Abstract

In reconstructing the unwritten tenets of the Greeks, the definition which they presented solves Moore’s open question. However, the definition contains a large metaphysical basis which is tied into the basic intuitions which every reader has pertaining to the nature of the Good itself. For instance, the word is used in two fundamental senses(Good/Beneficial) which are distinct. It applies transcendentally with the term ‘unity’. Therefore we must establish a relationship--etc. Also, in reconstructing the unwritten tenets of the Greeks I have uncovered a tremendous error of metaphysics which philosophers have universally followed for 2,000 years. In making his noumena/phenomena distinction, the fundamental point of the dichotomy was Kant’s use of the term ‘transcendental predicate’. They are not predicates. Unity is never predicated. Not what it is, only THAT it is. Once that is made note of, then the landscape for the majority of ontology which has been written(and thereby epistemology as well) becomes diametrically changed from our traditional way of thinking. I will probably only present the Greek paper. But if you would like, I can also present the Kant paper.