This contribution provides a new collection of the textual extant remains (reliquiae) of the Peripatetic philosopher Cratippus of Pergamon (I c. bc), and a full and detailed overview of the biographical and doctrinal features of this thinker.
Naviguer par titre
Tiziano Dorandi and Francesco Verde
In this paper I aim to discuss a fragment of Aristotle’s De Philosophia (fr. 21 Ross = Cic. N.D. ii, 44). After defending Cicero’s reliability as a source for the present fragment, I will focus on its contents, with particular reference to the similarities and differences between fr. 21 Ross and De Caelo A-B: my aim in this comparison is to identify two different astronomical systems underlying, on the one hand, the account of fr. 21 Ross and, on the other hand, that given in the treatise. This shift of model is in my view the actual reason for the inconsistency between these accounts. Such an inconsistency might be explained in chronological terms: the last part of the paper, indeed, develops the hypothesis that De Philosophia Γ was written before 353–350bc, namely before Aristotle got acquainted with Eudoxus’ astronomical system.
The presence of slavery in Plato’s political and ethical thought is marked by two contrary tendencies: one signals the conventional character of statutory slavery and tends to reduce the moral boundary between free people and servile people; the other one, going in the opposite direction, strongly reaffirms the functional frontier between these two categories, and makes it impassable. What does this double gesture of integration and exclusion of slavery mean with respect to Plato’s political thought? My claim, based on the analysis of a passage in Book vi of the Laws and some excerpts from the Statesman, is the following: for Plato, the statutory slavery fulfills the function of drawing the inner civic boundary on which the political field must be built if it is to have a true conceptual autonomy, by contrast with what contributes to its construction but without being fully political.
Vivianne de Castilho Moreira
This article is intended to examine the lines 1006a34-b9 of Metaphysics Γ 4, where Aristotle conjectures and discusses an objection to the very first step of his proof of the principle of the most universal science. As we shall see in detail, this objection consists in claiming that the meaning of a word is multiple, so that it is not possible for a word to have one single meaning, contrarily to what it seems to be required for one to say something. As we shall also see, some crucial aspects of aristotelian notion of meaning emerge in this context, among which those related to the unity proper to it.
This paper takes issue with the thesis of Rashed and Auffret that the Critias that has come down to us is not a genuine dialogue of Plato. Authors do not consider the style of the Critias, which should be a factor in any complete study of authorship. It observes the widespread consensus that the style of the Timaeus and Critias are virtually inseparable. It surveys a wide range of stylistic studies that have tended to confirm this, before answering a possible objection that cites the similarity of style between the genuine Laws and Philip of Opus’ Epinomis. Since the main argument used by Rashed and Auffret relies on an inconsistency between Timaeus and Critias consideration is given to the types of inconsistency found within Platonic dialogues and sequences of dialogues, particularly the hiatus-avoiding dialogues including Timaeus itself and Laws. Finally, alternative explanations of the alleged inconsistency are offered.
This paper argues that the strong relationship between moral truth and knowledge is the main feature of Socrates’ philosophy and what makes him the real discoverer of ethics. In particular, this point explains the peculiar knowledge model adopted by Socrates, who, while admitting to be aware of his ignorance, shows instead his deep knowledge in a series of philosophical domains. Moreover, all this process makes the Socratic concept of anthropine sophia something dynamic and essential for philosophical inquiry. At the beginning, the paper also provides a new look at the so-called Socratic question.
This paper concerns three chief aspects of Xenocrates’ exegetical activity as head of the Platonic Academy, his interpretation of certain key passages of Plato, his appropriation of Pythagoras and the Pythagorean tradition, and his exegesis of the poets, notably Homer, Hesiod and the Orphic poems, thus setting the stage for later developments in Platonism.
This book is the first comprehensive study of Hittite phonology conducted from a descriptive perspective and the first to use the results of experimental phonetics and phonological typology. In spite of problems probably destined to remain unsolved, this study shows that it is possible to rationally analyze a description of the phonological structure of words.