Abstract
This paper reconstructs the account of concept formation developed in the 4th Century A.D. by Themistius in the most ancient extant commentary on Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics. Themistius’ account can be contrasted with two widespread modern interpretations of Aristotle. Unlike psychological empiricists, Themistius ascribes an active role in concept formation to our innate capacity of understanding (νοῦς). Unlike intuitionists, he would not be satisfied by saying that νοῦς “intuits” or “spots” concepts. Rather, the question is what makes our νοῦς capable of “finding” and “recognizing” concepts in experience, and this can only be an understanding prior to all experience. Themistius seems to be responding here to Platonist arguments against Aristotle’s epistemology: postulating a “potential νοῦς” is not enough, for one can apply Meno’s dilemma to it and ask how it can recognize that it has found what it was looking for. But, contrary to the judgment of some modern scholars, Themistius never embraced the theory of recollection either (he rejects it decisively). He argued that both empiricism and Platonist innatism are wrong and developed a middle path marked by a strong interdependence between the perceptive and the rational capacity. This holds for all rational learning, and concept formation is its first stage: to form a concept means to learn something genuinely new, but also to recognize it as falling, e. g., under one of the ten categories. While being presented as a mere “paraphrasis” of Aristotle’s words, Themistius’ account is a well-advised and original response to the epistemological debates of his time.
Achard, M. 2006. “Thémistius, paraphrase des seconds analytiques, 2.5–5.4”. Cahiers des études anciennes XLIII, 7–11.Search in Google Scholar
–. 2008. “Themistius’ Paraphrase of Posterior Analytics 71a17–b8: An Example of Rearrangement of an Aristotelian Text”. Laval théologique et philosophique 64.1, 19–34.10.7202/018533arSearch in Google Scholar
Adamson, P. 2011. “Posterior Analytics 2.19: A Dialogue with Plato?”. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 54, 1–19.10.1111/j.2041-5370.2011.tb00010.xSearch in Google Scholar
Allen, J. 2001. Inference From Signs: Ancient Debates About the Nature of Evidence. Oxford/New York.Search in Google Scholar
Ballériaux, O. 1989. “Thémistius et l´exégése de la noétique aristotélicienne”. Revue de philosophie ancienne 7, 199–233.Search in Google Scholar
Ballériaux, O. 1994. “Thémistius et le néoplatonisme”. Revue de philosophie ancienne 12, 171–200.Search in Google Scholar
Barnes, J. 1994. Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics. 2nd edition. Oxford/New York.Search in Google Scholar
Bayer, G. 1997. “Coming to Know Principles in Posterior Analytics II 19”. Apeiron 30.2, 109–142.10.1515/APEIRON.1997.30.2.109Search in Google Scholar
Black, D. 2008. “AI-Fārābī on Meno’s Paradox”. In In the Age of Al-Farabi: Arabic Philosophy in the Fourth/Tenth Century. Ed. P. Adamson. London/Turin, 15–34.Search in Google Scholar
Blumenthal, H. J. 1990. “Themistius: The Last Peripatetic Commentator on Aristotle?” In Aristotle Transformed. The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence. Ed. R. Sorabji. London, 113–123.10.1515/9783110837629.391Search in Google Scholar
Bolton, R. 1991. “Aristotle’s Method in Natural Science: Physics I”. In Aristotle’s Physics: a Collection of Essays. Ed. L. Judson. Oxford/New York, 1–30.Search in Google Scholar
Bronstein, D. 2016. Aristotle on Knowledge and Learning: the Posterior Analytics. Oxford/New York.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198724902.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
–. 2010. “Meno’s Paradox in Posterior Analytics 1.1”. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 38, 115–141.Search in Google Scholar
–. 2012. “The Origin and Aim of Posterior Analytics II.19”. Phronesis 57.1, 29–62.10.1163/156852812X607289Search in Google Scholar
Dyson, H. 2009. Prolepsis and Ennoia in the Early Stoa. Berlin/New York.10.1515/9783110212297Search in Google Scholar
Fine, G. 2011. “Aristotle and the Aporêma of the Meno”. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 54, 45–71.10.1111/j.2041-5370.2011.tb00012.xSearch in Google Scholar
Frede, M. 1990. “An Empiricist View of Knowledge: Memorism”. In Epistemology. Ed. S. Everson. Cambridge, 225–250.Search in Google Scholar
Frede, M. 1996. “Aristotle’s Rationalism”. In Rationality in Greek Thought. Eds. M. Frede/G. Striker. Oxford/New York, 157–173.Search in Google Scholar
Gabbe, M. 2010. “Themistius on Concept Acquisition and Knowledge of Essences”. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 92(3), 215–235.10.1515/agph.2010.010Search in Google Scholar
Gifford, M. 1999. “Aristotle on Platonic Recollection and the Paradox of Knowing Universals: Prior Analytics B.21 67a8–30”. Phronesis 44(1), 1–29.10.1163/156852899762447610Search in Google Scholar
Grote, G. 21880. Aristotle. London.Search in Google Scholar
