Philodemus: On methods of inference: a study in ancient empiricism

181쪽

In ansive to the Stoi polerni Philoclenius Contend that the Stoici priori nethod o inferen e by contraposition is in realit baSed lpon analog an incit iction, and that it derives it certaint froni that basis Our experienCe furni Shes hiS

182쪽

priori ne the dental of the thing signified tho void resulis

Tho Stoic contend that in his proposition by the aere negation O void, ni otion is also rermoved an there fore it is aneXaimple o Contraposition. -β

183쪽

Hi Socrates is no a naan, et ther i Plato a man: 'no hecause by the dental of Socrates Plato is dente Lalong vitii hina but be augerit is inconceivable o Socrates no tole

185쪽

STOIC S. EPICUREANS . AND SCEPTICA 169an a priori are reatly Atablished by 11 luction rotat exper1- ence. y The definitive or rescriptive leve of analysis is Secondar to the descriptive levet, sin e the alter furnishos the 1materiai an a Certain Anio tant of the orcle an St ictu refron ivlii la the omne is derive an formula ted. Dedi ictive logi is subsequent to 1υJuctive logi in orcle o developinent be auso it clepeml on the alter Theotiscussion of the relation os deductive an formia logi to inductive logi an en)Diraca naethoi is, o Courge, ver inadequat in Philodenatis. The Epicureans domo appreciate the reedorn whicli is subsequently possibi on the definitive levet, and the peculiarnecessit attachin to the fornaal Systen ivithin the confines of that levet. I naa be notei that the Epicureans realige the ina portance of the sociat factor in enapirica verification Philoclen)u SaYS

One of the Stoic charge ivas that the Epicureans vere in- Consistent in no attributin destructibilit an Color oraton)S, since these qualities elongo ali hodie in exuerienCe. In defense of the Epicurean position Philodenaias naintain that

' Hodie in ur experien e re destructibi notin hodies, ut in sociar a the partalce of a nature oppoSed to the Corporeal

186쪽

toucti indicate that the distinction etween semimur an seCondar qualities vas traditiona in the Epicurean school. δ' Philoclen iis is sonae vhat les successita in tryin tociustifyeni pira atly the Epicurean iea that the sun is ni a largeas it appears He insistes that in attachin this te volae Stoics Se an Analogica arguiment liene thei attach is not Irected against the se of the naetho of analogy. et heinsist further that analogica inferen Ce annot appi to the Sun, Since the Stan, like tinae and the oui, is unique. Beinguntque, it annot he known by analogy.' The wealcnes of Philoclennus position here i obvioUS. The Stoic arguiment that inferen e cannot be based on ei theridentit o firmitarit forces Philoclenau to define imore peCificatly the relation o signification. The inference rorn nychan Ce ob)eC to any the is obViouslymo perimissi ble. In atrue analog froni si imitarit the transition is naad froin ne

187쪽

III. The Scepti Position

The work of Sextus Enapiricus revea that the En pirical SceptiC also participate in the Controvers on the vali styo inferetice frona signS The secon book of Sextus alta Cic

188쪽

172 PHILODEMUS ON METHOD O INFERENCEon the logicians expresses te vieius o fine Sceptic on his problena This book Contain a rigoroia polemi against both the Stoic and the Epicurean reat naent of sigras an at the

ε Sextus Adv. Math. VIII. 14l 299. Chimelcet Die Potitis Philosophie I 350-395 discusse Sextus criticisnis of the dogi nati sis. For a fullercii Scussioni Sextus Oxuri position see E. De Lacy, Neaning an Methodolog in Hellenistic Philosophy, ' Philos. Rev. XLVII 1938), 406-09. Αε Adv. Math. VIII 15l-155.

190쪽

th Stoic hota that the sigra is intelligibie, an grassee only