DOCSLIB.ORG

Samian Meontology. on Melissus, Non-Being, And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ARTIGO PULPITO, Massimo, Samian Meontology. On Melissus, Non- Being, and Self-Refutation Anais de Filosofia Clássica 28, 2020. p. 107-139 ABSTRACT: It is traditionally attributed to Melissus an absolute kind of monism, which we do not even recognize in his alleged master, Parmenides. For Melissus, there is only a unique, infinite, eternal, homogeneous and unchangeable entity. On this point, there is almost consensus among scholars. This implies that nothing else exists except this one entity, and therefore that our physical world, the objects of our experiences, do not exist. Everything we know and talk about is not real. There are some passages in Melissus’ fragments that make this anti-Parmenidean consequence explicit. This means that monistic ontology generates, like a shadow, a vast ‘meontology’ that surrounds every human naturalistic discourse, every theory about the world and therefore every possible object of knowledge (except for one). This, however, hides a problem: among the non-existent things assumed by this doctrine there are, indeed, even the humans, and so the philosopher himself, Melissus, and his book, and any human thought or speech. This would seem to make Melissus’ doctrine Samian Meontology. self-refuting, denied by the very existence of the doctrine itself and of the one who proposes it, as well as by the experience of On Melissus, Non-Being, those who learn it. The inherent difficulties in strict monism have led not only to reassume the traditional critical judgments on Melissus’ philosophy (dating back at least to Aristotle) but and Self-Refutation also, in recent times, to believe that he was not a serious philosopher, rather an eristic thinker. In this essay, I propose to examine the dark side of Melissean ontology, his discourse on non-being, and to demonstrate not only how his doctrine – in Melissus’ perspective – could escape the risk of self-refutation, but also that there is no compelling evidence that proves he should not be taken seriously. KEY-WORDS: Eleatics; Ontology; Metaphysics; History of Philosophy; Ancient Philosophy. RESUMO: Tradicionalmente, se atribui a Melisso um tipo de monismo absoluto que não reconhecemos naquele que se supõe ser seu mestre, Parmênides. Para Melisso há um ente, único, Massimo Pulpito infinito, eterno, homogêneo e imutável. Esse ponto entre os estudiosos é quase consensual. Isso implica que, exceto esse Società Filosofica Italiana - Taranto ente único, nada mais existe e, portanto, que nosso mundo Pesquisador da Cátedra Unesco Archai - UnB físico e os objetos de nossa experiência, não existem. Tudo que conhecemos e do qual falamos não é real, como é possível ver em algumas passagens nos fragmentos de Melisso que https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1488-747X [email protected] explicitam essa consequência anti-parmenidiana. Isso significa que a ontologia monística dá origem, como uma sombra, a uma vasta ‘meontologia’ que envolve todo discurso naturalista humano, toda teoria sobre o mundo e, portanto, todo objeto de conhecimento possível (exceto um). Contudo, isso Recebido: 30 de outubro de 2020 esconde um problema: entre as coisas não existentes Aprovado: 30 do novembro de 2020 DOI: 10.47661/afcl.v14i28.38769 pressupostas por essa doutrina há, com efeito, também os seres humanos e, portanto, o próprio filósofo Melisso, seu livro e todo pensamento e fala humanos. Isso parece tornar a doutrina de Melisso auto refutativa, negada pela existência da própria doutrina e daquele que a propõe, assim como da experiência daqueles que a aprendem. As dificuldades inerentes ao monismo estrito parecem ter levado não somente a uma volta aos juízos críticos tradicionais a respeito da filosofia de Melisso (ao menos desde Aristóteles), mas também mais recentemente a acreditar que ele seja não um filósofo sério, mas um pensador erístico. Nesse ensaio, proponho um exame do lado escuro da ontologia de Melisso, o seu discurso sobre o não ser, e procuro demonstrar não apenas como sua doutrina – na perspectiva de Melisso – possa eludir o risco da auto refutação, mas também que não há evidência convincente que prove que ele não deva ser levado a sério. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Escola Eleática; Filosofia Antiga; Ontologia; Metafísica; História da Filosofia Samian Meontology: On Melissus, Non-Being, and Self-Refutation PULPITO, Massimo The challenge In the fragments B51 and B6 of the treatise On nature or on what , Melissus of Samos deduces the uniqueness of what was, is and will be is (hereafter ‘being’) from its infinity, which he had previously demonstrated. In fact, if being were not unique it would find a limit in another being, and therefore would not be infinite. However, given that it is infinite, it must then be unique. Alongside this reasoning – which he intends as the greatest proof of the uniqueness of being (µέγιστον σηµεῖον, B8.1) – in fragment B8 Melissus proposes some reinforcement arguments that challenge the empirical evidence of plurality through the invalidation of the reliability of the senses2. This implies that everything which the sensory experience testifies and that belongs to the world we live in is illusory. In critical literature this view, by tradition attributed to Melissus, is called ‘strict monism’. All the things we know and talk about vanish in the face of the monolithic presence of the unique being. In fact, in fragment B8 Melissus refers precisely to the objects of the ‘saying’ and ‘knowing’ of men. He says that if there really were “earth and water and air and fire and iron and gold and what is alive and what is dead, what is black and what is white and all the other things men to be true, if therefore all say these things were”3, then they should have characteristics which, according to testimony of the same senses revealing them, they have 1 In mentioning the fragments of the Presocratics I will follow the canonical numbering of the fifth edition of Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (1934-1937) edited by Diels and Kranz. 2 Mansfeld (2016, 104) denies that there is a criticism of the senses in Melissus. I discussed this interpretation in Pulpito (2016b): see the reply of Mansfeld (2016, 188-189). 3 εἰ γὰρ ἔστι γῆ καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ ἀὴρ καὶ πῦρ καὶ σίδηρος καὶ χρυσός, καὶ τὸ µὲν ζῶον ὸ δὲ τεθνηκός, καὶ µέλαν καὶ λευκὸν καὶ τὰ ἄλλα, ὅσα φασὶν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι ἀληθῆ, εἰ δὴ ταῦτα ἔστι… (B8.2). ANAIS DE FILOSOFIA CLÁSSICA, vol. 14 n. 27, 2020 ISSN 1982-5323 108 Samian Meontology: On Melissus, Non-Being, and Self-Refutation PULPITO, Massimo not. Without going into detail about the Melissean argument – whose validity may be questioned – Melissus clearly writes that men (all men, including Melissus himself who, in fact, will later use the first person plural: “ say”4) make utterances about things that really are not. we Therefore, the first excerpt relevant to the purposes of this essay is the following: (E1) καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὅσα φασὶν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι ἀληθῆ and all other things men say to be true With this expression, with which he closes the list of entities that characterize our experience of reality (earth, water, air, fire, iron, gold, etc.), Melissus evidently refers to all the things that furnish the physical world: not only those listed, but everything we really believe to exist. A little below (B8.3), we find another lapidary statement: (E2) ὥστε συµβαίνει µήτε ὁρᾶν µήτε τὰ ὄντα γινώσκειν5 so that it follows that we neither see nor know things that are Of course, when Melissus says that we do not see and know τὰ ὄντα he does not want to aver the epistemological unapproachableness of the real being (which he certainly would not indicate using the plural, τὰ ὄντα). There is at least one thing whose characteristics we can know: it is precisely the entity of which Melissus deduces a certain number of attributes (eternity, infinity, uniqueness, etc.). Indeed, this is not a perceptual ‘knowledge’ but a rational deduction; this, however, 4 φαµεν (B8.2) and φαµένοις (B8.4), but for the first person plural as a co-referent of ‘men’, see also ἡµεῖς ὁρῶµεν καὶ ἀκούοµεν and ἔδοξεν ἡµῖν (B8.2), δοκεῖ δὲ ἡµῖν (B8.3), ἡµῖν δοκεῖ (B8.4), ἑωρῶµεν (B8.5). 5 E2 is taken from the quotation of the actual Melissean B8 in Simplicius, In De Caelo 559, 5. The phrase in the manuscripts seems to be misplaced, so that Bergk (1843, then 1886, 106) – later followed by all the editors of Melissus’ fragments, including Diels – proposed to place E2 after the subsequent sentence, and this is how we read the fragment today. Barnes (1982, 500 n. 3), followed by others (most recently Brémond 2017, 527 n. 492), emphasized the problems of this passage, going so far as to state that E2 was an interpolated gloss to the text. However, the reasons given in favor of the athetesis are far from conclusive. I cannot dwell on the question here, so I will limit myself to following the text of B8 adopted by the main editions of the fragments, which accept E2 as authentic. ANAIS DE FILOSOFIA CLÁSSICA, vol. 14 n. 27, 2020 ISSN 1982-5323 109 Samian Meontology: On Melissus, Non-Being, and Self-Refutation PULPITO, Massimo does not seem to involve a skeptical approach to knowledge . tout court On the other hand, Melissus certainly does not intend to deny that we see – and therefore we know, at least by sight – something: it is in this same fragment that he makes explicit reference to what we see. The verb ὁρᾶν appears in the whole fragment B8 five times: once paired with ἀκούειν (to hear), once together with ἀκούειν and συνιέναι (to understand), once only with γινώσκειν (in our E2), while twice on its own. It is clear, therefore, that Melissus lends a certain priority to visual perception.
Recommended publications
  • Fyodorov's Meontology

