Resumo: Nas primeiras duas seções deste artigo, apresento alguns dos argumentos que os filósofos budistas indianos Nāgārjuna (ca. séculos II-III) e Vasubandhu (ca. séculos IV-V) usam para mostrar a insustentabilidade lógica dos fenômenos, respectivamente, do movimento e da existência de objetos externos/extramentais. A lógica desses argumentos é comparável à lógica que Zenão de Eleia utiliza nos seus paradoxos contra o movimento e a multiplicidade - e, de fato, no interior dos estudos budológicos contemporâneos, essa comparação já foi sugerida. Na terceira seção, entretanto, pretendo mostrar que os objetivos filosóficos mais imediatos desses três pensadores divergem e são inconciliáveis: enquanto Zenão critica o movimento e a multiplicidade para demonstrar a plausibilidade dos atributos da imobilidade e da univocidade do Ser parmenídico, os paradoxos de Nāgārjuna e Vasubandhu devem ser entendidos no âmbito de projetos filosóficos que, em continuidade com o ensinamento budiano do caminho do meio, pretendem ficar equidistantes das categorias do “ser” e do “não-ser”, evitando ambas. Finalmente, na quarta e última seção, defendo a tese de que os objetivos últimos dos Eleatas e aqueles dos dois filósofos budistas voltam a ser parecidos: Parmênides e o Buda, como também seus respectivos epígonos, buscam promover nos seus seguidores uma “revolução epistêmica” que consiste na passagem de uma visão ordinária da realidade a uma compreensão extraordinária ou suprema, coincidente com a realidade em si e, portanto, verdadeira em última análise.

Abstract: In the first two sections of this paper, I present some of the arguments that the Buddhist Indian philosophers Nāgārjuna (second/third century) and Vasubandhu (fourth/fifth century) use to show the logical untenability of the phenomena of motion and of the existence of multiple external/extramental objects. The logic of these arguments seems to be quite comparable - and actually, within contemporary buddhological studies, it was sometimes compared - to the one that Zeno of Elea uses in his paradoxes against motion and multiplicity. However, in the third section, I try to show that the most immediate philosophical purposes of these three thinkers diverge and are irreconcilable. While Zeno criticizes motion and multiplicity in order to show the plausibility of the attributes of motionlessness and uniqueness of Parmenides’ Being, Nāgārjuna and Vasubandhu’s paradoxes should be understood within philosophical projects that, in tune with the Buddha’s teaching of the “middle way”, try to keep themselves equidistant from the categories of “being” and “non-being”, avoiding both. Finally, in the fourth and last section, I defend the thesis that the ultimate purposes of the Eleatics’ view and those of the two Buddhist philosophers are, once again, comparable. Both Parmenides and the Buddha, as well as their respective epigones, try to promote an “epistemic revolution”, in their followers, which consists in the shift from the ordinary vision of reality to an extraordinary or supreme understanding, coincident with reality in itself and, therefore, ultimately true.

