Pub Date : 2023-05-31DOI: 10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v17i1p36-58
P. Woodruff
In the Symposium of Plato, Socrates reports that Diotima once described to him a process of initiation by which a lover rises from desiring one beautiful body to catching sight of what seems to be the Platonic form of beauty. Scholars have debated whether the lover is to make this ascent by a rational process or a non-rational one, or by both working either in concert or independently. This paper argues that love leads and guides a process in this initiation that necessarily involves rational activity. No teaching is necessary or appropriate, so that the process is an example of learning without being taught. The philosophical insight that results is life-changing, but it does not amount to the kind of knowledge that would fully satisfy a Socratic seeker after knowledge.
{"title":"Learning through Love: A Lover’s Initiation in the Symposium","authors":"P. Woodruff","doi":"10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v17i1p36-58","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v17i1p36-58","url":null,"abstract":"In the Symposium of Plato, Socrates reports that Diotima once described to him a process of initiation by which a lover rises from desiring one beautiful body to catching sight of what seems to be the Platonic form of beauty. Scholars have debated whether the lover is to make this ascent by a rational process or a non-rational one, or by both working either in concert or independently. This paper argues that love leads and guides a process in this initiation that necessarily involves rational activity. No teaching is necessary or appropriate, so that the process is an example of learning without being taught. The philosophical insight that results is life-changing, but it does not amount to the kind of knowledge that would fully satisfy a Socratic seeker after knowledge.","PeriodicalId":185531,"journal":{"name":"Journal of ancient philosophy","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129396878","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-31DOI: 10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v17i1p96-120
David Botting
This is another contribution to the unending controversy over the two Barbaras. My approach to the problem is hopefully quite new: I wish to view the issue through the prism of modal upgrading. Modal upgrading occurs when a subject term that has only been predicated of assertorically in the premises is predicated of apodictically either: i) in the conclusion of a given syllogism, or; ii) in some proposition that is derived from either the premises of the given syllogism alone or the premises in combination with other propositions that do not refer to the proposition’s subject term. I call the proposition after it has been upgraded the upgraded proposition. When a conclusion is the upgraded proposition, it is obviously a different predicate being predicated than was predicated in the premises. Aristotle endorses this kind of upgrading; it is effectively what happens in any valid mixed modal syllogism when the minor premise is not apodictic (e.g., Barbara LXL). In other cases the upgraded proposition is not a conclusion but still follows from the premises alone. In these cases it is the same predicate being predicated in the upgraded proposition as in the premises, although the quantity of the propositions are different (one is universal, another particular). Aristotle rejects this kind of upgrading and takes its occurrence as sufficient to deny the validity of the given syllogism (e.g., Barbara XLL). I will describe a third type where both the predicate remains the same and the quantity of the proposition remains the same as in the premise, e.g., the upgrading of “All C are B” to “All C are necessarily B”. In these cases it will turn out that the upgraded proposition is not derived from the premises alone, or at least, not syllogistically from the premises alone. This kind of upgrading too is reason for denying the validity of any syllogism from which the upgraded proposition follows as a consequence. I will show that Barbara LXL entails this kind of modal upgrading and should be rejected for this reason. Armed with this notion of modal upgrading I want to attack the problem of the two Barbaras in Aristotle’s apodictic syllogistic. Aristotle himself endorses mixed modal Barbara when the major is necessary and the minor is assertoric, thereby endorsing the first kind of modal upgrading, but rejects Barbara when the minor is necessary and the major is assertoric on the grounds that it leads to the second kind of modal upgrading. Theophrastus endorses the peioram rule which rejects both Barbaras on the grounds that the conclusion can only be as strong as the weakest premise. Łukasiewicz endorses both Barbaras. I will argue that both Barbaras lead to unacceptable modal upgrading and should be taken to be invalid for that reason. Hence, I agree with Theophrastus about the two Barbaras; however, I do not endorse the peioram rule because I think that the negative mixed modal syllogisms generally avoid this problem and is mostly correct.
