It is no longer generally believed that Empedocles was the divided character portrayed by nineteenth-century scholars, a man whose scientific and religious views were incompatible but untouched by each other. Yet it is still widely held that, however unitary his thought, nevertheless he still wrote more than one poem, and that his poems can be clearly divided between those which do, and those which do not, concern ‘religious matters’.1 Once this assumption can be shown to be shaky or actually (...) false, the grounds for dividing the quotations of Empedocles into two poems by subject matter disappear; and without that division our interpretation of Empedocles stands in need of radical revision. This paper startswith the modest task of showing that Empedocles may have written only one philosophical poem and not two, and goes on to suggest some of the ways in which we have to rethink the whole story if he did. If all our material belongs to one poem we are bound to link the cycle of the daimones with that of the elements, and this has far-reaching consequences for our interpretation. (shrink)

Romain Rolland (1866-1944), écrivain, dramaturge, historien et musicologue, est l'auteur d'une oeuvre considérable et variée. La Grande Guerre fut pour lui l'occasion d'une méditation sur la violence et la haine, et le désastre qui s'abattit sur l'Europe, méditation qui aboutira à la rédaction d'Au-dessus de la mêlée (1914). Ce manifeste pacifiste, lucide et passionné, contribua à l'obtention, par l'auteur déjà célèbre de Jean-Christophe, Beethoven, La vie de Tolstoï, Danton, Les Loups, etc, du prix Nobel de littérature (1915). Son oeuvre se (...) caractérise par la recherche d'une harmonie universelle, de paix et de justice. Empédocle (1918) et L'éclair de Spinoza (1924) sont une expression "enthousiaste" de gratitude envers deux immenses penseurs, compagnons de route de Rolland, qui en a subi la profonde et durable influence. Il s'y révèle un styliste de grande classe, poète original en même temps que rigoureux penseur et pédagogue. (shrink)

The present piece, first presented on 19 November 2016 at the Centre Léon Robin (CNRS-Univ. Paris-Sorbonne-ENS Ulm) as part of the“Présocratiques” Seminar, is an investigation of the relationship between Empedocles and Freud. The analysis is divided into three parts: the first section examines the nature of Freud’s engagement with Empedocles; next, consideration is given to the similarities between their doctrines, based on the extant fragments of the Empedoclean corpus; finally, I offer a series of observations about Empedocles’ (...) poetic style, which shares strong affinities with the spoken word in a manner typical of the oral tradition and is freighted with corporeal and emotional significance. It is here that we see the emergence of one of the key concepts of psychoanalysis: the relationship between logos and alogon, between that which can be rationally analysed and that which can be intuited but which eludes the domain of logos. (shrink)

The paper analyses fragmentarily preserved views of Empedocles, that, in the author’s opinion, represent the antecedents of deviations from the anthropocentric vision of the world and anticipate the majority of later attempts at scientific, philosophical, and legal modifications of the status of all living beings. Empedocles, namely, claims that all beings think, i.e., that they have understanding or consciousness. He is, moreover, portrayed as a proponent of the thesis that plants as well have both intellect and the ability (...) to think, and that they are driven by desire and have feelings, sadness and joy. According to him, the idea that the whole nature is akin not only has a vital-animal meaning but, to a certain extent, a mental meaning. Empedocles urged his disciples to abstain from consuming ensouled beings, since it is in the bodies of these beings that penalized souls reside. He believed that he himself was one of them who had been killed and eaten, and that it is by purification that prior sins in connection with food should be treated. Empedocles’ case shows that humans are living beings that err, and that they owe to animals justice based on mutual kinship. Aside from living a pure life, practicing the recommended katharmoi, and abstaining from flesh in any version, the path to the salvation of the soul leads through two additional dimensions. The first is being revealed in the important phrase of the sage from Acragas that one should fast from evil. And secondly, the wealth of divine thoughts is connected with being happy, just as those who have vague opinions about the gods are wretched. Eventually, the “Sicilian Muse” believed that if people live in a holy and just manner, they shall be blessed in this life, even more so after leaving this one, because they will achieve happiness that will not be temporarily, and be able to rest for eternity. (shrink)

Greek text, english translation and commentary on the surviving fragments of Empedocles (fragments as known in 1981, does not include more recent finds).

