be such as a structure of a complex formed by its components.

And I think that everything that "is" is complex having both its own nature (or essence) and many other properties.

So then, in my presentation, the original model's proportion shows its nature (to on1) and current properties (to on2).

On the other hand, as I believe, an image's proportion indicates its original model’s state at a certain moment.

For example, a picture indicates its model and combines some colors or lines with this model.

Another example can be founded in statements (logos).

Its subject (onoma) indicates something that is, and then its predicate (rhēma) combines some properties with this subject.

Therefore, I think that image's proportion makes truth or falsehood in relation to its original.

Thank you again for your question, and I hope my answer has made my position clearer.

0 2

Hua-kuei Ho2 Dec 2020 01:59

Thank you, Ji-Yun. Yes, you grasped my question very well, and thank you for your clarification.
Your comparison of the proportion shown in picture and that shown in logos is particularly interesting for me. The proportion shown in visual art is visible, perceptible (e.g. a larger head in a big statue which does not rightly represent the proportion of its original), while it is not so evident how logos represents its original’s proportion. Probably you’re right to understand it as the way how one combines a subject with its predicate(s). I am not sure. Probably the proportion in logos is concerning the length of description in the whole speech (cf. Statesman 277a-b).
I am not familiar with later dialogues. Thank you for sharing your ideas. The next IPS Symposium will be on the Sophist. Let’s hope the world will go better and better, and bring international conferences back to us!

Comments Edit Delete

Ji-Yun Byun2 Dec 2020 16:20

I agree with your point, Prof. Hua-kuei Ho. I hope Plato's remark that phantasia is homogeneous with logos, doxa, and dianoia can be a kind of clue to solving this problem. (Soph. 263e-264a) (I've heard my advisor, Prof Sung-Hoon Kang, suggested this idea at a seminar on the Sophist.) Phantasia will be able to combine aisthēsis with doxa, and aisthēsis will be able to sensibly represent the proportion of the original. If we can say that this phantasia shares a structural similarity with logos, we might be able to link the logos' proportions to the original proportions through this similarity. But of course, I also think we need to further explain how specifically these interventions and connections are made between targets and logos through phantasia.
On the other hand, with regard to the length of logos, it is considered that the target is complex and has many different aspects at the same time. The minimum unit statement will only imitate one of the various aspects of the object. I think the length of the statement will inevitably be very long to describe the entire subject without exception. Also, it seems possible to discuss the proportion of the statement itself independently of the subject of the statement. For example, all of the King's essence, attributes, and activities could be considered his proportions. A long-length statement (speech) about the King may, given the statement itself, on the one hand, focus on his particular character, specific purpose, or certain activities. On the other hand, It can discuss his overall impression briefly. In the former case, within the context of the discussion, one of the various aspects of the subject is being reviewed in more detail than the other, and nevertheless, this will still be able to describe the original proportion as it is (so, can be true). However, based on the purpose of revealing the nature or essence of the object, it can be evaluated as a more detailed and longer explanation than necessary. Perhaps the reference in Plt. 277a7-b1 to "speudontes pleiō kai meizō tou deontos hekasta tōn ergōn" can be understood as above.
Thank you again. Through your comments and advice, I got a chance to rethink my ideas. I also hope things get better and we can meet in real life and shake hands, and I hope I can thank you again then.

Comments Edit Delete

I agree with your point, Prof. Hua-kuei Ho. I hope Plato's remark that phantasia is homogeneous with logos, doxa, and dianoia can be a kind of clue to solving this problem. (Soph. 263e-264a) (I've heard my advisor, Prof Sung-Hoon Kang, suggested this idea at a seminar on the Sophist.) Phantasia will be able to combine aisthēsis with doxa, and aisthēsis will be able to sensibly represent the proportion of the original. If we can say that this phantasia shares a structural similarity with logos, we might be able to link the logos' proportions to the original proportions through this similarity. But of course, I also think we need to further explain how specifically these interventions and connections are made between targets and logos through phantasia. 
On the other hand, with regard to the length of logos, it is considered that the target is complex and has many different aspects at the same time. The minimum unit statement will only imitate one of the various aspects of the object. I think the length of the statement will inevitably be very long to describe the entire subject without exception. Also, it seems possible to discuss the proportion of the statement itself independently of the subject of the statement. For example, all of the King's essence, attributes, and activities could be considered his proportions. A long-length statement (speech) about the King may, given the statement itself, on the one hand, focus on his particular character, specific purpose, or certain activities.  On the other hand, It can discuss his overall impression briefly. In the former case, within the context of the discussion, one of the various aspects of the subject is being reviewed in more detail than the other, and nevertheless, this will still be able to describe the original proportion as it is (so, can be true). However, based on the purpose of revealing the nature or essence of the object, it can be evaluated as a more detailed and longer explanation than necessary. Perhaps the reference in Plt. 277a7-b1 to "speudontes pleiō kai meizō tou deontos hekasta tōn ergōn" can be understood as above.
Thank you again. Through your comments and advice, I got a chance to rethink my ideas. I also hope things get better and we can meet in real life and shake hands, and I hope I can thank you again then.

Answer to Soona Hong

List Write