dor_id: 4115614

506.#.#.a: Público

590.#.#.d: Cada artículo es evaluado mediante una revisión ciega única. Los revisores son externos nacionales e internacionales.

510.0.#.a: Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Revistes Cientifiques de Ciencies Socials Humanitais (CARHUS Plus), Latinoamericanas en Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades (CLASE), Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH PLUS), Sistema Regional de Información en Línea para Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal (Latindex), SCOPUS, Journal Storage (JSTOR), The Philosopher’s Index, Ulrich’s Periodical Directory

561.#.#.u: http://www.filosoficas.unam.mx/

650.#.4.x: Artes y Humanidades

336.#.#.b: article

336.#.#.3: Artículo de Investigación

336.#.#.a: Artículo

351.#.#.6: http://critica.filosoficas.unam.mx/index.php/critica

351.#.#.b: Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía

351.#.#.a: Artículos

harvesting_group: RevistasUNAM

270.1.#.p: Revistas UNAM. Dirección General de Publicaciones y Fomento Editorial, UNAM en revistas@unam.mx

590.#.#.c: Open Journal Systems (OJS)

270.#.#.d: MX

270.1.#.d: México

590.#.#.b: Concentrador

883.#.#.u: http://www.revistas.unam.mx/front/

883.#.#.a: Revistas UNAM

590.#.#.a: Coordinación de Difusión Cultural, UNAM

883.#.#.1: https://www.publicaciones.unam.mx/

883.#.#.q: Dirección General de Publicaciones y Fomento Editorial, UNAM

850.#.#.a: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

856.4.0.u: http://critica.filosoficas.unam.mx/index.php/critica/article/view/304/295

100.1.#.a: Gómez Lobo, Alfonso

524.#.#.a: Gómez Lobo, Alfonso (1979). Platón, Sofista 256 e 5-6. Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía; Vol 11 No 32, 1979; 3-13. Recuperado de https://repositorio.unam.mx/contenidos/4115614

245.1.0.a: Platón, Sofista 256 e 5-6

502.#.#.c: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

561.1.#.a: Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, UNAM

264.#.0.c: 1979

264.#.1.c: 2018-11-09

506.1.#.a: La titularidad de los derechos patrimoniales de esta obra pertenece a las instituciones editoras. Su uso se rige por una licencia Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 Internacional, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.es, fecha de asignación de la licencia 2018-11-09, para un uso diferente consultar al responsable jurídico del repositorio por medio del correo electrónico alberto@filosoficas.unam.mx

884.#.#.k: http://critica.filosoficas.unam.mx/index.php/critica/article/view/304

001.#.#.#: critica:oai:ojs2.132.248.184.97:article/304

041.#.7.h: spa

520.3.#.a: G.E.L. Owen has taken lines 256 e 5-6 in the Sophist to mean that a Form is many things and also is not, as a matter of identity, all those things which it is predicatively and in addition to them all those countless other things which it is also not predicatively. In this paper it is argued that this interpretation can hardly be right given that it makes the text say something that does not follow from alleged premises of the lines in question. Those premises are contained in the stretch of argument starting at 256 e 3 and can be spelled out as three sets of three propositions each (“M” stands for Motion, “R” for Rest, “B” for Being, “S” for Sameness, “D” for Difference, “-” for the negation, “i” for the copula, and “X”, “Y” are variables for Forms): (1) “Motion is Different from Sameness” “MiDS” (2) “Motion is not-Sameness” “Mi-S” (3) “Motion is the Same” “MiS” (2) and (3) are not contradictories because in each of them “S” does not stand for the same thing. Borrowing a bit of Fregean terminology, we can say that in (2) it denotes an argument, in (3) a function. The latter is in fact elliptical for “MiS(M)”. (4) “Motion is Different from Difference” “MiDD” (5) “Motion is not-Different” “Mi-D” (6) “Motion is Different” “MiD” Here, too, no contradiction arises. In (6) the function D is unsuturated and the proposition is elliptical for “MiD(X)”, Motion is different from numerous other Forms. (7) “Motion is Different from Being” “MiDB” (8) “Motion is not-Being” “Mi-B” (9) “Motion is Being” “MiB” By analogy with (3) and (6), “Being” in (9) stands for a function, hence the sense of the verb is predicative. As with (6), (9) is elliptical for “MiB(X)”, a Form is many other things. Propositions (1)-(9) show that the Eleatic Visitor construes negative expressions as denials of identity attaching the negation sign to the predicative and treating the latter as an argument and not as a function. In 256 e 5-6 he generalizes to the effect that the truth value of sentences corresponding to (3), (6) and (9) i.e. of sentences of the form “YiB(X)”, is true for many substitutions of the subject term and the predicate term. But for many it is not. In opposition to this sentences obtained by generalization from (8) i.e. sentences of the form “Yi-B” are true in countless cases in fact in all cases but one: that of B [A.G.L.] Resumen

