DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 1 HOW to READ the SOPHIST 1.1 the Many

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 1 HOW to READ the SOPHIST 1.1 the Many Cambridge University Press 0521632595 - The Unity of Plato’s Sophist: Between the Sophist and the Philosopher Noburu Notomi Excerpt More information chapter 1 HOW TO READ THE SOPHIST 1.1 The many appearances of the Sophist What is the Sophist, usually deemed one of the greatest philosophical works of Plato? What philosophical problem does Plato propose and investigate in this dialogue? The Sophist has many faces, each of which has attracted philosophers for two millennia. The issues discussed in the dialogue are all known to be so problematic and so important in the history of philosophy that philosophers have hardly ever asked what problem the Sophist really confronts, or what these issues are to be examined for. They have taken the `problems' for granted. The variety of the philosophical issues it raises, however, makes us fail to see the dialogue as a whole. Each philosopher has taken up only a piece of the dialogue, so that the faces of the Sophist remain fragmentary; the Sophist has not shown us the whole ®gure nor its essence. Let us begin our examination by considering how we can approach the dialogue, through a survey of the many faces it has shown its past readers. With its traditional subtitle `On what is' ( peri tou ontos, de ente),1 the dialogue was treated, from antiquity to the Renais- sance, primarily as a masterpiece of Plato's ontological thinking. First, Plato tackles in Sophist 236d±242b the problem of 1 Cf. DL 3.58. Diogenes attributes the use of the double title, the one from the name of the interlocutor and the other from the subject, to Thrasyllus (®rst century ad) (DL 3.57; cf. Grote 1875, Vol.I, 160, note), but the subtitles to the Platonic dialogues must have re¯ected the long tradition of the Academy and Alexandrian scholarship. Hoerber 1957 argues that the second titles originated in the fourth century bc (possibly in Plato himself), and were only used by Thrasyllus in incorporating them into his canon (see also Philip 1970, 301±302); Tarrant 1993, 16±17, argues that it must be the systematic compiler of the corpus, i.e. Thrasyllus, who attached descriptive titles to every dialogue. 1 © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 0521632595 - The Unity of Plato’s Sophist: Between the Sophist and the Philosopher Noburu Notomi Excerpt More information how to read the sophist `what is not' (to meÅ on), which has proved one of the most important issues in Greek philosophy since Parmenides ori- ginally raised the issue. Parmenides, in his verse, strongly opposed `what is not is', and his successors had to prove the possibility of the being of what is not, in order to secure change and plurality in our world. In spite of Aristotle's criticism,2 Plato's treatment of `what is not' as difference (257b±259b) became a standard view for his successors, and the Neoplatonists usually assume Plato's distinction between `relative not-being' and `absolute not-being'.3 Following Plotinus, they also assume a third sense of `what is not', namely, `matter'.4 The ontological status of `what is not' continues to be one of the important issues in Western philosophy. Plato's full investigation into `what is' (to on) in 242b± 259d, on the other hand, reveals to his followers the essence of Platonic ontology, and each particular portion of the discussion greatly in¯uenced later philosophers. Interestingly enough, the criticism levelled against materi- alists and idealists (the friends of Forms) attracted both the materialists of the Hellenistic period and the idealists of Neoplatonism. In the criticism of the materialists, the capa- city of acting and being acted upon is proposed as a hallmark (horos) of `being' (247d±248a).5 Zeno the Stoic is said to reverse this proposal and use it as the hall-mark of 2 Cf. Meta. N 2 (esp. 1088b35±1089a6, b16±20), Z 4 1030a25±27; cf. Phys. A 3 187a1±10 (the reference may be to the Platonists, not to Plato himself; cf. Ross 1936, 479±481, and Cherniss 1944, 84±101). 