DOCSLIB.ORG

A History of Western Philosophy Ralph Mcinerny

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

A History of Western Philosophy Ralph McInerny Volume I Foreword / Acknowledgements • Part I: Presocratic Philosophy o Chapter I: Before Philosophy A. The Quarrel Between Philosophy and Poetry B. The Theological Poets C. Greek Primitive Religion o Chapter II: The Ionians A. Thales of Miletus B. Anaximander of Miletus C. Anaximenes of Miletus D. Xenophanes E. Heraclitus of Ephesus o Chapter III: The Italians A. The Pythagoreans 1) Pythagoras of Samos 2) Pythagorean Doctrines B. Parmenides of Elea C. Zeno of Elea D. Melissus of Samos o Chapter IV: Empedocles of Acragas A. On Nature B. Purifications o Chapter V: Anaxagoras of Clazimenae o Chapter VI: Atomism Diogenes of Apollonia o Chapter VII: The Sophists A. Protagoras of Abdera B. Gorgias of Leontini C. Prodicus of Ceos D. Some Other Sophists E. Concluding Summary • Part II: The Classical Period o Chapter I: Socrates A. His Life B. The Character of Socrates C. The Doctrine of Socrates D. The Socratic Schools o Chapter II: Plato A. The Man and His Work B. The Doctrine of Forms C. The Crisis in Plato's Thought D. Plato's Natural Doctrine E. Plato's View of Man o Chapter III: Aristotle A. The Man and his Work B. The Nature and Division of Philosophy C. Aristotle's Logic D. Aristotle's Philosophy of Nature E. Moral and Political Philosophy F. First Philosophy • Part III: The Hellenistic Period o Chapter I: Epicureanism A. Canonic B. Physics C. Ethics D. The History of the School o Chapter II: The Stoics A. Logic B. Physics C. Ethics D. The Roman Stoics o Chapter III: Sceptics and the New Academy A. Pyrrho of Elis B. Timon of Philus C. Arcesilaus D. Carneades of Cyrene E. Some Later Sceptics F. The Subsequent History of the Academy o Chapter IV: Neoplatonism A. Revival of Pythagoreanism. B. Plotinus C. After Plotinus • Bibliography o Readings for Part One A. Sources B. General Studies C. Particular Studies o Readings for Part Two A. Sources and Studies: Plato B. Sources and Studies: Aristotle o Readings for Part Three • Index to Volume I Volume II • Part I: The Age of Augustine o Chapter I: Faith and Philosophy o Chapter II: Saint Augustine A. The Man and His Work B. Philosophy and the Arts C. Philosophy and Beatitude D. Criticism of Platonism E. What Is Man? F. God G. Creation H. The City of God I. Conclusion o Chapter III: Denis the Areopagite o Chapter IV: Boethius A. The Man and His Work B. Faith and Reason C. Division of Philosophy D. The Status of Universals F. Plato or Aristotle? F. Conclusion o Chapter V: Cassiodorus, Isadore, Bede • Part II: The Carolingian Renaissance o Chapter I: Alcuin and Rhabanus Maurus A. Charlemagne and the Schools B. Alcuin (735-804) C. Fredegisus of Tours D. Rhabanus Maurus (784-856) E. The Carolingian Heritage o Chapter II: John Scotus Erigena A. His Life and Works B. Faith and Philosophy C. The Division of Nature o Chapter III: Other Ninth and Tenth Century Figures A. Heiric of Auxerre (c.835 - c.887) B. Remigius of Auxerre (c.841 - c.908) C. Gerbert of Aurillac (c.940-1003) • Part III: The Twelfth Century o Chapter I: Introduction o Chapter II: Saint Anselm of Canterbury A. The Man and His Work B. Faith and Reason C. The Proof of God's Existence D. Anselm and Dialectics o Chapter III: Peter Abelard A. The Man and His Work B. Abelard's Logic C. Faith and Reason D. Abelard's Ethics o Chapter IV: The School of Chartres A. From Fulbert to Bernard B. Gilbert of Poitiers (1076-1154) C. William of Conches (c.1080 - c.ll84) D. Thierry of Chartres (died before 1155) E. Clarenbald of Arras (died c.1160) F. John of Salisbury (1110-1180) o Chapter V: Monastic Thought A. Hugh of St. Victor (1096-1141) B. Other Victorines C. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) D. Other Figures o Chapter VI: Dominicus Gundissilinus A. What Is Philosophy? B. The Division of Philosophy • Part IV: The Thirteenth Century o Chapter I: The Background A. The Universities B. Translations C. Islamic Philosophy o Chapter II: The Beginnings A. William of Auvergne (c.1180-1249) B. Alexander of Hales (c.1185-1245) C. Robert Grosseteste (1175-1253) o Chapter III: Albert the Great A. The Man and His Work B. Faith and Reason C. Conclusion o Chapter IV: Roger Bacon A. His Life and Work B. The Opus majus C. Conclusion o Chapter V: Saint Bonaventure A. The Man and His Work B. The Nature of Philosophy C. Simultaneity of Knowledge and Belief D. Is Philosophy Autonomous? E. The Division of Philosophy F. The Divine Ideas C. The Nature of Illumination H. Proofs of God's Existence I. Creation and Universal Hylomorphism J. Conclusion o Chapter VI: Saint Thomas Aquinas A. The Man and His Work B. Philosophy and Theology C. The Division of Philosophy D. Logic E. Natural Philosophy F. Metaphysics