DOCSLIB.ORG

Hankinson98.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hankinson98.Pdf Cause and Explanation in Ancient Greek Thought This page intentionally left blank Cause and Explanation in Ancient Greek Thought R. J. Hankinson CLARENDON PRESS · OXFORD 1998 Great Clarendon Street,Oxford OX2 6DP Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research,scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Bangkok Buenos Aires Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kolkata Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi São Paulo Shanghai Taipei Tokyo Toronto Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc.,New York © R. J. Hankinson 1998 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 1998 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,or transmitted,in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law,or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographicsrights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press,at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hankinson,R. J. Cause and explanation in ancient Greece / R. J. Hankinson. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Causation—History. 2. Explanation—History. 3. Philosophy,Ancient. I. Title. B187.C38H36 1998 122 ′ .0938—dc21 98-26743 ISBN 0-19-823745-6 For Jennifer This page intentionally left blank Preface It was first suggested that I write this book in September 1986: it has,accordingly,taken more than a decade to come to fruition. I began by supposing that it would consist in a relatively narrowly focused investigation of the Greek notion of explanation; it has developed into something more like a general account of what the Greeks called phusikē, the inquiry into nature,since I found it impossible to treat of the meta-theoretical issues of how the Greeks viewed the concepts of explanation and cause themselves without also considering the actual explanations and causes that they championed (it also accounts for my ranging beyond the boundaries of natural science and into metaphysics). This partly accounts for its elephantine period of gestation; but I did not in any case set about the writing in earnest until the spring of 1992,when I produced a first draft as work in progress for a graduate seminar: I am grateful to the seminar's students for their patience and flexibility in adapting to an unorthodox format,and for their enthusiasm and input. My interest in questions of cause and explanation dates from the time when,as an undergraduate,I decided to pursue these issues in Galen's philosophy for my doctoral dissertation,and they have continued to be central to my work in Greek philosophy and science. Inevitably,then,much of this volume goes over ground I have covered elsewhere, although nowhere have I simply recycled previously published material,while in several cases my views have changed. Still,it may be appropriate to indicate areas of overlap. I dealt with Alcmaeon's argument (I.3c) in Hankinson (1991a, 1992a),and some of my treatment of Xenophanes in I.3a is paralleled in Hankinson (1995a, ch. III),as is my account of Democritean scepticism in VI.1 e. Some of the Hippocratic discussion of Chapter II is anticipated in Hankinson (1991a, 1992c, 1995e),while the remarks on evidence are expanded in Hankinson (1997). Plato's Alcmaeonian argument in III.3a is developed in Hankinson (1992a). Much of the discussion of Aristotle in Chapters IV and V is adapted from Hankinson (1995b, c),while the Atomist and Stoic accounts of causation and explanation that occupy Chapters VI and VII are rehearsed in Hankinson (1998a, b); also relevant is (1996). The sceptical attack on explanation and cause,the subject of Chapter VIII,is also dealt with in Hankinson (1995a, chs. XI and XII); while ch. XIII of that work,along with Hankinson (1987 b, 1988d, 1990a, 1995d, 1998d),as well as parts of (1998c),all bear on the discussion of the medical tradition in Chapter IX. Hankinson (1988 a, c, 1995a, ch. XV) relate to the viii PREFACE issue of the status of divination discussed in VI.3a, VII.2d, VIII.5,XI.1 b, and XII.2d. Finally,my account of Galen's views in XI.2–5 draws on Hankinson (1987a, 1988b, d, 1989,1991 a, b, c, 1993,1994 a, b, 1998c). Many of these articles were originally presented as papers in various places; I owe much to the perspicacity of their original audiences. Particular thanks are due to several colleagues and friends for their help with individual sections. Alex Mourelatos gave me the benefit of his great learning in Presocratic philosophy in general and atomism in particular (Chapters I and VI); Lesley Dean-Jones commented acutely on the medical material contained in Chapters II and IX; and Paul Woodruff helped me with both Plato and the Sceptics (Chapters III and VIII). Sylvia Berryman made several useful suggestions concerning Theophrastus and Strato (V.3). The argument of Chapter XII owes much to discussions with David Bradshaw,who was also good enough to read and comment in detail on penultimate drafts of that chapter and Chapter X. My largest debt in this regard is owed to Tim O'Keefe,whose doctoral work on Epicurus and Democritus on reduction and emergence,causation and responsibility,determinism and fatalism,caused me to re-evaluate and revise many of my views on these issues,particularly as they affect the argument of VI.1 b, 2b, and 3. It is both a pleasure and a privilege—and one which it is all too easy to take for granted—to work with such generous and genial colleagues. I am grateful also to Peter Momtchiloff of Oxford University Press for taking the book over after the series in which it was originally due to appear was peremptorily cancelled,without either consultation or explanation,by another publisher. An anonymous referee for OUP made several valuable suggestions which I have incorporated into the final version. Finally,my greatest indebtednesses. In the course of a long,presumably insomniac,European rail journey,Jonathan Barnes read and commented upon the whole typescript with admirable expeditiousness and acuity,suggesting numerous improvements ranging from the correction of typographical errors through matters of fact and questions of argumentative substance and rigour to issues of overall strategy and presentation. His influence is evident (to me at least) on virtually every page. And last,but most de finitely not least,my wife,Jennifer,read the manuscript in full,offering many suggestions of both a philosophical and of a stylistic nature. I am also grateful for her support (not to say understanding and forbearance) through a period in which both of us have had to juggle heavy workloads with family responsibilities. Anyone who has had to attempt such feats of domestic dexterity will know what I mean when I say that merely to survive is an achievement; to do so with good will PREFACE ix and good humour intact is little short of miraculous. In recognition of this (and much else),with love and gratitude,I dedicate this book to her. Jim Hankinson Texas, April 1997 This page intentionally left blank Contents Note on Citations xv Introduction 1 I. The Presocratics 7 1. Prehistory 7 2. The Milesians 8 3. Causal Origination 26 4. Pluralism and Emergence 39 5. Conclusions 50 II. Science and Sophistry 51 1. Rational Medicine 51 2. The Sophists 69 3. History 79 4. Conclusions 82 III. Plato 84 1. Metaphysics and Causation 84 2. Causation and the Soul 98 3. Hypothesis and Explanation 102 4. Timaeus: The Model Applied 108 5. Coda: Mathematical and Astronomical Theory 120 6. Conclusions 124 IV. Aristotle: Explanation and Nature 125 1. The Structure of Reality 125 2. Causation and Coincidence 132 3. Teleological Explanation 140 4. The Explanation of Action 153 5. Conclusions 158 V. Aristotle: Explanation and the World 160 1. Demonstration and Explanation 160 2. Observation and Science 171 3. Theophrastus and After 188 4. Conclusions 199 xii CONTENTS VI. The Atomists 201 1. Democritus 201 2. Epicureanism and Explanation 211 3. Freedom and the Explanation of Action 223 4. Later Epicurean Scientific Epistemology 232 5. Conclusions 236 VII. The Stoics 238 1. Stoic Causal Theory 238 2. Freedom and Determinism 252 3. Stoic Cosmology 262 4. Conclusions 266 VIII. The Sceptics 268 1. The Development of Scepticism 268 2. Aenesidemus against the Aetiologists 269 3. The General Attack on Causes 277 4. The Modes of Agrippa 285 5. Scepticism and Science 287 6. Conclusions 293 IX. Explanation in the Medical Schools 295 1. The Limits of Explanation 295 2. Empiricism and Rationalism 306 3. Methodism 318 4. Conclusions 321 X. The Age of Synthesis 323 1. The Origins of Syncretism 323 2. The Convergence of the Schools 328 3. The Emergence of Middle Platonism 339 4. The Revival of Aristotelianism: Alexander of Aphrodisias 353 5. Conclusions 363 XI. Science and Explanation 364 1. Ptolemy 364 2. Galen: The Structure of Causation 373 3. The Aristotelian Influence 379 4. Galen's Teleology 385 5. Powers,Functions,and Activities 392 6. Conclusions 402 CONTENTS xiii XII.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Philosophy of Physics
