MARCO IS AN HERETIC AND IS GOING TO BRING IN THE CHURCH OF MOQ THE EVIL'S
SPELL
Bo, Roger and ... Marco
The heresy within this post is double: firstly, I'm answering to myself;
secondly I will quote the Evil Spell...
... but the meaning of "heReTic" seems to me " someone clashing RT" !
(and maybe searching for DQ)
Bo wrote:
>
> I am - as said - convinced that Aristotle said that SUBSTANCE
> is reality while the running FORM is transient and illusory. I
> contest that words (horse or dog) was his "substance", but the very
> DICHOTOMY which did not follow our present lines slowly shifted up
> through the ages ("Nominal/universal" was the Medieval dividing
> line) to the one that we know as Cartesian today.
>
Roger Parker wrote:
> ROG NOW RESPONDS:
> Yes, 'substance' was Aristotle's concept. Before this the Greeks had the
> concept of 'change' and the concept of 'being', and the concept of 'form'.
> After Aristotle came the concepts of 'elements and compounds', then the
> concept of 'molecules' , then the concept of atoms, then the concept of
> 'energy', and the concept of 'subatomic particles'. Next came the concept
of
> 'probabilities, followed closely by the concept of 'quarks', then of
> 'fields', of 'interrelationships', and the current conceptual champion
> 'static patterns of value'.
>
Marco (me?, maybe no more, now!), wrote:
>
> I don't agree. Effectively Aristotle said that Reality is a "synolos" (a
> synthetic unity) of substance and form. His division was an attempt to
> define reality, analogue to Pirsig's attempt (Reality as a synolos of DQ
and
> SQ). Aristotle said also that form can't be without substance and vice
> versa. This sentence was a great step beyond, and it was a great attempt
to
> unify the Plato dichotomy Idea/Shadow (Plato did not feel the urge to
unify
> reality). The problem is that it was a good step in a wrong direction...
He
> tried to unify reality under the banner of Truth.
The Present Marco writes:
There's an imprecision in Bo's sentence, but not in the sense that Old Marco
pointed out. The mistake is that Bo seems to say that the Aristotle's
dichotomy is between Substance and Form. This is not correct. Old Marco did
not see it, and remembering something about the "synolos" concept answered
with another imprecision.
Roger correctly pointed out that the 'substance' was Aristotle's concept.
So a third Mid Marco, situated between the Old and the Present, took an old
book: the History of Philosophy by Francesco Adorno, and found this:
[ I'm quoting and translating at the same time...]
"Aristotle agrees with Plato's opinion that Science must search for what's
Universal, Eternal and Immutable; but Plato was ambiguous dividing this
Universal by things.[...]
Aristotle denies that Form is separated [...] Form has not existence of its
own [...] and matter also [...] , without a Form, is impossible to be
thought and doesn't exist. So the Essence of things is not for Aristotle the
separated Form, or the separated Matter; it's on the contrary the unity of
both Matter and Form: the Synolos. [...] Form (eidos) is the intelligible
beginning of reality , but , separated by his matter (hyle), is abstraction
( i.e. object of intellectual knowledge). [...] reality is always Synolos of
Matter and Form. "
This was what Old Marco remembered. But he did not remember well that the
Aristotelian dichotomy was between Matter and Form.
He remembered also another latin sentence about Aristotle, but he wasn't
able to find it in some old book... "Amico Plato sed magis amica Veritas"
(Plato is a friend, but Truth is a better friend) .
However , that sentence means that Aristotle's attempt was to unify , not to
divide.So what is Reality in Aristotle's metaphysics?
In the same book , Mid Marco found in the section "Documents" some original
material of the Evil Himself, under the italian title: "Sostanza":
(greek "Ousia" , what is permanent; latin: Substantia , what stays below).
[Here you see how is difficult to translate, as also Denis pointed out].
In "Metaphysics", book seventh,
ARISTOTLE wrote:
"[...] the main meaning of Being is "the essence of an object" , that's
what indicate his Substance [...]. It's obvious that, by the use of this
category, [...] the Being in his main meaning , i.e. not some qualification
of being, but the simple and pure Being, equals to Substance."
[This is the starting point. He says that there's an immanent reality in
things, and he coins for it the word "Substance". ]
"This is the main problem of every past, present and future search; the
always open and discussed question: what is Substance?.
[he goes on by considering the thesis of matter as Substance, and he
concludes that] .., this is impossible: in fact we agree that fundamental
properties of Substance are distinguishibility and individuality, and that's
why we find more authentic that Form, or better the unity of Form and
Matter, is the Substance".
The Present Marco closes this post arguing that:
1) Sophists try to teach the best way to live.
2) They say that Man is the measure of things.
3) ...that Reality is Relative.
4) ...that every one perceive an his own reality.
5) ...that we can change reality by Rhetoric.
6) Their philosophy is searching for Good.
1) Plato tries to reach an absolute reality, against Sophists.
2) He uses a word "Idea" to mean A Single Reality.
3) He thinks that Ideas leave in a separated world.
4) ...that we can perceive only shadows of Ideas.
5) ...that we can reach Ideas by Philosophy.
6) His philosophy is searching for knowledge.
1) Aristotle tries to unify reality, against Plato.
2) He uses a word "Substance" to mean The Reality.
3) He divides Substance in two Intellectual Abstractions: Form and Matter.
4) He says that Subject perceives Substance as Matter by his Form.
5) ... that Subject can distinguish, i.e. define, Substance.
6) His philosophy is searching for truth.
[THIS IS THE EMRGENCE OF SOM! ]
But.....
1) Pirsig tries to unify reality, against SOM.
2) He uses a word "Quality" to mean The Reality.
3) He divides Quality in two Intellectual Abstractions: DQ and SQ.
4) He says that Perceiving is the Primal Event (the Quality Event) , in
which subject and object are created.
5) ... that Quality can't be defined, even if he tries.
6) His philosophy is searching for good
THIS IS THE EMRGENCE OF MOQ!
BO! Where is the difference? A metaphysics is a metaphysics, and the method
is similar! Pirsig uses Quality, but he could also use "Substance", or..
"XYZ" to mean Reality. The real difference is in point 6, TRUTH vs GOOD.
Sophists (or, better, what we can say about them) were searching for good,
but not in the same way of Pirsig. The good of Pirsig is only in part
relative: we can't define DQ, so we can't change it by rhetoric.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:52 GMT