This paper considers Aristotle’s distinction between the cause of being and the cause of coming to be. It is intended to show that Aristotle is able to unify both kinds of causes on the basis of the idea that a thing’s substance is its end. He is not confused about the cause of being and of coming to be, as it might seem in several passages. The paper’s focus is on Metaphysics Zeta 17. In contrast to David Charles’ interpretation, my (...) reading of this chapter puts weight on the fact that the end is said to explain both coming to be and being. According to this reading, Zeta 17 is a clue to understanding the unification of both causes in Aristotle. (shrink)

It is a commonplace to sum up Plato's dialectical method under the formula logon didonai, which means to account for one's belief. The expression along with its genuine meaning seems to have originated at Greek courts of law, and Plato's Socrates, having adopted this formula to describe his philosophical method, seems to be the best advocate of the idea that to know means to be able to render an account. This paper aims to give a critical discussion of these traditional (...) views. First, there is no hint of any offspring of the expression logon didonai at Greek courts of law. Second, in pre-Socratic contexts the expression had not one but several meanings. And third, Plato, through the voice of Socrates, criticizes the unclear meaning of this expression in epistemological contexts. (shrink)

Journal Name: Apeiron Issue: Ahead of print.

John Scot Eriugena's work Periphyseon is commonly regarded as having introduced Neoplatonism into early medieval thinking. Eriugena's theory of the reunification of the Creator and his creation is then viewed as being based on the Neoplatonic scheme of procession and reversion. However, this interpretation falls short of Eriugena's intentions. Above all, he denies any ontological difference between Creator and creation without taking recourse to the Neoplatonic considerations of procession and reversion. Surprisingly, according to Eriugena's explanation, God is not only the (...) Creator but he is also created. He is created insofar as he alone, possessing all being, is the essence of all created things. Moreover, the fourfold division of nature, presented at the beginning of the work, is not Eriugena's own innovation, but a common Carolingian concept. It is rather his aim to show that from an ontological point of view this division has to be resolved. (shrink)

John Scot Eriugena's work Periphyseon is commonly regarded as having introduced Neoplatonism into early medieval thinking. Eriugena's theory of the reunification of the Creator and his creation is then viewed as being based on the Neoplatonic scheme of procession and reversion. However, this interpretation falls short of Eriugena's intentions. Above all, he denies any ontological difference between Creator and creation without taking recourse to the Neoplatonic considerations of procession and reversion. Surprisingly, according to Eriugena's explanation, God is not only the (...) Creator but he is also created. He is created insofar as he alone, possessing all being, is the essence of all created things. Moreover, the fourfold division of nature, presented at the beginning of the work, is not Eriugena's own innovation, but a common Carolingian concept. It is rather his aim to show that from an ontological point of view this division has to be resolved. (shrink)

Der Aufsatz hat eine detaillierte Darlegung von Boethius’ Argumentation zum Ziel, wonach alles Seiende gut ist. In einem ersten Schritt werden die sogenannten Axiome präsentiert, welche die Prämissen für das Argument bilden,vor allem Boethius’ bemerkenswerte und berühmte Unterscheidung von esse und id quod est. In einem zweiten Schritt wird das Argument als solches diskutiert, mit besonderem Augenmerk auf die Frage, in welcher Hinsicht das Seiende gut sein soll. Dies führt zu einem dritten Schritt, in dem gezeigt werden kann, dass Boethius (...) eine alternative Auffassung des Transzendentale bonum bietet, verglichen mit der späteren Doktrin von Thomas von Aquin, die vollständig auf Aristoteles zurückgeht.The aim of this paper is to provide a detailed explanation of the complex argument used by Boethius to prove that all beings are good. In a first step, the so called axioms which form the premises of the argument will be presented, most notably Boethius’ remarkable and famous distinction between esse and id quod est. In a second step, the argument itself will be discussed, especially the question: in what respect are things supposed to be good. This leads to a third step, in which it will be shown that Boethius offers a different concept of the bonum transcendentale than Aquinas does, whose concept of bonum was derived completely from Aristotle. (shrink)