What, then, are the true historical facts concerning the origin of the term or title "metaphysics"? As far as can be ascertained, the first authenticated reference to this title can be found in Nicholas of Damascus. This reference, which is contained in a scholion to the Metaphysics of Theophrastus, mentions a Θεωρία τῶν Ἀριστοτέλους Μετὰ τὰ φυσικά,} composed by Nicholas of Damascus. Plutarch likewise mentions a ἡ μετὰ τὰ φυσικὰ πραγματεία of Aristotle.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Notes and Discussions ARISTOTLE'S ALLEGED "REVOLT" AGAINST PLATO Hermippus' most conspicuous contribution to Aristotle's biography probably was his determined effort to depict Aristotle as the founder of an original school of philosophy which was wholly independent of Plato and Platonic teachings. Among the several and, in all likelihood, fanciful stories about Aristotle he invented or propagated, the most startling was the account, subsequently widely accepted (and widely exploited by (...) the detractors of Aristotle), that after having been a disciple of Plato for a while, he seceded from the Academy and from Plato's philosophic teachings while Plato was still alive. 1 Accordingly, he owed little to Plato and to the Academy. This story, invented and propagated by an inveterate Peripatetic (Hermippus), was intended to demonstrate the original philosophic genius of Aristotle which developed in complete independence of Plato and necessitated a break with the master's teachings. In devising his argument, Hermippus might have made use of a report, found in some of Aristotle's ancient biographers, that a few brash young men (members of the Academy?) revolted against Plato and, in a spirit of independence, defiance and antagonism, attempted to start a school of their own which would rival the intellectual standing of the Academy. 2 Hermippus, it appears, subsequently identified these young "rebels" with Aristotle, a substitution convenient to Hermippus" aim to depict Aristotle as a wholly independent and totally original philosopher who owed nothing whatever to Plato and his teachings. In all likelihood, Diogenes Laertius' statement that Aristotle "seceded from the Academy while Plato was still alive," a is just an echo either of a statement made by Hermippus himself or is a conclusion drawn from the several unpleasant stories about Aristotle invented and reported by some of Aristotle's detractors. According to these derogatory stories, there existed many serious personal as well as doctrinal 4 disagreements or rifts between Plato and the Stagirite--disagreeDiogenes Laertius, V. 2. See also Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, XV. 2. 3, and ibid., XV. 2. 13 (Aristoxenus); Aelian, Varia Historia, IV. 9; Theodoretus, Graecorum Affectionum Curatio, IV. 46; St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, VIII. 12; Philoponus, Comment. in Aristotelis Analytica Posteriora, CIAG, vol. XIII, part 3, pp. 133, 30 ft. 2 See Aelius Aristides, Oratio XLVI, 249. 10. See also note 1, supra. s Diogenes Laertius, V. 2. See also Vita Aristotelis Marciana 9; Vita Aristotelis Latina 9. 9 See, for instance, Plutarch, Adversus Coloten 14 (Moralia, III5A); Cicero, Academica I. 9. 33; Eusebius, op. cir., XV. 2, passim; Diogenes Laertius III. 37; Justin Martyr, Cohortatio ad Graecos 5 (Migne, PG. vol. VI. p. 247); Cyrillus, Contra Julianum II. 47; Proclus, [91] 92 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY ments whichmarred the relations between these two men and which were indicative of Aristotle's ingratitude, bad taste and unwarranted conceit. The report of Diogenes Laertius, in an oblique manner, may also refer to the fact that already during his active association with the Platonic Academy (367-348 B.c.), that is, in his On (the) Ideas and On the Good, Aristotle had begun to disagree with, and criticize, some of Plato's fundamental teachings. It may also, in a distorted form, refer to the following specific incident which, however, cannot be verified: According to Aristoxenus, during the absence of Plato in Syracuse (and while Heracleides of Pontus was the "acting scholarch" of the Academy),5 some unnamed young members of the Academy, or "students" or, perhaps, some "outsiders " attempted to start a rival school (within the Academy?).6 As a matter of fact, Aelian, who apparently dramatizes this incident, reports that during Plato's last years, that is, some time after Plato's return from his third and last voyage to Syracuse, a serious conflict or confrontation arose within the Academy. Aristotle, together with some of his friends, or "conspirators," we are told, harrassed and molested the aging Plato by constantly putting questions to him, by arguing with him in an insolent manner, by contradicting him on every point, and by attempting to involve him in hair-splitting dialectics. At the time Xenocrates was in Chalcedon, and Speusippus was gravely ill. Hence, neither of them could come to the succor of Plato. In... (shrink)

In his De Iside et Osiride, Plutarch writes: "The Chaldaeans call two of the planets, which they consider benign gods, the authors or sources of everything that is good, two, on the other hand, the authors or sources of everything that is evil, and the three remaining planets they regard as being 'in between,' participating in the two opposite qualities.... It is worthwhile also to observe that the [Greek] philosophers are in accord with the Chaldaeans. For this reason Heraclitus [of (...) Ephesus] declared 'war the father, king and ruler of everything....' After him Empedocles designates the benign principle as 'love and friendship,' and at times as 'the harmony of the serene eye,' while at the same time he defines the evil principle as 'the cursed discord' and 'the bloody struggle....' Aristotle [by following this tradition] proclaims the [principle of] form and [the principle of] privation....". (shrink)

Originally published in 1973. Aristotle’s early works probably belong to the formative era of his philosophic thought and as such contribute vitally to the understanding and evaluation of the development of his philosophy. This book shows that the philosophy propagated in these lost works indicates an undeniable Platonism, and thus seems to conflict with the basic doctrines in the traditional treatises collected in the Corpus Aristotelicum . Was the author of the lost early works and the later preserved treatises one (...) and the same person, or were some of these treatises written by members of the Early Peripatus? This, the second of two volumes, discusses in detail certain decisive aspects of Aristotle’s early works. Fascinating hypotheses and conjectures put forward here provoke discussion and further investigation in the ‘Aristotelian Problem’. (shrink)

Originally published in 1973. The predominantly historical approach in this book heralds a belief that a better understanding of Aristotle the man, and the salient events of his life, leads to a greater insight into his work as a philosopher. This, the first of two volumes, presents interpretations of Aristotle’s life, widely interesting to any Aristotle scholars.

"The day would fail me," Pontianus observes in Athenaeus' Deinosophistae, "if I were to proceed enumerating all those men who were abused by the philosopher [scil., Plato]...." For "Plato was in fact hostile towards everyone," and displayed "malice towards all"; he had "the reputation of being jealous and of having by no means a good name so far as his character was concerned"; and "besides of being malicious,... [he] also was eager for fame"--characteristics which, if true, certainly would not endear (...) him to others. Aristoxenus, for instance, maintains that perhaps from sheer envy or malice Plato "wanted to burn all of the writings of Democritus." When he failed in this, Aristoxenus continues, Plato, "who mentions almost all the early philosophers, never once alluded to Democritus, not even where it would be appropriate to take issue with him, obviously because he knew that he would have to compete against the greatest of all philosophers." Plato was also accused of being jealous of Xenophon, refusing to mention him in his Phaedo, and of making it a deliberate issue to contradict Xenophon's statement that from his earliest childhood King Cyrus had been thoroughly educated in all the traditional branches of learning. As a matter of fact, Plato insisted that Cyrus "had never given much thought to education." Plato, according to these reports, also denied in a spirit of resentment the truth of Xenophon's description of Menon's foul treachery, calling the whole account an outright fabrication deliberately invented to discredit Menon--in Plato's opinion an upright and praiseworthy person. It might be contended, therefore, that in the final analysis the reasons for the many ancient "anti-platonica" may be looked for in Plato himself, especially in the many violent and often unrestrained polemics which he hurled, often indiscriminately, against practically every author. "He [scil., Plato] was the first philosopher... to attack the views of almost all of his predecessors.". (shrink)

The purpose of this book, first published in 1957, is to make a critical analysis of the controversial Socratic problem. The Socratic issue owes its paramount difficulty not only to the status of available source materials, but also to the diversity of opinion as to the proper use of these materials. This volume offers a new approach to the problem, and a starting point to further investigations.