DOCSLIB.ORG

Aristotle's Sophistical Refutations: a Translation with Introduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Aristotle's Sophistical Refutations: a Translation with Introduction Aristotle’s Sophistical Refutations: A Translation with Introduction, Commentary, and Appendices John Myles McCarthy A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the department of Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Boston College Morrissey College of Arts and Sciences Graduate School September, 2018 © Copyright 2018 JOHN MYLES MCCARTHY Aristotle’s Sophistical Refutations: A Translation with Introduction, Commentary, and Appendices John Myles McCarthy Advisor: Gary Michael Gurtler, S.J., Ph.D. ABSTRACT Aristotle’s Sophistical Refutations (SE) investigates the five devices which sophists employ to appear wise in dialogue. The sophist’s primary device is the sophistical refutation which is a particular kind of fallacy. A sophistical refutation is a merely apparent refutation. Thus, the fallacy has two causes: the “causa apparentiae” and the “causa non existentiae." A genuine refutation is a syllogism based on an interlocutor’s opinions that leads necessarily to a conclusion which contradicts some other established position of the interlocutor. The sophist desires especially the apparent refutation of his opponent because the greatest glory follows upon seeming to expose the ultimate defect in opponent’s understanding, a contradiction. The SE neither accounts for every cause of error nor every type of false reasoning; “ad” arguments like ad baculum or ad hominem are not in investigated in the SE because they are not apparent refutations. After a description of the SE’s subject matter, the dissertation’s introduction locates the role of the SE in Aristotle’s Organon and explains why a dialectician would investigate and untie sophisms. Sophistic is the sham portion of the dialectic which is a ii universal art (τέχνη) of syllogizing from endoxes to the contradiction of an interlocutor. Unlike principles of demonstrations, endoxes are premises that are in accord “with the expectation (ἔνδοξος) of all or most or the wise, and of all the latter or most or of the most knowing.” They do not need to be certain or true; instead, they must be acceptable to a dialectical opponent. Dialecticians derive endoxes from dialectical places (τόποι), i.e., extrinsic and most universal principles which usually affirm relations between logical intentions and may be employed in any given subject matter. Sophists use sophistical places which may be expressed as universal propositions and provide the foundation for the apparent reasonability of the sophistical refutations. That said, unlike dialectical places, Aristotle does not present sophistical places as universal conditional statements of logical intentions; they are presented as common distinctions—such as the distinction between the different senses of a word—that a sophist may exploit to produce a sophistical refutation. A dialectician will study sophistic for the same reasons he will learn dialectic; it is useful for exercise, conversation, and in the philosophical sciences. Moreover, investigating sophisms facilitates appreciation of distinctions that are fundamental to Aristotelian philosophy, protects the philosopher from error, and preserves his reputation. Although translation of Aristotelian logical works is difficult—especially one which contains many examples of linguistic fallacies—the dissertation provides a faithful and consistent translation of the treatise. The line by line commentary contains iii explanation of the order, purpose, and meaning of the text, clarification of Aristotle’s difficult examples, discussion of scholarly treatment of controversial passages, and references to other relevant passages in the Organon. The dissertation ends with two appendices to provide a thorough treatment of Aristotle’s two most deceptive fallacies: the fallacy of equivocation and the fallacy of the accident. The first appendix locates equivocation as a kind of proper naming (as opposed to figurative) and offers an original interpretation of Aristotle’s argument for the necessity of equivocation based on his understanding of how we name. Afterward, the appendix unfolds the nature and solution to the fallacy, explains Aristotle’s places (τόποι) for detecting equivocation, and categorizes the kinds of equivocation. The second appendix unfolds a unique and overlooked explanation of the fallacy of the accident that allows Aristotle to be read consistently, distinguishes the fallacy from the other fallacies, and accounts for Aristotle’s examples. The fallacy of the accident occurs when a middle term’s connection to one extreme term is accidental to its connection to the other. The appendix locates the fallacy through a reduction of all fallacies outside of speech to ignorance of refutation, offers four distinct meanings of ‘accident’ in Aristotle, shows which meaning Aristotle attributes to the fallacy, divides the fallacy into three species, and answers objections to its explanation. iv Table of Contents Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... x Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................. xi Introduction I: Literature Review and Subject Matter ........................................................ 1 I.I Literature Review ............................................................................................................... 1 Ancient Literature ............................................................................................................... 3 Medieval Literature ............................................................................................................ 4 Modern and Contemporary Literature............................................................................ 7 I.II Subject Matter ................................................................................................................. 13 The Meaning of Fallacy ................................................................................................... 13 What is a Sophistical Refutation? .................................................................................. 15 Introduction II: Role of Sophistical Refutations in Aristotle’s Organon ...................... 30 II. I Socrates’ Call for An Art of Arguments “τέκνη περὶ λόγος” ............................. 30 II.II What is an Art (τέχνη) of Arguments? ..................................................................... 32 Aristotle’s Meaning of Art .............................................................................................. 32 An Art of Arguments ........................................................................................................ 38 II.III A Neat Division of Arguments ................................................................................. 39 II.IV Aristotle’s Division of Syllogisms ........................................................................... 41 II.V The Sophistical Art as Part of the Dialectical Art ................................................... 43 II.VI What is Aristotelian Dialectic? ................................................................................. 44 Dialectic as an Art and Ability ....................................................................................... 44 The Premises of Dialectical Syllogisms ....................................................................... 48 Universality of Dialectic .................................................................................................. 52 II.VII The Sophist and the Dialectician. .......................................................................... 53 II.VIII Fallacies as Places ..................................................................................................... 55 Dialectical Places ............................................................................................................... 56 Sophistical Places .............................................................................................................. 62 Introduction III: Uses and Division of Sophistical Refutations ...................................... 65 III.I Uses of Dialectic in General ....................................................................................... 65 III.II Uses of Sophistic in Correlation to Uses of Dialectic in General ...................... 72 v III.III Two Uses Proper to Sophistic for Philosophy ..................................................... 75 A Third Use Proper to Sophistic for the Philosopher ................................................ 79 III.IV Division of the Sophistical Refutations ................................................................ 80 Outline of the Sophistical Refutations ......................................................................... 81 Translation ................................................................................................................................. 83 Chapter 1: Nature and Existence of Sophistical Refutations ........................................ 83 Chapter 2: Distinction of Arguments in Dialogue ......................................................... 85 Chapter 3: The Aims of the Sophist .................................................................................. 86 Chapter 4: Apparent Refutations from Speech ............................................................... 87 Chapter 5: Apparent Refutations Outside of Speech
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Cynicism of Diogenes
    DON‟T SHOOT THE MESSENGER! RETHINKING CYNICISM AND THE VALUE OF POLITICAL CRITIQUE by Suvi Maaria Irvine A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Baltimore, Maryland December 2014 ©2014 Suvi Irvine All Rights Reserved Abstract: That Americans have become cynical about politics is often taken for granted in both popular and scholarly discourse. But what does it mean to be cynical? The answer to this question is far from simple and requires an investigation into the concept‟s origins, which reside in the ancient Greek philosophy known as classical Cynicism. Diogenes of Sinope, who remains the paradigmatic Cynic, was an abrasive figure in ancient Athens whose sneers and sarcasm where essential to his commitment to „living according to nature.‟ And for Diogenes, this meant living in accordance with the truth. He distrusted the social and political motivations of his fellow Athenians, and he called them out on their hypocrisy in ways that both amused and aggravated them. But what Diogenes did, above all, was demand room for honesty and the truth in the public sphere. I propose that his example is valuable in the context of contemporary American political culture, where honesty is rare and the truth is regularly disregarded. This dissertation presents an analysis of what cynicism can do for American political culture. I first address the question of what it means to be cynical and assess how much cynicism has changed since the days of Diogenes. While it may not mirror the original in all of its aspects, I argue that at root what it means to be cynical has not changed significantly, and that we can still identify cynics in our midst through their commitment to seeking and sarcastically speaking the truth.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpretation: a Journal of Political Philosophy
    Interpretation A JOURNAL A OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Winter 1993-1994 Volume 21 Number 2 Thomas Lewis Identifying Rhetoric in the Apology: Does Socrates Use the Appeal for Pity? Joel Warren Lidz Reflections on and in Plato's Cave Bernard Jacob Aristotle's Dialectical Purposes Mary L. Bellhouse Rousseau Under Surveillance: Thoughts on a New Edition and Translation of Rousseau, Judge of Jean-Jacques: Dialogues Peter Augustine Lawler Tocqueville on Socialism and History Maurice Auerbach Carl Schmitt's Quest for the Political: Theology, Decisionism, and the Concept of the Enemy Discussion Victor Gourevich The End of History? Book Reviews Will Morrisey Self-Knowledge in Plato's Phaedrus, by Charles L. Griswold, Jr. Leslie G. Rubin Citizens and Statesmen: A Study of Aristotle's Politics, by Mary P. Nichols John S. Waggoner The Liberal Political Science of Raymond Aron: A Critical Introduction, by Daniel J. Mahoney Interpretation Editor-in-Chief Hilail Gildin, Dept. of Philosophy, Queens College Executive Editor Leonard Grey General Editors Seth G. Benardete Charles E. Butterworth Hilail Gildin Robert Horwitz (d. 1987) Howard B. White (d. 1974) Consulting Editors Christopher Bruell Joseph Cropsey Ernest L. Fortin John Hallowell (d. 1992) Harry V. Jaffa David Lowenthal Muhsin Mahdi Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr. Arnaldo Momigliano (d. 1987) Michael Oakeshott (d. 1990) Ellis Sandoz Leo Strauss (d. 1973) Kenneth W. Thompson European Editors Terence E. Marshall Heinrich Meier Editors Wayne Ambler Maurice Auerbach Fred Baumann Michael Blaustein - Patrick Coby Edward J. Erler Maureen Feder-Marcus Joseph E. Goldberg Stephen Harvey Pamela K. Jensen Ken Masugi Grant B. Mindle James W. Morris Will Morrisey Aryeh L.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy 303 the Practice of Philosophy: Modes of Philosophical Argument
    Philosophy 303 The Practice of Philosophy: Modes of Philosophical Argument TA: Carrie Swanson Email: [email protected] Office hours: After class, or by appointment (Mondays or Thursdays). Course description: This course is devoted to an examination of various modes of argumentation in the Western philosophical tradition. Our special topic this term is the art of refutation, with a special emphasis upon its origins and development in ancient Greek philosophy. Our starting point is the following remark of Aristotle (from chapter 11 of his treatise, On Sophistical Refutations): ‘Dialectic is at the same time a mode of examination as well. For neither is the art of examination an accomplishment of the same kind as geometry, but one which a man may possess, even though he has not knowledge. For it is possible even for someone who does not know the subject [scientifically] to hold an examination of one who does not know the subject, if also the latter grants him points taken not from thing that he knows or from the special principles of the subject under discussion but from all that range of consequences attaching to [the special principles of a subject] which a man may indeed know without knowing the theory of the subject, but which if he does not know, he is bound to be ignorant of the theory. So then clearly the art of examining does not consist in knowledge of any definite subject. For this reason, too, it deals with everything: for every 'theory' of anything employs also certain common principles. Hence everybody, including even amateurs, makes use in a way of dialectic and the practice of examining: for all undertake to some extent a rough trial of those who profess to know things.
    [Show full text]
  • The Heraclitus Anecdote: De Partibus Animalium I 5.645A17-23
    Ancient Philosophy 21 (2001) ©Mathesis Publications 1 The Heraclitus Anecdote: De Partibus Animalium i 5.645a17-23 Pavel Gregoric Chapter 5 of the first book of Aristotle’s De Partibus Animalium contains a short self-contained treatise (644b22-645a36) which has been characterised as a ‘protreptic to the study of animals’ (Peck in Aristotle 1937, 97). Such a charac- terisation of the treatise may be misleading, because Aristotle does not seem to have composed it in order to motivate his audience to go out in the field and study animals, but rather to kindle their interest in the scientific account of ani- mals which he is about to provide. It is reasonable to suppose that Aristotle’s audience, eager to learn something valuable and dignified, needed an explanation of why they should like to hear, amongst other animals, about sponges, snails, grubs, and other humble creatures which are displeasing even to look at, not to mention witnessing the dissections that might have accompanied Aristotle’s lec- tures on animals (cf. Bonitz 1870, 104a4-17; Lloyd 1978). Aristotle explains why such ignoble animals deserve a place in a scientific account of animals and he illustrates that with an anecdote about Heraclitus. So one must not be childishly repelled by the examination of the humbler animals. For in all things of nature there is some- thing wonderful. And just as Heraclitus is said to have spoken to the visitors who wanted to meet him and who stopped as they were approaching when they saw him warming himself by the oven (e‰don aÈtÚn yerÒmenon prÚw t“ fipn“)—he urged them to come in without fear (§k°leue går aÈtoÁw efisi°nai yarroËntaw), for there were gods there too (e‰nai går ka‹ §ntaËya yeoÊw)—so one must approach the inquiry about each animal without aversion, since in all of them there is something natural and beautiful.
    [Show full text]
  • False Dilemma Wikipedia Contents
    False dilemma Wikipedia Contents 1 False dilemma 1 1.1 Examples ............................................... 1 1.1.1 Morton's fork ......................................... 1 1.1.2 False choice .......................................... 2 1.1.3 Black-and-white thinking ................................... 2 1.2 See also ................................................ 2 1.3 References ............................................... 3 1.4 External links ............................................. 3 2 Affirmative action 4 2.1 Origins ................................................. 4 2.2 Women ................................................ 4 2.3 Quotas ................................................. 5 2.4 National approaches .......................................... 5 2.4.1 Africa ............................................ 5 2.4.2 Asia .............................................. 7 2.4.3 Europe ............................................ 8 2.4.4 North America ........................................ 10 2.4.5 Oceania ............................................ 11 2.4.6 South America ........................................ 11 2.5 International organizations ...................................... 11 2.5.1 United Nations ........................................ 12 2.6 Support ................................................ 12 2.6.1 Polls .............................................. 12 2.7 Criticism ............................................... 12 2.7.1 Mismatching ......................................... 13 2.8 See also
    [Show full text]
  • A New Testimony on the Platonist Gaius
    A New Testimony on the Platonist Gaius Michele Trizio PART FROM a single Delphic inscription (FD III.4 103), the testimonia of the life and work of second-century AMiddle Platonist Gaius fall into two classes.1 The first includes first-hand observations of later philosophers up to Proclus: Porphyry, for instance, reports that Gaius was one of several authors read regularly by Plotinus’ entourage.2 Galen tells us that he followed the classes of two of Gaius’ pupils in Pergamum and Smyrna respectively.3 As to Proclus, he twice mentions Gaius, among other Platonists, in his commentaries on the Republic and the Timaeus.4 The second class of testimonia includes statements concerning Gaius’ scholarship on Plato in three important Greek MSS. The first of these, Paris.gr. 1962, is a ninth-century MS. of the so-called ‘philosophical collection’, which, among others entries, contains a pinax at f. 146v men- tioning ᾿Αλβίνου τῶν Γαίου σχολῶν ὑποτυπώσεων πλατωνικῶν δογµάτων. That is to say, Albinus’ edition of Gaius’ scholia on 1 On Gaius and the related bibliography see J. Whittaker, “Gaius,” in R. Goulet (ed.), Dictionnaire de philosophes antiques III (Paris 2000) 437–440. All testimonia on Gaius are collected and discussed with reference to previous literature in A. Gioè, Filosofi medioplatonici del II secolo d.c. (Naples 2002). 2 V.Plot. 14, ed. P. Henry and H.-R. Schwyzer, Plotini opera I (Leiden 1951) 19.10–14. 3 De propriorum animi 41, ed. W. de Boer (CMG V.4.1.1, Leipzig 1937); Libr.propr. 2.1, ed. V. Boudon-Millot (Paris 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography on Medieval Logic: General Works a - K
    Bibliography on Medieval Logic: General Works A - K https://www.historyoflogic.com/biblio/logic-medieval-biblio.htm History of Logic from Aristotle to Gödel by Raul Corazzon | e-mail: [email protected] Selected Bibliography on Medieval Logic: General Studies. (First Part: A - K) BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Amerini, Fabrizio. 2000. "La Dottrina Della Significatio Di Francesco Da Prato O.P. (Xiv Secolo). Una Critica Tomista a Guglielmo Di Ockham." Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale no. XI:375-408. 2. Angelelli, Ignacio. 1993. "Augustinus Triumphus' Alleged Destructio of the Porphyrian Tree." In Argumentationstheorie. Scholastische Forschungen Zu Den Logischen Und Semantischen Regeln Korrekten Folgerns, edited by Jacobi, Klaus, 483-489. Leiden: Brill. 3. Bertagna, Mario. 2000. "La Dottrina Delle Conseguenze Nella "Logica" Di Pietro Da Mantova." Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale no. 11:459-496. 4. Beuchot, Mauricio. 1979. "La Filosofia Del Lenguaje De Pedro Hispano." Revista de Filosofia (Mexico) no. 12:215-230. 5. Boh, Ivan. 1964. "An Examination of Some Proofs in Burleigh's Propositional Logic." New Scholasticism no. 38:44-60. 6. ———. 1984. "Propositional Attitudes in the Logic of Walter Burley and William Ockham." Franciscan Studies:31-59. 7. ———. 1991. "Bradwardine's (?) Critique of Ockham's Modal Logic." In Historia Philosophiae Medii Aevi. Studien Zur Geschichte Der Philosophie Des Mittelalters. Festschrift Für Kurt Flasch Zu Seinem 60. Geburtstag. (Vol. I), edited by Mojsisch, Burkhard and Pluta, Olaf, 55-70. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: B. R. Grüner. 8. Braakhuis, Henk Antonius. 1977. "The Views of William of Sherwood on Some Semantical Topics and Their Relation to Those of Roger Bacon." Vivarium no.
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotle and Plato on Friendship by John Von Heyking
    Digital Commons @ Assumption University Philosophy Department Faculty Works Philosophy Department 2017 The Form of Politics: Aristotle and Plato on Friendship by John Von Heyking Nalin Ranasinghe Assumption College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.assumption.edu/philosophy-faculty Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Ranasinghe, N. (2017). The Form of Politics: Aristotle and Plato on Friendship by John Von Heyking. International Political Anthropology 10(1): 39-55. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy Department at Digital Commons @ Assumption University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Department Faculty Works by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Assumption University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Form of Politics: Aristotle and Plato on Friendship by John Von Heyking Nalin Ranasinghe Abstract Heyking’s ascent from Aristotle to Plato implies that something Platonic was lost in Aristotle’s accounts of friendship and politics. Plato’s views on love and soul turn out to have more in common with early Christianity. Stressing differences between eros and thumos, using Voegelin’s categories to discuss the Platonic Good, and expanding on Heyking’s use of Hermes, I show how tragic culture and true politics can be further enhanced by refining erotic friendship, repudiating Augustinian misanthropy, positing minimum doctrines about soul and city, and basing reason on Hermes rather than Apollo. Keywords: Plato, Aristotle, Voegelin, Eros, Thumos, friendship, soul, Von Heyking Introduction John von Heyking’s book on friendship is as easy to read as it is hard to review.
    [Show full text]
  • The Philosophical and Historical Roots of Evolutionary Tree Diagrams
    Evo Edu Outreach (2011) 4:515–538 DOI 10.1007/s12052-011-0355-0 HISTORYAND PHILOSOPHY Depicting the Tree of Life: the Philosophical and Historical Roots of Evolutionary Tree Diagrams Nathalie Gontier Published online: 19 August 2011 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 Abstract It is a popularly held view that Darwin was the were the result of this blend would, from the nineteenth first author to draw a phylogenetic tree diagram. However, century onward, also include the element of time. The as is the case with most popular beliefs, this one also does recognition of time would eventually lead to the recognition not hold true. Firstly, Darwin never called his diagram of of evolution as a fact of nature, and subsequently, tree common descent a tree. Secondly, even before Darwin, tree iconographies would come to represent exclusively the diagrams were used by a variety of philosophical, religious, evolutionary descent of species. and secular scholars to depict phenomena such as “logical relationships,”“affiliations,”“genealogical descent,”“af- Keywords Species classification . Evolutionary finity,” and “historical relatedness” between the elements iconography. Tree of life . Networks . Diagram . Phylogeny. portrayed on the tree. Moreover, historically, tree diagrams Genealogy. Pedigree . Stammbaum . Affinity. Natural themselves can be grouped into a larger class of diagrams selection that were drawn to depict natural and/or divine order in the world. In this paper, we trace the historical roots and cultural meanings of these tree diagrams. It will be Introduction demonstrated that tree diagrams as we know them are the outgrowth of ancient philosophical attempts to find the In this paper, we focus on the “why” of tree iconography.
    [Show full text]
  • Catalogue of Titles of Works Attributed to Aristotle
    Catalogue of Titles of works attributed by Aristotle 1 To enhance readability of the translations and usability of the catalogues, I have inserted the following bold headings into the lists. These have no authority in any manuscript, but are based on a theory about the composition of the lists described in chapter 3. The text and numbering follows that of O. Gigon, Librorum deperditorum fragmenta. PART ONE: Titles in Diogenes Laertius (D) I. Universal works (ta kathalou) A. The treatises (ta syntagmatika) 1. The dialogues or exoterica (ta dialogika ex terika) 2. The works in propria persona or lectures (ta autopros pa akroamatika) a. Instrumental works (ta organika) b. Practical works (ta praktika) c. Productive Works (ta poi tika) d. Theoretical works (ta the r tika) . Natural philosophy (ta physiologia) . Mathematics (ta math matika) B. Notebooks (ta hypomn matika) II. Intermediate works (ta metaxu) III. Particular works (ta merika) PART TWO: Titles in the Vita Hesychii (H) This list is organized in the same way as D, with two exceptions. First, IA2c “productive works” has dropped out. Second, there is an appendix, organized as follows: IV. Appendix A. Intermediate or Particular works B. Treatises C. Notebooks D. Falsely ascribed works PART THREE: Titles in Ptolemy al-Garib (A) This list is organized in the same way as D, except it contains none of the Intermediate or Particular works. It was written in Arabic, and later translated into Latin, and then reconstructed into Greek, which I here translate. PART FOUR: Titles in the order of Bekker (B) The modern edition contains works only in IA2 (“the works in propria persona”), and replaces the theoretical works before the practical and productive, as follows.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Synopsis of the Aristotelian Commentary Tradition (In Less Than Sixty Minutes)
    HISTORICAL SYNOPSIS OF THE ARISTOTELIAN COMMENTARY TRADITION (IN LESS THAN SIXTY MINUTES) Fred D. Miller, Jr. CHAPTER 1 PERIPATETIC SCHOLARS Aristotle of Stagira (384–322 BCE) Exoteric works: Protrepticus, On Philosophy, Eudemus, etc. Esoteric works: Categories, Physics, De Caelo, Metaphysics, De Anima, etc. The legend of Aristotle’s misappropriated works Andronicus of Rhodes: first edition of Aristotle’s works (40 BCE) Early Peripatetic commentators Boethus of Sidon (c. 75—c. 10 BCE) comm. on Categories Alexander of Aegae (1st century CE)comm. on Categories and De Caelo Adrastus of Aphrodisias (early 1st century) comm. on Categories Aspasius (c. 131) comm. on Nicomachean Ethics Emperor Marcus Aurelius establishes four chairs of philosophy in Athens: Platonic, Peripatetic, Stoic, Epicurean (c. 170) Alexander of Aphrodisias (late 2nd —early 3rd century) Extant commentaries on Prior Analytics, De Sensu, etc. Lost comm. on Physics, De Caelo, etc. Exemplar for all subsequent commentators. Comm. on Aristotle’s Metaphysics Only books 1—5 of Alexander’s comm. are genuine; books 6—14 are by ps.-Alexander . whodunit? Themistius (c. 317—c. 388) Paraphrases of Physics, De Anima, etc. Paraphrase of Metaphysics Λ (Hebrew translation) Last of the Peripatetics CHAPTER 2 NEOPLATONIC SCHOLARS Origins of Neoplatonism Ammonius Saccas (c. 175—242) forefather of Neoplatonism Plotinus (c. 205—260) the Enneads Reality explained in terms of hypostases: THE ONE—> THE INTELLECT—>WORLD SOUL—>PERCEPTIBLE WORLD Porphyry of Tyre (232–309) Life of Plotinus On the School of Plato and Aristotle Being One On the Difference Between Plato and Aristotle Isagoge (Introduction to Aristotle’s Categories) What is Neoplatonism? A broad intellectual movement based on the philosophy of Plotinus that sought to incorporate and reconcile the doctrines of Plato, Pythagoras, and Aristotle with each other and with the universal beliefs and practices of popular religion (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Arabatzis.Ffinal Version
    Michael of Ephesus and the philosophy of living things (In De partibus animalium, 22.25–23.9) GEORGE ARABATZIS Introduction As in other scientific disciplines, for biological knowledge the Byzantines depended largely on ancient Greek science, especially of the Hellenistic pe- riod. Under the appellation ‘biology’, we should understand those sciences which had to do with medicine, pharmacology, veterinary medicine, zool- ogy, and botany.1 As regards theories about living things (animals and plants), Byzantium carried on a tradition that synthesized elements from an- cient Greek philosophy and the Christian religion (especially the philosophy of the Church Fathers). The crucial point here is the introduction by Christianity of the theory of the historical creation of the world, from its initial elements to the formation of humans, who were seen as the crown of the universe. In a rural civilization like Byzantium, proximity to the world of plants and animals produced popular literary works that played with the idea of human primacy over all other living beings, primarily animals, often through prosopopoeia.2 Since Greco-Roman times, Aristotelian reflection on the conditions of knowledge of biological phenomena, in other words Aristotle’s biological epistemology, had fallen into oblivion;3 what re- mained from his contribution to biology was the collection of natural data and curiosities that offered, together with other sources, material for late ancient compilations. We have to wait for the eleventh–twelfth centuries in order to see, in the person of Michael of Ephesus, a commentator on Aristotle’s philosophy of biology, and this paper will focus on him.
    [Show full text]