JOT
发表于 2025-3-25 05:12:58
Gladys I. Ayaya,Tsediso M. Makoelleabove) he had argued that being cannot be equated with either motion or rest, nor with motion and rest together, but is a third thing. At 254 D7-12 he reaches the conclusion that each of the three is a distinct kind since two (motion and rest) cannot mingle with one another, while being mingles with
无情
发表于 2025-3-25 09:08:25
http://reply.papertrans.cn/19/1831/183012/183012_22.png
osteopath
发表于 2025-3-25 14:59:59
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5073-0, p. 21 above). In making good his challenge he will also hit the Sophist and his band of pseudo-Eleatics, “late learners” and contradiction mongers. Being and not-being do combine, “is” and “is-not” statements are compatible, in fact imply one another, and their contradiction is merely apparent.
Overthrow
发表于 2025-3-25 17:10:54
http://reply.papertrans.cn/19/1831/183012/183012_24.png
ABIDE
发表于 2025-3-25 20:46:17
http://reply.papertrans.cn/19/1831/183012/183012_25.png
heterodox
发表于 2025-3-26 02:59:54
http://reply.papertrans.cn/19/1831/183012/183012_26.png
Externalize
发表于 2025-3-26 05:08:54
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5073-0, p. 21 above). In making good his challenge he will also hit the Sophist and his band of pseudo-Eleatics, “late learners” and contradiction mongers. Being and not-being do combine, “is” and “is-not” statements are compatible, in fact imply one another, and their contradiction is merely apparent.
Erythropoietin
发表于 2025-3-26 11:37:50
http://reply.papertrans.cn/19/1831/183012/183012_28.png
NOCT
发表于 2025-3-26 14:04:40
‘Giving up on Them’: A Tale of DespairThe “reverend and awful” figure of Parmenides (.. 183 E6) looms large over Plato’s final encounter with the Sophists. Parmenides’ influence on Greek philosophy was profound. The core of his doctrine can be summarised in three statements which we take from his . .; I will call them the Eleatic canon:
bronchodilator
发表于 2025-3-26 20:48:16
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6368-8In order to unmask the Sophist we need to understand his art. To understand his art we must define it, and to define it we need to employ the method of division. Right from the start the scene is set against the background of the new science of dialectic.