In Metaphysics Theta 3 Aristotle attributes to the Megarics and unknown others a notorious modal thesis: (M) something can φ only if it is φ-ing. Aristotle does not tell us what motivated (M). Almost all scholars take Aristotle’s report to indicate that the Megarics defended (M) as a highly counterintuitive doctrine in modal metaphysics. But this reading faces several problems. First: what would motivate the Megarics to hold such a counterintuitive view? The existing literature tries, in various (...) ways, to motivate (M) in a way neither trivial nor absurd. But, as we will argue, the main approaches end up attributing an unsustainable position to the Megarics. Second: most historical evidence for the Megaric lineage presents the group’s philosophical practice as dialectical or negative. So why think that the claim reported in Theta 3 presents a positive, and highly controversial, metaphysical claim? This paper addresses these problems by proposing a dialectical (or negative) reading of the Megarics in Theta 3. By ‘dialectical’ we here mean a mode of philosophizing that neither seeks to establish the truth or falsity of certain theses, nor takes a skeptical stance. There are different reasons why a philosopher might want to take up such a mode; in the case of the Megarics we argue that they might have wanted to put pressure on Aristotle’s idea of possibility and the ‘test’ for possibility that Aristotle mentions in several works. Reading, as we do, (M) as (part of) a paradox about possibility and actuality, we argue that the Megarics’ dialectical approach here aims to highlight a shortcoming of an intuitive conception of possibility, which underpins Aristotle’s idea of possibility and which features in his test for possibility. (shrink)

I examine two startling claims attributed to some philosophers associated with Megara on the Isthmus of Corinth, namely: Ml. Something possesses a capacity at t if and only if it is exercising that capacity at t. M2. One can speak of a thing only by using its own proper A6yor;. In what follows, I will call the conjunction of Ml and M2 'Megaricism' .1 The lit­ erature on ancient philosophy contains several valuable discussions of Ml and M2 taken individually .2 (...) But there is no discussion of them together, much less of their logical relations. I intend to remedy that lack, and to show why it is a lack worth remedying. My aims are both philosophical and historical. Inevitably, in saying anything new and interesting about Megaric views, I will be adopting assumptions scarcely free from controversy, and indulging in quite a bit of charitable recon­ struction. But the resulting picture is of considerable interest. For it explains why, although Ml and M2 seem to have little to do with one another, it is in fact small wonder that anyone who held one would hold the other, for, as I attempt to show, they entail each other. It explains why the Megarics are associated in the primary literature with the names of such diverse philosophical ancestors as Parmenides and Protagoras. And it explains why, although they are both false, Ml and M2 were claims taken seriously by both Plato and Aristotle, who in developing their own views on modality and language saw reason to mention Megaricism, and to argue against it. (shrink)

La route antique de Mégare à Thèbes par le défilé du Kandili, dont on a contesté à tort l'existence, correspond à un chemin encore très utilisé au xixe siècle, le Koulouriotiko monopati. Description des restes antiques de cette route et des sites antiques situés tout le long. Les témoignages des historiens antiques sur son utilisation.

ABSTRACT: Summary presentation of the surviving logic theories of Philo the Dialectician (aka Philo of Megara) and Diodorus Cronus, including some general remarks on propositional logical elements in their logic, a presentation of their theories of the conditional and a presentation of their modal theories, including a brief suggestion for a solution of the Master Argument.

The aim of this paper is to revisit the problem about the influence of preceding philosophical theories on the Megaric group. Against the traditional view which defend either the influence of Parmenides or that of Socrates, I will try to show the impact of the philosophical position of Zeno of Elea. I will aim to defend that the Megarics use Zenonian antilogy as a part of eristic refutation. In the first section of this paper, I will present and discuss (...) the aforementioned interpretations that privilege either the Parmenidean or the Socratic influence on the Megarics. Then I will analyze the grounds and scope of Zenonian antilogy taking into account all the testimonies which present it as a tool to dicuss theories, rather than to defend them. Finally, I will show how the Megarics use Zenonian antilogy to construct paradoxes based on the numerous ambiguities concerning the signifier and meaning of words, predication, and reasoning, in order to reveal the limits of lógos and refute those who use it as a tool to grasp reality. (shrink)

Diodorus cronus was a megaric logician who was reputed to have derived from uncontroversial premises the surprising conclusion that the possible is that which either is or will be the case. Versions of his lost argument have been reconstructed recently by prior, Hintikka, And rescher. I analyze and compare these versions and argue that none of them forms a sound argument.

