This book comprises essays on the nature of Aspasiusa (TM) commentary, his interpretation of Aristotle, and his own place in the history of thought.

Résumé — Alexandre d’Aphrodise a été étudié plus intensément en Europe continentale que dans le monde anglophone. Cet article s’interroge sur les raisons culturelles d’un tel fait. L’une des raisons de l’étude de la philosophie antique en général dans le monde anglophone est la volonté de montrer qu’elle est reliée, et peut rendre service, à des débats philosophiques contemporains. Un cas emblématique nous est fourni par le débat concernant le libre arbitre et le déterminisme. Susanne Bobzien a défendu la thèse (...) qu’alors que les termes du débat contemporain peuvent être décelés au IIe siècle après J.-C., et en particulier dans le traité d’Alexandre Sur le destin, il serait anachronique de les faire remonter à la période hellénistique. La partie finale du présent article se penche sur la façon dont elle rend compte de l’approche post-hellénistique de la question, vue comme le développement, à partir d’un certain nombre de textes aristotéliciens, d’une nouvelle doctrine de la contingence, reflétée dans une série de textes généralement décrits comme médioplatoniciens. On se demande, finalement, quelle relation il faut supposer entre ce développement et les changements, dans la forme et dans le fond, du déterminisme stoïcien.L’accident du déterminisme— Alexander of Aphrodisias has been studied more intensively in continental Europe than in the English-speaking world. This paper examines the cultural reasons for this. One factor in the study of ancient philosophy generally in the English-speaking world is the pressure to show that it relates to, and can be of service in, contemporary philosophical debates. One such case is the debate concerning free-will and determinism. Susanne Bobzien has argued that while the terms of the contemporary debate can be recognised in the second century AD, and in particular in Alexander’s treatise On Fate, it is anachronistic to read them back into the Hellenistic period. The latter part of the present paper examines her account of the origin of the new approach to the question in the development from a number of Aristotelian texts of a new account of contingency, reflected in a range of texts commonly described as Middle Platonist, and asks what relation we should suppose between this development and changes in the formulation and conception of Stoic determinism. (shrink)

This volume is a new edition of a collection of problems in natural science and medicine which has been variously attributed to Aristotle and to Alexander of Aphrodisias; the collection includes material from both the Hellenistic and Roman periods.

This chapter contains sections titled: The Extent of the Problem Collections of Fragments The Reporter's Own Agenda Cicero and Epicurus: The Atomic Swerve Importing Distinctions: Dicaearchus on the Soul, Plutarch on the Octopus The Debate about Happiness Mistakes and Misrepresentations, Simple and Less Simple Conclusion Bibliography.

A collection of the papers and some of the formal responses from a colloquium on the ancient philosopher Aristotle, with one additional paper. The contributors explore Aristotle and how he is perceived and interpreted in different traditions, and by different people.

In the present volume, the focus is on natural philosophy, apart from the study of living things. Topics covered include the principles of scientific enquiry, place, time, motion, the heavens, the sublunary world, meteorology and the study of materials.