This book promotes the research of present-day women working in ancient and medieval philosophy, with more than 60 women having contributed in some way to the volume in a fruitful collaboration. It contains 22 papers organized into ten distinct parts spanning the sixth century BCE to the fifteenth century CE. Each part has the same structure: it features, first, a paper which sets up the discussion, and then, one or two responses that open new perspectives and engage in further reflections. (...) Our authors’ contributions address pivotal moments and players in the history of philosophy: women philosophers in antiquity, Cleobulina of Rhodes, Plato, Lucretius, Bardaisan of Edessa, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Plotinus, Porphyry, Peter Abelard, Robert Kilwardby, William Ockham, John Buridan, and Isotta Nogarola. The result is a thought-provoking collection of papers that will be of interest to historians of philosophy from all horizons. Far from being an isolated effort, this book is a contribution to the ever-growing number of initiatives which endeavour to showcase the work of women in philosophy. (shrink)

Essays on Aristotle's Sea-Battle, Lazy Argument, Argument Reaper, Diodorus' Master Argument -/- The book is devoted to the ancient logical theories, reconstruction of their semantic proprieties and possibilities of their interpretation by modern logical tools. The Ancient arguments are frequently misunderstood in modern interpretations since authors usually have tendency to ignore their historical proprieties and theoretical background what usually leads to a quite inappropriate picture of the argument’s original form and mission. Author’s primary intention was to draw attention to the (...) complexity of some historical arguments and to the theoretical context in which arguments were created, circulated, developed, and finally tuned. Four well-known ancient arguments – with a common central subject related to the future contingencies problem – are reconstructed from available historical sources: “The Sea Battle”, which is drawn from Aristotle’s treatise De Interpretatione; two arguments, usually ascribed to the Stoics, “The Lazy Argument” and “The Reaper”; “The Master Argument” of the Megarian philosopher Diodorus. Arguments are linguistically and semantically detaily analyzed, formally presented by reflecting some relevant corresponding hypotheses based on physical or logical theories of their ancient authors, and finally covered by appropriate logical tools familiar to a modern reader. Two appendices are added at the closing part of the book. One covering some assumptions relevant for understanding of rival streams in ancient theories of meaning related to the nature of names and naming; the other is devoted to the ancient understanding of logical proposition and attempts to find an adequate Latin translation of the Greek delicate philosophical term “ἀξίωμα”. (shrink)

As was first pointed out by Gercke, there are close parallels, which clearly suggest a common source, between Apuleius,de Platone1.12, the treatiseOn Fatefalsely attributed to Plutarch, Calcidius'excursuson fate in his commentary on Plato'sTimaeus, and certain sections of the treatisede Natura hominisby Nemesius. Gercke traced the doctrines common to these works to the school of Gaius; recently however Dillon has pointed out that, while Albinus shares with these works the characteristic Middle-Platonic notion of fate as conditional or hypothetical – our actions (...) are free, but once we have acted the consequences of our actions are fated and inevitable – he doesnotshare certain other common features, such as the identification of fate as substance with the world-soul and the hierarchy of three providences. (shrink)

As was first pointed out by Gercke, there are close parallels, which clearly suggest a common source, between Apuleius, de Platone 1.12, the treatise On Fate falsely attributed to Plutarch, Calcidius' excursus on fate in his commentary on Plato's Timaeus, and certain sections of the treatise de Natura hominis by Nemesius. Gercke traced the doctrines common to these works to the school of Gaius; recently however Dillon has pointed out that, while Albinus shares with these works the characteristic Middle-Platonic notion (...) of fate as conditional or hypothetical – our actions are free, but once we have acted the consequences of our actions are fated and inevitable – he does not share certain other common features, such as the identification of fate as substance with the world-soul and the hierarchy of three providences. (shrink)

Carlo Natali se ocupa de examinar las bases y detalles del debate de Alejandro con los deterministas, así como sus razones para mostrar el papel decisivo de la deliberación en la explicación de la acción. El punto de partida de Alejandro es el capítulo 9 del De interpretatione, texto que indica de una manera bastante clara que Aristóteles visualizó las consecuencias, absurdas en su opinión, del determinismo. En su discusión Natali examina la influencia de los argumentos de Alejandro en el (...) comentario de Boecio al De interpretatione; un aspecto particularmente destacable del ensayo de Natali es que éste muestra que Alejandro –y Aspacio antes de él–, aun dando por supuesta la relevancia decisiva de la deliberación en la explicación de la acción, modifica en parte la teoría aristotélica de la deliberación, ya que trata de adaptarla a la nueva situación cultural y al nuevo debate filosófico de su tiempo. Natali hace notar que la aparente incorporación por parte de Alejandro de terminología y nociones estoicas (como la de asentimiento) es parte de una inteligente estrategia para combatir a los deterministas estoicos en su propio terreno: lo decisivo es la deliberación como ingrediente central en la explicación de la acción, así como el hecho de poder elegir una cosa o algo distinto de ella (De fato 178, 22), si eso parece preferible. (shrink)

