DOCSLIB.ORG

Theophrastus Against the Presocratics and Plato Philosophia Anti Qua a Series of Studies on Ancient Philosophy Founded by J.H

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Theophrastus Against the Presocratics and Plato Philosophia Anti Qua a Series of Studies on Ancient Philosophy Founded by J.H THEOPHRASTUS AGAINST THE PRESOCRATICS AND PLATO PHILOSOPHIA ANTI QUA A SERIES OF STUDIES ON ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY FOUNDED BY J.H. WASZINKt AND W.J. VERDENIUSt EDITED BY J. MANSFELD, D.T. RUNIA J.C.M. VANWINDEN VOLUME LXXXVI H. BALTUSSEN THEOPHRASTUS AGAINST THE PRESOCRATICS AND PLATO THEOPHRASTUS AGAINST THE PRESOCRATICS AND PLATO PERIPATETIC DIALECTIC IN THE DE SENSIBUS BY H. BALTUSSEN BRILL LEIDEN · BOSTON · KOLN 2000 This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Baltussen, H. Theophrastus against the Presocratics and Plato : peripatetic dialectic in the De sensibus I by H. Baltussen. p cm.-(Philosophia antiqua, ISSN 0079-1687; v. 86) Revision of the author's thesis (doctoral)--Leeds University, 1993. Includes bibliographical references (p.) and indexes. ISBN 9004117202 (cloth : aslk. paper) I. Theophrastus. De sensibus. 2. Perception (Philosophy) 3. Senses and sensation. 4. Pre-Socratic philosophers. 5. Plato. I. Tide. II. Series. B626.T33 D433 2000 185-dc21 00-039800 CIP Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnalune Baltussen, H.: Theophrastus against the presocratics and Plato : peripatetic dialectic in the de sensibus I by H. Baltussen .. ~ Leiden ; Boston ; Koln : Brill, 2000 (Philosophia antiqua ; Vol. 86) ISBN 90-04-11720-2 ISSN 0079-1687 ISBN 90 04 II 720 2 © Copyright 2000 by Koninklijke Brill.Nv, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part if this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval.rystem, or transmitted in any .form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or othenvise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items .for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate .foes are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 2 2 2 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are su!Jject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS For Angelique, Sanne & Thomas TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ..................................................................... Xl Abbreviations - Notice to the Reader ...................................... Xlll General Introduction ................................................................. 1. Preface .............................................................................. 2. Reasons for a New Analysis .............................................. 4 3. Aims ................................................................................. .. 5 4. Excursus: Type oflnvestigation .......................................... 6 5. General Order of Exposition ............................................ 8 Chapter One. Theophrastus' De sensibus I!JS) .. .......................... .. 11 1. Date and Transmission of the DS ...................................... .. 12 2. Content and General Structure of the DS ........................ .. 15 2.1. Subject Matter: Part I (DS 1-2) ................................ 16 2.2. Part II: On Sense Perception (DS 3-58) .................. .. 18 2.3. Part III: On Sense Objects (DS 59-92) .................... .. 22 2. 4. Some Criteria of Selection ....................................... 24 3. Previous Interpretations .................................................... 25 4. Strategy ............................................................................. 29 Chapter Two. Peripatetic Method: Dialectic and Doxography 31 l. Interpreting Aristotle's Topics .............................................. 32 1.1. Dialectic as Training in Consistency ...................... .. 34 1.2. Endoxa ......................................................................... 39 1.3. Conclusion: Critical Endoxograplry .............................. .. 41 2. Applied Dialectic or Dealing with Doxai ............................ 42 2.1. Plrys. ~ ....................................................................... 44 2.2. The Search for Archai ................................................ .. 45 2.3. Summary .................................................................. 55 3. Theophrastus on Method ................................................. 56 3.1. Outline ofTheophrastus' Methodology .................. 56 3.2. Authorial Remarks Concerning Method ................ .. 60 3.3. Discussions of Doxai .................................................. .. 62 3.4. Conclusion .............................................................. .. 70 Vlll TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Three. Theories of Perception: Positions and Arguments.......................................................................... 71 1. Theophrastus and the Tradition........................................ 72 1. 1. Perception as Part of Physics . 74 1.2. Theophrastus on Perception..................................... 78 1.3. Doctrine: A Shorthand Guide .................................. 83 2. Tracing Theophrastus' Views in the DS............................ 86 2.1. Technical Terms and Other Details ........................ 87 2.2. Judgmental Elements ............................................... 90 3. Conclusion ........................................................................ 93 Chapter Four. Theophrastus' De sensibusand Plato's Timaeus .... 95 1. Plato in DS ........................................................................... 98 1.1. Plato on A is thesis ....................................................... 99 1.2. Form and Contents ofTheophrastus' Excerpts ....... 