DOCSLIB.ORG

Catalogue of Titles of Works Attributed to Aristotle

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. a. Instrumental Works b. Theoretical Works c. Practical Works d. Productive Works Catalogue of Titles of works attributed by Aristotle 2 PART ONE: THE LIST OF DIOGENES LAERTIUS (D) 5.22-27. I. Universal works (ta kathalou) A. The treatises (ta syntagmatika) 1. The dialogues or exoterica (ta dialogika ex terika) D1. On Justice, 4 (H1; A4). Peri\ dikaiosu&nhj a & b & g & d & D2. On Poets, 3 (H2; A7). Peri\ poihtw~n a & b & g & D3. On Philosophy, 3 (H3*; A1b). Peri\ filosofi/aj a & b & g & D4. On the Statesman, 2 (H4*; A-). Peri\ politikou~ a & b & D5. On Rhetoric, or Grylus, 1 (H5*; A3). Peri\ r(htorikh~j h2 Gru~loj a & D6. Nerinthus (H6; A-). Nh&rinqoj a & D7. Sophist, 1 (H8; A2). Sofisth_j a & D8. Menexenus, 1 (H10; A-). Mene/cenoj a & D9. Eroticus, 1 (H12; A14). 0Erwtiko_j a & D10. Symposium, 1 (H-; A-). Sumpo&sion a & D11. On Wealth, 1 (H7; A-). Peri\ plou&tou a & D12. Protrepticus, 1 (H14; A1a*). Protreptiko_j a & D13. On the Soul, 1 (H13; A-). Peri\ yuxh~j a & D14. On Prayer, 1 (H9*; A-). Peri\ eu)xh~j a & D15. On Noble Birth, 1 (H11; A6). Peri\ eu)genei/aj a & D16. On Pleasure, 1 (H15; A17a). Peri\ h(donh~j a & D17. Alexander, or About Colonies, 1 (H22*; A-). 0Ale/candroj h2 u(pe\r a)poi/kwn a & D18. On Kingship, 1 (H16; A8*). Peri\ basilei/aj a & D19. On Education, 1 (H18*; A5). Peri\ paidei/aj a & D20. On the Good, 3 (H20*; A9*). Peri\ ta)gaqou~ a & b & g & D21. From the Laws of Plato, 3 (H23*; A18*?). Ta_ e0k tw~n no&mwn Pla&twnoj a & b & g & D22. From the Republic, 2 (H-; A16). Ta_ e0k th~j politei/aj a & b & D23. On Economics, 1 (H17; A-). <Peri>\ oi0konomi/aj a & D24. On Friendship, 1 (H24*; A28*). Peri\ fili/aj a & 2. The works in propria persona or lectures (ta autopros pa akroamatika) a. Instrumental works (ta organika) D25. On being affected or having been affected, 1 (H26; A-). Peri\ tou~ pa&sxein h2 peponqe/nai a & D26. On Sciences, 1 (H25; A-). Peri\ e0pisthmw~n a & D27. On Eristics, 2 (H27*; A-). Peri\ e0ristikw~n a & b & D28. Solutions to Contentions, 4 (H29; A-). Lu&seij e0ristikai\ d & D29. Sophistical Divisions, 4 (H31*; A-). Diaire/seij sofistikai\ d & D30. On Opposites, 1 (H32; A-). Peri\ e0nanti/wn a & D31. On Forms and Kinds, 1 (H28*; A15*). Peri\ ei0dw~n kai\ genw~n a & D32. On Ideas, 1 (H-; A-). Peri\ i0di/wn a & D33. Epichirematic Notebooks, 3 (H33; A-). 9Upomnh&mata e0pixeirhmatika_ g & D34. Propositions on virtues, 2 (H34; A-). Prota&seij peri\ a)reth~j a & b & D35. Objections, 1 (H36*; A62*). 0Ensta&seij a & D36. On things said in many ways or according to a [disambiguating] addition, 1 (H37*; A-). Peri\ tw~n posaxw~j legome/nwn h2 kata_ pro&sqesin a & D37. On Emotions, or On Anger, 1 (H30*; A-). Peri\ paqw~n <h2 peri\> o)rgh~j a & D38. Of Ethics, 5 (H39*; A-). 0Hqikw~n a & b & g & d & e & D39. On Elements, 3 (H35; A24). Peri\ stoixei/wn a & b & g & D40. On Science, 1 (H-; A-). Peri\ e0pisth&mhj a & D41. On Principle, 1 (H21*; A-). Peri\ a)rxh~j a & Catalogue of Titles of works attributed by Aristotle 3 D42. Division, 17 (H41; A58*?). Diaire/seij iz & D43. Of Divisions, 1 (H42; A-). Diairetikw=n a & D44. On Questions and Answers, 2 (H43; A-). <Peri>\ e0rwth&sewj kai\ a)pokri/sewj a & b & D45. On Motion, 1 (H40; A19*). Peri\ kinh&sewj a & D46. Propositions, 1 (H38; A91*?, A92*?). Prota&seij a & D47. Erotic Propositions, 1 (H44; A-). Prota&seij e0ristikai\ a & D48. Syllogisms, 1 (H19; A-). Sullogismoi\ a & D49. Prior Analytics, 9 (H46; A-). Prote/rwn a)nalutikw~n a & b & g & d & e & v & z & h & q & D50. Posterior Analytics Great, 2 (H47*; A-). 