    Fyodorov's Meontology

    III. NON-STANDARD TRAITS OF 20TH CENTURY AND RECENT PHILOSOPHY 157 Fyodorov’s Meontology Myroslav Feodosijevič Hryschko (University of Ljubljana) Abstract The text treats the philosophy of Nikolai Fyodorovich Fyodorov as a meontology; that is, as a metaphysics irreducible to ontology. This treatment starts from a certain non-ontological symptom within Fyodorov’s texts and develops two philosophemes found in The Philosophy of the Common Task: The Task qua immortality and resurrection, and Fyodorov’s shift of ontol- ogy from the question “Why does the existing exist?” to “Why do the living die?” Resurrection and immortality are not developed as some ethical re- joinder to the latter question but rather, both philosophemes are posited to- gether as constitutive of a prospective Fyodorovian meontology. Using the contemporary speculative anti-humanism of Badiou, Brassier, Grant, Meil- lassoux, etc., and the anthropic-transcendental lineage of Kant and Heideg- ger as points of both accession and tension, the possibility of resurrection and immortality coupled with the death of being suggests the excision of any constancy or necessity to ontology, to both Being or beings, thus entail- ing the rudiments of such a meontology. 1. Introduction The metabasis eis allo genos that is Fyodorov’s transposition of the ontological question “Why does the existing exist?” to “Why do the living die?”1 is not a vitalism; it is not an appropriation of ontology in terms of a theoretical concern accorded to what may be provisionally formulated as a problem of the organic. This misprision is coextensive to the misprision concerning the decisive status of resurrection and immortality in The Phi- losophy of the Common Task.
  • Being Is Double

    Being Is Double

    Being is double Jean-Luc Marion and John Milbank on God, being and analogy Nathan Edward Lyons B. A. (Adv.) (Hons.) This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Philosophy School of Philosophy Australian Catholic University Graduate Research Office Locked Bag 4115 Fitzroy, Victoria 3065 1st March 2014 i ABSTRACT This thesis examines the contemporary dispute between philosopher Jean-Luc Marion and theologian John Milbank concerning the relation of God to being and the nature of theological analogy. I argue that Marion and Milbank begin from a shared opposition to Scotist univocity but tend in opposite directions in elaborating their constructive theologies. Marion takes an essentially Dionysian approach, emphasising the divine transcendence “beyond being” to such a degree as to produce an essentially equivocal account of theological analogy. Milbank, on the other hand, inspired particularly by Eckhart, affirms a strong version of the Thomist thesis that God is “being itself” and emphasises divine immanence to such a degree that the analogical distinction between created and uncreated being is virtually collapsed. Both thinkers claim fidelity to the premodern Christian theological tradition, but I show that certain difficulties attend both of their claims. I suggest that the decisive issue between them is the authority which should be granted to Heidegger’s account of being and I argue that it is Milbank’s vision of post-Heideggerian theological method which is to be preferred. I conclude that Marion and Milbank give two impressive contemporary answers to the ancient riddle of “double being” raised in the Anonymous Commentary on Plato’s “Parmenides,” a riddle which queries the relation between absolute First being and derived Second being.
  • The Greek Anthology

