DSpace Collection: 2005-07-17
http://hdl.handle.net/2115/34994
2005-07-172024-03-29T01:24:45ZSome Problems of the One over Many in Plato's Parmenides
http://hdl.handle.net/2115/35036
Title: Some Problems of the One over Many in Plato's Parmenides
Authors: Karuzis, Joseph
Abstract: Western philosophy erupted in Greece in the 4th century BC. The most influential of all the Greek philosophers was Plato, (427 BC- 347 BC) who was a student of Socrates, the teacher of Aristotle and a prolific writer who started the Academy. The style of Plato's writings is that of dialogues. In Plato's early dialogues, Socrates plays a lively role and participates in an exchange of questions and answers with other characters in the dialogue. The earlier dialogues present Socrates' views on ethical matters such as justice and virtue. In the middle dialogues, Plato expresses his own philosophy through the character of Socrates. In the latter dialogues Socrates doesn't speak very much, he may be present, but he remains silent. The Parmenides, one of the last of the middle dialogues, has challenged scholars as to its meaning for over 2000 years. There are nine characters in the dialogue. Among them, there is the young Socrates, and he engages in a philosophical discussion with two other philosophers, Zeno and Parmenides, who are from Elea. Eleatic philosophy started with Parmenides in the 6th century BC, and is distinguished by its doctrine of an unchanging, indivisible reality. "All is one" is what the Eleatics professed. At the beginning of the dialogue, Zeno reads his treatise, which is a defense of Parmenides' monism. This defense is aimed at those who believe in plurality and say that Parmenides’ one results in absurdity and contradiction. Zeno states that if there is a plurality, then things that are like will be unlike, which is impossible because opposites cannot be the same. Socrates does well in his reply to Zeno by positing the Forms. There are sensibles that we perceive to be a multiplicity, and there is also a separate realm of the Forms. The Forms are what all things participate in, that is, an act is just because it has a certain relationship to the unchanging and incorporeal Form of Justice. Because of the Forms, a man can be both a plurality and a unity. He may have many parts, but these parts make up a complete whole. This is due to participating in the Forms of Unity, Plurality, Likeness and Unlikeness. In the remainder of the dialogue, Parmenides continues as the interlocutor. The Form of Unity is analyzed by Parmenides in a barrage of arguments. Throughout these arguments several points are raised that show Plato's Theory of Forms to be problematic. There is no clear conclusion at the end of the dialogue, and we left wondering what Plato thought about the problems posited in the dialogue. In this paper I propose that Plato took these problems seriously, yet they were not damaging to his Theory of Forms. Surely, Plato would not have published this dialogue if he believed the objections in it destroyed his Theory of Forms. The Forms are central to Plato's philosophy and metaphysics. By analyzing Unity, I believe that Plato wanted to show that there are two different types of predication. One type of predication is things in relation to themselves. The other type of predication is things in relation to others. Unity is analyzed, and by doing so, Plato answers the problems that were raised in the early part of the dialogue, such as the Third Man Argument. By using the dialogue and presenting his philosophy in a dramatic act, Plato compels the reader to draw his own conclusions. The dialogue must be seen as a unity because only then can we see Plato's intention in writing it. The Forms for Plato did exist, yet he was aware of the problems that arise with his theory. By writing the Parmenides, Plato wanted to show us that the objections to the Forms were not insurmountable.2005-07-16T15:00:00ZKaruzis, JosephWestern philosophy erupted in Greece in the 4th century BC. The most influential of all the Greek philosophers was Plato, (427 BC- 347 BC) who was a student of Socrates, the teacher of Aristotle and a prolific writer who started the Academy. The style of Plato's writings is that of dialogues. In Plato's early dialogues, Socrates plays a lively role and participates in an exchange of questions and answers with other characters in the dialogue. The earlier dialogues present Socrates' views on ethical matters such as justice and virtue. In the middle dialogues, Plato expresses his own philosophy through the character of Socrates. In the latter dialogues Socrates doesn't speak very much, he may be present, but he remains silent. The Parmenides, one of the last of the middle dialogues, has challenged scholars as to its meaning for over 2000 years. There are nine characters in the dialogue. Among them, there is the young Socrates, and he engages in a philosophical discussion with two other philosophers, Zeno and Parmenides, who are from Elea. Eleatic philosophy started with Parmenides in the 6th century BC, and is distinguished by its doctrine of an unchanging, indivisible reality. "All is one" is what the Eleatics professed. At the beginning of the dialogue, Zeno reads his treatise, which is a defense of Parmenides' monism. This defense is aimed at those who believe in plurality and say that Parmenides’ one results in absurdity and contradiction. Zeno states that if there is a plurality, then things that are like will be unlike, which is impossible because opposites cannot be the same. Socrates does well in