    The Philosophy of Physics ROBERTO TORRETTI University of Chile PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK www.cup.cam.ac.uk 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA www.cup.org 10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia Ruiz de Alarcón 13, 28014, Madrid, Spain © Roberto Torretti 1999 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 1999 Printed in the United States of America Typeface Sabon 10.25/13 pt. System QuarkXPress [BTS] A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available. 0 521 56259 7 hardback 0 521 56571 5 paperback Contents Preface xiii 1 The Transformation of Natural Philosophy in the Seventeenth Century 1 1.1 Mathematics and Experiment 2 1.2 Aristotelian Principles 8 1.3 Modern Matter 13 1.4 Galileo on Motion 20 1.5 Modeling and Measuring 30 1.5.1 Huygens and the Laws of Collision 30 1.5.2 Leibniz and the Conservation of “Force” 33 1.5.3 Rømer and the Speed of Light 36 2 Newton 41 2.1 Mass and Force 42 2.2 Space and Time 50 2.3 Universal Gravitation 57 2.4 Rules of Philosophy 69 2.5 Newtonian Science 75 2.5.1 The Cause of Gravity 75 2.5.2 Central Forces 80 2.5.3 Analytical
    [Show full text]
  • 74 Diodorus Cronus and Hellenistic Philosophy §1
    74 DIODORUS CRONUS AND HELLENISTIC PHILOSOPHY §1. Introduction.1 During the last four decades historians of ancient logic have become increasingly aware of the importance of Diodorus Cronus and his pupil Philo as pioneers of the propositional logic which came to flourish in the Stoa.^ Their direct influence has so far been recognised in two main areas of Hellenistic controversy — the validity-criteria for conditional propo- sitions, and the definition of the modal terms 'possible' and 'necessary'. But some broader questions have not been satisfactorily answered. What were Diodorus' own philosophical allegiances and antecedents? What is his place in the history of Greek philosophy? How far-reaching was his influence on the post-Aristotelian philosophers? There was little chance of tackling these questions confidently until 1972, when Klaus Doring published for the first time the collected fragments of Diodorus, in his important volume Die Megariker. Meagre though they are, these fragments confirm my suspicion that Diodorus' philosophical background has not been fully explored, and also that his influence on the three emerging Hellenistic schools — the Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics — was far wider than has hitherto been recognised. There has been much discussion as to which earlier philoso- phers played the most decisive part in shaping Hellenistic philosophy, and the respective claims of the Platonists and of Aristotle have never lacked expert advocacy. In all this, the claims of so obscure a figure as Diodorus have been underrated. §2. Diodorus'school. Although Diodorus was not active before the last part of the fourth century, any discussion of his philosophical allegiances must begin with Euclides of Megara at the beginning of the century.
    [Show full text]
  • 6 X 10.5 Long Title.P65
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-80279-6 - God and Reason in the Middle Ages Edward Grant Index More information INDEX Page numbers cited directly after a semicolon following a final text subentry refer to relatively minor mentions in the text of the main entry. Abelard, Peter: application of logic to theology, Questions on Generation and Corruption, 186; 57–9; importance of, 48; opposed reason to Questions on the Physics, 186, 187, 190–1; 153, authority, 357; Sic et Non, 60, 62, 79; 26, 46, 170, 275nn, 276nn 50, 51, 62, 63, 64, 73, 100, 144, 333, 337 Albertus Magnus: and the senses, 160; as accidents: lacking a subject, 252; 183 theologian-natural philosopher, 191; few acoustics, 163 mentions of God, 194–5; on God’s absolute Adalberon of Laon, 47 power, 193; on other worlds, 193; on relations Adelard of Bath: as translator, 69; attitude toward between natural philosophy and theology, authority and reason, 69–72; natural 192–5; Commentary on De caelo, 192, 193, 194; philosophy of, 69–72; opposed reason to Commentary on the Physics, 192, 194; 104, 161, authority, 357; Natural Questions, 69, 84; 73, 74 179, 180, 196, 344 Age of Enlightenment: based on seventeenth- Albigenses, 336 century thought, 284 Albucasis, 109 Age of Faith: rather than Age of Reason, 351; 335 Alexander of Aphrodisias, 86 Age of Reason: and Middle Ages, 15, 16, 285; Alexander of Hales, 207, 254nn arrived at religion based on reason, 289; al-Farghani, see Alfraganus began in Middle Ages, 8–9, 289, 290; could Alfraganus, 341 not have occurred without Middle Ages, 292;
