The principle of non-contradiction as studied and monitored by Aristotle suggests that Aristotle the metaphysician locate his metaphysics in the footsteps of the ontology. More pragmatic than Plato, less idealistic, but also - philosopher. Philosopher does not mean that one is ontologists. This for some reason etymological if the rigor one could speak of ontology nihilistic, in a curious oxymoron , following the work of Democritus of Abdera, it should rather speak of mésontologie , about what is (paradoxically) science from non-being more than just being ...
Yet, think about it, this principle of non-contradiction is explored in a way logic, and logic in Aristotle used to study language where the Sophists used rhetoric. Process more scientific perhaps, but enough parent, finally ... One might note another unfortunate approximation: the contemporary logicians, who have the taste of logical thought, have taken the approach of Aristotle in giving it a more radical claiming most often replace the metaphysical illusion behalf the logical approach. Logicians are in the contemporary era of even more radical followers of Aristotle, so much so that they come to be regarded as a classical philosopher. Curious way of depriving the ontology its own approach and assimilate the ontology represented by Plato and metaphysics Aristotle carried by the dissident ...
This radical contemporary logicians can be interpreted in the context of the history of immanence, which is from the beginning (Spinoza) radicalization of nihilism ancient (going from the finite to the full desire) in this process radicalization, logic would reduce the desire to complete Excluding the logic in the name of reason as the rest illusory ... One of the great choruses of logicians is to declare with claim that most classical ideas based on prejudice, on behalf of the so-called innovative critical and objective language. Ultimately, this critical and destroyed much not a substitute for - nothing.
Aristotle boasts many of the principle of non-contradiction is precisely to show that his thinking is not based on historical nihilism and rejected the Sophists, but it falls within the field of philosophy, with one major difference compared to Plato's legacy - but in the field of philosophy. The goal is to put Aristotle nihilism in the philosophical consistency (the serious ). Aristotle even claims to refute the fallacies, he calls such fallacies. But he criticized Plato to use fallacies in the name of recovery of non-being. This simple reference (Plato sometimes stored in the category of sophists) is sufficient to show that Aristotle intends to be in a nihilism which denies the past nihilists options (such as the sophists) while opposing theses classics ontological personified by the master Plato.
tool of the principle of non-contradiction serves to give credence to the idea that Aristotle would have reached the highest degree of physical and logical consistency - metaphysical. The criterion of consistency for Aristotle becomes the weapon of science in the language. He claims to have perfected the rhetoric (including the Sophists), making the science of logic. He complains of logical fallacies and other errors in Plato, who held the weapon s'ne the logical language. Aristotle wants to show he has improved (streamlined) the verb philosophical and metaphysical especially since the party he represents an improvement over that of the philosophy of nihilism. For
whether Aristotle has reached its end first, beyond Plato, it suffices to note he or she is aware of a bad faith when it reduced the sense of not being true to Plato, while Plato clearly defines non-being as the other. Aristotle does not use that because he did not understand the Platonic definition, but because the definition of false enables it to legitimize its nihilism, then it is disarmed by the most universal and consistent definition of other - he may challenge the validity of Being, but without setting back the non-being, while the false logic introduces a weakness in the Platonic system.
Nihilism Aristotle urges him to declare that the logic is the weapon of truth inside to be, then that being is finite (he mentions in his physical researches, which is a terrible admission, since Aristotle attaches great importance to science and that this way of looking at that being is finite and that science is crucial in the approach to be overlaps with Democritus, equipping weapons logical and metaphysical). The principle of non-contradiction is used as a war machine reinforcing the impression of coherence of the Aristotelian system, so that consistency affects only partially the Aristotelian system and it is completely destroyed after one knows that being is finite.
Aristotelian mode of thought could be accused of dualism antagonist in that it requires consistency and logic even sharper, even irrefutable that this consistency is undermined by the tacit opposition of non-being. The unspoken non-being plays the role of inconsistency against the logic that says always too. The principle of non-contradiction of Aristotle, far from improving the ontology by the logical (metaphysical), only pushes the bounds of the inconsistency to be non-being.
Aristotle is prepared to oppose the logic that the inconsistency embodied by a nihilistic Democritus or the Sophists. They forget that this consistency is finite, meaning that it is in the service of the inconsistency. The principle of non-contradiction of Aristotle definitely does not abolish the contradiction to promote consistency, it abolishes the contradiction in the sphere of reality eventually - to push the contradiction one step beyond the radius of non-being. The principle of non-contradiction does not resolve the contradiction, but pushes up a notch. It is a differance the Derridean sense: it solves the extent that it differs (indefinitely). It is a strategy that characterizes most nihilistic approach of Aristotle as a philosopher and deconstructionist Derrida as minor.
0 comments:
Post a Comment