Is it possible the two of you are falling for semantic argument?
I don’t think so. I
am trying to be sensitive to @oldnskeptical’s argument (although, clearly, I disagree with it!), while at the same time, attempting to present Boethius’ argument in the context of medieval philosophy in which he made it. In that light, Boethius really
is dealing with ‘universals’, ‘particulars’ (and, ultimately, the conclusion that Boethius arrives at, in his discussions of the topic).
I think that we can appreciate Boethius’ arguments for precisely the reason that @oldnskeptical seems to reject them:
Boethius doesn’t define what ‘perfection’ is, but rather, simply points out that imperfections
exist. This doesn’t seem to be a fatal flaw for me: in much the way that universals are themselves abstractions, Boethius’ argument points to imperfections in an abstract way! That doesn’t weaken his argument, I’d assert, but rather, point us toward a truth without forcing us to agree on a taxonomy before appreciating his line of thought!
He might as well say, my decinition of red is different from yours, therefore your argument is invalid. Perhaps we should define perfect.
I think not. After all,
in this part of his argument, Boethius doesn’t require us to assent to a definition of perfection, but rather, simply asks us to assent to the notion that we can glean knowledge from the observations of imperfections in the real world.
The very fact that these imperfections are recognizable presupposes perfection, just as cold presupposes heat.
Yes! Precisely!
You seem to be inordinately amazed that others do not simply agree with your every assertion…
Ahhh!!! The ever reliable " Prove it" defense.
No. Actually, it’s the very reasonable “you’ve asserted it, now please substantiate your claims.”
That’s what debate is all about.