his reply to Zeno by positing the Forms. There are sensibles that we perceive to be a multiplicity, and there is also a separate realm of the Forms. The Forms are what all things participate in, that is, an act is just because it has a certain relationship to the unchanging and incorporeal Form of Justice. Because of the Forms, a man can be both a plurality and a unity. He may have many parts, but these parts make up a complete whole. This is due to participating in the Forms of Unity, Plurality, Likeness and Unlikeness. In the remainder of the dialogue, Parmenides continues as the interlocutor. The Form of Unity is analyzed by Parmenides in a barrage of arguments. Throughout these arguments several points are raised that show Plato's Theory of Forms to be problematic. There is no clear conclusion at the end of the dialogue, and we left wondering what Plato thought about the problems posited in the dialogue. In this paper I propose that Plato took these problems seriously, yet they were not damaging to his Theory of Forms. Surely, Plato would not have published this dialogue if he believed the objections in it destroyed his Theory of Forms. The Forms are central to Plato's philosophy and metaphysics. By analyzing Unity, I believe that Plato wanted to show that there are two different types of predication. One type of predication is things in relation to themselves. The other type of predication is things in relation to others. Unity is analyzed, and by doing so, Plato answers the problems that were raised in the early part of the dialogue, such as the Third Man Argument. By using the dialogue and presenting his philosophy in a dramatic act, Plato compels the reader to draw his own conclusions. The dialogue must be seen as a unity because only then can we see Plato's intention in writing it. The Forms for Plato did exist, yet he was aware of the problems that arise with his theory. By writing the Parmenides, Plato wanted to show us that the objections to the Forms were not insurmountable.富松保文 『アウグスティヌス―〈私〉のはじまり』 (NHK出版)
http://hdl.handle.net/2115/35035
Title: 富松保文 『アウグスティヌス―〈私〉のはじまり』 (NHK出版)
Authors: 小沢, 明也
Description: 書評2005-07-16T15:00:00Z小沢, 明也記憶力と直観 : ベルクソン哲学における隠された「論理」について
http://hdl.handle.net/2115/35034
Title: 記憶力と直観 : ベルクソン哲学における隠された「論理」について
Authors: 川端, 繁之
Abstract: It is common knowledge among philosophical researchers that modern philosophy began with Descartes's "cogito". And there might be no objection to calling modern philisophy "philosophy of self-consciousness". H.Bergson found his philosophical starting-point in immediate self-knowledge, "durée pure". As such we can say that his philosophy belongs to the ancestry of self consciousness philosophy. If so, a problem will arise. :What is his own contribution to philosophy? I found an answer by interpreting and extending the concept of "schéme moteur" which is found in his second main book, "Matter and Memory". The answer is a tri-structure which is composed of three moments, "actual", "virtual", and "medium". I propose to regard this structure as the archetype of signification, moreover, to extend it to the ontological principle. And I call this the "semiotic process". My intention is to give some logical form to Bergson's idea which some people often criticize as just being a metaphor. In this sense I think it can be said that "semiotic process" is another name for "élan vital". The making Bergson's "hidden logic" clearer by finding out the "semitic process" is the main theme of this paper.2005-07-16T15:00:00Z川端, 繁之It is common knowledge among philosophical researchers that modern philosophy began with Descartes's "cogito". And there might be no objection to calling modern philisophy "philosophy of self-consciousness". H.Bergson found his philosophical starting-point in immediate self-knowledge, "durée pure". As such we can say that his philosophy belongs to the ancestry of self consciousness philosophy. If so, a problem will arise. :What is his own contribution to philosophy? I found an answer by interpreting and extending the concept of "schéme moteur" which is found in his second main book, "Matter and Memory". The answer is a tri-structure which is composed of three moments, "actual", "virtual", and "medium". I propose to regard this structure as the archetype of signification, moreover, to extend it to the ontological principle. And I call this the "semiotic process". My intention is to give some logical form to Bergson's idea which some people often criticize as just being a metaphor. In this sense I think it can be said that "semiotic process" is another name for "élan vital". The making Bergson's "hidden logic" clearer by finding out the "semitic process" is the main theme of this paper.道徳的義務としての内部告発とその限界
http://hdl.handle.net/2115/35033
Title: 道徳的義務としての内部告発とその限界
Authors: 増渕, 隆史
Abstract: Whistleblowing is a topic in the field of business ethics. It is an effective measure to prevent organizations from harming the public. On the other hand, however, some people consider whistleblowing as an immoral action. There is a serious conflict with regard to the moral status of whistleblowing. In order to solve this problem, contemporary moral philosophers have attempted to pose some theories to justify the whistleblowing. I think, however, those theories do not seem to succeed. Some moral philosophers think that the duty to blow the whistle is overridden by other moral obligations or rights, and then it disappears. But this type of thought over looks both importance of the duty of whistleblowing and whistleblower's own interests.
