| Title | Megaric Metaphysics |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2012 |
| Journal | Ancient philosophy |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 303-321 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Bailey, Dominic |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| I have attempted to show that, with some imaginative reconstruction, there is a good deal more to Megaricism than meets the eye. While the position is doubtless false, there are nevertheless reasons for being sympathetic to its conjuncts, especially if one has, as some philosophers still do, a fetish for the actual and a perplexity about the indefinite, whether the indefiniteness of the modal or that of the non-particular. I have shown how anti-Platonism about common nouns of the kind evinced by Stilpo makes M2 seem better considered than at first. And I have shown how skepticism about possibility without actuality, from which later logicians such as Diodorus and Philo felt they could not stray too far (see Bobzien 1993, 1998), makes M1 seem better considered than at first. Moreover, I have demonstrated the impressive coherence of Megaricism, insofar as its conjuncts, as I interpret them, are both mutually entailing and, each in their ways, both Parmenidean and Protagorean. Megaricism is wrong, but sufficiently intriguing and well-integrated to make it worthy of serious consideration. [conclusion p. 320] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/YNcy1URcz4PUK83 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"826","_score":null,"_source":{"id":826,"authors_free":[{"id":1227,"entry_id":826,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":529,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bailey, Dominic","free_first_name":"Dominic","free_last_name":"Bailey","norm_person":{"id":529,"first_name":"Dominic","last_name":"Bailey","full_name":"Bailey, Dominic","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Megaric Metaphysics","main_title":{"title":"Megaric Metaphysics"},"abstract":"I have attempted to show that, with some imaginative reconstruction, there is a good deal more to Megaricism than meets the eye. While the position is doubtless false, there are nevertheless reasons for being sympathetic to its conjuncts, especially if one has, as some philosophers still do, a fetish for the actual and a perplexity about the indefinite, whether the indefiniteness of the modal or that of the non-particular. I have shown how anti-Platonism about common nouns of the kind evinced by Stilpo makes M2 seem better considered than at first. And I have shown how skepticism about possibility without actuality, from which later logicians such as Diodorus and Philo felt they could not stray too far (see Bobzien 1993, 1998), makes M1 seem better considered than at first.\r\n\r\nMoreover, I have demonstrated the impressive coherence of Megaricism, insofar as its conjuncts, as I interpret them, are both mutually entailing and, each in their ways, both Parmenidean and Protagorean. Megaricism is wrong, but sufficiently intriguing and well-integrated to make it worthy of serious consideration. [conclusion p. 320]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YNcy1URcz4PUK83","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":529,"full_name":"Bailey, Dominic","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":826,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Ancient philosophy","volume":"32","issue":"2","pages":"303-321"}},"sort":[2012]}
| Title | Megaric Metaphysics |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2012 |
| Journal | Ancient philosophy |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 303-321 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Bailey, Dominic |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
I have attempted to show that, with some imaginative reconstruction, there is a good deal more to Megaricism than meets the eye. While the position is doubtless false, there are nevertheless reasons for being sympathetic to its conjuncts, especially if one has, as some philosophers still do, a fetish for the actual and a perplexity about the indefinite, whether the indefiniteness of the modal or that of the non-particular. I have shown how anti-Platonism about common nouns of the kind evinced by Stilpo makes M2 seem better considered than at first. And I have shown how skepticism about possibility without actuality, from which later logicians such as Diodorus and Philo felt they could not stray too far (see Bobzien 1993, 1998), makes M1 seem better considered than at first. Moreover, I have demonstrated the impressive coherence of Megaricism, insofar as its conjuncts, as I interpret them, are both mutually entailing and, each in their ways, both Parmenidean and Protagorean. Megaricism is wrong, but sufficiently intriguing and well-integrated to make it worthy of serious consideration. [conclusion p. 320] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/YNcy1URcz4PUK83 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"826","_score":null,"_source":{"id":826,"authors_free":[{"id":1227,"entry_id":826,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":529,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bailey, Dominic","free_first_name":"Dominic","free_last_name":"Bailey","norm_person":{"id":529,"first_name":"Dominic","last_name":"Bailey","full_name":"Bailey, Dominic","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Megaric Metaphysics","main_title":{"title":"Megaric Metaphysics"},"abstract":"I have attempted to show that, with some imaginative reconstruction, there is a good deal more to Megaricism than meets the eye. While the position is doubtless false, there are nevertheless reasons for being sympathetic to its conjuncts, especially if one has, as some philosophers still do, a fetish for the actual and a perplexity about the indefinite, whether the indefiniteness of the modal or that of the non-particular. I have shown how anti-Platonism about common nouns of the kind evinced by Stilpo makes M2 seem better considered than at first. And I have shown how skepticism about possibility without actuality, from which later logicians such as Diodorus and Philo felt they could not stray too far (see Bobzien 1993, 1998), makes M1 seem better considered than at first.\r\n\r\nMoreover, I have demonstrated the impressive coherence of Megaricism, insofar as its conjuncts, as I interpret them, are both mutually entailing and, each in their ways, both Parmenidean and Protagorean. Megaricism is wrong, but sufficiently intriguing and well-integrated to make it worthy of serious consideration. [conclusion p. 320]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YNcy1URcz4PUK83","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":529,"full_name":"Bailey, Dominic","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":826,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Ancient philosophy","volume":"32","issue":"2","pages":"303-321"}},"sort":["Megaric Metaphysics"]}