    The Greek Anthology

    BOOK TI CHRISTODORUS OF THEBES IN EGYPT This description of the bronze statues in the celebrated gymnasium called Zeuxippos, erected under Septimius Severus at Byzantium and destroyed by fire shortly after this was written (in 532 a.d. ), is of some value, as it gives at least a list of the statues and the names assigned to them. But owing to its bombastic style its value is of the slightest. The poet confines himself usually to mere rhetoric and tiresomely repeats his impression that the statues looked as if they were alive. B XPI^TOAHPOT nOIHTOT 0HBAIOY KOnTITOY ''EKCppaais Twv ayaXudrwu rwv (Is to hi]ix6<riov yv/nvaffiov rod iiriKaXovfxevov Zev^imrov. A7]i(j)o/3o(; fiev Trpwro? ivyXuTTTO) eirl ISco/jLO) laTaro, roX/x^jet?, K€/copvO/jLevo<;, 6/3pifio<i ijpco^, Toto? 6a)v, ol6<; irep eTTopwixevw ^leveXdcp TrepOofievcov y^vrrjaev ecov irpoirdpoiOe fieXdOpcov. Xcrraro he irpo^L^wvTL Traz^et/ceXo?' ev 3' eVt Koafi^o h6)(fjiL0'^ Tjv, jJLavir] he KeKucfiora vcora avveXKcov hpifjbv p.evo<; ^vvdyecpev eXiacre Be <peyyo<; OTrojTrr}?, old T€ hvajxevewv yijzpoirwv 7re(f)vXay/jL€vo<; opfiijv. Xatfj fjLev crd/co^; eupv 7rpota')(eTO, Se^crepfj he (^ayavov vy\r6a^ deipev e/xeXXe he piaLvopLevi] %e</5 dvepo<^ dvTLJSioLo Kara %poo9 dop eXdaaar aXV ov ')(^aXKov eOrjKe cpvai^i fretOi^jJiova Xvaarj, K.eKpo7rLhr]<; h' jjaTpairre, voyj/xovo^ dvOefia TleiOov Al(T')(LV7]^' Xaah]<; he crvveipve kvkXu 7rapetrj<;, ola 7roXvTpo)(^dXoLaiv deOXevcov dyopfjaiv (TTeivero yap irvKivfjai fjieXi^hoaiv. dyx^ ^ eKeivov yev 'ApiCTTOTeXiji;, ao(f)Lrj^ 7rp6fxo<^' IcTTd/jLevo^; he X^'^P^ TTepiTrXeyhrjv avveepyaOev, ouh^ evl p^aX^oi dcpOoyyo) ^peva^ el^j^v depyea<;, dXX' en ^ovXrjv 58 BOOK II CHRISTODORUS OF THEBES IN EGYPT Description of the Statues in the public gymnasium calle<l Zeuxippos.
  • A Buddhist Inspiration for a Contemporary Psychotherapy

    A Buddhist Inspiration for a Contemporary Psychotherapy

    1 A BUDDHIST INSPIRATION FOR A CONTEMPORARY PSYCHOTHERAPY Gay Watson Thesis presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the School of Oriental & African Studies, University of London. 1996 ProQuest Number: 10731695 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10731695 Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 ABSTRACT It is almost exactly one hundred years since the popular and not merely academic dissemination of Buddhism in the West began. During this time a dialogue has grown up between Buddhism and the Western discipline of psychotherapy. It is the contention of this work that Buddhist philosophy and praxis have much to offer a contemporary psychotherapy. Firstly, in general, for its long history of the experiential exploration of mind and for the practices of cultivation based thereon, and secondly, more specifically, for the relevance and resonance of specific Buddhist doctrines to contemporary problematics. Thus, this work attempts, on the basis of a three-way conversation between Buddhism, psychotherapy and various themes from contemporary discourse, to suggest a psychotherapy that may be helpful and relevant to the current horizons of thought and contemporary psychopathologies which are substantially different from those prevalent at the time of psychotherapy's early years.
  • Print This Article

