Contrairement à ce qui est pris d’ordinaire pour acquis, le Commentateur Anonyme du Théétète est philosophiquement stimulant, comme le démontre la confrontation avec le Stoïcisme. Le Commentateur Anonyme déploie une stratégie subtile, ne visant pas tant à rejeter des doctrines nettement stoïciennes qu’à les incorporer dans son propre système platonicien, en présupposant que seul ce dernier peut assurer des fondements adéquats aux doctrines. Le Commentateur Anonyme peut de la sorte s’approprier le Stoïcisme et régler de manière définitive l’ancienne querelle entre (...) Stoïcisme et Platonisme. Qui plus est, le Stoïcisme n’est pas une question séparée, mais il fait partie d’une question plus large. Car la comparaison avec le Stoïcisme aide aussi le Commentateur Anonyme à défendre son interprétation unitaire de la tradition académique platonicienne. Commenter un texte n’est pas une pratique neutre, mais bien plutôt un des aspects les plus importants de la philosophie post-hellénistique. (shrink)

David Sedley, Lesley Brown; Plato Theaetetus 145–147, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 94, Issue 1, 1 June 1994, Pages 229–242, https://doi.org/1.

The present paper investigates the question as to how and for what purposes the Middle Platonic author of the Anonymous Commentary on Plato’s Theaetetus uses Aristotelian and Stoic syllogistic in his interpretation of the Platonic text. This investigation shows that the commentator employs Aristotelian categorical syllogistic as an exegetical tool for reconstructing arguments in the Platonic text, enabling him not only to uncover doctrinal statements that are in his view hidden in the Platonic text, but also to (...) dissociate Plato from unwelcome propositions. By contrast, the commentator uses Stoic hypothetical syllogistic as a polemical tool for constructing ad hominem arguments against the Stoics. More precisely, the author exploits the Stoic type of deductive reasoning to draw anti-Stoic conclusions from premises that are accepted by the Stoics, and in doing so, he manages not only to refute Stoic doctrines, but also to corroborate the corresponding Platonic theories. (shrink)

In this paper, I defend that the historiographical category of eclecticism is a correct way to describe the epistemology and the exegetical activity of the Anonymous commentator on Plato’s Theaetetus. In addition, I show that the interpretation of the platonic philosophy presented in this text not only presupposes an eclectic philosophical attitude, but also offers a conscious defense of a positive and philosophically relevant form of eclecticism. By eclecticism, I understand a method of inquiry based on the (...) deliberate use of hypotheses and arguments from different philosophical traditions. My claim is that Anon. intends to lay ground of his way of doing philosophy by attributing it to Plato and the platonic tradition. In doing so, Anon. provides us with a positive understanding of eclecticism as a legitimate methodology of philosophical investigation. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Anonymous Versus Open Donation and Queerness as Political:Comments on Groll's Conceiving PeopleAmanda Roth (bio)1. IntroductionIn this commentary on Daniel Groll's 2021 book Conceiving People: Genetic Knowledge and the Ethics of Sperm and Egg Donation, I examine a number of the book's major themes, especially around the idea that donor-conceived children have a significant interest in genetic knowledge and therefore, donor-conceiving parents are morally required to use an open (...) donor.1 I point to some concerns about Groll's case for this view and, in doing so, highlight the way in which taking up an LGBTQ+ perspective complicates and undermines the case against anonymous donation. The major theme of my comments is that the open versus anonymous decision is not merely an ethical decision, but a political one.My comments are organized around a few of the book's major themes, so I'll begin with laying out the most relevant themes in some detail. I then take up four points to consider in more depth. In so doing, I'll be drawing on my own scholarly perspective on issues of nontraditional reproduction, which is informed by my own social positionality in relation to family matters; this means that I (not so subtly) bring a queer perspective to the discussion of Groll's book. The through-line of my comments is this: While I agree with and appreciate much of Groll's approach, I want to stress the sense in which gamete donation is not just an ethical issue, but a political one, given its implication in bionormativity (and heteronormativity). I wonder if a deeper acknowledgment of the political nature of the issues might lead to moral conclusions that are different from those that Groll comes to, even assuming similar ethical values as starting points.2. Groll's major claims(1) Claim 1: Disclosure to donor-conceived offspring—in the usual case at least—is morally required given the intimacy argument: [End Page 166]The intimacy argument suggests that keeping "the secret" about donor conception involves intentional deception and undermines the proper intimacy of parent-child relationships (Groll 2021, 36–49).(2) Claim 2: Anonymous donor conception is (generally) morally impermissible because of the significant interest view.Donor-conceiving parents can reasonably foresee that their children will likely develop a significant interest in genetic knowledge. Significant interests "matte[r] quite a lot to the person who has [them]," "tak[e] up a space … in a person's mental economy" and/or "pla[y] a structuring role in a person's life and self-conception" (Groll 2021, 62–3). But not all donor-conceived people take such an interest in genetic information, and this information is not necessary for identity construction or psychological wellbeing (Groll 2021, 58, 61).2 Rather, multiple routes to self-identity exist, the genetic route being one among the options. Moreover, one needn't experience any loss in not taking this route; however, for those who take it up, genetic knowledge is objectively valuable and nonfungible (Groll 2021, 81–9). This is because genetic knowledge is uniquely relevant to the identity-related question "Who am I?" (Groll 2021, 112–3).3Groll argues that donor-conceiving parents should assume that their child will form such an interest because this is empirically a "good bet." Further, significant interests—at least when they are worthwhile (that is, not trivial and not morally objectionable)—are connected to one's wellbeing by the wellbeing principle: In satisfying a non-instrumental significant worthwhile interest, one's life goes better (Groll 2021, 62). It follows, then, that parents ought to choose open donors since (to simplify) parents are obligated to promote their children's wellbeing (ibid).4Counter to what one might expect, Groll does not take his ethical case against anonymous donor conception to justify prohibition of the practice. This is because wronging children in this way is within the realm of (unethical) choices we allow parents to make without societal interference.5 Moreover, to aim regulation at anonymous donor conception could reinforce bionormativity and target already marginalized families for special negative attention (Groll 2021, chapter 8).(3) "Claim" 3: Groll's own personal... (shrink)

Many news organizations invite readers to post online comments to news stories. Comments may get posted automatically and most are signed with pseudonyms. Many are insensitive, even rude, and use speculation and language that would be rejected if written by a staff member or in a letter to the editor. Are news organizations holding true to their ethical guidelines when they publish anonymous reader comments on their Web sites while rejecting them for their hard-copy editions?