Mark Eli Kalderon presents an original study of perception, taking as its starting point a puzzle in Empedocles' theory of vision: if perception is a mode of material assimilation, how can we perceive colors at a distance? Kalderon argues that the theory of perception offered by Aristotle in answer to the puzzle is both attractive and defensible.

This article argues that Empedocles’ trust in Strife (DK31 B115.14 = LM22 D10.14) is not, as the prevailing interpretation has it, only a past misjudgement and failure. Rather, trust in Strife still, and to his own lament, infects Empedocles’ mind and informs his life. This detail then offers a fresh perspective on Empedocles’ self-conception and on how, through the daimōn’s cosmic peregrinations, Empedocles raises and pursues questions of agency and responsibility. Furthermore, it sheds light on (...) class='Hi'>Empedocles’ understanding of his own ethical standing: common assumptions to the contrary notwithstanding, he does not see himself as an unqualifiedly successful embodiment of his own ideals. (shrink)

Aristotle claims that Empedocles took perception and knowledge to be the same; Theophrastus follows Aristotle. The paper begins by examining why Aristotle and Theophrastus identify thought/knowing with perception in Empedocles. I maintain that the extant fragments do not support the assertion that Empedocles identifies or conflates sensation with thought or cognition. Indeed, the evidence of the texts shows that Empedocles is careful to distinguish them, and argues that to have genuine understanding one must not be misled (...) into supposing that sense perception is sufficient for knowledge. Nevertheless, sense perception is necessary for human knowing. (shrink)

The reconstruction of ensemble d–f of the Akhmîm Papyrus, better known as the Strasbourg Papyrus, which attests approximately eighteen of the over seventy new lines of Empedocles’ physical poem, has drawn the attention of scholars over recent years. Thanks to the good condition of the papyrus and the coincidence with two Empedoclean lines, already known from the indirect tradition, ensemble d–f 1–10a presents a well-restored text and an intelligible sense. In contrast, because of the damaged state of the papyrus, (...) the restoration of d–f 10b–18 is more complicated. These lines seem to describe a life-generative process, but what process was Empedocles talking about? Some resemblances between these papyrus lines and the lines of another Empedoclean fragment, DK 31 B 62, have suggested to scholars, notably to A. Martin and O. Primavesi in 1999 and M. Rashed in 2011, that the lines of the papyrus depict, just like DK 31 B 62, the generation of whole-natured beings. Other scholars, however, such as R. Janko in 2004 and A. Laks and G.W. Most in 2016, show more caution and leave the possibility open that Empedocles is here talking about the generation of something else. (shrink)

Argues for viewing Empedocles' work as a unified whole of religion and physics by showing how rebirth is a positive doctrine which underlies his cosmic system. Essential for all scholars of early Greek philosophy, but will also appeal to those of epic poetry, Plato and Pythagoras studies, and ancient religion.

This article considers how the new finds have affected one's view of Empedocles, and suggests how interpretation of that material might help solve some longstanding problems about the structure and content of Empedocles' writings. A basic account of the teachings of Empedocles would distinguish between two main components. On the one hand, there is a “Presocratic” physics, including a theory of principles, a cosmology, and a biology. On the other hand, there is a mythical law, clearly inspired (...) by Orphic or Pythagorean legends, which imposes on guilty gods a punishment consisting in their transmigration through a series of mortal beings. The purpose of this article is to show that Empedocles has the habit of referring to divine entities of his physical system both in a physical and in a mythological way and that his uses of the word daimon form part of this twofold language. (shrink)

David Hernández Castro ABSTRACT: Scholars have generally analysed Empedocles’ criticism of sacrifices through a Pythagorean interpretation context. However, Empedocles’ doctrinal affiliation with this school is problematic and also not needed to explain his rejection of the ‘unspeakable slaughter of bulls.’ His position is consistent with the wisdom tradition that emanated from the Sanctuary of Apollo ….

