The Aporetic Method of Aristotle’s Metaphysics B in Damascius’ De Principiis: A Case Study of the First aporia

J. Greig
{"title":"The Aporetic Method of Aristotle’s Metaphysics B in Damascius’ De Principiis: A Case Study of the First aporia","authors":"J. Greig","doi":"10.30965/26664275-bja10045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nDamascius has become well-known in recent scholarship for his unique, radical use of the aporetic method, both to highlight the inherent limits of human thought and to reveal crucial tensions in Neoplatonic metaphysics. Though much attention has been paid to the subjective or skeptical aspects of Damascius’ aporiai, little has been noted of the parallels between Damascius’ aporetic strategy in the De Principiis and Aristotle’s own in Metaphysics B. This article analyzes the parallel by looking at Aristotle’s aim for aporiai in Metaphysics B.1 and closely comparing, as a case study, the De Principiis’ first aporia alongside Metaphysics B’s first aporia. Despite Damascius’ aporia dealing with different principles compared to Aristotle’s, the aporetic method for both ultimately exposes the limitations of thought and, exactly in the domain of these limitations, clarifies our concepts in relating to reality and attaining determinate understanding of principles.","PeriodicalId":29819,"journal":{"name":"History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30965/26664275-bja10045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Damascius has become well-known in recent scholarship for his unique, radical use of the aporetic method, both to highlight the inherent limits of human thought and to reveal crucial tensions in Neoplatonic metaphysics. Though much attention has been paid to the subjective or skeptical aspects of Damascius’ aporiai, little has been noted of the parallels between Damascius’ aporetic strategy in the De Principiis and Aristotle’s own in Metaphysics B. This article analyzes the parallel by looking at Aristotle’s aim for aporiai in Metaphysics B.1 and closely comparing, as a case study, the De Principiis’ first aporia alongside Metaphysics B’s first aporia. Despite Damascius’ aporia dealing with different principles compared to Aristotle’s, the aporetic method for both ultimately exposes the limitations of thought and, exactly in the domain of these limitations, clarifies our concepts in relating to reality and attaining determinate understanding of principles.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
达马西乌斯《原理论》中亚里士多德形而上学B的辩析方法:以第一次辩析为例
达马西乌斯因其独特的、激进的辩论学方法而在最近的学术界广为人知,既强调了人类思想的内在局限性,又揭示了新柏拉图式形而上学的关键紧张关系。尽管人们对达玛西亚斯在《论原理》中的梦的主观或怀疑方面给予了很多关注,但很少有人注意到达玛西亚斯在《论原理》中的梦的策略与亚里士多德在《形而上学B》中的梦的策略之间的相似之处。本文通过观察亚里士多德在《形而上学B》中梦的目的来分析这种相似之处,并作为一个案例,将《论原理》中的第一个梦与《形而上学B》中的第一个梦进行密切比较。尽管与亚里士多德相比,达玛斯的阿波利亚处理不同的原则,但两者的阿波利亚方法最终都暴露了思想的局限性,并恰恰在这些局限性的领域中,澄清了我们与现实有关的概念,并获得了对原则的决定性理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊最新文献
On Anselm’s Ontological Argument in Proslogion II Concept Negation in Kant Two Kinds of Mental Conflict in Republic IV Is Perception Essentially Perspectival? The Pittsburgh Kantians: Brandom, Conant, Haugeland, and McDowell on Kant
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1