18 mar 2011, 22:38
wkleje pierwszą stronę, cztery takie są. Zobaczymy czy da radę;)
A tekst filozoficzno/pedagogiczny (Sokrates, Platon głównie)...
"Separation" in Plato
I shall argue that in the Platonie corpus, and also in Aristotle's testimony about Plato, the same metaphysical claim may be expressed by either [P] or [Q] :
[P] The Forms exist "themselves by themselves."
[Q] The Forms exist "separately."
In the debate in the Parmenides Socrates puts his own thesis on the mat through the following question:
"Don't you believe that there exists itself by itself a certain Form of Similarity?"
Plainly, this is [P]. When Parmenides enters the debatę hę begins by asking:
[a] "Have you yourself, as you say, distinguished in this way, on one hand, separately certain Forms themselves, on the other, separately in turn, the things which participate in them? [b] And do you think that Similarity itself exists separately from the similarity we have ourselves, and that so too do Unity and Plurality and all those things of which you hcard just nów from Zeno?"
A word about the translation at this point. Cornford renders T2[a], "Have you yourself drawn this distinction you speak of and separated apart" etc. There is no Greek for "separated" in the text he is translating: Parmenides has not said. The verb does not occur here nor anywhere else in the debatę, nor is it ever applied to the Forms by Plato anywhere in his corpus. The difference between this and the verb Plato uses here, is substantial. From the earliest occurrence in Greek philosophical prose a purely logical use of the verb is normal. Heraclitus had described himself as "distinguishing everything in accordance with its nature" (B I). Could one imagine this apostle of cosmic unity writing the same sentence with substituted for? The use of this for making distinctions without the least implication, or so much as insinuation, that the things distinguished are severed in naturę is by no means confined to the philosophers. There are many examples of it in Herodotus. And this is how Plato uses the word from his earliest to his latest works; it is the mainstay of his "method of division." Not so, whose primary sense is "to separate in space," "divide locally." Though, as is well known, can also be used at times in a purely logical sense, it generally stands for something far stronger, else Plato would not have used it to express the harshest of the dualisms in the credo of his middle period - that view of the soul, discussed above in chapter 2 (section II), which makes it an immigrant from another world, attached precariously to a piece of matter in this one, from which death shall "separate" it to "exist separately" until its next incarnation. Nor would Aristotle have picked this to spearhead his attack on what he takes to be Plato's cardinal metaphysical indiscretion: the assignment of "separate," independent existence to instantiable Forms, which, in Aristotle's own considered view, can only exist "in" their instances.
Thus Cornford's translation would seriously mislead English readers on a point of vital importance in the debatę: they would be left unaware of the fact that in part [a] of T2 Forms are being distinguished from their participants, while nothing is said at just this point to separate them from the latter. For this we have to go to part [b] of the text. And here the translation may spring another trap for the unwary.
Kiedy myślę i nic nie wymyślę, to sobie myślę, po co ja tyle myślałem, żeby nic nie wymyślić. Przecież mogłem nic nie myśleć i tyle samo bym wymyślił.