The Eleatic stranger in Plato's Sophist characterizes philosophy as an unending battle between two camps. It is, he says, a battle "between the Gods and the Giants" over the nature of reality. The Giants here are the materialists who attempt to explain everything in terms of underlying material mechanisms. The Gods, on the other hand, are the Friends of the Forms who find that material reality can only be explained by grounding it in a world of immaterial intelligible ideas. Clearly, (...) Plato had in mind here his own dispute with the Sophists. Nonetheless, the stranger's words can, with some validity, be taken as indicating a fundamental division running throughout the history of philosophy. One is reminded of the Aristotelians' dispute with Democritean atomists or more recent debates among philosophers of science over reductionism. (shrink)

El artículo estudia la apropiación que hace Agustín del argumento de Platón respecto a la existencia de un demiurgo cósmico en Timeo 27d-28c. Muestra cómo Agustín se enfrenta implícitamente a la falacia cosmogónica, haciendo algunas enmiendas al argumento de Platón, a fin de conservarlo para los teístas como modelo filosófico de los orígenes cósmicos.

Augustine is acknowledged by Malebranche as the source of his occasionalism and he appropriates the architect analogy of Augustine’s De Genesi ad litteram. Augustine’s analogy, however, is not a move toward occasionalism, but a response to Platos claim in the Timaeus that the cosmos can be destroyed and is only preserved by divine providence. The heterological nature of the architect image for creation shows that, far from arguing for occasionalism, Augustine is concerned to avoid the cosmogonically fallacious confusion of divine (...) agency and natural cause. (shrink)

Albert the Great was one of the earliest Western scholars to apply the methodology of Aristotle's Posterior Analytics to diverse fields of natural philosophy. Some medievalists, however, question Albert's commitment to Aristotelianism, interpreting his paraphrastic commentaries as an exposition of views he did not hold himself. Further, some modern Aristotle scholars argue that the methodology of the Posterior Analytics has little to do with Aristotle's actual practice in his scientific treatises. Albert, however, argued that this methodology is essential for achieving (...) a true scientia of nature and that Aristotle employed this methodology in his zoological books. In his commentary on the first book of the Parts of Animals , Albert shows how the method of demonstration applies to the study of animals. He elaborates an account of demonstration ex suppositione finis as the sort of reasoning proper to a science of contingent things. He also argues that scientific explanation must be a two-part procedure. Preceding the final step of causal demonstration the data to be explained must be organized in such a way that the causally significant connections between them are discovered. This is achieved through a restricted application of Platonic division. Albert makes a careful study of the conditions for non-accidental division and shows how they result in quia demonstrations which in turn yield propter quid demonstrations of the cause. ;This two-step methodology is evident, Albert argues, in the arrangement of Aristotle's zoological treatises. The books of the Historia animalium are placed first because they contain the preliminary organization of animal differentiae through division. These are followed by books on the parts, generation and motion of animals which make use of the material so organized to demonstrate their causes. Thus, Albert agrees with recent scholars who argue that the Historia animalium is not a treatise on systematics, but a pre-causal study of animal morphology. ;Albert's careful interpretation of Aristotle's zoology in light of the methodological requirements of the Posterior Analytics taken together with his own research on animal differentiae demonstrates his commitment to Aristotelian principles of natural philosophy. (shrink)

Among the striking elements of this description is the way in which Locke’s analogy, so bereft of an outward orientation, is employed to represent the modernist notion of self. This sharp contrast of classical and modern conceptions of the self is alone enough to justify Jerrold Seigel’s comprehensive study. There can be no doubt that something new regarding the concepts of soul, self, and personhood came into prominence with the advent of that Copernican Revolution in philosophy, the Cartesian turn. Indeed, (...) every major Western European philosopher since the time of Descartes, Leibniz, and Locke has in some way confronted the problem of the self, and Seigel sets out to catalogue and place into context the various responses to this central problem of modern philosophy. (shrink)

Nothing has so plagued twentieth-century philosophers of science as the demarcation problem—the effort to determine what constitutes science and marks it off from other human pursuits. We have come to the end of the century with, to say the least, no consensus among philosophers on this issue. This has led some, such as Larry Laudan, to announce the abandonment of the demarcation project, urging philosophers to turn their attention elsewhere. One wonders, however, whether all the options have been explored. In (...) particular, has the problem been sufficiently investigated in light of its historical origins? This question takes on some urgency, not only with the failure of modern philosophy of science to develop a viable definition of science, but also in light of recent developments in Aristotle studies. After all, Aristotle was the first philosopher to attempt a systematic account of the nature of science and the details of this account have been a major focus of the scholarship of the past two decades, especially in the work of such scholars as Pierre Pellegrin, James Lennox, and David Balme, to mention only a very few. (shrink)

