The reason why Aristotle chose the politically oligarchic and tyrannical system is ontological. Aristotle do not want to be a student of Plato in the sense that it would be a brilliant but umpteenth Platonist. He wants to be original. It comes as Plato has slain the monster and he is a sophist sophist. Accordingly, it will supplant the Sophists. A sophist is a worshiper of the finish that comes to assume that infinity is nothing. Aristotle is of that breed. To pour into the sophisticated theory, it should start by finding the side of the strongest and dominating.
Aristotle has this medium and its oligarchic nihilistic mentality comes from his education oligarch. When it is nihilistic, it starts out oligarch, whereas when we are first Republican to be transcendentalist. Inverted dialectic theory and practice. Sophists correspond Today almost the entire spectrum of media philosophers who have the particular ring hollow in presenting beautiful. Perhaps the media coverage she generates the qualitative weakening of today's sophisticated, it is certain that Aristotle must have been struck by the message of the sophists would not pass to posterity and it would hit forbidden.
Aristotle chooses to forge his own path and opted for compromise: between Platonism, which he considered too idealistic and sophistry, that it considers valid. Aristotle forge a method which may be cited as a neologism: the metaphysical . Metaphysics expresses the current nihilistic finally supposed to be sensible - viable. If it is not he who chose this name, it is fascinating to note that research suggests ontological Aristotle are not called ontological because the giver of this neologism metaphysics knows that it is a split between the Aristotelian approach and Platonic method.
Whoever finds and publishes the writings of Aristotle is called Andronicus of Rhodes and claims to have followed the discovery of Apellicon bibliophile. This is the last rector of the Lyceum founded by Aristotle in opposition to the Platonic Academy. Andronicus is suspected manipulation, but anyway, Metaphysics is a text that was known by some materialist philosophers, sophists Cyrenaics or heirs before the official edition and posthumous. Aristotle codifies a tradition of giving an internal consistency unknown before him. Such is the richness of Metaphysics as teaching esoteric, that is to say for those who wanted to indulge in philosophy antiplatonicienne antiontologique without repeat the mistakes of the Sophists and Democritus of Abdera their colleagues.
The Platonic method is based on dynamics. The real is infinite and is called Being. Aristotle contrasts the static knowledge (the epistemological fixism) and the definition that the real cardinal is finite. So, Aristotle offers a nihilism that has the special grant to be metaphysical qualities. Compared to Democritus of Abdera, read Aristotle closely, Aristotle gives attention to physics and scientific research takes the approach of the materialists, but Aristotle endows physics of metaphysics , c ' is to say he believes that the theory only premium within the finitude (Democritus believes that even be is not unifiable ). It is the major innovation of Aristotle compared to its predecessors the sophists (broadly defined).
To carry out its semantic revolution, Aristotle offers as a new concept (as opposed to the idea) the multiplicity , not being (Democritus had already done this consideration, and other Persian sages before him ), but non-being. Being is multiple because nothingness is multiple. If after this consideration Aristotle is not an innovator nihilist, what is he? Historically, Aristotle and Parmenides opposed to the tradition of ontological monism Plato correct while inspiring them (while extending it): for Aristotle, the breaking of his Platonic metaphysics with ontology means that we move from a Platonic to a multiple of its own. IF ago several people for multiple non-beings, the political conception of due oligarchy, but also the importance of knowledge, particularly scientific because the scientific object is to know within a particular field and defined and there - to restore the vision of multiple and fragmented reality.
The emphasis on scientific metaphysics implies that the project be limited to the question of Being. Aristotle believes that the change from the left by Plato's ontology and metaphysics that shape is the concept that the unity of being is based on domination to be inside the resulting the multiplicity of non-being and fertility power. Aristotle really think (in all candor and excess) that the science of sciences and codifies it opens (this metaphysical finalizing the design of the ontology) may indeed contain some extensions in the future, but without much change from its final work. Aristotle intends to complete the metaphysical and all the philosophers who claim to complete this design philosophy suspicious (like a much later Hegel) show thereby that they offer a finite and nihilistic conception of reality. In
infinite and open design of the real, we can not complete a philosophical project of any kind. By cons, in a finished project, the completion of the project is programmatic. Why Aristotle intends to assert a new ontology that is no longer the Platonic sense ontology and Parmenides (and more distantly to the initiate into the mysteries of esoteric science Egyptian Pythagoras). Aristotle laid the foundations for an ontology compatible with the oligarchic project. Democritus called mésontologie . From this point of view, Aristotle is a pioneer, as all philosophers before him nihilists have failed in their plan to impose on the term nihilism.
Why did it fail? Because they pose the problem in terms of unity antagonist. The oxymoron of unity antagonist results in the original duality between being and nonbeing. The nihilists fail against the ontology because their theoretical project is untenable: being against non-being leads to a theory inept (contradictory). The lure of nihilism is its assertion that the real is understandable. The chink in the armor Plato (Plato's understanding that reproduces the original way of pursuing an Egyptian tradition) is to propose a theory that is more consistent but is not very accessible (more difficult).
Nihilism is false, but more affordable (simple) as the ontology. The metaphysics of Aristotle project is revolutionary in that it claims for the first time offer a nihilistic philosophy that is sustainable and compatible with the ideal oligarchic. In all respects, Aristotle's ideal self. He believes that change is not dynamic and undefined, but eventually, once and for all (the term preferred This modern and postmodern scholar Derrida). Metaphysics means the project that is after the physical, but with the same physical design for the post for what is physical. Metaphysics is the science of al after, when Plato's ontology is the science of the infinite. From the experience that the physical is done, fixed, frozen, Aristotle intends to introduce as frozen after physical and finite.
