The Megaric Possibility Paradox

Apeiron Pub Date : 2024-01-10 DOI:10.1515/apeiron-2022-0100
Philipp Steinkrüger, Matthew Duncombe
{"title":"The Megaric Possibility Paradox","authors":"Philipp Steinkrüger, Matthew Duncombe","doi":"10.1515/apeiron-2022-0100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In Metaphysics Theta 3 Aristotle attributes to the Megarics and unknown others a notorious modal thesis: (M) something can φ only if it is φ-ing. Aristotle does not tell us what motivated (M). Almost all scholars take Aristotle’s report to indicate that the Megarics defended (M) as a highly counterintuitive doctrine in modal metaphysics. But this reading faces several problems. First: what would motivate the Megarics to hold such a counterintuitive view? The existing literature tries, in various ways, to motivate (M) in a way neither trivial nor absurd. But, as we will argue, the main approaches end up attributing an unsustainable position to the Megarics. Second: most historical evidence for the Megaric lineage presents the group’s philosophical practice as dialectical or negative. So why think that the claim reported in Theta 3 presents a positive, and highly controversial, metaphysical claim? This paper addresses these problems by proposing a dialectical (or negative) reading of the Megarics in Theta 3. By ‘dialectical’ we here mean a mode of philosophizing that neither seeks to establish the truth or falsity of certain theses, nor takes a skeptical stance. There are different reasons why a philosopher might want to take up such a mode; in the case of the Megarics we argue that they might have wanted to put pressure on Aristotle’s idea of possibility and the ‘test’ for possibility that Aristotle mentions in several works. Reading, as we do, (M) as (part of) a paradox about possibility and actuality, we argue that the Megarics’ dialectical approach here aims to highlight a shortcoming of an intuitive conception of possibility, which underpins Aristotle’s idea of possibility and which features in his test for possibility.","PeriodicalId":517049,"journal":{"name":"Apeiron","volume":"45 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Apeiron","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/apeiron-2022-0100","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract In Metaphysics Theta 3 Aristotle attributes to the Megarics and unknown others a notorious modal thesis: (M) something can φ only if it is φ-ing. Aristotle does not tell us what motivated (M). Almost all scholars take Aristotle’s report to indicate that the Megarics defended (M) as a highly counterintuitive doctrine in modal metaphysics. But this reading faces several problems. First: what would motivate the Megarics to hold such a counterintuitive view? The existing literature tries, in various ways, to motivate (M) in a way neither trivial nor absurd. But, as we will argue, the main approaches end up attributing an unsustainable position to the Megarics. Second: most historical evidence for the Megaric lineage presents the group’s philosophical practice as dialectical or negative. So why think that the claim reported in Theta 3 presents a positive, and highly controversial, metaphysical claim? This paper addresses these problems by proposing a dialectical (or negative) reading of the Megarics in Theta 3. By ‘dialectical’ we here mean a mode of philosophizing that neither seeks to establish the truth or falsity of certain theses, nor takes a skeptical stance. There are different reasons why a philosopher might want to take up such a mode; in the case of the Megarics we argue that they might have wanted to put pressure on Aristotle’s idea of possibility and the ‘test’ for possibility that Aristotle mentions in several works. Reading, as we do, (M) as (part of) a paradox about possibility and actuality, we argue that the Megarics’ dialectical approach here aims to highlight a shortcoming of an intuitive conception of possibility, which underpins Aristotle’s idea of possibility and which features in his test for possibility.
巨型可能性悖论
摘要 在《形而上学》θ 3 中,亚里士多德把一个臭名昭著的模态论题归因于美伽罗人和不知名的其他人:(M) 事物只有在φ-ing 的情况下才能φ。亚里士多德没有告诉我们(M)的动机是什么。几乎所有的学者都认为亚里士多德的报告表明,梅加里科人捍卫的(M)是模态形而上学中一个高度反直觉的学说。但这种解读面临几个问题。首先:是什么促使美加里人持有这种反直觉的观点?现有文献试图通过各种方式,以一种既不琐碎也不荒谬的方式来激发(M)。但是,正如我们将要论证的那样,这些主要方法最终都将一种不可持续的立场归因于美加尼人。其次:大多数关于美加里克一脉的历史证据都将该群体的哲学实践描述为辩证的或消极的。那么,为什么认为《Theta 3》中报道的主张是一种积极的、极具争议性的形而上学主张呢?本文针对这些问题,提出了对《Theta 3》中梅加里派的辩证(或消极)解读。这里所说的 "辩证 "是指一种哲学思考模式,它既不寻求确定某些论题的真伪,也不采取怀疑的立场。哲学家采用这种模式的原因各不相同;就梅加里克家族而言,我们认为他们可能是想对亚里士多德的可能性思想以及亚里士多德在多部著作中提到的可能性 "检验 "施加压力。我们将(M)解读为关于可能性与现实性的悖论的(一部分),我们认为梅加里克人的辩证法在此旨在强调可能性直观概念的缺陷,这一概念是亚里士多德可能性思想的基础,也是其可能性检验的特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信