    Print This Article

    Levinas and the Anticolonial Patrick D. Anderson Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy - Revue de la philosophie française et de langue française, Vol XXV, No 1 (2017) 150-181. Vol XXV, No 1 (2017) ISSN 1936-6280 (print) ISSN 2155-1162 (online) DOI 10.5195/jffp.2017.721 www.jffp.org This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. This journal is operated by the University Library System of the University of Pittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program, and is co-sponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy | Revue de la philosophie française et de langue française Vol XXV, No 1 (2017) | www.jffp.org | DOI 10.5195/jffp.2017.721 Levinas and the Anticolonial Patrick D. Anderson Texas A & M University The intellectual has been defined as the one who always misses the mark but who, at least, aims very far. – Emmanuel Levinas1 Over the last two decades, the various attempts to “radicalize” Levinas have resulted in two interesting and important debates: one the one hand, there is the debate regarding the relationship between Levinas and colonialism and racism, and on the other hand, there is the debate regarding the relationship between Levinas and Judaism. Much to the detriment of both, these two conversations have largely been treated as separate issues, and when they have been brought together, the results have been either superficial or violent. For example, Robert Bernasconi and Robert Eaglestone have taken an identity politics approach, insisting that Levinas’s Jewish identity is a source of strength for projects that put him into conversation with colonialism.2 On this view, Levinas’s subaltern status provides enough distance between his work and Western imperialism that, with a few minor adjustments, his philosophy can be brought to bear on colonialism and racism without issue.
  • Mechanical Miracles: Automata in Ancient Greek Religion

    Mechanical Miracles: Automata in Ancient Greek Religion

    Mechanical Miracles: Automata in Ancient Greek Religion Tatiana Bur A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Philosophy Faculty of Arts, University of Sydney Supervisor: Professor Eric Csapo March, 2016 Statement of Originality This is to certify that to the best of my knowledge, the content of this thesis is my own work. This thesis has not been submitted for any degree or other purposes. I certify that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work and that all the assistance received in preparing this thesis and sources have been acknowledged. Tatiana Bur, March 2016. Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................................................................................... 1 A NOTE TO THE READER ................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 3 PART I: THINKING ABOUT AUTOMATION .......................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 1/ ELIMINATING THE BLOCAGE: ANCIENT AUTOMATA IN MODERN SCHOLARSHIP ................. 10 CHAPTER 2/ INVENTING AUTOMATION: AUTOMATA IN THE ANCIENT GREEK IMAGINATION ................. 24 PART II: AUTOMATA IN CONTEXT ................................................................................... 59 CHAPTER 3/ PROCESSIONAL AUTOMATA ................................................................................
  • The Reception History of Palaephatus 1 (On the Centaurs) in Ancient and Byzantine Texts*

    The Reception History of Palaephatus 1 (On the Centaurs) in Ancient and Byzantine Texts*

    The reception history of Palaephatus 1 (On the Centaurs) in Ancient and Byzantine texts* MINERVA ALGANZA ROLDÁN Universidad de Granada [email protected] JULIAN BARR [email protected] GRETA HAWES Australian National University [email protected] * This article is part of the Research Project ‘Estudios sobre transmisión y recepción de Paléfato y la exégesis racionalista de los mitos / Studies on the transmission and reception of Palaephatus, and the rationalist exegesis of myths’ (FFI2014-52203-P), supported by the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (MINECO) of Spain. The sections on ancient texts (2, 3, and 4) are primarily the work of Julian Barr and Greta Hawes. The sections on Byzantine texts (5, 6, and 7) are primarily the work of Minerva Alganza Roldán, and were translated into English by Greta Hawes. Polymnia - n°3 - 2017 THE RECEPTION HISTORY OF PALAEPHATUS 1 (ON THE CENTAURS) 187 1. Introduction The transmission history of Palaephatus’ Peri Apiston remains a topic of dispute. The text that we have comprises a methodological introduction along with 46 examples of the rationalisation of individual myths.1 The best evidence that we have points to Palaephatus as working in Athens in the late fourth century BC, within the ambit of the Peripatetics. But almost nothing can be said with certainty about the early history of his Peri Apiston.2 Palaephatus’ name – in the context of a far-fetched explanation utilising a protos heuretes motif – appears in a fragment of new comedy (Athenion fr.1 PCG).3 His Troica is mentioned – approvingly – by Strabo (12.3.22) as a source used by Demetrius of Scepsis (early second century BC).4 But only in the late first century AD, in a passage in the Progymnasmata of Aelius Theon (discussed below), is Palaephatus named as author of the Peri Apiston.
  • On Pillowing One's Skull: Zhuangzi and Heidegger on Death

