The essay deals with an important epistemological debate in the Lucullus: Can there be remembrance of false beliefs, as Cicero argues against his interlocutor, who defends Antiochus’ position? It is shown that Antiochus, like Aristoteles, considers ‘remember’ to be a double achievement verb: Remembrance occurs only if a correct past perception is faithfully transmitted to the present. Cicero, on the other hand, insists that faithful transmission can also occur with false beliefs. The distinction seems to be analogous to that between (...) valid and sound inference in contemporary Stoic logic. Finally, I discuss differences between ancient and modern forms of skepticism, address the issue of why misremembering plays no role in the Lucullus, and find an answer in Cicero’s doctrine of the orator. (shrink)

The first part of this essay analyses the beginning of the philosophy of the brain in early Greece by looking at the Pythagorean theories of the brain. The knowledge of this innovative achievement of the Pythagorean school was never completely lost; it also got through to the Middle Ages. The second part focuses on the effect of Pythagorean thinking on Albert the Great. Albert systematically studied all available sources on Pythagoreanism and in doing so acquired extensive knowledge of this philosophical (...) movement. In the process, he also thought through the psychology of the Pythagoreans and came across their brain theory, which he carefully analysed, commented on, and criticised. Albert interpreted the brain-theoretical theses of the Pythagoreans that came to his knowledge from the viewpoint of a speculative construct of Pythagorean psychology, but in essence his accounts, as the third part of this article proves, match the historically secured facts from ancient sources: Albert knew that the Pythagoreans had not only thought out the relationship between mind and brain, but had also considered the question, which is so intensely debated today, whether animals think. The fourth and final part concludes the investigation by reconstructing the basic lines of Albert’s own brain theory: Albert developed a philosophy of the mind which, although allowing a mediated relationship of the intellect with the brain, rather emphasised the separation of the mind from the somatic sphere. From his point of view, the brain has no decisive function in the thought process. Because the Pythagoreans had thought differently, Albert only took critical note of their views. (shrink)

This paper analyses the Verlagsanzeige of the humanist, mathematician, astronomer and publisher Johannes Regiomontanus. How is humanism expressed in this famous document from German early printing and what is its relationship to philosophy? The article shows that Regiomontanus advocated a special form of humanism that went beyond the standard humanism that he valued, with ‘truth’ as its most important aspect. From the epistemological perspective of the history of philosophy in Regiomontanus’s publishing programme, the ‘truth’ of mathematics is seen, analogous to (...) some predecessors, as a paradigm of programmatic testimony. The integration of philosophy is evident in this, as in another specified way as well. (shrink)

Focused on the reference to Socrates’ confession of ignorance at Academica 1.45, this paper challenges the common assumption that the passage transmits Arcesilaus’ conception of Socrates. This paper develops in two steps a more plausible reading of the passage. According to this reading, Cicero presents an interpretation of Arcesilaus’ historical relation to Socrates. In conclusion, the paper argues that traditional readings of Acad. 1.45 underestimate not only Cicero’s originality as an historical thinker, but also his clever reconstruction of Academic history, (...) as it effectively opposes the controversial Academic history defended by Antiochus in the early first century BCE. (shrink)

Focused on the reference to Socrates’ confession of ignorance at Academica 1.45, this paper challenges the common assumption that the passage transmits Arcesilaus’ conception of Socrates. This paper develops in two steps a more plausible reading of the passage. According to this reading, Cicero presents an interpretation of Arcesilaus’ historical relation to Socrates. In conclusion, the paper argues that traditional readings of Acad. 1.45 underestimate not only Cicero’s originality as an historical thinker, but also his clever reconstruction of Academic history, (...) as it effectively opposes the controversial Academic history defended by Antiochus in the early first century BCE. (shrink)

Focused on the reference to Socrates’ confession of ignorance at Academica 1.45, this paper challenges the common assumption that the passage transmits Arcesilaus’ conception of Socrates. This paper develops in two steps a more plausible reading of the passage. According to this reading, Cicero presents an interpretation of Arcesilaus’ historical relation to Socrates. In conclusion, the paper argues that traditional readings of Acad. 1.45 underestimate not only Cicero’s originality as an historical thinker, but also his clever reconstruction of Academic history, (...) as it effectively opposes the controversial Academic history defended by Antiochus in the early first century BCE. (shrink)

