[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 109 KB, 900x750, aristotle-16.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11844002 No.11844002 [Reply] [Original]

Can something be both transcendent and immanent at the same time? Reason I'm asking is because my professor, who is an Aristotle scholar, said that Plato's forms aren't immanent at all.

>> No.11844013

Looks like someone should've started with the greeks.

>> No.11844014

>>11844002
You ever seen a sphere pass through a 2D plane?

btw, I think forms are immanent in the sense that they are in a way "projected" from an abstract field (where forms would be located; they could even be located within God or are finite, yet immaterial reflections of God)

>> No.11844016

GOD

>> No.11844073

>>11844002
How can't they be immanent? They are being participated in.

>> No.11844082

>>11844073
That's what I was thinking, which is why I was confused. Right now I'm reading "The Presence of the Paradigm: Immanence and Transcendence in Plato's Theory of Forms", which argues for both transcendence and immanence, but apparently there is plenty of debate about it.

>> No.11844084

>>11844082
Whats the debate? Are they mutually exclusive in some way?

>> No.11844122

>>11844084
Some argue that Plato's forms are immanent in his earlier dialogues and only transcendent in his later ones. The paper argues that the forms are both in his later dialogues.
> Discussions of the ONTOLOGICAL status of Plato's forms too often take for granted that immanence and transcendence are opposed to each other: if the forms are in instances then they are not separate from them, while if the forms are separate then they are not in instances. This assumption is sometimes associated with the theory that there is a change in Plato's thought between the early or Socratic dialogues, in which forms are regarded as immanent, and the middle dialogues and Timaeus, in which they are seen as separate.

Then Eric Perl, the author, then argues
> ...immanence and transcendence are not opposed but that, on the contrary, the former implies the latter. That is to say, precisely in that the forms are present in their instances, they are ipso facto also separate from them in all the senses which Plato claims. The idea of sensibles as images of the forms, in turn, is an expression not of transcendence alone, but rather of the conjunction of immanence and transcendence: the paradigm is at once transcendent to and immanent in the image.

Haven't finished the paper, but I disagreed with my professor in that it seems like Plato might have thought that they aren't completely in a different world.