DOCSLIB.ORG

Aristotle's Metaphysics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Aristotle's Metaphysics KINESIS» VS. ENERGEIA: A MUCH-READPASSAGE IN(BUT NOT OF)ARISTOTLE’S METAPHYSICS M. F. BURNYEAT Inmemoriam Michael Frede fie aretodiscuss what is now one of the most famous passages in Aristotle: Metaphysics Θ 6, 1048B18–35, on the distinction be- tween κ#νησις and νργεια.The Passage, as I shall capitalize it, has been endlessly analysedbyphilosophical enthusiasts. It is a par- ticular favourite with those trained in analytic philosophy.1 But ã M. F. Burnyeat 2008 This paperbegan as a contribution to a seminar on Metaphysics Θ held in Cam- bridge during theSpring Termof1995. Acknowledgements for critical comments and many otherkindsofhelpareowed to PeterAdamson, Gwenae•lle Aubry,David Charles, Alan Code, Michel Crubellier,StenEbbesen, Doug Hutchinson, Stephen Makin, Wolfgang Mann, Terumasa Okhusa, Jan Saif, Anna-Maria Schiaparelli, Bob Sharples. Very special acknowledgements are due to Michael Fredeand David Sedley for their continuing supportover the long period of gestation and for theim- portant substantivecontributions their expertise has madetoitseventual outcome. To Francesco AdemolloIowethanksforhelp (both philological and administrative) in connection with the manuscript in Florence, plus comments at various stages in thegrowth of thepaper.Inaddition, I thank audiences in Berlin, Florence, Lille, Munich,Oxford,and Toronto for their sympathetically criticaldiscussions. 1 In part because of theusemadeofitinmodern discussion by Ryle (cited and cri- ticizedbyAckrill) and Kenny.Thus Penner: ‘It was Ryle whofirst showed analytical philosophersthegold mine there was in Aristotle.’ On theother sideoftheChan- nel,the view can be ratherdi·erent: ‘C’est a› lui [the Passage] que je m’attacherai, a› cause desavaleur philosophique conside‹rable, et aussi —l’avouerai-je? — par ce souci sportif de venir en aide au passages quelque peu laisses‹ -pour-compte, et relegu‹ es‹ dans les notes et les subordonnes‹ concessives des ouvrages savants . .’. So wrote Brague (the ‘points de suspension’ are his),twenty-three years afterAck- rill’sseminal paper on the Passage. In the sequel Brague cites Ackrill, but none of thearticles that poured out in the lively controversyheprompted.Iamgrateful for Brague’s unanalytic discussion, despite numerous textualdisagreements sig- nalledbelow.Theanti-analytic discussion of Dufour, by contrast, is a thicket of confusion. (References: J.L.Ackrill, ‘A ristotle’s Distinction between Energeia and Kinesis’ [‘Distinction’], in R. Bambrough(ed.), New Essayson Plato and Aristotle [New Essays] (London andNew York, 1965), 121–41 at 123, 125–6 (repr.inJ.L. 220 M. F. Burnyeat few of these enthusiasts have attempted to explain how it fits into theoverall programme of Θ.2 Ignoring contextisusually a fault. But not here, for the goodreason that the Passage does not fit into theoverall programme of Θ, was not written for Θ,and should not beprinted in theplace we read it today.SoIshall argue. If I am right, theanalysts can legitimately keep analysing the Passage on its own, as an isolated fragment of uncertain origin. I will join in myself. For nothing I sayhere is meant to impugn the philosophical interest and importance of the Passage, or to deny that it is authentic Aristotle. But I will suggest that its focus is ratherdi·erent from what it is usually taken to be. I will also argue, controversially,that the Θ 6distinction is unique in thecorpus and should not beimported into otherAristotelian contexts such as Nicomachean Ethics 10or De anima 2. 