As modes of existence and modes of explanation the aspects of reality call for an idea of what is unique and mutually cohering. Two mutually exclusive ismic orientations, known as individualism (atomism) and universalism (holism) dominated theoretical reflection on human society since ancient Greece. Goosen's preference for community brings to expression a positive appreciation of the main traits of the Greek city state (the polis) as well as a positive inclination towards the ideas on state and society in the thought of Plato and Aristotle. Jellinek even depicts these two isms as opposing world views. In addition the history of reflecting about human society knows attempts to understand societal entities as imitating living organisms. Vitalism faced the obstacle of closed physical systems only allowing for a stasis or increase of entropy, until Schrödinger pointed out that a living entity, as an open system, can extract more order from its environment than what it can built up internally within itself. Multiple societal entities exist on the basis of a similar continuous exchange of their members. Analogies of the most basic aspects of reality are indeed constitutive for the meaning of the social intercourse. Physical entities exist, plants are alive, animals are experiencing their world, while humans lead a life, guided by normative points of view. The interconnections between entities, as they are manifested in enkaptic relations and subject-object relations, shed a different light on the way in which Goosen speaks about things as "mere objects," particularly when the opening-up of object-functions is contemplated. In addition it should be realized that terms derivedfrom any modal aspect could be employed in a conceptual as well as a concept-transcending manner. For example, concept-transcending (idea-)statements exploring the first four aspects are: (i) everything is unique; (ii) everything coheres with everything else; (iii) everything is constant and (iv) everything changes. It is applied to what Goosen holds regarding the "incomprehensibility" but at once "beaming fullness" of things. The different ways in which we can classify social interaction depend on all the constitutive (modal analogical) structural elements within the social aspect. An analysis of these total concepts enables a classifcation of social forms of interaction into three distinct categories, identified on the basis of two structurally specified features, namely (a) a solidary unity character (the coming and going of members do not affect the enduring identity of the social form of life) and (b) a permanent relation of super- and subordination. When both of the features are present we encounter societal collectivities (Afrikaans: "verbande") - such as the state, a church or mosque, a firm, a university or a nuclear family. If only one of them is present communities are at stake and when both are absent co-ordinational (co-ordinated) relationships are encountered. Rousseau is used to illustrate a distorted application of the whole-parts scheme which resulted in the idea of "forcing people to be free." The idea of the political whole (the state) as the community of communities misunderstands the nature of citizenship and at once eliminates the sphere-sovereignty of the non-political communities and societal collectivities. Johannes Althusius was the first legal scholar who realized that churches, business enterprises and the like are not parts of the state, because genuine parts could only be provinces and municipalities. Acknowledging the principle of sphere-sovereignty underlies an account of the differences between civil and non-civil private law, as well as public law while acknowledging public legal freedoms, civil freedoms and societal freedoms. A human being can assume multiple social roles without ever being fully absorbed by anyone of them. Goosen has the sound insight that constancy and change should both be acknowledged. Unfortunately some of his formulations still contain elements of the space metaphysics of Parmenides. This is rather strange because he objects to a spatializing method of thinking, but does not realize that he then should also steer clear of employing the whole-parts relation, because in its original sense it has a spatial meaning as well. The problematic idea of Goosen regarding a "rational order" is questioned because it contradicts his correct principled stance against the conception of the construction ofreality. It still reflects the idea of logical creation - an idea found in the thought of Hobbes. This element of nominalism reached its rationalistic peak in the view of Kant according to which human understanding is the formal law-giver of nature. The God-given creational order is intelligible but not rational. The so-called "transcendentalia" of Greek-Medieval philosophy, namely unity, truth, beauty and goodness, are actually a poor, one-sided and extremely reductionist account of the multiple modal aspects of reality. Their selection ultimately depends upon die ground-motive of form and matter directing Greek philosophy. There does not exist an all-encompassing human community, and if it is contemplated, for example the political domain as a community of communities, the inevitable consequence will be that the principle of sphere-sovereignty is jeopardized and that no limits could be set to the authority of government.

Op die basis van verskillende tipes grondbegrippe ondersoek hierdie artikel die aard van verskillende wyses van omgang en verkeer in 'n gedifferensieerde samelewing - as alternatief op die eensydighede van individualistiese en universalistiese samelewingsbeskouings. Jellinek verwys selfs na hierdie twee sienings as wêreldbeskouings. Dit verantwoord die aard van maatskapsverhoudinge, gemeenskapsverhoudinge en verbandsverhoudinge en sluit af met 'n saaklike bespreking van enkele grondmomente van die wysgerige grondidee waarmee Goosen opereer.