RESUMEN En este trabajo nos proponemos analizar la ontología de distintas corrientes socráticas con un enfoque por Zonas de tensión dialógica. Antístenes y los megáricos Euclides y Estilpón despliegan modelos de negatividad que rechazan la afirmación de principios ontológicos capaces de sustentar lo real y su expresión en el lenguaje. Estas propuestas teóricas no solo ofrecen una perspectiva alternativa a la platónico-aristotélica, sino que influyen de manera decisiva, por medio de la interacción e influencia recíproca, en la construcción de las (...) variantes afirmativas de la época clásica. De este modo, la inclusión de las líneas socráticas permite poner en cuestión el diagnóstico heideggeriano que ve en la filosofía griega la sede del paradigma de la "metafísica de la presencia". La recuperación de las filosofías socráticas, habitualmente invisibilizadas bajo las figuras de Platón y Jenofonte, ofrece una oportunidad para redimensionar la Antigüedad clásica en función de propuestas ontológicas divergentes. ABSTRACT In this article we intend to analyze the ontology of different Socratic lines of thought, through an approach of Zones of dialogic tension. Antisthenes and the megarics Euclid and Stilpo develop ontologically negative conceptions that reject the affirmation of ontological principles capable of sustaining reality and its linguistic expression. This theoretical stance not only offers an alternative to the platonic-aristotelic approach towards ontology, but affects, by means of interaction and reciprocal influence, the constitution of those affirmative variants in classical Greek thought. Thereby, the inclusion of Socratic lines of thought allows us to question the heideggerian diagnosis of ancient Greek philosophy, inscribed solely in the paradigm of "metaphysics of presence". The recovery of the Socratic philosophers, usually obscured by the figures of Plato and Xenophon, offers an opportunity to redimension the period of classical antiquity through the study of its diverse ontological conceptions. (shrink)

— XII : Les deux routes principales de Mégaride — de l'Attique à la Corinthie via les monts Céraniens et du golfe de Gorinthe au Saronique — se prolongent sans discontinuité à travers la ville de Mégare. Leur section urbaine qui apparaît dans la description de Pausanias constitue aujourd'hui encore avec les deux acropoles le cadre organisateur de Mégare. — XIII : Découvertes anciennes et récentes relatives à des sanctuaires mentionnés dans la Périégèse. — XIV : Topographie reconstituée de Mégare.

Ancient dialectic started as an art of refutation and evolved into a science akin to our logic, grammar and linguistics. Scholars of ancient philosophy have traditionally focused on Plato's and Aristotle's dialectic without paying much attention to the diverse conceptions and uses of dialectic presented by philosophers after the classical period. To bridge this gap, this volume aims at a comprehensive understanding of the competing Hellenistic and Imperial definitions of dialectic and their connections with those of the classical period. It (...) starts from the Megaric school of the fourth century BCE and the early Peripatetics, via Epicurus, the Stoics, the Academic sceptics and Cicero, to Sextus Empiricus and Galen in the second century CE. The philosophical foundations and various uses of dialectic are closely analysed and systematically examined together with the numerous objections that were raised against them. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Minor Socratics* PHILIP MERLAN OF MEN MORE OR LESS DECISIVELY influenced by Socrates, three--Antisthenes (c. 455-360), Aristippus of Cyrene (c. 435-356), and Eucleides of Megara (c. 450380 )--became founders of schools (or sects) often referred to as "minor Socratic schools." These schools are the Cynic, the Cyrenaic, and the Megaric, respectively. The names of the last two are self-explanatory. That of the first sounds somewhat like "dog (kytn)-like." By (...) some it is assumed to have been derived from the meeting place of Antisthenes with his followers, the gymnasium of Kynosarges; x others believe it to be contemptuously indicative of the dog-like life of the members of the sect (shamelessness, begging, barking, biting). 2 In this sense it was proudly and defiantly accepted by the members themselves, a What we know of the ethical teachings of the Megaric school amounts to hardly more than one sentence, in which the Good seems to have been identified with the One. 4 All we can say of this formula is that it, in some way, links the * Size (very limited), scope (ethical doctrines only), manner of presentation (for the general reader and rather dogmatic), etc., of this article were determined by the character of the Encyclopedia of Morals, in which it originally appeared. The present footnotes try to make up for some of the shortcomings unavoidable in this kind of article. [The Journal is grateful to Philosophical Library, Inc. for permission to reprint this article. The footnotes were subsequently added by Professor Merlan and appear here for the first time.] As the only collection of fragments of Cynics (Antisthenes, Diogenes, Crates, Monimus, Demonax, Oenomaus, Teles, Bion) is that contained in F. W. A. Mullach, Fragmenta philosophorum graecorum (Paris: 1865), vol. II, pp. 274-429, which is hard to obtain (the collection of fragments by A. W. Winekelmann, Antisthenis fragmenta [1842] even harder), I shall quote them directly from the sources. There was no need to do so with the Cyrenaics, as we have two recent collections of their fragments: G. Giannantoni, 1 Cirenaici (Florence, n.d.: [1958])--they will be quoted as G--and E. Mannebach, Aristippi et Cyrenaicorum fragmenta (K~51n-Leiden: 1961), which will be quoted as Ma. A generous selection of fragments of Megarians, Cynics and Cyrenaics in German translation with introduction and notes is contained in W. Nestle, Die Sokratiker (Jena: 1922), pp. 79-177. Our knowledge of Antisthenes would considerably be enriched if we could follow H. Kesters, who, in a number of publications (one of them: Plaidoyer d'un Socratique... [Louvain: 1959]) ascribes Themistius, Or. XXVI to Antisthenes. However, the ascription is doubtful. i I.e., Whitehound: D.L. VI 13. Elias, In Cat. (CAG XVIII/I, Berlin: 1908), p. Ill, 2-29. Busse has a fourfold explanation of the name, all connected with the word Kt~v. Cf. K. v. Fritz, Quellenuntersuchungen zu Leben und Philosophie des Diogenes von Sinope (Leipzig: 1926), pp. 47-49. D.L. VI 60. 55; Stob. vol. III, p. 462, 16 W.-H. Quotations from Stobaeus refer to: K. Wachsmuth, O. Hense, loannis Stobaei Anthologium, 5 vol. (Berlin: 1884-1902); they are by volume, page, and line of this edition. 4 Eus. PE XIV 17, 1; D.L. II 106 (~v x6 dtTu06v). [143] 144 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY Megarians to the Eleatic school 5 but also to some aspects of Plato's Philebus and his Laws, and also to the Epinomis, and, above all, to his lecture or course of lectures "The Good," the conclusion of which was that it is the One which is the Good. 6 And though we know that many Megarians were engaged in political activities,7 we do not know in what way, if any, that highly abstract ethical doctrine was linked to practice. It is entirely different with the other two schools, in which ethical theory is immediately applied to life and theoretical aspects of philosophy are often neglected or even absent. However, there is some doubt as to whether Antisthenes can actually be considered the fountainhead of Cynicism. He seems to have undergone the influence of Socrates late in his life, when he had already been active as a... (shrink)

