Aristotle's Account of Speusippus' and Xenocrates' Metaphysical and Epistemological Theories
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Durham E-Theses Aristotle's account of Speusippus' and Xenocrates' Metaphysical and Epistemological Theories DE-CESARIS, GIULIA How to cite: DE-CESARIS, GIULIA (2020) Aristotle's account of Speusippus' and Xenocrates' Metaphysical and Epistemological Theories, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/13441/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 Giulia De Cesaris Abstract: Aristotle’s account of Speusippus’ and Xenocrates’ Metaphysical and Epistemological Theories This Ph.D. thesis aims at a novel reconstruction of the metaphysical and epistemological theories of the first two successors of Plato, Speusippus and Xenocrates. By advancing a new methodology for the selection and evaluation of the evidence and putting it to the test, this thesis will offer a picture of Speusippus’ and Xenocrates’ theories as grounded in the privileged testimony of Aristotle. The Early Academy has always been a riddle and a challenge for modern scholars. Indeed, for Plato’s immediate successors, Speusippus and Xenocrates, the sources at our disposal do not often encourage the project of a coherent reconstruction of their thought. Any exegesis of them faces the following difficulty: on the one hand, the earliest preserved chronological sources approach their doctrines polemically; on the other hand, later testimonia are to be found in authors who appropriated and reshaped Early Academic doctrines in their own philosophical frameworks. Through an in-depth analysis of Aristotelian testimonia, this thesis will show that Speusippus’ and Xenocrates’ doctrines can be better understood in the context of the Academy, and, in particular, with respect to the discussions undertaken with Aristotle. By exposing a set of problems the two philosophers target in order to defend Platonic theories from the inconsistencies detected by Aristotle, Speusippus’ and Xenocrates’ Platonic inheritance is finally revealed. Ph.D. Thesis Aristotle’s Account of Speusippus’ and Xenocrates’ Metaphysical and Epistemological Theories Department of Classics and Ancient History Giulia De Cesaris First Supervisor: Dr Phillip S. Horky Second Supervisor: Prof. George Boys-Stones Wordcount: 110,519 2019/2020 Aristotle’s Account of Speusippus’ and Xenocrates’ Metaphysical and Epistemological Theories Giulia De Cesaris Table of Contents Acknowledgments Introduction i-xxiv Section I: Speusippus CHAPTER ONE: Speusippus’ philosophy: a general framework 1.1 Aristotle’s list of οὐσίαι (fr. 48) 1 1.2 The episodicity of the world (frr. 86; 52) 15 1.3 The rejection of Forms (fr. 77) 26 1.4 Speusippus’ ontology: preliminary conclusions 29 CHAPTER TWO: The absence of good in the principles: Speusippus’ re-thinking of Plato’s theory of Forms 2.1 What is most beautiful and noble does not exist ἐν ἀρχῇ (fr. 53) 32 2.2 Premise (i): what is most beautiful and noble does not exist in the principle/in the beginning (τὸ κάλλιστον καὶ ἄριστον μὴ ἐν ἀρχῇ εἶναι) 35 2.3 Premise (ii): principles (of plants and animals) are causes (τῶν φυτῶν καὶ τῶν ζῴων τὰς ἀρχὰς αἴτια μὲν εἶναι) 36 2.4 Premise (iii): Beauty and Completeness are in the things that arise out the principles (τὸ δὲ καλὸν καὶ τέλειον ἐν τοῖς ἐκ τούτων) 38 2.5 The counterexample of the seed 39 2.6 Another discussion on the good (frr. 58, 57) 42 2.7 Why participation? 51 CHAPTER THREE: Mathematical number 3.1 The mathematical realm in Aristotle’s testimony (frr. 73; 74; 75; 76; 77) 58 3.2 The generation of numbers: Aristotelian candidates (fr. 83) 62 3.3 The generation of numbers: γένεσις 67 3.4 A brief digression: Speusippus’ and Menaechmus on the right appellative for mathematical prepositions (fr. 36) 70 CHAPTER FOUR: The sensibles 4.1 The inquiry into the sensibles: the collection of the ὅμοια (frr. 84; 123- 146) 77 4.2 The hunt for knowledge: Proclus’ report of Speusippus’ epistemology in the In Euclidem (fr. 35) 85 4.2.1 Context and traditional scholarly interpretation 87 4.2.2 The identification of τὰ μέν (lines 14-19) 93 4.2.3 The identification of τὰ δέ (lines 19-22) 100 4.2.4 The significance of the fragment within Speusippus’ epistemology 104 CHAPTER FIVE: The principles 5.1 Methodological clarifications: gathering information about first principles 106 5.2 Problematising the data obtained 110 5.3 Being an element, being a cause 111 Section II: Xenocrates CHAPTER SIX: The μία φύσις of τὰ μαθηματικά 6.1 Aristotelian testimonia concerning Xenocrates: merging Forms with τὰ μαθηματικά (frr. 27, 26, 29) 120 6.2 Having one nature 128 6.2.1 Interpretative clarifications (fr. 38) 135 6.2.2 What is the comparability between? 