DOCSLIB.ORG

PHIL10049: Ancient Theories of Existence 2017/18

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Course Guide PHIL10049: Ancient Theories of Existence 2017/18 Course Organiser: Professor Dory Scaltsas ([email protected]) Office Location: Dugald Stewart Building room 6.03 Telephone: 0131 650 3649 Course Secretary: Ann-Marie Cowe ([email protected]) Contents 1. (Course) Aims and Objectives 2. Course Description 3. Intended Learning Outcomes 4. Seminar Content 5. Readings 6. Assessment Information 1. Course Aims and Objectives The course will examine different ancient theories of existence. We discuss some Presocratic approaches to the problem of being; Plato's theory of Forms; and Aristotle's theory of substance. 2. Course description The topics discussed in this course include the concepts of ontological principle; causes and causation; substances - their identity criteria; matter; universal, form; unity of particulars. 3. Intended Learning Outcomes By the end of the course, students should have acquired an understanding of some major issues in ancient theories of existence; an understanding of how these issues relate to continuing debates; and an ability to read closely, analyse and criticise ancient philosophical texts. They should also have further developed written skills, and the ability to take part in group discussion and defend arguments. 4. Seminar Content Week 1. Thales; Anaximander Waterfield, The First Philosophers, ‘The Milesians: Thales of Miletus, Anaximander of Miletus, Anaximenes of Militus’. Week 2. Anaximenes Waterfield, The First Philosophers, ‘The Milesians: Thales of Miletus, Anaximander of Miletus, Anaximenes of Militus’. Week 3. Heracleitus and Parmenides 1; Waterfield, The First Philosophers, ‘Heracleitus’; ‘Parmenides of Elea’; Week 4. Parmenides 2 (Zeno of Elea); Empedocles; Waterfield, The First Philosophers, ‘Zeno of Elea’; ‘Empedocles of Acragas’ Week 5. Atomism; Anaxagoras Waterfield, The First Philosophers, ‘The Atomists: Leucippus of Abdera; Democritus of Abdera’; ‘Anaxagoras of Clazomenae’ Week 6. Anaxagoras ‘Anaxagoras of Clazomenae’ Week 7. Socrates – Plato: Definitions; Theory of Recollection; Knowledge and Belief Plato, Republic 477a-478e; 507b; 596a Week 8. Plato: Further Arguments for the Theory of Forms; Criticisms of the Theory of Forms; Criticisms of the Theory of Forms Plato, Phaedo 74-76; 79a; 79d; 80a-b; 100c; Plato, Parmenides 130-134 Week 9. Plato: Criticisms of the Theory of Forms; Aristotle: Categories Aristotle, Categories Chapters 1-5 Week 10. Aristotle on Change and the 4 Causes Aristotle, Physics Book I, Chapters 2, 7, 8. Physics Book II Ch. 3 Week 11. Aristotle - Substance, Substratum, Change Aristotle, Metaphysics Book V Ch. 2; Book VII Ch. 17. 5. Readings The primary readings are the metaphysical works of the philosophers under examination in the course, which are available in: Waterfield, R., 2000, The First Philosophers, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cooper (ed.), Plato: Complete Works, Hacket, 1997. Barnes (ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle, Princeton University Press 1984. A. A. Long, D. N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, Vol. 1: Translations of the Principal Sources, with Philosophical Commentary, Cambridge University Press. http://pm.nlx.com.ezproxy.webfeat.lib.ed.ac.uk/xtf/view;jsessionid=7FDAC6468CFDB6AD4E424F6CD5A A07F4?docId=plato/plato.00.xml;chunk.id=div.plato.pmpreface.1;toc.depth=1;toc.id=div.plato.pmpreface. 1;brand=default http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?q=plato http://plato-dialogues.org/links.htm http://pm.nlx.com.ezproxy.webfeat.lib.ed.ac.uk/xtf/view?docId=aristotle/aristotle.00.xml;chunk.id=div.arist otle.pmpreface.1;toc.depth=1;toc.id=div.aristotle.pmpreface.1;brand=default http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/index-Aristotle.html http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?q=aristotle http://archive.org/details/worksofaristotle512aris http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Aristotle http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0052%3Abook%3D7%3Ase ction%3D1041b Useful Discussion of the ancient metaphysical themes: Adamson History of Philosophy: http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/home Further reading on the Presocratics from the following: General: Barnes, J., 1982, The Presocratic Philosophers, 2nd edition, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Caston, V. and D. Graham (eds.), 2002, Presocratic Philosophy: Essays in Honor of A. P. D. Mourelatos, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Co. Curd, P. and D. H. Graham (eds.), 2008, The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy, New York: Oxford University Press. Guthrie, W. K. C., 1962, 1965, 1969, A History of Greek Philosophy, Vols. I, II, and III Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Kirk, G. S., J. E. Raven, and M. Schofield, 1983, The Presocratic Philosophers, (Second Edition), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McKirachan R., Philosophy Before Socrates, 1994, Hackett Publishing Co. Osborne C., Presocratic Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press Warren, J., 2007, Presocratics, Tedington: Acumen. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presocratics/ More specific: Brunschwig, J. and G.E.R. Lloyd, 2000, Greek Thought: A Guide to Classical Knowledge, Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Curd, P., 2004, The Legacy of Parmenides: Eleatic Monism and Later Presocratic Thought, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998, rev. edn. Las Vegas: Parmenides Press. Furley, D., 1967, Two Studies in the Greek Atomists, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Furley, D., 1987, The Greek Cosmologists, Vol. I: The Formation of the Atomic Theory and its Earliest Critics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lee, Mi-Kyoung, 2005, Epistemology after Protagoras. Responses to Relativism in Plato, Aristotle, and Democritus, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Long, A. A. (ed.), 1999, The Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mourelatos, A. P. D., 2008, The Route of Parmenides, Las Vegas: Parmenides Publishing; revised and expanded edition of 1971, New Haven: Yale University Press. Palmer, J., 2009, Parmenides and Presocratic Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schofield, M., 1980, An Essay on Anaxagoras, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sedley, D., 2007, Creationism and its Critics in Antiquity, Berkeley: University of California Press. Sorabji, R., 1988, Matter, Space, and Motion: Theories in Antiquity and their Sequel, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Stokes, M., 1971, One and Many in Presocratic Philosophy, Washington, DC: The Center for Hellenic Studies. Trépanier, S., 2004, Empedocles: An Interpretation, New York: Routledge. Vlastos, G, 1995, Studies in Greek Philosophy, Vol. I: The Presocratics, D. W. Graham (ed.), Princeton: Princeton University Press. Further reading on Plato from the following: General: Fine, G. , (ed.), 2008, Oxford Handbook of Plato, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kraut, R., The Cambridge Companion to Plato, Cambridge University Press. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato- metaphysics/ More specific: Annas, J., 1981, An Introduction to Plato's Republic, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fine, G., 1993, On Ideas, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gallop, D., 1975, Plato's Phaedo, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Malcolm, J., 1991, Plato on the Self Predication of Forms, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mccabe, M., 1994, Plato's Individuals, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ross, W.D. 1951, Plato's Theory of Ideas, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Silverman, A., 2002, The Dialectic of Essence, Princeton: Princeton University Press Vlastos, G. 1981, Platonic Studies, 2nd edition, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Archelogos Argument-Base on Plato: http://archelogos.com/xml/platoindex.htm Further reading on Aristotle from the following: General: Anagnostopoulos, G. (ed.), 2009, A Companion to Aristotle, Chichester: Wiley- Blackwell. Bambrough, R. (ed.), 1965, New Essays on Plato and Aristotle, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Barnes J., M. Schofield, and R. R. K. Sorabji (eds.), 1979, Articles on Aristotle, Vol 3. Metaphysics, London: Duckworth. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-categories/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/ More specific: Bostock, D., 1994, Aristotle: Metaphysics Books Ζ and Η, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Charles, David, Aristotle on Meaning and Essence, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Frede, Michael, 1987, Essays in Ancient Philosophy, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Furth, Montgomery, Substance, Form and Psyche: an Aristotelian Metaphysics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gill, Mary Louise, 1989, Aristotle on Substance: The Paradox of Unity, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Graham, D., Aristotle's Two Systems, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Loux, Michael J., Primary Ousia: An Essay on Aristotle's Metaphysics Ζ and Η, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Scaltsas, T., 1994, Substances and Universals in Aristotle's Metaphysics, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Scaltsas, T., D. Charles, and M. L. Gill (eds.), 1994, Unity, Identity, and Explanation in Aristotle's Metaphysics, Oxford: Oxford University Press. S. Waterlow, Nature, Change, and Agency in Aristotle’s Physics, Oxford University Press, 1982. Wedin, Michael V., 2000, Aristotle's Theory of Substance: The Categories and Metaphysics Zeta, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Witt, Charlotte, 1989, Substance and Essence in Aristotle: an Interpretation of Metaphysics VII-IX, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Archelogos Argument-Base on Aristotle: http://archelogos.com/xml/aristotleindex.htm 6. Assessment Information Assessment will be by 2-hour examination in the May diet (100%). .
Recommended publications
  • Zeno of Elea: Where Space, Time, Physics, and Philosophy Converge