5. To speak,asIhavejustdone, of ‘theoverall programme of Θ’ is to takealot for granted.This is not theplace to elaborate a detailed interpretation of Θ. Let me simply acknowledge that my thinking about Θ has been much influencedbyMichael Frede’s 1994 paper on potentiality in Metaphysics Θ.3 So far as I am concerned,that is thestarting-point for all future discussion of Θ’scontribution to the Aristotelian philosophy.4 Ackrill, Essayson Plato and Aristotle (Oxford, 1997), 142–62); R. Brague, Aris- tote et laquestion dumonde: essai sur lecontexte cosmologiqueetanthropologiquede l’ontologie [Monde] (Paris, 1988), 454; M. Dufour, ‘La distinction νργεια–κ#νησις en M‹etaph. Θ, 6: deux manie›res d’et^ re dans letemps’, Revuedephilosophieancienne, 19 (2001),3–43;A.Kenny, Action,Emotion and Will (London, 1963),ch.8; T. Penner, ‘Verbsand theIdentity of Actions: A Philosophical Exercise in theInter- pretation of Aristotle’ [‘Verbs’], in O. P. Wood and G. Pitcher(eds.), Ryle (London and Basingstoke, 1971), 393–460 at 395; G. Ryle, Dilemmas (Cambridge, 1966), 102–3.) 2 An honourable, even heroic, exception is L. A.Kosman,‘Substance, Being, and Energeia’ [‘Substance’], OxfordStudies in AncientPhilosophy,2(1984), 121–49. 3 M. Frede, ‘A ristotle’s Notion of Potentiality in Metaphysics Θ’ [‘Potentiality’], in T. Scaltsas, D. Charles, and M. L. Gill (eds.), Unity,Identity andExplanation in Aristotle’sMetaphysics (Oxford, 1994), 173–93. In M. F. Burnyeat, A Map of Metaphysics Zeta [Map] (Pittsburgh, 2001),esp.ch. 6,Ido havethings to say about the roleofΘ in the larger contextofthe Metaphysics. 4 This sentence was written years beforeFrede’ssudden death at DelphiinAugust 2007. Kinesis» vs. Energeia 221 PART I: TEXT 1. To motivate thetextual enquiry that follows, I begin with a philosophical complaint. The main business of Θ 6 is to contrive an analogical extension. Θ began by studying thecontrast between δ$ναµις and νργεια in thesphereofchange. But Aristotlemade it clear from theoutsetthat forhis current project, which is to explain potential and actual being,change is not themostuseful spheretoconsider(Θ 1, 1045B27–1046A4). We begin thereinorder to arrivesomewhereelse, wherethecontrast is between δ$ναµις as Oλη and νργεια as ο2σ#α.That transition is thetask of Θ 6,as Aristotleexplains both at thestartofthechapter(Θ 6, 1048A25–30) andwhen theextension has been completed(1048B6–9).IuseC to mark cases of change, S for the cases of substantialbeing that Aristotle wants to reach: Since we have discussed the kind of potentialitywhich is spoken of in connection with change, let us determine what, andwhat sortofthing, actuality is. In thecourse of our analysis it will become clear, withregard to thepotential,that besides ascribing potentiality to that whose nature it is to change something else or to bechangedbysomething else, either without qualification or in a certain manner, wealso use theterminanother sense, which is what we have been after in discussing these previous senses. Actuality [νργεια]isthething being present [5π&ρχειν], but not in the waywespeak of when wesay it is potentially present;(S)wesay that potentially,for instance, a Hermes is in the block of wood and the half-line in the whole, because it might beseparated out, and(C) even someone whoisnotexercising knowledge [µ; θεωροντα] wecall knowledgeable [πιστµονα]ifthey are capableofexercising knowledge. Theother case [sc. when they areexercising it] is <knowledge> in actuality. Our meaning can be seen by induction from particular cases. Weshould not seek to captureeverything in a definition, but some things weshould comprehend [συνορ7ν] by analogy.Thus as (C) that which is building is to that which is capableofbuilding, so is the waking to thesleeping, and that which sees <something>5 to a sighted thing with its eyes shut, and(S) that 5 Throughout this paper I am facedwith translation di¶culties arising from the fact that themorphology of ancient Greekverbs does