102 2. The Report (DS 83-86) ...................................................... 108 3. Criticisms of Plato's Theory (DS 87-92) ............................ 120 4. Theophrastus' (ln)dependence in Relation to Aristotle .... 126 5. Conclusions ....................................................................... 129 Appendix (Reaction to a Recent Article [ch. 4, n.8.]) ..... 136 Chapter Five. Theophrastus' Criticisms of the Presocratics ...... 140 1. Theophrastus' Method in his Criticisms ........................... 140 1.1. Previous Interpretations ........................................... 140 1.2. Appeal to Authority: Qualified Doxai ....................... 145 2. Aspects of Structure and Presentation .............................. 146 2 .1. Remarks on Structure in DS 1-2 .............................. 147 2.2. Problems ofClassification ........................................ 150 2.3. Attention for Detail: Plato and Democritus ............. 152 3. The Critical Arguments Against the Protagonists ............ 155 3.1. The Criticisms of Empedocles ................................. 156 3.2. The Protagonist of the 'Contrast Party': Anaxagoras .............................................................. 169 4. The Dossier Extended: Diogenes and Democritus ........... 178 4.1. The Criticisms ofDiogenes (DS 39-48) .................... 178 4.2. Against Democritus (49-58) ..................................... 185 5. Argumentative Principles: Some Preliminary Results ...... 192 TABLE OF CONTENTS ix Chapter Six. Applied Dialectic in DS: In Search of Archaz? ....... 195 I. A Typology of Arguments ................................................ 195 I. I. Recurrent Argument Forms .................................... 196 1.2. Non Standard Arguments ........................................ 211 2. Dialectic and Archai ............................................................. 215 2.1. Arche: Its Meaning and Use in Aristotle ................... 216 2.2. Archai in DS ................................................................. 222 3. Theophrastus on Basic Principles ..................................... 225 3.1. Archai and Dialectic in DS .......................................... 225 3.2. Two Exceptions? How to Rescue the Argument.. ... 227 3.3. Conclusion ............................................................... 229 4. Summary ........................................................................... 230 Chapter Seven. Epilogue: Results and Outlook ......................... 234 I. Results: Importance of the Present Study ......................... 235 2. Outlook: Doxography and What Remains to be Done .... 239 Appendices ................................................................................. 247 A. Textual Problems .............................................................. 247 B. A Bibliography on Theophrastus' De sensibus .................... 250 C. (Qualified) Doxai in Theophrastus ..................................... 256 D. Arche/Archai in Theophrastus ............................................ 258 Bibliography ............................................................................... 259 Indices ........................................................................................ 273 General Index ................................................................... 273 Index Loco rum ................................................................. 279 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The analysis presented in this book is a revised version of my Ph.D. dissertation ( 1993), written under the guidance of Prof. dr. J. Mansfeld and Dr. H.B. Gottschalk (Leeds University). Since then it has been neglected for a while, revised and finally put into its present shape. My only excuse for renewed publication after such a long time is that as a dissertation it would not receive serious attention (for whatever reason), and that my travels and my work took me into new subjects and new places. But I never went far away from the issues discussed in the dissertation and with a new edition of the Greek text of De sensibus in preparation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Aristotle's Methods
    3 History and Dialectic Metaphysics A 3, 983a24-4b8 Rachel Barney In Metaphysics A 3, Aristotle undertakes to confirm his system of the four causes as a framework for inquiry into first principles, the knowledge of which will constitute wisdom. His strategy will be to survey his philosophical predecessors, in order to establish that none has supplied a cause which cannot be subsumed under his own canonical four. Thus A 3 inaugurates a project not completed until the end of A 6—or, taken more inclusively, A 10, since A 7 summarizes its results, chapters 8 and 9 develop criticisms of some of the views discussed, and chapter 10 reads as a summation of the whole.1 (Much of Metaphysics α also reads, appropriately enough, like a series of reflections on this project: I will note its relevance on occasion below.) Our concern here is with the opening phase of this project. Here Aris- totle discusses the steps taken by the earliest philosophers and their successors towards determining the material cause, which led in turn to recognizing its inadequacy as sole first principle [archê]. I divide the text of A 3, 983a24-4b8 into five moves: (1) the introduction of the project (983a24-3b6); (2) the account of the reasoning of the first philosophers (983b6-20); (3) a discussion of Thales, with an excursus on his putative predecessors among the poets (983b20-4a5); (4) * I would like to thank all the participants in the Symposium Aristotelicum meeting for discussion of this paper, as well as Victor Caston, Nathan Gilbert, Phillip Horky, Brad Inwood, Stephen Menn, and Robin Smith for their comments.