G. Moral Philosophy H. Thomas and His Time o Chapter VII: Conclusion • Part V: The Fourteenth Century o Chapter I: Introduction o Chapter II: John Duns Scotus A. The Man and His Work B. Being and God C. Faith and Reason o Chapter III: William of Ockham A. The Man and His Work B. Knowledge C. Logic D. Metaphysics • Index to Volume II Foreword This history of ancient philosophy tries to give a comprehensive but wholly introductory sketch of a difficult and changing historical terrain. We are still learning about the beginnings of philosophy and the scholarly contributions to our knowledge mount almost menacingly, intimidating one who would attempt an over-all simplified presentation. Writing a memo in anticipation of the Libyan battles, Churchill predicted that renown awaited the commander who would restore artillery to its proper place on the battle field: later he seemed as pleased with his phrasing of the claim as of its fulfillment. Perhaps a relieved welcome, if not renown, awaits an introductory history which is not studded with the artillery of footnotes apprising the bewildered neophyte of esoteric studies on the fine points of recent scholarship in the period he is encountering for the first time. It is my feeling that there is little point in cluttering an introductory work with such references: the teacher does not need them and the student is not ready for them. Better unabashedly to popularize the period so as to make it as immediately and painlessly accesible as can honestly be done. The short reading lists at the back of the book will enable the interested reader to begin study in that scholarship on which such books as this are based. Of course, in the narrative, broad divergences of interpretation are mentioned and occasionally even adjudicated, but in every instance the attitude has been irenic and permissive. It is an Aristotelian axiom that we must begin any study with a confused view of the whole and this volume provides only a first step in the study of ancient philosophy. The present work was not conceived to fill some glaring gap in the works available for classroom use; there is a plethora of good histories of ancient philosophy. This effort differs from some in the manner indicated in the preceding paragraph; it differs from others in being more brief; it differs from all, hopefully, in the style of its approach which may appeal to student and teacher alike. It is difficult to resist the impulse to put what one has learned into his own words even when what he knows is neither a private possession nor a personal discovery. In the course of teaching the history of ancient philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, on campus as well as in Moreau Seminary, I amassed folders of notes, made sketches of chapters, had visions of a volume. When an opportunity came to prepare this book for Henry Regnery Company I was willing if not wholly ready to accept it. The result, being actual, seems almost a betrayal of the shimmering possibility I had cherished. But that is often the way with actualities. I shall now let my imagination play on the possibility that this book will be of some aid to teacher and student in courses in the history of ancient philosophy. That hope, at once modest and immense, is why it was written. Acknowledgements I would like to express my gratitude to the following publishers for their permission to quote copyrighted material: To the Clarendon Press, Oxford, for quotations from The Works of Aristotle Translated into English, 12 volumes, edited by W. D. Ross, 1905-1952, and from E. R. Dodds, Proclus' Elements of Theology, 1933; To Harvard University Press for quotations from the following volumes in the Loeb Classical Library: Diogenes Laertius' Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, 2 volumes, edited by R. D. Hicks, 1950; H. G. Evelyn-White, Hesiod, The Homeric Hymns and Homerica (1943); Sextus Empiricus, 4 volumes, edited by R. G. Bury, 1933-1949. To the Editors off the Encyclopedia Britannica for permission to quote from the MacKenna and Page translation of the Enneads of Plotinus which appears in Great Books of the Western World. To Cambridge University Press for generous permission to quote from G. S. Kirk and J. E. Raven, The Presocratic Philosophers, Cambridge, 1957. To Basil Blackwell for permission to quote from Kathleen Freeman, Ancilla to the Presocratic Philosophers, Oxford, 1948. To Appleton-Century-Crofts for permission to quote from Selections from Hellenistic Philosophy by Gordon Clark, 1940. To Princeton University Press for permission to quote from Philip Wheelwright, Heraclitus, Princeton, 1959. To Columbia University Press for permission to quote from Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology by Charles H.
Recommended publications
  • Curriculum Vitae

