Reading and following, attentively, the development of one or various arguments on a Plato's dialogue, mainly on those of his last phase, as was the "Parmenides" or the "Sophist", turns to be an and exhausting intellectual exercise that requires, from the reader, a supreme and continuous effort of the imagination. Yet, the matter does not go very further beyond that. One doesn’t find, hidden in the text, great truths, nor any very important metaphysical discovery. The entire question resumes itself (as the advice of the same Parmenides to the young Socrates) into an exercise on futile conversation - lalia; to argue with the intent to confound, simply. Pure eristic. The objective of this is, accordingly to Parmenides, sublime: the exercise of the mind in the quest for the truth. Notwithstanding, are there any valuable conclusions at the end of the innumerable trends of argumentation by whom the skilful Plato leads us? All happens (although not so clearly declared), as, between a master and his disciple, the following model of dialogue is constantly utilized:
- Take heed to the following question: one plus one gives, as a final result, the two?
- Yes.
- And two plus one gives the three as a result, don't they?
- Exactly.
- In the three coexists, then, the two and the one.
- Clear.
- But the two comprises two ones, as we've concluded just a little time ago.
- It is on this very manner that we've concluded.
- Therefore, the three composes itself either of three (three ones) as of two (two plus one) numbers?
- Perfectly.
- Hence, the two and the three are equals.
Who agrees with the sophist? The imaginary interlocutor of Plato? Or it happens to be ourselves, which are reading the dialogue?
No comments:
Post a Comment