Ever since Auguste Comte articulated his Law of the Three Stages, positivism has maintained a stranglehold on the history and philosophy of science. Despite significant repudiations of this view, there remains a tendency to consider earlier science as an essentially more primitive form of human cognition. Thomas Kuhn’s warnings against this tendency, while widely accepted, have not always been heeded in particular studies. Part of the reason for this might be some dissatisfaction with Kuhn’s account of scientific paradigms in light (...) of what many historians still want to accept as evidence of the cumulative growth of scientific knowledge. Whatever the reason, there still from time to time appear studies which attempt to chronicle the development of science in terms of a developmental anthropology of mental levels. This is often done without a sufficiently critical assessment of the philosophical presuppositions which underlie such an analysis. Further, such analyses ignore the possibility that differing scientific conceptions might result more from differing, but equally sophisticated, ontologies rather than from a transition from a primitive mentality to a more scientific mentality. (shrink)

This paper is a book review of "Metaphysics from a Biological Point of View" by Stephen Boulter.

Etienne Gilson once observed that Aristotle never had a notion of "life" for, if he was not a mechanist, still less was he a vitalist. Gilson's point was, of course, that Aristotle did not consider life to be some sort of internal force, nor was he prepared to reduce life to mechanical motions. Aristotle avoided both the vitalist and mechanist extremes in his distinctive conception of life as the proper activity of those things which have within themselves a principle of (...) their own movement. Few concepts are more central to Aristotle's understanding of the cosmos than self-motion and few are more difficult to grasp. Certainly, this idea has a very long history associated with the development of biology within the Aristotelian tradition as well as with the study of physical motion in general. Further, this distinction between the moving and the self-moving has played an important role in the development of natural theology among Christian and Islamic thinkers of the Middle Ages. Clearly, this is an idea deserving close study both in the works of Aristotle as well as in the tradition to which those works gave rise. In this context, the essays collected by Gill and Lennox are a most welcome contribution to research on the Aristotelian tradition. (shrink)

Despite his seminal role in the history of philosophy, the thirteenth century thinker Albert the Great remains little known. Prior to World War II, his massive literary output was not fully analyzed by historians largely because, as Etienne Gilson put it, of the amazing "amount of philosophical and scientific information heaped up in his writings." After the war, Albert's work began to receive more attention. By 1955, the Louvain medievalist Fernand Van Steenberghen could confidently declare that Albert was the first (...) thinker to establish "the rightful place of learning in Christianity." A decade later, James A. Weisheipl uncovered evidence of Albert's distinctively naturalistic interpretation of Aristotle in .. (shrink)

During the past three decades, Aristotle studies have been significantly influenced by a series of ground-breaking investigations of the zoological works, especially the Historia animalium. As a result, contemporary Aristotle scholars have developed a clearer and more consistent interpretation of the zoology and have demonstrated its consonance with Aristotle’s logic and metaphysics. This revolution in Aristotle studies was anticipated by the medieval natural philosopher Albertus Magnus. As the first thinker since Theophrastus to pursue an Aristotelian research program in the life (...) sciences, he interpreted Aristotle’s animal histories as a series of pre-demonstrative researches preparatory to causal explanation as prescribed in the Posterior Analytics and the Topics. The medieval anticipation of these recent developments in Aristotle studies provides a compelling comparison of the interpretation of Aristotle now and then. (shrink)

The year 1249 marked a turning point in the intellectual career of Albert the Great. This was the year he finally acceded to the pleas of his Dominican confreres to compose a work explaining the natural science of Aristotle. The immediate product of this decision was Albert’s paraphrastic commentary on the Physics, but there were long-term results as well. This work was but the first part of what was to become one of the major literary productions of the Middle Ages; (...) a production which would establish Albert as, according to his envious contemporary Roger Bacon, an auctoritas on equal footing with Avicenna, Averroes, and Aristotle himself. Albert’s project, intended to “make the new learning of Aristotle intelligible to the Latins,” was largely concerned with the natural sciences. He not only commented extensively on all of Aristotle’s libri naturales but also recorded his own extensive researches in several fields. By far the largest part of this vast compilation of the sciences is that devoted to zoology. Albert’s massive De animalibus libri XXVI is not only the longest of his Aristotelian commentaries but also represents one of the most extensive records of empirical observation published before modern times. (shrink)

In 1913 Pierre Duhem published a lecture in which he summarized his then startling discovery that Galileo owed a great deal to medieval scholastic natural philosophers. The result of this discovery was not only to establish the history of medieval science as an autonomous scholarly discipline, but also to initiate intensive research into the background and sources of Galileo's work. No scholar has contributed more in recent years to this research than William Wallace. His Prelude to Galileo and his Galileo (...) and His Sources have gone a long way toward solving a number of problems concerning Galileo's connection to the medieval tradition. In two important new books, Wallace takes this research another step forward by documenting Galileo's participation in the commentary tradition on Aristotle's Posterior Analytics. (shrink)

