Dans cet article, la paire pros ta alla/pros heauto dans le Parménide de Platon est analysée dans les termes d’une distinction entre la prédication ordinaire et la prédication en arborescence. J’engage une discussion avec mes critiques en soutenant que cette interprétation donne tout leur sens aux remarques méthodologiques de Platon, tout en rendant son argumentation plus efficace. Le Parménide fait le pont entre les dialogues de maturité et les développements techniques des derniers dialogues de Platon.

After presenting the rules of Eleatic antilogic, i.e., dialectic, I argue that Zeno was a practitioner, and, on the basis of key passages from Plato’s Parmenides, that his paradoxes of divisibility and movement were notreductio ad absurdum, but simple derivation of impossibilities meant to ridicule Parmenides’ adversaries. Thus, Zeno did not try to prove that there is no motion, but simply derived this consequence from premises held by his opponents. I argue further that these paradoxes were devised, in accordance with (...) Eleatic antilogic, following a scheme that included hypotheses and their contradictories, within which the subject is to be treated both “in relation to itself,” and “in relation to other things”. (shrink)

Dans la première partie duParménide, Socrate présente une théorie des Formes qui explique la comprésence d’opposés dans les choses ordinaires et soutient que les Formes ne peuvent avoir des caractéristiques opposées. Dans la deuxième partie, Parménide s’appuie sur les propos de Socrate; il en dérive des conséquences inacceptables — que la Forme de l’Un n’existe pas, et ainsi, que rien n’existe. Cette conclusion est indéniablement fausse. Pour éviter ceci, Socrate doit abandonner la thèse exposée dans la première partie et trouver (...) une manière de préserver la fonction explicative des Formes. Cet article expose la structure de l’exercice qui occupe la deuxième partie du dialogue. (shrink)

We discuss the one–many problem as it appears in the Philebus and find that it is not restricted to the usually understood problem about the identity of universals across particulars that instantiate them (the Hylomorphic Dispersal Problem). In fact some of the most interesting aspects of the problem occur purely with respect to the relationship between Forms. We argue that contemporary metaphysicians may draw from the Philebus at least three different one–many relationships between universals themselves: instantiation, subkind and part, and (...) thereby construct three new ‘problems of the one and the many’ (an Eidetic Dispersal Problem, a Genus–Species Problem, and an Eidetic Combination Problem), which are as problematic as the version generally discussed. We then argue that this taxonomy sheds new and interesting light on certain discussions of higher-order universals in recent Australian analytic philosophy. (shrink)

This article shows how Plato’s Parmenides explores the relationship between place and the geometric forms that are inscribed in it, independently of sensation, becoming and causality. The analysis concurs with essential points of what is said in the Timaeus about khôra, this receptacle deprived of any intrinsic qualities, on which every sensitive reality is drawn.

Gregory Vlastos je v svoji znani rekonstrukciji argumenta »tritos anthropos« menil, da je regres tretjega človeka usodna napaka platonske teorije idej, saj vpeljuje najmanj dve protislovni logični značilnosti tega nauka: predpostavlja namreč dve načeli, samopripis in neistovetnost. Argument tretjega človeka zato obravnavam na podlagi upoštevanja omenjenih načel in njune veljavnosti v dveh inačicah, ki ju je podal Aleksander Afrodizijski. V prvi, ki je tradicionalno pripisana Aristotelu pod imenom O idejah in jo najdemo v Aleksandrovem komentarju k Metafiziki, in nato še (...) v Evdemovi inačici, kakršno domnevno ta navaja pri svoji aristotelski kritiki Platonove teorije idej. V drugem delu prispevka je narejena primerjava med Aristotelovima inačicama tretjega človeka in Platonovim pripoznanjem neskončnega regresa v obeh verzijah iz njegovega Parmenida: regres iz ideje velikega in regres iz idej kot vzorov, ki prav tako končujeta v neskončnem regresu novih idej: te po svojem bistvu ne bodo več ene, ampak brezmejno mnoge. (shrink)

A discussão nos livros dos Tópicos giram em torno dos debates dialéticos e seus elementos. Aristóteles discorre sobre os gêneros, as propriedades e os chamados acidentes e suas relações predicativas em categorias. Interessa-nos, sobretudo, compreender o papel desempenhado pela Definição e qual sua relação com os demais instrumentos para a dialética.