Recently reflections on state and society were enriched by the contributions of various authors in Afrikaans. Of particular interest in this regard is a work written by Koos Malan (professor in Constitutional Law). It displays a positive appreciation of the Greek polis which provides a starting-point for his discussion of the ecclesiastically unified culture of the Medieval era. He points out that the term "state" emerged fairly recently, preceded by earlier designations such as realm, body politic, commonwealth, civitasandrepublic. In his definition of "staatlikheid" ("stateliness") the intention is to capture key traits of the ideology of the state. In some instances stateliness and state are equated. When the element "territory" is added to the concept of the "state" the idea of the "territorial state" emerges. However, according to Malan the expression territorial state does not instantiate the positive features of a genuine community. The latter is understood not in terms of abstract individuals, but from the perspective of a whole and in terms of the whole-parts relation. At the same time the jural side of reality is seen as related to the state. He holds that the state order is seen as a reified, fixed and permanent entity, instead of as a temporal, historical and therefore changeable phenomenon. This view highlights the classical philosophical problem of constancy and change (dating back to Plato and Heraclitus). It became once more prominent at the beginning of the 19th century with the rise of modern historicism which emphasized change at the cost of constancy. However, in the same context Malan does evince an understanding of Plato's insight, namely that change can only be detected on the basis of persistence (constancy), for he refers to the "royal office" which is an "enduring" ("blywende") and an "immutable" ("onveranderlike") juridical given. This insight borders upon a key element in our understanding of the nature of a principle as a universal and constant starting-point for human action that can only be made valid (positivized) through the intervention of a competent organ in varying circumstances. Malan speaks of "rules" contained in "legal principles" that ought to be applied - without realizing that a rule is already an applied principle. Defending the supposed changefulness of the "state order" is only possible if an element of persistence is recognized in the constancy of the structural principle of the state, for otherwise Malan becomes a victim of the shortcoming of historicism by emphasizing change at the cost of what endures. The relationship between state and law points at another important philosophical distinction, namely distinguishing between concrete (natural and societal) entities and the various modes of existence in which they function. The various modes of being ("bestaanswyses") of reality are captured in concepts of function distinct from thing concepts, which in turn are correlated with modal laws (displaying an unspecified universality) and type laws (evincing a specified universality). The functioning of the state within all aspects of reality presupposes the universality of each one of these aspects because the scope of modal laws encompasses all possible classes of entities. The type law for being a state, by contrast, displays a specifieduniversality: it holds for all states (its universality), but it is at once also limited to states only (its specified universality), for not everything is a state. Malan does not employ the distinction between modal universality and typicality. As a result he defends the view that concepts such as "law," "freedom," "authority" and "sovereignty" are "state-related." However, if "law" finds its "foundation and starting-point" in the state, as he alleges, the question arises if law (just like the state) only arrives on the scene relatively late. Moreover, societal entities distinctfrom the state also function (in their own typical way) within the jural aspect of reality. Therefore no single aspect, including the jural aspect, could be allocated to one or another entity merely functioning within it. The state does not "own" the jural aspect. The terms "authority" and "sovereignty" are analyzed in a similar way, by focusing on the modal aspects in which they have their foundation. Malan is justifiably critical of the totalitarian side of the concept of sovereignty introduced into modern political science and the science of law by Bodin (1981). But the "organological view of society" present in Bodin's concept of sovereignty still reflects the over-extended application of the whole-parts relation derived from the philosophy of Aristotle. Malan is not critical of this legacy. While holding on to this he analyzes the philosophical orientations of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau by focusing on their atomism (individualism) and their "anti-communitarian" ("anti-kommunitêre") inclination. What is absent in the analyses of Malan is an investigation of the direction-changing influence of late-scholastic nominalism. This shortcoming influenced his restricted understanding of modern humanism because his approach does not enhance an insight into the ultimate dialectic of nature and freedom operative within modern philosophy. It also prevents his approach from appreciating the modern social contract theories as an outcome of the primacy of the humanistic science ideal and the motive of logical creation. Contrary to his claim that humanism lasted up to the middle of the 16th century its dialectic influence is still operative in Western culture. Although he does briefly refer to the encompassing work of Mekkes (1940) on the Ontwikkeling der humanistische rechstaatsteorieën a more penetrating study of this work would have presented alternative options to avoid most of the problems mentioned in our current analysis. That the positive appreciation of the holistic legacy does not merely relate to the Greek-Medieval tradition will be shown in follow-up articles, in which universalism will be examined in more detail, directed at the post-Kantian freedom-idealism of Schelling, Fichte and Hegel. The current article concludes by pointing out that the directional antithesis between good and evil should not be interpreted in structural terms, entailing that the norming structural principle of the state is not inherently antinormative, i.e. evil by definition. Al Wolters (1981) captures the depth perspective on the distinctness of structure and direction as follows: "All aspects of created life and reality are in principle equally good, and all are in principle equally subject to perversion and renewal."

