![]() |
Cratylus Two I.D. Code H0018 |
To Jud Evans 11th November 2002. Peter Durigon’s thesis is truly excellent. On the whole issue of abstractions (the Ideas, the Forms, the real independent existence of abstractions) versus nominalistic pointing and saying “This” or “This” or “This” . . . . , he has very clearly delineated in Plato’s Sophist through Heidegger’s commentary PLATO’S SOPHIST, while saying he is not making a judgment of how valid Heidegger’s commentary is as a true reflection of Plato’s actual thought – which I think is dodging the issue because so far he has shown that Heidegger has thoroughly grasped the problematic Plato, as an honest person, has found himself within, in the conflict between the “earth born,” the practical, at-hand people, that its only real if you can see and handle it (however, time steps in as constant change so what is an identity now is and cannot be the same identity later) – and the “friends of the Forms” who say only the unchanging Forms can make knowledge valid and meaningful since an identity remains itself through time. Durigon shows that Plato “like a child” seeing the obvious absurdity of either position by itself cries out that BOTH must be correct somehow because that is the only way our experience literally works. This is how things actually are dealt with (phenomenological description of actual passive and active experience/intellection) and cannot be got around through either extreme position which, to exist, must ignore a facet of actual human activity. |
| BACK TO TOP OF PAGE |