{"title":"The Problem of Modal Upgrading in Aristotle’s Apodictic Syllogistic","authors":"David Botting","doi":"10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v17i1p96-120","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v17i1p96-120","url":null,"abstract":"This is another contribution to the unending controversy over the two Barbaras. My approach to the problem is hopefully quite new: I wish to view the issue through the prism of modal upgrading. Modal upgrading occurs when a subject term that has only been predicated of assertorically in the premises is predicated of apodictically either: i) in the conclusion of a given syllogism, or; ii) in some proposition that is derived from either the premises of the given syllogism alone or the premises in combination with other propositions that do not refer to the proposition’s subject term. I call the proposition after it has been upgraded the upgraded proposition. \u0000When a conclusion is the upgraded proposition, it is obviously a different predicate being predicated than was predicated in the premises. Aristotle endorses this kind of upgrading; it is effectively what happens in any valid mixed modal syllogism when the minor premise is not apodictic (e.g., Barbara LXL). \u0000In other cases the upgraded proposition is not a conclusion but still follows from the premises alone. In these cases it is the same predicate being predicated in the upgraded proposition as in the premises, although the quantity of the propositions are different (one is universal, another particular). Aristotle rejects this kind of upgrading and takes its occurrence as sufficient to deny the validity of the given syllogism (e.g., Barbara XLL). \u0000I will describe a third type where both the predicate remains the same and the quantity of the proposition remains the same as in the premise, e.g., the upgrading of “All C are B” to “All C are necessarily B”. In these cases it will turn out that the upgraded proposition is not derived from the premises alone, or at least, not syllogistically from the premises alone. This kind of upgrading too is reason for denying the validity of any syllogism from which the upgraded proposition follows as a consequence. I will show that Barbara LXL entails this kind of modal upgrading and should be rejected for this reason. \u0000Armed with this notion of modal upgrading I want to attack the problem of the two Barbaras in Aristotle’s apodictic syllogistic. Aristotle himself endorses mixed modal Barbara when the major is necessary and the minor is assertoric, thereby endorsing the first kind of modal upgrading, but rejects Barbara when the minor is necessary and the major is assertoric on the grounds that it leads to the second kind of modal upgrading. Theophrastus endorses the peioram rule which rejects both Barbaras on the grounds that the conclusion can only be as strong as the weakest premise. Łukasiewicz endorses both Barbaras. I will argue that both Barbaras lead to unacceptable modal upgrading and should be taken to be invalid for that reason. Hence, I agree with Theophrastus about the two Barbaras; however, I do not endorse the peioram rule because I think that the negative mixed modal syllogisms generally avoid this problem and is mostly correct.","PeriodicalId":185531,"journal":{"name":"Journal of ancient philosophy","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128139767","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-25DOI: 10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v17i1p59-79
Luiz Henrique da Silva Santos
Regarding the famous Sea Battle Argument, which Aristotle presents in De Interpretatione 9, there has never been a general agreement not only about its correctness but also, and mainly, about what the argument really is. According to the most natural reading of the chapter, the argument appeals to a temporal concept of truth and concludes that not every statement is always either true or false. However, many of Aristotle’s followers and commentators have not adopted this reading. I believe that it has faced so much resistance for reasons of hermeneutic charity: denying the law of universal bivalence seems to be overly disruptive to logical orthodoxy – the kind of logical orthodoxy represented by what we now call classical propositional logic, much of which Aristotle clearly supports in many texts. I intend to show that the logical-semantic theses that the traditional reading finds in De Interpretatione 9 are much more conservative than they may seem to be at first glance. First, I will show that they complement, and do not contradict in any way, the orthodox definitions of the concepts of truth and statement that Aristotle advances in other texts. Second, by resorting in an anachronistic vein to concepts and methods peculiar to contemporary logic, I will show that a trivalent modal semantics conforming to those theses can be built for a standard formal language of the classical propositional calculus. It is remarkable that reasonable concepts of logical truth and logical consequence that may be defined on the basis of this trivalent modal semantics are coextensive with their orthodox counterparts, the concepts of tautology and tautological consequence of classical bivalent and extensional semantics.