    Zeno of Elea: Where Space, Time, Physics, and Philosophy Converge

    Western Kentucky University TopSCHOLAR® Honors College Capstone Experience/Thesis Honors College at WKU Projects Fall 2007 Zeno of Elea: Where Space, Time, Physics, and Philosophy Converge An Everyman’s Introduction to an Unsung Hero of Philosophy William Turner Western Kentucky University Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/stu_hon_theses Part of the Other Philosophy Commons, Other Physics Commons, and the Philosophy of Science Commons Recommended Citation Turner, William, "Zeno of Elea: Where Space, Time, Physics, and Philosophy Converge An Everyman’s Introduction to an Unsung Hero of Philosophy" (2007). Honors College Capstone Experience/Thesis Projects. Paper 111. http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/stu_hon_theses/111 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by TopSCHOLAR®. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors College Capstone Experience/ Thesis Projects by an authorized administrator of TopSCHOLAR®. For more information, please contact [email protected]. P │ S─Z─T │ P Zeno of Elea: Where Space, Time, Physics, and Philosophy Converge An Everyman’s Introduction to an Unsung Hero of Philosophy Will Turner Western Kentucky University Abstract Zeno of Elea, despite being among the most important of the Pre-Socratic philosophers, is frequently overlooked by philosophers and scientists alike in modern times. Zeno of Elea’s arguments on have not only been an impetus for the most important scientific and mathematical theories in human history, his arguments still serve as a basis for modern problems and theoretical speculations. This is a study of his arguments on motion, the purpose they have served in the history of science, and modern applications of Zeno of Elea’s arguments on motion.
  • Diogenes Laertius, Vitae Philosophorum, Book Five

    Diogenes Laertius, Vitae Philosophorum, Book Five

    Binghamton University The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB) The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter 12-1986 The Lives of the Peripatetics: Diogenes Laertius, Vitae Philosophorum, Book Five Michael Sollenberger Mount St. Mary's University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://orb.binghamton.edu/sagp Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons, Ancient Philosophy Commons, and the History of Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Sollenberger, Michael, "The Lives of the Peripatetics: Diogenes Laertius, Vitae Philosophorum, Book Five" (1986). The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter. 129. https://orb.binghamton.edu/sagp/129 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). It has been accepted for inclusion in The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter by an authorized administrator of The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). For more information, please contact [email protected]. f\îc|*zx,e| lîâ& The Lives of the Peripatetics: Diogenes Laertius, Vitae Philosoohorum Book Five The biographies of six early Peripatetic philosophers are con­ tained in the fifth book of Diogenes Laertius* Vitae philosoohorum: the lives of the first four heads of the sect - Aristotle, Theophras­ tus, Strato, and Lyco - and those of two outstanding members of the school - Demetrius of Phalerum and Heraclides of Pontus, For the history of two rival schools, the Academy and the Stoa, we are for­ tunate in having not only Diogenes' versions in 3ooks Four and Seven, but also the Index Academicorum and the Index Stoicorum preserved among the papyri from Herculaneum, But for the Peripatos there-is no such second source.
  • A Cardinal Sin: the Infinite in Spinoza's Philosophy

