IN 1983 THE STUTTGART PUBLISHING FIRM OF PHILIPP RECLAM brought out a slim volume containing an introduction and seven essays by Robert Spaemann, then Professor of Philosophy at the University of Munich. Entitled Philosophische Essays, it presents and illustrates Spaemann’s philosophical project: to understand the phenomenon of modernity, to criticize the deficiencies of modern thought, and to preserve what is good in modernity by rehabilitating the teleological understanding of nature that modernity largely rejected. A second edition in 1994 included three (...) more essays. As little of Spaemann’s work has yet appeared in English, the aim of this paper is modest: to present as clearly and accurately as possible his position in the Philosophische Essays. (shrink)

This is a learned and informative study in ancient philosophy of mind and in ancient ethics and religious practice. It consists of two parts. Chapters 1-8 are a study in ancient philosophy of mind, and in particular in ancient views about the mental or psychological capacities of animals. Sorabji begins with the claims of Aristotle and the Stoics that animals do not have reason or belief. This denial of reason and belief to animals led Aristotle and the Stoics to reexamine (...) such psychological capacities as perception, perceptual appearance, belief, concept-possession, memory, intention, preparation, anger and other emotions, and speech. Sorabji also shows how Pythagoreans, Platonists, and some of Aristotle’s successors, such as Theophrastus, contested the Aristotelian and Stoic denial of reason to animals. Aristotle’s interests in these matters were mainly scientific, but for the Stoics and for their opponents the question about animal rationality raised religious and ethical issues, which Sorabji explores in chapters 9-15. He surveys Stoic, Epicurean, Neoplatonist, and Christian discussions of the treatment of animals, and in particular of the eating of meat and of animal sacrifice. He finds that the moral status of animals and their claims on humans were the matter of a serious and extended debate in pagan philosophy, a debate that has been largely overlooked ever since Western Christianity accepted the Stoic denial of reason to animals and its supposed consequence, the denial that animals have any claims on humans. Sorabji finds the Aristotelian and Stoic arguments against animal rationality less than persuasive, but his more substantive philosophical contention is that even if these arguments worked they would not be relevant to the moral issue of how humans should treat animals; what is relevant is that animals can feel pain. (shrink)

These commentaries will obviously be of interest to students of Aquinas. They should also be of interest to students of Aristotle, but with one caveat. The translators have had the delicate task of rendering into English not Aristotle’s Greek but the Latin translation of it on which Aquinas is commenting. As the Latin translates Aristotle on something close to a word-for-word basis, so the translators have translated the Latin version of Aristotle into English almost word-for-word. Further, as Macierowski explains, they (...) have taken care to preserve the opacity of terms that Aquinas explains in his commentary; to have clarified these opaque terms in the initial translation of Aristotle’s text would have made Aquinas’s later clarifications nugatory. The rationale is clear and the policy defensible, but the resulting translation of Aristotle can be rough going, for example, “for it is not just from a distance, and not close up, that one of the mixed colors appears, but from anywhere” ; “Therefore they seek in this way, and, not seeking, they still recollect in this way, when that motion comes into being after the other one; but it used to come about when the other motions such as we have. (shrink)

Arthur Madigan presents a clear, accurate new translation of the third book of Aristotle's Metaphysics, together with two related chapters from the eleventh book. Madigan's accompanying introduction and commentary give detailed guidance to these texts, in which Aristotle sets out the main questions of metaphysics and assesses the main answers to them, and which serve as a useful introduction not just to Aristotle's own work on metaphysics but to classical metaphysics in general.

Arthur Madigan presents a clear, accurate new translation of the third book (Beta) of Aristotle's Metaphysics, together with two related chapters from the eleventh book (Kappa). Madigan's accompanying introduction and commentary give detailed guidance to these texts, in which Aristotle setsout what he takes to be the main problems of metaphysics or 'first philosophy' and assesses possible solutions to them; he takes his starting-point from the work of earlier philosophers, especially Plato and some of the Presocratics. These (...) texts serve as a useful introduction both to Aristotle's ownwork on metaphysics and to classical metaphysics in general; they are also a good example of Aristotle's dialectical method, which reasons not from known truths but from reputable opinions. (shrink)

Arthur Madigan presents a clear, accurate new translation of the third book of Aristotle's Metaphysics, together with two related chapters from the eleventh book. Madigan's accompanying introduction and commentary give detailed guidance to these texts, in which Aristotle sets out the main questions of metaphysics and assesses the main answers to them, and which serve as a useful introduction not just to Aristotle's own work on metaphysics but to classical metaphysics in general.

Arthur Madigan presents a clear, accurate new translation of the third book of Aristotle's Metaphysics, together with two related chapters from the eleventh book. Madigan's accompanying introduction and commentary give detailed guidance to these texts, in which Aristotle sets out what he takes to be the main problems of metaphysics or 'first philosophy' and assesses possible solutions to them; he takes his starting-point from the work of earlier philosophers, especially Plato and some of the Presocratics. These texts (...) serve as a useful introduction both to Aristotle's own work on metaphysics and to classical metaphysics in general; they are also a good example of Aristotle's dialectical method, which reasons not from known truths but from reputable opinions. (shrink)

This commentary welcomes Prof. Vasiliou’s adoption of an “objects first” method for the analysis of nous in Aristotle as well as his suggestion that there are three distinct levels of nous for the essences of material things, mathematical things, and immaterial things. It queries his claim that nous is not to be understood as a faculty, citing texts in which Aristotle uses “that by which” language to describe nous. It suggests that ordinary human beings have what may be called a (...) functional grasp of essences, and that, while some of Aristotle’s uses of nous and noein may be highly technical, his aim in De Anima III 4 is to explain an operation that is widely shared among human beings. The commentary concludes by expressing the wish that Prof. Vasiliou had said more about the case in which nous is its own object. (shrink)