Focused on the reference to Socrates’ confession of ignorance at Academica 1.45, this paper challenges the common assumption that the passage transmits Arcesilaus’ conception of Socrates. This paper develops in two steps a more plausible reading of the passage. According to this reading, Cicero presents an interpretation of Arcesilaus’ historical relation to Socrates. In conclusion, the paper argues that traditional readings of Acad. 1.45 underestimate not only Cicero’s originality as an historical thinker, but also his clever reconstruction of Academic history, (...) as it effectively opposes the controversial Academic history defended by Antiochus in the early first century BCE. (shrink)

Focused on the reference to Socrates’ confession of ignorance at Academica 1.45, this paper challenges the common assumption that the passage transmits Arcesilaus’ conception of Socrates. This paper develops in two steps a more plausible reading of the passage. According to this reading, Cicero presents an interpretation of Arcesilaus’ historical relation to Socrates. In conclusion, the paper argues that traditional readings of Acad. 1.45 underestimate not only Cicero’s originality as an historical thinker, but also his clever reconstruction of Academic history, (...) as it effectively opposes the controversial Academic history defended by Antiochus in the early first century BCE. (shrink)

Focused on the reference to Socrates’ confession of ignorance at Academica 1.45, this paper challenges the common assumption that the passage transmits Arcesilaus’ conception of Socrates. This paper develops in two steps a more plausible reading of the passage. According to this reading, Cicero presents an interpretation of Arcesilaus’ historical relation to Socrates. In conclusion, the paper argues that traditional readings of Acad. 1.45 underestimate not only Cicero’s originality as an historical thinker, but also his clever reconstruction of Academic history, (...) as it effectively opposes the controversial Academic history defended by Antiochus in the early first century BCE. (shrink)

Focused on the reference to Socrates’ confession of ignorance at Academica 1.45, this paper challenges the common assumption that the passage transmits Arcesilaus’ conception of Socrates. This paper develops in two steps a more plausible reading of the passage. According to this reading, Cicero presents an interpretation of Arcesilaus’ historical relation to Socrates. In conclusion, the paper argues that traditional readings of Acad. 1.45 underestimate not only Cicero’s originality as an historical thinker, but also his clever reconstruction of Academic history, (...) as it effectively opposes the controversial Academic history defended by Antiochus in the early first century BCE. (shrink)

Focused on the reference to Socrates’ confession of ignorance at Academica 1.45, this paper challenges the common assumption that the passage transmits Arcesilaus’ conception of Socrates. This paper develops in two steps a more plausible reading of the passage. According to this reading, Cicero presents an interpretation of Arcesilaus’ historical relation to Socrates. In conclusion, the paper argues that traditional readings of Acad. 1.45 underestimate not only Cicero’s originality as an historical thinker, but also his clever reconstruction of Academic history, (...) as it effectively opposes the controversial Academic history defended by Antiochus in the early first century BCE. (shrink)

Focused on the reference to Socrates’ confession of ignorance at Academica 1.45, this paper challenges the common assumption that the passage transmits Arcesilaus’ conception of Socrates. This paper develops in two steps a more plausible reading of the passage. According to this reading, Cicero presents an interpretation of Arcesilaus’ historical relation to Socrates. In conclusion, the paper argues that traditional readings of Acad. 1.45 underestimate not only Cicero’s originality as an historical thinker, but also his clever reconstruction of Academic history, (...) as it effectively opposes the controversial Academic history defended by Antiochus in the early first century BCE. (shrink)

Albert`s so called “anthropology” is putting the human being on the top of a hierarchy of living things in virtue of a unique feature – i.e. the possession of the intellect – that offers the possibility to transcend the changing realm of nature and to rise its possessor to the dignity of his creator. Although, throughout his corpus Albert often defends the independence of the human intellect from matter and consequently from the body and senses, his works of natural philosophy (...) seem to give us a different perspective. In De animalibus, Albert is considering the brain as the divine member of the body responsible for the operations of sensation and, to a certain degree, of intellection. Such being the case, the entire humoral activity of the human body has a direct influence on the activity of the intellect, in spite of its divine nature. Accordingly, the main purpose of my study is to point out how the classical humoral theory is integrated by Albert the Great in his physiological consideration for an explanation of the intellect placed between the murky boundaries of natural philosophy and metaphysics. (shrink)