Several commentators have argued that with his concept of anonymity Merleau-Ponty breaks away from classical Husserlian phenomenology that is methodologically tied to the first person perspective. Many contemporary commentators see Merleau-Ponty’s discourse on anonymity as a break away from Husserl’s framework that is seen as hopelessly subjectivistic and solipsistic. Some judge and reproach it as a disastrous misunderstanding that leads to a confusion of philosophical and empirical concerns. Both parties agree that Merleau-Ponty’s concepts of anonymity mark a divergence from classical (...) Husserlian phenomenology. I will question this view and demonstrate that Merleau-Ponty’s discourse on anonymity remains Husserlian in two important senses: it analyses senses in terms of constituting selves and communities of such selves, and it accounts for the formation of experience by the temporal sedimentation of intentional activity. The argument proceeds in four steps. The first section argues against the widely spread notion according to which Merleau-Ponty’s anonymous subject is collective. In the second section, I offer an alternative reading by demonstrating that Merleau-Ponty uses the term “anonymous” primarily to characterize the lived body of a personal subject. In section three, I introduce Merleau-Ponty’s idea of trace and show that for him both the perceived thing and the perceiving body are traces and as such refer to earlier constitutive acts of alien subjects. I then argue that Husserl’s concepts of sedimentation are crucial for the understanding of this idea. Finally, in section four, I show how Husserl’s theory of depresentation informs Merleau-Ponty’s discourse on anonymity. (shrink)

Plato's Theaetetus investigates the nature of knowledge. Socrates converses with two mathematicians, Theaetetus and Theodorus, who cannot arrive at the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge. Theaetetus offers three definitions, none of which can withstand scrutiny. Most commentators on the Theaetetus examine the arguments put forward and, by constructing a definition of knowledge, attempt to complete what Plato began. But analysis of the various definitions offered is incomplete as an investigation of the dialogue. ;Before Socrates elicits (...) from Theaetetus the first definition of knowledge as perception, he characterizes himself as a midwife. And before readers are introduced to Socrates, we encounter Euclides as the alleged "author" of the dialogue. It is incumbent upon the reader to notice all the elements that Plato offers and to examine whether the dramatic setting of the arguments sheds light on their outcome. The inner frame of the dialogue reveals that the nature of Theaetetus's soul is under investigation as much as the nature of knowledge. The nature of writing and memory, discussed in the outer frame, are incorporated in the second definition of knowledge as opinion, and in the third definition as true opinion with logos. Logos is the unifying principle of the dialogue, in that Socrates' dissection of the three meanings of logos recapitulates the three definitions of knowledge. ;A rigorous reading, incorporating both the action and the speeches of the dialogue, shows that the Theaetetus exhibits the essential ingredients of knowledge. The lengthy examination of perception shows it as model for knowledge, in that an account is needed of both the knower and the known, before a complete definition is possible. Thus the Theaetetus is a guide on the way to knowledge. By the end we have a thorough understanding of both the need for a structure of soul and for the structure of that which is to be known, as well as the tool, logos, which would enable us to put the two together in a definition of knowledge. (shrink)

Recent scholarship has drawn increasing attention to the role of the English master Richard Rufus of Cornwall in the early thirteenth-century reception of the «New Aristotle» in the Latin West. In 2003 Rega Wood published an anonymous commentary on Aristotle’s Physics , which she attributes to Richard Rufus of Cornwall. According to Wood, this commentary originated in lectures given by Rufus at the Arts Faculty of Paris in the mid 1230s and thus represents the earliest known witness to lectures (...) on Aristotle’s Physics at Paris after the interdictions of 1210, 1215, 1231. This article analyzes in detail Wood’s arguments in favour of Rufus’ authorship . It concludes that the anonymous commentary certainly belongs to the early English commentary tradition on the Physics and was influential on mid-thirteenth-century English commentators, but that Rega Wood has not conclusively proved her claim for Rufus’ authorship. (shrink)

