Peitho. Examina Antiqua
Not a member yet
232 research outputs found
Sort by
What about Plurality? Aristotle’s Discussion of Zeno’s Paradoxes
Full text linkWhile Aristotle provides the crucial testimonies for the paradoxes of motion, topos, and the falling millet seed, surprisingly he shows almost no interest in the paradoxes of plurality. For Plato, by contrast, the plurality paradoxes seem to be the central paradoxes of Zeno and Simplicius is our primary source for those. This paper investigates why the plurality paradoxes are not examined by Aristotle and argues that a close look at the context in which Aristotle discusses Zeno holds the answer to this question
Aristotle’s Solution for Parmenides’ Inconclusive Argument in Physics I.3
Full text linkI discuss the argument which Aristotle ascribes to Parmenides at Physics 186a23–32. I examine (i) the reasons why Aristotle considers it to be eristic and inconclusive and (ii) the solution (lusis) that he proposes against it
Aristotle’s Refutation of the Eleatic Argument in Physics I.8
Full text linkIn this paper, I show that Aristotle’s refutation of the Eleatic argument in Physics I.8 is based on the idea that a thing at the starting point of coming to be is composite and is made up of what underlies and a privation. In doing so, I clarify how the concept of accidentality as used in his solution should be understood in relation to the composite nature of what comes to be. I also suggest an explanation of why Aristotle’s discussion of the Eleatic dilemma in Physics I.8, unlike his discussion in the previous chapter, is not clear
Melissos z Samos – doksografia i fragmenty
Full text linkThere are several recent and noteworthy studies on the testimonies and fragments of Melissos of Samos: Laks-Most (2016), Brémond (2017). Furthermore, one can learn a great deal about Melissos from the lectures and discussions undertaken in the framework of “Eleatica 2012” (Mansfeld A. et al. 2016). When taken together, these studies enable us to fully appreciate Melissos’ original work in terms of its sources, its audacious arguments and its later criticisms. Melissos is here presented as a spokesman of the Eleatic school in an order that aims to do justice to the ancient testimonies that relate and refute his arguments as well as to the verbatim fragments (these are given here in the original). For the sake of clarity, however, various secondary testimonies have been omitted.There are several recent and noteworthy studies on the testimonies and fragments of Melissos of Samos: Laks-Most (2016), Brémond (2017). Furthermore, one can learn a great deal about Melissos from the lectures and discussions undertaken in the framework of “Eleatica 2012” (Mansfeld A. et al. 2016). When taken together, these studies enable us to fully appreciate Melissos’ original work in terms of its sources, its audacious arguments and its later criticisms. Melissos is here presented as a spokesman of the Eleatic school in an order that aims to do justice to the ancient testimonies that relate and refute his arguments as well as to the verbatim fragments (these are given here in the original). For the sake of clarity, however, various secondary testimonies have been omitted
Platone e Antistene nel Fedone: una lettura in controluce
Full text linkThe purpose of this study is not so much to show the presence of Antisthenes in the dialogue, but rather to examine that to which Plato alludes. The controversy over ideas between the two Socratics is historically very well-attested, as can already be seen in the Cratylus. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that this controversy must have affected Plato when he was writing the Phaedo: a dialogue in which the importance of ideas and his new logic is undeniable. Hence, this paper will investigate the following question: what impact could Antisthenes’ denominative and definitory logic have on the equally denominative and definitory logic presented in the Phaedo, given that the latter work in all probability preceded the Sathōn? In light of what is said in the dialogue, the answer focuses primarily on what would not be said. Thus, this study is divided into two parts: Part one shows how the so-called “second navigation” emerges as an objection to the insufficiency of the responses given by the physiologists. Tellingly, certain “common opinions” are regarded as perplexing and individuals holding them are referred to with the indeterminate tis, which – as is argued – must have included Antisthenes. Indeed, Tht. 108c7–8 reports the latter to have made common opinions a cornerstone of his denominative logic. Part two, on the other hand, is devoted to examining the so-called “final argument.” Here, Antisthenes’ presence seems somewhat more nuanced, given his incomplete knowledge of the new logic of irreversible opposites which was worked out by Plato for the purpose of demonstrating the immortality and indestructibility of the soul. On the other hand, Antisthenes is likely to have prompted Plato to specify the relationship between ideas and things in the definitory logic, since the proponent of the theory of oikeios logos refused to distinguish between the substance and its attributes, the differences and their opposites, and the opposites of opposites.The purpose of this study is not so much to show the presence of Antisthenes in the dialogue, but rather to examine that to which Plato alludes. The controversy over ideas between the two Socratics is historically very well-attested, as can already be seen in the Cratylus. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that this controversy must have affected Plato when he was writing the Phaedo: a dialogue in which the importance of ideas and his new logic is undeniable. Hence, this paper will investigate the following question: what impact could Antisthenes’ denominative and definitory logic have on the equally denominative and definitory logic presented in the Phaedo, given that the latter work in all probability preceded the Sathōn? In light of what is said in the dialogue, the answer focuses primarily on what would not be said. Thus, this study is divided into two parts: Part one shows how the so-called “second navigation” emerges as an objection to the insufficiency of the responses given by the physiologists. Tellingly, certain “common opinions” are regarded as perplexing and individuals holding them are referred to with the indeterminate tis, which – as is argued – must have included Antisthenes. Indeed, Tht. 108c7–8 reports the latter to have made common opinions a cornerstone of his denominative logic. Part two, on the other hand, is devoted to examining the so-called “final argument.” Here, Antisthenes’ presence seems somewhat more nuanced, given his incomplete knowledge of the new logic of irreversible opposites which was worked out by Plato for the purpose of demonstrating the immortality and indestructibility of the soul. On the other hand, Antisthenes is likely to have prompted Plato to specify the relationship between ideas and things in the definitory logic, since the proponent of the theory of oikeios logos refused to distinguish between the substance and its attributes, the differences and their opposites, and the opposites of opposites
The Category of the Ethico-Aesthetics in the Study of Byzantine Philosophy
No full textThe category of the Ethico-Aesthetics, introduced by Søren Kierkegaard, was applied to the study of Byzantine Philosophy by the Greek philosopher and theologian Nikolaos Matsoukas (1934–2006). Matsoukas vehemently rejected the identification of Byzantine philosophy with a strict Christian moralism. Rather, he viewed it as an ethos which did not lead the ascetics to display Manichean contempt for the body. It was thus a kind of ‘mild asceticism’. This ethical acceptance of the body turns against Neoplatonic speculation and cultivates the habitus that leads to artistic creativity. Byzantine philosophy is thus situated at the midpoint between nominalism and realism, but standing against the realism of the archetypal ideas. The paper concludes with some considerations on the pragmatics of Byzantine philosophy in a Christian world
Aristotelian Biology. A Synopsis
No full textIn no field of knowledge did Aristotle leave more writings than in biology. He conducted research for longer and more intensively in zoology than in any other field. In these writings he mentions a good 550 animal and 60 plant species. While this includes the internal anatomy of around 110 animals, he dissected 60 species himself. The present contribution deals with the epistemic motifs and the meaning of Aristotelian biology in the context of his scientific curriculum. It is thus demonstrated that in De anima Aristotle’s actual explanations are preceded by an investigation of the principles, which aims to differentiate living objects from inanimate ones, and to develop a method of explanation based on the species-specific vital functions of living beings. This article provides an overview of the four main disciplines of Aristotelian biology: comparative anatomy, physiology, genetics and behavioral research. The text offers tabular overviews of the animals and plants dealt with by Aristotle
The Question of God and the Quest for God: Hans Jonas, Plato, and Beyond…
Full text linkIn reconstructing the conceptual universe of Jonas’s philosophy, a privileged place can, or indeed must, be reserved for his relationship with the classical heritage. More specifically, a crucial role is played by Plato, especially because, as Jonas strongly underlines, “with Plato (...) you have to go back a much greater distance to make him applicable to the present. But of course Plato is the greater one, the one we have to study again and again from scratch, the one we must discover (...). With Plato, you’re never finished, that’s the great foundation for all of Western philosophy”. In the light of this premise, this article will focus on the highly original use made in Jonas’s Der Gottesbegriff nach Auschwitz of the Platonic heritage, associated with the mythical figure of the Demiurge in the Timaeus