Phantasia is viewed as a unified concept in Aristotle. When the metaphoric meaning of ‘phantisizing’ is excluded, the causal account for all imagination is the same: all phantasiai are motions in the soul caused by sense-perceptions. These are sensory images or imprints that can exist independently from their original source. Their history may be different, and their character and value may vary. Aristotle’s insistence on their sensory nature indicates that he saw them as a unitary phenomenon in the soul, as (...) sensory appearances. (shrink)

Language and Learning is the latest volume to emerge from the Symposium Hellenisticum conference series. Like its predecessors, this book's alliterative title is a guide to its contents, which in this case examine a range of issues involving the philosophical treatment of language by Hellenistic philosophers (or, in a couple of cases, those preceding or following them), a topic that has been strangely neglected by specialists. And as with other volumes in the series, Language and Learning features a healthy blend (...) of relatively junior scholars and the most senior scholars in the field, all of whom were given expert guidance by the editors. Given the interest of the topic and the high quality of the contributions, it is a welcome addition to the literature on ancient philosophy. (shrink)

Articles in this volume, orginally presented at the 1998 Symposium Hellenisticum in Lille, discuss theological questions that were central to the doctrines of the dominant schools in the Hellenistic age, such as the existence of the gods, their nature, and their concern for humankind.

The contributions in this volume not only do justice to the breadth of the topic, they also cover the entire period from the Pre-Socratics to Late Antiquity.

The prelims comprise: Pleasure as a Good Aristotle on Pleasure Limitations and Drawbacks The Coherence of Aristotle's Treatment of Pleasure and Pain Conclusions Notes Reference.

L’amitié représente un problème central dans l’éthique d’Aristote, mais plusieurs questions appellent des clarifications. En particulier, celle de son unité. On soutient ici qu’Aristote ne considère pas les différentes espèces d’amitié (amitié de vertu, de plaisir, d’utilité) comme les espèces d’un genre. Par ailleurs, le rapport à une unité focale de signification ( focal meaning ) ne permet pas d’expliquer leurs relations. Néanmoins, les types secondaires d’amitié ne sont pas purement accidentels: Aristote présuppose visiblement que sa définition de l’amitié par (...) les bonnes intentions et actions mutuelles convient aux trois espèces, bien que d’une manière différente dans chaque cas. L’unité de l’amitié s’explique ainsi par une relation de similarité entre les différents types d’amitié. (shrink)

Despite the fact that the theory of Forms is regarded as the hallmark of Plato’s philosophy, it has remained remarkably elusive, because it is more hinted at than explained in his dialogues. Given the uncertainty concerning the nature and extension of the Forms, this article makes no pretense to coming up with solutions to all problems that have occupied scholars since antiquity. It aims to elucidate only two aspects of that theory: the indication in certain dialogues that the Forms are (...) what in modern parlance are called functions or purposes, and the indication in other dialogues that such functions rely on harmonious structures. (shrink)

Though the two-world interpretation of Plato's metaphysics is no longer uncontested the question of the expendability of the physical world still predominates current discussions. Against this tendency the article suggests that Plato neither intended to dispose of sensory evidence altogether nor to locate the Forms in a separate realm of pure understanding. The Forms should rather be understood as the ideal principles determining the proper function of each entity. Such a 'functional view' of the Forms is discussed explicitly in Book (...) X of the Republic, but it can easily be extended to account for Plato's use of the Forms elsewhere. (shrink)

Plato is commonly credited with a much more enlightened view concerning the equality of women and their political rights than Aristotle. This is due to the fact that he acknowledges, in the Republic, the possibility that women possess abilities that are equal to those of men and therefore assigns to them the same functions in the state. Plato’s principle of equality is, however, limited to the women of the upper classes in the Republic, and it is, at least in part, (...) a consequence of the separation of the classes. Because these conditions no longer obtain in the “second-best state” designed in the Laws, women are assigned, there, a much inferior role. In the Timaeus, women are treated not only as the weaker but also as the decadent form of humankind in the cycle of births and rebirths. Plato’s views on the worth of women change, if not with time, then with context.Aristotle throughout supports the traditional view on the exclusion of women from politics and public life. He does so because he ascribes to women only a limited form of practical rationality. Though he ascribes to women the status of citizens, he regards them as citizens that stand in need of a permanent rule by their male superiors, in public as well as in the family. Aristotle never questions whether the same kind education would lead to the intellectual equality of men and women. The rigidity of Aristotle’s position in that respect seems to be based on a kind of “conservative naturalism.” He accepts as constituted by nature the social conditions that are observable throughout the world as he knew it. This not only explains his view on the natural inferiority of women, but also his justification of slavery as a natural institution. (shrink)

Some contemporary philosophers of action have contended that the intentions, decisions, and actions of collective social agency are reducible to those of the individuals involved. This contention is based on two assumptions: (1) that collective agency would require super-minds, and (2) that actions presuppose causes that move our bodies. The problem of how to account for collective action had not been regarded as a problem in the history of philosophy earlier.The explanation of why ancient Greek philosophers did not see joint (...) agency as a problem is not, as sometimes assumed, that they had no, or only a weak, sense of individuality. Nor is it because they simply overlooked the difference between individual and collective agency. It is, rather, as Aristotle’s conception of humans as ‘social’ or ‘political’ animals indicates, that the aims and ends of actions, and the means to bring them about by acting together, is the result of practice from early on. Without the acquisition of language and moral habituation humans would not become humans. There is, then, a shared understanding about common agency from infancy on. Individuals may disagree about some particular aim and action, and act only because it is a decision of the majority. But no super-minds are required to explain the communality of wishes. That Aristotle ignored the fact that all motion starts in individual bodies is explained by the difference between motions and actions: moves that are not determined by their ends are mere motions, not actions. So what moves an individual body can be the wish to bring about a joint action with another person or with a collective of persons. (shrink)

Is the holy holy because the gods love it or do the gods love it because it is holy? On the basis of this dilemma Plato works out the manifold and complex relationship between God and Morality in his dialogue Euthyphro. This dialogue not only plays a central role within Plato’s work on the question of the relationship between ethics and religion, but it also represents the starting point of the entire further Western debate about God and Morality. This article (...) gives a basic interpretation of the text, situates the dilemma within the dialogue, traces its character, intention, and structure, unfolds the course of the argument, and offers a brief outlook on its reception. (shrink)

Bei einer Einteilung der griechischen Naturphilosophen in ›Kontinuumsphysiker‹ und ›Teilchenphysiker‹ würde man Aristoteles, wenn nicht als den Erfinder, so doch als den Protagonisten der Kontinuumsphysik bezeichnen. Das vom Verb synechein abgeleitete Adjektiv syneches wird allerdings bereits von Parmenides zur Kennzeichnung der strengen Einheit im Sinne der ›Kompaktheit‹ des Seienden verwendet. Es dürfte daher kein Zufall sein, dass es danach zur Bildung der genannten Parteien gekommen ist, der Partei der Atomisten und der Partei der Befürworter von Kontinua als Basis der natürlichen (...) Welt, zumal Zenons Teilungs- und Bewegungsparadoxien zur Verbreitung der Kontroverse beigetragen haben dürften. (shrink)

›Lust‹ als Übersetzung von hêdonê umfasst jede Art von angenehmer Empfindung, Wahrnehmung, Erfahrungen oder auch geistiger Tätigkeit. Während man im Deutschen mit ›Lust‹ zumeist die Sinneslust oder auch Fleischeslust assoziiert und für höhere Arten eher Bezeichnungen wie Freude, Vergnügen oder Ähnliches bevorzugt, hat der allgemein verstandene Ausdruck ›Lust‹ den Vorzug der Flexibilität. Entsprechendes gilt für die Übersetzung des Gegenbegriffs lypê mit ›Schmerz‹.

The article purports to show that the preference of theôria in Nicomachean Ethics X 7–8 does not represent Aristotle's definitive conception of the best form of life, because it is compatible neither with his overall conception of happiness in the EN nor with its political framework. The critical chapters rather recall an early contribution of Aristotle's to a controversy on the best form of life in the Academy, attested to in Politics VII 2–3; its central point is resolved in Politics (...) VII 13–15 in a sketch of the life of leisure that combines both politics and philosophy. (shrink)

Sokrates – Platon – Aristoteles: Ohne die Bedeutung späterer Philosophen schmälern zu wollen, kann man sagen, dass es keine Lehrer-Schüler-Konstellation gegeben hat, die von vergleichbarer Bedeutung nicht nur für die Philosophiegeschichte, sondern für die Geistes- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte des Abendlandes überhaupt gewesen ist. Zugleich stellt uns dieses Dreigestirn jedoch vor die eigenartige Schwierigkeit, dass das persönliche wie auch das intellektuelle Verhältnis dieser drei Männer zueinander weitgehend im Dunkeln liegt, und dies, obwohl es vielerlei Zeugnisse über Sokrates gibt, Platons Werke vollständig, die (...) des Aristoteles zu einem guten Teil erhalten sind. Ferner bestehen über Daten und Lebensumstände der drei ›Väter‹ der griechischen Philosophie keine Zweifel. Wenn über die intellektuellen Beziehungen zwischen ihnen so große Unsicherheit herrscht, so ist dies nicht auf mangelndes Interesse der Fachleute zurückzuführen. Das Verhältnis zwischen Sokrates und Platon wie auch das zwischen Platon und Aristoteles steht bis heute immer wieder im Zentrum der Forschung. (shrink)

Que la philosophie ancienne ait bénéficié de certains raffinements méthodologiques dus à la philosophie analytique n’est guère mis en question, même par ceux qui ne s’en réclament pas. À la grande époque de la philosophie analytique, certains de ses meilleurs représentants étaient encore fort versés en histoire de la philosophie et appliquaient leurs compétences analytiques à ce qu’ils considéraient comme des problèmes centraux chez les auteurs anciens. Cet article suggère à travers deux exemples que, s’agissant de Platon, cette attention n’a (...) pas eu seulement des effets revigorants, mais également déformants. Dans le premier cas, la méthode diérétique si chérie de Platon a été marginalisée par d’éminents philosophes analytiques qui l’ont considérée comme triviale et inintéressante. Dans le second cas, le problème de l’« auto‑prédication » des Idées, qui est celui de savoir si les Idées sont des entités qui possèdent les propriétés qu’elles représentent, a été considéré d’une importance décisive pour la théorie platonicienne des Idées. À cause de ses conséquences supposément désastreuses, mentionnées une unique fois dans le Parménide, on a pensé que Platon avait renoncé à cette théorie sous sa forme classique. Au cours des dernières années, l’importance de la méthode diérétique a été réévaluée et celle du problème de l’auto-prédication réduite à de plus justes proportions. Cela ne diminue pas la valeur des contributions des philosophes analytiques à l’étude de Platon, mais signifie seulement qu’elles doivent n’être acceptées qu’avec précaution. (shrink)