23 - F-ness is F . (NI) tells us that we cant explain x s...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Reconstructed, Plato’s argument looks like this (with the justification for each step provided): 1. a, b, and c are all large. premis e 2. There is a Form of Largeness (Largeness 1 ) that they all share in. 1, OM 3. a, b, c and Largeness 1 are all large. 1, 2, SP 4. There is a Form of Largeness (Largeness 2 ) that they all share in. 3, OM 5. Largeness 2 is not identical to Largeness 1 . 4, NI 6. a, b, c , Largeness 1 and Largeness 2 are all large. 3, SP 7. There is a Form of Largeness (Largeness 3 ) that they all share in. 6, OM And so on, ad infinitum . * Self-Predication vs. Self-Participation We must distinguish (as Vlastos did not adequately do) between these two notions. F -ness is F . F -ness participates in F -ness. Participating in F -ness is supposed to explain being F . (SP) tells us that we can apply to the Form F -ness that very predicate (“ F ”) whose application to sensible particulars is explained in terms of participation in that Form. That leaves us with the problem of explaining this case of predication:
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the 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.

Page1 / 2

23 - F-ness is F . (NI) tells us that we cant explain x s...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

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