L'objet de cette contribution est d'interroger le contexte anthropologique du vocabulaire et de la langue théologique et rituelle que continue à parler Empédocle, au moment où il renverse le Panthéon olympien traditionnel. Contrairement à ceux qui attribuent à la vision d'Empédocle lui-même les éléments théologiques et rituels présents dans le fragment 115, il s'agit de montrer que ces éléments relèvent d'une économie sacrificielle imputée à la religion olympienne et placée sous le joug de Nécessité. En parallèle avec les réflexions orphiques (...) et tragiques de son temps, qu'il remet en perspective, Empédocle dénoncerait notamment l'ambiguïté constitutive du sacré et de la purification qui mine les deux instances que sont l'Alliance et la Querelle en faisant communiquer la Violence et la Grâce de manière à la fois inéluctable et insupportable. À partir des indices offerts par les fragments 30 et 116, une réinterprétation du Cycle empédocléen est proposée qui fait place à l'hypothèse d'une alternance non sacrificielle, vouée aux Charites. The aim of this paper is to question the anthropological context of the theological vocabulary and speech used by Empedocles in his upheaval of the traditional Olympian Pantheon. Contrary to what is often argued by those who assign to Empedocles' own conception the theological and ritual elements present in the fragment 115, we show that these elements belong to the sacrificial economy imputed to the olympian religion and placed under the yoke of Necessity. In a way parallel but also critical to the orphic and tragic thought of his time, Empedocles would denounce especially the constitutive ambiguity of the Sacred and the Purification, which undermines the two instances of Alliance and Quarrel by involving Violence and Grace in a way both ineluctable and unbearable for him. From the indications offered by fragments 30 and 116, a new approach of the empedoclean Cycle is proposed, that gives way to the hypothesis of a non sacrificial alternation dedicated to the Charites. (shrink)

Hitherto reconstructions of Empedocles' cosmic cycle have usually been offered as part of a larger work, a complete history of Presocratic thought, or a complete study of Empedocles. Consequently there has perhaps been a lack of thoroughness in collecting and sifting evidence that relates exclusively to the main features of the cosmic cycle.

This paper focuses on a particular conception of embodied cognition to argue that this cognitive approach can be found in Empedocles in inchoate form. It is assumed that the defining features setting apart embodied cognition from the rest of the cognitive sciences are that the body: (a) significantly constrains the embodied agent’s cognitive skills, (b) regulates the coordination of action and cognition, and (c) serves an integral function in the transmission of cognitive data. Empedocles’ epistemological fragments are examined (...) vis-à-vis these specifications, and the conclusion is reached that Empedocles can safely be regarded as a distant precursor of embodied cognition. (shrink)

:The aim of this article is to reopen the rather neglected issue of the nature and internal structure of the.

This book offers the first complete reinterpretation of Empedocles-one of the founding figures of Western philosophy-since the publication of the Strasbourg ...

Purpose. Reconstruction of Empedocles’ doctrine from the point of view of philosophical anthropology. Theoretical basis. Methodological basis of the article is the anthropological comprehending of Empedocles’ text fragments presented in the historical-philosophical context. Originality. Cognition of nature in Ancient Greece was far from the ideal of the objective knowledge formed in modern times, cognition of the world as it exists before man and independently of him. Whatever the ancient philosophers talked about, man was always in the center of (...) their attention. I proposed an anthropological version of the interpretation of the doctrine of Empedocles, within the framework of which various elements of his concept fit into a consistent model. Conclusions. Empedocles’ anthropology is based on the recognition of several fundamental things. First of all, there is no death. Second, there is no fundamental difference between human and celestial. This line is conventional and under certain conditions one can overcome it. Cod can become a human, and a human can become God. Teaching of evolution is also double. Not only physical shell evolves, keeping only the most adapted species, but the soul too. The latter can both ascend to the gods and go down to the bushes and fish. Purification of the soul and mastering the magic of the elements gives an impetus for a correct direction of evolution. Empedocles is an anthropologist-practitioner, who shows by his example that a human can cope with all the elements and reach divinity. He chose the elemental ingredients for penetrating the Fortunate Isles, leaving the instructions on how to become God. (shrink)

Este ensaio tem como proposta pensar a comunicação a partir da cosmologia de Empédocles, tendo como fonte parte dos seus fragmentos e bibliografia secundária. Como ponto de partida, destacamos o trabalho Ciro Marcondes Filho, o primeiro pesquisador da área da comunicação do Brasil a trazer textos de um pré-socrático, no caso de Heráclito, para fundamentar as suas propostas sobre a ciência da comunicação. A partir da discussão iniciada por Marcondes Filho, propomos imergir no pensamento de Empédocles para refletir sobre suas (...) possíveis contribuições para a área da comunicação, tendo como hipótese uma teoria agonística da comunicação. (shrink)

