Dr. Zaslavsky rejects the common notion that what makes a myth in Plato a myth (as opposed to a speech or logos) is its truth value. Therefore, after an analysis of why Plato wrote as he did and a cataloguing and examination of every occurence of mythos and its derivatives in the Platonic corpus, he articulates the new linguistic and philosophical principle that a myth is a genetic or causal synagogic/synoptic account, in contradistinction to logos as a descriptive or calssificatory diairetic account. He tests this ...
Read More
Dr. Zaslavsky rejects the common notion that what makes a myth in Plato a myth (as opposed to a speech or logos) is its truth value. Therefore, after an analysis of why Plato wrote as he did and a cataloguing and examination of every occurence of mythos and its derivatives in the Platonic corpus, he articulates the new linguistic and philosophical principle that a myth is a genetic or causal synagogic/synoptic account, in contradistinction to logos as a descriptive or calssificatory diairetic account. He tests this definition successfully through an examination of all those accounts in Plato that are explicitly designated as myths.
Read Less
