Plato argues against the type of ruler, who rules solely by might in The Republic. The argument stands as a defense against Machiavellian society: In practicing a skill, we do not aim to go beyond, but only to hit the right point. Virtue is a kind of skill, and this requires a knowledge of what is the right measure. The unjust man, therefore, is not exercising much of a skill, is he? Nor is the tyrant doing much of a job at ruling. One cannot claim to play a higher F-sharp than anyone else - since we all know that F-sharp is F-sharp, and there cannot be higher or lower F-sharp's. It is the just man who knows the proper note; it is the unjust man who exceeds it and goes out of tune in his life. It is injustice, then, that is the fool's game. It destroys individuals, as it destroys states.(Plato, The Republic. 349E, P. 35-36)
Hofstader, a supporter of Dewey's metaphysics describes "the aim of metaphysics as a general theory of existence. . .the discovery of the basic types of involvement's and their relationships" (Qtd in Cahn, P. 77). The problem, however, is there cannot be a general theory of existence, when our experiences are all different, and the world is in a constant flux of change. The theory of existence should be subject to the same unstable world as all other theories. Dewey, himself, seems to believe that yes they would be subject to nature's ambiguity. Near the end of Experience and Nature, Dewey waffles about the need for a metaphysics in philosophy:
|
|
|
|
|
Favorites
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Magnolia
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
BlinkList