Question: Does the Timaeus tell the story of humanity's fall into an imperfect realm of material necessity? Or does Plato shift in this work toward acceptance of nature as having some value, and even endorsement of natural philosophy as a pathway to moral perfection?
Five Incoherencies: Cosmological-psychological (Incoherencies about Souls and Morality)
1. Gender Hierarchy The opening dialogue reminds us of plans for an ideal state wherein women are equal (and rational), but in the Timaeus' cosmological scheme, clearly they are inferior (and irrational).
2. Zoological Hierarchy and the Recycling of Soul. The upward cycles of the souls to their stars, as well as the downward path of some souls into animals, seem permanent and irreversible. Yet Plato also writes as if the processes of metempsychosis will continue.
3. Moral Sanctions No one is willingly bad, yet people are punished for their misdoings. Similarly, people are rewarded when they are good, yet their control over their behavior seems limited.
Ontological/Epistemological Incoherencies
4. The Receptacle The Receptacle is treated with disgust or dismay, and it is tied with Necessity as a contributing cause of evil or limitation. However, it is still essential in order for anything else to exist, including things that are good.
Metaphors for the Receptacle: mirror, nurse or mother, gold, base for scented ointments, wax or other soft substance, and winnowing-basket (49-50).
5. Eikos Muthos The nature of the Timaeus as Platonic dialogue or doctrine is indeterminable: the "eikos muthos" is both (deceptive) semblance and (veridical) likeness.
The Divided Line:
So it was objects of this type [e.g., the Form of Square] that I was describing as belonging to the intelligible realm [Level One], with the rider that the mind can explore them only by taking things for granted [Level Two], and that its goal is not a starting-point, because it is incapable of changing direction and rising above the things it is taking for granted. And I went on to say that it used as likenesses those very things [Level Three] which are themselves the originals of a lower order of likenesses [Level Four], and that relative to the likenesses [of Level Four], the originals [Level Two] command respect and admiration for their distinctness. (511a3-8, tr. Waterfield, with my commentary added)
Level 1 Forms themselves
Level 2 Images of Forms (of Sameness, Difference, etc., i.e., "by using those former originals as likenesses (hos eikosin) (510b4-5, tr Waterfield)
Level 3 Images as things in the world from which the next level of likenesses come: flora, fauna, and artifacts
Level 4 Likenesses or Reflections likenesses (eikones) such as shadows and reflections (fantasmata)