he things, in trying to explain which these thinkers proceeded from them to the Forms. For to each thing there answers an entity which has the same name and exists apart from the substances, and so also in the case of all other groups there is a one over many, whether the many are in this world or are eternal.
Further, of the ways in which we prove that the Forms exist,Tyskland Drakt Barn, none is convincing; for from some no inference necessarily follows, and from some arise Forms even of things of which we think there are no Forms. For according to the arguments from the existence of the sciences there will be Forms of all things of which there are sciences and according to the ‘one over many’ argument there will be Forms even of negations, and according to the argument that there is an object for thought even when the thing has perished, there will be Forms of perishable things; for we have an image of these. Further, of the more accurate arguments, some lead to Ideas of relations,Allen Iverson Drakter, of which we say there is no independent class, and others introduce the ‘third man’.
And in general the arguments for the Forms destroy the things for whose existence we are more zealous than for the existence of the Ideas; for it follows that not the dyad but number is first, i.e. that the relative is prior to the absolute,Longchamp Le Pliage Messenger torebki,-besides all the other points on which certain people by following out the opinions held about the Ideas have come into conflict with the principles of the theory.
Further,Juventus Turyn Damskie, according to the assumption on which our belief in the Ideas rests, there will be Forms not only of substances but also of many other things (for the concept is single not only in the case of substances but also in the other cases, and there are sciences not only of substance but also of other things,Fernando Torres Koszulka, and a thousand other such difficulties confront them). But according to the necessities of the case and the opinions held about the Forms,Luis Suarez Tröja, if Forms can be shared in there must be Ideas of substances only. For they are not shared in incidentally, but a thing must share in its Form as in something not predicated of a subject (by ‘being shared in incidentally’ I mean that e.g. if a thing shares in ‘double itself’, it shares also in ‘eternal’,Klänning, but incidentally; for ‘eternal’ happens to be predicable of the ‘double’). Therefore the Forms will be substance; but the same terms indicate substance in this and in the ideal world (or what will be the meaning of saying that there is something apart from the particulars-the one over many?). And if the Ideas and the particulars that share in them have the same form, there will be something common to these; for why should ‘2’ be one and the same in the perishable 2’s or in those which are many but eternal,Florida Marlins Tröjor, and not the same in the ‘2’ itself’ as in the particular 2? But if they have not the same form,AFC Ajax Barn, they must have only the name in common, and it is as if one were to call both Callias and a wooden image a ‘man’, without observing any community between them.
Above all one might dilinks:
http://bbs.xunlingol.com/read.php?tid=19&ds=1&page=e
http://iced-esports.de/index.php?site=news_comments&newsID=1
http://share.digitalmax.jp/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=694204&view=unread#unread |