not distinguish,asEnglish morphologydoes, between the continuous and thenon-continuous present. Since Iamtranslating, I write whichever formstrikes me as themostnaturalway,in thegiven context, to put Aristotle’s verbsintoEnglish. Consequently,Ifeel no obligation to follow Ross and other English translators who write ‘is seeing’here to match theprevious ‘is building’.Iwrite ‘sees’, with the accusative ‘something’ 222 M. F. Burnyeat whichhas been shaped out of the matter to the matter,and that whichhas been wroughttotheunwrought. Let actuality [νργεια] be distinguished as one partofthis antithesis, thepotential [τ δυνατν]astheother. Not everything is said to be in actuality [νεργε#Yα]inthe same sense, but only by analogy—as Α is in Β or to Β,soisΓ in ∆ or to ∆; for(C) some are related as change [κ#νησις] to capacity [δ$ναµις], while (S) othersare related as substance to some matter. (Θ 6, 1048A25–B9)6 Notice that in this text building is listed,alongsideexercising know- ledge, being awake, and seeing, as an exampleofνργεια, whileall four areclassed as κ#νησις in relation to δ$ναµις.Inthe Passage, by contrast, building is not νργεια, but κ#νησις (1048B29–31), while seeing is not κ#νησις, but νργεια (1048B23, 33–4). Noproblem yet. The Passage introduces a newdistinction. Some actions (πρ&ξεις)haveanexternal goal,somedonot,because the goal is the action itself. Building aims at theproduction of a house, whichwill last foryears to come. Seeing, by contrast, does not aim at a further product. Its goal is internal to itself, to see what is there to be seen.7 Thenewdistinction divides theprevious listofC-type νργειαι into twogroups: those like seeing which are νργειαι in the new,moretightly defined sense that they aim at nothing beyond themselves, and those like building which aim at a further product. The latterbecome κινσεις in a sense of the word more specific than inserted to stop ‘sees’being equivalent to ‘has sight’.The fact is that ‘is seeing’ is relatively rareinEnglish,forreasons not unconnectedwith thephilosophical content of the Passage. It is in part because Greek morphologylacks
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dio Chrysostom's Charidemus and Aristotle's Eudemus
    Dio Chrysostom’s Charidemus and Aristotle’s Eudemus Katarzyna Jażdżewska IO CHRYSOSTOM’S DIALOGUE Charidemus exhibits a rich intertextual network, and recent scholarship has D explored Dio’s interaction with Plato’s Phaedo, with Hellenistic philosophy (particularly Stoicism and Cynicism), and with consolation, λόγος παραµυθητικός.1 In this note I would like to add to the literary background of the dialogue by arguing that, so far as extant evidence allows us to judge, Dio’s Charidemus seems to have been particularly closely associated with Aristotle’s lost dialogue Eudemus in respect to format, overall character, and themes covered. Aristotle’s Eudemus was a dialogue written to commemorate Eudemus of Cyprus, a deceased friend and a member of the Academy, who died in Syracuse around 354 B.C.E.2 Ps.- Plutarch’s Consolation to Apollonius 115B (= Arist. fr.44) informs us that Aristotle’s work was known under the title Eudemus, or On the soul. We do not know who the interlocutors were; Aristotle may have been one of the speakers.3 From Cicero’s De 1 For Plato see J. Moles, “The Dionian Charidemus,” 187–210, and M. Trapp, “Plato in Dio,” 213–239, in S. Swain (ed.), Dio Chrysostom. Politics, Letters, and Philosophy (Oxford 2000); K. Jażdżewska, “Dio Chrysostom’s Charidemos: A Study,” Eos 101 (2014) 67–81, at 69–76. For consolatory topoi, M. C. Giner Soria, “Acotaciones a un diálogo consolatorio,” Faventia 12–13 (1990) 293–305. For an overview of various influences on the Charidemus, M. Menchelli, Dione di Prusa. Caridemo (Or. XXX) (Naples 1999) 37–75.