THE PASSAGE CITED IN THE TITLE IS commonly said to deal with puzzles or paradoxes about size and other measurable attributes of bodies. Nearly all recent commentators seek to interpret this portion of the dialogue as supporting or otherwise cohering with the Protagorean position Socrates expounds in the Theaetetus. On the present analysis, however, the support or harmony is mere appearance. The puzzles Socrates brings up are indeed associated with entities rejected by Protagoras. Socrates certainly uses the puzzles to (...) foster Theaetetus's trust in Protagorean doctrine. All the same, Socrates' procedure should not be taken at face value. The passage, which is an important digression, is fundamentally quite critical of the Protagorean position. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 41.1 (2003) 121-122 [Access article in PDF] Harold Tarrant. Plato's First Interpreters. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000. Pp. viii + 263. Cloth, $55.00. This is Tarrant's third book on the ancient Platonist tradition, following his Scepticism or Platonism? (1985) and Thrasyllan Platonism (1993). In those earlier volumes his focus was on the first centuries bc and ad. Here his scope is much (...) wider. Stating that "Platonic interpretation is today at a crossroads," he has written a book that explores "ancient attempts to wrestle with this corpus," with the ultimate objective "to encourage a fresh, almost primitive reading of Plato himself" (vii).He begins engagingly by confronting the ancients with questions any modern reader of Plato must ask: What kind of text is this? Are there doctrines here? Where do I look for Plato's doctrines? The second part of his book is a historical survey, taking us from Plato, the early Academy and Aristotle, through the Hellenistic and early Roman Imperial period, and concluding with the principal Neoplatonist interpreters. In the third and longest part, he focuses on the interpretation of specific dialogues, giving most space to the Gorgias and Theaetetus, but also dealing in particular detail with the Meno, Parmenides, and Philebus. Something is said about every dialogue, but Tarrant writes only briefly about such major works as the Republic and Timaeus. He explains his selectivity (not very convincingly) as due to his wish to "discuss issues of meta-interpretation, with emphasis on the period before Plotinus" (198).Taking his book as a whole, one realizes that few strands of modern interpretation were not prefigured to quite a large extent in antiquity. The two most obvious exceptions are the chronological and developmental approach (Early, Middle, and Late), at present under strong attack from some quarters, and the theological, numerological, and allegorical readings practiced by Neoplatonists. Plato's ancient interpreters were doctrinal unitarians, but they implicitly anticipated our tendency to distinguish "Socratic dialogues," which some of them called "gymnastic" and "inquisitive," from such "canonical" works as the Phaedo,Republic, Symposium, and Timaeus, to which they applied the labels "dogmatic" and "expository." And they recognized that both types of characteristics could be found in the same dialogue, as in the Meno and Theaetetus. Plato himself, they proposed, spoke primarily through the voices of Socrates, Timaeus, and the Eleatic and Athenian strangers; but other characters, such as Pausanias in the Symposium, or Protagoras in the dialogue of that name, utter thoughts with some philosophical value. In explaining difficult passages of one dialogue, they would typically refer to passages from other parts of the corpus. An especially intriguing instance is the strategy of the Anonymous Commentator on the Theaetetus, who reads the Meno into the dialogue on which he is officially commenting.Ancient scholars, just like ourselves, asked questions about the unifying themes of complex dialogues. Hence the sub-titles given to certain works: "On the soul" for the Phaedo, and "On justice" for the Republic, etc. For Olympiodorus (whose commentary on the Gorgias Tarrant has recently co-edited [Leiden, 1998]), earlier interpreters have seriously erred by giving too limited an account of that dialogue's scope. It is not, he says, simply about rhetoric, nor about justice and injustice; nor is its theme the divine demiurge (as some Neoplatonists had strangely proposed, on the basis of the concluding myth). Rather, the subject of the Gorgias is "the ethical principles that lead to constitutional well-being" (125). [End Page 121] However, Olympiodorus's eminently "sensible" reading (as Tarrant calls it) is deeply embedded in the Neoplatonic contrast between the "purificatory virtues" of the Phaedo and the "constitutional virtues" of Republic4.Strong or weak scepticism, esotericism, unwritten doctrines, spurious versus genuine, a canon of central dialogues, dramatic considerations, and the philosophical importance or non-importance of the dialogues' prologues—all of these are interpretive approaches that Tarrant surveys in this immensely learned book, and all of them continue to resonate for us. Modern scholars, who emphasize the literary and philosophical unity of each dialogue, are walking... (shrink)

In an influential article, A. I. Sabra identified an intellectual trend from twelfth and thirteenth-century Andalusia which he described as the ‘‘Andalusian revolt against Ptolemaic astronomy.” Philosophers such as Ibn Rushd , Ibn Tufayl , and Maimonides objected to Ptolemy’s theories on philosophic grounds, not because of shortcomings in the theories' predictive accuracy. Sabra showed how al-Bitrūjī's Kitāb al-Hay'a attempted to account for observed planetary motions in a way that met the philosophic standards of those philosophers and others. In Nūr (...) al-‘ālam , the subject of this article, Joseph ibn Joseph ibn Nahmias endeavoured to improve upon al-Bitrūjī’s models. Levi Ben Gerson's Hebrew writings on astronomy criticized al-Bitrūjī, but Ibn Nahmias did not mention them. Nūr al-‘ālam deserves attention, too, because it is the first Arabic text on theoretical astronomy by a Jewish author to come to light. In the body of this article, I will describe and analyze Ibn Nahmias’ theory, from Nūr al-‘ālam , for the motion of the sun. (shrink)

In the Theaetetus Socrates states that we should become like God. Recent commentators disagree over the meaning of his directive. David Sedley argues that it urges us to assimilate to God in our present lifespan by a life of philosophical contemplation. Julia Annas thinks that it is just another way of stating that virtue is sufficient for happiness. Sandra Peterson denies that Socrates’s directive should be taken seriously. I argue that his directive is serious and includes both moral virtue (...) and philosophical contemplation. Furthermore, I argue that this goal does not fall within the confines of our present lifespan. By this directive Socrates means that to become like God we should live virtuously in order to escape the cycle of reincarnation and achieve a specific, fulfilling kind of immortality. (shrink)