Hankinson, J. 2011. “Avant nous le déluge. Aristotle’s Notion of Intellectual Grasp”. In Epistêmê, etc.: Essays in Honour of Jonathan Barnes. Eds. B. Morison/K. Ierodiakonou. Oxford/New York, 30–59.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199696482.003.0002Search in Google Scholar
Hamlyn, D. W. 1976. “Aristotelian Epagoge”. Phronesis 21(2), 167–184.10.1163/156852876X00129Search in Google Scholar
Helmig, C. 2012. Forms and Concepts: Concept Formation in the Platonic Tradition. Berlin/New York.10.1515/9783110267242Search in Google Scholar
Irwin, T. 1989. Aristotle’s First Principles. Oxford/New York.10.1093/0198242905.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Kahn, Ch. 1981. “The Role of Nous in the Cognition of the First Principles”. In Aristotle on Science: the Posterior Analytics. Ed. E. Berti. Padova, 385–414.Search in Google Scholar
Kupreeva, I. 2010. “Themistius”. In Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity. Ed. L. Gerson. Cambridge, 397–416.10.1017/CHOL9780521764407.027Search in Google Scholar
LaBarge, S. 2004. “Aristotle on ‘Simultaneous Learning’ in Posterior Analytics 1.1 and Prior Analytics 2.21”. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 27, 177–215.Search in Google Scholar
Lee, H. D. P. 1935. “Geometrical Method and Aristotle’s Account of First Principles”. The Classical Quarterly 29(2), 113–124.10.1017/S0009838800020474Search in Google Scholar
Lesher, J. 1973. “The Meaning of ‘NOYS’ in the Posterior Analytics”. Phronesis 18, 44–68.10.1163/156852873X00041Search in Google Scholar
Magrin, S. 2011. “Theophrastus, Alexander, and Themistius on Aristotle’s De anima III. 4–5”. In Vehicles of Transmission, Translation, and Transformation in Medieval Textual Culture. Eds. R. Wisnovsky/F. Wallis/J. Fumo/C. Fraenkel. Turnhout, 49–74.10.1484/M.CURSOR-EB.1.100258Search in Google Scholar
Mahoney, E. P. 1973. “Themistius and the Agent Intellect in James of Viterbo and Other Thirteenth Century Philosophers (Saint Thomas, Siger of Brabant and Henry Bate)”. Augustiniana 23, 422–467.Search in Google Scholar
McKirahan, R. 1983. “Aristotelian Epagoge in Prior Analytics 2. 21 and Posterior Analytics 1.1”. Journal of the History of Philosophy 21(1), 1–13.10.1353/hph.1983.0021Search in Google Scholar
Pellegrin, P. 2005. Seconds Analytiques d’Aristote. Paris.Search in Google Scholar
Pines, S. 1987. “Some Distinctive Metaphysical Conceptions in Themistius’ Commentary on Book Lambda and Their Place in the History of Philosophy”. In Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben. Eds. V. Nutton/J. Kolesh/H. J. Lulofs/J. Wiesner. Berlin, 177–204.10.1515/9783110849653.177Search in Google Scholar
Ross, W. D. 1949. Aristotle’s Prior and Posterior Analytics. A Revised Text with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford.10.1093/oseo/instance.00262305Search in Google Scholar
Scott, D. 1995. Recollection and Experience: Plato’s Theory of Learning and its Successors. Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9780511597374Search in Google Scholar
Schramm, M. 2008. “Göttliches und menschliches Denken bei Themistios”. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie. Neue Folge 151(2), 181–221.Search in Google Scholar
Schroeder, F. M./Todd, R. B. 1990. Two Greek Aristotelian Commentators on the Intellect. The De Intellectu Attributed to Alexander of Aphrodisias and Themistius’ Paraphrase of Aristotle De Anima 3.4–8. Toronto.Search in Google Scholar
Sorabji, R. 2010. “The Ancient Commentators on Concept Formation”. In Interpreting Aristotle’s “Posterior Analytics” in Late Antiquity and Beyond. Eds. F. A. J. de Haas/M. Leunissen/M. Martijn. Leiden.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199564453.003.0012Search in Google Scholar
Taylor, R. C. 2005. “The Agent Intellect as ‘form for us’ and Averroes’s Critique of al-Fârâbî”. Proceedings of the Society for Medieval Logic and Metaphysics 5, 18–32.Search in Google Scholar
–. 2006. “Abstraction in Al-Fârâbî”. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 80, 151–168.10.5840/acpaproc20068011Search in Google Scholar
Todd, R. B. 1996. Themistius: On Aristotle On the Soul. London.Search in Google Scholar
–. 2003. “Themistius”. In Catalogus Translationum Et Commentariorum: Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin translation and commentaries. Ed. V. Brown. Washington, D. C, 57–102.10.2307/j.ctt284wmn.10Search in Google Scholar
Tuominen, M. 2014. “Naturalised Versus Normative Epistemology: An Aristotelian Alternative”. In New Perspectives on Aristotelianism and Its Critics. Eds. S. Heinämaa/V. Mäkinen/M. Tuominen. Leiden, 66–91.10.1163/9789004282582_005Search in Google Scholar
Vanderspoel, J. 1995. Themistius and the Imperial Court: Oratory, Civic Duty, and Paideia from Constantius to Theodosius. Ann Arbor, MI.Search in Google Scholar
von Fritz, K. 1971. “Die epagōgē bei Aristoteles”. In Grundprobleme der antiken Wissenschaft. Berlin/New York, 623–676.10.1515/9783110816778.623Search in Google Scholar
Zonta, M. 2013. “Three New Fragments of a Paraphrase of Aristotle’s Topics Ascribed to Themistius in Medieval Hebrew Translation”. In Ad notitiam ignoti. Studia Artistarum 37. Ed. J. Brumberg-Chaumont. Turnhout, 217–223.10.1484/M.SA-EB.5.101359Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