    [Show full text]
  • The Heraclitus Anecdote: De Partibus Animalium I 5.645A17-23
    Ancient Philosophy 21 (2001) ©Mathesis Publications 1 The Heraclitus Anecdote: De Partibus Animalium i 5.645a17-23 Pavel Gregoric Chapter 5 of the first book of Aristotle’s De Partibus Animalium contains a short self-contained treatise (644b22-645a36) which has been characterised as a ‘protreptic to the study of animals’ (Peck in Aristotle 1937, 97). Such a charac- terisation of the treatise may be misleading, because Aristotle does not seem to have composed it in order to motivate his audience to go out in the field and study animals, but rather to kindle their interest in the scientific account of ani- mals which he is about to provide. It is reasonable to suppose that Aristotle’s audience, eager to learn something valuable and dignified, needed an explanation of why they should like to hear, amongst other animals, about sponges, snails, grubs, and other humble creatures which are displeasing even to look at, not to mention witnessing the dissections that might have accompanied Aristotle’s lec- tures on animals (cf. Bonitz 1870, 104a4-17; Lloyd 1978). Aristotle explains why such ignoble animals deserve a place in a scientific account of animals and he illustrates that with an anecdote about Heraclitus. So one must not be childishly repelled by the examination of the humbler animals. For in all things of nature there is some- thing wonderful. And just as Heraclitus is said to have spoken to the visitors who wanted to meet him and who stopped as they were approaching when they saw him warming himself by the oven (e‰don aÈtÚn yerÒmenon prÚw t“ fipn“)—he urged them to come in without fear (§k°leue går aÈtoÁw efisi°nai yarroËntaw), for there were gods there too (e‰nai går ka‹ §ntaËya yeoÊw)—so one must approach the inquiry about each animal without aversion, since in all of them there is something natural and beautiful.
    [Show full text]
  • The Protrepticus of Clement of Alexandria: a Commentary
    Miguel Herrero de Jáuregui THE PROTREPTICUS OF CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: A COMMENTARY to; ga;r yeu'do" ouj yilh'/ th'/ paraqevsei tajlhqou'" diaskedavnnutai, th'/ de; crhvsei th'" ajlhqeiva" ejkbiazovmenon fugadeuvetai. La falsedad no se dispersa por la simple comparación con la verdad, sino que la práctica de la verdad la fuerza a huir. Protréptico 8.77.3 PREFACIO Una tesis doctoral debe tratar de contribuir al avance del conocimiento humano en su disciplina, y la pretensión de que este comentario al Protréptico tenga la máxima utilidad posible me obliga a escribirla en inglés porque es la única lengua que hoy casi todos los interesados pueden leer. Pero no deja de ser extraño que en la casa de Nebrija se deje de lado la lengua castellana. La deuda que contraigo ahora con el español sólo se paliará si en el futuro puedo, en compensación, “dar a los hombres de mi lengua obras en que mejor puedan emplear su ocio”. Empiezo ahora a saldarla, empleándola para estos agradecimientos, breves en extensión pero no en sinceridad. Mi gratitud va, en primer lugar, al Cardenal Don Gil Álvarez de Albornoz, fundador del Real Colegio de España, a cuya generosidad y previsión debo dos años provechosos y felices en Bolonia. Al Rector, José Guillermo García-Valdecasas, que administra la herencia de Albornoz con ejemplar dedicación, eficacia y amor a la casa. A todas las personas que trabajan en el Colegio y hacen que cumpla con creces los objetivos para los que se fundó. Y a mis compañeros bolonios durante estos dos años. Ha sido un honor muy grato disfrutar con todos ellos de la herencia albornociana.
    [Show full text]
  • Avoiding the Void: Avicenna on the Impossibility of Circular Motion in a Void*
    Created on 24 December 2006 at 20.51 hours page 1 Avoiding the Void: Avicenna on the Impossibility of Circular Motion in a Void* Jon McGinnis The topic of the void was of significant philosophical and scientific importance in the ancient and medieval world. Some, such as the atomists, maintained that the void was essential if one were to explain motion. Others, such as Aristotle, argued that the exis- tence of the void would absolutely preclude the possibility of motion. Moreover, there were disputes concerning even how to characterize the void. Thus the atomists claimed that interstitial voids were dispersed throughout every body and existed alongside bo- dies in an infinite space. Others, such as the Stoics, held that all bodies were localized in a plenum that was itself situated in an extra-cosmic, infinite void. Still others, such as the Neoplatonist John Philoponus, thought that the void was finite, and although as a matter of fact it is never devoid of a body, it at least is capable of existing independent of any body. The above roughly provides the gamut of positions concerning the void as it reached the medieval Arabic philosopher Avicenna ( 370–428/ 980–1037). In one form or another, Avicenna was aware of the various moves and counter-moves associated with the notion of the void. Like Aristotle, he maintained that the existence of the void would absolutely preclude the possibility of motion. His arguments in some cases simply rehearse those of Aristotle; in other places they expand on the thought of Aristotle in order to respond to new threats that arose after Aristotle’s own time; and in certain situations Avicenna constructs new arguments against the void used neither by Aristotle nor, from what we can gather, Aristotle’s later Greek commentators.
