From méontologie (continued).
Democritus proposes a pure antagonist of nihilism, it's inconsistent to say: without doubt it is from Democritus that we should find traces of the atavistic tradition nihilistic outcome including Persian traditions, Mesopotamian (Babylonian) and India. Nihilism is transmitted in the form that Democritus him again, while what are called sophists already offer an approach from raw material nihilistic, ancient.
Sophists focus more on the rhetoric and the art of beautiful language, and when attached to Democritus repeat substrate méontologie nihilistic: that the being is associated with annihilation. For Democritus, the privileged expression of méontologie is physics. Physics is the counterpart of nihilistic ontology transcendentalist. In nihilism, ontology loses its usefulness, what brings the process of Democritus (and the tradition he represents) the requirement of contemporary logicians who decree that metaphysics poses the wrong questions and false problems (repeating a mistake, because what the logicians call neo-positivist metaphysics encompasses so conflating the metaphysical tradition of Aristotelian ontology with the antagonist, Platonic tradition).
I will return to the question of infinity (and undefined), but none is defined by Democritus is emptiness. Nothingness is infinite with the inflection and semantics that corresponds to the fundamental one. The vacuum is one. Physics is fundamental in that the preferred term and necessary (in the sense of Democritus) be a multiple can not be that physics, which attempts to decipher exactly be in its plural and multiple dimensions.
ontology becomes useless in the nihilistic perspective of someone who is based on atoms. Moreover, the creation of Metaphysics by Aristotle, and, posthumously, the last of his disciples at the head of the school is possible in a nihilistic perspective that theory because Aristotle proposes a significant change compared Democritus: according to Aristotle, the void is multiple and suddenly, metaphysics is ontology mapping as being multiple substrate has a theory that arises from the correspondence between being diverse and multiple non-being .
But in Democritus, being so antagonistic multiple coexists with a non-being. The main objection this presentation is atavistic and that is not original to the scholar Democritus is that this adversarial system does not explain anything. It is imposed arbitrarily, as the fittest. Aristotle will remember this weakness that did not solve the sophists but they evaded, as evidenced by their advocacy of rhetoric pretending that the fundamental theoretical problem did not exist.
Aristotle offer to go back one notch unproven and unprovable assertion by placing it in the bosom of non-being - instead of being, as is the case with Democritus. Suddenly, the bad faith of nihilism by Aristotle is undecidable and less detectable than Democritus, where the punishment for forgetting that shows you understand very quickly that important data is not working. The second objection, which is linked to the first, a logical and more rational than rational, it is the status of atoms.
atoms would be "absolutely indivisible particles, an unlimited number, of all shapes, sizes vary indefinitely" (quoted by Morel). We fall in through the undecidable irrational. If the atoms are entities which we know nothing, one might wonder how atoms are made to find their invisible existence. It explains how irrational phenomena to be sensitive, that is to say that we use as an explanation for a cause that explains everything explains nothing.
If the atoms were replaced by the assumption of the divine, the darkness of this approach would jump even more apparent. For a case is given, it must have sound evidence of its existence. The hypothesis of God (the divine in the broadest sense) poses the problem of invisible cause though rationally defensible. Some people do not lose to explain what is invisible does not exist. This could also be about as an atomic materialist Democritus, except that the school uses a subterfuge by substituting logical criticism of the divine on behalf of irrationalism an alternative equally irrational: atoms.
Democritus is caught in bad faith, which is thought unacceptable and constitutes a crime. If we disapprove of censorship, we can only understand the reaction of Plato: for nothing less spread Democritus in Greece that the option of the coup to overcome problems and difficulties involved and inherent. Explain how the atoms in an unlimited number can coexist with a vacuum? If unlimited, they occupy the entire space. Yet Democritus tells us that space to be coexisting with the void of nonbeing.
Unless dubbed an irrational way of thinking is rationally incoherent and impossible. Democritus is doing by inconsistency. Why his writings many (like atoms as Abderites?) Were lost to posterity: the impressive knowledge of Democritus is based on knowledge farcical as nihilistic. Nihilism is the rejection of the knowledge and compensatory attempt to hide the knowledge gap by an abundance of knowledge, as if the amount could replace quality.
0 comments:
Post a Comment