{"title":"Temporal Truth and Bivalence: an Anachronistic Formal Approach to Aristotle’s De Interpretatione 9","authors":"Luiz Henrique da Silva Santos","doi":"10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v17i1p59-79","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v17i1p59-79","url":null,"abstract":"Regarding the famous Sea Battle Argument, which Aristotle presents in De Interpretatione 9, there has never been a general agreement not only about its correctness but also, and mainly, about what the argument really is. According to the most natural reading of the chapter, the argument appeals to a temporal concept of truth and concludes that not every statement is always either true or false. However, many of Aristotle’s followers and commentators have not adopted this reading. I believe that it has faced so much resistance for reasons of hermeneutic charity: denying the law of universal bivalence seems to be overly disruptive to logical orthodoxy – the kind of logical orthodoxy represented by what we now call classical propositional logic, much of which Aristotle clearly supports in many texts. I intend to show that the logical-semantic theses that the traditional reading finds in De Interpretatione 9 are much more conservative than they may seem to be at first glance. First, I will show that they complement, and do not contradict in any way, the orthodox definitions of the concepts of truth and statement that Aristotle advances in other texts. Second, by resorting in an anachronistic vein to concepts and methods peculiar to contemporary logic, I will show that a trivalent modal semantics conforming to those theses can be built for a standard formal language of the classical propositional calculus. It is remarkable that reasonable concepts of logical truth and logical consequence that may be defined on the basis of this trivalent modal semantics are coextensive with their orthodox counterparts, the concepts of tautology and tautological consequence of classical bivalent and extensional semantics.","PeriodicalId":185531,"journal":{"name":"Journal of ancient philosophy","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131555814","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v16i2p126-148
Boris Hennig
Aristotle’s aitiai (‘causes’) are middle terms in Aristotelian syllogisms. I argue that stating the aitia of a thing therefore amounts to re-describing this same thing in an alternative and illuminating way. This, in turn, means that a thing and its aitiai really are one and the same thing under different descriptions. The purpose of this paper is to show that this view is implied by Aristotle’s account of explanation, and that it makes more sense than one might expect.
{"title":"Aitiai as Middle Terms","authors":"Boris Hennig","doi":"10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v16i2p126-148","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v16i2p126-148","url":null,"abstract":"Aristotle’s aitiai (‘causes’) are middle terms in Aristotelian syllogisms. I argue that stating the aitia of a thing therefore amounts to re-describing this same thing in an alternative and illuminating way. This, in turn, means that a thing and its aitiai really are one and the same thing under different descriptions. The purpose of this paper is to show that this view is implied by Aristotle’s account of explanation, and that it makes more sense than one might expect.","PeriodicalId":185531,"journal":{"name":"Journal of ancient philosophy","volume":"141 9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129229616","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v16i2p195-252
E. Mombello
In De partibus animalium A1, Aristotle presents —in a darker than usual way— decisive details of the methodology he devised for his science of nature. His indications seem to point the path along which Aristotelian biology should travel. However, numerous textual and systematic difficulties have given rise to a number of conflicting interpretations, in the context of a vigorous stream of philosophical research and debate since the last third of the last century. In this stream of studies, Michael of Ephesus’s commentary on PA and his views on the subject remain relatively ignored. A complex multiplicity of factors seems to support the lack of sufficient consensus among leading contemporary specialists to explicitly consider those contributions. The purpose of this paper is to examine several of these factors and, based on the evidence provided by little explored aspects of Michael’s texts, to offer arguments in favor of that consensus against a number of alternatives. I shall argue that the contributions of this late commentator deserve to be considered —mutatis mutandis— as seriously as it is done with the main ancient Greek commentaries; in particular, in the philosophical studies of those who are currently interested in that methodology or are engaged in Aristotelian biology.