    On Pillowing One's Skull: Zhuangzi and Heidegger on Death

    Front. Philos. China 2016, 11(3): 483–500 DOI 10.3868/s030-005-016-0034-6 SPECIAL THEME David Chai On Pillowing One’s Skull: Zhuangzi and Heidegger on Death Abstract Martin Heidegger famously declares that Dasein does not perish but experiences its demise, and that death stands before us as something to be anticipated. This idea of being-towards-death is an anticipation of possibility, of becoming authentically free for one’s death. If we take Heidegger’s view of death and compare it to that of the Daoist philosopher Zhuangzi, we notice that the latter also holds death in an unusual light. For Zhuangzi, death is possibility not because it symbolizes the perfection of being but insofar as it reveals its entanglements. This paper will thus argue in support of the Daoist notion that death is neither to be feared nor does it serve as the end of one’s contribution to the world. It will also take the stance that death qua nothingness is both a corporeal and metaphorical embodiment of Dao in that death and nothingness reflect the natural praxis of Dao to be still, empty, and quiet. In order to facilitate our analysis, we will focus on the story of Zhuangzi and the roadside skull, a story that has Zhuangzi pillowing said skull from which he realizes that life is but a pillowing of death. Keywords Zhuangzi, death, Heidegger, meontology Nothing is more vital to a philosophy of life than death; indeed, our entire conceptualization of existence is predicated upon holding back the nihilistic forces of non-existence.
  • Being of God: a Trinitarian Critique of Postmodern A/Theology

    Being of God: a Trinitarian Critique of Postmodern A/Theology

    RICE UNIVERSITY (DE)CONSTRUCTING THE (NON)BEING OF GHD: A TRINITARIAN CRITIQUE OF POSTMODERN A/THEOLOGY by B. KEITH PUTT A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY APPROVED, THESIS COMMITTEE Niels C. Nielsen, Jr.,Director Professor Emeritus of Philoso¬ phy and Religious Thought Werner H. Kelber Isla Carroll Turner and Percy E. Turner Professor of Reli¬ gious Studies Stjeven G. Crowell Associate Professor of Philoso¬ phy Houston, Texas May, 1995 Copyright B. Keith Putt 1995 ABSTRACT (DE) CONSTRUCTING THE (NON) BEING OF G8D: A TRINITARIAN CRITIQUE OF POSTMODERN A/THEOLOGY by B. KEITH PUTT Langdon Gilkey maintained in 1969 that theological language was in "ferment" over whether "God" could be ex¬ pressed in language. He argued that "radical theology," specifically the kenotic christology in Altizer's "death of God" theology, best represented that ferment. Some twenty- five years later, in the postmodern context of the 1990's, whether one can speak of God and, if so, how remain promi¬ nent issues for philosophers of religion and theologians. One of the most provocative contemporary approaches to these questions continues to focus on the "death of God." Mark Taylor's a/theology attempts to "do" theology after the divine demise by thinking the end of theology without ending theological thinking. Taylor's primary thesis, predicated upon his reading of Jacques Derrida's deconstruetive philos¬ ophy, is that God gives way to the sacred and the sacred may be encountered only within the "divine milieu" of writing. God is dead, the self is dead, history has no structure, and language cannot be totalized in books; consequently, theo¬ logy must be errant and textually disseminative.
  • Deviant Origins: Hesiodic Theogony and the Orphica Radcliffe .G Edmonds III Bryn Mawr College, Redmonds@Brynmawr.Edu

    Deviant Origins: Hesiodic Theogony and the Orphica Radcliffe .G Edmonds III Bryn Mawr College, [email protected]

    Bryn Mawr College Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr College Greek, Latin, and Classical Studies Faculty Research Greek, Latin, and Classical Studies and Scholarship 2018 Deviant Origins: Hesiodic Theogony and the Orphica Radcliffe .G Edmonds III Bryn Mawr College, [email protected] Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy . Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.brynmawr.edu/classics_pubs Part of the Classics Commons Custom Citation Edmonds, Radcliffe .G 2018. "Deviant Origins: Hesiodic Theogony and the Orphica." In In Oxford Handbook of Hesiod, edited by A. Loney & S. Scully, 225-242. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. This paper is posted at Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr College. https://repository.brynmawr.edu/classics_pubs/125 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Deviant Origins: Hesiod’s Theogony and the Orphica Oxford Handbooks Online Deviant Origins: Hesiod’s Theogony and the Orphica Radcliffe G. Edmonds III The Oxford Handbook of Hesiod Edited by Alexander C. Loney and Stephen Scully Print Publication Date: Sep 2018 Subject: Classical Studies, Classical Poetry, Classical Religions and Mythologies Online Publication Date: Aug 2018 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190209032.013.43 Abstract and Keywords Hesiod’s Theogony provides one of the most widely authoritative accounts of the origin of the cosmos, but his account has always been challenged by rivals claiming to be older, wiser, and better, and the name of Orpheus has always been privileged in the evidence for ancient rivals to Hesiod. The Orphic accounts play their variations on the Hesiodic themes, riffing in different ways on the idea of the ultimate origin of the cosmos; the processes of reproduction by which subsequent entities were generated; the conflicts between these divinities that created the changes from the original state to the current one; the way in which humans entered the story; and the final resolution of the conflicts and changes that created the current, normal order of Zeus.
  • Hawes, Greta, 'Metamorphosis and Metamorphic Identity: the Myth Of

