Edward Meredith Cope was an English scholar of classics who served as Fellow and Tutor at Trinity College, Cambridge. One of the leading Greek specialists of his time, Cope published An Introduction to Aristotle's Rhetoric in 1867. Though now considered a 'standard work', that Introduction was intended as merely the first part of a full critical edition of the Rhetoric, which was left incomplete on Cope's death in 1873. Cope's manuscripts were collected and edited by John Edwin (...) Sandys, and published in this three-volume set in 1877. Cope's analysis represented an important advance in the modern interpretation of this foundational text on the art of persuasion. Volume 1 contains the Greek text of Book 1 together with a commentary on Aristotle's introduction to his topic and his definition of rhetoric and its subdivisions. (shrink)

Edward Meredith Cope was an English scholar of classics who served as Fellow and Tutor at Trinity College, Cambridge. One of the leading Greek specialists of his time, Cope published An Introduction to Aristotle's Rhetoric in 1867. Though now considered a 'standard work', that Introduction was intended as merely the first part of a full critical edition of the Rhetoric, which was left incomplete on Cope's death in 1873. Cope's manuscripts were collected and edited by John Edwin (...) Sandys, and published in this three-volume set in 1877. This major work contains the Greek text together with a commentary on Aristotle's understanding of rhetoric, including its definition and classification, the role of emotion and logic, and the relevance of style and other rhetorical techniques. Cope's analysis represented an important advance in the modern interpretation of this foundational text on the art of persuasion. (shrink)

Edward Meredith Cope was an English scholar of classics who served as Fellow and Tutor at Trinity College, Cambridge. One of the leading Greek specialists of his time, Cope published An Introduction to Aristotle's Rhetoric in 1867. Though now considered a 'standard work', that Introduction was intended as merely the first part of a full critical edition of the Rhetoric, which was left incomplete on Cope's death in 1873. Cope's manuscripts were collected and edited by John Edwin (...) Sandys, and published in this three-volume set in 1877. Cope's analysis represented an important advance in the modern interpretation of this foundational text on the art of persuasion. Volume 1 contains the Greek text of Book 1 together with a commentary on Aristotle's introduction to his topic and his definition of rhetoric and its subdivisions. (shrink)

Edward Meredith Cope was an English scholar of classics who served as Fellow and Tutor at Trinity College, Cambridge. One of the leading Greek specialists of his time, Cope published An Introduction to Aristotle's Rhetoric in 1867. Though now considered a 'standard work', that Introduction was intended as merely the first part of a full critical edition of the Rhetoric, which was left incomplete on Cope's death in 1873. Cope's manuscripts were collected and edited by John Edwin (...) Sandys, and published in this three-volume set in 1877. Cope's analysis represented an important advance in the modern interpretation of this foundational text on the art of persuasion. Volume 2 contains the Greek text of Book 2 together with a commentary on Aristotle's views concerning the place of emotion and logic within the discipline. (shrink)

Edward Meredith Cope was an English scholar of classics who served as Fellow and Tutor at Trinity College, Cambridge. One of the leading Greek specialists of his time, Cope published An Introduction to Aristotle's Rhetoric in 1867. Though now considered a 'standard work', that Introduction was intended as merely the first part of a full critical edition of the Rhetoric, which was left incomplete on Cope's death in 1873. Cope's manuscripts were collected and edited by John Edwin (...) Sandys, and published in this three-volume set in 1877. Cope's analysis represented an important advance in the modern interpretation of this foundational text on the art of persuasion. Volume 3 contains the Greek text of Book 3 together with a commentary on Aristotle's understanding of style, arrangement and other rhetorical devices. (shrink)

Aristotle on Method and Metaphysics is a collection of new and cutting-edge essays by prominent Aristotle scholars and Aristotelian philosophers on themes in ontology, causation, modality, essentialism, the metaphysics of life, natural theology, and scientific and philosophical methodology. Though grounded in careful exegesis of Aristotle's writings, the volume aims to demonstrate the continuing relevance of Aristotelian ideas to contemporary philosophical debate. The contributors are Robert Bolton, Stephen Boulter, David Charles, Edward Feser, Lloyd Gerson, Gyula Klima, Kathrin (...) Koslicki, E. J. Lowe, Fred D. Miller, Jr., David S. Oderberg, Christopher Shields, Allan Silverman, Tuomas Tahko, and Stephen Williams. (shrink)

Uses the problem of the one and the many as a lens through which to examine the Central Books of Aristotle's Metaphysics.

