| Budget Amount *help |
¥2,500,000 (Direct Cost: ¥2,500,000)
Fiscal Year 2004: ¥600,000 (Direct Cost: ¥600,000)
Fiscal Year 2003: ¥700,000 (Direct Cost: ¥700,000)
Fiscal Year 2002: ¥1,200,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,200,000)
|
|---|
| Research Abstract |
1.One of the results of this research is the completion of a Japanese translation of Sextus Empiricus, Against Mathematicians, vols.1-6. I realized thereby that the reason why Sextus distinguishes between several meanings of ‘hypothesis' is closely connected with the skeptics' way of living and arguing. Ancient skeptics do not doubt the credibility of what is believed in everyday life. They have doubts about dogmatists' claim to knowledge, and the distinction of the meanings of words helps them to focus on their exact target. Above all hypothesis in the sense of ‘principle for demonstration' is what is to be criticized by them.
2.As to geometry I compared the use of hypothesis between Plato, Aristotle and Euclid, and found that although interpreters tend to emphasize the difference between Aristotle and Euclid, there is no substantial difference, as far as the basic role of hypothesis is concerned.
3.I showed my own clarification of the details of the method of hypothesis in the Phaedo. As to the relationship between the recollection theory and the method of hypothesis in Plato's Meno, I obtained the following results.
(1)Meno's paradox, whose answer from Socrates is the recollection theory, contains three arguments, i.e. (a)it is impossible to start enquiry, (b)it is impossible to continue enquiry, (c)it is impossible to succeed in enquiry.
(2)The theory of recollection answers (b)and (c).
(3)Plato's illustration of ‘the Road to Larissa' should not be taken to imply that Plato regarded knowledge as a matter of direct acquaintance. It should be understood in relation with the quest for reasons by the method of hypothesis for the purpose of tying down true opinions.
|