    Hawes, Greta, 'Metamorphosis and Metamorphic Identity: the Myth Of

    METAMORPHOSIS AND METAMORPHIC IDENTITY: THE MYTH OF ACTAEON IN WORKS OF OVID, DANTE AND JOHN GOWER Greta Hawes To speak of metamorphosis in mythological terms is usually to refer to a feature of the mythic narrative in which a character undergoes a major, and usually irrevocable, change.1 Yet myths are themselves, over time, subject to metamorphic processes and such changes are, likewise, major and irrevocable. The corpus of classical mythology has provided fertile ground for the imposition of a variety of interpretative and literary aims in the works of both classical and subsequent writ- ers. The myths which come to establish themselves within interpretative communities are those which are seen to be somehow relevant to the context of their retelling. Such relevance is not ne- cessarily attached to the form of the myth—the organisation of its narrative elements—but tends to depend on the significance deemed inherent in the myth at the point of reception. The signifi- cance of a single narrative form can change markedly with its migration through diverse interpre- tative communities and it is this flexibility of significance which allows the myth to continue to be recognised as ‘true’ in the face of changing social, poetic, moralistic and personal concerns. The story of the young hunter Actaeon, which retained a relatively stable narrative form through Latin literature and into the medieval period, provides but one example of the way in which evolving cultural and literary traditions can influence the reading of a mythological narra- tive. The story of the myth of Actaeon might just as well be traced from its earliest mentions in archaic fragments to its latest incarnations in works of Seamus Heaney and Ted Hughes, for ex- ample.
  • Classical Studies Departmental Library Booklist

    Classical Studies Departmental Library Booklist

    Page 1 of 81 Department of Classical Studies Library Listing Call Number ISBN # Title Edition Author Author 2 Author 3 Publisher Year Quantity 0 584100051 The origins of alchemy in Graeco-Roman Egypt Jack Lindsay, 1900- London, Frederick Muller Limited 1970 0 500275866 The Mycenaeans Revised edition Lord William Taylour, London, Thames & Hudson 1990 M. Tulli Ciceronis oratio Philippica secunda : with introduction and 6280.A32P2 Stereotyped edition Marcus Tullius Cicero A. G. Peskett, ed. London, Cambridge University Press 1896 notes by A.G. Peskett A258.A75 1923 A practical introduction to Greek prose composition New Impression Thomas Kerchever Evelyn Abbott London : Longmans, Green, and Co. 1923 Gaius Valerius London : Heinemann ; New York : G. P. A6264.A2 Catullus, Tibullus, and Pervigilium Veneris F. W. Cornish 1931 Catullus, Tibullus Putnam's Sons Lucretius on matter and man. Extracts from books I, II, IV & V of the De scientific appendices AC1.E8 A. S. Cox N. A. M. Wallis London, G. Bell & Sons Ltd. 1967 rerum natura. by R.I. Gedye AM1.M76 1981 3 59810118X Museums of the world Third, revised edition Judy Benson, ed. Barbara Fischer, ed. [et al] München ; New York : K.G. Saur 1981 AM101.B87 T73 1971 0 002118343 Treasures of the British Museum: with an introduction Sir John Wolfenden London, Collins 1971 AS121.H47 Vol. 104 & Dublin : Hodges, Figgis & Co. Ltd. ; ISSN: 0018-1750 Hermathena : a Dublin University review No. CIV, Spring 1967 Trinity College Dublin 1967 105 1967 London : The Academic Press Ltd. AS121.H47 Vol. 110 - Dublin : Hodges, Figgis & Co. Ltd. ; ISSN: 0018-1750 Hermathena : a Dublin University review No.