Mostly the arguments for identity depend on the relativity of the application of the property, e.g., the bad is the same as the good because disease is bad for the patient but good for the doctor,
Perhaps the point is simply to see that, given the appropriate distinctions, there is something to be said either way, with the implication that the correct answer to the question ‘Is the good the same as the bad, or different?’ is
Employing forensic oratory, ‘In one way (i.e., relative to different things) the same, in another (i.e., relative to the same thing) different’ (see Protagoras 334a–c.).
That could be a useful tactic to employ against an opponent who insisted on a ‘Yes or No’ answer
In any case of this kind, where it is assumed that the facts cannot be established with certainty, considerations of what is plausible may, given sufficient ingenuity,
may be adduced on either side, and similar arguments can be adduced in the context of political deliberation, where the future outcome cannot be certain and the decision has to turn on the balance of probabilities.
Perhaps the point is simply to see that, given the appropriate distinctions, there is something to be said either way, with the implication that the correct answer to the question ‘Is the good the same as the bad, or different?’ is
Employing forensic oratory, ‘In one way (i.e., relative to different things) the same, in another (i.e., relative to the same thing) different’ (see Protagoras 334a–c.).
That could be a useful tactic to employ against an opponent who insisted on a ‘Yes or No’ answer
In any case of this kind, where it is assumed that the facts cannot be established with certainty, considerations of what is plausible may, given sufficient ingenuity,
may be adduced on either side, and similar arguments can be adduced in the context of political deliberation, where the future outcome cannot be certain and the decision has to turn on the balance of probabilities.
No comments:
Post a Comment