0Analutikw~n u(ste/rwn mega&lwn a & b & D51. On Problems, 1 (H48*; A23*). Peri\ problhma&twn a & D52. Methodics, 8 (H49*; A-). Meqodika_ a & b & g & d & e & v & z & h & D53. On the better, 1 (H50; A-). Peri\ tou~ belti/onoj a & D54. On the idea, 1 (H45; A-). Peri\ th~j i0de/aj a & D55. Definitions for the Topics, 7 (H51*; A69). 3Oroi pro_ tw~n topikw~n a & b & g & d & e & v & z & D56. Topics, 7 (H52; A31*). <Topikw=n a> bgdejz D57. Syllogisms, 2 (H54; A-). Sullogismw~n a & b & D58. Syllogism and Definitions, 1 (H55*; A-). Sullogistiko_n kai\ o3roi a & D59. On the choiceworthy and the incidental, 1 (H56*; A-). Peri\ tou~ ai9retou~ kai\ tou~ sumbebhko&toj a & D60. Items before the Topics, 1 (H57; A-). Ta_ pro_ tw~n to&pwn a & D61. Topics related to definition, 2 (H59*; A70*). Topikw~n pro_j tou_j o3rouj a & b & D62. Affections, 1 (H60; A-). Pa&qh a & D63. Division, 1 (H-; A-). Diairetiko_n a & D64. Mathematic, 1 (H53*; A-). Maqhmatiko_n a & D65. Definitions, 13 (H61; A67*). 9Orismoi\ ig & D66. Of Epichirematics, 2 (H62; A61*?, A96*?). 0Epixeirhma&twn a & b &, D67. On Pleasure, 1 (H-; A-). Peri\ h(donh~j a & D68. Propositions, 1 (H-; A-). Prota&seij a & D69. On Power, 1 (H58*; A-). Peri\ e9kousi/ou a & D70. On the Fine, 1 (H63*; A-). Peri\ kalou~ a & D71. Theses Epichirematic, 25 (H65; A63*?). Qe/seij e0pixeirhmatikai\ ke & D72. Theses about Erotics, 4 (H66; A64*?). Qe/seij e0rwtikai\ d & D73. Theses about Friendship, 2 (H67; A-). Qe/seij filikai\ b & D74. Theses on the Soul, 1 (H68*; A-). Qe/seij peri\ yuxh~j a & b. Practical works (ta praktika) D75. Politics, 2 (H69*; A-). Politika_ b & D76. Lectures on Politics, like Theophrastus’, 8 (H70*; A37*). Politikh~j a)kroa&sewj w(j h( Qeofra&stou a & b & g & d & e & v & z & h & D77. On Just Things, 2 (H64; A12). Peri\ dikai/wn a & b & c. Productive works (ta poi tika) D78. Compendium of arts, 2 (H71*; A27*). Texnw~n sunagwgh_ a & b & D79. Of rhetorical art, 2 (H72*; A39*). Te/xnhj r(htorikh~j a & b & D80. Art, 1 (H73; A-). Te/xnh a & D81. Other Art, 2 (H-; A-). 1Allh te/xnh a & b & D82. Methodic, 1 (H-; A-). Meqodiko_n a & D83. Compendium of Art of Theodectus, 1 (H74*; A-). Te/xnhj th~j Qeode/ktou sunagwgh_ a & D84. Treatise of Poetic Art, 2 (H75*; A38*). Pragmatei/a te/xnhj poihtikh~j a & b & D85. Rhetorical Enthymemes, 1 (H76; A-). 0Enqumh&mata r(htorika_ a & D86. On Greatness, 1 (H77*; A-). Peri\ mege/qouj a & D87. Division of Enthymemes, 1 (H78*; A-). 0Enqumhma&twn diaire/seij a & Catalogue of Titles of works attributed by Aristotle 4 D88. On Style, 2 (H79*; A-). Peri\ le/cewj a & b & D89. On Advice, 1 (H80*; A-). Peri\ sumbouli/aj a & D90. Of a Compendium, 2 (H-; A-). Sunagwgh~j a & b & c. Theoretical works (ta the r tika) . Natural philosophy (ta physiologia) D91. On Physics, 3 (H81*; A-). Peri\ fu&sewj a & b & g & D92. Physic, 1 (H82*; A-). Fusiko_n a & D93. On the philosophy of Archytas, 3 (H83*; A10*). Peri\ th~j 0Arxutei/ou filosofi/aj a & b & g & D94. On Speusippus and Xenocratus, 1 (H84; A-). Peri\ th~j Speusi/ppou kai\ Cenokra&touj a & D95. Things from the Timaeus and works of Archytas, 1 (H85*; A-). Ta_ e0k tou~ Timai/ou kai\ tw~n 0Arxutei/wn a & D96. Regarding Melissus, 1 (H86; A-). Pro_j ta_ Meli/ssou a & D97. Regarding Alkmaionus, 1 (H87; A-). Pro_j ta_ 0Alkmai/wnoj a & D98. Regarding the Pythagoreans, 1 (H-; A-). Pro_j tou_j Puqagorei/ouj a & D99. Regarding the works of Gorgias, 1 (H89*; A-). Pro_j ta_ Gorgi/ou a & D100. Regarding Xenophanes, 1 (H-; A-). Pro_j ta_ Cenofa&nouj a & D101. Regarding Zeno, 1 (H-; A-). Pro_j ta_ Zh&nwnoj a & D102.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vocabulary of PHILOSOPHY Vocabulary of PHILOSOPHY Version 1.1 (Last Updated : Apr
