Ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy of Science

This book assembles an international team of scholars to move forward the study of Plato’s conception of time, to find fresh insights for interpreting his cosmology, and to reimagine the Platonic tradition.

On propose ici de clarifier ce qu’Anaximandre entendait par « le divin » et ce qu’il appelait des « dieux ». À partir d’une réévaluation des sources anciennes, on soutient que cette enquête peut aider à comprendre son modèle cosmologique et le problème des cataclysmes dans son système. Trois hypothèses sont avancées à cette fin : [i] que dans Physique, III, 4, 203b3 15, le syntagme τὸ ἄπειρον renvoie à une notion concrète de substrat infini ; [ii] que dans ce (...) même passage, Aristote n’a probablement pas attribué aux philosophes de la nature – y compris Anaximandre – la thèse selon laquelle τὸ ἄπειρον est divin, mais plutôt la thèse selon laquelle ils comprennent le divin comme étant immortel et impérissable ; [iii] qu’Anaximandre, en supposant que « les astres célestes » sont des dieux, admettrait qu’ils naissent mais ne se détruisent pas – ce qui réfuterait l’idée d’un cataclysme universel chez lui. En conclusion, l’étude discute en quoi consisterait la gouvernance cosmique de τὸ ἄπειρον dans un univers divisé en trois niveaux et propose que cette gouvernance viendrait du fait que τὸ ἄπειρον possède un mouvement éternel. (shrink)

The Pneumatist school of medicine has the distinction of being the only medical school in antiquity named for a belief in a part of a human being. Unlike the Herophileans or the Asclepiadeans, their name does not pick out the founder of the school. Unlike the Dogmatists, Empiricists, or Methodists, their name does not pick out a specific approach to medicine. Instead, the name picks out a belief: the fact that pneuma is of paramount importance, both for explaining health and (...) disease, and for determining treatments for the healthy and sick. In this paper, we re-examine what our sources say about the pneuma of the Pneumatists in order to understand what these physicians thought it was and how it shaped their views on physiology, diagnosis and treatment. (shrink)

This volume explores the versatility of the concept of pneuma in philosophical and medical theories in the wake of Aristotle’s physics. It offers fourteen separate studies of how the concept of pneuma was used in a range of physical, physiological, psychological, cosmological and ethical inquiries. The focus is on individual thinkers or traditions and the specific questions they sought to address, including early Peripatetic sources, the Stoics, the major Hellenistic medical traditions, Galen, as well as Proclus in Late Antiquity and (...) John Zacharias Aktouarios in the early 14th century. Building on new scholarly approaches and on recent advancements in our understanding of Graeco-Roman philosophy and medicine, the volume prompts a profound re-evaluation of this fluid and adaptable, but crucially important, substance, in antiquity and beyond. (shrink)

Relying upon a very close reading of all of the definitions given in Euclid’s Elements, I argue that this mathematical treatise contains a philosophical treatment of mathematical objects. Specifically, I show that Euclid draws elaborate metaphysical distinctions between substances and non-substantial attributes of substances, different kinds of substance, and different kinds of non-substance. While the general metaphysical theory adopted in the Elements resembles that of Aristotle in many respects, Euclid does not employ Aristotle’s terminology, or indeed, any philosophical terminology at (...) all. Instead, Euclid systematically uses different types of definition to distinguish between metaphysically different kinds of mathematical object. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Apeiron Jahrgang: 50 Heft: 4 Seiten: 449-481.

The general neglect of ancient surveying by classical scholars can be demonstrated easily. The third edition of the Oxford Classical Dictionary has no article on surveying. The great Real‐Encyclopädie has two short articles on the Greek dioptra but nothing at all on the Roman libra. A History of Technology has no section on surveying. Even the indefatigable Otto Neugebauer seldom mentions terrestrial surveying, and the best introduction to the subject is probably the chapter in Edmond Kiely's Surveying Instruments: Their History (...) and Classroom Use , pages 18–44.Until now. In Surveying Instruments of Greece and Rome, M. J. T. Lewis has gathered and set out a wealth of material, suggested important revisions to several accepted views, and set the study of ancient surveying instruments and techniques on a firm foundation.The work is divided into three parts. In Part 1 Lewis draws on an impressive array of literary sources, plus archaeological evidence, later parallels, and his own trials with reconstructed versions of the dioptra and the libra, to trace the history, design, and capabilities of the instruments. He is particularly interested in the Greek dioptra. Here he brings to bear much new information , and he emphasizes both the impressive pioneering efforts of the Greeks and the close connection in Greek surveying between theoretical science—mathematics and geometry—and technical achievement. On the Roman side, Lewis points out that the chorobates would have been impossibly cumbersome in the field, and he argues convincingly that the libra was the instrument of choice for Roman surveyors. We do not know what this instrument looked like, but a close analysis of the word “libra” and of references to the instrument allows Lewis to suggest a plausible reconstruction. Relatively short but very interesting sections on the groma and on Vitruvius's hodometer complete Part 1.Having established the nature of the instruments, Lewis deals in Part 2 with various practical applications. Fine chapters outline the attempts of the Greeks to determine the circumference of the earth and, related to that, the heights of mountains. In the area of civil engineering, Lewis discusses examples of canals, aqueducts, tunnels, and roads. Here are some of the most impressive accomplishments of ancient surveyors: the very shallow gradients of some Roman aqueducts ; long tunnels, where occasionally we can identify a mistake in surveying; and the great straight stretches of Roman roads in Britain, where Lewis sets out a new theory on how they were surveyed and planned.In Part 3 Lewis provides translations of four extended passages on the design and use of the dioptra. He also translates 106 shorter passages drawn from a remarkable range of authors, inscriptions, and papyri and dealing with the various instruments and their uses. The translations are not word for word except where they need to be, but they are accurate and admirably clear. Lewis is the first to provide translations into English of the major texts on the dioptra , and this section will be a great help to scholars. My one regret is that he does not include the Greek texts on the dioptra. I understand the financial constraints; but few libraries have all of these texts, and including them would have added only some twenty‐five pages.Throughout this absorbing work, the level of scholarship is very high. Lewis's discussions of the evolution of the instruments and of ancient attempts to establish the circumference of the earth constitute an important contribution to intellectual history. Mistakes are few and insignificant. The author hopes that the volume will encourage further study, and it should. Quite apart from its importance for those who study ancient monuments and engineering projects, the book provides an excellent starting point for those investigating maps , precision instruments and their manufacture , and the transmission of scientific ideas in the Greco‐Roman world. Lewis writes engagingly, and his combination of first‐rate scholarship and hands‐on problem solving is irresistible. (shrink)

Recent investigations have thrown new light on such topics as the early Greek belief in heliocentricity, the relation between Greek and Babylonian astronomy, the reliability of Ptolemy's Syntaxis, Hipparchus's theory of motion for the sun, Hipparchus's value for the obliquity of the ecliptic, and Eratosthenes' estimate of the size of the earth. Some claims resulting from these investigations are controversial, especially the reevaluation of Ptolemy . This essay presents the evidence for these claims; it makes no pretense of presenting the (...) evidence against them. (shrink)

Duhem has generally been understood to have maintained that the major Greek astronomers were instrumentalists. This view has emerged mainly from a reading of his 1908 publication To Save the Phenomena. In it he sharply contrasted a sophisticated Greek interpretation of astronomical models (for Duhem this was that they were mathematical contrivances) with a naive insistence of the Arabs on their concrete reality. But in Le Système du monde, which began to appear in 1913, Duhem modified his views on Greek (...) astronomy considerably; his more subtle understanding included the recognition that many Greeks subordinated mathematical astronomy to physical theory. But he could not completely repudiate his earlier views about Greek astronomy in part because his extreme nineteenth century prejudices led him to continue to insist on a clear-cut demarcation between Greek and Arabic astronomy. The inevitable result is a certain unevenness in the Système and some glaring inconsistencies. (shrink)

The attempt to narrow the general discourse of the problem of error and to focus it on the specific problem of experimental error may be approached from different directions. One possibility is to establish a focusing process from the standpoint of history; such an approach requires a careful scrutiny of the history of science with a view to identifying the juncture when the problem of experimental error was properly understood and accounted for. In a study of this kind one would (...) have to examine the evolution of the method of experimentation and related topics so that clear criteria would underlie the analysis. (shrink)