This is the ideal book for anyone interested in Nietzsche's life and work who wishes to learn why he is such a significant figure for the development of modern ...

Voltaire's Pangloss, the man who held among other things that noses were clearly created in order to support spectacles, is the very archetype of the lunatic teleologist; a caricature of sublimely confident faith in the general and undeniable goodness of the world's arrangement, a faith that managed astoundingly to survive the Lisbon earthquake and his own subsequent auto dafé. Voltaire, of course, is poking fun at such conceptions; and, no doubt, in their extreme sanguinity as well as in their apparent (...) imperviousness to devastating empirical counter-evidence, they do seem to be eminently risible notions. In the face of them we might be tempted to abandon ‘métaphysico-théologo-cosmolonigologie’, and to agree with Candide that ‘Cela est bien dit, mais il faut cultiver notre jardin’. (shrink)

Voltaire's Pangloss, the man who held among other things that noses were clearly created in order to support spectacles, is the very archetype of the lunatic teleologist; a caricature of sublimely confident faith in the general and undeniable goodness of the world's arrangement, a faith that managed astoundingly to survive the Lisbon earthquake and his own subsequent auto dafé. Voltaire, of course, is poking fun at such conceptions; and, no doubt, in their extreme sanguinity as well as in their apparent (...) imperviousness to devastating empirical counter-evidence, they do seem to be eminently risible notions. In the face of them we might be tempted to abandon ‘métaphysico-théologo-cosmolonigologie’, and to agree with Candide that ‘Cela est bien dit, mais il faut cultiver notre jardin’. (shrink)

Every civilization has its own worldview that determines its approaches towards subjects such as human beings, nature and God. Most modern humans have tried to control all nature as property. Nature, therefore, was considered as the booty, which should have been used entirely. Now, the modern perspective has revealed problems including emerging and dangerous diseases, resistant bacteria, and extinction of many animals, global warming, climate change; air, sound and light pollution, and so on. The problem is that human beings cannot (...) continue these attitudes as a viable survival strategy. In this paper, using conceptual analysis, we try to explain the epistemic gap regarding the positions of humankind and nature which happened after modernism and then present the image which Ibn ‘Arabī, a traditional sage and philosopher depicted for the integrated world. He developed a comprehensive perspective of the world, considering it as a manifestation of an Existence. He considered humans as the God’s vice-regent who must manage the earth and keep the creatures as God's representative. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction Arcesilaus and the Skeptical Method Criterion of Truth Criterion of Action Carneades' Epistemology Academic Ethics Metaphysics and Dispute Logic and Identity Theology and Divination Philo and the End of the Academy Outline of Pyrrhonism Aenesidemus Modes of Skepticism Signs and Causes Conclusions Notes References and Recommended Reading.

In this chapter, Hankinson examines Aristotle's philosophy of science, or the logical structure of explanation as set out in the Posterior Analytics, and which is based on the theory of the syllogism worked out in the Prior Analytics. For Aristotle, definition is fundamental to the project of exhibiting science in its appropriate explanatory form, i.e. proceeding deductively from fundamental principles and axioms about the structure of things. Science and scientific explanation are for Aristotle construed realistically: science must mirror reality, and (...) therefore theory always must cohere with observation and empirical investigation. Hankinson discusses Aristotle's qualitative physics of motion, on the basis of the doctrine of natural places, his account of chemical combination, and his cosmology, which is at once teleological in character, while being empirically adequate. Hankinson also discusses Aristotle's successors Theophrastus and Strato of Lampsacus: Theophrastus developed and refined Aristotle's methodology while bringing some scepticism to the ubiquitous application of teleology; Strato also tends more towards mechanistic explanations. (shrink)

In this chapter, Hankinson discusses the major Hellenistic Medical theories and figures, from the Alexandrian doctors Herophilus and Erasistratus in the third century bc to the Empiricist, Rationalist, and Methodist schools of the early Imperial period. Hankinson argues that the practical basis of medical science broadened and deepened the debate about the nature of causal explanation. The Empiricists were sceptics in their attitude to causes, thinking that observation and report of evident conditions and their cures was sufficient for medical science, (...) and thus eschewing causal theory. Rationalist doctors attacked the inadequate methodology of the Empiricists, and they try to explain why the antecedent cause should bring on such and such an effect, while emphasizing the need to decide rationally the proper use of induction, and the relevancy of similarities. The Methodists treat as irrelevant antecedent causes or factors, and they recognized just two pathological conditions—relaxation and constriction; the doctor's concern is to determine by direct observation in which state is the body. (shrink)

Hankinson discusses Ptolemy, whose geometrical model was the most sophisticated development in ancient astronomy, at the beginning of this chapter; but the main focus is on Galen's comprehensive account of causation. Galen insists that antecedent conditions are causes, because the effects are conditioned by them; furthermore, physical dispositions are also preceding causes, and together with the external antecedent conditions they produce the immediate necessary and sufficient containing causes of diseases. Galen combines Aristotle's four causes, except the formal cause, with the (...) instrumental cause of Middle Platonism; he also distinguishes incidental and essential causes. From the Platonic tradition, Galen adopts a directed teleology, and an artisan‐god that is constrained by material necessity. Galen also contributes to the debate on freedom and responsibility: he argues that we remain responsible for what we do even if our actions are determined by causes outside our control. (shrink)

In this chapter, Hankinson considers the treatment of causation and explanation in two important strands of Ancient Greek thought: rational medicine and the sophistic movement. The Hippocratic treatises of the fifth century bc represent a movement in Greek medical practice away from traditional types of explanation of disease in favour of a naturalistic, physiological model of human pathology, which leads to the emergence of the allopathic causal principle, ‘opposites cure opposites’. The Hippocratic treatises distinguished internal, constitutional factors from external causes, (...) a distinction that helps towards explaining why some people are affected by a disease, or benefited from a cure, while others are not. Drawing upon Antiphon and Gorgias, Hankinson also discusses the sophist contribution to causation and explanation, in particular their emphasis on responsibility in the explanation of action. Finally, Hankinson highlights a tendency, evident in Herodotus’ History and also in the medical treatise Airs, Waters, Places, to explain general traits of physique and character in terms of ethnography, i.e. on the basis of environment, climate, and lifestyle. (shrink)