    - Institute for scientific and technical information - Vocabulary of PHILOSOPHY Vocabulary of PHILOSOPHY Version 1.1 (Last updated : Apr. 05, 2018) This resource contains 4435 entries grouped into 89 collections. Controlled vocabulary used for indexing bibliographical records for the "Philosophy" FRANCIS database (1972-2015, http://pascal-francis.inist.fr/ ). This vocabulary is browsable online at: https://www.loterre.fr Legend • Syn: Synonym. • →: Corresponding Preferred Term. • FR: French Preferred Term. • DE: German Preferred Term. • SC: Semantic Category. • DO: Domain. • URI: Concept's URI (link to the online view). This resource is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license: LIST OF ENTRIES List of entries English French Page • 10th century Xe siècle 176 • 11th - 13th centuries XIe - XIIIe siècles 176 • 11th century XIe siècle 176 • 12th -13th centuries XIIe - XIIIe siècles 176 • 12th century XIIe siècle 176 • 13th - 14th centuries XIIIe - XIVe siècles 176 • 13th - 15th centuries XIIIe - XVe siècles 176 • 13th century XIIIe siècle 176 • 14th - 15th centuries XIVe - XVe siècles 176 • 14th - 16th centuries XIVe - XVIe siècles 176 • 14th - 17th centuries XIVe - XVIIe siècles 176 • 14th century XIVe siècle 176 • 15th - 17th centuries XVe - XVIIe siècles 176 • 15th century XVe siècle 176 • 1656-1658 1656-1658 176 • 16th - 17th centuries XVIe - XVIIe siècles 176 • 16th - 18th centuries XVIe - XVIIIe siècles 176 • 16th - 20th centuries XVIe - XXe siècles 176 • 16th century XVIe siècle 176 • 1735-1985 1735-1985
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotle's Assertoric Syllogistic and Modern Relevance Logic*
    Aristotle’s assertoric syllogistic and modern relevance logic* Abstract: This paper sets out to evaluate the claim that Aristotle’s Assertoric Syllogistic is a relevance logic or shows significant similarities with it. I prepare the grounds for a meaningful comparison by extracting the notion of relevance employed in the most influential work on modern relevance logic, Anderson and Belnap’s Entailment. This notion is characterized by two conditions imposed on the concept of validity: first, that some meaning content is shared between the premises and the conclusion, and second, that the premises of a proof are actually used to derive the conclusion. Turning to Aristotle’s Prior Analytics, I argue that there is evidence that Aristotle’s Assertoric Syllogistic satisfies both conditions. Moreover, Aristotle at one point explicitly addresses the potential harmfulness of syllogisms with unused premises. Here, I argue that Aristotle’s analysis allows for a rejection of such syllogisms on formal grounds established in the foregoing parts of the Prior Analytics. In a final section I consider the view that Aristotle distinguished between validity on the one hand and syllogistic validity on the other. Following this line of reasoning, Aristotle’s logic might not be a relevance logic, since relevance is part of syllogistic validity and not, as modern relevance logic demands, of general validity. I argue that the reasons to reject this view are more compelling than the reasons to accept it and that we can, cautiously, uphold the result that Aristotle’s logic is a relevance logic. Keywords: Aristotle, Syllogism, Relevance Logic, History of Logic, Logic, Relevance 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Lucyna Kostuch Do Animals Have a Homeland
