Graduate studies at Western
Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 16 (2):175-206 (2006)
|Abstract||In the first part of chapter 2 of book II of the Physics Aristotle addresses the issue of the difference between mathematics and physics. In the course of his discussion he says some things about astronomy and the ‘ ‘ more physical branches of mathematics”. In this paper I discuss historical issues concerning the text, translation, and interpretation of the passage, focusing on two cruxes, ( I ) the first reference to astronomy at 193b25–26 and ( II ) the reference to the more physical branches at 194a7–8. In section I, I criticize Ross’s interpretation of the passage and point out that his alteration of ( I ) has no warrant in the Greek manuscripts. In the next three sections I treat three other interpretations, all of which depart from Ross's: in section II that of Simplicius, which I commend; in section III that of Thomas Aquinas, which is importantly influenced by a mistranslation of ( II ), and in section IV that of Ibn Rushd, which is based on an Arabic text corresponding to that printed by Ross. In the concluding section of the paper I describe the modern history of the Greek text of our passage and translations of it from the early twelfth century until the appearance of Ross's text in 1936. (Published Online August 10 2006) Footnotes1 This paper was prepared as the basis of a presentation at a conference entitled “Writing and rewriting the history of science, 1900–2000,” Les Treilles, France, September, 2003, organized by Karine Chemla and Roshdi Rashed. I have compared Aristotle's and Ptolemy's views of the relationship between astronomy and physics in a paper called “Astrologogeômetria and astrophysikê in Aristotle and Ptolemy,” presented at a conference entitled “Physics and mathematics in Antiquity,” Leiden, The Netherlands, June, 2004, organized by Keimpe Algra and Frans de Haas. For a discussion of Hellenistic views of this relationship see Ian Mueller, “Remarks on physics and mathematical astronomy and optics in Epicurus, Sextus Empiricus, and some Stoics,” in Philippa Lang (ed.), Re-inventions: Essays on Hellenistic and Early Roman Science, Apeiron 37, 4 (2004): 57–87. I would like to thank two anonymous readers of this essay for meticulous corrections and thoughtful suggestions, almost all of which I readily adopted.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Barry Smith (1992). Zum Wesen des Common sense: Aristoteles und die naive Physik. Zeitschrift für Philosophische Forschung 46 (4):508 - 525.
Frans A. J. de Haas & Jaap Mansfeld (eds.) (2004). Aristotle on Generation and Corruption, Book 1: Symposium Aristotelicum. Clarendon.
F. Mallamace & H. Eugene Stanley (eds.) (2004). The Physics of Complex Systems: New Advances and Perspectives. Ios Press.
Aristotle (1999). Aristotle: Physics, Book VIII. Clarendon Press.
Alan C. Bowen (2007). The Demarcation of Physical Theory and Astronomy by Geminus and Ptolemy. Perspectives on Science 15 (3):327-358.
Stojan Obradović & Slobodan Ninković (2009). The Heuristic Function of Mathematics in Physics and Astronomy. Foundations of Science 14 (4):351-360.
Hugh Tredennick (1936). Aristotle's Physics W. D. Ross: Aristotle's Physics. A Revised Text with Introduction and Commentary. Pp. Xii + 750. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936. Cloth, 36s. [REVIEW] The Classical Review 50 (04):126-127.
J. L. Heilbron (ed.) (2005). The Oxford Guide to the History of Physics and Astronomy. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads18 ( #74,554 of 737,467 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,044 of 737,467 )
How can I increase my downloads?