3 Proclus, In Parm. 999±1000, 1184±1185, and 46K. Cf. Gersh 1978, 62. 4 Plotinus distinguishes three senses of `what is not': absolute not-being; something different from being; and Matter (cf. O'Brien 1995, Etude I (=O'Brien 1991), and Gerson 1994, 285, n.39). The last sense can be traced back to the Unwritten Doctrine, reported in Aristotle, since he identi®es `what is not' for Plato with matter, space, or `inde®nite dyad' (see Cherniss 1944, 86, 92±96). Proclus, In Parm. 999±1000, also distinguishes these three senses (cf. Platonic Theology II 5; Saffrey & Westerink 1974, 38±39, 99±100). On the other hand, the scholion to Proclus' Commentaryon Plato's Republic (F. 148v ad p. 265. 26) distinguishes four senses of `what is not': the ®rst principle which is beyond being; difference or not being something; the sensible in contrast to the intelligible (or matter, as being nothing actual); and absolute not-being (Kroll 1901, 375). 5 This hallmark seems popular in the Academy; see Aristotle, Top. V 9 139a4±8, VI 7 146a21±32. 2 © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 0521632595 - The Unity of Plato’s Sophist: Between the Sophist and the Philosopher Noburu Notomi Excerpt More information the many appearances of the sophist `body',6 and Epicurus uses the same de®nition for some- thing's being `body'.7 Both of the materialist parties, the Stoics and Epicureans, are directly or indirectly in¯uenced by the Sophist passage, which originally intended to refute materialism. Another short, but dif®cult, passage in the refutation of the friends of Forms (248e±249d) fascinated Plotinus and his successors: life and intelligence, as well as the Forms, must possess true being. This claim, exceptional in Plato's corpus, is evoked as a support for the Neoplatonic triad of powers in Intelligence (nous): being, life, and intelligence.8 According to some testimony, the major Platonists, in- cluding Porphyry, Iamblichus, Proclus, and Olympiodorus, may have written commentaries on the Sophist.9 Their com- mentaries have not survived, but we can imagine the dia- logue's in¯uence from some important treatises of Plotinus and scattered comments on it in Proclus' surviving works.10 We must remember that the discussion on `what is' has 6 The main source of testimony about Zeno is Cicero, Academica I 39 (LS 45A). For the in¯uence of the Sophist passage on the Stoics, see Hicks 1910, 60, Sandbach 1975, 91±92, Long 1986, 153, Long & Sedley 1987, Vol.1, 270 and 273±274 (cf. Vol.2, 269), and Dancy 1991, 72±76, 151±152, n.51. Brunschwig 1994 (esp. 115±126) fully examines the importance of the Sophist for the Stoics. 7 Letter to Herodotus 67 (DL 10.67; LS 14A(7)). Plato's in¯uence on Epicurus is not as obvious as on the Stoics; but similarity to the Stoic argument (especially, Cleanthes in LS 45C) is pointed out by Long & Sedley 1987, Vol.1, 71. In this regard, Hicks 1910, 60, and Dancy 1991, 71±72, treat Epicurus and the Stoics in a parallel way. 8 This triad is seen in Plotinus (e.g. Enn. I 6.7, V 4.2, V 6.6), but their order in his system is not ®xed (cf. Wallis 1972, 67, 92). It is the later Neoplatonists, such as Proclus, who establish the triad (the Elements of Theology §§101±103; cf. Dodds 1963, 252±254; Wallis 1972, 125); see also Hadot 1960, Merlan 1967, 20, Allen 1989, 56±59, A. C. Lloyd 1990, 113, Heiser 1991, 51±52, and Gerson 1994, 249, n.51. 