As Aristotle before him, Quine has earned a just renown for his exposure of untenable dualisms: he is best-known, of course, for his rejection of the ‘dogma’ of the radical distinction between analytic and synthetic truths. But another dualism which Quine has no use for has scarcely caused a murmuring in the assembly of philosophers, where Quine’s opposition to the analytic-synthetic dichotomy placed him on the far left, because on this matter he has aligned himself with the philosophical right, (...) with what has been the establishment since Hume. (shrink)

Cheryl Abbate’s article in this journal makes the case that many nonhuman animals are “political” in the Aristotelian sense. Moreover, Abbate rejects the claim that anthrôpos is the most political of animals. While the aim to deflate often overexaggerated distinctions between us and other animals is laudable, in the following I suggest that Abbate’s evidence from cognitive ethology, and her application of evolutionary principles, fall short of demonstrating other animals to be as political as anthrôpos.

Probability and Frequency. Aristotle frequently used the concept of probability, but apparently he did not make any persistent effort to clarify or analyze it. His description of a fortiori argument in The Topics, e.g., depends upon “the more or less likely or probable,” but he does not explore this notion. In The Rhetoric, where he applies himself to a puzzle about probability which the Sophists had advanced, he comes closer to an analysis of probability. Aristotle quotes Agathon, One (...) might perchance say this was probable—That things improbable oft will hap to men, and elaborates thusly: “For what is improbable does happen [often], and therefore it is probable that improbable things will happen. Granted this, one might argue that ‘what is improbable is probable.’ “ Aristotle believes that one can avoid this imposture by distinguishing between “general” and “specific” probability, and apparently intends by the former the statistical sense of frequent occurrence; but he does not establish what he might mean by the probability of an individual event and so leaves the notion of “specific probability” unclear. (shrink)

In the field of natural science, Aristotle recognizes as his forerunners a select group of theorists such as Heraclitus of Ephesus, Empedocles of Acragas, Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, and Leucippus and Democritus of Abdera. In addition, he mentions in the same contexts some whose claims to be “natural philosophers” are doubtful, yet who deserve notice in the same context, including Parmenides of Elea, Melissus of Samos, the people called Pythagoreans, and Plato as the author of the Timaeus. Aristotle takes (...) seriously almost all of these people, treating them as exemplary pioneers and valuable partners in the enterprise of “natural philosophy.” This article examines earlier opinions on certain fundamental questions about the natural world, as treated in the first three books of the Physics and in the first book of the Metaphysics. In Physics II and III, Aristotle represents most if not all of his predecessors as disastrously misunderstanding, in more than one way, the nature underlying the natural world. (shrink)

The article investigates the treatment of modality in chapters 12 and 13 of De Interpretatione and gives a new interpretation of the puzzling table of modals to be found at the beginning of chapter 13, as well as dealing with some of Aristotle’s puzzles. This is achieved by extending Aristotle’s distinction between two senses of possibility, which (following Ackrill) I call ‘one-sided’ and ‘two-sided’, to the two notions of necessity and impossibility. The conclusion is reached that, while the (...) two notions of necessity and impossibility are logically incompatible when both are taken as one-sided, in their two-sided senses they are in fact equivalent. (shrink)

IT IS well-known that Plato and Aristotle disagree on the possibility of knowledge of nature. Plato maintains that knowledge, in contrast with belief, is never mistaken, that the objects of knowledge are always the same and never becoming, and that what we sense is always becoming. He concludes that knowledge is possible only of objects that are unchanging and separate from sensibles, i.e., the forms. Aristotle rejects this conclusion and recognizes knowledge of sensibles. Surprisingly, though, he accepts Plato's (...) assumptions. He too maintains that knowledge is not sometimes true and sometimes false, but always true ; he distinguishes the sensibles from the unchanging eternal beings ; and he asserts that the objects of knowledge "always are or are for the most part", and occasionally he even claims that they cannot be otherwise. The problem is, how can Aristotle accept Plato's assumptions about the nature and objects of knowledge and still maintain that knowledge of nature is possible? (shrink)

Boethius, “the first of the scholastics,” had an influence on the Latin Middle Ages that is difficult to overestimate. His translations of and commentaries on Aristotle’s philosophical and logical works were the main conduit between the Greek classical culture and the early Middle Ages. His two commentaries on Aristotle’s Peri Hermenias (“On Interpretation”), the longer of which is translated in the present two volumes (the first covering Books 1–3 and the second Books 4–6), were particularly influential. Unfortunately, those (...) seeking to understand this aspect of Boethius will find little to encourage them here. Aquinas is mentioned once (on the book jacket), and Augustine only a few times. About other .. (shrink)

