more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


Single Idea 15844

[filed under theme 9. Objects / C. Structure of Objects / 8. Parts of Objects / c. Wholes from parts ]

Full Idea

But this sum now - isn't it just when there is nothing lacking that it is a sum? Yes, necessarily. And won't this very same thing - that from which nothing is lacking - be a whole?

Gist of Idea

A sum is that from which nothing is lacking, which is a whole

Source

Plato (Theaetetus [c.368 BCE], 205a)

Book Ref

Plato: 'Complete Works', ed/tr. Cooper,John M. [Hackett 1997], p.227


A Reaction

This seems to be right, be rather too vague and potentially circular to be of much use. What is the criterion for deciding that nothing is lacking?


The 33 ideas from 'Theaetetus'

Perception is infallible, suggesting that it is knowledge [Plato]
What evidence can be brought to show whether we are dreaming or not? [Plato]
It is impossible to believe something which is held to be false [Plato]
Eristic discussion is aggressive, but dialectic aims to help one's companions in discussion [Plato]
If you claim that all beliefs are true, that includes beliefs opposed to your own [Plato]
Clearly some people are superior to others when it comes to medicine [Plato]
Philosophers are always switching direction to something more interesting [Plato]
There must always be some force of evil ranged against good [Plato]
God must be the epitome of goodness, and we can only approach a divine state by being as good as possible [Plato]
How can a relativist form opinions about what will happen in the future? [Plato]
There seem to be two sorts of change: alteration and motion [Plato]
Our senses could have been separate, but they converge on one mind [Plato]
With what physical faculty do we perceive pairs of opposed abstract qualities? [Plato]
Thought must grasp being itself before truth becomes possible [Plato]
How can a belief exist if its object doesn't exist? [Plato]
You might mistake eleven for twelve in your senses, but not in your mind [Plato]
We master arithmetic by knowing all the numbers in our soul [Plato]
Things are only knowable if a rational account (logos) is possible [Plato]
Maybe primary elements can be named, but not receive a rational account [Plato]
A rational account is essentially a weaving together of things with names [Plato]
A primary element has only a name, and no logos, but complexes have an account, by weaving the names [Plato]
The whole can't be the parts, because it would be all of the parts, which is the whole [Plato]
A sum is that from which nothing is lacking, which is a whole [Plato]
Either a syllable is its letters (making parts as knowable as whole) or it isn't (meaning it has no parts) [Plato]
If a word has no parts and has a single identity, it turns out to be the same kind of thing as a letter [Plato]
Parts and wholes are either equally knowable or equally unknowable [Plato]
Understanding mainly involves knowing the elements, not their combinations [Plato]
A rational account might be seeing an image of one's belief, like a reflection in a mirror [Plato]
A rational account of a wagon would mean knowledge of its hundred parts [Plato]
Expertise is knowledge of the whole by means of the parts [Plato]
An inadequate rational account would still not justify knowledge [Plato]
A rational account involves giving an image, or analysis, or giving a differentiating mark [Plato]
Without distinguishing marks, how do I know what my beliefs are about? [Plato]