    Curriculum Vitae

    Timothy Williamson: Publications in reverse chronological order In preparation [a] ‘Knowledge, credence, and strength of belief’, invited for Amy Flowerree and Baron Reed (eds.), The Epistemic. [b] ‘Blackburn against moral realism’, for Paul Bloomfield and David Copp (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Moral Realism, Oxford University Press. [c] ‘Non-modal normativity and norms of belief’, for Ilkka Niiniluoto and Sami Pihlstrom (eds.), volume on normativity, Acta Philosophica Fennica (2020). [d] ‘The KK principle and rotational symmetry’, invited for Analytic Philosophy. [e] ‘Chakrabarti and the Nyāya on knowability’. To appear [a] Suppose and Tell: The Semantics and Heuristics of Conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020. [b] (with Paul Boghossian) Debating the A Priori. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020. [c] ‘Edgington on possible knowledge of unknown truth’, in J. Hawthorne and L. Walters (eds.), Conditionals, Probability, and Paradox: Themes from the Philosophy of Dorothy Edgington, Oxford: Oxford University Press. [d] ‘Justifications, excuses, and skeptical scenarios’, in J. Dutant and F. Dorsch (eds.), The New Evil Demon, Oxford University Press. [e] ‘The counterfactual-based approach to modal epistemology’, in Otávio Bueno and Scott Shalkowski (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Modality, London: Routledge. [f] ‘More Oxonian scepticism about the a priori’, in Dylan Dodd and Elia Zardini (eds.), The A Priori: Its Significance, Grounds, and Extent, Oxford University Press. [g] ‘Reply to Casullo’s defence of the significance of the a priori – a posteriori distinction’, in Dylan Dodd and Elia Zardini (eds.), The A Priori: Its Significance, Grounds, and Extent, Oxford University Press. [h] ‘Introduction’ to Khaled Qutb, Summary of The Philosophy of Philosophy (in Arabic), Cairo: Academic Bookshop.
  • Cyrenaics and Epicureans on Pleasure and the Good Life: the Original Debate and Its Later Revivals

    Cyrenaics and Epicureans on Pleasure and the Good Life: the Original Debate and Its Later Revivals

    Cyrenaics and Epicureans on Pleasure and the Good Life: The Original Debate and Its Later Revivals Voula Tsouna Both ancient and modern historians of philosophy contrast the ethics of the Cyrenaics and the Epicureans with each other. And although this opposition often derives from doxographical interventions, there is no doubt that it reflects a historical fact, namely a longstanding and persistent rivalry between the two schools. Philosophical as well as chronological factors appear to have favored its development: both schools posit pleasure as the supreme good and pain as the supreme evil. And they temporally overlap: Epicurus was a near contem- porary of the later Cyrenaic sects, whose leaders were Paraebates, Theodorus, Anniceris, and Hegesias. As for the last known representatives of these sects, they coincide in time with Epicurus’s immediate successors. The purpose of this paper is to lay out the initial controversy and exam- ine its revivals in the late Hellenistic and Roman eras. Part One offers some necessary background about the earlier stages of interaction between the two schools. Part Two explains how the Academics Cicero and Plutarch appeal to the Cyrenaic doctrine in order to pursue their own anti-Epicurean agendas. Parts Three and Four examine the ways in which two late Epicurean authors, Philodemus (first century BCE) and Diogenes of Oinoanda (second century CE), target the Cyrenaics for their own philosophical and dialectical purposes. Part Five argues that both the original debate and its reenactments qualify as cases of philosophical polemics. Also, it speculates on the reasons why the Epicureans and their critics resurrect the Cyrenaics to advance their own aims.
  • Skepticism and Pluralism Ways of Living a Life Of

