This seems like the problem I keep running into,piece to part difference, part to part difference then parts to whole to difference, then whole to whole like the wagon or the name, it like missing something, but I'm not sure what that even is, as it always leads back to piece to to part, as the whole being, being a piece of itself. Like letters or a half word being less than a letter but more than a word(Or a number that is greater then 2 but still less than 3, and sits in the middle being neither of them) , and that reminds me of Parmenides when he talks of one term being removed if there is 2 terms there really is three terms and one is hidden. Exciting and yet frustrating .
I have been trying to study a book called "Enthusiastic Mathematics" by Bernie Lewin. He's talking about the difference between Pythagorean mystical mathematics and traditional "counting" mathematics and especially - predicate calculus. The primary aspect is the idea of "distinction". And he uses the term "account" in a way that seems the same as in 208d. Anyway - in 208d the 3rd attempt to define what knowledge is - seems close to what Lewin is talking about. The self-referential notion of distinction versus the "something common to other things" which fells like a reference to predicate calculus. If you are familiar with Lewin's book - I would love to hear your commentary. If not - I humbly suggest you may be in for a treat. Thanks for your videos - I enjoy the way you present.
Sounds interesting. Thanks for the suggestion. Of course, Socrates rejected that 3rd potential definition of knowledge. That doesn't bode well for Lewin, if his argument is as you describe.
@@allaboutplatonism It's likely my interpretation is incomplete. He appears to be quite an accomplished individual. The book also covers history of Philosophy in a manner that you might appreciate. I know you're busy. No need to reply. Kind regards.
This seems like the problem I keep running into,piece to part difference, part to part difference then parts to whole to difference, then whole to whole like the wagon or the name, it like missing something, but I'm not sure what that even is, as it always leads back to piece to to part, as the whole being, being a piece of itself. Like letters or a half word being less than a letter but more than a word(Or a number that is greater then 2 but still less than 3, and sits in the middle being neither of them) , and that reminds me of Parmenides when he talks of one term being removed if there is 2 terms there really is three terms and one is hidden.
Exciting and yet frustrating .
I have been trying to study a book called "Enthusiastic Mathematics" by Bernie Lewin. He's talking about the difference between Pythagorean mystical mathematics and traditional "counting" mathematics and especially - predicate calculus. The primary aspect is the idea of "distinction". And he uses the term "account" in a way that seems the same as in 208d. Anyway - in 208d the 3rd attempt to define what knowledge is - seems close to what Lewin is talking about. The self-referential notion of distinction versus the "something common to other things" which fells like a reference to predicate calculus. If you are familiar with Lewin's book - I would love to hear your commentary. If not - I humbly suggest you may be in for a treat. Thanks for your videos - I enjoy the way you present.
Sounds interesting. Thanks for the suggestion. Of course, Socrates rejected that 3rd potential definition of knowledge. That doesn't bode well for Lewin, if his argument is as you describe.
@@allaboutplatonism It's likely my interpretation is incomplete. He appears to be quite an accomplished individual. The book also covers history of Philosophy in a manner that you might appreciate. I know you're busy. No need to reply. Kind regards.
I will check it out. Thanks for the suggestion!