9 Porphyry's commentary on the Sophist is mentioned in the preface of Boethius' On Division. A summary of Iamblichus' view is preserved in the scholia (cf. Dillon 1973, 15, 22; we shall examine it later). Proclus refers to his commentary in In Parm. 774 (cf. Morrow & Dillon 1987, 139, n.43), and Olympiodorus refers to his in In Alc. 1, 110.8. However, these indirect comments are far from decisive in proving that they wrote full commentaries (cf. Sodano 1966, 195, Dillon 1973, 245, and Steel 1992, 53, n.11). On the other hand, there was no medieval Latin translation of this dialogue or commentary on it, before Ficino translated it between 1464 and 1466, and wrote a brief commentary between 1494 and 1496 (cf. Allen 1989, 16, 31±34). 10 Cf. Charles-Saget 1991, Steel 1992, and the citations listed in GueÂrard 1991. 3 © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 0521632595 - The Unity of Plato’s Sophist: Between the Sophist and the Philosopher Noburu Notomi Excerpt More information how to read the sophist traditionally been treated as a main source of the theory of Forms, in contrast to the cautious or sceptical attitude of modern scholars toward the `Forms' in this dialogue.11 Regarding the Sophist as an exponent of the full-blown theory of Forms, Plotinus devotes Ennead VI 2 to an examination of the ®ve greatest kinds presented in Sophist 254b±257a, namely, being, change, rest, sameness, and differ- ence; he discusses Plato's greatest kinds as the categories of the intelligible world, which are superior to the Aristotelian or the Stoic categories.12 The Neoplatonists, following Plotinus, saw in the Sophist (244b±245e and other passages) hints as to the relation between the One (the highest principle) and Being. In accor- dance with the crucial passage in the simile of the Sun in the Republic (VI 509b), they supposed the One and Good to be beyond Being.13 They placed the Sophist next only to the Parmenides, which is the main text for Neoplatonism, and expected the Sophist to provide some supplementary but crucial arguments for elucidating that relation.14 Proclus believes that in the Sophist Plato does not merely refute Parmenides, but demonstrates in a dialectical way that the Lloyd 1967, 323, points out the Sophist's in¯uence on Proclus and Proclus' in¯uence on Hegel; for Hegel's interpretation of the Sophist, see Hegel 1971, 67±77, Apelt 1895, 443±445, Gray 1941, 80±81, and Gadamer 1976, ch.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Diogenes Laertius, Vitae Philosophorum, Book Five
    Binghamton University The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB) The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter 12-1986 The Lives of the Peripatetics: Diogenes Laertius, Vitae Philosophorum, Book Five Michael Sollenberger Mount St. Mary's University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://orb.binghamton.edu/sagp Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons, Ancient Philosophy Commons, and the History of Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Sollenberger, Michael, "The Lives of the Peripatetics: Diogenes Laertius, Vitae Philosophorum, Book Five" (1986). The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter. 129. https://orb.binghamton.edu/sagp/129 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). It has been accepted for inclusion in The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter by an authorized administrator of The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). For more information, please contact [email protected]. f\îc|*zx,e| lîâ& The Lives of the Peripatetics: Diogenes Laertius, Vitae Philosoohorum Book Five The biographies of six early Peripatetic philosophers are con­ tained in the fifth book of Diogenes Laertius* Vitae philosoohorum: the lives of the first four heads of the sect - Aristotle, Theophras­ tus, Strato, and Lyco - and those of two outstanding members of the school - Demetrius of Phalerum and Heraclides of Pontus, For the history of two rival schools, the Academy and the Stoa, we are for­ tunate in having not only Diogenes' versions in 3ooks Four and Seven, but also the Index Academicorum and the Index Stoicorum preserved among the papyri from Herculaneum, But for the Peripatos there-is no such second source.