    Skepticism and Pluralism Ways of Living a Life Of

    SKEPTICISM AND PLURALISM WAYS OF LIVING A LIFE OF AWARENESS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ZHUANGZI #±r A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'I IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN PHILOSOPHY AUGUST 2004 By John Trowbridge Dissertation Committee: Roger T. Ames, Chairperson Tamara Albertini Chung-ying Cheng James E. Tiles David R. McCraw © Copyright 2004 by John Trowbridge iii Dedicated to my wife, Jill iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In completing this research, I would like to express my appreciation first and foremost to my wife, Jill, and our three children, James, Holly, and Henry for their support during this process. I would also like to express my gratitude to my entire dissertation committee for their insight and understanding ofthe topics at hand. Studying under Roger Ames has been a transformative experience. In particular, his commitment to taking the Chinese tradition on its own terms and avoiding the tendency among Western interpreters to overwrite traditional Chinese thought with the preoccupations ofWestern philosophy has enabled me to broaden my conception ofphilosophy itself. Roger's seminars on Confucianism and Daoism, and especially a seminar on writing a philosophical translation ofthe Zhongyong r:pJm (Achieving Equilibrium in the Everyday), have greatly influenced my own initial attempts to translate and interpret the seminal philosophical texts ofancient China. Tamara Albertini's expertise in ancient Greek philosophy was indispensable to this project, and a seminar I audited with her, comparing early Greek and ancient Chinese philosophy, was part ofthe inspiration for my choice ofresearch topic. I particularly valued the opportunity to study Daoism and the Yijing ~*~ with Chung-ying Cheng g\Gr:p~ and benefited greatly from his theory ofonto-cosmology as a means of understanding classical Chinese philosophy.
  • Leven: Een Kwestie Van Genieten1

    Leven: Een Kwestie Van Genieten1

    Leven: een kwestie van genieten1 Ik wandel door het bos. Het is een stralende, winterse dag. De zon schijnt. De bladeren kleuren bruin, geel, oranje, rood. Er ligt een dun laagje ijs op het water. Mijn vijf maanden oude zoontje bungelt in zijn draag- doek op mijn buik. Ik voel: het lichaam dat ik ben geniet op dit ogenblik. Ik zit thuis aan tafel. Kaarslicht werpt schaduwen op het muurkleed. Muziek uit Mali klinkt uit de luidsprekers. Ik eet een bord heerlijk gekruide Thaise vissoep en drink een glas Chardonnay. Ik voel: het lichaam dat ik ben geniet op dit ogenblik. Ik loop - vijf jaar geleden, ik herinner het mij als de dag van vandaag – ‘s ochtends vroeg van Thorung Phedi naar Thorung La (in de Himalaya), meer dan vijf duizend meter hoog. Overal om mij heen verblindend witte sneeuw, de blauwe hemel – letterlijk: “on top of the world”. Ik voel: het lichaam dat ik ben geniet op dit ogenblik. Ik zit op een rots, aan een kiezelstrand aan de kust van het Griekse eiland Amorgos. De Aegeïsche zee ligt diep blauw voor mij. Mijn vriendin zit op haar knieën voor mij. Zij pijpt mij. Ik kom klaar. Ik voel: het lichaam dat ik ben geniet op dit ogenblik. Vier momentopnamen uit mijn leven die ik niet beschreven vind in het ‘meest succesvolle Filosofieboek van 2002’, de door Joep Dohmen ver- zorgde bloemlezing Over levenskunst 2. Waarom niet? Zouden grote filosofen deze ogenblikken niet kennen? Zouden ze deze momenten van genieten niet beschouwen als behorende tot het goede leven? En ‘kleine filosofen’ dan? 1 Deze tekst verscheen in het tijdschrift Filosofie, (april/mei 2003) 2 Joep Dohmen: Over levenskunst.
  • Gillian K. Russell