For Aristotle and other Greek thinkers, philosophy is itself a rethinking. There are other branches of knowledge, like medicine and mathematics, that each grasp some particular subject matter. Since philosophy or, as it has come to be called, metaphysics is the highest science, its job is to grasp somehow all the other sciences and all their subjects. If the science of a subject requires a type of thinking proper to the subject, then the science of that science requires a (...) rethinking of this and all other subjects. In this paper I explore some of Aristotle’s modes of rethinking philosophy. I am interested in the connection between rethinking philosophy and the kinds of philosophical principles that emerge from this rethinking. I argue that reflexive principles are implicit in rethinking but that theyare projected onto things for systematic reasons. Because my time is short, my discussion is limited to broad brush strokes, but there are so many textual details and so much that is contentious about them that a broad sketch may be the best way to set out my point. It is plausible to proceed this way because Aristotle’s main themes are often much clearer than the details of his discussions and my argument relies only on the broad lines of his organization. (shrink)

This paper argues that Aristotle conceives happiness not primarily as an exercise of virtue in private or with friends, but as the exercise of virtue in governing an ideal state. The best states are knit together so tightly that the interests of one person are the same as the interests of all. Hence, a person who acts for his or her own good must also act for the good of all fellow citizens. It follows that discussions of Aristotle’s (...) altruism and egoism are misconceived. (shrink)

This article investigates the nature of Aristotelian syllogistics and shows that the categorical syllogism is fundamentally about showing the connection, in the premises of the syllogism, between the major and minor terms as stated in the conclusion. It discusses how this is important for the use of the syllogism in scientific demonstration. The article then examines modern deductive logic with an eye to they way in which it contrasts with Aristotelian syllogistics. It shows howmodern logic is about making necessary connections (...) between each proposition by means of external or second order rules. In the syllogism, on the other hand, the necessity between the premises as a whole unit and the conclusion is based on the internal middle term. The article concludes with a discussion of Günther Patzig’s claim that Aristotelian syllogisms are best thought of as tautological propositions. If this were the case, then the differences asserted to exist between syllogistic and modern logic would not hold. However, it is shown that Patzig’s assimilation of syllogistics to modern deductive logic is illegitimate. (shrink)

Pangle’s thesis is that Aristotle’s account of friendship in Nicomachean Ethics 8 and 9 addresses multiple audiences. For his ostensible audience, statesmen and other men of action, Aristotle paints an enticing picture of friendship that is based on moral virtue and issues in acts of benevolence. However, he embeds within this analysis subtle “tensions” designed to signal to thoughtful readers the limits of moral virtue and so to provoke them to pursue a philosophical life as well as to (...) provide them the material for philosophical contemplation. Pangle thinks that this second group, potential philosophers, is Aristotle’s principal audience, even if unannounced. (shrink)

This article investigates the nature of Aristotelian syllogistics and shows that the categorical syllogism is fundamentally about showing the connection, in the premises of the syllogism, between the major and minor terms as stated in the conclusion. It discusses how this is important for the use of the syllogism in scientific demonstration. The article then examines modern deductive logic with an eye to they way in which it contrasts with Aristotelian syllogistics. It shows howmodern logic is about making necessary connections (...) between each proposition by means of external or second order rules. In the syllogism, on the other hand, the necessity between the premises as a whole unit and the conclusion is based on the internal middle term. The article concludes with a discussion of Günther Patzig’s claim that Aristotelian syllogisms are best thought of as tautological propositions. If this were the case, then the differences asserted to exist between syllogistic and modern logic would not hold. However, it is shown that Patzig’s assimilation of syllogistics to modern deductive logic is illegitimate. (shrink)

In this provocative book, Edward Schiappa argues that rhetorical theory did not originate with the Sophists in the fifth century B.C.E, as is commonly believed, but came into being a century later. Schiappa examines closely the terminology of the Sophists—such as Gorgias and Protagoras—and of their reporters and opponents—especially Plato and Aristotle—and contends that the terms and problems that make up what we think of as rhetorical theory had not yet formed in the era of the early Sophists. (...) His revision of rhetoric’s early history enables him to change the way we read both the Sophists and Aristotle and Plato. Schiappa contends, for example, that Plato probably coined the Greek word for rhetoric; that Gorgias is a “prose rhapsode” whose style does not deserve the criticism it has received; that Isocrates deliberately never uses the Greek work for "rhetoric" and that our habit of pitting him versus Plato as “rhetoric versus philosophy” is problematic; and that Aristotle "disciplined" the genre of epideictic in a way that robs the genre of its political importance. His book will be of great interest to students of classics, communications, philosophy, and rhetoric. (shrink)