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotelian Temporal Logic: the Sea Battle
    Aristotelian temporal logic: the sea battle. According to the square of oppositions, exactly one of “it is the case that p” and “it is not the case that p” is true. Either “it is the case that there will be a sea battle tomorrow” or “it is not the case that there will be a sea battle tomorrow”. Problematic for existence of free will, and for Aristotelian metaphysics. Core Logic – 2005/06-1ab – p. 3/34 The Master argument. Diodorus Cronus (IVth century BC). Assume that p is not the case. In the past, “It will be the case that p is not the case” was true. In the past, “It will be the case that p is not the case” was necessarily true. Therefore, in the past, “It will be the case that p” was impossible. Therefore, p is not possible. Ergo: Everything that is possible is true. Core Logic – 2005/06-1ab – p. 4/34 Megarians and Stoics. Socrates (469-399 BC) WWW WWWWW WWWWW WWWWW WW+ Euclides (c.430-c.360 BC) Plato (c.427-347 BC) WWW WWWWW WWWWW WWWWW WW+ Eubulides (IVth century) Stilpo (c.380-c.300 BC) Apollonius Cronus Zeno of Citium (c.335-263 BC) gg3 ggggg ggggg ggggg ggg Diodorus Cronus (IVth century) Cleanthes of Assos (301-232 BC) Chrysippus of Soli (c.280-207 BC) Core Logic – 2005/06-1ab – p. 5/34 Eubulides. Strongly opposed to Aristotle. Source of the “seven Megarian paradoxes”, among them the Liar. The Liar is attributed to Epimenides the Cretan (VIIth century BC); (Titus 1:12).
    [Show full text]
  • The Metaphysics of Light in the Hexaemeral Literature
    The Metaphysics of Light in the Hexaemeral Literature From Philo of Alexandria to Ambrose of Milan I S I D O R O S C H A R A L A M P O S K A T S O S Pembroke College December 2018 This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy D e c l a r a t i o n This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except as declared in the Acknowledgements and specified in the text. It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Acknowledgements and specified in the text. I further state that no substantial part of my dissertation has already been submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Acknowledgements and specified in the text. It does not exceed the prescribed word limit. Isidoros Charalampos Katsos Pembroke College CB2 1RF [email protected] The Metaphysics of Light in the Hexaemeral Literature From Philo of Alexandria to Ambrose of Milan Summary This study investigates the concept of light in the early Jewish-Christian exegesis of the biblical creation narrative (Gen. 1, so-called ‘hexaemeron’). The study argues that the early hexaemeral exegetes theorised light from a dual perspective, both physical and metaphysical.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1: Greek and Islamicate Physicians
    Appendix 1: Greek and Islamicate Physicians Few of the ancient and medieval physicians and philosophers referred to in this book are household names. As in the underlying works of Galen, the epitomes mention various ancient physicians and philoso- phers by name; Galen, indeed, is our most important source of informa- tion for the doctrines of Hellenistic physicians. The individuals mentioned in connection with the composition of the epitomes are even more obscure. The following are the ancient physicians mentioned in the text of the epitome of On the Sects, including a few names given only in cer- tain manuscripts or mentioned elsewhere in the text. I have also included those mentioned in historical sources in connection with the composition of the epitomes and a few Islamicate physicians (most of whom are actually Christians) who appear in the historical documenta- tion of the epitomes or in the manuscripts. In most cases, I have given references only to standard reference sources, notably Pauly-Wissowa and its recent updates (RE, BNP), The Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography (CDSB), Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques (DPA), The Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI), and Geschichte des arabischen Schriftums (GAS). Readers needing access to primary sources can easily trace them through these references. Acron of Agrigentum (fifth centuryBCE ). Physician, contemporary and fellow-townsman of Empedocles. Later Empiricists traced the origin of their school to him. He was known to Islamicate physicians through quotations as an authority on dietetics and as the first in the succession of physicians between Parmenides and Plato the Physician. BNP 1:113; DPA 1:50–51; GAS 3:22; RE 1:1199.