    Gillian K. Russell

    Gillian K. Russell Dianoia Institute of Philosophy (cell) +1 (858) 205{2834 Locked Bag 4115 MDC [email protected] Fitzroy, Victoria 3065 https://www.gillianrussell.net Australia Current Employment Professor of Philosophy Dianoia Institute at ACU in Melbourne 2020| 1 Arch´eProfessorial Fellow ( 5 th time) University of St Andrews, Scotland 2019{2023 Employment and Education History Alumni Distinguished Professor University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 2019{2020 Professor of Philosophy University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 2015{19 Associate Professor in Philosophy Washington University in St Louis 2011{2015 Assistant Professor in Philosophy Washington University in St Louis 2004{2011 Killam Postdoctoral Fellow University of Alberta 2005 Ph.D. in Philosophy Princeton University 2004 M.A. in Philosophy Princeton University 2002 M.A. in German and Philosophy University of St Andrews, Scotland 1999 Areas of Specialisation Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Logic, Epistemology Areas of Competence Logic, History of Analytic Philosophy, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Science and Mathematics Books { Truth in Virtue of Meaning: a defence of the analytic/synthetic distinction (Oxford, 2008) { The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Language, with Delia Graff Fara (eds.) (Routledge, 2011) { New Waves in Philosophical Logic, with Greg Restall (eds.) (Palgrave MacMillan, 2012) Accepted and Published Papers { \Social Spheres" forthcoming in Feminist Philosophy and Formal Logic Audrey Yap and Roy Cook (eds) { \Logic: A Feminist Approach" forthcoming in Philosophy for Girls: An invitation to the life of thought, M. Shew and K. Garchar (eds) (Oxford University Press, 2020) { \Waismann's Papers on the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction" in Friedrich Waismann: The Open Texture of Analytic Philosophy, D.
  • A History of Cynicism

    A History of Cynicism

    A HISTORY OF CYNICISM Downloaded from https://www.holybooks.com Downloaded from https://www.holybooks.com A HISTORY OF CYNICISM From Diogenes to the 6th Century A.D. by DONALD R. DUDLEY F,llow of St. John's College, Cambrid1e Htmy Fellow at Yale University firl mll METHUEN & CO. LTD. LONDON 36 Essex Street, Strand, W.C.2 Downloaded from https://www.holybooks.com First published in 1937 PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN Downloaded from https://www.holybooks.com PREFACE THE research of which this book is the outcome was mainly carried out at St. John's College, Cambridge, Yale University, and Edinburgh University. In the help so generously given to my work I have been no less fortunate than in the scenes in which it was pursued. I am much indebted for criticism and advice to Professor M. Rostovtseff and Professor E. R. Goodonough of Yale, to Professor A. E. Taylor of Edinburgh, to Professor F. M. Cornford of Cambridge, to Professor J. L. Stocks of Liverpool, and to Dr. W. H. Semple of Reading. I should also like to thank the electors of the Henry Fund for enabling me to visit the United States, and the College Council of St. John's for electing me to a Research Fellowship. Finally, to• the unfailing interest, advice and encouragement of Mr. M. P. Charlesworth of St. John's I owe an especial debt which I can hardly hope to repay. These acknowledgements do not exhaust the list of my obligations ; but I hope that other kindnesses have been acknowledged either in the text or privately.
  • From Hades to the Stars: Empedocles on the Cosmic Habitats of Soul', Classical Antiquity, Vol

    From Hades to the Stars: Empedocles on the Cosmic Habitats of Soul', Classical Antiquity, Vol

