amirhossein saket

Porphyry's work titled Isagoge is commonly seen as an analysis of Aristotle's Categories, focusing on universal concepts, with the five predicables considered as different types of universals. Often, the same view is ascribed to Aristotle, but in fact, it is an approach arising from a confusion between universal and whole, as well as a confusion between particular and part by Porphyry in the Isagoge. In Categories, Aristotle does not refer to "whole" and "part" as synonyms for "universal" and "particular. Porphyry, however, in some cases distorting this distinction, uses “whole” and “part” to mean “universal” and “particular”. Moreover, they disagree on the essence of the five predicables and their relation to the universal. Aristotle views genes and species as universals and their connection to individuals as universal to particular, but he distinguishes them from the concept of universal and does not believe every universal is a genes or species. Porphyry, on the other hand, reduces genes and species to mere universal conceptions and consider them as synonyms for universal. It appears that there are two approachs in the philosophical tradition that started with Porphyry. These approachs were perpetuated and broadened by later thinkers. Initially, he altered the understanding of whole and part to universal and particular. Furthermore, he reduced genes and species to mere universal.

Evidently the greek terms καθόλου and καθ’ ἕκαστον appeared first in Aristotle’s works as meaning respectively universal and particular. In Plato’s works καθόλου is rarely used as synonum to ὅλον, meaning “whole”, and nowhere indicates “universal” in the logical sense. To be “whole” is a characteristic of ideas, implying a very high degree in the hierarchy of unity, ordered between the One and maltitudes. Aristotle uses καθόλου in several and even inexact meanings. Sometimes it means “universal” in an exactly logical sense, but often and specicaly in criticizing Plato’s theory of ideas, it indicates “genus” and doesn’t include any universal unconditionally. He criticizes Plato for conceiving universals as separate beings, however, contrary to the common view, καθόλου in such contexts means inclusively “genus”and doesn’t refer to species or any other logical universal. In the like manner καθ’ ἕκαστον occasionally in his works implies “particular”, but criticizing Plato’s ideas, it appears often as a synonym of species. Universal and particular, at the same time have some relation to “whole” and “part” and in that regard genus and species are considered as part and whole respectively. In this article we are going to explain the logical, as well as the lexical relation between “whol” and “universal”, on the one hand, and “part” and “particular”, on the other hand, but lastly there seems to bo no relation at all.

Since early times, Plato’s ideas have been assumed as universal entities as opposed to the particulars. More exact analysis of Plato’s terminology, however, shows the contrary. There is no term for “universal” and “particular” in his terminology at all, and he rather uses the words “whole” [کل] and “part” [جزء], which, considering their similitude to “universal” [کلی] and “particular” [جزئی], have been extremely mistaken for the two latter. These terms are developed in the middle Dialogues being closely related with the controversial issue of ideas. Plato regards each idea as one and simple; however, Parmenides’ criticisms urge him to reconstruct his views. To resolve this problem, he makes use of the term “whole” which implicates a middle state between the One and the multitude in the hierarchy of unity. There is nothing absolutely simple and with the exception of the One, all things include parts. In a sense, however, the idea can be considered as one, for although it includes parts, it cannot be reduced to them and so it is somehow independent of them. Such a kind of unity, lying inferior to the absolute One and higher than the multitudes, is called the whole and belongs to the ideas. Every idea is a whole and possesses the highest possible unity after the One. So “wholeness” is almost a synonym for unity or a second unity. It is not the case that the wholeness appertains to ideas, but the particulars also participate in it.

The question concerning names and things discussed in Cratylus, repeats the old and fundamental philosophical subject of "phusis" and "nomos"; an essential issue which may be considered as the ground for many theories in Greek philosophy. The question In Cratylus is how relates a name (ονομα) to its object or thing (πραγμα) to which the name refers. Are names by nature, i.e. is there any necessary relation between a name and its object (φυσει), or as long as there is a convention, an object could be called by any name (θεσει). According to Socrates the true nature of anything is tobe found in its idea and not in its perishable material form. Thus the naturally correct name is that which imitates the idea and reveals it.

The separation between ideas and particulars, known as KHORISMOS, leads to some ontological as well as epistemological problems for Plato. On the supposition that Ideas and particulars are separated, we’ll face with a problem in ontology that how is it possible that Ideas be the cause of particulars which have no link with each other. In epistemology this question has to be replied that if the Ideas have no link with particulars, how is it possible to know Ideas through particulars? Plato and the following philosophers, applying their own methods and principles, suggest different solutions. To solve the problem, Proclus makes use of two principles which could be designated as “middle term” and “all in all but appropriately”, both of them have been preceded by the previous philosophers and even Plato, but he was the first who began to use them so vastly and explained them. According to the first principle, there are mediators between Ideas and particulars which transfer the emanation of Ideas to particulars and also prepares the possibility of knowing the former through the latter. According to the second principle, a form of the Idea corporifies in particulars and at the same time, particulars exist potentially in the transcendant Idea.