{"title":"El Comentario de Miguel de Éfeso a PA A1 en el Origen Griego de la Rama Biológica de la Tradición Aristotélica","authors":"E. Mombello","doi":"10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v16i2p195-252","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v16i2p195-252","url":null,"abstract":"In De partibus animalium A1, Aristotle presents —in a darker than usual way— decisive details of the methodology he devised for his science of nature. His indications seem to point the path along which Aristotelian biology should travel. However, numerous textual and systematic difficulties have given rise to a number of conflicting interpretations, in the context of a vigorous stream of philosophical research and debate since the last third of the last century. In this stream of studies, Michael of Ephesus’s commentary on PA and his views on the subject remain relatively ignored. A complex multiplicity of factors seems to support the lack of sufficient consensus among leading contemporary specialists to explicitly consider those contributions. The purpose of this paper is to examine several of these factors and, based on the evidence provided by little explored aspects of Michael’s texts, to offer arguments in favor of that consensus against a number of alternatives. I shall argue that the contributions of this late commentator deserve to be considered —mutatis mutandis— as seriously as it is done with the main ancient Greek commentaries; in particular, in the philosophical studies of those who are currently interested in that methodology or are engaged in Aristotelian biology.","PeriodicalId":185531,"journal":{"name":"Journal of ancient philosophy","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133808844","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v16i2p149-181
Guy Hamelin
The Stoic School takes up the tripartite division of philosophy of the post-Platonic Academy, in which physics occupies, alongside dialectics and ethics, a prominent place. In this tripartition, there is no metaphysics, nor in the two subdivisions of Stoic physics. For the thinkers of the Stoa, there is nothing beyond physics. In spite of this statement, we try to discover, in this article, the presence of a study devoted to first philosophy among the various topics investigated by the Stoics in their physics. It is with this aim that we first examine what precisely Aristotle deals with in the Metaphysics. This preliminary investigation will serve as a point of reference for determining what can be considered as metaphysics, at least in ancient Greece. Afterwards, we are interested in the Stoic view of nature itself since nothing superior exists. This examination leads us to scrutinize the Stoic conception of the Good, a notion closely linked to the subject of physics. We then take a good look at each one of the topics found in the two Stoic divisions of physics, highlighting the matters approaching Aristotelian metaphysics. On that occasion, a specific analysis is devoted to the two Stoic principles, due notably to the relevance of the subject in relation to first philosophy. From the diversity of the elements found in the course of our study, we come to the final part, in which we establish the position of the Stoic School on metaphysics.
{"title":"Física e Metafísica no Estoicismo Antigo","authors":"Guy Hamelin","doi":"10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v16i2p149-181","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v16i2p149-181","url":null,"abstract":"The Stoic School takes up the tripartite division of philosophy of the post-Platonic Academy, in which physics occupies, alongside dialectics and ethics, a prominent place. In this tripartition, there is no metaphysics, nor in the two subdivisions of Stoic physics. For the thinkers of the Stoa, there is nothing beyond physics. In spite of this statement, we try to discover, in this article, the presence of a study devoted to first philosophy among the various topics investigated by the Stoics in their physics. It is with this aim that we first examine what precisely Aristotle deals with in the Metaphysics. This preliminary investigation will serve as a point of reference for determining what can be considered as metaphysics, at least in ancient Greece. Afterwards, we are interested in the Stoic view of nature itself since nothing superior exists. This examination leads us to scrutinize the Stoic conception of the Good, a notion closely linked to the subject of physics. We then take a good look at each one of the topics found in the two Stoic divisions of physics, highlighting the matters approaching Aristotelian metaphysics. On that occasion, a specific analysis is devoted to the two Stoic principles, due notably to the relevance of the subject in relation to first philosophy. From the diversity of the elements found in the course of our study, we come to the final part, in which we establish the position of the Stoic School on metaphysics.","PeriodicalId":185531,"journal":{"name":"Journal of ancient philosophy","volume":"96 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115697569","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v16i2p253-259
Nélio Gilberto dos Santos
{"title":"Ricardo Salles (ed.), Cosmology and Biology in Ancient Philosophy. From Thales to Avicenna, New York (N.Y.), Cambridge University Press, 2021.","authors":"Nélio Gilberto dos Santos","doi":"10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v16i2p253-259","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v16i2p253-259","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":185531,"journal":{"name":"Journal of ancient philosophy","volume":"105 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127152430","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v16i2p102-125
Tomás Troster
This article examines the very atypical case of epagoge in Prior Analytics II, 23, aiming to situate it in the general framework of Aristotle’s conception of induction and in his epistemology. Besides offering a translation and a detailed commentary of the chapter, I have reassembled some of the main theories that support its character of exception – as if the philosopher were defending the existence of a “complete induction” – and then I close the article by refuting such theories, supported by other texts, such as Topics I, 8, and Posterior Analytics I, 5.
