In his own De anima, Alexander of Aphrodisias famously identifies the “active” (poietikon) intellect with the prime mover in Metaphysics Λ. However, Alexander’s claim raises an issue: why would this divine intellect come in the middle of a study of soul in general and of human intellection in particular? As Paul Moraux asks in his pioneering work on Alexander’s conception of the intellect, is the active intellect a “useless addition”? In this paper, I try to answer this question by challenging (...) a solution according to which the active intellect would intervene directly with the material intellect to trigger its ordinary working. I argue that the active intellect acts as a final cause, both for human intellect and for its ordinary objects of thought. The active intellect is twice “cause of the intellection”, i.e. cause of the actualization of human thought: once (i) when it offers thought occasions for thinking through objects, and again (ii) when it actualizes mediately the human intellect itself in its development. This reading agrees with Alexander’s usual position about the prime mover’s causality. It accounts for the multiplicity of expressions with which Alexander describes the causality of the active intellect in his De anima. It also explains why the development of human intellect has been described without direct reference to active intellect, since substances do not aim directly at the First cause, but their aiming at it is mediated by their desire for their own good. (shrink)

At the beginning of his Isagoge, Porphyry establishes a famous set of questions concerning genera and species, which is the origin of the medieval “Quarrel of universals”. But this text gave rise to difficulty for interpreters: does Porphyry, when elaborating this set of questions, refer to historical positions or does he offer these alternatives in a lingua franca, which would be neutral from a doctrinal point of view? This article focusing on the first of the three alternatives raised by Porphyry (...) aims to show that replacing Porphyry's text in its historical and philosophical background can shed light on the meaning of this alternative. During the Post-Hellenistic period (100 B.C.–200 A.D.), the different schools discussed the ontological status of universals. Therefore, not only does Porphyry use the terminology shaped by former philosophers, but he also alludes to the debate between Stoics, Middle Platonists and Peripatetics. Alexander of Aphrodisias constitutes a precious help to reconstruct this dispute, which this article tries to depict. (shrink)

Le début de l'Isagogè de Porphyre énonce une série de trois questions à propos des genres et des espèces, que l'on tient pour l'origine de la médiévale « Querelle des universaux ». Mais la question s'est posée aux interprètes de savoir si, dans ce texte, Porphyre se référait à certaines thèses historiquement déterminées ou bien s'il construisait ces alternatives de façon théorique, dans une lingua franca non connotée d'un point de vue doctrinal. Cet article, en se concentrant sur la première (...) alternative du questionnaire, tente de montrer que le texte porphyrien prend davantage sens si l'on s'avise que l'époque post-hellénistique (IIe s. av. J.-C. – début du IIIe s. ap. J.-C.) donne déjà à voir une polémique scolaire sur le statut des universaux. Ce n'est ainsi pas seulement le vocabulaire employé par Porphyre qui est doctrinalement connoté, mais l'alternative elle-même, qui fait très probablement référence à un débat entre les thèses platoniciennes, stoïciennes et péripatéticiennes. Alexandre d'Aphrodise constitue une aide précieuse pour reconstruire ce débat, dont l'article esquisse une cartographie. (shrink)

Cet article consiste en une étude des différentes occurrences de l’expression « philosophie première » dans le corpus aristotélicien. Une interprétation devenue courante, soutenue en particulier par A. Mansion, veut que « philosophie première » renvoie toujours à la science théologique de Métaphysique E 1. On cherche au contraire à montrer que l’expression couvre en réalité une grande partie des objets traités par l’ensemble de la Métaphysique, parmi lesquels, par exemple, l’étude de la forme comme substance première, l’examen des axiomes, (...) la réfutation des Idées. Pour ce faire, on s’intéresse à la fonction argumentative de l’expression dans ses contextes d’apparition, en montrant qu’elle sert quasi systématiquement à indiquer les limites de la physique. L’expression « philosophie première » a ainsi un sens architectonique et une fonction de démarcation. La pluralité des objets qu’elle recouvre, cependant, n’entraîne pas sa dispersion entre plusieurs sciences mais en fait un concept englobant. Il est donc légitime de se servir de l’expression pour poser la question de l’unité de la science recherchée par Aristote. (shrink)

According to some testimonies, the Aristotelian ethics have been torn between a hedonist reading, as much as an anti‑hedonist one, throughout Antiquity. From Critolaos to Verginius Rufus and Sosicrates, pleasure is considered both as “an evil [that] gives birth to many other evils” and as the first appropriate thing and the supreme good. This noteworthy disagreement stems from a famous difficulty within the Aristotelian corpus, raised by Aspasius, i.e. the alleged coexistence of two ‘definitions’ of pleasure in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (...) VII and X. In this paper, I offer a reconstruction of Alexander’s treatment of this difficulty, based on some passages from Alexander’s Ethical Problems and the Mantissa. I try to show that Alexander does not dismiss the so‑called “definition A” of pleasure as being spurious, although he obviously values more the definition B. Even if he never openly brands the definition A as “dialectic”, Alexander takes it as a reputable endoxon, which however needs to be emended in that it blurs the distinction between pleasure and activity. Pleasure only supervenes on the activity to which it is appropriate, and this supervenience is precisely what accounts for the inaccuracy of the definition A. As much as the child conflates the apparent good and the good, so the hedonist takes pleasure to be identical with the activity and the telos of human life. On the contrary, for Alexander, pleasure is actually only a sign of happiness and the shadow of the activity. (shrink)

This collection of essays presents a novel interpretation of a signature work of Alexander of Aphrodisias, and of the Stoic philosophy he seeks to refute. It covers all chapters of the work, challenging existing scholarship in significant ways.