773.1.#.t: Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía; Vol 11 No 32 (1979); 3-13

773.1.#.o: http://critica.filosoficas.unam.mx/index.php/critica

046.#.#.j: 2021-09-28 00:00:00.000000

022.#.#.a: ISSN electrónico: 1870-4905; ISSN impreso: 0011-1503

310.#.#.a: Cuatrimestral

300.#.#.a: Páginas: 3-13

264.#.1.b: Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, UNAM

758.#.#.1: http://critica.filosoficas.unam.mx/index.php/critica

doi: https://doi.org/10.22201/iifs.18704905e.1979.304

handle: 6b1fa0c9af10d4a3

856.#.0.q: application/pdf

file_creation_date: 2010-10-13 00:54:18.0

file_modification_date: 2010-10-29 02:08:30.0

file_creator: Claudia Chavez

file_name: 38cdf4ba5d1f179cd7be7d7f5a498b65c5938774e52397063254402fe500ca0a.pdf

file_pages_number: 11

file_format_version: application/pdf; version=1.5

file_size: 148794

245.1.0.b: Platón, Sofista 256 e 5-6

last_modified: 2021-11-09 23:50:00

license_url: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.es

license_type: by-nc-nd

No entro en nada

No entro en nada 2

Artículo

Platón, Sofista 256 e 5-6

Gómez Lobo, Alfonso

Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, UNAM, publicado en Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía, y cosechado de Revistas UNAM

Licencia de uso

Procedencia del contenido

Cita

Gómez Lobo, Alfonso (1979). Platón, Sofista 256 e 5-6. Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía; Vol 11 No 32, 1979; 3-13. Recuperado de https://repositorio.unam.mx/contenidos/4115614

Descripción del recurso

Autor(es)
Gómez Lobo, Alfonso
Tipo
Artículo de Investigación
Área del conocimiento
Artes y Humanidades
Título
Platón, Sofista 256 e 5-6
Fecha
2018-11-09
Resumen
G.E.L. Owen has taken lines 256 e 5-6 in the Sophist to mean that a Form is many things and also is not, as a matter of identity, all those things which it is predicatively and in addition to them all those countless other things which it is also not predicatively. In this paper it is argued that this interpretation can hardly be right given that it makes the text say something that does not follow from alleged premises of the lines in question. Those premises are contained in the stretch of argument starting at 256 e 3 and can be spelled out as three sets of three propositions each (“M” stands for Motion, “R” for Rest, “B” for Being, “S” for Sameness, “D” for Difference, “-” for the negation, “i” for the copula, and “X”, “Y” are variables for Forms): (1) “Motion is Different from Sameness” “MiDS” (2) “Motion is not-Sameness” “Mi-S” (3) “Motion is the Same” “MiS” (2) and (3) are not contradictories because in each of them “S” does not stand for the same thing. Borrowing a bit of Fregean terminology, we can say that in (2) it denotes an argument, in (3) a function. The latter is in fact elliptical for “MiS(M)”. (4) “Motion is Different from Difference” “MiDD” (5) “Motion is not-Different” “Mi-D” (6) “Motion is Different” “MiD” Here, too, no contradiction arises. In (6) the function D is unsuturated and the proposition is elliptical for “MiD(X)”, Motion is different from numerous other Forms. (7) “Motion is Different from Being” “MiDB” (8) “Motion is not-Being” “Mi-B” (9) “Motion is Being” “MiB” By analogy with (3) and (6), “Being” in (9) stands for a function, hence the sense of the verb is predicative. As with (6), (9) is elliptical for “MiB(X)”, a Form is many other things. Propositions (1)-(9) show that the Eleatic Visitor construes negative expressions as denials of identity attaching the negation sign to the predicative and treating the latter as an argument and not as a function. In 256 e 5-6 he generalizes to the effect that the truth value of sentences corresponding to (3), (6) and (9) i.e. of sentences of the form “YiB(X)”, is true for many substitutions of the subject term and the predicate term. But for many it is not. In opposition to this sentences obtained by generalization from (8) i.e. sentences of the form “Yi-B” are true in countless cases in fact in all cases but one: that of B [A.G.L.] Resumen
Idioma
spa
ISSN
ISSN electrónico: 1870-4905; ISSN impreso: 0011-1503

Enlaces