    A Cardinal Sin: the Infinite in Spinoza's Philosophy

    Macalester College DigitalCommons@Macalester College Philosophy Honors Projects Philosophy Department Spring 2014 A Cardinal Sin: The nfinitI e in Spinoza's Philosophy Samuel H. Eklund Macalester College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/phil_honors Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Eklund, Samuel H., "A Cardinal Sin: The nfinitI e in Spinoza's Philosophy" (2014). Philosophy Honors Projects. Paper 7. http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/phil_honors/7 This Honors Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy Department at DigitalCommons@Macalester College. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Honors Projects by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Macalester College. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Cardinal Sin: The Infinite in Spinoza’s Philosophy By: Samuel Eklund Macalester College Philosophy Department Honors Advisor: Geoffrey Gorham Acknowledgements This thesis would not have been possible without my advisor, Professor Geoffrey Gorham. Through a collaborative summer research grant, I was able to work with him in improving a vague idea about writing on Spinoza’s views on existence and time into a concrete analysis of Spinoza and infinity. Without his help during the summer and feedback during the past academic year, my views on Spinoza wouldn’t have been as developed as they currently are. Additionally, I would like to acknowledge the hard work done by the other two members of my honors committee: Professor Janet Folina and Professor Andrew Beveridge. Their questions during the oral defense and written feedback were incredibly helpful in producing the final draft of this project.
  • BY PLATO• ARISTOTLE • .AND AQUINAS I

    BY PLATO• ARISTOTLE • .AND AQUINAS I

    i / REF1,l!;CTit.>NS ON ECONOMIC PROBLEMS / BY PLATO• ARISTOTLE • .AND AQUINAS ii ~FLECTIONS ON ECONO:MIC PROBLEMS 1 BY PLA'I'O, ARISTOTLE, JJJD AQUINAS, By EUGENE LAIDIBEL ,,SWEARINGEN Bachelor of Science Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical Collage Stillwater, Oklahoma 1941 Submitted to the Depertmeut of Economics Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE 1948 iii f.. 'I. I ···· i·: ,\ H.: :. :· ··: ! • • ~ ' , ~ • • !·:.· : i_ ·, 1r 1i1. cr~~rJ3t L l: i{ ,\ I~ Y , '•T •)() 1 0 ,1 8 API-'HOV~D BY: .J ,.· 1.., J l.;"t .. ---- -··- - ·- ______.,.. I 7 -.. JI J ~ L / \ l v·~~ u ' ~) (;_,LA { 7 {- ' r ~ (\.7 __\ _. ...A'_ ..;f_ ../-_" ...._!)_.... ..." ___ ......._ ·;...;;; ··-----/ 1--.,i-----' ~-.._.._ :_..(__,,---- ....... Member of the Report Committee 1..j lj:,;7 (\ - . "'·- -· _ .,. ·--'--C. r, .~-}, .~- Q_ · -~ Q.- 1Head of the Department . · ~ Dean of the Graduate School 502 04 0 .~ -,. iv . r l Preface The purpose and plan of this report are set out in the Introduction. Here, I only wish to express my gratitude to Professor Russell H. Baugh who has helped me greatly in the preparation of this report by discussing the various subjects as they were in the process of being prepared. I am very much indebted to Dr. Harold D. Hantz for his commentaries on the report and for the inspiration which his classes in Philosophy have furnished me as I attempted to correlate some of the material found in these two fields, Ecor!.Omics and Philosophy. I should like also to acknowledge that I owe my first introduction into the relationships of Economics and Philosophy to Dean Raymond Thomas, and his com~ents on this report have been of great value.
  • THE PHILOSOPHY BOOK George Santayana (1863-1952)

    THE PHILOSOPHY BOOK George Santayana (1863-1952)

