Did Plato Have a Philosophy of Science? A Discussion of Andrew Gregory, Plato’s Philosophy of Science

Abstract 0ne is reminded of those clever web-squatters who identify, well in advance, that domain names such as ‘free.com’, ‘money.com’, ‘loveatfirstsight.com’ would be worth registering. But what a surprise to discover such an obvious domain registered so late! Apparently, this is the first book entitled ‘Plato’s Philosophy of Science’ and, besides all other praise deserved by Andrew Gregory, one must congratulate him for filling this important gap. For, of course, the matter is not merely that of title, and is of serious importance. Philosophers commonly make mention of Plato’s Philosophy of Science. This would imply the following assumption: that Plato had a body of doctrine that we can put under the heading ‘Philosophy of Science’. Most philosophers of science who are not specialists in ancient philosophy seem to take this assumption for granted. Here is the first reason why I am grateful for Gregory’s book. University introductions to ‘Western Intellectual History’ etc. make regular stops at this station-Plato’s Philosophy of Science-and now, finally, the students (as well as the instructors) have some guidebook. I wonder what most ancient specialists would think about this assumption that Plato had a philosophy of science. I am genuinely perplexed, thinking about it. Gregory put me into this perplexity: here is the second reason why I am grateful. In this essay I try to sketch my way out of the perplexity.