    [Show full text]
  • Teachers' Pay in Ancient Greece
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Papers from the University Studies series (The University of Nebraska) University Studies of the University of Nebraska 5-1942 Teachers' Pay In Ancient Greece Clarence A. Forbes Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/univstudiespapers Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University Studies of the University of Nebraska at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Papers from the University Studies series (The University of Nebraska) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Teachers' Pay In Ancient Greece * * * * * CLARENCE A. FORBES UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA STUDIES Ma y 1942 STUDIES IN THE HUMANITIES NO.2 Note to Cataloger UNDER a new plan the volume number as well as the copy number of the University of Nebraska Studies was discontinued and only the numbering of the subseries carried on, distinguished by the month and the year of pu blica tion. Thus the present paper continues the subseries "Studies in the Humanities" begun with "University of Nebraska Studies, Volume 41, Number 2, August 1941." The other subseries of the University of Nebraska Studies, "Studies in Science and Technology," and "Studies in Social Science," are continued according to the above plan. Publications in all three subseries will be supplied to recipients of the "University Studies" series. Corre­ spondence and orders should be addressed to the Uni­ versity Editor, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. University of Nebraska Studies May 1942 TEACHERS' PAY IN ANCIENT GREECE * * * CLARENCE A.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Cynicism
    A HISTORY OF CYNICISM Downloaded from https://www.holybooks.com Downloaded from https://www.holybooks.com A HISTORY OF CYNICISM From Diogenes to the 6th Century A.D. by DONALD R. DUDLEY F,llow of St. John's College, Cambrid1e Htmy Fellow at Yale University firl mll METHUEN & CO. LTD. LONDON 36 Essex Street, Strand, W.C.2 Downloaded from https://www.holybooks.com First published in 1937 PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN Downloaded from https://www.holybooks.com PREFACE THE research of which this book is the outcome was mainly carried out at St. John's College, Cambridge, Yale University, and Edinburgh University. In the help so generously given to my work I have been no less fortunate than in the scenes in which it was pursued. I am much indebted for criticism and advice to Professor M. Rostovtseff and Professor E. R. Goodonough of Yale, to Professor A. E. Taylor of Edinburgh, to Professor F. M. Cornford of Cambridge, to Professor J. L. Stocks of Liverpool, and to Dr. W. H. Semple of Reading. I should also like to thank the electors of the Henry Fund for enabling me to visit the United States, and the College Council of St. John's for electing me to a Research Fellowship. Finally, to• the unfailing interest, advice and encouragement of Mr. M. P. Charlesworth of St. John's I owe an especial debt which I can hardly hope to repay. These acknowledgements do not exhaust the list of my obligations ; but I hope that other kindnesses have been acknowledged either in the text or privately.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy As a Path to Happiness
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto Philosophy as a Path to Happiness Attainment of Happiness in Arabic Peripatetic and Ismaili Philosophy Janne Mattila ACADEMIC DISSERTATION To be publicly discussed, by due permission of the Faculty of Arts at the University of Helsinki in auditorium XII, University main building, on the 13th of June, 2011 at 12 o’clock. ISBN 978-952-92-9077-2 (paperback) ISBN 978-952-10-7001-3 (PDF) http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/ Helsinki University Print Helsinki 2011 2 Abstract The aim of this study is to explore the idea of philosophy as a path to happiness in medieval Arabic philosophy. The starting point is in comparison of two distinct currents within Arabic philosophy between the 10th and early 11th centuries, Peripatetic philosophy, represented by al-Fārābī and Ibn Sīnā, and Ismaili philosophy represented by al-Kirmānī and the Brethren of Purity. These two distinct groups of sources initially offer two contrasting views about philosophy. The attitude of the Peripatetic philosophers is rationalistic and secular in spirit, whereas for the Ismailis philosophy represents the esoteric truth behind revelation. Still, the two currents of thought converge in their view that the ultimate purpose of philosophy lies in its ability to lead man towards happiness. Moreover, they share a common concept of happiness as a contemplative ideal of human perfection, merged together with the Neoplatonic goal of the soul’s reascent to the spiritual world. Finally, for both happiness refers primarily to an otherworldly state thereby becoming a philosophical interpretation of the Quranic accounts of the afterlife.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary Essay"
    Muhammad Abdullah (19154) Book 4 Chapter 5 "Summary Essay" This chapter on 'The Peripatetic School' talks about this school and its decline. By 'peripatetic', it means the school of thought of Aristotle. Moreover, 'The Peripatetic School' was a philosophy school in Ancient Greece. And obviously its teachings were found and inspired by Aristotle. Other than that, its followers were called, 'Peripatetic'. At first, the school was a base for Macedonian influence in Athens. The school in earlier days -and in Aristotle's times- was distinguished by doing research in every field, like, botany, zoology, and many more. It tried to solve problems in every subject/field. It also gathered earlier views and writings of philosophers who came before. First, it talks about the difference in botanical writings of Theophrastus and Aristotle. Theophrastus was the successor of Aristotle in the Peripatetic School. He was a plant biologist. Theophrastus wrote treatises in many areas of philosophy to improve and comment-on Aristotle's writings. In addition to this, Theophrastus built his own writings upon the writings of earlier philosophers. The chapter then differentiates between Lyceum (The Peripatetic School) and Ptolemaic Alexandria. Moreover, after Aristotle, Theophrastus and Strato shifted the focus of peripatetic philosophy to more of empiricism and materialism. One of Theophrastus' most important works is 'Metaphysics' or 'A Fragment'. This work is important in the sense that it raises important questions. This work seems to object Aristotle's work of Unmoved Mover. Theophrastus states that there's natural phenomenon at work. However, some interpretations suggest that Theophrastus goes against Platonist. Theophrastus says, "...the universe is an organized system in which the same degree of purposefulness and goodness should not be expected at every level." Additionally, the chapter points out that objecting the writings and building your own work upon it is what the 'real' Aristotelian way of doing work is.