    [Show full text]
  • Beginnings of Indian Astronomy with Reference to a Parallel Development in China
    History of Science in South Asia A journal for the history of all forms of scientific thought and action, ancient and modern, in all regions of South Asia Beginnings of Indian Astronomy with Reference to a Parallel Development in China Asko Parpola University of Helsinki MLA style citation form: Asko Parpola, “Beginnings of Indian Astronomy, with Reference to a Parallel De- velopment in China” History of Science in South Asia (): –. Online version available at: http://hssa.sayahna.org/. HISTORY OF SCIENCE IN SOUTH ASIA A journal for the history of all forms of scientific thought and action, ancient and modern, in all regions of South Asia, published online at http://hssa.sayahna.org Editorial Board: • Dominik Wujastyk, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria • Kim Plofker, Union College, Schenectady, United States • Dhruv Raina, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India • Sreeramula Rajeswara Sarma, formerly Aligarh Muslim University, Düsseldorf, Germany • Fabrizio Speziale, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle – CNRS, Paris, France • Michio Yano, Kyoto Sangyo University, Kyoto, Japan Principal Contact: Dominik Wujastyk, Editor, University of Vienna Email: [email protected] Mailing Address: Krishna GS, Editorial Support, History of Science in South Asia Sayahna, , Jagathy, Trivandrum , Kerala, India This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. Copyrights of all the articles rest with the respective authors and published under the provisions of Creative Commons Attribution- ShareAlike . Unported License. The electronic versions were generated from sources marked up in LATEX in a computer running / operating system. was typeset using XƎTEX from TEXLive .
    [Show full text]
  • Erich Trapp / Sonja Schönauer (Hg.)
    Super alta perennis Studien zur Wirkung der Klassischen Antike Band 4 Herausgegeben von Uwe Baumann, Marc Laureys und Winfried Schmitz Erich Trapp / Sonja Schönauer (Hg.) Lexicologica Byzantina Beiträge zum Kolloquium zur byzantinischen Lexikographie (Bonn, 13.–15. Juli 2007) V&R unipress Bonn University Press Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. ISBN 978-3-89971- 484-5 Veröffentlichungen der Bonn University Press erscheinen im Verlag V&R unipress GmbH. © 2008, V&R unipress in Göttingen / www.vr-unipress.de Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages. Hinweis zu § 52a UrhG: Weder das Werk noch seine Teile dürfen ohne vorherige schriftliche Einwilligung des Verlages öffentlich zugänglich gemacht werden. Dies gilt auch bei einer entsprechenden Nutzung für Lehr- und Unterrichtszwecke. Printed in Germany. Titelbild: Photios. In: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:StPhotios.jpg Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier. Inhalt VORWORT........................................................................................................ 7 PROGRAMM DES KOLLOQUIUMS ZUR BYZANTINISCHEN LEXIKOGRAPHIE........ 9 ABKÜRZUNGEN.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Short History of Science
    PHYSICS FOUNDATIONS SOCIETY THE FINNISH SOCIETY FOR NATURAL PHILOSOPHY PHYSICS FOUNDATIONS SOCIETY THE FINNISH SOCIETY FOR www.physicsfoundations.org NATURAL PHILOSOPHY www.lfs.fi Dr. Suntola’s “The Short History of Science” shows fascinating competence in its constructively critical in-depth exploration of the long path that the pioneers of metaphysics and empirical science have followed in building up our present understanding of physical reality. The book is made unique by the author’s perspective. He reflects the historical path to his Dynamic Universe theory that opens an unparalleled perspective to a deeper understanding of the harmony in nature – to click the pieces of the puzzle into their places. The book opens a unique possibility for the reader to make his own evaluation of the postulates behind our present understanding of reality. – Tarja Kallio-Tamminen, PhD, theoretical philosophy, MSc, high energy physics The book gives an exceptionally interesting perspective on the history of science and the development paths that have led to our scientific picture of physical reality. As a philosophical question, the reader may conclude how much the development has been directed by coincidences, and whether the picture of reality would have been different if another path had been chosen. – Heikki Sipilä, PhD, nuclear physics Would other routes have been chosen, if all modern experiments had been available to the early scientists? This is an excellent book for a guided scientific tour challenging the reader to an in-depth consideration of the choices made. – Ari Lehto, PhD, physics Tuomo Suntola, PhD in Electron Physics at Helsinki University of Technology (1971).
