Oh yes, Quality as unpatterned experience and patterned experience.
On Jan 4, 2010, at 5:18 AM, MarshaV wrote: > > > 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/ _______________________________________________________________________ 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/
