|
Showing 1 - 7 of
7 matches in All Departments
In the origins of Western philosophical thought, doctrines of
physics intertwined with the debate between political philosophers.
It is for this reason that Plato devoted his dialogues Theatetus
and Parmenides to investigating and meeting the arguments of his
principal philosophical adversaries. The doctrine of atomism, which
developed under the influence of Parmenides' philosophy, is one
that Plato refutes directly. In the modern era of philosophy and
science, a revived doctrine of atomism has been treated as
apolitical. Atomistic postulates lay at the root of the doctrines
of Early Modern philosophers and exert a great influence upon
cultural and political teachings. In order to understand Early
Modern Philosophy, therefore, and especially in order to examine
Early Modern political science, one must address the atomistic
theory of body which lies at the root of Early Modern metaphysics.
In the metaphysical domain, or in the domain of natural philosophy,
the Early Modern philosophers radically reduce the role that
ordinary opinion may play in political and cultural life. The
majestic declarations concerning the rights of man, and the gospel
of utility characteristic of the political domain of Early
Modernity, therefore conceal a shrunken influence fated for the
demos in the new politics. In order to take the measure of the new
political science, it is necessary to take the measure of the
revived doctrines of atomism. If these doctrines can be disproved,
by reviving Plato's critique, we will be able to take a critical
look at the political doctrines that lie upon the foundations of
the politicized atomism.
This book is both a careful study of Immanuel Kant's work and the
context of that work in the movement known as early modern
philosophy. The chief interest of the author concerns the
philosophy of perception that is manifest in Kant's doctrines of
the transcendental aesthetic and the concept of phenomena.
Philosophy bears a crucial relationship to the public in terms of
the evidence that it identifies as original and binding. In the
early modern period, philosophy repudiated its dependence on
ordinary perception, and on language as ordinarily used, in the
setting forth of its own authority. This historiographical fact is
presently of immense interest, as public discourse finds itself
rudderless and without agreed upon common facts for deliberation to
settle on. It was not the view of the ancient Greeks that
philosophy could so emancipate itself from the perception of common
facts as the original evidence for higher investigations. The Early
Modern era, beginning with Bacon but now more furiously in the work
of Kant, has anchored a general indictment of ordinary perception
in a remnant of natural philosophy. Human beings, in Kant's
philosophy, are not capable of knowing what objects, external
objects, are in themselves. We may only know what are called
"appearances," and Kant refers to these appearances as phenomena.
Yet this claim is complicated by the a priori knowledge which Kant
claims to possess as regards these phenomena: that they must all be
eternal substances. The book freely moves back and forth between
Greek antiquity and the Early Modern period to illustrate the full
nature of the rupture on this ground of the metaphysics of fact
determination. For Aristotle, the founder of the theory of
substance, substances are just the perishable bodies commonly
perceived. Kant's phenomena, which claims to embody what appears to
the generality of the human race, cannot be that, for the human
race does not perceive eternal objects.
In the origins of Western philosophical thought, doctrines of
physics intertwined with the debate between political philosophers.
It is for this reason that Plato devoted his dialogues Theatetus
and Parmenides to investigating and meeting the arguments of his
principal philosophical adversaries. The doctrine of atomism, which
developed under the influence of Parmenides' philosophy, is one
that Plato refutes directly. In the modern era of philosophy and
science, a revived doctrine of atomism has been treated as
apolitical. Atomistic postulates lay at the root of the doctrines
of Early Modern philosophers and exert a great influence upon
cultural and political teachings. In order to understand Early
Modern Philosophy, therefore, and especially in order to examine
Early Modern political science, one must address the atomistic
theory of body which lies at the root of Early Modern metaphysics.
In the metaphysical domain, or in the domain of natural philosophy,
the Early Modern philosophers radically reduce the role that
ordinary opinion may play in political and cultural life. The
majestic declarations concerning the rights of man, and the gospel
of utility characteristic of the political domain of Early
Modernity, therefore conceal a shrunken influence fated for the
demos in the new politics. In order to take the measure of the new
political science, it is necessary to take the measure of the
revived doctrines of atomism. If these doctrines can be disproved,
by reviving Plato's critique, we will be able to take a critical
look at the political doctrines that lie upon the foundations of
the politicized atomism.
Plato versus Parmenides investigates the concept of genesis, or
coming into being, a problem that has absorbed the greatest
philosophical thinkers. Robert J. Roecklein explores two
philosophical giants who tackled this issue: Plato and Parmenides
from Elea. Particularly interesting to Roecklein is how the
respective arguments of reality, or lack thereof, of coming into
being functions as a political barometer: how Plato and Parmenides
sketch foundations for political regimes. Plato and Parmenides,
philosophers of immeasurable respect and influence, represented two
sides of a fierce debate. On one side, Parmenides gives the famous
argument that coming into being cannot possibly be a reality in
nature. The other side, Plato proves in his dialogue the Parmenides
that coming into being is a very real thing in nature. He argues
that perception does indeed provide accurate information about the
external world. In Plato versus Parmenides, Robert J. Roecklein
presents the great debate between these two schools, and examines
the disposition of other PreSocratic philosophers who were
influenced by these great intellectual rivals.