    [Show full text]
  • The Constellations of the Egyptian Astronomical Diagrams
    The Constellations of the Egyptian Astronomical Diagrams Gyula Priskin University of Szeged EPICTIONS OF THE constellations that the ancient Egyptians observed in the sky first appeared on some coffin lids at the beginning of the 2nd millenium BCE, as inserts into the tables that listed the names of the asterisms signalling the night hours D 1 (decans). These early sources only include the representations of four constellations, two in the northern sky, and two in its southern regions: the goddess Nut (Nw.t) holding up the sky hieroglyph, the Foreleg (msḫt.jw), belonging to Seth according to later descriptions, the striding figure of Sah (sȝḥ), the celestial manifestation of Osiris, and the standing goddess of Sopdet (spd.t), who is often associated with Isis [fig. 1].2 The last three kept being shown in later documents, while the first one disappeared completely after the Middle Kingdom.3 A more detailed visual catalogue of the constellations has come down to us in the form of the astronomical diagrams that were first recorded at the beginning of the New Kingdom,4 though these diagrams very possibly existed earlier, as a fragmented and now lost specimen seems to indicate.5 Although their particular elements vary to a certain degree, these astronomical diagrams continued to be depicted on tomb ceilings, water clocks, temple surfaces, and coffins well into Graeco-Roman times. When towards the end of the first millenium BCE the Egyptians started to represent the zodiacal signs on their monuments, these zodiacs also included the figures of the most salient constellations.6 It should be noted, however, that according to certain decanal names,7 and the relevant entries in Amenemipet’s onomasticon (Ramesside Period),8 the Egyptians knew some further constellations for which apparently no pictorial records have survived.
    [Show full text]
  • Doing Things with Concepts in Sextus Empiricus Richard Bett, Johns Hopkins University
    Doing Things with Concepts in Sextus Empiricus Richard Bett, Johns Hopkins University What concepts are is the subject of lively and continuing debate. Are they in our heads, and if so, what form do they take? Or are they abstract objects – Fregean senses, for example, or “the constituents of propositions”1 – with which we somehow interact in our speech and thought? Do they vary from person to person? And should we draw a definite distinction between the concept of X, understood as relatively unified and stable, and various different conceptions of X, which “are thought to be more ephemeral and idiosyncratic than concepts”2? These are some of the many questions in this area, the answers to which may affect, or be affected by, our most basic commitments in the philosophy of mind and language. Fortunately, we need not worry about any of these deep and difficult questions, because we are dealing with Sextus Empiricus, who, as a Pyrrhonian sceptic, does not adopt philosophical theories, whether about the nature of concepts or about anything else. But these contested matters are nonetheless worth mentioning, if only to indicate that the territory we are dealing with under the heading of “concepts” is somewhat indeterminate. For an author like Sextus who not only eschews theory, but also deliberately avoids what he considers over-precision in the use of language (PH 1.207, cf. 1.17, 1.191), this is perhaps only appropriate. There is in fact quite a lot in Sextus that can naturally be seen as addressing the topic of concepts. There are four or five relevant terms in his texts that either 1 Margolis and Laurence 2011, 1.3.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy 203: History of Modern Western Philosophy Hamilton College Spring 2016 Russell Marcus
    Philosophy 203: History of Modern Western Philosophy Hamilton College Spring 2016 Russell Marcus Notes on Unit #2: Monism (Hobbes and Spinoza) §I. Monism: An Introduction I.1. Monism and the Problem of Interaction Our second unit consists of readings from the master works of two monists: Thomas Hobbes and Baruch (Benedict) Spinoza. Monism is motivated largely by the problem of interaction in the theory of mind. The problem of interaction is to describe how our bodies and minds could interact, if they are indeed, as Descartes argues, two independent substances. Our bodies affect our minds; our minds affect our bodies. If they are independent substances, it is hard to see how they could do so. Gilbert Ryle, defending behaviorism about the mind in the twentieth century, accused Descartes of having to rely on “theoretical shuttlecocks” to transfer information from one domain to the other. Or, to put it in a Hamilton-relevant way: Why does the mind get drunk when the body does the drinking? To some people, the problem of interaction for a substance dualist like Descartes appears intractable. In order to focus the question, Descartes posits that interactions between the mind and body take place in one particular place in the human body, the seat of the soul. Descartes located the seat of the soul in the pineal gland. Here is a copy of a letter Descartes wrote about the pineal gland. Descartes’s view that the pineal gland is the location where the soul interacts with the body does not solve the problem of interaction; it merely locates the problem.
    [Show full text]