    H U M a N I M A L I A 9:1 Lucyna Kostuch Do animals have a homeland? Ancient Greeks on the cultural identity of animals The role of animals in ancient Greek culture has been discussed in a variety of contexts, — the relation between human and animal, the moral status of animals, animals in the works of naturalists, animals in tragedy, animals in art, zooarchaeological research. 1 In the literature of ancient Greece, animals are used to represent all things that do not belong to civil society or to the Greek community: slaves, women, and foreign peoples (barbaroi ). Symbolically, animals are often placed outside the country. 2 However, a close reading of texts by Greek authors leads to the conclusion that this is just one side of the coin. The Greeks attributed regional identity to animals, defined by the local geography, and by the history of a region enclosed by borders. At the same time, the world of animals seemed to be ethnically diversified, for the Hellenes coined the terms “Hellenic animal,” belonging to the Greek culture, and “barbaric animal,” belonging to a foreign culture. In this way, Greek animals became an inalienable part of the Hellenic “national” legacy. The Greeks imagined the human world and the world of animals as a world of common borders — there were “familiar” and “unfamiliar” animals at all levels of spatial division. This article, based primarily on literary sources, aims to answer the following questions: How did the ancient Greeks associate animals with space, geography, and their own settlements? Did they attribute nationality and territory to animals? Did they think animals missed their homelands? Could a foreign animal experience a process of cultural integration, namely Hellenization? Animals and Greek civilization .
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction the Age of Biology
    INTRODUCTION THE AGE OF BIOLOGY An organism is the product of its genetic constitution and its en- vironment . no matter how uniform plants are genotypically, they cannot be phenotypically uniform or reproducible, unless they have developed under strictly uniform conditions. — Frits Went, 1957 A LITERARY and cinematic sensation, Andy Weir’s The Martian is engi- neering erotica. The novel thrills with minute technical details of com- munications, rocket fuel, transplanetary orbital calculations, and botany. The action concerns a lone astronaut left on Mars struggling to survive for 1,425 days using only the materials that equipped a 6-person, 30-day mission. Food is an early crisis: the astronaut has only 400 days of meals plus 12 whole potatoes. Combining his expertise in botany and engineer- ing, the astronaut first works to create in his Mars habitat the perfect Earth conditions for his particular potatoes, namely, a temperature of 25.5°C, plenty of light, and 250 liters of water. Consequently, his potatoes grow at a predicted rate to maturity in 40 days, thus successfully conjur- ing sufficient food to last until his ultimate rescue at the end of the novel. Unlike so many of the technical details deployed throughout the novel, the ideal conditions for growing potatoes are just a factoid. Whereas readers of the novel get to discover how to make water in a process oc- cupying twenty pages, the discovery of the ideal growing conditions of the particular potatoes brought to Mars is given one line.1 Undoubtedly, making water from rocket fuel is tough, but getting a potato’s maximum 3 © 2017 University of Pittsburgh Press.
