伊壁鸠鲁的观点epibolê

V. Tsouna
{"title":"伊壁鸠鲁的观点epibolê","authors":"V. Tsouna","doi":"10.1515/rhiz-2021-0011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The surviving writings of Epicurus and his followers contain several references to epibolê – a puzzling notion that does not receive discussion in the extant Epicurean texts. There is no consensus about what epibolê is, what it is of, and what it operates on and, moreover, its epistemological status is controversial. This article aims to address these issues in both Epicurus and later Epicurean authors. Part One focuses mainly on Epicurus’ Letter to Herodotus, highlights a crucial distinction hitherto unnoticed in the literature between two different types of epibolê, and brings out he necessary connection between epibolê and the application of the criteria of truth. Part Two considers the philosophical merits of the traditional interpretation of epibolê as projection and/or attention. Part Three examines the two aforementioned types of epibolê in Lucretius and Philodemus and shows that these authors accord epibolê paramount epistemological and ethical importance.","PeriodicalId":40571,"journal":{"name":"Rhizomata-A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science","volume":"42 3","pages":"179 - 201"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Epicurean Notion of epibolê\",\"authors\":\"V. Tsouna\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/rhiz-2021-0011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The surviving writings of Epicurus and his followers contain several references to epibolê – a puzzling notion that does not receive discussion in the extant Epicurean texts. There is no consensus about what epibolê is, what it is of, and what it operates on and, moreover, its epistemological status is controversial. This article aims to address these issues in both Epicurus and later Epicurean authors. Part One focuses mainly on Epicurus’ Letter to Herodotus, highlights a crucial distinction hitherto unnoticed in the literature between two different types of epibolê, and brings out he necessary connection between epibolê and the application of the criteria of truth. Part Two considers the philosophical merits of the traditional interpretation of epibolê as projection and/or attention. Part Three examines the two aforementioned types of epibolê in Lucretius and Philodemus and shows that these authors accord epibolê paramount epistemological and ethical importance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40571,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rhizomata-A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science\",\"volume\":\"42 3\",\"pages\":\"179 - 201\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rhizomata-A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/rhiz-2021-0011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rhizomata-A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/rhiz-2021-0011","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

摘要

现存的伊壁鸠鲁及其追随者的著作中有几处提到epibolê——这是一个令人困惑的概念,在现存的伊壁鸠鲁文本中没有得到讨论。关于epibolê是什么,它是什么,它的作用是什么,没有共识,而且,它的认识论地位是有争议的。本文旨在解决伊壁鸠鲁和后来的伊壁鸠鲁学派作家的这些问题。第一部分主要关注伊壁鸠鲁给希罗多德的信,强调两种不同类型epibolê之间迄今未被注意到的关键区别,并提出epibolê与真理标准应用之间的必要联系。第二部分考虑了epibolê作为投射和/或关注的传统解释的哲学优点。第三部分考察了卢克莱修和菲洛德摩斯的上述两种epibolê类型,并表明这些作者认为epibolê在认知论和伦理学上具有最高的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Epicurean Notion of epibolê
Abstract The surviving writings of Epicurus and his followers contain several references to epibolê – a puzzling notion that does not receive discussion in the extant Epicurean texts. There is no consensus about what epibolê is, what it is of, and what it operates on and, moreover, its epistemological status is controversial. This article aims to address these issues in both Epicurus and later Epicurean authors. Part One focuses mainly on Epicurus’ Letter to Herodotus, highlights a crucial distinction hitherto unnoticed in the literature between two different types of epibolê, and brings out he necessary connection between epibolê and the application of the criteria of truth. Part Two considers the philosophical merits of the traditional interpretation of epibolê as projection and/or attention. Part Three examines the two aforementioned types of epibolê in Lucretius and Philodemus and shows that these authors accord epibolê paramount epistemological and ethical importance.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊最新文献
Between Poetry, Philosophy and Medicine: Body, Soul and Dreams in Pindar, Heraclitus and the Hippocratic On Regimen. Heraclitus on the Question of a Common Measure From Zeno ad infinitum: Iterative Reasonings in Early Greek Philosophy Reconsidering the Essential Nature and Indestructibility of the Soul in the Affinity Argument of the Phaedo Aristotle as an Astronomer? Sosigenes’ Account of Metaphysics Λ.8
×
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