    [Show full text]
  • Daniel Jugrin
    Studia Philosophiae Christianae UKSW 52(2016)2 DanIel JuGrIn THE WAY OF ἈΝΆΛΥΣΙΣ: CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA AND THE PLATONIC TRADITION Abstract. In Clement of Alexandria, the three ways of knowing God appear implicitly in the form: the way of analogy, the way of negation (in the mathematical version), and the way of eminence. A basic aspect of the negation appears as an expression of Clementine criticism on anthropomorphism. The Platonic traditional model of via negativa is related to the mathematical theory of abstraction and is defined as a denial of the material things in order to reach the contemplation of God through pure mind: “we start by abstracting the surface, and we are left with the line; we abstract the line, and we are left with the point; we abstract the point, or strictly speaking the monad, and we are then precipitated into the greatness of Christ” (Stromateis V.11.71.2). Clement of Alexandria is, also, one of the authors who emphasize silence and prayer as having great importance in the knowledge process. The cessation of the activity of the senses leads to the supreme state of contemplation with a pure mind. Silence becomes, in this way, a symbol of God, and knowledge – not a matter of speaking, but of being. Keywords: Clement of Alexandria, Platonic Tradition, knowledge of God, abstractive way, analysis, aphairesis, silence 1. The geometrical method of ἀνάλυσις . 2. Via negativa and the theme of silence in Clement of Alexandria. 3. The origin of the mathematical model of via negativa. St. Justin, martyr and philosopher (103 – 165 AD), was the first Christian thinker who claimed that God can be characterized only in negative terms.1 His vision was familiar in the context of Helle- nistic Judaism: Philo of Alexandria (20 BC – 50 AD)2 had already established the ideas put forward by Justin.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Testimony on the Platonist Gaius
    A New Testimony on the Platonist Gaius Michele Trizio PART FROM a single Delphic inscription (FD III.4 103), the testimonia of the life and work of second-century AMiddle Platonist Gaius fall into two classes.1 The first includes first-hand observations of later philosophers up to Proclus: Porphyry, for instance, reports that Gaius was one of several authors read regularly by Plotinus’ entourage.2 Galen tells us that he followed the classes of two of Gaius’ pupils in Pergamum and Smyrna respectively.3 As to Proclus, he twice mentions Gaius, among other Platonists, in his commentaries on the Republic and the Timaeus.4 The second class of testimonia includes statements concerning Gaius’ scholarship on Plato in three important Greek MSS. The first of these, Paris.gr. 1962, is a ninth-century MS. of the so-called ‘philosophical collection’, which, among others entries, contains a pinax at f. 146v men- tioning ᾿Αλβίνου τῶν Γαίου σχολῶν ὑποτυπώσεων πλατωνικῶν δογµάτων. That is to say, Albinus’ edition of Gaius’ scholia on 1 On Gaius and the related bibliography see J. Whittaker, “Gaius,” in R. Goulet (ed.), Dictionnaire de philosophes antiques III (Paris 2000) 437–440. All testimonia on Gaius are collected and discussed with reference to previous literature in A. Gioè, Filosofi medioplatonici del II secolo d.c. (Naples 2002). 2 V.Plot. 14, ed. P. Henry and H.-R. Schwyzer, Plotini opera I (Leiden 1951) 19.10–14. 3 De propriorum animi 41, ed. W. de Boer (CMG V.4.1.1, Leipzig 1937); Libr.propr. 2.1, ed. V. Boudon-Millot (Paris 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • Separate Material Intellect in Averroes' Mature Philosophy Richard C
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by epublications@Marquette Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Philosophy Faculty Research and Publications Philosophy, Department of 1-1-2004 Separate Material Intellect in Averroes' Mature Philosophy Richard C. Taylor Marquette University, [email protected] Published version. "Separate Material Intellect in Averroes' Mature Philosophy," in Words, Texts and Concepts Cruising the Mediterranean Sea. Eds. Gerhard Endress, Rud̈ iger Arnzen and J Thielmann. Leuven; Dudley, MA: Peeters, 2004: 289-309. Permalink. © 2004 Peeters Publishers. Used with permission. ORIENTALIA LOVANIENSIA ANALECTA ---139--- 'WORDS, TEXTS AND CONCEPTS CRUISING THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA Studies on the sources, contents and influences of Islamic civilization and Arabic philosophy and science Dedicated to Gerhard Endress on his sixty-fifth birthday edited by R. ARNZEN and J. THIELMANN UITGEVERIJ PEETERS en DEPARTEMENT OOSTERSE STUDIES LEUVEN - PARIS - DUDLEY, MA 2004 SEPARATE MATERIAL INTELLECT IN A VERROES' MATURE PHILOSOPHY Richard C. T AYLOR Marquette University, Milwaukee The doctrine of the material intellect promulgated by Averroes (i126- 1198) in his latest works is surely the teaching for which he has been most maligned both in the medieval era and in modern times. In medi­ eval times Duns Scotus spoke of "That accursed Averroes" whose "fan­ tastic conception, intelligible neither to himself nor to others, assumes the intellective part of man to be a sort