    Georg Hegel (1770-1831) ................................ 30 Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) ................. 32 Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach (1804-1872) ...... 32 John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) .......................... 33 Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) ..................... 33 Karl Marx (1818-1883).................................... 34 Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) ................ 35 Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914).............. 35 William James (1842-1910) ............................ 36 The Modern World 1900-1950 ............................. 36 Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) .................... 37 Ahad Ha'am (1856-1927) ............................... 38 Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) ............. 38 Edmund Husserl (1859–1938) ....................... 39 Henri Bergson (1859-1941) ............................ 39 Contents John Dewey (1859–1952) ............................... 39 Introduction....................................................... 1 THE PHILOSOPHY BOOK George Santayana (1863-1952) ..................... 40 The Ancient World 700 BCE-250 CE..................... 3 Miguel de Unamuno (1864-1936) ................... 40 Introduction Thales of Miletus (c.624-546 BCE)................... 3 William Du Bois (1868-1963) .......................... 41 Laozi (c.6th century BCE) ................................. 4 Philosophy is not just the preserve of brilliant Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) ........................ 41 Pythagoras (c.570-495 BCE) ............................ 4 but eccentric thinkers that it is popularly Max Scheler
  • Brsq 0096.Pdf

    Brsq 0096.Pdf

    /,,-,,,.I (hrir"M/W:|J,„'JJ(// Bulk Mail -:::-``.::`:.1:.t` U.S. Postage ci{08O#altruntr%%ditl.i PAID Permit No. 5659 CfldemmJin, ORE 23307 Alexandria, VA MR. DENNIS J. DARLAND /9999 .1965 WINDING HILLS RD. (1304) DAVENPORT IA 52807 T=..:€,,5fa=.`¥ _ atiTst:.:..¥5 3`=3 13LT„j§jLj;,:j2F,f:Lu,i,:,„„„„3.,§§.i;§„L„;j„§{j;;`„„:i THE BHRTRAND RUSSELL SOCIHTY QUARTERLY Newsletter o the Bertrand Russell Socie November 1997 No. 96 FROM THH EDITOR John Shosky ................................... 3 FROM THE PRESIDHNT John R. Lenz ................................... 4 BERTRAND RUSSELL SOCIETY CONFERENCH: 19-21 JUNE 1998 ...................... RUSSELL NEWS: Publications, etc ....................... 6 RUSSELL'S PLATO David Rodier ................................... 7 A BOOK REVIEW John Shosky .................................. 19 MEMORY COMES AND GOES: A Video Review Cliff Henke ................................... 22 THE GREATER ROCHESTER RUSSELL SET Peter Stone ................................... 24 BERTRAND RUSSELL SOCIETY Membership PI.orlles ............................ 25 BERTRAND RUSSELL SOCIETY 1998 Call for Board Nominations .................. 27 BERTRAND RUSSELL SOCIETY Membership pror]]e Form . 29 1 FROM THE EDITOR BHRTRAND RUSSELL SOCIETY John Shosky 1998 Membership Renewal Form ................... 31 American University Wc beSn this issue with a report from the society president, John Lenz. He will announce the preliminary details of the Annual Bertrand Russell Society Corferencc, which will be held June 19-21 at the Ethics Center of the University of South Florida in St. Petersburg. John's report will be followed by "Russell News", which is a column of short blurbs about Russell, works on Russell, society happenings, reports on members, general gossip, and other vital talking points for the informed and discerning society member. In my view, the standard of information one should strive for, in a Platonic sense, is Ken Blackwell, the guru of Russell trivia, realizing that Ken has a considerable head start on all of us.
  • Following the Argument Where It Leads

    Following the Argument Where It Leads

    Following The Argument Where It Leads Thomas Kelly Princeton University [email protected] Abstract: Throughout the history of western philosophy, the Socratic injunction to ‘follow the argument where it leads’ has exerted a powerful attraction. But what is it, exactly, to follow the argument where it leads? I explore this intellectual ideal and offer a modest proposal as to how we should understand it. On my proposal, following the argument where it leaves involves a kind of modalized reasonableness. I then consider the relationship between the ideal and common sense or 'Moorean' responses to revisionary philosophical theorizing. 1. Introduction Bertrand Russell devoted the thirteenth chapter of his History of Western Philosophy to the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas. He concluded his discussion with a rather unflattering assessment: There is little of the true philosophic spirit in Aquinas. He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better: If he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times (1945: 463). The extent to which this is a fair assessment of Aquinas is controversial.1 My purpose in what follows, however, is not to defend Aquinas; nor is it to substantiate the charges that Russell brings against him.
  • Seminar in Greek Philosophy Pyrrhonian Scepticism 1