Afrikaanse akademici voer tans 'n lewendige gesprek oor staat en samelewing met onder meer gespreksgenote soos Danie Goosen, Koos Malan en Andries Raath. Uiteraard kan met velerlei gesigspunte en insigte saamgestem word. Ter wille van 'n goeie begrip van die aard van staat en samelewing is dit egter wenslik om perspektiewe en onderskeidinge na vore te bring wat vrugbaar mag wees vir die ondersoek wat in hierdie artikel aan die orde gestel word. Die historiese lyn vanaf die Grieks polis (stadstaat) herberg 'n organiese gemeenskapsidee waarin die geheel-dele relasie sentraal staan. In die geskrif van Koos Malan oor die politokrasie kontrasteer hy dit met fasette in die denke van figure soos Hobbes, Locke en Rousseau wat getipeer word as abstrak, atomisties (individualisties) en die afwesigheid van 'n hegter gemeenskap. Die aard van 'n "staatlike orde" word gesien as 'n "tydelike historiese en dus veranderlike verskynsel" - waarmee die probleem van duursaamheid en verandering vanself na vore gebring word. Sonder die onderskeiding tussen aspekte as bestaanswyses en konkrete (natuurlike en samelewings-)entiteite kan beswaarlik ingesien word dat die regsaspek byvoorbeeld nie aan die staat (of enige ander samelewingsvorm) behoort nie want elke samelewingsvorm funksioneer bloot in hierdie (en alle ander aspekte) op 'n struktuurtipiese wyse. In selfstandige artikels sal egter nader ingegaan word op die onvermelde wortels van hierdie intellektuele tradisie wat ook teruggryp na die na-Kantiaanse vryheidsidealisme.

De início, apresentaremos a tese de Demócrito e Leucipo, segundo a qual o ser não é mais que o não-ser, tendo como contraponto o pensamento eleata acerca da inexistência necessária do não-ser. Esta discussão nos remete à oposição entre o pleno (cheio) e o vazio que será posteriormente traduzida na oposição entre o ser e o nada (ou o não-ser). Desse modo, a oposição entre o pleno e o vazio é uma oposição que se desloca para o ser e o não-ser. Em seguida, faremos a apreciação do escrito pré-crítico kantiano Ensaio para introduzir em filosofia o conceito de grandeza negativa, no qual distinguimos certo tipo de oposição tomada entre grandezas em geral que, acreditamos, poderia ser interpretado como estando de acordo com o posicionamento de Demócrito e Leucipo sobre o estatuto ontológico do não-ser como princípio equivalente ao ser, e não como sua contradição em sentido puramente lógico.

Initially, we present the theory of Democritus and Leucippus whereby being is not more than the not-being(non-being), in contrast to Eleatic ideas about the necessary inexistence of the not-being. This discussion leads us to the opposition between the whole (full) and the empty, which will then be transposed into the opposition between being and nothingness (or not-being). Thus, the opposition between wholeand the empty is an opposition that moves to beingand not-being. Finally, we will make an assessment of the Kantian pre-critical essay Attempt to introduce the concept of negative magnitude into philosophy, in which we recognize a kind of opposition that, as we believe, would be interpreted as being in agreement with the position of Democritus and Leucippus regarding the ontological status of the not-being as an equivalent principle to the being, understood here not as a mutual contradiction in a purely logical sense.