Durante el siglo IV a. C. los intelectuales griegos discutieron sobre los alcances y características de la labor filosófica, en un intento por delimitar esta práctica distinguiéndola de otras. En este artículo me centraré en el retrato del sofista como contracara del filósofo. Analizaré específicamente la respuesta platónica al ataque que Isócrates dirige contra todos los discípulos de Sócrates en Contra los sofistas y Encomio de Helena. Defenderé que la estrategia de Platón para eludir dicha crítica consistió en construir en (...) el Eutidemo y la quinta definición del Sofista un personaje que reúne los rasgos más censurados por Isócrates: el sofista erístico. Argumentaré que esta figura no remite a los sofistas del siglo V a. C., sino que tras ella se encuentran ocultos los representantes del grupo megárico, a quienes Platón habría colocado como los principales merecedores de la embestida isocrática. During the fourth century BC, Greek thinkers discussed about the limits and characteristics of philosophy in order to distinguish it from other practices. In this paper, I will focus on the portrait of sophists as diametrically opposed to philosophers. Specifically, I will discuss the platonic answer to the charge that Isocrates directed against all Socrates’ disciples in the treatises Against the Sophists and Encomium of Helen. I will defend that Plato’s strategy to avoid his critics was to develop, in the Euthydemus and the fifth definition of the Sophist, a character that combines the most significant attributes censured by Isocrates: the eristic sophist. I will argue that this figure does not refer to the Sophists of the fifth century BC., but to the Megaric group. They would have been those who, according to Plato, really deserved the Isocratic attack. (shrink)

Les témoignages archéologiques, épigraphiques et littéraires concordent sur ce point : contrairement aux étages, les structures souterraines sont très rares dans l'habitat antique. À Délos, ce sont d'ailleurs des demi sous-sols, qui profitent d'un terrain en pente. On connaît davantage de véritables sous-sols ou caves à Mégare, Olbia Pontique et Rhodes, pour diverses raisons qui sont examinées ici. Ces sous-sols servent de magasins, pour du vin ou d'autres denrées.