Consider what stands above the physical is not transcendent physically, but on the same level, falling after implies that the term after is connoted a nihilistic point of view. After referring to the same plan. The plane of immanence, Deleuze's like a (another postmodern). The vocabulary of nihilism contains the after, not the trans- . Aristotle's ambition is to offer a version finally nihilistic that makes sense. This version is built around multiplicity. If we take the grind of a theoretical Democritus (an obscure scholar associated with his master Leucippus), the void is defined as the void. But nihilism is reported to pure physics, without any philosophical theory that is.
Taking Gorgias, the sophist emblematic proposes to first (known) version that is coherent nihilism. While Democritus is careful not to rule on the anticipation and the superiority of non-êytre on being, Gorgias explains everything from the nothingness, the price of a general dissolution of meaning in nonsense. By saying that being is non-being, Gorgias explains that meaning is nonsense. This is the fallacy: accredit the supreme principle of contradiction in logic. Consistency is ensured that within the fundamental inconsistency, which is to establish a vice and more importantly to make a pure nihilist rhetoric Thurs
It may not be consistent in promoting the inconsistency: this is the conclusion of the speeches of Gorgias. Aristotle will remember. We can estimate that corrects the error of approximation of Democritus while the modeling error of inconsistency with the rhetorician Gorgias. So, that Democritus does not explain why his physical theory is inconsistent (the physical vacuum is near atoms as fundamentally inexplicable) pass for almost a philosopher more serious than his alter ego, which offers a coherent theory of nihilism, finally - just consistent a rhetorical point of view. Perhaps Gorgias he laid his Treaty of nonbeing purposes only rhetorical understanding that the sophist is strong while demonstrating a point of view simply rhetoric.
Aristotle understands it will never provide a coherent version of the oligarchic party based on nihilism, but it can overcome the visceral and unacceptable inconsistency of Democritus and Ancient nihilistic nihilistic offering a version that is consistent the inner being. The trick is to reduce the inconsistency by passing to non-being, or be confusing and inner being (if being is finite, it has an exterior that is nil). The transition from being to nonbeing signals the inconsistency of nihilism, but Aristotle believes that the most important thing is accomplished, since the consistency of being is ensured and that the chief merit of nihilism is to reduce the be real one. No matter when the void is incoherent, since inconsistency is found annihilated.
indirect Reason why Aristotle feared as the Platonic definition of non-being as the other: if the non-being is the other, then non-being is - the inconsistency of non-contaminating be the consistency of be. So if the non-being becomes the false, misleading depending on the position knowingly Aristotle (Plato's pupil can not ignore one of the main innovations of the Platonic system from Parmenides and its predecessors), non-being is not - and the inconsistency is possible.
This is the revolution of Aristotle defined as being at metaphysical reduplication (either to the ontological discourse to be reserved only) of the multiplicity of non-being. For posterity, Aristotle happen for a theoretically coherent mind, which finally offers a vision sense of being. Aristotle is the master of logic. This would be true if you specify it is logical finite. The reputation of Aristotle is to be a pragmatic theorist who watch real close and sensitive and promotes experimental science (in our time, this position is the more popular it inspired the main demands immanentists) .
Aristotle recognized weaknesses in relation to the Platonic heritage based on a theoretical point of view more generally, but at the same time less accessible. The advantage of Plato would be deeper, but less clear. Aristotle would be closer, but shallower. This emerges from the review comments reported Aristotle is the link between non-being and being: on the one hand, it explains the multiplicity of by non-being, on the other, it basically does not explain the multiplicity of non-being because it says so outright that there is multiplicity in non-being.
This way of asserting without evidence indicates bad faith of Aristotle - and the fact that his nihilism based on the merits of the contradictory. Aristotle's genius is to have pushed a notch contradiction and inconsistency - to have them pushed into non-being, instead of the undecidable. Double Hit: Aristotle goes to the master consistency and for being the proponent of the real close, pragmatic and simple. Although also criticize Aristotle can dissolve the depth of his theory in a superficial approach to the ontology, its merits are important (it is a source of inspiration for Christian theology to bridge the freeze in Scholastic) . Second
bad faith: that Aristotle was a diligent student of Plato knowingly distorts the ontological theory of the master. He says calmly, consciously, for the Platonists, non-being is integrated into Being as it means false. But this assertion is simplistic: non-being in Plato expresses the change - this is the only way that change contains within it wrong. Why Aristotle misrepresents Plato: if non-being is change, then nihilism is no longer appropriate (for the reason mentioned above).
If the non-being is wrong, as the false negative power and negative sense refers ultimately to nothingness. More distantly, the Being is infinite, it does not destroy completely nihilistic temptation. Instead, it restores the insidiously, in a sort of draw for if Being is undefined and seems to embody a weak position, it allows a building theoretical issue a construction practice. Strangely, the very abstruse theory of Being is validated indirectly - virtually. Nihilism can do nothing else but argued that he, is unable to define a void (not be) as being.
theory is valid Being even slightly in that it allows the overcoming of the contradiction, while nihilism seems to have some advantage because it promotes conflict. The contradiction goes back to the initial state of do (from nothing), hence the sense of closeness, and reveals the non-linear structure and non-homogeneous of reality, even in a false and distorted (the real structured Enversa , not antagonism). The multiplicity can legitimize the conflict, making it back to being (defined as non-contradictory and consistent) to non-being (defined as multiple and contradictory).
0 comments:
Post a Comment