Logic and Interpretation: Syllogistic Reconstructions in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics
In: History of Philosophy & Logical AnalysisSearch for other papers by Orna Harari in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
In this article I explain three puzzling features of Simplicius’ use of syllogistic reconstructions in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics: (1) Why does he reconstruct Aristotle’s non-argumentative remarks? (2) Why does he identify the syllogistic figure of an argument but does not explicitly present its reconstruction? (3) Why in certain lemmata does he present several reconstructions of the same argument? Addressing these questions, I argue that these puzzling features are an expression of Simplicius’ assumption that formal reasoning underlies Aristotle’s prose, hence they reflect his attempt to capture as faithfully as possible Aristotle’s actual mode of reasoning. I show further that, as a consequence of this seemingly descriptive use of syllogistic reconstructions, logic serves Simplicius not only as an expository and clarificatory tool of certain interpretations or philosophical views, but also motivates and shapes his exegetical stances and approach.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
[Philoponus.] Ioannis Philoponi in Aristotelis Physicorum libros octo commentaria. Vitelli, H. (ed.), 1887–1888. CAG vols. 16/17. Berlin: Reimer.
-
[Simplicius.] Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum libros octo commentaria. Diels, H. (ed.), 1882–1895. CAG vols. 9/10. Berlin: Reimer. (= In Phys.)
-
[Themistius.] Themistii in Aristotelis physica paraphrasis. Schenkl, H. (ed.), 1900. CAG vol. 5.2. Berlin: Reimer.
-
Bodnár, I., Chase, M. & Share, M. (trs.) 2012. Simplicius: On Aristotle’s Physics 8.1–5. London / New York: Bloomsburry.
-
Brémond, M. 2019. Lectures de Mélissos: Édition, traduction et interprétation des témoignages sur Mélissos de Samos. Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter.
-
Dalimier, C. 2000. Les enjeux de la reformulation syllogistique chez les commentateurs grecs du De Caelo d’Aristote. In: Goulet-Cazé, M.–O. (ed.), Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation. Paris: VRIN, 377–386.
-
Fleet, B. (tr.). 1997. Simplicius: On Aristotle’s Physics 2. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
-
Helmig, C. 2020. Simplicius. In: Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition). URL: <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/simplicius/>.
-
Huby, P. & Taylor, C. C. W. (trs.). 2011. Simplicius: On Aristotle’s Physics 1.3–4. London / New York: Bloomsburry.
-
Hugonnard-Roche, H. 2000. La formulation logique de l’argumentation dans les commentaires d’Averroès au De caelo. In: Goulet-Cazé, M.–O. (ed.), Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation. Paris: VRIN, 387–395.
-
Lernould, A. (tr.). 2019. Simplicius. Commentaire sur la Physique d’Aristote. Livre II, ch. 1–3. Introduction, traduction, notes et bibliographie par Alain Lernould. Lille: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.
-
Rashed, M. 2011. Alexandre d’Aphrodise, Commentaire perdu à la Physique d’Aristote (Livres IV–VIII): Les scholies byzantines. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 250 | 0 | 0 |
| Full Text Views | 180 | 88 | 6 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 181 | 35 | 0 |
Logic and Interpretation: Syllogistic Reconstructions in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics
In: History of Philosophy & Logical AnalysisSearch for other papers by Orna Harari in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
In this article I explain three puzzling features of Simplicius’ use of syllogistic reconstructions in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics: (1) Why does he reconstruct Aristotle’s non-argumentative remarks? (2) Why does he identify the syllogistic figure of an argument but does not explicitly present its reconstruction? (3) Why in certain lemmata does he present several reconstructions of the same argument? Addressing these questions, I argue that these puzzling features are an expression of Simplicius’ assumption that formal reasoning underlies Aristotle’s prose, hence they reflect his attempt to capture as faithfully as possible Aristotle’s actual mode of reasoning. I show further that, as a consequence of this seemingly descriptive use of syllogistic reconstructions, logic serves Simplicius not only as an expository and clarificatory tool of certain interpretations or philosophical views, but also motivates and shapes his exegetical stances and approach.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 250 | 0 | 0 |
| Full Text Views | 180 | 88 | 6 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 181 | 35 | 0 |