    [Show full text]
  • Iamblichus and Julian''s ''Third Demiurge'': a Proposition
    Iamblichus and Julian”s ”Third Demiurge”: A Proposition Adrien Lecerf To cite this version: Adrien Lecerf. Iamblichus and Julian”s ”Third Demiurge”: A Proposition . Eugene Afonasin; John M. Dillon; John F. Finamore. Iamblichus and the Foundations of Late Platonism, 13, BRILL, p. 177-201, 2012, Ancient Mediterranean and Medieval Texts and Contexts. Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic Tradition, 10.1163/9789004230118_012. hal-02931399 HAL Id: hal-02931399 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02931399 Submitted on 6 Sep 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Iamblichus and Julian‟s “Third Demiurge”: A Proposition Adrien Lecerf Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris, France [email protected] ABSTRACT. In the Emperor Julian's Oration To the Mother of the Gods, a philosophical interpretation of the myth of Cybele and Attis, reference is made to an enigmatic "third Demiurge". Contrary to a common opinion identifying him to the visible Helios (the Sun), or to tempting identifications to Amelius' and Theodorus of Asine's three Demiurges, I suggest that a better idea would be to compare Julian's text to Proclus' system of Demiurges (as exposed and explained in a Jan Opsomer article, "La démiurgie des jeunes dieux selon Proclus", Les Etudes Classiques, 71, 2003, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • The Presocratics in the Doxographical Tradition. Sources, Controversies, and Current Research*
    THE PRESOCRATICS IN THE DOXOGRAPHICAL TRADITION. SOURCES, CONTROVERSIES, AND CURRENT RESEARCH* Han Baltussen Abstract In this paper I present a synthetic overview of recent and ongoing research in the field of doxography, that is, the study of the nature, transmission and interrelations of sources for ancient Greek philosophy. The latest revisions of the theory of Hermann Diels (Doxographi Graeci 1879) regarding the historiography ought to be known more widely, as they still influence our understanding of the Presocratics and their reception. The scholarly study on the compilations of Greek philosophical views from Hellenistic and later periods has received a major boost by the first of a projected three-volume study by Mansfeld and Runia (1997). Taking their work as a firm basis I also describe my own work in this area and how it can be related to, and fitted into, this trend by outlining how two important sources for the historiography of Greek philosophy, Theo- phrastus (4th–3rd c. BCE) and Simplicius (early 6th c. AD) stand in a special relation to each other and form an important strand in the doxographical tradition. Introduction In this paper I present a review of recent research on the study of the Presocratics in the doxographical tradition, and how my own work in progress is connected to this area of research. By setting out recent, ongoing and forthcoming research I hope to make a con- tribution to mapping out some important characteristics of the field by way of a critical study of its main sources, since it is quite important that these new insights are more widely known.
