11.18.08 psc notes

11.18.08 psc notes - Fourth Reason : "Look here, we...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Fourth Reason : “Look here, we have textual evidence that the atoms were thought of as being partless and partless atoms must be indivisible, in fact “theoretically indivisible” Review The aspect of Atomism that is meant to do thew work in response to the motion paradox that . .. in a partial interpretation, the conceptual indivisibility, or partlessness, you must hypothesis that the motion of the atoms are jerky, jerky motion is a response to the motion paradox if atoms are partless then atomic motion must be jerky hypothesizing jerky or incontinuous motion does not entail partless atoms jerky motion does not entail partless atoms but partless atoms do entail jerky motion no evidence for hyptohesis of jerky motions for presocreatic Atomists, there is evidence for epicureans Claim : solution is based on Atomists which is based on the idea of part less atoms Conclude : we are missing evidence, or the Atomists failed to make an obvious inference third argues from the partlessness of atoms, interprets partlessness is a particular which which they claim intails jerky motion, which then solves the paradox fourth argument is related to third Claim is : what else could be meant by partlessness this is a bad argument few reasons both are internal to what we do know what do know internal argument atoms are claimed to be part less (take as given) good evidence atoms are thought of as part less part less in what sense? Does partlessness means conceptually indivisible have to interpret partlessness, in virtue of what? Symphony lacks parts partlessness is a property in respect to a background theory Not to say they dont mean the atoms are part less that yield conceptual indivisibility you cannot move they are part less to discontinuous motion what evidence do we pave tat they claim atoms are part less Consensus atoms are said to come in different shapes and sizes already inconsistent with the idea that each is part less in respect to conceptually indivisible claim partlessness means conceptually individual, you can claim they come in sizes and shapes, (they could be conceptually inconsistent) *nothing suggests that this is what they mean by partlessness Passage that tells us what they meant part less – could mean spatially indivisible you can be part less and indivisible Democratis views concerning the soul *soul is material
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
kind of partlessness that does not mean or entail indivisibility “According to Philoponus : for democratis the soul is part less since it lacks faculties, it has but a single power or dunamis “ partlessness which has nothing to do with being spatial or theoretically indivisible part less in the respect that they lack functional parts soul is one power soul lacks parts because it lacks faculties only passage that tells us what is meant by partlessness those are the only arguments for why the atoms must be indivisible
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 5

11.18.08 psc notes - Fourth Reason : "Look here, we...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online