138 6.3 The ontological priority of the parts with respect to the whole (fr. 42) 143 6.4 Conclusions 147 CHAPTER SEVEN: The soul 7.1. The definition of the soul: methodological choices for the analysis 149 7.2. Xenocrates’ definition of the soul: self-movement as explanatory for living (fr. 86) 150 7.3. Xenocrates’ definition of the soul: a middle status (frr. 88-89) 157 7.4. Xenocrates’ definition of the soul: Aristotle’s testimony in the De Anima (frr. 85 and 112) 160 7.5. Conclusions 170 Conclusions 174 Bibliography 177 The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without the author’s prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. Acknowledgements The first and greatest thanks I want to express is for my first supervisor, Phillip Horky. I will never be able to thank him enough for the love for research I have developed during these years in Durham: his guidance, support, and passion for his work were crucial for my growth. The (many) hours spent in his office discussing individual fragments and the enthusiasm these conversations produced so as to respond adequately to his critical comments have been invaluable gifts from both professional and personal perspectives. I owe a secondary thanks to my second supervisor, George Boys-Stones. His sharp comments and challenging questions offered me a totally new perspective on ancient texts and how to interrogate them. Furthermore, it is impossible to describe how much the whole Department of Classics and Ancient History in Durham, as well as the weekly debates at the Ancient Philosophy Reading Group, contributed to my development as a junior scholar. Individual conversations with members of the Department, and the weekly opportunity to join an exceptional group of scholars commenting on ancient texts, filled me with enthusiasm and motivation. These years in Durham wouldn’t have been the same without Andrea Giannotti, Carlo Cacciatori and Cesare Sinatti: they have been the best support and shelter I could hope for, as well as my home. I owe special thanks also to Federico Petrucci for the philosophical conversations we shared during his stay in Durham as a Post-Doc. Lastly, I need to thank my parents, Carla and Dario, my brother Filippo and my sister Isabella for the love I receive every day; my lovely Roman Ancient Philosophy Network (Giulia Scalas, Giulio Di Basilio and Roberto Granieri) for the sharing of our views and experiences — receiving unconditional support for our new challenges made me feel less far from home; Pedro, for having dealt with my ‘explosions’; my old friends from Rome, and the new ones, for the curiosity and the effort they put everyday into understanding my thoughts about Speusippus and Xenocrates, so far from where they come from. This Ph.D. thesis has been completed in Durham, funded by a Northern Bridge Doctoral Studentship. A Nonna Isabella e Nonno Mare Introduction Speusippus and Xenocrates: a riddle yet to be solved Over the past three years, it has often been complicated to explain to my family and friends why I chose as the focus of my doctoral thesis two philosophers they had hardly heard about: Speusippus and Xenocrates. When they could not remember their names, or they were making fun of how weird these sounded, my approach was consistent: I was not recovering the doctrines of two unknown philosophers from oblivion, but I was restoring the doctrines of the first two successors of Plato, and I was doing so by means of Aristotle. This apologetic strategy left me quite uncomfortable: in order to justify my interest in the Early Academy and the significance of my choice, I was relying on two names everybody would immediately recognise: Plato and Aristotle. My embarrassment for the answer is motivated by how unfair I believe this strategy is. In fact, the general assumptions motivating this thesis arise precisely out of the opposite beliefs. Namely (i) that we still have much to learn about Platonism as a tradition, and about the discussions taking place inside and outside the Academy – in particular with Aristotle; and (ii) that an effective way to start filling such a gap consists in a novel reconstruction of the doctrines of Speusippus and Xenocrates, the first two scholarchs of the Academy after Plato. Given these assumptions, this thesis aims at developing a novel picture of Speusippus’ and Xenocrates’ metaphysical and epistemological doctrines, obtained by advancing a new methodology for the selection and evaluation of the evidence, and putting it to the test.