    [Show full text]
  • The Appeal to Easiness in Aristotle's Protrepticus
    THE APPEAL TO EASINESS IN ARISTOTLE’S PROTREPTICUS Matthew D. Walker [Uncorrected draft. To be published in Ancient Philosophy 39 (2019). Please cite only the final published version.] Aristotle’s Protrepticus sought to exhort its audience to engage in philosophy (filosofi&a), i.e., the “acquisition and use of wisdom” (kth~si&v te kai_ xrh~siv sofi&av: 6, 40.2-3/B53; cf. 6, 37.7-9/B8).1 The Protrepticus is now lost. But work by D.S. Hutchinson and Monte Ransome Johnson (2005) has confirmed earlier speculation – initiated by Ingram Bywater (1869) – that Iamblichus preserves large passages of the work in his own Protrepticus. Hutchinson and Johnson 2018 argue that significant portions of the Protrepticus also appear in Iamblichus’ De Communi Mathematica Scientia (DCMS), and that the Protrepticus was originally a dialogue. In passages preserved in Chapter 6 of Iamblichus’ Protrepticus (at 40.15-41.2/B55- 56), Aristotle offers three linked arguments for the claim that philosophy is easy. (I number the arguments in the translation that follows.) [1] For, with no pay coming from people to those who philosophize, on account of which [the latter] would have labored strenuously in this way, and with a great lead extended to the other arts, nevertheless their passing [the other arts] in exactness despite running a short time seems to me to be a sign of the easiness about philosophy. [2] And further, everybody’s feeling at home in it and wishing to occupy leisure with it, leaving aside all else, is no small sign that the close attention comes with pleasure; for no one is willing to labor for a long time.
    [Show full text]
  • Averroes on Psychology and the Principles of Metaphysics Richard C
    Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Philosophy Faculty Research and Publications Philosophy, Department of 10-1-1998 Averroes on Psychology and the Principles of Metaphysics Richard C. Taylor Marquette University, [email protected] Published version. Journal of the History of Philosophy, Vol. 36, No. 4 (October, 1998): 507-523. DOI. Copyright © 1998 Journal of the History of Philosophy, Inc. This article first appeared in Journal of the History of Philosophy 36:4 (1998), 507-523. Reprinted with permission by The oJ hns Hopkins University Press. Averroes on Psychology and the Principles of Metaphysics I RICHARD C. TAYLOR FIRST TRANSLATED FROM Arabic into Latin in the early thirteenth century, the philosophical works of Averroes were initially respected as valuable aids to understanding the true philosophy of Aristotle. William of Auvergne, Bishop of Paris and author of a philosophically astute theological synthesis of Greek and Arabic thought with Christian doctrine, openly expressed his appreciation with praise for Averroes. But by the mid-thirteenth century many of Averroes' teachings were under attack with his conceptions of human nature and separate immaterial intellect the subject of sharply focussed and heated argumentative assaults by Aquinas, Albert and others3 Their arguments were not primarily theological but rather philosophical criticisms which charged that Averroes, Drafts of this paper were presented at a conference sponsored by the International Society for the History of Arabic and Islamic Science and Philosophy at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC, March 28, 1996, and at the annual meeting of the Medieval Academy of America in Toronto, Canada, April 19, 1997. I benefited from discussions of this article with Alfred Ivry, my colleagues, David B.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Synopsis of the Aristotelian Commentary Tradition (In Less Than Sixty Minutes)
