This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: F-ness is F . (NI) tells us that we cant explain x s being F by appealing to x . Hence, the principle is really better called: (NSE) Non-self-explanation, or (NSP) Non-self-participation. [But the label NI, due to Vlastos, has stuck. Its important to realize that it can be formulated in such a way that it doesnt contradict (SP) .] The Role of the TMAs premises as principles of the Theory of Forms (OM) Predication is explained by participation. (SP) The explanatory entity (i.e., the Form) is a paradigm . (NI) Explanations are not circular or vacuous. What would be the consequences for the Theory of Forms of giving up one of these principles? Principle abandoned Consequence for Theory of Forms (OM) The theory becomes incomplete . (SP) Forms will no longer be paradigms . (NI) Some explanations become circular ....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 01/31/2011 for the course PHYSICS 110 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '09 term at UC Davis.
- Spring '09