    Edinburgh Research Explorer From Hades to the stars Citation for published version: Trepanier, S 2017, 'From Hades to the stars: Empedocles on the cosmic habitats of soul', Classical Antiquity, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 130-182. https://doi.org/10.1525/ca.2017.36.1.130 Digital Object Identifier (DOI): 10.1525/ca.2017.36.1.130 Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Published In: Classical Antiquity Publisher Rights Statement: Published as Trépanier, S. 2017. From Hades to the Stars: Empedocles on the Cosmic Habitats of Soul, Classical Antiquity, Vol. 36 No. 1, April 2017; (pp. 130-182) DOI: 10.1525/ca.2017.36.1.130. © 2017 by the Regents of the University of California. Authorization to copy this content beyond fair use (as specified in Sections 107 and 108 of the U. S. Copyright Law) for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by the Regents of the University of California for libraries and other users, provided that they are registered with and pay the specified fee via Rightslink® or directly with the Copyright Clearance Center. General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation.
  • From Cratylus to Aristotle

    From Cratylus to Aristotle

    From Cratylus to Aristotle Article by Martha Keltz Heraclitus and Cratylus – From the Sixth to the Fifth Century Before Christ Heraclitus, Cratylus and the Essenes “The name of John is connected with the city of Ephesus, and equipped with Imaginative insight into world history, he is continually referred back along an inner path to the ancient temple of Diana of Ephesus, and confronts these significant words: 'In the primal Beginning was the Logos. And the Logos was with God. And the Logos was a God. “ ...When the evangelist could read about Ephesus in the Akasha Record, could read that for which his heart thirsted, [he found] the right form in which to clothe what he wanted to say to humanity concerning the mystery of the beginning of the world.” - Rudolf Steiner , Mystery Centers. “Thus we show how Eabani [from The Epic of Gilgamesh ], in the incarnation between the life as Eabani and the life as Aristotle, was able under the influence of the ancient Mystery teachings, into which forces streamed from the supersensible worlds, to imbibe the principles which in certain Mystery schools were essential to the further development of the human soul... In such Mystery schools the feelings and impulses paramountly awakened were those capable of eradicating every trace of egoism from the soul... In the Mysteries to which I am here referring, the soul had to learn to feel pity and compassion for everything human, for everything cosmic – compassion born from the overcoming of the physical plane.” - Occult History . The life between Eabani and Aristotle was that of Cratylus.
  • The Liar Paradox As a Reductio Ad Absurdum Argument

    The Liar Paradox As a Reductio Ad Absurdum Argument

    University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 3 May 15th, 9:00 AM - May 17th, 5:00 PM The Liar Paradox as a reductio ad absurdum argument Menashe Schwed Ashkelon Academic College Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive Part of the Philosophy Commons Schwed, Menashe, "The Liar Paradox as a reductio ad absurdum argument" (1999). OSSA Conference Archive. 48. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA3/papersandcommentaries/48 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences and Conference Proceedings at Scholarship at UWindsor. It has been accepted for inclusion in OSSA Conference Archive by an authorized conference organizer of Scholarship at UWindsor. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Title: The Liar Paradox as a Reductio ad Absurdum Author: Menashe Schwed Response to this paper by: Lawrence Powers (c)2000 Menashe Schwed 1. Introduction The paper discusses two seemingly separated topics: the origin and function of the Liar Paradox in ancient Greek philosophy and the Reduction ad absurdum mode of argumentation. Its goal is to show how the two topics fit together and why they are closely connected. The accepted tradition is that Eubulides of Miletos was the first to formulate the Liar Paradox correctly and that the paradox was part of the philosophical discussion of the Megarian School. Which version of the paradox was formulated by Eubulides is unknown, but according to some hints given by Aristotle and an incorrect version given by Cicero1, the version was probably as follows: The paradox is created from the Liar sentence ‘I am lying’.
  • The Minotaur in Phaedo's Labyrinth: Philosophy's Necessary Myth

