Book Notes Aristotle and Hellenistic Philosophy KEIMPE ALGRA Although these book notes are supposed to focus on Aristotle and Hellenistic phi- losophy, I may be forgiven for beginning with two books of a more general scope. First, a volume which will hardly need recommendation: J.L. AckrillÕs Essays on Plato and Aristotle .1 It contains some of the nest papers written by the author over a period of some 30 years (between 1955 and the early eighties). 2 The essays are preceded by an interesting, more or less autobiographical Introduction which squarely locates the centre of the philosophical universe in Oxford. Readers from elsewhere too, however, will recognize that this volume contains some of the best examples of what the ÔanalyticalÕ approach has had to offer to the study of ancient philosophy. These open-minded, carefully argued essays are models of their kind (some, such as ÔAristotleÕs distinction between Energeia and Kin sisÕ deserve to count as real classics). They are invariably helpful, even where they tackle only one aspect of a larger problem, and even where one might question or qualify some of their presuppositions (such as the presupposition in ÔAristotleÕs Theological ArgumentÕ that the dialectical practice of working from endoxa can only hope to clarify, not to establish, rst principles – on which more below). This brings me to Method in Ancient Philosophy , a collection of 15 studies edited by Jill Genzler. 3 Most of the papers grew out of a conference on Ancient Method held at Amherst College in April 1994. Let me point out right away that ÔmethodÕ is apparently taken in a broad sense, covering both the ways in which philosophers argued in actual practice and their conscious re ection on what philosophical method should be. Thus we nd papers focusing on (a particular) 1 J.L. Ackrill, Essays on Plato and Aristotle , Oxford (Clarendon Press) 1997. ISBN 0-19-823641-7. 2 Contents: ÔAnamnesis in the Phaedo: Remarks on 73c-75cÕ; ÔLanguage and Reality in PlatoÕs CratylusÕ; ÔPlato on False Belief: Theaetetus 187-200; ÔSUMPLOKH EIDVNÕ; ÔPlato and the Copula: Sophist 251-259Õ; ÔIn defence of Platonic divisionÕ; ÔAristotleÕs Theory of De nition: Some Questions on Posterior Analytics II.8-10Õ; ÔChange and AristotleÕs Theological ArgumentÕ; ÔAristotleÕs Distinction between Ener- geia and Kinsis Õ; ÔAristotleÕs De nitions of Psuch Õ; ÔAristotle on EudaimoniaÕ; ÔAristotle on ÔGoodÕ and the CategoriesÕ; ÔAristotle on ActionÕ; ÔAn Aristotelian Argument about VirtueÕ. 3 J. Gentzler (ed.), Method in Ancient Philosophy , Oxford (Clarendon Press) 1998. ix 398 pp. £45 (hardback). ISBN 0-19-823571-2. ©Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 1999 Phronesis XLIV/2 BOOK NOTES 151 philosophical argument – such as Gail FineÕs ÔRelativism and Self-Refutation: Plato, Protagoras and BurnyeatÕ – next to papers dealing with methodology proper, such as James AllenÕs ÔEpicurean Inference: the Evidence of PhilodemusÕ De signisÕ. As for methodology proper (i.e. re ection on method), opinions apparently dif- fer on where to locate its rst beginnings. According to the Preface (p. v) Ôself- conscious re ection on methods of reasoning marks the beginning of philosophy in the WestÕ. Elsewhere in the same volume (p. 361) G.E.R. Lloyd locates the beginnings of proper analysis of proving and of proof in (Plato and) Aristotle. In her essay ÔEleatic ArgumentsÕ Patricia Curd ends up somewhere in between, in claiming that the Ômeta-theoretical issue of how to go about theory constructionÕ rather begins with the Eleatics (and Diogenes of Apollonia). Incidentally, where it comes to the actual practice of philosophers (as distinct from re ection on that practice), CurdÕs paper quali es the PrefaceÕs claim even further, when she argues that the earliest philosophers had no method in the strict sense at all: they asserted, rather than argued for their basic principles. Curd here applies a very strict notion of ÔargumentÕ, leaving no room for more implicit forms of argument such as anal- ogy. This procedure results in a view which recalls JaegerÕs ÔhieraticÕ picture of the Presocratics, and which appears to ignore, or at least to treat as misdirected, important work (Kirk, Lloyd) on the ÔmethodÕ of the Ionian thinkers. When taken at face value it would force us to reconsider whether the Ionians may still count as philosophers (or scientists, for that matter) at all. But let me rather turn to what this volume has to offer us on Aristotle and Hellenistic philosophy. 4 In ÔTeleology in Aristotelian MetaphysicsÕ Charlotte Witt focuses on the difference between the teleological explanation of change and gen- eration which we nd in Phys. II and in the biological works on the one hand, and what she calls Ômetaphysical teleologyÕ – teleological explanation of being and substance – on the other. Two contributions – Richard KrautÕs ÔAristotle on Moral EducationÕ and Sarah BroadieÕs ÔInterpreting AristotleÕs DirectionsÕ deal with aspects of the method of Aristotelian practical thinking (in BroadieÕs case particular attention is paid to the relation between nous and phronesis). Gisela StrikerÕs elegant and persuasive essay ÔAristotle and the Uses of LogicÕ deals rst with AristotleÕs logic as a theory, showing that – despite AristotleÕs own Ôcom- pleteness proofÕ – his formal logic was incomplete in failing to establish that every valid deductive argument can be formulated as one or more syllogisms in the narrow sense. She then goes on to illustrate the way formal syllogistic is used in the theory of argument in the nal section of APr. A and in APr. B. 4 I merely note the seven interesting essays on Plato: T.H. Irwin, ÔCommon Sense and Socratic MethodÕ; I. Mueller, ÔPlatonism and the Study of NatureÕ ( Phaedo 95eff.); Robert Bolton, ÔPlatoÕs Discovery of Metaphysics: The New Methodos of the PhaedoÕ; A.A. Long, ÔPlatoÕs Apologies and Socrates in the TheaetetusÕ; Gail Fine, ÔRelativism and Self-Refutation: Plato, Protagoras, and BurnyeatÕ; Constance C. Meinwald, ÔPrometheusÕ Bounds: Peras and Apeiron in PlatoÕs PhilebusÕ; Lesley Brown, ÔInnova- tion and Continuity: The Battle of Gods and Giants, Sophist 245-249Õ..