    [Show full text]
  • De Plantis, Once Belonging to Maimonides’.[3]
    Fragment of the Month: January 2017 Plants on Maimonides’ bookshelf: T-S Ar.41.41 by Gabriele Ferrario Which were the favourite books of Moses Maimonides? Which titles would have found space on his bookshelf? Maimonides’ letter to the Hebrew translator of most of his Judaeo-Arabic production, Samuel ibn Tibbon, contains revealing passages regarding the books that Maimonides considered the basis of any solid philosophical education.[1] No wonder the place of honour is occupied by the works of Aristotle, which became available to the Arabic-speaking world thanks to the spectacular effort of Arabisation of Greek sciences conducted under the Abbasid caliphs. Maimonides describes Aristotelian treatises as ‘the roots and foundations of all works on the sciences’. But Aristotle’s philosophy was not always easy to understand for a medieval reader, and Maimonides recognised the utility of later commentaries and systematisations of Aristotelian works produced by philosophers of Late Antiquity and Islam, in particular the works by Alexander of Aphrodisias (2nd–3rd c.), Themistius (d. 390 CE), and Averroes (d. 1198). As much as praising his favourite authors, Maimonides is very keen on downplaying the importance of authors he fancied less, and writes to Ibn Tibbon that reading commentaries by Abū Yaḥyā ibn al-Biṭrīq (9th century), Yaḥyā ibn ʿAdī (10th c.) and by Abū al-Faraj ibn al-Tayyib (11th c.) would be a waste of time. A similarly dismissive approach characterises Maimonides’ stance towards Plato and other Greek classical philosophers: Aristotle said it all, why should one look for anything else? Among Muslim philosophers, Maimonides praises Al-Fārābī (10th c.), particularly for his logical works, Ibn Bajja (the Latin Avempace, 11th–12th c.) and Averroes (12th c.) for his numerous Aristotelian commentaries; he also remarks that books by Avicenna (11th c.) are worth studying, even if they are not as good as Al- Fārābī’s.
    [Show full text]
  • 7 Aristotle on Greatness of Soul
    7 Aristotle on Greatness of Soul Roger Crisp n the recent revival of interest in Aristotelian ethics, relatively little attention has been paid to the virtue of greatness of soul (megalopsuchia). This is partly Ibecause of the focus on the more structurally central concepts of Aristotle’s theory, in particular happiness (eudaimonia) and virtue (aret¯e). But in fact a study of greatness of soul can reveal important insights into the overall shape of Aristotelian ethics, including the place of external goods and luck in the virtuous life, and the significance of “the noble” (to kalon). Further, Aristotle describes the great-souled person in more detail than any other, and calls greatness of soul a “sort of crown of the virtues” (NE IV.3.1124a1–2). Many have found aspects of the portrait of the great-souled person in the Nicomachean Ethics repellent or absurd, but that is no good reason for the student of Aristotle to shy away from it. In this chapter, I shall elucidate Aristotle’s account of greatness of soul, addressing some puzzles internal to that account and bringing out its place in, and implications for, the ethics of Aristotle and of those modern writers influenced by him. Greatness of Soul as a Virtue To understand greatness of soul as an Aristotelian virtue requires first understand- ing Aristotle’s conception of virtue itself. Aristotle distinguishes virtues into two classes – intellectual virtues and virtues of character – corresponding to distinct aspects of the human soul (NE I.13). Greatness of soul is a virtue of character, though, like all such virtues, it requires its possessor to have the intellectual virtue of practical wisdom (phron¯esis; NE VI.13).
