David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Perspectives on Science 10 (2):155-167 (2002)
: In earlier work, Bernard R. Goldstein and the present author have introduced a procedural rule for historical inquiry, which requires that one take pains to establish the credibility of any citation of ancient thought by later writers in antiquity through a process of verification. In this paper, I shall apply what I call the Rule of Ancient Citations to Simplicius' interpretation of Aristotle's remarks in Meta L. 8, which is the primary point of departure for the modern understanding of Greek planetary theory. I first sketch several lines of argument that lead me to conclude that Simplicius' interpretation should not be accepted because it assumes a concern with planetary phenomena unknown to the Greeks before the late 2nd and early 1st centuries BC. Then, after showing that there is a fairly well defined range of readings of Aristotle's remarks more in keeping with what we actually know of astronomy in the 5th and 4th centuries BC, I conclude that neither Aristotle's report about the Eudoxan and Callippan accounts of the celestial motions nor Simplicius' interpretation of this report is a good starting point for our understanding of early Greek planetary theory
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Alan C. Bowen (2007). The Demarcation of Physical Theory and Astronomy by Geminus and Ptolemy. Perspectives on Science 15 (3):327-358.
Christián Carlos Carman (2015). The Planetary Increase of Brightness During Retrograde Motion: An Explanandum Constructed Ad Explanantem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 54:90-101.
Similar books and articles
H. J. Blumenthal (1982). The Psychology of (?) Simplicius' Commentary on the de Anima. In H. J. Blumenthal & A. C. Lloyd (eds.), Soul and the Structure of Being in Late Neoplatonism: Syrianus, Proclus, and Simplicius: Papers and Discussions of a Colloquium Held at Liverpool, 15-16 April 1982. Liverpool University Press
Ian Mueller (2006). Physics and Astronomy: Aristotle's Physics II.2.193b22–194a12. Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 16 (2):175-206.
Zeev Perelmuter (2010). Nous and Two Kinds of Episteme in Aristotle's Posterior Analytics. Phronesis 55 (3):228-254.
Stephen Menn (2010). Simplicius on the Theaetetus (In Physica 17,38-18,23 Diels). Phronesis 55 (3):255-270.
Gaskin (1998). Simplicius on the Meaning of Sentences: A Commentary on In Cat. 396,30-397,28. Phronesis 43 (1):42-62.
R. Gaskin (1998). Simplicius on the Meaning of Sentences: A Commentary on "In Cat." 396,30-397,28. Phronesis 43 (1):42 - 62.
L. S. B. MacCoull (1998). The Anaximander Saying in its Sixth-Century (C. E.) Context. Philosophy and Theology 11 (1):85-96.
Rachel Barney (2009). Simplicius: Commentary, Harmony, and Authority. Antiquorum Philosophia 3:101-120.
Marc-Antoine Gavray (2011). Archytas Lu Par Simplicius. Un Art de la Conciliation. International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 5 (1):85-158.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads16 ( #215,183 of 1,790,219 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #320,604 of 1,790,219 )
How can I increase my downloads?