    [Show full text]
  • Walter Nicgorski: Cicero on Aristotle and Aristotelians 35 and the Teachings of the Peripatetic School Founded by Aristotle
    WALTER NICGORSKI Cicero on Aristotle and Aristotelians ABSTRACT: Set against tendencies in the Renaissance and later political theory to see Cicero in tension with Aristotle, this research essay reports the results of a close study of all of Cicero’s texts that bear on his reading, understanding and assessment of Aristotle and the Peripatetic school. The essay necessarily attends to Cicero’s sources for his encoun- ter with Aristotle and affirms, with some qualifications, Cicero’s overall continuity with the moral and political thought of Aristotle. KEYWORDS: Aristotle, Cicero, Socrates, Theophrastus, Peripatetic, New Academy, Rhetoric, Stoic, Dialogues, Virtue, Equality, Petrarch. [M]y philosophical writings differing very little from Peri- patetic teachings, for both I and those men wish to follow in the Socratic and Platonic tradition… (Cicero, De Officiis I. 2) cicero was rome’s “best Aristotelian”. (dante)1 The authority of the American Declaration of Independen- ce rests in part on its drawing from “elementary books of public right as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc.” (Tho- mas Jefferson, 1824/1973. 12) This research essay provides the basis, in cicero’s own writings, to see his moral and political thinking as a significant Roman manifestation of political Aristo- telianism. It examines closely his assessment of Aristotle’s political legacy and the necessary preliminary topic of cicero’s sources for understanding Aristotle 1 This was dante’s judgement according to A. E. Douglas (1965, 162) and Paul Renucci (1954, 331). A seemingly different claim made by the 20th century scholar Ernest Fortin (1996, 33) was that cicero and Varro are “Plato’s roman disciples.” WALTER NICGORSKI: CICERO ON ARISTOTLE AND ARISTOTELIANS 35 and the teachings of the Peripatetic school founded by Aristotle.
    [Show full text]
  • Tomasz Stępień Remarks on Neoplatonism As a Synthesis of Ancient Thought
    Tomasz Stępień Remarks on Neoplatonism as a synthesis of ancient thought Studia Philosophiae Christianae 39/1, 196-209 2003 and distinct) worked through its own inertia to lead its adherents into positions difficult to reconcile with supernatural faith and especially with revealed truths and, therefore, was gradually conducing to laici- zation of thinking and reinforcing modern secularism23. TOMASZ STĘPIEŃ Wydział Teologiczny UKSW REMARKS ON NEOPLATONISM AS A SYNTHESIS OF ANCIENT THOUGHT PREFACE As we know, Neoplatonism was the last philosophical system created by ancient pagan philosophers. This system was very at­ tractive to Christian thinkers, who made it a basis for explaining Christian faith. Therefore it became a part of Christian philosophy of Middle Ages. In the same time, when in Europe falling Roman Empire left almost no culture and philosophy in the west, in the eastern lands conquered by Arabs, Greek texts were translated into Arabic, and the dawn of Arabic philosophy began. Writings of Ari­ stotle became the most popular, however Arabic philosophers read those texts in a neoplatonic way, because neoplatonic pagan philo­ sophers considered the thought of Aristotle as a part of their sys­ tem and interpreted it in a specific way. All this may seem obvious but at the beginning I would like to show how important Neoplatonism is to understand both Christian and Arabic philosophy. Proper understanding of Neoplatonism is not a simple thing. Last few decades brought a lot of new studies on Neoplatonism, and it becomes clear, that many things must be revised in understanding of neoplatonic thought. Those studies ha­ ve shown a new vision of the last pagan system.