    [Show full text]
  • The Cosmological Significance of Animal Generation (.Pdf)
    CHAPTER X: THE COSMOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF GENERATION **This is a work-in-progress. DO NOT cite without permission** Presented at the Princeton Classical Philosophy Conference, December 7-8 2013. Some context. I am currently working a book on Aristotle’s account of the generation of substances. The central aim of the book is to examine the ways in which Aristotle’s general theory of substantial generation are reflected in, and modified by, his more specific account of the generation of organic substances in the biological works, primarily, the Generation of Animals. My working hypothesis is that Aristotle's mature theory of animal generation is what we should expect when the more generic model developed in the foundational works (e.g. Physics, Generation and Corruption) is understood through concepts specific to the domain of living nature. This places my project within the context of a recent trend in scholarship on Aristotle’s natural philosophy that stresses the importance of integrating his natural investigations into a single explanatory project. This paper will form the basis for the final chapter of that study, which explores the relation between Aristotle’s mature theory of animal generation and his broader cosmology. INTRODUCTION: TWO PERSPECTIVES David Sedley is perhaps the most well-known defender of the cosmological interpretation of Aristotle’s teleology. According to Sedley, Aristotle thinks of the universe as an organized whole whose parts (elements, animals, and plants) are all coordinated in such a way that their mutual interactions contribute to the good of the cosmos and, ultimately, the good of man (Sedley 1991, 180; 2010, 24).
    [Show full text]
  • Marko Malink (NYU)
    Demonstration by reductio ad impossibile in Posterior Analytics 1.26 Marko Malink (New York University) Contents 1. Aristotle’s thesis in Posterior Analytics 1. 26 ................................................................................. 1 2. Direct negative demonstration vs. demonstration by reductio ................................................. 14 3. Aristotle’s argument from priority in nature .............................................................................. 25 4. Priority in nature for a-propositions ............................................................................................ 38 5. Priority in nature for e-, i-, and o-propositions .......................................................................... 55 6. Accounting for Aristotle’s thesis in Posterior Analytics 1. 26 ................................................... 65 7. Parts and wholes ............................................................................................................................. 77 References ............................................................................................................................................ 89 1. Aristotle’s thesis in Posterior Analytics 1. 26 At the beginning of the Analytics, Aristotle states that the subject of the treatise is demonstration (ἀπόδειξις). A demonstration, for Aristotle, is a kind of deductive argument. It is a deduction through which, when we possess it, we have scientific knowledge (ἐπιστήμη). While the Prior Analytics deals with deduction in
    [Show full text]
  • The INPR Journal. Volume I, Fall 2020
    Crossing: The INPR Journal. Volume I, Fall 2020. Editor in chief Emmanuel Falque Editorial coordinators William L. Connelly Domenico Cambria Editorial committee Tamsin Jones Adam Graves Martin Koci William Woody S.J. Crossing: The INPR Journal. Volume I. November 2020. 26 Rue d’Assas 75006 Paris, France. ISSN (online): 2644-9242 DOI: 10.21428/8766eb43.b95a977c Web: https://inprjournal.pubpub.org/ http://www.network-inpr.org/ Email: [email protected] Crossing : une étape fondatrice de l’INPR (English Translation on Page III) L’international Network of Philosophy of Religion (INPR) est un réseau international de jeunes philosophes et théologiens (doctorants, post-doctorants, jeunes professeurs) réunis pour travailler ensemble autour de la question de Dieu et de sa pertinence dans un monde contemporain sécularisé. Essentiellement appuyé sur la philosophie continentale, mais pas exclusivement, il s’efforce d’être au service d’un renouveau de la philosophie et de la théologie chez les jeunes générations pour aujourd’hui. Loin de rester chacune sur leur pré-carré, philosophie et théologie sont appelées aujourd’hui à se croiser et à davantage se féconder mutuellement, dans le respect de la distinction des disciplines. Et les chercheurs de différents pays, en particulier ceux qui feront la pensée de demain, doivent eux aussi mieux dialoguer, sûrs que dans la confrontation des idées se fomente le terreau d’où naissent de nouvelles pensées. Inauguré en 2015, ce réseau international compte aujourd’hui plus d’une centaine de membres personnellement engagés, de plus de dix nationalités différentes, et venus en particulier d’Europe et des États-Unis. Les membres qui constituent ce réseau ont déjà fait la preuve par plusieurs séminaires (grands colloques ou séminaires doctoraux et post-doctoraux) du bien-fondé de leur démarche commune.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Plant Collection and Identification