    [Show full text]
  • Names of Botanical Genera Inspired by Mythology
    Names of botanical genera inspired by mythology Iliana Ilieva * University of Forestry, Sofia, Bulgaria. GSC Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2021, 14(03), 008–018 Publication history: Received on 16 January 2021; revised on 15 February 2021; accepted on 17 February 2021 Article DOI: https://doi.org/10.30574/gscbps.2021.14.3.0050 Abstract The present article is a part of the project "Linguistic structure of binomial botanical denominations". It explores the denominations of botanical genera that originate from the names of different mythological characters – deities, heroes as well as some gods’ attributes. The examined names are picked based on “Conspectus of the Bulgarian vascular flora”, Sofia, 2012. The names of the plants are arranged in alphabetical order. Beside each Latin name is indicated its English common name and the family that the particular genus belongs to. The article examines the etymology of each name, adding a short account of the myth based on which the name itself is created. An index of ancient authors at the end of the article includes the writers whose works have been used to clarify the etymology of botanical genera names. Keywords: Botanical genera names; Etymology; Mythology 1. Introduction The present research is a part of the larger project "Linguistic structure of binomial botanical denominations", based on “Conspectus of the Bulgarian vascular flora”, Sofia, 2012 [1]. The article deals with the botanical genera appellations that originate from the names of different mythological figures – deities, heroes as well as some gods’ attributes. According to ICBN (International Code of Botanical Nomenclature), "The name of a genus is a noun in the nominative singular, or a word treated as such, and is written with an initial capital letter (see Art.
    [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]
  • John Duns Scotus's Metaphysics of Goodness
    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 11-16-2015 John Duns Scotus’s Metaphysics of Goodness: Adventures in 13th-Century Metaethics Jeffrey W. Steele University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the Medieval History Commons, Philosophy Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Scholar Commons Citation Steele, Jeffrey W., "John Duns Scotus’s Metaphysics of Goodness: Adventures in 13th-Century Metaethics" (2015). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/6029 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. John Duns Scotus’s Metaphysics of Goodness: Adventures in 13 th -Century Metaethics by Jeffrey Steele A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Thomas Williams, Ph.D. Roger Ariew, Ph.D. Colin Heydt, Ph.D. Joanne Waugh, Ph.D Date of Approval: November 12, 2015 Keywords: Medieval Philosophy, Transcendentals, Being, Aquinas Copyright © 2015, Jeffrey Steele DEDICATION To the wife of my youth, who with patience and long-suffering endured much so that I might gain a little knowledge. And to God, fons de bonitatis . She encouraged me; he sustained me. Both have blessed me. “O taste and see that the LORD is good; How blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him!!” --Psalm 34:8 “You are the boundless good, communicating your rays of goodness so generously, and as the most lovable being of all, every single being in its own way returns to you as its ultimate end.” –John Duns Scotus, De Primo Principio Soli Deo Gloria .
    [Show full text]
  • Plutarch and Parmenides HERSHBELL, JACKSON P Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1972; 13, 2; Proquest Pg
    Plutarch and Parmenides HERSHBELL, JACKSON P Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1972; 13, 2; ProQuest pg. 193 Plutarch and Parmenides Jackson P. Hershbell LTHOUGH PLUTARCH is not a major source for interpretation of A Parmenides' poem, he preserves several fragments: B1.29-30; B8.4; B13, B14 and B15, the last two of which would otherwise be lost.1 He also makes observations on Parmenides' style and thought, and relates one biographical incident.2 Scholars of Plutarch and Parmenides are divided, however, on at least two problems: (1) What was the extent of Plutarch's knowledge ofParmenides, e.g. did he possess a copy of the complete poem, or was he working with second-hand sources such·as compendia 13 (2) How reliable and worth­ while is his interpretation of Parmenides 1 Among those denying Plutarch extensive knowledge of Parmen ides are Fairbanks, Ziegler and Taran. According to Ziegler, Plutarch gave more attention to Parmenides than to Xenophanes, "aber doch nicht eingehender studiert."4 Taran also remarks, "Plutarch's knowledge of Parmenides' text does not appear to have been extensive."5 H. Martin Jr and R. Westman, however, take a positive view. According to Mar­ tin, "Plutarch must have known Parmenides well, though he inter­ preted him anachronistically from a Platonicviewpoint."6 On Martin's latter point there seems to be no scholarly disagreement, though Westman's remark that Plutarch's conception of the relationship be­ tween 'A'\~O€ta; and Lloga in Parmenides' poem "war fur einen, der in 1 The list of quotations in W. C. Helmbold and E.
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotle and the Privation Theory of Evil
    Aristotle and the Privation Theory of Evil Jonathan J. Sanford, PhD Franciscan University of Steubenville [email protected] Though it conflicts with the standard narrative concerning the historical development of the privation theory of evil, it is nevertheless true that the notion that evil is not simply a privation but a privation of a due good has roots in Aristotle’s Metaphysics Theta. This book is Aristotle’s most complete account of being in the sense of actuality and potentiality, and its internal coherency and far reaching implications are often overlooked in commentaries on the Metaphysics, where most of the ink is spilled over books Zeta and Lambda. In this presentation I focus on Metaphysics Theta, chapter 9, draw upon some of the very fine work on this book of the Metaphysics which has been done in recent years, and try to lay out the case that a mature privation theory of evil is not simply compatible with Aristotle’s metaphysics but deployed therein and with profound implications for other areas of his thought. I. The Standard Narrative Before turning to the text of Metaphysics Theta 9, let’s consider a few features of what I identify as the standard narrative. It is Plotinus himself who emphasizes the distance of his own account from Aristotle’s when in Ennead II.4. 16, 3-8 he rejects the Aristotelian distinction between matter and privation. For Plotinus, matter itself is privation, and in Ennead I.8 matter is identified with evil. It is no secret that Aristotle maintains a notion of privation (steresis), and introduces it in Physics I.7 as one of the three principles (archai) of nature, describes its several senses in Metaphysics V.22 and examines it in the context of contrariety (enantiōsin) in 1 Metaphysics X.4.
    [Show full text]
  • The Concept of Cosmos in Milesian Philosophy
    The Concept of Cosmos in Milesian Philosophy Viivi Lähteenoja 19 July 2017 Tiedekunta/Osasto – Fakultet/Sektion – Laitos – Institution – Department Faculty Humanistinen tiedekunta Filosofian, historian, kulttuurin ja taiteiden tutkimuksen laitos Tekijä – Författare – Author Viivi Esteri Lähteenoja Työn nimi – Arbetets titel – Title The Concept of Cosmos in Milesian Philosophy Oppiaine – Läroämne – Subject Teoreettinen filosofia Työn laji – Arbetets art – Aika – Datum – Month and Sivumäärä– Sidoantal – Number of pages Level year Pro gradu -tutkielma 19 heinäkuuta 2017 83 Tiivistelmä – Referat – Abstract Tämä tutkielma käsittelee kreikan sanan kosmos käyttöä aikaisessa esisokraattisessa filosofiassa, eli miletoslaisten Thaleen, Anaksimandroksen, sekä Anaksimeneen ajattelussa. Tutkielman tavoite on haastaa nykyään yleinen ajatus siitä, että miletoslaiset olisivat olleet puhtaita luonnonfilosofeja, tutkimalla moniselitteisen kosmos-sanan käyttöä. Tämä saavutetaan kokoamalla kaikki näitä ajattelijoita koskevat tekstit, joissa kyseinen sana esiintyy. Ensin tekstit käännetään alkukielestä ja ne analysoidaan filologisesti. Filologisten havaintojen perusteella tekstit asetetaan seuraavaksi niiden filosofiseen kontekstiin, jolloin voidaan osallistua kirjallisuudessa käytävään keskusteluun näiden ajattelijoiden kokonaisfilosofiasta. Lopuksi esitetään vielä excursus liittyen kahteen muuhun keskeiseen esisokraattiseen termiin, phusis ja arkhê. Taustalla tässä työtavassa on ajatus siitä, että esisokraattisen filosofian tutkimuksessa on vuosisatojen
    [Show full text]
  • Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy,  (), – at – )
    Offprint from OXFORDSTUDIES INANCIENT PHILOSOPHY EDITOR:BRADINWOOD VOLUMEXLIX 3 MAKINGSENSEOF STOICINDIFFERENTS JACOBKLEIN . Introduction A to the older Stoics, virtue is the only good and the sole constituent of happiness, but certain ordinary objects of desire, such as health and wealth, possess a kind of value that makes them fitting objects of pursuit. These items are indifferent, the Stoics say, but nonetheless promoted. Though health and wealth make no con- tribution to the human good, the Stoics argue that we are to pursue them whenever circumstances allow. Indeed, a failure to maintain one’s health and wealth in ordinary circumstances is a failure of ra- tionality and an impediment to virtue, in their view. This doctrine has provoked criticism in ancient commentators and puzzlement in modern ones. An ancient line of criticism— prominent in Plutarch and Alexander of Aphrodisias—can be © Jacob Klein For help with this paper, I especially thank Terry Irwin and Tad Brennan. Terry patiently read, commented on, and discussed early drafts, helping me formulate and sharpen my claims. Though I have ventured to disagree with him, I am grateful for the skill and patience with which he pressed me to clarify my views. Tad Brennan provided input and guidance at a later stage. I owe much to his work on Stoicism and to our conversations over the years. I am especially grateful for feedback re- ceived from students in his graduate course on Stoic ethics, offered at Cornell Uni- versity in the Spring of . Brad Inwood provided extensive comments on later drafts, correcting mistakes and suggesting improvements.
    [Show full text]
  • Shared Structural Design of Herbal Descriptions in Šammušikinšu
    chapter 21 At the Dawn of Plant Taxonomy: Shared Structural Design of Herbal Descriptions in Šammu šikinšu and Theophrastus’Historia plantarum IX Maddalena Rumor* Case Western Reserve University When we think of the first scientific developments in botany we think of Theophrastus (ca. 370–ca. 287BCE), who, for many good reasons, earned the appellative of “Father of Botany”. His treatise Historia plantarum,1 which ap- peared ca. 300BCE, is considered the earliest fully-surviving example of Pre- Linnaean plant taxonomy (a systematic effort to describe, classify and name plants).2 But to what degree are the principles and the reasoning behind this remarkable achievement an exclusive product of Greek culture and the philo- sophical school to which Theophrastus owed so much? Is it possible to recog- nize elements of that same systematic thinking in an earlier scholarly milieu of the ancient world? Focusing merely on one aspect of taxonomy, namely on the description of medicinal plants, the present article explores the simple but important idea that a very precise method was already in place prior to Theophrastus for describing herbal remedies and that this method was not uniquely Greek, even * I feel privileged to have had Mark Geller as my teacher. Not only his deep knowledge, but also his endless enthusiasm and insightful intuition have always been an inspiration during my graduate studies. It is with great pleasure and gratitude that I offer this small essay to him. I would also like to thank Henry Stadhouders for kindly reading the manuscript of this article and for offering many valuable suggestions.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Taxonomy
    History of Taxonomy The history of taxonomy dates back to the origin of human language. Western scientific taxonomy started in Greek some hundred years BC and are here divided into prelinnaean and postlinnaean. The most important works are cited and the progress of taxonomy (with the focus on botanical taxonomy) are described up to the era of the Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus, who founded modern taxonomy. The development after Linnaeus is characterized by a taxonomy that increasingly have come to reflect the paradigm of evolution. The used characters have extended from morphological to molecular. Nomenclatural rules have developed strongly during the 19th and 20th century, and during the last decade traditional nomenclature has been challenged by advocates of the Phylocode. Mariette Manktelow Dept of Systematic Biology Evolutionary Biology Centre Uppsala University Norbyv. 18D SE-752 36 Uppsala E-mail: [email protected] 1. Pre-Linnaean taxonomy 1.1. Earliest taxonomy Taxonomy is as old as the language skill of mankind. It has always been essential to know the names of edible as well as poisonous plants in order to communicate acquired experiences to other members of the family and the tribe. Since my profession is that of a systematic botanist, I will focus my lecture on botanical taxonomy. A taxonomist should be aware of that apart from scientific taxonomy there is and has always been folk taxonomy, which is of great importance in, for example, ethnobiological studies. When we speak about ancient taxonomy we usually mean the history in the Western world, starting with Romans and Greek. However, the earliest traces are not from the West, but from the East.
