Plato's Sophist
Dec. 29th, 2010 05:38 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sathorWhile I think the core idea about the Sophist is essentially hinting at particular characteristics of Socrates (whittling down what a Philosopher "is" - what a lover of wisdom is) there appears to be a rather significant idea that is mentioned that has little to do with him or sophists in general.
It's the first instance I've come across regarding "non-being" - something Heidegger was rather obsessive about as far as I can tell - in the more antiquated philosophies. And what's said about it is rather stunning as well as enlightening.
They go as far as to say...almost go as far as to say...that the existence of non-being can not be proven.
Meditate on that for a little while.
If we can not know non-being experientially, we can not prove it a posteriori.
Examples, such as mortality, are insufficient...we are aware of the ceasing of a body, or a vessel, to continue to interact with us in a meaningful fashion, but we are not aware of whether or not the original inhabitant of the body/vessel has ceased to exist. We can not, and will never know if the observer has entered into a state of non-being or not. If we have any fear of mortality, it should only be the result of our pity for those left alive to suffer without our presence or those of the others who will inevitably die.
It would be irrational, then, to conclude with certainty that after death, there is nothing.
Likewise, it would be irrational to conclude with certainty that after death, there is something.
But being as we experience being, and we have never experienced non-being and will never, in my eyes it is the more rational decision to conclude without certainty that there is no "state of non-being".
For some additional food for thought, think about the incoherence of the statement "state of non-being"
It's the first instance I've come across regarding "non-being" - something Heidegger was rather obsessive about as far as I can tell - in the more antiquated philosophies. And what's said about it is rather stunning as well as enlightening.
They go as far as to say...almost go as far as to say...that the existence of non-being can not be proven.
Meditate on that for a little while.
If we can not know non-being experientially, we can not prove it a posteriori.
Examples, such as mortality, are insufficient...we are aware of the ceasing of a body, or a vessel, to continue to interact with us in a meaningful fashion, but we are not aware of whether or not the original inhabitant of the body/vessel has ceased to exist. We can not, and will never know if the observer has entered into a state of non-being or not. If we have any fear of mortality, it should only be the result of our pity for those left alive to suffer without our presence or those of the others who will inevitably die.
It would be irrational, then, to conclude with certainty that after death, there is nothing.
Likewise, it would be irrational to conclude with certainty that after death, there is something.
But being as we experience being, and we have never experienced non-being and will never, in my eyes it is the more rational decision to conclude without certainty that there is no "state of non-being".
For some additional food for thought, think about the incoherence of the statement "state of non-being"