    Seminar in Greek Philosophy Pyrrhonian Scepticism 1

    PHILOSOPHY 210: SEMINAR IN GREEK PHILOSOPHY 1 PYRRHONIAN SCEPTICISM Monte Johnson [email protected] UCSD Fall 2014 Course Description Pyrrhonian scepticism, as represented in the works of Sextus Empiricus, presents both a culmination and critique of the whole achievement of Greek philosophy, and was a major influence on the renaissance and the scientific revolutions of the seventeenth century, and continues to influence contemporary epistemology. In this seminar, we will get a general overview of Pyrrhonian scepticism beginning with the doxographies in Book IX of Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Famous Philosophers (including Heraclitus, Xenophanes, Parmenides, Zeno of Elea, Leucippus, Democritus, Protagoras, Diogenes of Apollonia, Anaxarchus, Pyrrho, and Timon). The core part of the course will consist of a close reading and discussion of the three books of the Outlines of Pyrhhonian Scepticism by Sextus Empiricus, along with a more detailed examination of the treatment of logic, physics, and ethics in his Against the Dogmatists VII-XI. The last three weeks of the seminar will be devoted to student presentations relating Pyrrhonian scepticism to their own interests in philosophy (whether topical or historical). Goals • Learn techniques of interpreting and criticizing works of ancient philosophy in translation, including fragmentary works. • Obtain an overview of ancient scepticism, especially Pyrrhonian scepticism, its textual basis, predecessors, and influence upon later philosophy and science. • Conduct original research relating ancient skepticism to your own philosophical interests; compile an annotated bibliography and craft a substantial research paper. • Develop skills in discussing and presenting philosophical ideas and research, including producing handouts, leading discussions, and fielding questions. Evaluation 10% Participation and discussion.
  • Zeno of Elea Born Around 489 BC This Zeno, As Opposed to Zeno Of

    Zeno of Elea Born Around 489 BC This Zeno, As Opposed to Zeno Of

    Zeno of Elea Born around 489 BC This Zeno, as opposed to Zeno of Citium, is perhaps most famous for his paradoxes. These strange scenarios are designed to make the think about mathematics and physics in new and different ways. Zeno was opposed to many of the ideas of Pythagoras, supported many of the ideas of Parmenides. His paradoxes have been reconstructed in slightly different ways by modern scientists from his cryptic and fragmentary writings. • Let us suppose that reality is made up of units. These units are either with magnitude or without magnitude. If the former, then a line for example, as made up of units possessed of magnitude, will be infinitely divisible, since, however far you divide, the units will still have magnitude and so be divisible. But in this case, the line will be made up of an infinite number of units, each of which is possessed of magnitude. The line, then, must be infinitely great, as composed of an infinite number of bodies. Everything in the world, then, must be infinitely great, and a forteriori the world itself must be infinitely great. Suppose, on the other hand, that the units are without magnitude. In this case, the whole universe will also be without magnitude, since, however many units you add together, if none of them has any magnitude, then the whole collection of them will also be without magnitude. But if the universe is without any magnitude, it must be infinitely small. Indeed, everything in the universe must be infinitely small. Either everything in the universe is infinitely great, or everything in the universe is infinitely small.
  • Plato the ALLEGORY of the CAVE Republic, VII 514 A, 2 to 517 A, 7

