Plato’s Timaeus is a challenge to understand and to interpret, but its central ontological innovation, a third kind in addition to the standard Platonic categories of Being and Becoming, is, even according to Timaeus himself, a murky and difficult topic. I endeavor to shed a meager light on this shadowy entity, the Receptacle of all Becoming, by examining an argument Timaeus gives for the claim that “we should always call it the same thing” (50b6-7). This claim comes immediately after the famous gold analogy, about which I will say only a few words, and so it also closely follows the “much misread” passage of 49c7-50b5, about which I will say even less. At the other end of the argument (51b6-e6), Timaeus takes up the question of the existence of Forms; this is another topic I will leave aside. What I will do is to focus on the argument that is given in the nine lines from 50b6-c6 and explained in the following page (50c7-51b6), employing what is perhaps “bastard reasoning” to extract from this passage some clear dogmata about this unclear kind.
 All references are to Burnet’s edition of the Timaeus, unless otherwise noted. Translations are my own.
 Interpretations of this passage include Cherniss 1954, Cornford 1937, pp. 178-81, Gulley 1960, Lee 1967, McCabe 1994, pp. 179-84, Miller 2003, Mohr 1980, pp. 138-44, reprinted in Mohr 1985, pp. 85-91, and Mohr 2005, pp. 83-90, Prior 1985, pp. 109-10, Silverman 1992, Silverman 2002, pp. 257-65, Taylor 1928, White 1981, pp. 307-19, Zeyl 1975, and Zeyl 2000, pp. lvi-lxiv.
 In this paper I will not claim that Plato believes there is a Receptacle with such a nature as is laid out in the Timaeus, although I think this is likely. Instead, I’ll discuss what Timaeus, the character in the dialogue, tells us about the Receptacle.
Buckels, Christopher, "We Should Always Call the Receptacle the Same Thing: Timaeus 50b6-51b6" (2013). The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter. 483.