a Anaximandro, procurando una lectura de los mismos a partir de su contexto. Para esto, por un lado, se recabaron las principales y más recientes fuentes y, por el otro, se indagó la influencia que el milesio pudo haber ejercido en autores posteriores. Como resultados tenemos, de una parte, aunque no en la misma intensidad y extensión que otros filósofos clásicos como Platón y Aristóteles, que Anaximandro fue de gran consideración para Bruno, Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger y Gadamer; de la otra, (...) procuramos una interpretación que toma distancia de la usual, sosteniendo que en Anaximandro no hay un sistema metafísico en sentido estricto ni como “henología” —lo uno como origen de todo lo existente, del que se deriva el ser (Platón, 1992, 16 c, 509 b)— ni como ontología —ciencia del ser en cuanto ser, donde lo uno es un predicado del ser (Aristóteles, 1994, I,2,1053b 25-29)—. Se concluye que aquello de lo que ἄπειρον fuera atributo no podría ser otra cosa que de la physis misma, naturaleza indeterminada, unidad especular en la que co-inciden los contrarios que inteligentemente gobierna. (shrink)

The present paper argues that the teachings of Anaximander are much better knowable than they actually appear, since a number of his teachings have the privilege of being almost transparent in their predicative content as well as in their logic. As a matter of fact, one can quite easily come to understand the train of thought which lies behind Anaximander’s most momentous conjectures. Thus, a largely unexpected Anaximander comes to light despite the availability of the majority of the relevant sources (...) since 1903. Two main areas appear to be particularly prominent: on the one hand, the complex body of various conjectures and doctrines that helps to understand the system of spatial relationships from Miletus to the stars and, on the other hand, the equally complex body of conjectures and doctrines whose primarily concern is the macro-story of the Earth from its most remote past to its predictable future. The merits of Anaximander as an earth-researcher are much greater than one could actually imagine. It is suggested here that what philosophy owes to him in particular lies in his quest for knowledge, his method, his cognitive hybris, and his intellectual discipline, rather than individual doctrines. A comparison with Thales follows in the last paragraph. (shrink)

The inclusion of De astrologia in the Lucianic corpus has been disputed for centuries since it appears to defend astrological practices that Lucian elsewhere undercuts. This paper argues for Lucian’s authorship by illustrating its masterful subversion of a captatio benevolentiae and subtle rejection of Stoic astrological practices. The narrator begins the text by blaming phony astrologers and their erroneous predictions for inciting others to “denounce the stars and hate astrology” (ἄστρων τε κατηγοροῦσιν καὶ αὐτὴν ἀστρολογίην μισέουσιν, 2). The narrator assures (...) readers that he, the knowledgeable astrologer, will correct for the “stupidity and laziness” (ἀμαθίῃ καὶ ῥαθυμίῃ, ibid.) that bring about false predictions. The narrator’s credibility quickly decays when he attempts to recast Orpheus, Bellerophon, Icarus, Daedalus, and a host of other mythological figures as Greek astrologers. Lucian’s audience would expect such far-fetched interpretations of myth from the stereotypical Stoic philosopher, a character lampooned elsewhere in the Lucianic corpus. (shrink)