{"title":"Aristóteles, Primeiros Analíticos II, 23: Não Há Indução Completa","authors":"Tomás Troster","doi":"10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v16i2p102-125","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v16i2p102-125","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the very atypical case of epagoge in Prior Analytics II, 23, aiming to situate it in the general framework of Aristotle’s conception of induction and in his epistemology. Besides offering a translation and a detailed commentary of the chapter, I have reassembled some of the main theories that support its character of exception – as if the philosopher were defending the existence of a “complete induction” – and then I close the article by refuting such theories, supported by other texts, such as Topics I, 8, and Posterior Analytics I, 5.","PeriodicalId":185531,"journal":{"name":"Journal of ancient philosophy","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114802411","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v16i2p182-194
Maria Kristina Papanidi
In Ennead III.5 On Love, Plotinus' discussion of erôs is underlined by Plato’s discourse on love in the Symposium and the Phaedrus.[1] Plotinus conceives erôs as a purified power, which directs the soul to the intelligible realm of beauty and the world of the Forms.[2] Modern scholarship considers the Plotinian erôs as an ascending power that is always directed to the higher realm of the Forms and never to the lower perceptible realm. Throughout the Enneads, the soul is described as purely and originally an intelligible entity in all its manifestations and expressions (ex. Ennead IV.8).[3] Plotinus particularly supports a dual aspect theory of the soul, in which the homogenous psychē consists of two interrelated aspects - a higher intelligible part related to Intellect, and a lower perceptible part related to the sensible bodies (Caluori, 2015; Remes, 2007; Stamatellos, 2013; Stern-Gillet, 2009). However, limited attention has been paid to the intelligible aspects of the soul's desire in Plotinus' conception of erôs. In this context, this paper aims to revisit the view that Plotinus completely refuted the desire of the physical bodies, and consequently refuted erôs as a power directed to the lower perceptible realm (Ferwerda, 1965; Friedländer, 1964; Hadot, 1963; Wallis, 1995). It is argued that in light of the soul's intelligibility, desire also has an intelligible aspect when it is directed, along with the power of love, to the earthly realm and thus the true intelligible beauty of the perceptible bodies is recognized. [1] Hereafter, all quotations from Plotinus’ Enneads will solely refer to Armstrong’s (1966-1988) translations. [2] See Bertozzi (2012, 2021); Tatarkiewicz (1980); Wallis (1995); Wiitala (2013), Vasilakis (2021). [3] For Plotinus’ theory of the soul, see his treatises in Ennead IV. Also see Blumenthal (1971) and Caluori (2015).
