![]() If an infinite regress were entailed, it would consist of an infinite succession of unifying parts of a soul. The goal of this infinite regress argument is to reject the claim that the soul is divisible. If, then, there is something else which makes the soul one, this would have the best right to the name of soul, and we shall have to repeat for it the question: Is it one or multipartite? If it is one, why not at once admit that the soul is one? If it has parts, once more the question must be put: What holds its parts together, and so ad infinitum ( On the Soul 411b5-13). If, then, its nature admits of its being divided, what can it be that holds the parts together? Surely not the body on the contrary it seems rather to be the soul that holds the body together at any rate when the soul departs the body disintegrates and decays. Some hold that the soul is divisible, and that we think with one part and desire with another. In some cases the infinite regress entails an easily identifiable implicit statement that is obviously false, and that is unrelated to Aristotle’s belief that actual infinities do not exist. I will describe different ways in which one can discover these alternative interpretations. Secondly, in some cases where Aristotle doe not explicitly discuss the viciousness of an infinite regress, one can establish the viciousness without making use of his claim that actual infinities do not exist. First, in the cases where Aristotle explicitly discusses the viciousness of infinite regress, he does not make use of that claim. I have a number of reasons supporting this interpretation. The evidence that I will advance will not prove that my interpretation is the only one, but it will show that in some cases a closer fidelity to the texts obliges us to see that Aristotle’s objections against infinite regresses need not follow from his notion of the infinite. My goal is to suggest a different interpretation: we can establish the viciousness of most infinite regresses in Aristotle’s works without assuming that he tacitly uses the claim that actual infinities do not exist. The conjunction of these two statements shows that an infinite regress entails a false statement, and consequently shows that the infinite regress is vicious. Given the extent to which he argues against the existence of actual infinities in his philosophical works (especially in Book 3 of the Physics), it is reasonable to suspect that Aristotle tacitly uses the statement, (2) actual infinities do not exist, in the infinite regress arguments where he does not explicitly discuss the viciousness. An infinite regress entails the statement that (1) there are actually infinitely many entities. In this paper I will not address the derivation of his infinite regresses, but simply assume that they are entailed, and focus my attention on their viciousness.Īristotle’s notion of the infinite can appear to be involved in establishing the viciousness of an infinite regress in an infinite regress argument in the following way. Given his omissions, we sometimes hastily grant that there is an infinite regress, and that it is somehow vicious. An infinite regress is vicious if it entails either a false statement or an unacceptable consequence. Aristotle sometimes presents an infinite regress argument without showing us how its infinite regress is derived, or why its infinite regress is vicious.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |