DOCSLIB.ORG

Cause and Explanation in Ancient Greek Thought Hankinson, R

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cause and Explanation in Ancient Greek Thought Hankinson, R Cause and Explanation in Ancient Greek Thought Hankinson, R. J, University of Texas, Austin Abstract: In this book, R. J. Hankinson traces the history of investigation into the nature of cause and explanation, from the beginnings of Ancient Greek philosophy in 600 bc, through the Graeco-Roman world, to the end of pagan antiquity in c.500 ad The book consists of chapter-length studies of the Presocratics, Plato, Aristotle (two chapters), Atomism, Stoicism, Scepticism, and Neoplatonism, as well as the Sophistic movement, and Ancient Medicine. Hankinson is principally concerned with the following questions: ‘What did the Greeks understand by a cause?’, and ‘How did the Greeks conceive adequacy in explanation?’. The Ancient Greeks (excepting the Sceptics) are united in their belief that the world and at least some of its process can be rendered intelligible, and that this can be rendered by an inquiry into the nature of things, with reasoned argument as the appropriate method of exhibiting the real structure of the world. Thus, the Greek thinkers set the standards for science, because they are guided by logic and observation in their analysis of causation; but one can also recognize the growth of interest among the Greeks in the nature of explanation itself. The question that becomes central to the development of Greek philosophical science is whether nature can be understood in terms of teleology, or solely in terms of mechanical laws. Hankinson is interested in how the concepts of cause and explanation function in a properly scientific context; but he extends his investigation of these concepts to questions of freedom and responsibility, and fate and astrology, and also the treatment of disease. Hankinson points out that causes and explanations are connected ideas: an explanation is the proffering of reasons, and this involves an account of causes; they are, nevertheless, different concepts—causes are actual items, events, agents, facts, states of affairs, whereas explanations are propositional. Hankinson isolates certain causal principles that recur throughout Greek philosophy: for instance, the principle of sufficient reason, the principle of causal synonymy, and the principle that nothing can come to be from nothing. Preface It was first suggested that I write this book in September 1986: it has, accordingly, taken more than a decade to come to fruition. I began by supposing that it would consist in a relatively narrowly focused investigation of the Greek notion of explanation; it has developed into something more like a general account of what the Greeks called phusikē, the inquiry into nature, since I found it impossible to treat of the meta-theoretical issues of how the Greeks viewed the concepts of explanation and cause themselves without also considering the actual explanations and causes that they championed (it also accounts for my ranging beyond the boundaries of natural science and into metaphysics). This partly accounts for its elephantine period of gestation; but I did not in any case set about the writing in earnest until the spring of 1992, when I produced a first draft as work in progress for a graduate seminar: I am grateful to the seminar's students for their patience and flexibility in adapting to an unorthodox format, and for their enthusiasm and input. My interest in questions of cause and explanation dates from the time when, as an undergraduate, I decided to pursue these issues in Galen's philosophy for my doctoral dissertation, and they have continued to be central to my work in Greek philosophy and science. Inevitably, then, much of this volume goes over ground I have covered elsewhere, although nowhere have I simply recycled previously published material, while in several cases my views have changed. Still, it may be appropriate to indicate areas of overlap. I dealt with Alcmaeon's argument (I.3c) in Hankinson (1991a, 1992a), and some of my treatment of Xenophanes in I.3a is paralleled in Hankinson (1995a, ch. iii ), as is my account of Democritean scepticism in VI.1e. Some of the Hippocratic discussion of Chapter II is anticipated in Hankinson (1991a, 1992c, 1995e), while the remarks on evidence are expanded in Hankinson (1997). Plato's Alcmaeonian argument in III.3a is developed in Hankinson (1992a). Much of the discussion of Aristotle in Chapters IV and V is adapted from Hankinson (1995b, c), while the Atomist and Stoic accounts of causation and explanation that occupy Chapters VI and VII are rehearsed in Hankinson (1998a, b); also relevant is (1996). The sceptical attack on explanation and cause, the subject of Chapter VIII, is also dealt with in Hankinson (1995a, chs. xi and xii ); while ch. xiii of that work, along with Hankinson (1987b, 1988d, 1990a, 1995d, 1998d), as well as parts of (1998c), all bear on the discussion of the medical tradition in Chapter IX. Hankinson (1988a, c, 1995a, ch. xv ) relate to the end p.vii issue of the status of divination discussed in VI.3a, VII.2d, VIII.5, XI.1b, and XII.2d. Finally, my account of Galen's views in XI.2–5 draws on Hankinson (1987a, 1988b, d, 1989, 1991a, b, c, 1993, 1994a, b, 1998c). Many of these articles were originally presented as papers in various places; I owe much to the perspicacity of their original audiences. Particular thanks are due to several colleagues and friends for their help with individual sections. Alex Mourelatos gave me the benefit of his great learning in Presocratic philosophy in general and atomism in particular (Chapters I and VI); Lesley Dean-Jones commented acutely on the medical material contained in Chapters II and IX; and Paul Woodruff helped me with both Plato and the Sceptics (Chapters III and VIII). Sylvia Berryman made several useful suggestions concerning Theophrastus and Strato (V.3). The argument of Chapter XII owes much to discussions with David Bradshaw, who was also good enough to read and comment in detail on penultimate drafts of that chapter and Chapter X. My largest debt in this regard is owed to Tim O'Keefe, whose doctoral work on Epicurus and Democritus on reduction and emergence, causation and responsibility, determinism and fatalism, caused me to re-evaluate and revise many of my views on these issues, particularly as they affect the argument of VI.1b, 2b, and 3. It is both a pleasure and a privilege—and one which it is all too easy to take for granted—to work with such generous and genial colleagues. I am grateful also to Peter Momtchiloff of Oxford University Press for taking the book over after the series in which it was originally due to appear was peremptorily cancelled, without either consultation or explanation, by another publisher. An anonymous referee for OUP made several valuable suggestions which I have incorporated into the final version. Finally, my greatest indebtednesses. In the course of a long, presumably insomniac, European rail journey, Jonathan Barnes read and commented upon the whole typescript with admirable expeditiousness and acuity, suggesting numerous improvements ranging from the correction of typographical errors through matters of fact and questions of argumentative substance and rigour to issues of overall strategy and presentation. His influence is evident (to me at least) on virtually every page. And last, but most definitely not least, my wife, Jennifer, read the manuscript in full, offering many suggestions of both a philosophical and of a stylistic nature. I am also grateful for her support (not to say understanding and forbearance) through a period in which both of us have had to juggle heavy workloads with family responsibilities. Anyone who has had to attempt such feats of domestic dexterity will know what I mean when I say that merely to survive is an achievement; to do so with good will end p.viii and good humour intact is little short of miraculous. In recognition of this (and much else), with love and gratitude, I dedicate this book to her. Jim Hankinson Texas, April 1997 Note on Citations I have tried to make my citations of ancient texts as full and perspicuous as possible. Where a referential orthodoxy exists, I have followed it; in default of one, I have sought to make it as easy as possible for the interested reader to track down the sources. A number followed by the initials KRS refers to that fragment in G. S. Kirk, J. E. Raven, and M. Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers (Cambridge, 1983). Similarly, DK refers to H. Diels and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 6th edn. (Berlin, 1951). DK references consist of an initial number, picking out the philosopher in question (thus Thales' citations all begin within the number 11), followed by a letter, A for indirect reports and testimony, B for actual fragments. I give DK references to the A-texts only in the case of the more important citations. ‘SVF’ flags H. von Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1903–54). ‘Jones’ after a Hippocratic text indicates that the citation refers to W. H. S. Jones, Hippocrates, i, ii, iv, Loeb Classical Library (London, 1922, 1923, 1932). ‘FHS&G’ refers to W. W. Fortenbaugh, P. M. Huby, R. W. Sharples, and D. Gutas, Theophrastus of Eresus: Sources for his Life, Writings, Thought, and Influence (Leiden, 1992). ‘W’ refers to F. Wehrli, Straton von Lampsakos, 2nd edn. (Basel, 1969). ‘Walzer’ refers to R. Walzer, Galen on Medical Experience (Oxford, 1944). ‘LS’ refers to A. A. Long and D. N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1987). ‘Bruns’ refers to I. Bruns, Supplementum Aristotelicum, 2. 1–2 (Berlin, 1887, 1892), which contains Alexander of Aphrodisias’ peripatetic essays. ‘U’ refers to H. Usener, Epicurea (Leipzig, 1887). ‘EK’ refers to L. Edelstein and I.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reconciling Universal Salvation and Freedom of Choice in Origen of Alexandria
    Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Dissertations (1934 -) Projects Reconciling Universal Salvation and Freedom of Choice in Origen of Alexandria Lee W. Sytsma Marquette University Follow this and additional works at: https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu Part of the Christianity Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Sytsma, Lee W., "Reconciling Universal Salvation and Freedom of Choice in Origen of Alexandria" (2018). Dissertations (1934 -). 769. https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/769 RECONCILING UNIVERSAL SALVATION AND FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA by Lee W. Sytsma, B.A., M.T.S. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin May 2018 ABSTRACT RECONCILING UNIVERSAL SALVATION AND FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA Lee W. Sytsma, B.A., M.T.S. Marquette University, 2018 Origen has traditionally been famous for his universalism, but many scholars now express doubt that Origen believed in a universal and permanent apocatastasis. This is because many scholars are convinced that Origen’s teaching on moral autonomy (or freedom of choice) is logically incompatible with the notion that God foreordains every soul’s future destiny. Those few scholars who do argue that Origen believed in both moral autonomy and universal salvation either do not know how to reconcile these two views in Origen’s theology, or their proposed “solutions” are not convincing. In this dissertation I make two preliminary arguments which allow the question of logical compatibility to come into focus.
    [Show full text]
  • Title on the Rejection of Reason by the Early Empiricist Author(S
    Title On the Rejection of Reason by the Early Empiricist Author(s) Nishimura, Seishu Citation 京都大学文学部哲学研究室紀要 (2005), 8: 160-170 Issue Date 2005-12-10 URL http://hdl.handle.net/2433/24239 Right Type Departmental Bulletin Paper Textversion publisher Kyoto University On the Rejection of Reason by the Early Empiricist Seishu Nishimura In his “On the Sects for Beginners,” Galen describes a debate between two primary sects of medicine in antiquity: the empiricist and the rationalist. According to Galen, “medicine is the science of what is healthy and what is unhealthy,” by virtue of which the doctor can prescribe the remedy (SB, 1).1 In this sense, medical knowledge is essentially practical. But the empiricist and the rationalist disagree over the origin of such knowledge. The former claims that “experience alone” is sufficient in order to obtain it (ibid). We will call this the empiricist claim. Roughly speaking, by “experience,” the empiricist means perception and memory. There are three types of experience by which we can acquire medical knowledge: (i) “autopsia,” i.e., one’s own perception, (ii) “history,” i.e., one’s knowledge of the experiences of others, and (iii) “the transition to the similar” (SB, 3).2 Here, (ii) and (iii) supplement (i) because firsthand experience is a limited capacity. The core of the empiricist claim is that, given the experience gained in these ways, we don’t need any other things for medical knowledge. For the empiricist, X is medical knowledge if X is obtained from and confirmed by experience. On the contrary, the rationalist insists that, in addition to experience, the use of “reason” is necessary for medical knowledge (SB, 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Cicero on the Philosophy of Religion
    CICERO ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION: DE NATURA DEORUM AND DE DIVINATIONE. A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by John Patrick Frederick Wynne January 2008 CICERO ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION: DE NATURA DEORUM AND DE DIVINATIONE. John Patrick Frederick Wynne, Ph. D. Cornell University, 2008 Cicero wrote de Natura Deorum (dND), de Divinatione (Div.) and de Fato (Fat.) in succession and describes the latter two as continuations of the first. I argue that the three dialogues form a trilogy, in which Cicero as author indicates a stance on the material he presents (but that too little of the fragmentary Fat. remains to be useful for my purposes). There are much-debated attributions of preferences to Cicero’s propriae personae at the conclusions of dND and Div.; I take these preferences to express Cicero’s authorial stance. I examine relevant parts of the speeches to which they react and, first, make philosophical interpretations of each (often comparing other sources for Hellenistic thought) and, second, pay attention to the interaction of Cicero’s characterization of each speaker with the arguments the speaker gives. I find that Balbus in dND advocates the avoidance of superstition and the reform of religious beliefs in line with Stoic physics and that Cotta has a strong commitment to traditional Roman religious views consistent with his sceptical epistemology. Cotta’s scepticism is elusive in its details but perhaps yields a kind of fideism. I find that Quintus Cicero’s advocacy in Div.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sceptics: the Arguments of the Philosophers
    THE SCEPTICS The Arguments of the Philosophers EDITOR: TED HONDERICH The purpose of this series is to provide a contemporary assessment and history of the entire course of philosophical thought. Each book constitutes a detailed, critical introduction to the work of a philosopher of major influence and significance. Plato J.C.B.Gosling Augustine Christopher Kirwan The Presocratic Philosophers Jonathan Barnes Plotinus Lloyd P.Gerson The Sceptics R.J.Hankinson Socrates Gerasimos Xenophon Santas Berkeley George Pitcher Descartes Margaret Dauler Wilson Hobbes Tom Sorell Locke Michael Ayers Spinoza R.J.Delahunty Bentham Ross Harrison Hume Barry Stroud Butler Terence Penelhum John Stuart Mill John Skorupski Thomas Reid Keith Lehrer Kant Ralph C.S.Walker Hegel M.J.Inwood Schopenhauer D.W.Hamlyn Kierkegaard Alastair Hannay Nietzsche Richard Schacht Karl Marx Allen W.Wood Gottlob Frege Hans D.Sluga Meinong Reinhardt Grossmann Husserl David Bell G.E.Moore Thomas Baldwin Wittgenstein Robert J.Fogelin Russell Mark Sainsbury William James Graham Bird Peirce Christopher Hookway Santayana Timothy L.S.Sprigge Dewey J.E.Tiles Bergson A.R.Lacey J.L.Austin G.J.Warnock Karl Popper Anthony O’Hear Ayer John Foster Sartre Peter Caws THE SCEPTICS The Arguments of the Philosophers R.J.Hankinson London and New York For Myles Burnyeat First published 1995 by Routledge First published in paperback 1998 Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” © 1995 R.J.Hankinson All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy) 15 2.1 References
    Necessity and sufficiency From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Contents 1 Abductive reasoning 1 1.1 History ................................................. 1 1.2 Deduction, induction, and abduction ................................. 1 1.3 Formalizations of abduction ...................................... 2 1.3.1 Logic-based abduction .................................... 2 1.3.2 Set-cover abduction ...................................... 2 1.3.3 Abductive validation ..................................... 3 1.3.4 Probabilistic abduction .................................... 3 1.3.5 Subjective logic abduction .................................. 4 1.4 History ................................................. 4 1.4.1 1867 ............................................. 6 1.4.2 1878 ............................................. 6 1.4.3 1883 ............................................. 6 1.4.4 1902 and after ......................................... 6 1.4.5 Pragmatism .......................................... 7 1.4.6 Three levels of logic about abduction ............................. 7 1.4.7 Other writers ......................................... 8 1.5 Applications .............................................. 8 1.6 See also ................................................ 9 1.7 References ............................................... 10 1.8 Notes ................................................. 11 1.9 External links ............................................. 14 2 Condition (philosophy) 15 2.1 References ..............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Publishable Article Hester Van Den Elzen
    Publishable article Hester van den Elzen Research Master Thesis Hester van den Elzen s4229592 March 25th, 2018 Aristotle and the Stoics on Tomorrow's Sea Battle The influence of 'time' in the debate on future contingents (Publishable article) Thesis for obtaining a “Master of arts” degree in philosophy Radboud University Nijmegen Supervisor: Frederik Bakker 1 Publishable article Hester van den Elzen I hereby declare and assure that I, Hester van den Elzen, have drafted this thesis independently, that no other sources and/or means other than those mentioned have been used and that the passages of which the text content or meaning originates in other works – including electronic media – have been identified and the sources clearly stated. Place: Zeeland Date: March 25th, 2018 2 Publishable article Hester van den Elzen Aristotle and the Stoics on Tomorrow's Sea Battle The influence of 'time' in the debate on future contingents Abstract How we view time is important in the debate on future contingents. However, how exactly does the concept of time that one uses influence the arguments against fatalism in this debate? In this paper, the answers of Aristotle and of the Stoics against fatalism are discussed and compared. Three solutions will be discussed: rejecting the Principle of Bivalence for future propositions, rejecting the relation between truth and necessity, and rejecting the link between necessity and fatalism. Aristotle states a difference between past and future that the Stoics do not and cannot use. This is due to the linear timeline that Aristotle uses. The Stoics, with their notion of a cyclical time, need to find different solutions for fatalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Epistemological Perspectives in Late
    EPISTEMOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES IN LATE ANTIQUITY – A DIALOG BETWEEN RATIONALISM AND EMPIRICISM IN THE SCIENTIFIC WRITINGS1 Adrian MURARU ABSTRACT: Given the particular character of Ancient Literature, I considered it useful to approach the issue from the perspective of the Philosophy of Science: Epistemology and the Philosophy of Science stem from the same source, and this aspect is all the more patent for Antiquity. In fact, the two perspectives that I mentioned in the subtitle, Empiricism and Rationalism, both represent epistemological choices and approaches specific to the Sciences, as well as to the Philosophy of Science, in the manner that they were practiced in Antiquity. This present study argues that Empiricism noticeably distinguishes itself from Rationalism, not merely in the philosophical works of the above-mentioned period, but also in its non-philosophical literature, especially the one pertaining to Science. Consequently, this study aims to indicate the major lines of thought in the Ancient Philosophy of Science, which reflect themselves in Epistemology in an unmediated manner. KEYWORDS: Late Antiquity’s epistemology, philosophy of science, Galen, rationalists, empiricists 1. Sources As one might rightly presume, the primary sources for this research consist of documents composed at that time, and successfully preserved onto this very day. They pertain to various disciplines, from Religion to Science, from Theology to sheer Literature. In my previous papers on the subject,2 I have tried to at least partially indicate how the epistemological endeavors of Late Antiquity were structured, and I mainly focused on the science of the period. Nevertheless, as 1 This paper was elaborated within the POSDRU/89/1.5/S/56815 project Knowledge – Based Society – research, debates, perspectives, co-financed by the European Union and the Romanian Government from the Social European Fund, through the Operational Sector Program for the Development of Human Resources 2007-2013.
    [Show full text]
  • The Stoics and the Academics on the Apprehensive Impression
    THE STOICS AND THE ACADEMICS ON THE APPREHENSIVE IMPRESSION by Pavle Stojanovic A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Baltimore, Maryland September 2015 © 2015 Pavle Stojanovic All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT The debate between the Stoics and the Academics on the apprehensive impression (phantasia katalēptikē) was one of the longest in the history of epistemology, and is also one of the most discussed in contemporary scholarship on the philosophy of the Hellenistic period. The debate was initiated when Zeno, the founder of the Stoic school, introduced the idea that there is a special kind of impression, the apprehensive impression, which is caused by an external object and which reliably captures the truth about that object, allowing us to attain knowledge about that object. Zeno’s idea was met with criticism by Plato’s successors in the Academy, most notably Arcesilaus and Carneades, who argued that such impressions do not exist because they are indistinguishable from non- apprehensive impressions. However, the details of the Stoic account of the apprehensive impression and its role in their epistemology, as well as the nature of the strategy the Academics employed against it have been highly controversial in modern scholarship. In the dissertation, I provide a careful analysis of the extant textual sources on the Stoic and the Academic positions in the debate, which yields several important results. First, it leads to a novel interpretation of the Stoic definition of the apprehensive impression that better explains its distinctness from the non-apprehensive impressions. Unlike other scholars, I argue that according to the Stoics its distinctness consists in the fact that the apprehensive impression differs in terms of its representational content from all non-apprehensive impressions the subject is aware of, but that this representational difference is defeasible.
    [Show full text]
  • Medical History from the Earliest Times
    June 25, 1892. THE HOSPITAL 195 Medical History from the Earliest Times. By E. T. Withington, M.A., M.B. Oxon. " xiy. heraclides and the empiric Cosmetics," and On Diet in Health" (Symposium), SCHOOL. are attributed to Heraclides, both, of which are said to been the first Some readers may have found the name Heraclides, have of their kind. From the former " mentioned among typical Greek physicians in a preced- Galen has extracted two recipes for making the hair ing article, rather strange to them, but in Heraclides of stick together," the first consisting of wax, pitch, glue, Tarentum, Heraclides the Empiric (B.C. 230), we may, and gum-mastich, equal parts, to be warmed before I think, find an almost forgotten hero of medicine, using. Did the ancient Greeks wax their moustaches ? some of whose claims to remembrance shall here he For incipient baldness, Heraclides recommends a briefly repeated. His works have perished?our relics pomade of anemones rubbed up in oil, which he says ?of ancient literature are by no means survivals of all will also darken the hair. Among the scanty extracts the fittest?and what we know of him is gathered from which survive from the Symposium, we may notice the " scattered notices in later writers. Galen calls him a assertion that sheep's trotters, snails, and other if most excellent physician," giving him the high praise glutinous substances cause indigestion taken in well to eat a little before that he never preferred his party to the truth, and excess, and that it is always wrote com- Soranus considered him the only Empiric worth re- drinking.
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotle's Empiricist Theory of Doxastic Knowledge
    Aristotle’s Empiricist Theory of Doxastic Knowledge Hendrik Lorenz and Benjamin Morison Introduction As is well known, Aristotle divides the human power of reason into two distinct powers: one of them is responsible for grasping things whose principles are necessary, the other is responsible for grasping contingent things. He refers to the latter power as the part of reason that is responsible for reasoning or calculating (logistikon, 1139a12) and also as that which is responsible for opinion (doxastikon, 1140b26 and 1144b14). Practical wisdom (phronêsis) and arts or crafts such as medicine are virtues of the doxastikon. In this paper, we suggest that these virtues are best thought of as forms of knowledge. They are acquired states of cognition that equip their bearers reliably to form true opinions about matters in their respective domains. (We are not claiming that they are exhausted by such states of cognition.) We argue that Aristotle’s conception of the forms of knowledge for which the doxastikon is responsible (in short, his conception of doxastic knowledge) is distinctive, and that it can usefully be thought of as Empiricist in a sense of the term familiar to students of ancient medicine. For our purposes, two features of Empiricist epistemology stand out: the ancient Empiricists held that knowledge does not rest on grasping logical relations that hold among relevant propositions; and that knowledge does not rest on grasping unobservable natures or essences of things. While grasping both logical relations and intelligible essences of things is absolutely central to Aristotle’s epistemology of theoretical understanding, neither of these cognitive accomplishments, we argue, is part of acquiring, having, or exercising doxastic knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright by Joseph Benjamin Bullock 2015
    Copyright by Joseph Benjamin Bullock 2015 The Dissertation Committee for Joseph Benjamin Bullock certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Skeptical Science The Pyrrhonian critique of technai in Against the Professors (M I-VI) Committee: ____________________________________ Robert J. Hankinson, Supervisor ____________________________________ Stephen A. White, Co-Supervisor ____________________________________ Richard Bett ____________________________________ Matthew L. Evans ____________________________________ Robert C. Koons ____________________________________ Paul B. Woodruff Skeptical Science The Pyrrhonian critique of technai in Against the Professors (M I-VI) by Joseph Benjamin Bullock, B.S.; M. Theological Stds.; M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin May 2015 Acknowledgements Jim Hankinson is, in a sense, one of the archai of this dissertation because I began working on the concept of technē in Against the Professors (M I-VI) after he suggested that I write about Sextus' least appreciated treatise. It is difficult to express everything that I owe to Jim. He has been my mentor throughout my time at UT, and he has been the greatest influence on my thinking about ancient skepticism and science. I thank him for always being available to talk through my ideas, or to read and discuss some ancient text. I owe similar thanks to Steve White. I literally could not have finished the dissertation without Steve's help, and I am deeply grateful to him for stepping in at the eleventh hour to become co-supervisor.
    [Show full text]
  • Looking for the Lazy Argument Candidates (1)
    Looking for the Lazy Argument Candidates (1) Vladimír Marko1 Comenius University in Bratislava Abstract: The Lazy Argument, as it is preserved in historical testimo- nies, is not logically conclusive. In this form, it appears to have been proposed in favor of part-time fatalism (including past time fatalism). The argument assumes that free will assumption is unacceptable from the standpoint of the logical fatalists but plausible for some of the non- universal or part-time fatalists. There are indications that the layout of argument is not genuine, but taken over from a Megarian source and later transformed. The genuine form of the argument seems to be given in different form and far closer to logical fatalism and whose purpose is not to defend laziness. If the historical argument has to lead to the logically satisfactory solution, some additional assumptions and its ad- ditional tuning are needed. Keywords: the Lazy Argument, logical fatalism, historical reconstruc- tion, Cicero, Chrysippus, Diodorus, Megarians. 1 Introduction There are two kinds or classes of Lazy Argument variants (LA – the argument is sometimes called the Idle Argument or the Argument from Inactivity). The first belongs to its ancient form while the second, common in modern formulations, imitates some but not all the features of the ancient one. Both kinds are similar insofar as they use appar- ently common logical principles and also insofar as they intend to reach the same fatalistic conclusion. But, even when presented with the same 1 The paper has been accomplished with the support of the VEGA Project for Higher Education, “The Semantic Models, their Explanatory Power and Application”, No.
    [Show full text]