In this article, I present an alternative view which could take account of importance of the duty of whistleblowing and worker's important interests. This view indicates a viable standard of judgment which serves the workers who must decide whether he/she blows the whistle or not.2005-07-16T15:00:00Z増渕, 隆史Whistleblowing is a topic in the field of business ethics. It is an effective measure to prevent organizations from harming the public. On the other hand, however, some people consider whistleblowing as an immoral action. There is a serious conflict with regard to the moral status of whistleblowing. In order to solve this problem, contemporary moral philosophers have attempted to pose some theories to justify the whistleblowing. I think, however, those theories do not seem to succeed. Some moral philosophers think that the duty to blow the whistle is overridden by other moral obligations or rights, and then it disappears. But this type of thought over looks both importance of the duty of whistleblowing and whistleblower's own interests.
In this article, I present an alternative view which could take account of importance of the duty of whistleblowing and worker's important interests. This view indicates a viable standard of judgment which serves the workers who must decide whether he/she blows the whistle or not.後期ウィトゲンシュタインにおける擬似自然誌的考察
http://hdl.handle.net/2115/35032
Title: 後期ウィトゲンシュタインにおける擬似自然誌的考察
Authors: 中島, 孝一
Abstract: In this paper I characterize the method of Wittgenstein's later philosophy as “quasinatural historical consideration” and sketch its important aspects. What is essential to his way of dealing with philosophical problems is to invent imaginary language games in order to compare them with the facts of our real language games. These imaginary language games are invented by modifying various facts of “natural history” of existing language games. They make our own particular ways of understanding our language visible and enable us to survey (übersehen) its grammar. From this perspective we will be able to interpret Wittgenstein's later writings on diverse subjects consistently and properly.2005-07-16T15:00:00Z中島, 孝一In this paper I characterize the method of Wittgenstein's later philosophy as “quasinatural historical consideration” and sketch its important aspects. What is essential to his way of dealing with philosophical problems is to invent imaginary language games in order to compare them with the facts of our real language games. These imaginary language games are invented by modifying various facts of “natural history” of existing language games. They make our own particular ways of understanding our language visible and enable us to survey (übersehen) its grammar. From this perspective we will be able to interpret Wittgenstein's later writings on diverse subjects consistently and properly.『デ・アニマ』B1におけるアリストテレスの身体理解
http://hdl.handle.net/2115/35031
Title: 『デ・アニマ』B1におけるアリストテレスの身体理解
Authors: 茶谷, 直人
Abstract: In De Anima B1, Aristotle characterizes body as potentiality, but then he maintains 'homonymy principle,' which means that body is as such only when it is actually living. In this paper, through considering this aporia, I showed the following. i) Potentiality in this context means possibility of continued existence of organism, so it consists with body's actual living. ii) He has two contrasting perspectives about body. According to his thought, body is purely physical, mean while it is virtually identical with soul. iii) These two perspectives being connected, his conception of body is situated at a kind of materialistic line.2005-07-16T15:00:00Z茶谷, 直人In De Anima B1, Aristotle characterizes body as potentiality, but then he maintains 'homonymy principle,' which means that body is as such only when it is actually living. In this paper, through considering this aporia, I showed the following. i) Potentiality in this context means possibility of continued existence of organism, so it consists with body's actual living. ii) He has two contrasting perspectives about body. According to his thought, body is purely physical, mean while it is virtually identical with soul. iii) These two perspectives being connected, his conception of body is situated at a kind of materialistic line.探究と論証 : アリストテレス『分析論後書』B1-10における諸相
http://hdl.handle.net/2115/35030
Title: 探究と論証 : アリストテレス『分析論後書』B1-10における諸相
Authors: 日吉, 大輔
Abstract: In Posterior Analytics B1-10, Aristotle constructs theory of inquiry, which has two crucial theses: (a) “everything which is inquired is the inquiry into a middle term” and (b) “what it is and why it is are the same.” These are concerned with definition and demonstration. Then I will show how the relation between (a) and (b) is, while he seems to put them as mutually dependent conceptions in the relevant context. I distinguish B1-10 into three phases: phase 1; practice of inquiry (B1-2), phase 2; traditional framework (B3-7), phase 3; his theory of inquiry (B8-10).These three phases, I think, reflect on the relation between (a) and (b), and provide us backgrounds of the construction of the theory. Especially, phase 2 maintains the balance of definition and demonstration in the beginning of B8 on the basis of a traditional concept; essence.2005-07-16T15:00:00Z日吉, 大輔In Posterior Analytics B1-10, Aristotle constructs theory of inquiry, which has two crucial theses: (a) “everything which is inquired is the inquiry into a middle term” and (b) “what it is and why it is are the same.” These are concerned with definition and demonstration. Then I will show how the relation between (a) and (b) is, while he seems to put them as mutually dependent conceptions in the relevant context. I distinguish B1-10 into three phases: phase 1; practice of inquiry (B1-2), phase 2; traditional framework (B3-7), phase 3; his theory of inquiry (B8-10).These three phases, I think, reflect on the relation between (a) and (b), and provide us backgrounds of the construction of the theory. Especially, phase 2 maintains the balance of definition and demonstration in the beginning of B8 on the basis of a traditional concept; essence.