Mauro Bonazzi is well known among scholars of ancient philosophy for his many valuable contributions in the area of late ancient philosophy. His papers on Antiochus, Eudorus, Plutarch, and the Anonymous commentator of the Theaetetus are interesting, learned and thought provoking. In his new book he sets out to offer a synthetic overview of the history of Platonism from Antiochus to Plotinus. This is an extremely rich period of the history of Platonism. To begin with, we encounter (...) as diverse p... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Questions of Evidence: An Anonymous Tract Attributed to John TolandRhoda RappaportIn 1695 there was published in London a tract with the unprepossessing title, Two Essays sent in a Letter from Oxford, to a Nobleman in London, by “L. P. Master of Arts.” Because the larger part of this work attacks John Woodward’s theory of the earth, published earlier that year, historians of geology have long been familiar with (...) the Two Essays, even if none has managed to identify L. P. In 1975 Giancarlo Carabelli offered evidence for a conjectural attribution of the Two Essays to John Toland (1670–1722), the famous deist who established his notoriety the next year with his Christianity Not Mysterious (1696). 1 Carabelli’s cautious attribution would require no comment, were it not for the fact that what began as conjecture has evolved into a strong probability and even into an established fact—all this without any notable addition to Carabelli’s evidence. It is surely time to look more closely at that evidence.Carabelli first presents the main points of the Two Essays: a rejection of Woodward’s supernaturalism, a preference for natural causes to explain even the origins of the earth, and a reduction of the Bible to the level of ancient myth and legend. We have here a pronounced free-thinker and materialist, and Toland’s later writings make him a plausible candidate as author. (Whether this interpretation of the Two Essays is accurate will be discussed later in this study.) Carabelli then provides three pieces of evidence, without discussion or evaluation. The next paragraphs rehearse that evidence, with commentary. [End Page 339]The Rumor in OxfordAccording to Edward Lhwyd (or Lhuyd), Keeper of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford rumor had it that Toland was L. P. Lhwyd denied the rumor, chiefly because L. P. seemed to have had the aid of “some good naturalist”—this did not fit Lhwyd’s notion of Toland’s temperament. 2 In truth, although Lhwyd did not yet know it, L. P. did indeed get such aid from Tancred Robinson, F.R.S., but Robinson declined to identify L. P. 3 Thus far Carabelli.A rumor is no secure basis for attribution, especially when it is contradicted by someone who knew Toland reasonably well. In the small community of Oxford, Lhwyd quickly knew about Toland even before meeting him, because the two had common antiquarian interests. Toland had gone to Oxford with the intention of compiling an Irish dictionary, and fragmentary evidence shows that the two then met to discuss their Celtic researches. 4 A distinguished naturalist, Lhwyd also was consulted by Toland on matters of natural history—at least, the surviving text on this issue shows Toland asking one question of a trivial sort. Lhwyd then comments that Toland is “not conversant in these studies” but yet has ideas about them. 5 As the latter phrase indicates, Lhwyd learned much about the temper and opinions of Toland. He knew that Toland was “railing in coffee houses” about matters religious and political, but he did not associate religious radicalism with the Two Essays. Instead, Lhwyd assessed Toland’s fitness to deal with Woodward entirely in terms of temperament and personality: Toland was a man “of excellent parts, but as litle [sic] a share as may be of modesty or conscience; and one of the best scolds I ever met with.” In the same letter Lhwyd assessed Woodward as Toland’s presumed equal in stubbornness and egotism. 6In saying that L. P. must have had the advice of “some good naturalist,” Lhwyd seems to imply that Toland was too ignorant (of natural history) and too intemperate to profit from or perhaps even to seek advice. [End Page 340] Despite these doubts, is it not possible that Toland could have acquired sufficient knowledge of natural history, in a period of about four months (between the publication of Woodward’s book and that of the Two Essays), to display the expertise shown by L. P.? Any British virtuoso could surely have done so, and the Two Essays actually include a good little bibliography of suitable publications that would provide a working knowledge of the latest ideas... (shrink)

In this article, I demonstrate that, of the two horoscopes transmitted by the Anonymous Commentary on Ptolemy’s ‘Tetrabiblos’, edited by Hieronymous Wolf, Basel, 1559, pp. 98 and 112, the first (H1) corresponds to an actual birth that took place in Lower Egypt on 25 June 448 AD, while the second (H2) is the same horoscope, slightly modified to fit the specific example for which it provides the illustration. The new date proposed here for H1 is important for establishing a (...) more precise chronology of the Anonymous Commentary, since it not only provides a terminus post quem for its composition (from the middle of the fifth century onwards) but also a particular geographical environment in the proximity of Alexandria. Given the large amount of formal and structural similarities which can be readily observed between the Anonymous Commentary and commentaries on Plato and Aristotle composed by Ammonius and his disciples in Alexandria, it becomes impossible not to link the work of the anonymous commentator to the Neoplatonic school of Alexandria of the fifth and sixth centuries, led by the philosopher Ammonius and his brother Heliodorus. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:246 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY lish a line of succession from Schleiermacher to Stenzel and further on to some of the most recent Platonic scholars in Germany. In this connection the peculiar character of Platon der Erzieher is a side issue. Gaiser seems only moderately interested in paideia and even tries to free Stenzel from the suspicion that he should have considered paideia as the essence of Platonism. Some sentences (...) in Stenzel's book which might suggest such an opinion are said to be "consciously one-sided formulations" (p. viii, note 7). Gaiser's true interest is Plato's ontology. Nothing explains his stand better than his endorsement of H. J. Kr~imer's representative work Arete bei Platon und Aristoteles. Kr~imer, whose major objective is a reconstruction of what he thinks was Plato's esoteric philosophy, has emphatically declared that he arrived at his results by pursuing the method and the factual interests of Stenzel. Gaiser's attempt to locate Stenzel's position must be understood in the light of this and perhaps similar declarations.1 This is not the place to discuss those of Stenzel's theories which are at best touched upon in Platon der Erzieher or even the theories of those who proclaim to be his heirs. There is, however, one point on which I insist. Gaiser tries to link Stenzel with Heidegger and points to the interest which Stenzel took in Heidegger in his later years. Platon der Erzieher appeared in the same year as Sein und Zeit. I believe that the two works belong to entirely different worlds. Whereas Heidegger powerfully broke up new dimensions of thought, the philosopher Stenzel, for better or worse, represents a period which had reached its end when he died in 1934. ERNST MORITZ MANASSE North Carolina College at Durham Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy. Introduction, Text, Translation and Indices by L. G. Westerink. (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1962. Pp. lii + 69.) L. G. Westerink, whose interest in the Alexandrian commentators on Plato has already borne ample and distinguished fruit in his editions of the Alcibiades commentaries of Olympiodorus and Proclus and of Damascius' lectures on the Philebus, has now further enriched our knowledge of Platonic studies in the sixth century A.D.by publishing a new critical text of a little-known set of introductory lectures to Plato, which originated in the Alexandrian school. The importance of the present work is indicated by the facts that the last critical text of these prolegomena, which forms part of a tenth-century manuscript in the Vienna National Library (Vindob. 1Cf. also Gaiser's new book Platons Ungeschriebene Lehre (Stuttgart, 1963), which appeared after this review was written. BOOK REVIEWS 247 phil. gr. 314), was published over a century ago by K. F. Hermann in his Appendix Platonica, and that the most recent commentary is that of L. Skowronski in a dissertation published in 1884. In other words, nothing substantial had appeared on the Prolegomena after the publication of the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, and Westerink's great merit consists in bringing to bear upon the present work the insights gained from a study of these Aristotelian commentaries. For the same professors taught both Plato and Aristotle at Alexandria, and not only did their teaching of one color their views on the other, but they frequently borrowed ideas, quotations, stories, and even phrases from one another. The chief aim of the Introduction (pp. ix-l) is to investigate the authorship of the Prolegomena, which the almost unanimous agreement of scholars since 1675 (the one exception is Beutler in RE s.v. "Olympiodorus") had attributed to Olympiodorus. W. begins by establishing the Alexandrian background of these lectures and by discussing, one by one, the characteristic beliefs of the various members of the school and the way in which these are reflected in introductory lectures to Aristotle. This is followed by a painstaking analysis of the sources of the Prolegomena and finally the conclusion that the present text belongs "in the immediate surroundings of Olympiodorus and Elias" (p. xlix). Discrepancies between the biography of Plato here and in Olympiodorus' commentary on the A lcibiades militate, according to W., against Olympiodorus' authorship, although... (shrink)

This article consists of critical editions of a selection of medieval commentaries on the chapter seven of Aristotle’s De sensu et sensato, which pertains to a particular philosophical problem, namely, the possibility of perceiving many perceptual qualities simultaneously. The commentaries included are written by Adam of Buckfield, Anonymous of Merton, Radulphus Brito, Anonymous of Paris, John Felmingham(?), Walter Burley, John of Jandun, and John Buridan. The most significant discovery made in the course of preparing the editions concerns Walter (...) Burley’s commentary. Previous studies indicate that he wrote only an exposition commentary on De sensu, but a more careful examination of the existing manuscripts shows that at least one of them contains a different work, here dubbed Quaestiones super librum De sensu et sensato. (shrink)

One of the achievements of R. Jeurissen’s text is to have presented business ethics as a factor for social integration in a world where accelerating change is opposing this with a substantial risk of disintegration. Taking up Habermas’s distinction between, on the one hand, a systemic, anonymous and forced integration through power or money and, on the other hand, a voluntary and communicative integration implying negotiation, agreement, initiative and responsibility, Jeurissen emphasizes the social costs and the obstacles to systemic (...) integration, and indicates the need for an integration based on exchange, communication and a reduction of responsibilities.Business ethics should play a leading role in achieving this second form of integration. In seeking to articulate the economic choices surrounding moral values and rules, business ethics provides business people with a stimulus to give meaning to all their various activities — including economic activity — to recognize their values and those of others, and to create the conditions for social integration through exchange and responsibility. (shrink)

Public trust is paramount for the well functioning of data driven healthcare activities such as digital health interventions, contact tracing or the build-up of electronic health records. As the use of personal data is the common denominator for these healthcare activities, healthcare actors have an interest to ensure privacy and anonymity of the personal data they depend on. Maintaining privacy and anonymity of personal data contribute to the trustworthiness of these healthcare activities and are associated with the public willingness to (...) trust these activities with their personal data. An analysis of online news readership comments about the failed care.data programme in England revealed that parts of the public have a false understanding of anonymity in the context of privacy protection of personal data as used for healthcare management and medical research. Some of those commenting demanded complete anonymity of their data to be willing to trust the process of data collection and analysis. As this demand is impossible to fulfil and trust is built on a false understanding of anonymity, the inability to meet this demand risks undermining public trust. Since public concerns about anonymity and privacy of personal data appear to be increasing, a large-scale information campaign about the limits and possibilities of anonymity with respect to the various uses of personal health data is urgently needed to help the public to make better informed choices about providing personal data. (shrink)

Although coherence has been widely studied in computer-mediated communication, insufficient attention has been paid to emergent multimodal forms. This study analyzes a popular commentary system on Chinese and Japanese video-sharing sites – known as danmu or danmaku – where anonymous comments are superimposed on and scroll across the video frame. Through content and multimodal discourse analysis, we unpack danmu-mediated communication analyzing the newest interface, the comments, the interpersonal interactions and the unusual use of the second-person pronoun. Results show that (...) despite the technological constraints, users construct order in interactions through repetition, danmu-specific expressions and multimodal references, while using playful language to make fun. This study provides an up-to-date analysis on an increasingly popular CMC medium beyond well-studied social networking sites, and broadens the understanding of coherence in contemporary CMC. (shrink)

This book began with my edition of the anonymous treatise. A translation and notes seemed essential if the material of the treatise was to be understood. It then seemed that Chapter 5 of Heytesbury's Rules for Solving Sophismata, on which the treatise was based, should also be included. My translation of the Heytesbury treatise is based on a fifteenth-century edition, supplemented by readings from a few of the better manuscripts. (A critical edition from all the manuscripts, of which Chapter (...) 5 will be mine, is now in progress under the supervision of Paul Spade, but only a few insignificant changes in the translation should be necessitated by the completed edition. ) An examination of related materials seemed reasonable, and these included Heytesbury's commentator Gaetano, as well as a chapter from a treatise by Johannes Venator (in an edition in progress provided by Francesco del Punta). It seemed unnecessary to publish Gaetano's and Venator's related works in this volume, but all their departures from Heytesbury and the anonymous treatise are noted here. I have not examined other works in the tradition in any detail. I owe a great deal to my teacher, Norman Kretzmann, not only as regards the edition and translations, but also as regards the notes, study and introduction. The referees of the typescript (to me unknown) made unusually thorough criticisms and suggestions to which I have paid close attention. The book is far better for my having done so. (shrink)

We are grateful to René Rosfort for his comment on our target paper Clinical Response to Bodily Symptoms in Psychopathology. Rosfort’s remarks lead us here to specify an important point which our initial proposal may have left too implicit. Within the realm of clinical practice in psychopathology, we argue that bodily manifestations can be offered an expressive space and that they can be listened to in the clinical encounter as being part of the patient’s speech whereby she, by way of (...) her bodily symptoms, addresses a demand to be attended to as a subject of communication. We detail the circumstances under which bodily manifestations may or may not be addressed to a person who is expected to respond, especially in a... (shrink)

Si Numénius, en platonicien de son temps, a utilisé le Timée et la République à la fois pour élaborer et étayer sa pensée métaphysique et cosmologique, il est devenu coutume de penser qu’il a également eu recours au Parménide dans sa description du premier principe, qu’il peut paraître tentant d’identifier chez lui à l’Un. L’examen attentif de son œuvre ne fournit cependant que peu d’indices en ce sens et convainc même qu’elle ne permet pas une telle interprétation. Malgré ces conclusions, (...) l’hypothèse persiste pour des raisons qui tiennent principalement à l’histoire de la philosophie et aux recherches qu’elle suscite. Elle est en effet souvent reprise pour trois raisons, présentées comme corollaires : le statut propre à Numénius de platonicien pythagorisant, prédécesseur de Plotin ; les affinités réelles entre sa pensée et celle du Commentaire anonyme au Parménide ; les parallèles également entrevus entre ses formules et celles de la source supposée commune au Zostrien et au Contre Arius de Marius Victorinus, source présentée comme fort proche du Commentaire anonyme. Autrement dit, sont invoquées trois raisons nées moins de l’étude de l’œuvre de Numénius elle-même que de la recherche des sources d’autres textes en mal d’auteur et d’origines bien définies, recherche se fondant en partie sur les liens entre cette œuvre et ses prétendus « pairs » en pythagorisme. La première partie de l’étude a montré que, d’après l’œuvre parvenue, il est fort peu probable que Numénius ait commenté le Parménide ou du moins qu’il ait envisagé une correspondance entre son premier dieu, identifié au Bien, et l’Un de la première hypothèse, voire celui de la seconde. Les recherches sur le Commentaire anonyme au Parménide ont toutefois suscité l’hypothèse que ce commentaire lui reviendrait malgré tout. La deuxième partie de cette étude se propose de résoudre la question par une confrontation directe et détaillée des textes. L’examen des convergences et des divergences fondamentales fait apparaître que Numénius ne peut vraisemblablement être l’auteur du Commentaire anonyme. Ce dernier aura néanmoins trouvé en germe chez Numénius une part des notions essentielles à sa définition du premier principe – dont celle des différents aspects de l’être – qu’il aura ensuite développées pour résoudre les difficultés posées par la deuxième partie du Parménide à un lecteur néoplatonicien. L’examen semble permettre de confirmer l’attribution du Commentaire anonyme à Porphyre, grand lecteur de Numénius ; il invite du moins à aborder de manière renouvelée la question de l’antériorité des Oracles chaldaïques ou de Numénius. Il suscite enfin la découverte de parallèles entre le « Plotin arabe » et Numénius concernant la définition du premier principe et de l’Intellect, leur relation à l’être et aux formes. Ces traces d’une nouvelle appropriation des intuitions numéniennes sont à leur tour riches d’une double conséquence : elles semblent non seulement étayer l’attribution manuscrite à Porphyre de la source du texte arabe intitulé Théologie d’Aristote, mais aussi, de nouveau et par cette autre voie, l’attribution à ce même Porphyre du Commentaire anonyme avec lequel ce texte présente également des parallèles. (shrink)

The following remarks on the aviary simile have been prompted by Professor Hackforth's article in C.Q. January 1938, pp. 27 ff., in which he in turn comments on certain points in Professor Cornford's treatment in his Plato's Theory of Knowledge. Commenting on 199c–d C. suggests that P.'s criticism in that passage might be met by the inclusion in the aviary of ‘complex objects such as the “sum of 7 and 5”.… It is this object that I identify with 11 when (...) I make my false judgement.… False judgement can be explained as the wrong putting together of two pieces of knowledge’—i.e. 11 and ‘the sum of 7 and 5’. C. further suggests that P. has overlooked this possibility because he persists in speaking as if we judged not ‘that the sum of 7 and 5 is 11’ but that ‘12 is 11 ’. H. replies that this criticism of C.'s is not valid because P. understands the knowledge of 11 and 12 to include a knowledge of the various sums that make up these numbers. There could, therefore, be no ‘question of “putting together” such a piece of knowledge as 7 + 5 = 12 with a different piece of knowledge, viz. the knowledge of 12. They are not different pieces; they are the same piece.’. (shrink)

The following remarks on the aviary simile have been prompted by Professor Hackforth's article in C.Q. January 1938, pp. 27 ff., in which he in turn comments on certain points in Professor Cornford's treatment in his Plato's Theory of Knowledge. Commenting on 199c–d C. suggests that P.'s criticism in that passage might be met by the inclusion in the aviary of ‘complex objects such as the “sum of 7 and 5”.… It is this object that I identify with 11 when (...) I make my false judgement.… False judgement can be explained as the wrong putting together of two pieces of knowledge’—i.e. 11 and ‘the sum of 7 and 5’. C. further suggests that P. has overlooked this possibility because he persists in speaking as if we judged not ‘that the sum of 7 and 5 is 11’ but that ‘12 is 11 ’. H. replies that this criticism of C.'s is not valid because P. understands the knowledge of 11 and 12 to include a knowledge of the various sums that make up these numbers. There could, therefore, be no ‘question of “putting together” such a piece of knowledge as 7 + 5 = 12 with a different piece of knowledge, viz. the knowledge of 12. They are not different pieces; they are the same piece.’. (shrink)

Cookbook Finder is a works-based application that provides access to thousands of cookbooks and other works about food and nutrition described in library records. You can search by person, place, topic (e.g., course, ingredient, method, and more) and browse related works by author and topic (supplied by the Kindred Works/Recommender API). Results include links to full-text when available from HathiTrust and Project Gutenberg.

Si Numénius, en platonicien de son temps, a utilisé le Timée et la République à la fois pour élaborer et étayer sa pensée métaphysique et cosmologique, il est devenu coutume de penser qu’il a également eu recours au Parménide dans sa description du premier principe, qu’il peut paraître tentant d’identifier chez lui à l’Un. L’examen attentif de son œuvre ne fournit cependant que peu d’indices en ce sens et convainc même qu’elle ne permet pas une telle interprétation. Malgré ces conclusions, (...) l’hypothèse persiste pour des raisons qui tiennent principalement à l’histoire de la philosophie et aux recherches qu’elle suscite. Elle est en effet souvent reprise pour trois raisons, présentées comme corollaires : le statut propre à Numénius de platonicien pythagorisant, prédécesseur de Plotin ; les affinités réelles entre sa pensée et celle du Commentaire anonyme au Parménide ; les parallèles également entrevus entre ses formules et celles de la source supposée commune au Zostrien et au Contre Arius de Marius Victorinus, source présentée comme fort proche du Commentaire anonyme. Sont donc invoquées trois raisons nées moins de l’étude de l’œuvre de Numénius elle-même que de la recherche des sources d’autres textes en mal d’auteur et d’origines bien définies, recherche se fondant en partie sur les liens entre cette œuvre et ses prétendus « pairs » en pythagorisme. Cette troisième partie de l’étude présente la dernière péripétie des recherches sur la relation éventuelle de Numénius au Parménide. La première a montré que l’œuvre parvenue de Numénius ne présente aucune trace de l’utilisation de ce dialogue de Platon dans son élaboration de la doctrine des deux premiers principes ; la deuxième a tenté de prouver que Numénius n’est vraisemblablement pas l’auteur du Commentaire anonyme au Parménide. Est ici abordé ce que Michel Tardieu a nommé l’« exposé commun » au Zostrien et au Contre Arius de Marius Victorinus. Les parallèles apparents de cet exposé avec le Commentaire anonyme au Parménide et avec certaines formulations de Numénius ont suggéré qu’il avait Numénius pour source, ce qui a parfois servi à étayer l’hypothèse que Numénius était malgré tout l’auteur du Commentaire anonyme. Là encore, l’examen détaillé et la confrontation des textes révèlent la fragilité de cette double conclusion. Un retour sur la source de l’« exposé » en réalité partiellement « commun » au Zostrien copte et à Marius Victorinus montre néanmoins que Numénius a sans doute servi à son élaboration et qu’il a par suite pu servir aussi de source aux gnostiques, tout comme il a servi aux néoplatoniciens, et ce parfois même, indirectement ou a contrario, dans l’interprétation du Parménide. (shrink)

Si Numénius, en platonicien de son temps, a utilisé le Timée et la République pour élaborer et étayer sa pensée métaphysique et cosmologique, il est devenu coutume de penser qu’il a également eu recours au Parménide dans sa description du premier principe. Il peut même paraître tentant d’identifier chez lui ce principe à l’Un. L’examen attentif de son œuvre ne fournit cependant que peu d’indices en ce sens et convainc même qu’elle ne permet pas une telle interprétation. Malgré ces conclusions, (...) l’hypothèse persiste pour des raisons qui tiennent principalement à l’histoire de la philosophie et aux recherches qu’elle suscite. Elle est en effet souvent reprise pour trois raisons, présentées comme corollaires : le statut propre à Numénius de platonicien pythagorisant, prédécesseur de Plotin ; les affinités réelles entre sa pensée et celle du Commentaire anonyme au Parménide ; les parallèles également entrevus entre ses formules et celles de la source supposée commune au Zostrien et au Contre Arius de Marius Victorinus, conçue quant à elle comme fort proche du Commentaire anonyme. Autrement dit, sont invoquées trois raisons nées moins de l’étude de l’œuvre de Numénius elle-même que de la recherche des sources d’autres textes en mal d’auteur et d’origines bien définies, recherche se fondant en partie sur les prétendus liens entre Numérius et ses « pairs » en pythagorisme. L’étude proposée comporte trois parties indépendantes, examinant chacune de ces trois raisons avec les hypothèses qui lui sont associées. Après une esquisse des principaux tenants de la pensée de Numénius, cette première partie aborde les rapports parfois perçus et ceux encore perceptibles entre son œuvre et le Parménide. Elle montre que Numénius n’a visiblement pas utilisé le dialogue de Platon pour élaborer sa propre doctrine des deux premiers principes et a même pu adopter une relative distance à l’égard de l’Un de la première hypothèse, suivant en cela une injonction qu’il a pu penser percevoir chez Platon lui-même. Dès ce premier examen, il apparaît que l’œuvre parvenue de Numénius ne suggère pas de bouleverser la conception la plus courante de l’histoire du platonisme en faisant de Numénius le précurseur de Plotin dans l’interprétation métaphysique du Parménide. L’interrogation sur son rapport à ce dialogue fournit même a contrario les critères d’une interprétation réellement néoplatonicienne de la seconde partie de celui-ci. Un prolongement de cette étude montre toutefois que Numénius a pu inspirer Plotin dans son interprétation de certaines formules du Parménide historique lui-même. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 39.4 (2001) 581-582 [Access article in PDF] Gerald A. Press, editor. Who Speaks for Plato? Studies in Platonic Anonymity. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publisher, Inc., 2000. Pp. vi + 245. Cloth, $63.00. Who Speaks for Plato? contains sixteen essays, each apparently composed specifically for this volume, which challenge what its editor, Gerald Press, identifies as the basic assumption implicit in the "modern" (1) (...) or "traditional" (5) interpretive approach to Plato's dialogues: "that the words and arguments of some character in a Platonic dialogue can be taken to state Plato's (or the historical Socrates') own beliefs and arguments" (5). Throughout the volume this is refered to as the "mouthpiece" theory.The essays in Part I are general methodological pieces, which aim to dismantle the assumptions operative in the mouthpiece approach. So, for example, D. Nails reminds us that "we have no uncontroversial statement from Plato that Socrates is his mouthpiece" (17). Press looks for the hermeneutical argument that would justify "an interpreter in quoting or referring to the words of a named character in a Platonic dialogue and attributing the words or their meaning to Plato as his own opinion," (28), and he finds none in traditional scholarship. J. Waugh and H. Tarrant bring in historical considerations to bolster the antimouthpiece position.The essays in Part II treat individual dialogues, but do so with the general theme in view. E. Benitez offers a brief reading of the Laches, P. C. Smith and R. Blondell take up Book I of the Republic, G. Scott and W. Welton address the Symposium, F. Gonzalez looks at the Sophist and the Statesman, H. Ausland suggests a way of reading the Timaeus. Each aims to disconnect the words stated by the principal speaker of the dialogue from Plato himself.Part III begins with a dissenting view. L. Gerson begins by arguing against using the Phaedrus or the Seventh Letter on behalf of the antimouthpiece view. More interestingly, he describes how "arguments have a life of their own," and as a result are "not character bound" (205). As such, it is permissible, indeed it is incumbent upon the philosophical reader, to attribute arguments found in the dialogues to Plato himself. He concludes his essay thus: "If Plato is intentionally hiding himself, he is a philosopher either with no views or with views diverging from those easily derived from the dialogues." The former alternative Gerson finds "preposterous," the latter "perverse" (210).E. Ostenfeld conceives of Plato's views as in a process of continual development and self-criticism. As a result, he concludes, almost paradoxically, that "everyone" in the dialogues speaks for Plato. In other words, precisely because they were not homogeneous or definitively formulated, a wide variety of characters express the wide variety of views Plato himself held. [End Page 581]J. Mulhern gets the final word in this book, presumably because it was he who coined the phrase "Mouthpiece Fallacy" in a 1971 article. Surveying the literature of the past 30 years, he sees little improvement. In other words, commentators still regularly make the illicit transition between "what an interlocutor says to a similar sentence reporting what Plato says by stating the interlocutor is Plato's mouthpiece" (223).Who Speaks for Plato? is an interesting book that takes up an important issue. Its several hundred footnotes provide a useful guide to the enormous amount of literature on the hermeneutics of the dialogue form.While it is unquestionably valuable, this collection of essays is also frustrating. For the sake of argument, assume that a reader cannot legitimately attribute any views expressed by a character in a dialogue to Plato himself. What, then, counts as the philosophical result of a Platonic dialogue? The volume contains answers like these: Ostenfeld tells us that the dialogues "make us think for ourselves" (212). Nails says that, "The dialogue form provides a means of encouraging readers and listeners to reason dialectically to defensible positions of their own" (16). Waugh adds that the dialogues are "teaching how to philosophize" (49).The problem with these... (shrink)

In spite of an intensive discussion of ethical subjects, psychiatric departments rarely request clinical ethics support. However, during regular psychological supervisions subjects with an underlying ethical conflict are increasingly encountered. Based on the case study of a 39-year-old female patient suffering from personality disorder and her newborn child, the role of ethical consultation in psychiatric treatment and the decision making regarding health and welfare of child and mother will be presented. While discussing opportunities and limitations of psychological supervision as a (...) possible vehicle for clinical ethics support, it becomes obvious that during psychological supervision, ethical conflicts can also be reflected and treatment alternatives be evaluated. Psychological supervision finds its limits because of its more intuitive processes when the conflict escalates, when the patient cannot be involved and when institutional interests dominate. In these cases, the more structured and formalised process of clinical ethics consultation clearly offers advantages. (shrink)

Now in a fully corrected edition, one of the true spiritual classics of the twentieth century. Published for the first time with an index and Cardinal Hans Urs von Balthasar’s afterword, this new English publication of Meditations on the Tarot is the landmark edition of one of the most important works of esoteric Christianity. Written anonymously and published posthumously, as was the author’s wish, the intention of this work is for the reader to find a relationship with the author in (...) the spiritual dimensions of existence. The author wanted not to be thought of as a personality who lived from 1900 to 1973, but as a friend who is communicating with us from beyond the boundaries of ordinary life. Using the 22 major arcana of the tarot deck as a means to explore some of humanity’s most penetrating spiritual questions, Meditations on the Tarot has attracted an unprecedented range of praise from across the spiritual spectrum. (shrink)

On the 9th of May 2020 The Lancet, the leading medical journal, published an editorial referring to the current situation of the pandemic in Brazil, which is short of being disastrous, and describing Jair Bolsonaro, the Brazilian president, as the biggest threat to Brazil – we would add to the world. In this paper, we enquire the issue of leadership, anti-intellectualism and nationalism by conducting a philosophical enquiry, whilst also questioning the role and shortcomings of the Brazilian educational system in (...) sowing the seeds, and allowing this situation to develop in the country. This philosophical enquiry does not attempt to lay blame on the Brazilian educational system; rather, it is an attempt, an urge for reflection and self-reflection, so that the errs of the past may be remediated in the future; hopefully, a near future. (shrink)

When I was 19 years old, I fell crazily in love with a hometown girl. This was very surprising for both of us, as we had been acquainted since childhood but had never really noticed each other until a certain amount of maturing of mind and body took place. A second surprise, maybe inevitable in retrospect, came along a few months after we began spending virtually every possible hour in each others' arms. She called me from the university she was (...) attending a few hours away and told me she was fairly certain she was pregnant. (shrink)