论文部分内容阅读
柏拉图认为,数学事物(如数、运算符号等等)是相,因而分离于感性事物;相数是以相为单元的数,指涉诸相之间呈现出数学结构的参与关系,这种本原意义上的参与被众物对一个智性之物的统一体的参与所分有,因此后一种参与也呈现出数学结构。亚里士多德则质疑相的“存在状态”与它所涵盖的一群个体的分离,认为相特有的存在方式就是始终作用于感性事物上。对亚里士多德而言,数的存在方式依赖于感性事物,是感性事物的“累积”;数的智性特征不是产生于与感性事物的分离,而是产生于从感性事物中的“提升”、“抽离”或“抽象”。实际上,亚里士多德没有看到,柏拉图的相数理论真正处理的问题是,要说明计数所使用的每个基本数所特有的差异化的统一性。
Plato believes that mathematical things (such as numbers, arithmetic symbols, etc.) is the phase, and thus separated from perceptual things; the number of phases is based on the number of units, referring to the phase showing the mathematical structure of the relationship between the participation of this The original participation is divided by the participation of all things on the unity of a wise thing, so the latter kind of participation also presents a mathematical structure. Aristotle questioned the separation of the “state of being” of the phase from the group of individuals it encompassed, believing that the peculiar existence of the phase is to always act on the emotional things. For Aristotle, the existence of numbers relies on perceptual things and is the “accumulation” of perceptual things. The intellectual characteristics of numbers do not arise from the separation from perceptual things, but from the perceptual things “Lift ”, “Draw ” or “Abstraction ”. Aristotle, in fact, did not see that the real problem with Platonic’s theory of phase numbers was to account for the differentiated unity of each of the base numbers used in the counting.