From méontologie (continued).
I think the question of infinity is basically the one that stirred the whole philosophy. I should clarify - the philosophical positions that tie into two main groups? The Finist and infinite? From the beginning of human endeavor, so culture and thought, which opposes the Transcendentalists to nihilists is the question of infinity. If one refers to the relationship between antagonist if Aristotle and Plato, that Plato is no friend of Aristotle, but the master to whom he opposed all along the line, the real dividing line on the issue infinity.
A good way to expose the lack of philosophical sense among commentators of philosophy and other historians of philosophy lies in the analysis of the thought of Aristotle supersaver classical and academic. Aristotle does not go just for a venerable philosopher, holding the full knowledge of his time. It also passes for a major ancient philosopher, Plato and other great philosophers. As we made no distinction between fundamental ontology and metaphysics préaristotélicienne Aristotelian inspiration, we lose our time and because of the bad history of philosophy, because the project is to provide an Aristotle antagonism perennial Platonic ontology (And that of his ancestors and masters).
A little critical thinking to illuminate the history of philosophy: a little philosophy too. Aristotle is the philosopher who attaches importance to the result of Democritus to physics and science: Aristotle proposes in its Physics a singular definition of reality: what is real is over. This award is not only a refutation of Platonism and the education provided by the Academy. Aristotle sought to make it consistent atomism of Democritus, or atavistic version of nihilism as received in ancient Greece from India even earlier (Including some of the current gymnosophists).
Aristotle introduces a major innovation in nihilism as previously described: the multiplicity of non-being explain the multiplicity of being. Aristotle back a notch irrationalism of Democritus and hopes this hocus-pocus theoretical nihilism can finally achieve sustainability and pour in the static final . Know as much effort called transcendentalism infinite knowledge, both nihilism leads to the idea of a definitive knowledge, codified and fixed once and for all.
Aristotle hopes to resolve the question of infinity explaining that the finite and multiple due to the multiple non-being, that a nihilistic point of view corresponds to the infinite nature of Being (ontologists). Aristotle discount with its strategy of returning the irrationality and irrationality relegated to the sphere (undecidable) failure to prevent the fate that occurred to Democritus and the Sophists: the forgotten value of condemnation for their theory.
The category of non-being or nothingness is irrational. And this is the only way we can understand how such eminent minds as the nihilists of antiquity were able to support theses, which expressed rationally and explicitly, to spend even more of that nonsense for nonsense. Thus Aristotle says it's inexplicable (to be) by the non-being, either by the irrational, suspending the question of cause and origin.
his first engine explains nothing and has value because of insufficient - in principle of insufficient reason. Democritus act more openly, since it provides explicitly what Aristotle differs taciturn and cautious: at home, the adversarial system and antagonist being / nonbeing is conducted openly. If one recalls that Democritus follows a principle irrational (so to speak), then one understands how it can both suggest that the gap coexists with the full, be that coexists with the non-being and especially that the infinite atoms coexists with the infinite void.
From a logical and rational, this principle is impossible. The impossible is the category nihilist. Democritus is a nihilistic distinction. Suddenly, the theoretical consistency is secondary. When Aristotle comes to enacting the finitude of being from the infinite non-being, Democritus is not afraid to show how illogical the object of infinite being to the infinite non-being. Aristotle Democritus shows more sense than the sense that it removes all the illogic of his nihilistic system to non-being, just as one might claim that a house is perfectly row from the time when the brothel was evacuated in discrete parts and unexplored (the attic or cellar).
Aristotle did not solve the consistency problem posed by the system nihilistic atavistic and he was evacuated. When he invokes the principle of non-contradiction is to apply only in the category of being (exclusive treacherous and nihilistic). As for Democritus, whatever changes he will give his thoughts to try to break the impasse in which he became entangled theoretical and refuses to admit as impious, his system can not function without the contribution of the irrational.
other words the impossible and untenable. The irrational in Democritus is present in more pure and direct as in Aristotle, which has already been introduced to cover-up. Democritus defines non-being as empty. The vacuum would be the corresponding A ontologists as Parmenides (the heirs of the Egyptian tradition of monotheism). The méontologie Democritus stop the opposition between the antagonist be atoms and vacuum unthinkable and indescribable. If we wanted a record that was before the advent of nihilism progressive monotheism, which we refer to tradition as conveyed by Democritus.
Sophists, first and foremost that Protagoras would have been according to some traditions the student (or teacher) and Democritus who first used the term "fallacy, have already reestablished the raw material of nihilism to focus on the branch of rhetoric. Sophists evacuate the theoretical foundations to focus on the following, in particular language. As a result, it differs especially by the fiasco of all these currents nihilists called Presocratics and the expected response that will produce lasting Aristotle.
The only way to understand infinity in Democritus is to accept contradiction and antagonism as deciphering codes or interpretation (when interpreting changes the value of truth, as in Derrida, we find ourselves in a nihilist theory of Democritus close): if the atoms are infinite in number and unlimited, they can not rub the void only if the infinite void contradicts the full infinite. But the thought that two infinities can oppose (and co-exist) is impossible and inconsistent. This would greatly overestimate the influence of Plato to believe that it is mainly because of him that the writings of Democritus were burned and lost.
Actually, Plato belongs to the spirits of the most powerful current that causes the Monotheism and reflects the evolution of transcendentalism polytheistic. This is according to this mentality that Democritus was forgotten and the reason most visible and it invoked was carried along thinking clearly contradictory and untenable. Democritus wanted to oppose the transcendentalism but failed to produce a thought than the conflict, despite his supreme knowledge. The myth of Democritus that would be the equal of Plato belonging to a stream have historically lost the battle of ideas is a dangerous illusion. For Democritus, as erudite as it is, based on its expertise knowledge impossible and contradictory.
Aristotle has learned the lesson of this oversight impressive Democritus, known for his knowledge impressive, but backed a theory of reality that does not hold water. He will try to resolve this contradiction nihilistic within the school of Plato (in the gold of the Academy). Infinity is what separates and distinguishes the nihilistic transcendentalist, as one who adheres to the vacuum or none is opposed to one who believes that full. Plato's non-being is the other; in Democritus, infinity is bounded by the inexplicable as qu'inexpliqué vacuum. That irrational
of the stature of Democritus could be as attached to the physical point of identifying with what he called the méontologie in a neologism impressive, says what physics as an emblem of science when it is held and used for final or ultimate (as Aristotle would say): that the bond seemingly irrefutable that hides ultimately vacuum contradictory. Nihilism leads the thirst for science devoid of knowledge as the vacuum is as wobbly as the non-being. This
Science within méontologique might seem paradoxical as it is quite consistent: as in a real way between the antagonist and irrational empty indistinct to be atomistic, it is foreseeable that science is the screen and the security of nihilism. This is not the scientific approach in the Platonic sense, which is condemned, but the fact that science replaces the ontology and religious.
This knowledge in the scientific sense houses within a vacuum. Scientism thus found a strong link, obvious, although little noticed, with the pre-Socratic Democritus. While most famous Abderian (with his contemporary Protagoras) is considered a wise unknown and laughing, even insightful, it's a nihilist who has already scientistic posture as the result of his fundamental theory nihilistic, itself inherited from Hindu wisdom and Mesopotamian. This misinterpretation, as defined mésontologie (or méontologie) forgets to remember that scientism as a discredited historical movement, a legacy has also denied that his posterity. Democritus proposes some ways an obvious pest and positivism, while our postmodern era takes more scientism form rather neo-positivist claims she would be freed completely by condemning him.
0 comments:
Post a Comment