• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.137
• /
• pp.109-130
• /
• 2016

Plato learned of teleology from his teacher Socrates and expanded it to its application in cosmology. His cosmological work Timaeus was the final edition of teleological view. The motive that Demiurge created the cosmos was in resemblance of his goodness. He then modeled the idea of the Good imposing limit to the Forms of Good in a material world. In this sense, Demiurge was an excellent creator and created the Good cosmos. The cosmic body was made from four elements (water, fire, air, earth) and the cosmic soul entered the cosmic body and the cosmic intelligence (nous) entered the cosmic soul. According to these steps, this cosmos was created and named a living god. In conclusion, Plato asserts that this cosmos was created by God's teleological project, and resembles the goodness of a god. When man followed the order and balance in the cosmos, the good of the individual and the state would be accomplished.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.145
• /
• pp.195-215
• /
• 2018

Plato said that our cosmos was created from the union of nous and $anank{\bar{e}}$ in Timaeus. In addition to this, 'the third kind', namely $ch{\bar{o}}ra$, exists already with genesis before the birth of the cosmos. Plato explains this $ch{\bar{o}}ra$ with several metaphors. That is, 'receptacle', 'mother', 'gold', 'space', 'place' etc. From Aristotle to contemporary scholars, generally three types of interpretations are presented. First, $ch{\bar{o}}ra$ is a kind of a 'void.' Secondly, $ch{\bar{o}}ra$ is Aristotle's $prot{\bar{e}}$ $hyl{\bar{e}}$. Thirdly, $ch{\bar{o}}ra$ has two aspects of space and matter. I will accept the third opinion. Plato's $ch{\bar{o}}ra$ has both a spatial aspect and material aspect. $Ch{\bar{o}}ra$ is a place that accommodates all sensible things in itself. On the other hand, $ch{\bar{o}}ra$ seems to be a mother who nourishes sensible things like a child. In this, Plato lacks a logical consistency. The research of $ch{\bar{o}}ra$ can not deviate from the limits of $eik{\bar{o}}s$ logos.