    Plato the ALLEGORY of the CAVE Republic, VII 514 A, 2 to 517 A, 7

    Plato THE ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE Republic, VII 514 a, 2 to 517 a, 7 Translation by Thomas Sheehan THE ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE SOCRATES: Next, said I [= Socrates], compare our nature in respect of education and its lack to such an experience as this. PART ONE: SETTING THE SCENE: THE CAVE AND THE FIRE The cave SOCRATES: Imagine this: People live under the earth in a cavelike dwelling. Stretching a long way up toward the daylight is its entrance, toward which the entire cave is gathered. The people have been in this dwelling since childhood, shackled by the legs and neck..Thus they stay in the same place so that there is only one thing for them to look that: whatever they encounter in front of their faces. But because they are shackled, they are unable to turn their heads around. A fire is behind them, and there is a wall between the fire and the prisoners SOCRATES: Some light, of course, is allowed them, namely from a fire that casts its glow toward them from behind them, being above and at some distance. Between the fire and those who are shackled [i.e., behind their backs] there runs a walkway at a certain height. Imagine that a low wall has been built the length of the walkway, like the low curtain that puppeteers put up, over which they show their puppets. The images carried before the fire SOCRATES: So now imagine that all along this low wall people are carrying all sorts of things that reach up higher than the wall: statues and other carvings made of stone or wood and many other artifacts that people have made.
  • Anaximander and the Problem of the Earth's Immobility

    Anaximander and the Problem of the Earth's Immobility

    Binghamton University The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB) The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter 12-28-1953 Anaximander and the Problem of the Earth's Immobility John Robinson Windham College Follow this and additional works at: https://orb.binghamton.edu/sagp Recommended Citation Robinson, John, "Anaximander and the Problem of the Earth's Immobility" (1953). The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter. 263. https://orb.binghamton.edu/sagp/263 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). It has been accepted for inclusion in The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter by an authorized administrator of The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). For more information, please contact [email protected]. JOHN ROBINSON Windham College Anaximander and the Problem of the Earth’s Immobility* N the course of his review of the reasons given by his predecessors for the earth’s immobility, Aristotle states that “some” attribute it I neither to the action of the whirl nor to the air beneath’s hindering its falling : These are the causes with which most thinkers busy themselves. But there are some who say, like Anaximander among the ancients, that it stays where it is because of its “indifference” (όμοιότητα). For what is stationed at the center, and is equably related to the extremes, has no reason to go one way rather than another—either up or down or sideways. And since it is impossible for it to move simultaneously in opposite directions, it necessarily stays where it is.1 The ascription of this curious view to Anaximander appears to have occasioned little uneasiness among modern commentators.
  • Humor As Philosophical Subversion, Especially in the Skeptics

    Humor As Philosophical Subversion, Especially in the Skeptics

    Humor as Philosophical Subversion, Especially in the Skeptics Richard Bett 1. Introduction Aristotle is not exactly a comedian. He wrote about comedy in the lost second book of the Poetics, and, as discussed in another paper in this volume, he wrote about wittiness (εὐτραπελία) in his ethical works. But he does not exhibit much of either. What humor there is in Aristotle seems to fall into two main varieties. First, there is word-play that engages the reader’s attention, which can perhaps be seen as an instance of a technique he describes in Rhetoric 3.10, that of saying “smart things and things that create a good impression” (τὰ ἀστεῖα καὶ τὰ εὐδοκιµοῦντα, 1410b6).1 Early in the Nicomachean Ethics, he says that in endeavoring to determine the principles (ἀρχαί) of ethics, we should begin (ἀρκτέον) with things known to us (1095b2-4). A little later, introducing the idea of the function (ἔργον) of a human being, he asks whether we can seriously consider that a human being as such (as opposed to people in various occupations) is ἀργόν (1097b28- 30) – which is intentionally ambiguous between “without function” and “lazy.” In De Caelo, introducing the topic of minimal magnitudes, he says that positing such a minimal magnitude (τοὐλάχιστον) will make the biggest difference (τὰ µέγιστα) in mathematics (271b10-11). And in De Interpretatione, discussing names, he says that “non-human 1 Unless otherwise noted, translations are my own. In the case of Timon, I sometimes draw on translations in Bett 2000 and Bett 2015. In the case of Sextus I generally draw on Bett 1997, Bett 2005, and Bett 2012.