Modern Philosophy, Philosophy of Physics, Philosophy of language,
Neurobiology, Philosophy of Perception, Modern Political
Philosophy-all share a common philosophical foundation: atomism.
The theory of atomism that is developed in the writing of Einstein,
Bohr, Schrodinger, and Reichenbach shares the same metaphysical
roots as the atomism of Gottlob Frege, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and
Bertrand Russell. These atomisms share the same foundation as the
one developed by John Locke and David Hume. Until now, the full
philosophic history, and metaphysical foundations of this theory of
atomism have not been presented. Atomist theory not only contains
cultural premises of great significance for the fate of public
opinion, but it is also an eminently political doctrine,
incompatible with the most modest degree of democracy. The atomist
theory happens to be false. In this case, the truth does matter.
This book investigates the influence of Epicurean physics on the
argument developed in Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy. Towards
this end, the full philosophical history and origins of atomist
philosophy are investigated during the first three chapters.
Plato's critique of the atomist philosophy, from his dialogue the
Parmenides, is a part of that investigation. In fact, Plato
provides a refutation of the atomist philosophy in the Parmenides.
A significant amount of scholarship has been accomplished that
demonstrates the currents of Lucretian atomism in Machiavelli's
Florence. Evidence is supplied as to Machiavelli's exposure to the
Lucretian text, and the book then proceeds to investigate the
transformational arguments of the Discourses On Livy itself.
Machiavelli's Discourses are saturated with terminology that is
borrowed from physics: 'materia' (Matter), 'corpo' (body), 'forma'
(form), 'accidente' (accident). English translators have usually
employed some theory as to which tradition of physics Machiavelli
is relying upon, in order to conduct their translations. By
borrowing the terminology of Lucretian physics, Machiavelli becomes
able to conceive of the people in a political society as something
less than human: as 'matter' or materia without form. In my
analysis of Machiavelli's deployment of the concepts from Lucretian
physics, it is attempted to unveil the brutality that is inherent
in Machiavelli's new definitions of the elements of politics, and
the general hostility of his political science to the Aristotelian
concept of the human being as political animal. The classical
physics of Aristotle, which Machiavelli has rejected for a model,
indicates the forward looking momentum of natural beings. For
Aristotle, nature intends human political society as the arena for
human fulfillment. In Aristotelian physics, nature aims at an end
in generation, i.e. at a culmination of the natural being in its
proper condition of excellence. For human beings, this is justice,
the quality of relationships that makes happiness possible. In
Machiavelli, a new politicized physics is revealed. In
Machiavelli's model, the human beings of formed matter are
repeatedly sent, through new institutions and methods of
government, 'back to their beginnings', i.e. to a condition of
isolation, destitution, injury, and pain. The last chapter of the
book concludes with an examination of the particular institutions
and methods that Machiavelli holds out to us for employment, if his
new vision of a republic is to be realized.
This book investigates the influence of Epicurean physics on the
argument developed in Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy. Towards
this end, the full philosophical history and origins of atomist
philosophy are investigated during the first three chapters.
Plato's critique of the atomist philosophy, from his dialogue the
Parmenides, is a part of that investigation. In fact, Plato
provides a refutation of the atomist philosophy in the Parmenides.
A significant amount of scholarship has been accomplished that
demonstrates the currents of Lucretian atomism in Machiavelli's
Florence. Evidence is supplied as to Machiavelli's exposure to the
Lucretian text, and the book then proceeds to investigate the
transformational arguments of the Discourses On Livy itself.
Machiavelli's Discourses are saturated with terminology that is
borrowed from physics: 'materia' (Matter), 'corpo' (body), 'forma'
(form), 'accidente' (accident). English translators have usually
employed some theory as to which tradition of physics Machiavelli
is relying upon, in order to conduct their translations. By
borrowing the terminology of Lucretian physics, Machiavelli becomes
able to conceive of the people in a political society as something
less than human: as 'matter' or materia without form. In my
analysis of Machiavelli's deployment of the concepts from Lucretian
physics, it is attempted to unveil the brutality that is inherent
in Machiavelli's new definitions of the elements of politics, and
the general hostility of his political science to the Aristotelian
concept of the human being as political animal. The classical
physics of Aristotle, which Machiavelli has rejected for a model,
indicates the forward looking momentum of natural beings. For
Aristotle, nature intends human political society as the arena for
human fulfillment. In Aristotelian physics, nature aims at an end
in generation, i.e. at a culmination of the natural being in its
proper condition of excellence. For human beings, this is justice,
the quality of relationships that makes happiness possible. In
Machiavelli, a new politicized physics is revealed. In
Machiavelli's model, the human beings of formed matter are
repeatedly sent, through new institutions and methods of
government, 'back to their beginnings', i.e. to a condition of
isolation, destitution, injury, and pain. The last chapter of the
book concludes with an examination of the particular institutions
and methods that Machiavelli holds out to us for employment, if his
new vision of a republic is to be realized.
|
|