Rhizomata

ISSNs: 2196-5102, 2196-5110

6 found

View year:

  1.  4
    Regress? I’ve Had a Few?: Infinite Regress, Similarity, Dissimilarity in the Parmenides.Saloni de Souza - 2023 - Rhizomata 10 (2):238-261.
    On Malcolm Schofield’s highly influential reading of the Similarity Regress in Part I of the Parmenides, the problem that the Regress poses is explanatory. Socrates posited the Similarity Form in order to explain why similar things are similar: similar things are similar because they participate in the Form Similarity as copies of the same original. Yet, the Similarity Regress generates an infinite series of Similarity Forms such that explanation is deferred ad infinitum. Schofield provides a philosophical incentive for adopting his (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2.  7
    Infinite Regress Arguments as per impossibile Arguments in Aristotle: De Caelo 300a30–b1, Posterior Analytics 72b5–10, Physics V.2 225b33–226a10. [REVIEW]Matthew Duncombe - 2023 - Rhizomata 10 (2):262-282.
    Infinite regress arguments are a powerful tool in Aristotle, but this style of argument has received relatively little attention. Improving our understanding of infinite regress arguments has become pressing since recent scholars have pointed out that it is not clear whether Aristotle’s infinite regress arguments are, in general, effective or indeed what the logical structure of these arguments is. One obvious approach would be to hold that Aristotle takes infinite regress arguments to be per impossibile arguments, which derive an infinite (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3.  5
    Logical Oddities in Protagorean Relativism.Evan Keeling - 2023 - Rhizomata 10 (2):215-237.
    This paper discusses two broadly logical issues related to Protagoras’ measure doctrine (M) and the self-refutation argument (SRA). First, I argue that the relevant interpretation of (M) has it that every individual human being determines all her own truths, including the truth of (M) itself. I then turn to what I take to be the most important move in the SRA: that Protagoras recognises not only that his opponents disagree with him about the truth of (M), but also that they (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4.  5
    Pyrrhonian Scepticism, the Infinite Regress of Reasons, and Ancient Infinitism.Tamer Nawar - 2023 - Rhizomata 10 (2):283-306.
    in this paper, I examine how the Mode of Infinite Regress functions in Pyrrhonian scepticism. I argue that it is used both to generate an infinite regress of reasons and to show that such infinite regresses are epistemically defective. I clarify precisely how this occurs while examining the Mode’s efficaciousness and whether ancient philosophers might have accepted infinite regresses of reasons. I ultimately argue that they would not for reasons which have hitherto not been adequately appreciated and which shed further (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5.  7
    Beyond the Principle of Non-Contradiction: Damascius on the Ineffable.Luca Pitteloud - 2023 - Rhizomata 10 (2):307-338.
    For Damascius, any attempt to grasp the first principle of all things, the Ineffable, implies the rejection of the principle of non-contradiction (PNC). The reasoning soul, using aporia, is forced to admit contradictory statements as true when it comes to cognising what lies beyond any intelligible being. Damascius shows that it is necessary to postulate a completely transcendent and unknowable Absolute which is the uncoordinated cause of all things beyond the One. This paper examines how Damascius relates the rejection of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6. Heraclitus, Change and Objective Contradictions in Aristotle’s Metaphysics Γ.Celso Vieira - 2023 - Rhizomata 10 (2):183-214.
    In Metaphysics Γ, Aristotle argues against those who seem to accept contradictions. He distinguishes between the Sophists, who deny the principle of non-contradiction through arguments, and the Natural Philosophers, whose physical investigations lead to the acceptance of objective contradictions. Heraclitus’ name appears throughout the discussion. Usually, he is associated with the discussion against the Sophists. In this paper, I explore how the discussion with the Natural Philosophers may illuminate both the interpretation of Heraclitus by Aristotle and Heraclitus’ own worldview. To (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
 Previous issues
  
Next issues