Carlo Natali se ocupa de examinar las bases y detalles del debate de Alejandro con los deterministas, así como sus razones para mostrar el papel decisivo de la deliberación en la explicación de la acción. El punto de partida de Alejandro es el capítulo 9 del De interpretatione, texto que indica de una manera bastante clara que Aristóteles visualizó las consecuencias, absurdas en su opinión, del determinismo. En su discusión Natali examina la influencia de los argumentos de Alejandro en el (...) comentario de Boecio al De interpretatione; un aspecto particularmente destacable del ensayo de Natali es que éste muestra que Alejandro –y Aspacio antes de él–, aun dando por supuesta la relevancia decisiva de la deliberación en la explicación de la acción, modifica en parte la teoría aristotélica de la deliberación, ya que trata de adaptarla a la nueva situación cultural y al nuevo debate filosófico de su tiempo. Natali hace notar que la aparente incorporación por parte de Alejandro de terminología y nociones estoicas (como la de asentimiento) es parte de una inteligente estrategia para combatir a los deterministas estoicos en su propio terreno: lo decisivo es la deliberación como ingrediente central en la explicación de la acción, así como el hecho de poder elegir una cosa o algo distinto de ella (De fato 178, 22), si eso parece preferible. (shrink)

The existence of common points between Alexander of Aphrodise and Bardaisan the Syrian has been pointed out on various occasions. However, this question has not been explored in depth. The article proposes to analyse the cosmological ideas of Alexander and Bardaisan. Because both authors are known for their anti-determinist and anti-astrological polemics, it is preferable to place this comparison in the context of the astrological interpretation of Aristotle’s natural philosophy. The article discusses the Aristotelianism of Bardaisan, who may be the (...) first representative of the reception of this doctrine in Syriac. (shrink)

Journal Name: Apeiron Issue: Ahead of print.

I examine Alexander of Aphrodisias’ theory of action, addressing the question how his view that human actions are determined by reason accounts for the capacity of doing otherwise. Calling into question the standard view that Alexander frees agents from internal determination, I argue that (1) the capacity of doing otherwise is a consequence of determination by reason, since it enables agents to do something different from what they would have done had they followed external circumstances; and (2) this capacity is (...) compatible with causal determination by reason because as a case of potentiality for opposites, it grants agents the qualified possibility of doing otherwise insofar as their nature as human beings is concerned – a possibility which remains also when their actions are causally determined by reason and by their internal disposition. I show further that these elements of Alexander’s theory of action are ultimately based on his conception of the soul, specifically on his commitment to Aristotle’s view that the human soul is not purely rational, as the Stoics hold, but has nonrational and rational parts. (shrink)

ABSTRACTIn the context of the well-established importance of Nietzsche’s engagement with Stoic thought for his work as a whole, this article seeks to make two claims. First, that the Mausoleum refe...

In discussing the atomists' theory of vision modern accounts have quite neglected to take into account two sections of Alexander of Aphrodisias on this topic. Nearly identical in length and content, they contain objections to the atomist theory of vision by means of the . In form they consist of a series of questions purporting to contain atomist doctrine. Each question is followed by objections to its subject-matter. Most of the questions contain doctrine known to us already from other sources.

At the heart of the Stoic theory of modality is a strict commitment to bivalence, even for future contingents. A commitment to both future truth and contingency has often been thought paradoxical. This paper argues that the Stoic retreat from necessity is successful. it maintains that the Stoics recognized three distinct senses of necessity and possibility: logical, metaphysical and providential. Logical necessity consists of truths that are knowable a priori. Metaphysical necessity consists of truths that are knowable a posteriori, a (...) world order according to certain metaphysical principles and natures that god crafts within the constraints of matter. Finally, what is providentially necessary is what occurs according to the chain of fate, but only once it is in process or past. -/- The method of the paper is a close reading of Diogenes Laertius 7.75, adducing broad textual evidence along the way, to show that the Stoic theory of modality embraces Philonian possibility, both that which is capable of being true as a matter of logical consistency, and that which is possible according to the bare fitness of the entity. What differentiates the Stoics from Philo is their additional commitment to possibility as opportunity, resisting the collapse of determinism into necessity. (shrink)