    [Show full text]
  • Rhythm in Physiology - Peripatetic School's Problems (4Th Cent
    Rhythm in Physiology - Peripatetic School's Problems (4th cent. BC) Extrait du Rhuthmos https://rhuthmos.eu/spip.php?article2075 Rhythm in Physiology - Peripatetic School's Problems (4th cent. BC) - Recherches - Le rythme dans les sciences et les arts contemporains - Médecine - Nouvel article - Date de mise en ligne : jeudi 9 novembre 2017 Rhuthmos Copyright © Rhuthmos Page 1/6 Rhythm in Physiology - Peripatetic School's Problems (4th cent. BC) Previous chapter NB : This text is a section of larger work on rhythm in Antiquity. Rhythm in Physiology - Peripatetic School's Problems (4th cent. BC) In the Á¿²»®¼±Ä± - Problems, which is an Aristotelian or more probably pseudo-Aristotelian collection of questions and answers gradually assembled by members of the peripatetic school, the concept of rhythm mutates again. The gap between the Aristotelian sophisticated analyses developed in Rhetoric and Poetics and the gross definitions given in passing in this collection suggests that it may have been written by one or several different hands. It also shows the surfacing of a new trend of thought. Maybe under the influence of possible similar uses by physicians of the Hippocratic school (mid-5th c. to mid-4th c. BC), the term rhythm is now defined as what is "measured by definite [or divided] movement." It is used to denote the regular respiration of runners when they jog without excess : "As soon as they begin to run they breathe, and as their breathing is coming regularly because it is measured by regular movement, it produces a rhythm." When someone is sitting or walking, the rhythm of his/her breath is difficult to observe ; but it is the same if someone runs to fast.
    [Show full text]
  • The Concept of Presocratic Philosophy Its Origin, Development
    © Copyright, Princeton University Press. No part of this book may be distributed, posted, or reproduced in any form by digital or mechanical means without prior written permission of the publisher. CHAPTER 1 ~ Presocratics: Ancient Antecedents The term “PresOcratIc” Is a modern creatIOn. The earlI- est attestation discovered so far is found in a manual of the univer- sal history of philosophy published in 1788 by J.- A. Eberhard (the addressee of a famous letter by Kant): one section is entitled “Pre- socratic Philosophy” (“vorsokratische Philosophie”).1 But the idea that there is a major caesura between Socrates and what preceded him goes back to Antiquity. In order to understand the modern debates that have developed around the Presocratics, it is indispensable to go back to these ancient Presocratics, whom by convention I pro- pose to designate “pre- Socratics” (in lowercase, and with a hyphen), in order to distinguish them from the “Presocratics,” the historio- graphical category to whose creation they contributed but under which they cannot be entirely subsumed. Even if undeniable simi- larities make the ancient “pre- Socratics” the natural ancestors of our modern Presocratics, the differences between the two groups are in fact not less significant, in particular with regard to the stakes involved in both of them. Antiquity knew of two ways to conceive of the dividing line be- tween what preceded Socrates and what followed him: either Soc- rates abandoned a philosophy of nature for the sake of a philosophy of man (this is the perspective that I shall call Socratic- Ciceronian, which also includes Xenophon), or he passed from a philosophy of things to a philosophy of the concept (this is the Platonic- Aristotelian tradition).
    [Show full text]
  • The Presocratics
    1 The Presocratics Preliminaries The writings of the Presocratics are substantial – the standard edition of their works (by Hermann Diels, 1922, revised by Walther Kranz, 1961) contains three large volumes – and so we are immediately faced with the problem of text selection discussed in the Introduction. There is, in addition, another significant problem when it comes to the source material of Presocratic philosophy: it is fragmentary in nature. Further- more, the fragments are of two kinds (at least according to Diels): some (the “A” fragments) are reports about the Presocratics given by other ancient thinkers, while others seem to be original to the thinkers them- selves (“B”). Trying to defend a coherent interpretation of these fragments is a monumental challenge for a philological detective. The “A” fragments pose a unique difficulty. For example, several of the most extensive of them come from Aristotle. But, as one scholar, echoing the complaint made by Kingsley cited in the Introduction, says, “Aristotle focuses narrowly on exactly that aspect of [his predecessors’] theories which is of relevance to his own intellectual concerns” (Inwood The Presocratics 11 RTAC01 11 27/2/04, 3:07 PM 2001, p. 73). In short, Aristotle may not give us an objective or accurate account of the Presocratics. In this chapter, all my citations of the Presocratics will be from Diels and will be indicated by using his notation (for example, A12, B34). Unless mentioned otherwise in the notes, translations are my own. Before beginning, however, a small step backwards must be taken. The first author to be discussed in this book will not be a philosopher at all.
    [Show full text]