Now noticed if that's the way we interpret his argument, harmony works no longer as a counterexample.
注意到如果这是,我们解读他论点的方式,和声就不再一个反例了。
So there's not a counterexample, now that we interpret the relevant notion of invisibility as undetectibility.
所以就没有了反例,因为我们给出的无形这个词的解释,是无法检测。
Is this a counterexample to the utilitarian idea of calculating?
这算是功利主义计算思路的反例吗?
So the crucial point right now is that, thinking about harmony is offered as a counterexample to the generalization that invisible things can't be destroyed.
所以现在的重要问题是,和声的例子现在作为,灵魂不可毁灭,这一概括说法的反例。
So if we understand the argument in terms of the second interpretation, it looks as invisible. It looks all the argument still go through, Simmias' counterexample fails.
所以如果我们以第二种解释,理解这个论证,灵魂是无形的,所有的论证仍然讲得通,西米亚斯的反例无效了。
Socrates never says Simmias, here's what your objection goes wrong: harmony is not really invisible or can't be destroyed, whatever it is, so we don't have a counterexample.
苏格拉底从没说过,西米亚斯,你的观点在这里有错,和声并非无形或者不可毁灭,所以我们没有了反例。
So if what Socrates means by invisibility is the first notion: can't be seen with your eyes, then the argument is not any good, harmony is a pretty compelling counterexample.
所以如果苏格拉底说的无形,是第一个意思:,眼睛看不见,这个论证就不好,和声是个很有说服力的反例。
It's not really a counterexample to the personality theory.
不能作为一个人格理论的反例。
If he could show us, he could convince us that harmony is not really invisible, then we would no longer have a counterexample to the claim that the invisible can't be destroyed.
如果他可以说服我们,和声并非无形,那我们就没有了,灵魂不可毁灭,这一论断的反例。
Radio waves are not a counterexample of that.
无线电波不是这个观点的反例。
There's no underlying David Smith personality still there, to have the counterexample or the example that we're after.
那里面没有潜在的David,Smith人格,来成为人格理论的反例或我们在寻找的例子。
应用推荐