Skip to main content
Log in

The principles of demonstration and tekmeriodic proofs in the late-antique commentary tradition

Principes de la Démonstration et Preuves du Tekmeriodique dans la Tradition du Commentaire de L’antiquité Tardive

Die Prinzipien des Beweisens und Tekmeriodische Belege in der Tradition der Spätantiken Kommentatoren

Los Principios de Demostración y las Pruebas Tekmeriódicas de la Tradición del Comentario de la Antiguidad Tardía

  • Published:
Revue de Synthèse

Abstract

I argue that Aristotle’s late-antique commentators read into his theory of demonstration the notion of tekmeriodic proofs in attempt to integrate into the theory of demonstration the assumption that the principles of demonstration should be evident. In so doing, I trace the late antique commentators’ view to Alexander of Aphrodisias’ discussion of the principles of demonstration, showing how his assumption that the principles of demonstration should be evident underlies their notions of tekmeriodic proofs.

Résumé

On examine pourquoi les commentateurs d’Aristote dans l’Antiquité tardive lisent dans sa théorie de la démonstration le concept de preuve tekmeriodique. Il s’agit, selon nous, d’une tentative visant à intégrer à cette théorie la supposition que les principes de la démonstration doivent être évidents. Pour justifier cette thèse, nous examinons l’étude des preuves du Tekmerion de Simplicius jusqu’à Alexandre d’Aphrodisie qui considérait les axiomes évidents et envisageait qu’ils puissent prouver des principes de l’être.

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Beitrag wird behauptet, dass die spätantiken Aristoteles-Kommentatoren in dessen Lehre vom Beweis das Konzept des tekmérion hineininterpretieren, um sie mit der Behauptung zu verbinden, die Prinzipien des Beweisens müssten unbezweifelbar sein. Dabei wird die Perspektive der spätantiken Kommentatoren von Simplicius bis zu Alexander von Aphrodisias’ Diskussion der Prinzipien des Beweisens zurückverfolgt, um zu verdeutlichen, inwieweit dessen Forderung nach unbezweifelbaren Prinzipien des Beweisens die Grundlage für das Konzept tekmeriodischer Belege bei den spätantiken Kommentatoren bildet.

Resumen

Examinamos por qué los comentaristas de Aristóteles en la Antiguidad tardía leen en su teoría de la demostración el concepto de prueba tekmeriódica. Se trata, creemos, de una tentativa que quiere integrar a esta teoría la suposición de que los principios de la demostración tenían que ser evidentes. Para justificar esta tesis, examinamos el estudio de pruebas de Tekmerion de Simplicius hasta Alejandro d’Afrodisías que consideraba los axiomas cómo evidentes y contemplaba la posibilidad que pudiesen probar los principios del ser.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

List of references

I - Editions

  • Alexander of Aphrodisias, In Aristotelis Metaphysica commentaria, ed. Michael Hayduck, Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca (CAG), I, Berlin, Academiae litterarum regiae Borussicae, 1891.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander of Aphrodisias, In Analytica Priora commentaria, ed. Maximilianus Wallies, CAG, II/1, Berlin, Academiae litterarum regiae Borussicae, 1883.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander of Aphrodisias, In Topicorum libros commentaria, ed. Maximilianus Wallies, CAG, II/2, Berlin, Academiae litterarum regiae Borussicae, 1891.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander of Aphrodisias, Quaestiones, ed. Ivo Bruns, CAG, suppl. II/2, Berlin, Academiae litterarum regiae Borussicae, 1892.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philoponus, In Aristotelis Analytica Priora commentaria, ed. Maximilianus Wallies, CAG, XIII/2, Berlin, Academiae litterarum regiae Borussicae, 1905.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philoponus, In Aristotelis Analytica Posteriora commentaria, ed. Maximilianus Wallies, CAG, XIII/3, Berlin, Academiae litterarum regiae Borussicae, 1909.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philoponus, In Aristotelis Physicorum libros tres commentaria, ed. Hieronymus Vitelli, CAG, XVI, Berlin, Academiae litterarum regiae Borussicae, 1887.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proclus, In Platonis Parmenidem commentaria, ed. Carlos Steel, Oxford Classical Text, vol. II, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simplicius, In Aristotelis Physicorum libros quattuor priores commentaria, ed. Hermannus Diels, CAG, IX, Berlin, Academiae litterarum regiae Borussicae, 1882.

    Google Scholar 

II - Secondary Literature

  • Barnes (Jonathan), 1993, Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalimier (Catherine), 1998, “La saisie des principes physiques chez Aristote: Simplicius contra Alexandre d’Aphrodise”, Oriens-Occidens, 2, p. 77–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Haas (Frans), 1999, “Review of Daniel A. Di Liscia, Eckhard Kessler, & Charlotte Methuen, Method and Order in Renaissance Philosophy of Nature: The Aristotle’s Commentary Tradition”, Renaissance Studies, 13/3, p. 349–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Haas (F.), 2009, “Philoponus and the Mathematization of Logic”, Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale, 20, p. 193–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harari (Orna), 2006, “Methexis and Geometrical Reasoning in Proclus’ Commentary on Euclid’s Elements”, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 30, p. 361–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harari (O.), 2012, “Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proofs”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 43, p. 366–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laks (André), 1998, “Le début d’une physique”, in Van Ophuijsen (Johannes M.) and Van Raalte (Marlein), Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources, New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers, p. 143–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moraux (Paul), 1942, Alexandre d’Aphrodisie exégète de la noétique d’Aristote, Liège, Droz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison (Donald), 1997, “Philoponus and Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proofs”, in Di Liscia (Daniel A.), Kessler (Eckhard), Methuen (Charlotte), Method and Order in Renaissance Philosophy of Nature: The Aristotle Commentary Tradition, Aldershot, Ashgate, p. 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross (David), 1949, Aristotle’s Prior and Posterior Analytics: A revised Text with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt (Ernst), 1966, “Alexander von Aphrodisias in einem altarmenischen Kategorien-Kommentar”, Philologus, 110, p. 277–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharples (Robert), 2005, “Alexander of Aphrodisias on Universals: Two Problematic Texts”, Phronesis, 50, p. 43–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorabji (Richard), 2004, The Philosophy of the Commentators: 200–600 AD, vol. 3, London, Duckworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todd (Robert), 1973, “The Stoic Common Notions: A Re-Examination and Reinterpretation”, Symbolae Osloenses, 48, p. 47–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tweedale (Martin), 1984, “Alexander of Aphrodisias’ View of Universals”, Phronesis, 24/3, p. 279–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Orna Harari.

Additional information

Orna Harari, born in 1969, is Senior Lecturer at the departments of Classics and Philosophy (Tel Aviv University). Her research concerns the reception of Aristotle’s theory of demonstration in the late-antique commentary tradition. Amongst her recent publications, one finds, “Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proofs” (Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 43, 2012).

About this article

Cite this article

Harari, O. The principles of demonstration and tekmeriodic proofs in the late-antique commentary tradition. Rev synth 134, 249–266 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11873-013-0219-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11873-013-0219-6

Keywords

Mots-clés

Schlagworte

Palabras clave

Navigation