{"title":"Erôs and Intelligible Desire in Plotinus’ Enneads","authors":"Maria Kristina Papanidi","doi":"10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v16i2p182-194","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v16i2p182-194","url":null,"abstract":"In Ennead III.5 On Love, Plotinus' discussion of erôs is underlined by Plato’s discourse on love in the Symposium and the Phaedrus.[1] Plotinus conceives erôs as a purified power, which directs the soul to the intelligible realm of beauty and the world of the Forms.[2] Modern scholarship considers the Plotinian erôs as an ascending power that is always directed to the higher realm of the Forms and never to the lower perceptible realm. Throughout the Enneads, the soul is described as purely and originally an intelligible entity in all its manifestations and expressions (ex. Ennead IV.8).[3] Plotinus particularly supports a dual aspect theory of the soul, in which the homogenous psychē consists of two interrelated aspects - a higher intelligible part related to Intellect, and a lower perceptible part related to the sensible bodies (Caluori, 2015; Remes, 2007; Stamatellos, 2013; Stern-Gillet, 2009). However, limited attention has been paid to the intelligible aspects of the soul's desire in Plotinus' conception of erôs. In this context, this paper aims to revisit the view that Plotinus completely refuted the desire of the physical bodies, and consequently refuted erôs as a power directed to the lower perceptible realm (Ferwerda, 1965; Friedländer, 1964; Hadot, 1963; Wallis, 1995). It is argued that in light of the soul's intelligibility, desire also has an intelligible aspect when it is directed, along with the power of love, to the earthly realm and thus the true intelligible beauty of the perceptible bodies is recognized. \u0000 \u0000[1] Hereafter, all quotations from Plotinus’ Enneads will solely refer to Armstrong’s (1966-1988) translations. \u0000[2] See Bertozzi (2012, 2021); Tatarkiewicz (1980); Wallis (1995); Wiitala (2013), Vasilakis (2021). \u0000[3] For Plotinus’ theory of the soul, see his treatises in Ennead IV. Also see Blumenthal (1971) and Caluori (2015).","PeriodicalId":185531,"journal":{"name":"Journal of ancient philosophy","volume":"81 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116136180","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v16i2p76-101
L. Menezes
The present work aims at studying the myth of Gyges’ ring from Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s work The Reveries of a solitary Walker. Gyges’ ring is a magic artefact, allowing its bearer to be visible or invisible according to his will. The ring’s myth is portraited for the first time in the Second Book of Plato’s Republic. Thusly, our article is divided in two parts: the first one presents an analysis of the Republic observing its challenge of justice and the relation it holds with the art of ruling; the second part presents an investigation of Rousseau’s work to show how he had absorbed the ring’s myth. The main objective of our work is the comparison between Plato’s and Rousseau’s view of Gyges’ ring, and the investigation of the concept of nature as one of the pillars of the social contract theory. As results we present the way Rousseau answers to the challenge of justice from the concept of justice within the soul, whereas no harm could be done to others. In his reflexion on the ring, Rousseau seems to point at the existence of an interior justice according to its “natural inclination”, opposite to any obligation of the positive law among men. Therefore, one needs to observe that Rousseau is defending justice according to the natural rights holding that any contract established among men should be according to nature. This agrees with our thesis of a possible political ontology based on firstly, the concept of a universal justice, and secondly, on the art of ruling according to justice.
{"title":"O Anel de Gyges nos Devaneios de Rousseau","authors":"L. Menezes","doi":"10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v16i2p76-101","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v16i2p76-101","url":null,"abstract":"The present work aims at studying the myth of Gyges’ ring from Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s work The Reveries of a solitary Walker. Gyges’ ring is a magic artefact, allowing its bearer to be visible or invisible according to his will. The ring’s myth is portraited for the first time in the Second Book of Plato’s Republic. Thusly, our article is divided in two parts: the first one presents an analysis of the Republic observing its challenge of justice and the relation it holds with the art of ruling; the second part presents an investigation of Rousseau’s work to show how he had absorbed the ring’s myth. The main objective of our work is the comparison between Plato’s and Rousseau’s view of Gyges’ ring, and the investigation of the concept of nature as one of the pillars of the social contract theory. As results we present the way Rousseau answers to the challenge of justice from the concept of justice within the soul, whereas no harm could be done to others. In his reflexion on the ring, Rousseau seems to point at the existence of an interior justice according to its “natural inclination”, opposite to any obligation of the positive law among men. Therefore, one needs to observe that Rousseau is defending justice according to the natural rights holding that any contract established among men should be according to nature. This agrees with our thesis of a possible political ontology based on firstly, the concept of a universal justice, and secondly, on the art of ruling according to justice.","PeriodicalId":185531,"journal":{"name":"Journal of ancient philosophy","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124465088","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：