Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 13, 2022 18:42:07 GMT
The Theory of Forms was introduced by Plato. Aristotle criticized it.
I. Plato's theory briefly:
I. Plato's theory briefly:
- forms exist;
- a form makes a thing be that thing;
- if there are no relevant form, there are no relevant thing;
- for any group of things there is a form.
II. Aristotle's critique briefly:
III. Critique on Aristotle's critique:
Firstly, let me explain some points and try to answer them.
III.b: the whole ided (of the theory of forms) appeared, because there was a problem: how can a thing changes being itself?
So, this argument says that we might have a series of changes and still this thing would be itself, not because of any inner support. Briefly, there's no need to look up for any inner idea or inner explanations in that thing. Let's have a look on this tablet:
As we may see those sets as {0,0}, {0,1}, {1,0}, and {1,1} - are possible conditions or steps for the thing A. In other words, whether or not it changes. This means that either one of forms are presented in A, or neither of them, or maybe both. Let's look onto the next tablet:
As you can see the last column shows that if that thing A is the space, then it hasn't been changing at all, while such things as pigs or rocks have some changes.
But if you look precisely you will see that even in steps 1-5 the space can be different (let's say 1 is one space and in 4 is some other one). How anybody can prove that in all those steps the space is the same? Moreover, there's nothing that must say us that the baby pig and the pig must be one and the same. Who knows, maybe one second later I was a different one?
So, this tablet aims to explain why the theory of forms can be broken even without Aristotle's metaphysics.
- forms don't exist;
- for any set of forms there is another form which is leading to the infinity;
- a thing to be a thing has an essence of itself within it;
- the essence in a thing is a section of the existence of that thing.
III. Critique on Aristotle's critique:
- there's no need in using either essence, or existence;
- there's no need to consider a thing to be equal to itself;
- numbers exists;
- a number may be taken as a form.
Firstly, let me explain some points and try to answer them.
III.b: the whole ided (of the theory of forms) appeared, because there was a problem: how can a thing changes being itself?
So, this argument says that we might have a series of changes and still this thing would be itself, not because of any inner support. Briefly, there's no need to look up for any inner idea or inner explanations in that thing. Let's have a look on this tablet:
| the previous form of the thing A | the next form of the thing A | function 1 | function 2 |
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
As we may see those sets as {0,0}, {0,1}, {1,0}, and {1,1} - are possible conditions or steps for the thing A. In other words, whether or not it changes. This means that either one of forms are presented in A, or neither of them, or maybe both. Let's look onto the next tablet:
| No | the thing A as a pig | the thing A as a rock | the thing A as space |
| 1. Before it appears | a number of chromosomes | SiO and other silicates | space |
| 2. Early beginning | a fetus | Si2O3 and SiO | space |
| 3. First steps | a baby pig | a conglomerate of Si, etc | space |
| 4. Most known form | a pig | a conglomerate of Si, etc | space |
| 5. After its appearing | HS and othe salts | a dust of Si, etc | space |
As you can see the last column shows that if that thing A is the space, then it hasn't been changing at all, while such things as pigs or rocks have some changes.
But if you look precisely you will see that even in steps 1-5 the space can be different (let's say 1 is one space and in 4 is some other one). How anybody can prove that in all those steps the space is the same? Moreover, there's nothing that must say us that the baby pig and the pig must be one and the same. Who knows, maybe one second later I was a different one?
So, this tablet aims to explain why the theory of forms can be broken even without Aristotle's metaphysics.
