Sorabji (PC3:56-58) – porque 10 categorias aristotélicas?
quarta-feira 9 de fevereiro de 2022
Dexippus (in Cat. 30,36-34,24) and Simplicius both give us a summary of objections to the list of ten categories which ask, ‘why ten?’ and ‘why these ten?’. Plotinus , in favouring five categories, was not the first, we learn, to try to cut the list down. The third head of Plato ’s Academy, Xenocrates, and the Aristotelian, Andronicus, were satisfied with two categories taken from Plato: in itself (kath’hauto) and relative (pros ti , Simplicius in Cat. 63,22-3). The Neopythagorean pseudo-Archytas merely added ‘relative’ (pros ti) after the names of a number of the ten categories, so we learn from another passage, Simplicius in Cat. 157,18-20. What we will find illustrated below is that for every category the suggestion was made by one critic or another that the category, or some of its main contents, could be reduced to the category of relative.
The Stoics also had a scheme which the Aristotelians saw as a rival scheme of four classifications (nowadays called categories), and indeed the terminology concerning their fourth category of relative is common to Aristotle and the Stoics. Plotinus attacks the Stoic scheme in 6.1.25-30.
Among those who wanted a longer list of categories, some did so because they thought of the categories as purely verbal or grammatical distinctions. We shall notice discussion of the differentia as an 11th category. The Middle Platonists Plutarch of Chaeroneia and Alcinous , on the other hand, not only stuck to the number ten, but even claimed that Plato recognised the ten categories, one citing Timaeus 37A-B, the other Plato’s Parmenides . [SorabjiPC3 :61]
Ver online : ARISTÓTELES