    GUIDE TO PLANT COLLECTION AND IDENTIFICATION by Jane M. Bowles PhD Originally prepared for a workshop in Plant Identification for the Ministry of Natural Resources in 1982. Edited and revised for the UWO Herbarium Workshop in Plant Collection and Identification, 2004 © Jane M. Bowles, 2004 -0- CHAPTER 1 THE NAMES OF PLANTS The history of plant nomenclature: Humans have always had a need to classify objects in the world about them. It is the only means they have of acquiring and passing on knowledge. The need to recognize and describe plants has always been especially important because of their use for food and medicinal purposes. The commonest, showiest or most useful plants were given common names, but usually these names varied from country to country and often from district to district. Scholars and herbalists knew the plants by a long, descriptive, Latin sentence. For example Cladonia rangiferina, the common "Reindeer Moss", was described as Muscus coralloides perforatum (The perforated, coral-like moss). Not only was this system unwieldy, but it too varied from user to user and with the use of the plant. In the late 16th century, Casper Bauhin devised a system of using just two names for each plant, but it was not universally adopted until the Swedish naturalist, Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778) set about methodically classifying and naming the whole of the natural world. The names of plants: In 1753, Linnaeus published his "Species Plantarum". The modern names of nearly all plants date from this work or obey the conventions laid down in it. The scientific name for an organism consists of two words: i) the genus or generic name, ii) the specific epithet.
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotle and the Value of Tragedy Malcolm Heath
    Aristotle and the Value of Tragedy Malcolm Heath This article explores Aristotle’s understanding of the value of tragedy. The primarily technical analyses of the Poetics are not sufficient for this purpose: they must be read in the context of Aristotle’s philosophical anthropology. An outline of Aristotle’s understanding of the structure of human motivation provides a framework within which to interpret his discussion of the uses of music, and in particular of music’s status as an intrinsically valuable component of cultivated Downloaded from leisure. Applying that model to tragedy requires an explanation of what motivates engagement with drama that evokes distressing affects. Aristotle’s account of musical katharsis, if read with sufficient attention to its structure and interpreted in the light of his analysis of pleasure, provides a solution. If the importance which Aristotle attaches to intrinsically valuable leisure activities is overlooked, it http://bjaesthetics.oxfordjournals.org/ is not possible to understand his conception of a good human life, or his aesthetics. What motivates human beings to invest time and effort in producing and consuming trag- edies? And how does that investment contribute to a characteristically human way of life? That is, what value attaches to the production and consumption of tragedies? Though Aristotle touches briefly on poetry’s roots in human nature at the beginning of Poetics 4, for the most part the existence of poetry and its diverse kinds is treated in the Poetics, not as an explanandum, but as the starting point for technical analyses of how poems, in their various kinds, are best composed.
    [Show full text]
  • Aeschynē in Aristotle's Conception of Human Nature Melissa Marie Coakley University of South Florida, [email protected]
    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 3-20-2014 Aeschynē in Aristotle's Conception of Human Nature Melissa Marie Coakley University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the Philosophy Commons Scholar Commons Citation Coakley, Melissa Marie, "Aeschynē in Aristotle's Conception of Human Nature" (2014). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/4999 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Aeschynē in Aristotle’s Conception of Human Nature by Melissa M. Coakley A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy College of Arts and Science University of South Florida Major Professor: Joanne Waugh, Ph.D. Bruce Silver, Ph.D. Roger Ariew, Ph.D. Thomas Williams, Ph.D. Date of Approval: March 20, 2014 Keywords: Shame, Anaeschyntia, Aidōs, Aischynē, Ancient Greek Passions Copyright © 2014, Melissa M. Coakley DEDICATION This manuscript is dedicated to my husband Bill Murray and to my parents: Joan and Richard Coakley. Thank you for your endless support, encouragement, and friendship. To Dr. John P. Anton, I have learned from you the importance of having a “ton of virtue and a shield of nine layers for protection from the abysmal depths of vice.” Thank you for believing in me, my dear friend.
    [Show full text]