Relativism platonicianizant

Titlul nu apare altundeva in google ca expresie. Dialogul de mai jos si discutia ce-i va urma (poate) va lamuri trilema:

  • Dr.A: Nu exista moduri de organizare infrante istoric asa cum nu exista sisteme politice sau sociale infrante istoric. Faptul ca nu (mai) sunt dominante azi sau de o vreme nu le-a impiedicat supravietuirea. Din motive usor de inteles.
  • Mircea Popescu: Pai daca negi evolutia organizarii sociale ca etape istorice succesive, nu vad cum poate sa existe atunci educatia ca concept.
  • Dr.A: Cand am negat eu asta ? Pranzurile comandate luni, marti, miercuri, si joi se succed istoric fara drept de apel dar si fara a fi in mod obligatoriu scoase ulterior din Meniu. Ele sunt in acord cu timpurile, poftele si arta bucatarului. Evolutia nu inseamna infrangeri si victorii. Inseamna punerea optima in valoare, azi, a mostenirii genetice pe care o purtam mereu in noi.
  • Mircea Popescu: Asa un fel de relativism platonicianizant. Bine. Fie.
discutia in intregul ei poate fi urmarita la Baobabul Spiru Ha’Aretz .
si cateva ajutoare:
Relativism is the idea that some elements or aspects of experience or culture are relative to, i.e., dependent on, other elements or aspects. [ …] Sophists are considered the founding fathers of relativism in the Western World. Elements of relativism emerged among the Sophists in the 5th century BC. Notably, it was Protagoras who coined the phrase, “Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not.” The thinking of the Sophists is mainly known through their opponents, Plato and Socrates. []
“Platonism is a family of views that get their name because they involve entities–propositions, properties, sets–which, like Plato’s Forms, are held to be abstract, immutable things that exist outside space and time. On many platonistic approaches, concepts express abstract properties and beliefs are relations between people and abstract propositions. This suggests a way around some types of relativism, since people in quite different cultures could have many of the same beliefs (because they could believe the same abstract propositions), and a belief would be true just in case the immutable proposition it expresses is true.
The relativist may reply that platonistic accounts lead to severe difficulties in epistemology and semantics. The problem is that we are physical organisms living in a spatio-temporal world, and we cannot interact causally (or in any other discernible way) with abstract, causally inert things. Moreover, few people are aware of having any special cognitive faculty that puts them in touch with a timeless realm of abstract objects, neuroscientists have never found any part of the brain that subserves such an ability, such a view is not suggested by what is known about the ways children acquire concepts and beliefs, and nothing in physics suggests any way in which a physical system (the brain) can make any sort of contact with causally inert, non-physical objects. Moreover, if our minds cannot make epistemic contact with such things, it is difficult to see how our words and linguistic practices can make semantic contact with them.
None of this proves that abstract propositions don’t exist, but it shows it isn’t obvious that they do. There have been few debates between relativists and platonists over such matters, however, perhaps because the two views lie so far apart that their proponents cannot easily engage one another.” [Swoyer, Chris, “Relativism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)]
Si acuma trilema noastra:
1. nu exista relativism platonicianizant
2. exista relativism platonicianizant
3. depinde pe cine intrebi

About Dr.A

Scientist, tech enthusiast, husband and father. Romanian expat. Dupa 3 ani in Japonia, o noua pagina se deschide la Paris.
This entry was posted in logos. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Relativism platonicianizant

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *