In this dissertation, I investigate the role of Aristotle's theory of science, and specifically the homogeneity criterion, for the set-up of Aristotle's metaphysics project as sketched in Met. IV, 1--3 and VI, 1. I argue that Aristotelian metaphysics takes shape through a dialectical argument stretching from Met. I to VI, 1. Along this path, both Aristotle's theory of science , and the Platonist competitor in metaphysics are constantly kept in view. They propel the argument at crucial stages. The resulting metaphysics (...) is compatible with Aristotle's theory of science, though it is not a direct application of it. Rather, metaphysics is a content-neutral complement to the content-specific sciences. The Platonist competitor remains refuted. Some of its central ideas and tools are nevertheless assimilated into Aristotelian metaphysics. ;Aristotle's postulate of a universal science of being seems to contradict a central requirement for a science: the homogeneity principle. According to the Posterior Analytics, every science has its specific subject matter , which it explores in terms of predicative content, and to which it is restricted. Being, does not constitute such a genos. Aristotle has to find a feature which can play a role for 'being' that is analogous to 'genos' in a special science. Aristotle finds it in the pros hen notion . Pros hen makes the content-neutral, focal structure of being transparent. It is not an extension of synonymy . With the help of pros hen, Aristotle can construct a content-neutral universal metaphysics project, solving the puzzles which arose in III, 1/2 precisely as a conflict between the questions which metaphysics should address and the homogeneity criterion for content-specific sciences. His theory of science remains fully intact for the sciences for which it was designed. The objections against Platonist metaphysics remain in place as well. The content-neutral analysis of being meets the expectations formulated for metaphysics in I, 1/2, on the basis of endoxa. Aristotle's project is constituted by what is commonly called 'general metaphysics'. It includes a consideration of the divine. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 41.3 (2003) 409-410 [Access article in PDF] Christoph Riedweg. Pythagoras: Leben, Lehre, Nachwirkung. Munich: Beck, 2002. Pp. 206. Cloth, € 19.90.Another book about Pythagoras? Hasn't it been shown that we do not have any precise information about him, especially about his contributions as a scholar and a philosopher? Maybe we have been overly skeptical about the information transmitted about Pythagoras. In Pythagoras: Leben, (...) Lehre, Nachwirkung, Christoph Riedweg suggests we should take a different perspective, and he shows what we might gain if we loosen our standards on what counts as information about Pythagoras's contribution to the history of philosophy and science. We can reconstruct a cluster of ideas, motifs, and motivations relevant for early Pythagoreanism. This will give us an idea of the factors influencing Pythagoras and those influenced in turn by him. Even if we will not know what exactly he claimed or achieved (whether he did or did not use the Pythagorean psephoi, for example), we can still get a reasonably informative (if somewhat fuzzy) picture of Pythagoras's contribution and his significance. Riedweg's book outlines the terrain for such an approach. It is what it announces to be: an introduction (Einführung). It does not promise, nor does it offer, any radically new theories on Pythagoras.I will focus on chapters 2 and 3 (61-149) of the book. After a survey of ancient reports and legends about Pythagoras (chapter 1), Riedweg approaches the historical Pythagoras through a sketch of the cultural setting in which he lived and worked, and through the reactions of his contemporaries and near contemporaries (chapter 2, sections 1-2). Unfortunately, a reference to the socio-political sphere is missing. This is a serious gap, given the poignancy of the socio-political changes in the sixth-century Ionian poleis, and given Pythagoras's cooperation with the local aristocratic elites, for political purposes. One is, however, provided with a sketch of the contemporary cultural setting in which Pythagoras put forth his religious and his philosophical teachings—philosophy, art, technology, contacts (chapter 2, section 1). Apparently (Riedweg documents this conclusively), Pythagoras provoked extreme reactions from the very beginning, even from people that lived far away. Riedweg's label "Charismatiker"—a borrowing from Weberian sociology of religion—seems fitting. The sixth- and fifth-century "outside" testimonies (chapter 2, section 2) are predominantly polemical. In the religious sphere, Pythagoras comes across as a mystic, with a guru-attitude. But he also constructed a sophia, using the writings and ideas of others. The contents of this sophia remain unclear. The witnesses accuse Pythagoras of foul trickery and plagiarism. Nevertheless, he must have produced some sort of systematic explanatory account of the world, its origin and its meaning. From the very beginning, both the "guru" and the "scholar" aspect are thus attested for Pythagoras. The content of the religious teachings is much more concrete than the content of Pythagoras's own philosophical and scientific doctrines. This trend continues as Riedweg examines later sources for the reconstruction of Pythagoras's ideas (chapter 2, section 3). As is already known, we get a relatively accurate picture of Pythagoras's position regarding rituals, lifestyle, and beliefs about the nature of the human soul (chapter 2, section 3, a-f), i.e., his ethical and religious [End Page 409] teachings. With regard to his contributions to science and philosophy, however, we are faced with the problem that we are no longer in the position to differentiate between early Pythagoreanism and Pythagoras himself—even if we leave the Platonic and the Platonist tradition out of the picture, and even where we can reconstruct details. Riedweg bases his outline predominantly on Aristotle's reports on pre-Platonic Pythagoreanism.Though Aristotle's evaluation rests mostly on Philolaus, the picture he develops for early Pythagoreanism throws some light also on Pythagoras himself. Riedweg thus uses Aristotle for an elucidation of a context for Pythagoras's contributions as a philosopher and scientist (chapter II, section 3, i). Another source of indirect information consists in comparisons with Orphic texts. Riedweg succeeds... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 41.3 (2003) 409-410 [Access article in PDF] Christoph Riedweg. Pythagoras: Leben, Lehre, Nachwirkung. Munich: Beck, 2002. Pp. 206. Cloth, € 19.90.Another book about Pythagoras? Hasn't it been shown that we do not have any precise information about him, especially about his contributions as a scholar and a philosopher? Maybe we have been overly skeptical about the information transmitted about Pythagoras. In Pythagoras: Leben, (...) Lehre, Nachwirkung, Christoph Riedweg suggests we should take a different perspective, and he shows what we might gain if we loosen our standards on what counts as information about Pythagoras's contribution to the history of philosophy and science. We can reconstruct a cluster of ideas, motifs, and motivations relevant for early Pythagoreanism. This will give us an idea of the factors influencing Pythagoras and those influenced in turn by him. Even if we will not know what exactly he claimed or achieved (whether he did or did not use the Pythagorean psephoi, for example), we can still get a reasonably informative (if somewhat fuzzy) picture of Pythagoras's contribution and his significance. Riedweg's book outlines the terrain for such an approach. It is what it announces to be: an introduction (Einführung). It does not promise, nor does it offer, any radically new theories on Pythagoras.I will focus on chapters 2 and 3 (61-149) of the book. After a survey of ancient reports and legends about Pythagoras (chapter 1), Riedweg approaches the historical Pythagoras through a sketch of the cultural setting in which he lived and worked, and through the reactions of his contemporaries and near contemporaries (chapter 2, sections 1-2). Unfortunately, a reference to the socio-political sphere is missing. This is a serious gap, given the poignancy of the socio-political changes in the sixth-century Ionian poleis, and given Pythagoras's cooperation with the local aristocratic elites, for political purposes. One is, however, provided with a sketch of the contemporary cultural setting in which Pythagoras put forth his religious and his philosophical teachings—philosophy, art, technology, contacts (chapter 2, section 1). Apparently (Riedweg documents this conclusively), Pythagoras provoked extreme reactions from the very beginning, even from people that lived far away. Riedweg's label "Charismatiker"—a borrowing from Weberian sociology of religion—seems fitting. The sixth- and fifth-century "outside" testimonies (chapter 2, section 2) are predominantly polemical. In the religious sphere, Pythagoras comes across as a mystic, with a guru-attitude. But he also constructed a sophia, using the writings and ideas of others. The contents of this sophia remain unclear. The witnesses accuse Pythagoras of foul trickery and plagiarism. Nevertheless, he must have produced some sort of systematic explanatory account of the world, its origin and its meaning. From the very beginning, both the "guru" and the "scholar" aspect are thus attested for Pythagoras. The content of the religious teachings is much more concrete than the content of Pythagoras's own philosophical and scientific doctrines. This trend continues as Riedweg examines later sources for the reconstruction of Pythagoras's ideas (chapter 2, section 3). As is already known, we get a relatively accurate picture of Pythagoras's position regarding rituals, lifestyle, and beliefs about the nature of the human soul (chapter 2, section 3, a-f), i.e., his ethical and religious [End Page 409] teachings. With regard to his contributions to science and philosophy, however, we are faced with the problem that we are no longer in the position to differentiate between early Pythagoreanism and Pythagoras himself—even if we leave the Platonic and the Platonist tradition out of the picture, and even where we can reconstruct details. Riedweg bases his outline predominantly on Aristotle's reports on pre-Platonic Pythagoreanism.Though Aristotle's evaluation rests mostly on Philolaus, the picture he develops for early Pythagoreanism throws some light also on Pythagoras himself. Riedweg thus uses Aristotle for an elucidation of a context for Pythagoras's contributions as a philosopher and scientist (chapter II, section 3, i). Another source of indirect information consists in comparisons with Orphic texts. Riedweg succeeds... (shrink)