— X : L'identification des ruines de Sta Marmara, au S-O de Mégare, avec le sanctuaire de Zeus Aphésios (Pausanias, I, 44, 9) a été remise en question récemment. Mais les hypothèses proposées, — garnison ou Asclépieion —, posent des problèmes de topographie et d'interprétation des ruines. L'état classique du sanctuaire peut être reconstitué à partir des éléments contenus dans la publication de la fouille. — XI : La ruine hellénique signalée au siècle dernier dans la baie de Psatha, au (...) fond du golfe de Corinthe, est en fait celle d'une tour quadrangulaire, contemporaine des tours les plus anciennes de la région des Vathychoria. Il s'agit des seuls vestiges d'époque classique connus dans cette baie, identifiée avec l'antique Panormos, l'échelle d'Eréneia. (shrink)

— VIII : La mention de la komè d'Eréneia (Pausanias, I, 44, 5) contient quelques indications implicites qui invitent à placer ce village dans le Nord-Ouest de la Mégaride, dans la région des deux Vathychoria. Ces poljés très fertiles ont attiré une population agricole répartie dans un habitat semi-dispersé, à l'abri de tours placées le long de la route Mégare- Thèbes ; les vestiges attestent une occupation depuis le Ve s. av. J.-C. jusqu'à l'époque impériale tardive. — IX : La (...) « falaise des Perses », haut-lieu mégarien (Pausanias, I, 44, 4), est à situer sur le territoire de Pagai, près d'Alepochori, et non celui de Tripodiskos, comme on le faisait traditionnellement, contre toute vraisemblance -historique et géographique. (shrink)

Face aux tentatives des logiciens de démontrer la validité ou l'invalidité du Maître-argument de Diodore Kronos en s'empressant de déclarer un gagnant à l'argumentaire opposant le philosophe de Mégare à Aristote, nous esquissons par ce présent article une analyse globale du dogme diodoréen qui considère l'ensemble des témoignages antiques répertoriés sur sa pensée, permettant de dresser un portait cohérent d'une pensée positive qui le plus souvent n'est considérée que de façon éristique. Cette approche permet de mettre en lumière les assises (...) dogmatiques du Maître-argument, notamment en relation avec les arguments sur les corps sans parties ; si le monde physique est composé d'ultimes corps indivisibles et sans parties, ces unités ne peuvent être dans le même lieu et dans un autre lieu au même instant, alors « rien ne se meut » . Si Diodore reprend la thèse éléatique de l'impossibilité d'appréhender logiquement le mouvement, il renouvèle toutefois la tradition mégarique en affirmant l'existence du mouvement achevé, car l'on constate bien qu'un corps est passé d'un lieu à l'autre, et donc qu'il s'est mû! Or nous démontrons que l'affirmation singulière d'un mouvement exclusivement conjugué au passé, et donc jamais soumis au devenir, a vraisemblablement des origines aristotéliciennes. En effet, Diodore semble soumettre certains développements de La Physique à une analyse strictement logique en fondant sa conception du temps dans son unité , là où Aristote privilégiait l'analyse empirique dans une conception continue du temps et du mouvement. C'est donc à partir de cette divergence fondamentale d'approche épistémologique qu'il faut comprendre le débat sur le possible. En définissant le mouvement comme « l'acte de l'étant en puissance » , Aristote pense le possible à partir des possibilités ontiques de la substance , tandis que Diodore, en identifiant le possible à l'acte, évite le danger de spéculer sur des possibles qui ne se réalisent pas et ainsi de confondre être et non-être; or en distinguant le possible et le nécessaire, il dément la tradition qui lui attribuait un simple nécessitarisme et renouvèle véritablement l'ontologie éléate. À partir de développements préliminaires de Robert Muller, ce présent article démontre ainsi la pertinence d'interpréter la pensée diodoréenne comme une ontologie du dévoilement rendue possible par une critique et une appropriation mégarique de la pensée aristotélicienne. (shrink)

ABSTRACT: Discussion (in German) of Robert Muller's "Les Megariques, Fragments et temoignages". Traduit et commentes. Paris, Vrin 1985, with focus on his commentary on ancient paradoxes.

The noctes Atticae of Aulus Gellius contain almost all the ancient paradoxes. Nevertheless, in comparison with his philosophical sources, the author shows a shift in the perspective of his approach. He analyses the `master argument' of Diodorus Chronus only from an ethical point of view and, among the seven paradoxes attributed to Eubulides of Milet, he quotes the `heap' as an absurdity (absurdum), the `horned one' and the `not-someone' as a trap (captio), the `liar' as a sophism (sophisma). Following the (...) advice of Cynics, Gellius mistrusts deceptive manoeuvres, which highlight gaps in binary logic. At the same time, however, he is interested in argumentative structures, which lead one of two opponents on to victory. The extensive report of the quarrel between Protagoras and Evathlus, and many observations of Gellius on convertible forms of reasoning in literary texts fall within this rhetorical field. (shrink)