I'm sure it very difficult, but I wonder what reality would be if not filtered through the Plato/Aristotle lens...
On Jan 3, 2010, at 5:31 PM, X Acto wrote: > Aristotle > Metaphysics > Book Gamma > 6 > "There are some who, either seriously or for the sake of > arguement, raise a difficulty by asking who decides who > is healthy and, in general on any issue, whose judgement > is right. Such perplexities are like asking whether we are > now asleep or awake. For all such questions arise because > men demand a reason for everything; they seek to prove that > they can reach ultimate principals,but their very actions prove > they are not convinced. We have already explained the source > of their trouble: they seek a reason for things which have > no reason, since the beginning of demonstration can not > be demonstrated." > > 1012b > "Against all such arguements, however, it must be > asked, as has been said also in the previouse discussions > .not that something is or is not, but that something has meaning; > so that we must converse on the basis of definition by > grasping what falsity or truth means." > > He goes on to state that to state anything as > "the way it is" in naturally untrue since all things change. > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: MarshaV <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sun, January 3, 2010 9:32:35 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] Protagoras and "Measure" > > > > "The clearest form of the argument is given by Aristotle. In the fourth > book of the *Metaphysics," > Aristotle advances two decisive principles regarding primary substance > (*ousia*): (i) necessarily, > for every attribute, a substance either possesses that attribute or it does > not, which is Aristotle's > version of the principle of excluded middle; and (ii) for any substance, if > anything may be > predicted of it then, necessarily, its attributes cannot be accidents only, > or only apparent > properties, the violation of which Aristotle takes to entail contradiction. > Protagoras, apparently, > violates both -- which shows at the least that relativism was thought in the > ancient world to > involve a restriction on, or abandonment of, the principle of excluded middle. > Now,*if* it is not true that reality is changeless, then, of course, (ii) > must be given up; and > if (ii) is abandoned, then, on Aristotle's own reading of (ii), (i) must be > given up also. But the > ancients understood the doctrine, "man is the measure," to entail at least > that reality is not > changeless -- also, therefore, that if man can rightly claim to have > knowledge, than, on Protagoras' > argument, knowledge cannot be addressed to what is changeless in reality. > This much at least > yields a stalemate between Aristotle and Protagoras: thus far, neither one's > thesis is obviously > incoherent. But even this much favors Protagoras, because Aristotle holds > that the violation > of (i) and (ii) yields contradiction. More would need to be said. > Aristotle does have more to say. There is another argument, a bridge > argument, that is decisive > for Aristotle: "if not all things are relative, but some are self-existent, > not everything that appears > will be true"; and *that*, which is tantamount to (ii), must, *somewhere* in > Protagoras' argument, > yield the denial of those properties of particular substances *that are > changeless.* Nothing could > be more reasonable. The only trouble is that Protagoras rejects the thesis > that there *is* something > changeless, and Aristotle nowhere shows convincingly that *that* produces > contradiction, except, > trivially, *by* presupposing the truth of what must first be shown to be > true. So Aristotle fails. > Certainly, in our own time, nearly every prominent thinker either believes > that reality is not > changeless or believes that it is not demonstrably true that believing *that* > cannot but be > incoherent." > (Margolis, Joseph, 'The Truth About Relativism' (Paperback), pp.77-78) > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... > > > > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ _______________________________________________________________________ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