    The Minotaur in Phaedo's Labyrinth: Philosophy's Necessary Myth

    Trinity College Trinity College Digital Repository Trinity Publications (Newspapers, Yearbooks, The Trinity Papers (2011 - present) Catalogs, etc.) 2016 The Minotaur in Phaedo’s Labyrinth: Philosophy’s Necessary Myth Gregory Convertito Trinity College, Hartford Connecticut Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/trinitypapers Part of the Classical Literature and Philology Commons Recommended Citation Convertito, Gregory, "The Minotaur in Phaedo’s Labyrinth: Philosophy’s Necessary Myth". The Trinity Papers (2011 - present) (2016). Trinity College Digital Repository, Hartford, CT. https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/trinitypapers/43 The Minotaur in Phaedo’s Labyrinth: Philosophy’s Necessary Myth Gregory Convertito Plato’s Phaedo is a confusing dialogue. It takes place after the Apology and the Crito, on Socrates’s last night before his execution; Socrates has been waiting in prison for a long time due to an Athenian law barring executions during the annual ritual to celebrate Theseus’s mythical victory over the Minotaur. This story of the death of Socrates is embedded in a narration by Phaedo himself, who is relating the story to Echecrates. Socrates, after discussing the soul, the self, immortality, and death with Simmias and Cebes, Pythagorean acquaintances who have come to visit him, drinks the φαρμακον and dies. The myth of the Minotaur—a monster which has the body of a man and the head of a bull—is explicitly invoked in the text, which structurally mirrors this myth. Each has a monster, fourteen characters, and a thread which leads out of a labyrinth. In the myth, Theseus and the others are taken into the labyrinth wherein the Minotaur resides as tribute, as dictated by the Delphic Oracle, and the princess Ariadne gives Theseus a ball of thread to attach to the entrance, so he may find his way out again.
  • MONEY and the EARLY GREEK MIND: Homer, Philosophy, Tragedy

    MONEY and the EARLY GREEK MIND: Homer, Philosophy, Tragedy

    This page intentionally left blank MONEY AND THE EARLY GREEK MIND How were the Greeks of the sixth century bc able to invent philosophy and tragedy? In this book Richard Seaford argues that a large part of the answer can be found in another momentous development, the invention and rapid spread of coinage, which produced the first ever thoroughly monetised society. By transforming social relations, monetisation contributed to the ideas of the universe as an impersonal system (presocratic philosophy) and of the individual alienated from his own kin and from the gods (in tragedy). Seaford argues that an important precondition for this monetisation was the Greek practice of animal sacrifice, as represented in Homeric epic, which describes a premonetary world on the point of producing money. This book combines social history, economic anthropology, numismatics and the close reading of literary, inscriptional, and philosophical texts. Questioning the origins and shaping force of Greek philosophy, this is a major book with wide appeal. richard seaford is Professor of Greek Literature at the University of Exeter. He is the author of commentaries on Euripides’ Cyclops (1984) and Bacchae (1996) and of Reciprocity and Ritual: Homer and Tragedy in the Developing City-State (1994). MONEY AND THE EARLY GREEK MIND Homer, Philosophy, Tragedy RICHARD SEAFORD cambridge university press Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521832281 © Richard Seaford 2004 This publication is in copyright.
  • The Mechanical Problems in the Corpus of Aristotle

    The Mechanical Problems in the Corpus of Aristotle

    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications, Classics and Religious Studies Department Classics and Religious Studies July 2007 The Mechanical Problems in the Corpus of Aristotle Thomas Nelson Winter University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/classicsfacpub Part of the Classics Commons Winter, Thomas Nelson, "The Mechanical Problems in the Corpus of Aristotle" (2007). Faculty Publications, Classics and Religious Studies Department. 68. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/classicsfacpub/68 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Classics and Religious Studies at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications, Classics and Religious Studies Department by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Th e Mechanical Problems in the Corpus of Aristotle Th omas N. Winter Lincoln, Nebraska • 2007 Translator’s Preface. Who Wrote the Mechanical Problems in the Aristotelian Corpus? When I was translating the Mechanical Problems, which I did from the TLG Greek text, I was still in the fundamentalist authorship mode: that it survives in the corpus of Aristotle was then for me prima facie Th is paper will: evidence that Aristotle was the author. And at many places I found in- 1) off er the plainest evidence yet that it is not Aristotle, and — 1 dications that the date of the work was apt for Aristotle. But eventually, 2) name an author. I saw a join in Vitruvius, as in the brief summary below, “Who Wrote Th at it is not Aristotle does not, so far, rest on evidence.