    HISTORICAL SYNOPSIS OF THE ARISTOTELIAN COMMENTARY TRADITION (IN LESS THAN SIXTY MINUTES) Fred D. Miller, Jr. CHAPTER 1 PERIPATETIC SCHOLARS Aristotle of Stagira (384–322 BCE) Exoteric works: Protrepticus, On Philosophy, Eudemus, etc. Esoteric works: Categories, Physics, De Caelo, Metaphysics, De Anima, etc. The legend of Aristotle’s misappropriated works Andronicus of Rhodes: first edition of Aristotle’s works (40 BCE) Early Peripatetic commentators Boethus of Sidon (c. 75—c. 10 BCE) comm. on Categories Alexander of Aegae (1st century CE)comm. on Categories and De Caelo Adrastus of Aphrodisias (early 1st century) comm. on Categories Aspasius (c. 131) comm. on Nicomachean Ethics Emperor Marcus Aurelius establishes four chairs of philosophy in Athens: Platonic, Peripatetic, Stoic, Epicurean (c. 170) Alexander of Aphrodisias (late 2nd —early 3rd century) Extant commentaries on Prior Analytics, De Sensu, etc. Lost comm. on Physics, De Caelo, etc. Exemplar for all subsequent commentators. Comm. on Aristotle’s Metaphysics Only books 1—5 of Alexander’s comm. are genuine; books 6—14 are by ps.-Alexander . whodunit? Themistius (c. 317—c. 388) Paraphrases of Physics, De Anima, etc. Paraphrase of Metaphysics Λ (Hebrew translation) Last of the Peripatetics CHAPTER 2 NEOPLATONIC SCHOLARS Origins of Neoplatonism Ammonius Saccas (c. 175—242) forefather of Neoplatonism Plotinus (c. 205—260) the Enneads Reality explained in terms of hypostases: THE ONE—> THE INTELLECT—>WORLD SOUL—>PERCEPTIBLE WORLD Porphyry of Tyre (232–309) Life of Plotinus On the School of Plato and Aristotle Being One On the Difference Between Plato and Aristotle Isagoge (Introduction to Aristotle’s Categories) What is Neoplatonism? A broad intellectual movement based on the philosophy of Plotinus that sought to incorporate and reconcile the doctrines of Plato, Pythagoras, and Aristotle with each other and with the universal beliefs and practices of popular religion (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Arabatzis.Ffinal Version
    Michael of Ephesus and the philosophy of living things (In De partibus animalium, 22.25–23.9) GEORGE ARABATZIS Introduction As in other scientific disciplines, for biological knowledge the Byzantines depended largely on ancient Greek science, especially of the Hellenistic pe- riod. Under the appellation ‘biology’, we should understand those sciences which had to do with medicine, pharmacology, veterinary medicine, zool- ogy, and botany.1 As regards theories about living things (animals and plants), Byzantium carried on a tradition that synthesized elements from an- cient Greek philosophy and the Christian religion (especially the philosophy of the Church Fathers). The crucial point here is the introduction by Christianity of the theory of the historical creation of the world, from its initial elements to the formation of humans, who were seen as the crown of the universe. In a rural civilization like Byzantium, proximity to the world of plants and animals produced popular literary works that played with the idea of human primacy over all other living beings, primarily animals, often through prosopopoeia.2 Since Greco-Roman times, Aristotelian reflection on the conditions of knowledge of biological phenomena, in other words Aristotle’s biological epistemology, had fallen into oblivion;3 what re- mained from his contribution to biology was the collection of natural data and curiosities that offered, together with other sources, material for late ancient compilations. We have to wait for the eleventh–twelfth centuries in order to see, in the person of Michael of Ephesus, a commentator on Aristotle’s philosophy of biology, and this paper will focus on him.
    [Show full text]
  • A Cultural History of Physics
    Károly Simonyi A Cultural History of Physics Translated by David Kramer Originally published in Hungarian as A fizika kultûrtörténete, Fourth Edition, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 1998, and published in German as Kulturgeschichte der Physik, Third Edition, Verlag Harri Deutsch, Frankfurt am Main, 2001. First Hungarian edition 1978. CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group 6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742 © 2012 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business No claim to original U.S. Government works Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper Version Date: 20111110 International Standard Book Number: 978-1-56881-329-5 (Hardback) This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowl- edged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint. Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers.
    [Show full text]