Empedocles’ repeated description of his four “roots” or elements by the repetition of three seemingly simple words (αὐτά + ἐστίν + ταῦτα) has constantly defied explanation. If the verb is given a copulative function, the result appears to be a pointless tautology (“these things are themselves”). If it is given an existential value, the result is puzzlingly abstruse (“these things themselves are”). Translators therefore commonly opt for a loose paraphrase, where one word out of three is not translated at (...) all (αὐτά) and an adverb (“only”) is added, seemingly from nowhere (“only these things are”). The solution to the puzzle is to be found in Empedocles’ reaction to his older contemporary, Anaxagoras. Empedocles’ repeated description is a covert criticism of Anaxagoras’ curious claim that “in everything there is a part of everything”. (shrink)

Empedocles' fr. 24 is known only from its quotation by Plutarch. The words as quoted leave themselves open to divergent interpretations. The context in Plutarch nonetheless holds out some hope of being able to decide which of the divergent interpretations would have matched the use that Empedocles himself made of the two verses in his poem.

Scholars have generally analysed Empedocles’ criticism of sacrifices through a Pythagorean interpretation context. However, Empedocles’ doctrinal affiliation with this school is problematic and also not needed to explain his rejection of the ‘unspeakable slaughter of bulls.’ His position is consistent with the wisdom tradition that emanated from the Sanctuary of Apollo in Delphi, an institution that underwent significant political and religious changes at the end of the 6th Century B.C., the impact of which was felt all over Magna (...) Graecia. The ritual practice of sacrifice played an important role in Delphi, but the sanctuary also gave birth to a school of wisdom that was highly critical of the arrogance (hybris) of large sacrifices. Asocio-cultural analysis of the Akragas of the first half of the 5th Century B.C. provides new arguments that support this interpretation. The work of Empedocles contains more evidence of being influenced by the Delphi school of wisdom than by Orphism or Pythagoreanism. (shrink)

The studies of Empedocles have made headway in showing that Empedocles postulated a double zoogony. Whereas this has been traditionally related to the hypothesis of two worlds per cycle, some Empedoclean fragments provide evidence for a double zoogony in a cosmic cycle with one world. How can we reconcile the hypothesis of two zoogonies with the assumption of a unique world? Whereas there have been attempts to address this question by retaining the traditional idea of two opposite zoogonic (...) periods or phases, I contend that Empedocles’ fragments invite us to a reconsideration of his notion of a double birth and death of mortal beings. (shrink)

Analyse du personnage d'Empédocle que Hölderlin a élevé au rang de héros tragique, mêlant à la figure mythique du sage et conducteur du peuple l'idiosyncrasie de son moi poétologique. Examinant la définition du genre tragique comme métaphore de l'intuition intellectuelle et de l'unité extatique avec tout ce qui vit , l'A. montre que Hölderlin rapproche la Grèce de l'Hespérie, le tragique grec de la souffrance du Christ, le drame païen du christianisme, en faisant de «La Mort d'Empédocle» une offrande sacrificielle (...) et un retour à l'élémentaire, et en faisant du suicide un acte de liberté et d'utopie politique. (shrink)

Contrary to the Aristotelian interpretation of Empedocles' views about cognition, according to which all cognition, like perception, is due to the compositional likeness between subject and object of cognition, this paper argues that when Empedocles says that we know one thing 'by' another (e.g. earth by earth or love by love), he is characterizing analogical reasoning, an intellectual activity quite different from perception (which is explained by the fit between effluences and pores). The paper also explores the idea (...) that strife and love describe, in addition to physical separation and composition, the mental activities of analyzing and composing. (shrink)

The expression “Gnostic Empedocles” refers to the summary of the teachings of this philosopher presented by Hippolytus of Rome in the Refutation of All Heresies. Above all, it concerns the notice devoted to Marcion and his disciples, who were accused of following the poems of Empedocles rather than the Gospel. However, Hippolytus is inspired by the readings of Empedocles provided by different groups of Gnostics. This interpretatio gnostica was also known in Christian circles. The analysis of this (...) interpretation, based on the notice about Marcion, allows us to propose a new interpretation of Bardaisan’s thought — mentioned by Hippolytus — as an unknown testimony of the reception of Empedocles. (shrink)

The cosmic cycle described in the surviving fragments of Empedocles' poem is the alternation, in endless succession, of Love and Strife. Dr O'Brien's book is primarily an analysis of this elaborate system. It seeks to determine the positions which Love and Strife occupy in the world at different times.

On se propose dans cet article d’examiner la relation entre la théorie physique d’Empédocle et sa loi mythique sur le daimon coupable. Deux caractéristiques du système physique revêtent ici une importance particulière : (1) plusieurs composants élémentaires du système font partie des « dieux à la longue vie » ; cela s’applique, d’une part, aux masses concentriques de terre, eau, air et feu à l’état pur pendant les quatre mille ans de séparation complète, et d’autre part au Sphairos, c’est-à-dire au (...) mélange intégral des quatre éléments pendant les quatre mille ans d’unité complète. En ce sens, le système physique est une théologie physique ; (2) dans l’exposition du système, il y a deux façons de renvoyer aux cinq dieux à la longue vie : parfois il en est question en termes purement physiques, parfois ils sont identifiés de manière allégorique aux dieux traditionnels de la mythologie et du culte. Les quatre masses pures à la longue vie peuvent ainsi recevoir les noms de Zeus, Héra, Aidoneus et Nestis ; de même, le Sphairos pouvait être appelé Apollon. On soutiendra ici que la loi mythique sur le daimon coupable appartient à ce registre allégorique ; sa fonction est de refléter le cycle cosmique du système physique de façon à en exprimer toute la force d’un point de vue humain. (shrink)

Diogenes Laertius (8.63-6) preserves a fascinating account of the Presocratic philosopher Empedocles' life. There, drawing on evidence from Aristotle, Xanthus, and Timaeus of Tauromenium, the biographer provides several anecdotes which are meant to demonstrate how Empedocles had, contrary to expectation, been a democratic philosopher - a paradox of itself in Ancient Greece. This article unpacks the complex web woven by Diogenes and argues that there is no good reason to assume that Empedocles was indeed a democratic philosopher, (...) and moreover, that neither Xanthus nor Aristotle thought him so. Indeed, what Diogenes actually preserves for us is the Hellenistic biographer Timaeus' critical dialectical engagement with the versions Aristotle and Xanthus, in his anachronistic bid to render Empedocles a democratic hero. (shrink)

A curious irony hangs over the two similes of the lantern and the clepsydra which Empedocles used to describe his theories of seeing and breathing. Similes were a feature of Empedocles' style, and it is clear that on these two in particular he has lavished considerable care. They have been preserved in their entirety, as almost the longest continuous quotations which Aristotle makes from any author. Despite such auspicious beginnings, these two similes have proved peculiarly resistant to modern (...) attempts at interpretation. The reason for this, I shall try to show, is that certain features in the two similes took on a spurious significance as a result of Plato's remodelling of Empedocles' theories. Difficulties of interpretation have been caused by trying to read back these innovations of Platonic theory into details of the similes that in their original context were fortuitous and inessential.In Plato vision occurs when fire leaves the eye and joins fire outside to form a single compacted body, along which movements from the visible object are communicated as sensations to the eye.According to Theophrastus, Empedocles explained vision as the result of effluences which are given off from objects and enter the appropriate pores of the eye. Dark effluences enter the watery pores of the eyes, and bright effluences enter the fiery pores of the eye. As I have tried to show in an earlier article, Empedocles distinguished good and bad vision, by day and by night, for eyes with a predominance of fire and for eyes with a predominance of water. Good vision results when the dark and light elements which enter the eye are equally balanced. Poor vision results either when there is too much fire in the eye, so that we are dazzled, or when there is too much water in the eye, so that our vision is dimmed. In the whole of his detailed and one would have thought exhaustive account, Theophrastus says nothing about fire leaving the eye as a factor in the act of vision. (shrink)

L'objet de cet article est d'examiner l'ensemble des entités qui sont appelées divines dans le poème philosophique d'Empédocle. Il s'agit de se demander si ces entités aboutissent à une vision consistante de la divinité. On examine aussi la dialectique de la mortalité et de l'immortalité présente dans la pensée d'Empédocle. Dans la mesure où la moindre chose, y compris les vivants les plus instables, sont issus des principes divins, il y a un sens à dire que, dans le cosmos d'Empédocle, (...) toutes les choses composées sont considérées comme étant divines. Mais en un autre sens, seules les structures hautement intégrées méritent d'être considérées en tant que dieux. On montre que souffrir comme un mortel revient à vivre une vie fragmentée continuellement menacée par le spectre de la mort. Au contraire, mener une vie de dieu revient à vivre au sens plein, sans être tourmenté par le terme éventuel d'une existence heureuse. En conclusion, on établit que deux orientations distinctes de la poésie grecque et de la philosophie semblent avoir rivalisé dans l'interprétation qu'Empédocle se faisait des dieux. The paper examines all the entities that are said to be divine in Empedocles' philosophical poetry, and raises the question of whether or not they form a rather consistent view of what it is for something to be a god. The paper also examines the dialectics of mortality and immortality in Empedocles' thought. Since everything whatsoever, including the most unstable living beings, stemmed from divine principles there is a sense in which all composite things were regarded as divine in Empedocles' cosmos. But there is another sense in which only highly integrated structures were considered to be gods. To suffer as a mortal, it is argued, was to live a fragmented life continuously threatened by the prospect of death. Contrariwise, to lead a divine life was to live in wholeness, not at all worried by the eventual termination of such a blessed existence. In conclusion it is argued that two distinct trends of early Greek poetry and philosophy seem to have vied for supremacy in Empedocles' understanding of godhead. (shrink)

Concepts of creation -- Life after Etna : Empedocles in prose and poetry -- Virtue and the good in Plato and Aristotle -- Aristotle's criteria for happiness -- Practical truth in Aristotle -- Aristotle's categories in the Latin fathers -- Essence and existence : Aquinas and Islamic philosophy -- Aquinas on the beginning of individual human life -- Thomas and thomism -- Aquinas in America -- Philosophy states only what everyone admits -- Cognitive scientism -- The Wittgenstein editions -- (...) Knowledge, belief, and faith -- The unity of knowledge and the diversity of Beli. (shrink)

The article attempts to highlight the development of the unity of medicine and philosophy in the context of combating epidemics of two early Greek thinkers Epimenides and Empedocles. The idea that Epimenides adheres to the divine origin of the disease is justified, but at the same time, in the process of ritual purification from the plague, it attracts elements of the Pythagorean view of healing, as well as close to Indo-Iranian traditions of the time. It is proved that in (...) the course of the development of ancient thought, the view of the disease also evolves “from myth to logos”, which leads to the understanding of this phenomenon in Empedocles as an ontological problem. Accordingly, it has been established that, for the Sicilian philosopher, mass diseases (epidemics) are caused primarily by the fact that he is more prevalent in the world. If the society is engulfed by hatred and malice, then diseases will inevitably emerge and increase. Instead, overcoming and disappearing of epidemics are possible because peace and harmony between people will prevail. The author substantiates the thesis that helping residents to overcome epidemics in various ancient cities, testifies to the great importance of the early Greek thinkers, who combined not only reflection but also praxis. (shrink)

L’importance de la figure d’Empédocle dans le Phèdre a été négligée par les commentateurs. Cet article entend montrer qu’elle permet pourtant de donner un nouvel éclairage au mythe de l’attelage ailé. Son point de départ consiste à mettre en relation une nouvelle interprétation du fragment 29 d’Empédocle, qui identifie le Sphairos à un Éros n’ayant plus d’ailes sur le dos, avec le dépassement du dos du ciel par les âmes ailées qui a lieu dans ce mythe du Phèdre. Le dos (...) du ciel serait en effet la transposition platonicienne de la surface externe du Sphairos évoquée dans le fragment, de sorte que son dépassement équivaudrait à un dépassement du matérialisme empédocléen vers l’intelligible. Quant à Éros, Platon prend sur ce point le contre-pied de la critique empédocléenne de la religion traditionnelle, en en faisant moins le Sphairos que l’élan qui mène au-delà de celui-ci. (shrink)

In this paper I propose to show: 1) that in Phys. II 8 Aristotle takes Empedocles as a paradigm for a theoretical position common to all philosophers who preceded him: the view that materialism implies a mechanistic explanation of natural becoming; and 2) that, since Empe­docles is regarded as a philosopher who clearly expresses the position of all mechanistic materialists, Aristotle builds his teleological arguments precisely to refute him. Indeed, Aristotle believes that refuting the argu­ments of Empedocles – (...) the champion of mechanism – means refut­ing the mechanistic theory itself. In order to illustrate this point, I will discuss some passages from Phys. II 8, while also turning to consider the Neoplatonic commentators on Aristotle’s Physics. I will then endeav­our to explain why in 198b19 ff. Aristotle formulates the argument of rain, which has attracted so much attention from scholars of the Phys­ics: I will consider whether Aristotle believes that rain serves a purpose, contrary to what he claims with regard to meteorological phenomena in Meteorologica. (shrink)

The Epicurean Colotes, in a work entitled Περὶ τοῦ ὅτι κατὰ τὰ τῶν ἄλλων φιλοσόφων οὐδὲ ζῆν ἔστιν, cited two fragments of Empedocles in order to prove that the poet denied that existence exists. Both are prominent in controversies about Empedocles’ physics and his usage of the term φύσις, but fr. 9 is very corrupt. To have any hope of restoring it, we will need to examine carefully Plutarch's explication de texte in his Adversus Colotem. Although there have (...) been two detailed treatments of this passage, neither has resolved the difficulties. (shrink)

Few things can be more confusing, or confused, than the ancient reports about Empedocles' astronomy. Attempts in the modern literature at resolving the difficulties invariably either add to the confusion, or end by urging the need to ‘acknowledge the insufficiency of our data and suspend judgment’. In fact, as we will see, it is possible not only to reconstruct Empedocles' own ideas but also to retrace the history of their subsequent misunderstanding.

Recent attempts at giving meaning to Empedocles’ enigmatic metaphor of a ‘pathway’ and ‘summits’ suffer from weaknesses logical no less than philological. Contrary theses do not have to be contradictory. Does Empedocles express a preference for ‘summits’ as opposed to a ‘pathway’, or for a ‘pathway’ as opposed to ‘summits’? Very possibly neither. The context in which the two verses are quoted points rather to a graceful peroration. However many ‘summits’ there may have been on the way, the (...) traveller has to complete his journey. However many the fascinating topics Cleombrotus has spoken of, he has to know how to bring his speech, his ‘path of words’, to a successful conclusion. (shrink)

L'auteur analyse d'abord la relation entre Theos et Daimôn dans le Poème Physique et dans les Purifications. Dans le premier, Empédocle appelle theoi le Sphairos et les éléments. Précisément, le philosophe d'Acragas appelle le Sphairos tout simplement theos. Pourtant, il appelle les éléments theoi dolichaiônes, alors qu'ils forment quatre masses séparées et avant qu'ils ne se mêlent pour constituer les « choses mortelles »; tandis que, lorsqu'ils se mêlent et abandonnent la condition de pureté pour créer un composé, il les (...) appelle daimones. D'autre part, dans les Purifications, les daimones sont les dieux tombés dans le monde : redevenir un dieu, c'est la destinée de l'homme, ou au moins l'objectif qu'Empédocle propose. Enfin, l'auteur soutient que les frgs. B131-134 pourraient provenir de l'Hymne à Apollon perdu. C'est ce que semble démontrer le fait qu'Empédocle suive dans ces fragments une ligne dogmatique à propos de la connaissance des dieux qui contraste avec la prudente gnoséologie suivie dans le Poème Physique et par la difference entre la théologie exposée dans ces fragments et le mythe eschatologique présenté dans les Purifications. The author starts by analyzing the relationship between Theos and Daimôn in the Physical Poem and in the Purifications. In the former poem it is the Sphairos and the elements which are called theoi. As a matter of fact, the Sphairos is called simply theos. The elements, instead, are called theoi dolichaiônes, when they are set in four separate masses and anyway before mingling up together in order to beget "mortal things"; whereas, when they mingle up, and pass from a pure condition into a compound, they are called daimones. On the other hand, in the Purifications it is the fallen gods who are called daimones: to become a god again is man's destiny, or at least the aim proposed by Empedocles. Lastly, the author maintains that frgs. B131-134 might belong to the lost Hymn to Apollo — this is shown by the dogmatic approach to the knowledge of the gods, which is here taken by Empedocles, contrary to the cautious gnoseology defended in the Physical Poem; and by the theology taught in those fragments, which is very different from the eschatological myth introduced in the Purifications. (shrink)

Few things can be more confusing, or confused, than the ancient reports about Empedocles' astronomy. Attempts in the modern literature at resolving the difficulties invariably either add to the confusion, or end by urging the need to ‘acknowledge the insufficiency of our data and suspend judgment’. In fact, as we will see, it is possible not only to reconstruct Empedocles' own ideas but also to retrace the history of their subsequent misunderstanding.