    [Show full text]
  • Platonic Interpretation in Aulus Gellius Tarrant, H a S Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1996; 37, 2; Proquest Pg
    Platonic interpretation in Aulus Gellius Tarrant, H A S Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1996; 37, 2; ProQuest pg. 173 Platonic Interpretation in Aulus Gellius H. A. S. Tarrant THOUGH IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE that historians of philos­ ophy prefer to deal with material from the philosophers' 1\own works, the works of informed amateurs can often say much about the intellectual world in which they lived, and may supplement comparatively meagre information from the pens of esteemed professionals. The Platonism of the second century is particularly prone to this problem, with a much fuller picture being built with the help of those whom we are inclined to think of only secondarily as philosophers. Plutarch can be fitted into this category in spite of his standing in philosophy. The figures of Theon of Smyrna, Apuleius, and Maximus of Tyre all contribute considerably to the picture of a vital new Pla­ tonism, which none of them has quite seemed to master. Many principal figures wi thin the philosophical schools, such as Taurus, Atticus, and Numenius, are by contrast known only from fragments, and these fragments frequently derive from non-philosophers. Much of what is known of Taurus comes from Aulus Gellius, himself no theorist.! His Noctes Atticae mark the reflections of a fairly conservative, practically minded Roman on his educa­ tional experiences in Greece. The issues about which he writes are sometimes interesting, sometimes less so, sometimes of far­ reaching importance, sometimes of curiosity-value only. All are treated quite briefly, from the simplest matters of etymology and pseudo-etymology to the treatment of the most far­ reaching ethical questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotle's Ethics
    PHI102 EXAMEN PHILOSOPHICUM – RANI LILL ANJUM Lecture 6: Aristotle’s Ethics What makes us Human? Happiness has intrinsic value. Money only has instrumental In Aristotle’s ontology, all things have both Form and Matter. The value. We want it for what we can get with it. Form is what makes something essentially the kind of thing The greatest Happiness (EUDAIMONIA) has three qualities that that it is. X is a Chair. X is a Horse. What is, then, the Form of make it the ultimate aim or TELOS of all our actions: Human? What makes us essentially human? . Happiness is desirable in itself. We saw in Plato that we should try to be like our Form: the more . Happiness is not desirable because it brings other goods. we resemble the perfect, ideal Form, the better we are as . All other goods are desirable because they lead to Happiness. Humans. Aristotle did not believe in separately existing non- material Forms, but he did believe that our Form gives us a potential to fulfil. Happiness = living a life of virtue To be a virtuous human, we should fulfil our function as Humans. Aristotle thought that Happiness (EUDAIMONIA) comes from living But what is this function? In order to see this, we must look at the good life. This is not primarily a life of pleasure, but of what it is that distinguishes humans from other things. virtue (ARETE). We become happy when we fulfil our potential in a virtuous way. But we need both intellectual and moral virtues. We must also actualise potentials of our rational soul.
    [Show full text]