While it is no longer a commonplace among intellectual historians, the view of the Middle Ages as a dark age of ignorance still pervades the popular imagination. Auguste Comte and his fellow Enlightenment philosophes have indeed cast a long shadow. The shadow is long and dark enough that many students of the history of philosophy, for example, still begin their graduate studies under the impression that little work of importance was produced between Plotinus and Descartes—at least little that is relevant (...) to the development of modern philosophy. It is fitting, therefore, that Yale’s important new series in western intellectual history is inaugurated by this magisterial account of the intellectual life of the one thousand years between 400 and 1400. The author, an accomplished historian of this period, provides much evidence supporting a sympathetic view of the medieval intellectual achievement. Her work, however, goes much further than this, for she argues that the foundations of modern intellectual development were laid in the medieval period rather than in the classical period of ancient Greece or the ancient Judeo-Christian tradition. While this thesis remains rather controversial, the comprehensive survey and comparative suggestions offered in the work provide useful and accessible correctives to the popular view of medieval intellectual life. (shrink)

Since the eighteenth century, discussions of the relationship of natural science and religion have generally been driven by a fideism which seeks to separate strictly each of these human pursuits. This contrasts sharply with the synthetic approach of medieval scholastic philosophers who sought to integrate scientific research, metaphysics, and theology into a unified wisdom. The story of this historical shift is complex and, when fully told, will no doubt include contributions of historians of religion as well as historians of science (...) and philosophy. Kusukawa’s study of the natural philosophy of the Lutheran humanist Philip Melanchthon provides some insight into what may be one of the origins of modern fideism. (shrink)

In his monumental History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages, Etienne Gilson devotes only one paragraph in his chapter on fourteenth-century nominalism to Adam of Wodeham. He admits that this is partly due to the fact that little is known of Adam's philosophical views except that he is generally considered an Ockhamist. Gilson's treatment reflects the once widely held view that Adam's contributions to the history of philosophy were limited to expositions of William of Ockham. Adam was William's student (...) at Oxford and later served as his teacher's secretary. He was perhaps best known as the author of an introduction to William's Summa logicae. More recent scholarship, however, has established Adam as an original philosopher in his own right and, in this regard, this critical edition of the Lectura secunda is an important contribution. (shrink)

During the past three decades, Aristotle studies have been significantly influenced by a series of ground-breaking investigations of the zoological works, especially the Historia animalium. As a result, contemporary Aristotle scholars have developed a clearer and more consistent interpretation of the zoology and have demonstrated its consonance with Aristotle’s logic and metaphysics. This revolution in Aristotle studies was anticipated by the medieval natural philosopher Albertus Magnus. As the first thinker since Theophrastus to pursue an Aristotelian research program in the life (...) sciences, he interpreted Aristotle’s animal histories as a series of pre-demonstrative researches preparatory to causal explanation as prescribed in the Posterior Analytics and the Topics. The medieval anticipation of these recent developments in Aristotle studies provides a compelling comparison of the interpretation of Aristotle now and then. (shrink)

Anyone making even a cursory study of the intellectual life of medieval Europe will notice everywhere evident a lively interest in animals. The literary manifestation of this interest best known today is the tradition of the bestiary and the closely associated encyclopedia tradition. Such treatments of animals, however, are notable for their less than accurate descriptions wherein the factual was often mixed with the fabulous and preference often shown for the exotic, mythical, and imaginative over the scientific. This changed radically (...) with the scientific revolution of the early thirteenth century and the recovery in the Latin West of the zoological treatises of Aristotle. By 1220 all of Aristotle’s De animalibus was available in a Latin translation made from the Arabic by Michael Scotus at Toledo, and the commentators began to take notice. By mid-century, Albertus Magnus had made the libri de animalibus the centerpiece of his massive literary production introducing Aristotelian natural science to readers of Latin. This was followed in the 1260s by the notable effort of William of Moerbeke to produce a corrected version of the zoology directly from the Greek. (shrink)

Modern readers who have wrestled with the difficulties of Aristotle's Posterior Analytics can sympathize with the twelfth-century lament of John of Salisbury that there are "as many obstacles to understanding this work as there are chapters in it--and you are lucky if there are not more obstacles than chapters". One recent reader who has met with some success in overcoming these difficulties is Michael Ferejohn, whose book attempts to set out systematically the elements of the Aristotelian theory of scientific explanation. (...) Rather than add to the eminent tradition of commentary on the text, Ferejohn provides a reconstruction of the theory and so a comprehensive interpretation of demonstrative knowledge. (shrink)

Historians of philosophy often overlook the fact that the reception of Aristotle's works in the Latin West during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was largely the reception of a natural science. More than half the corpus is devoted to such topics as zoology, animal psychology, atmospheric studies, cosmology, chemistry, and physical mechanics. A full quarter of the corpus is devoted to zoology alone. This point was well understood among the first generation of Latin commentators. Scholars such as Robert Grosseteste and (...) Albert the Great, while interested in Aristotle's metaphysics and ethics, realized that he was first and foremost a naturalist. Albert, in particular, understood that the work of the early peripatetics was primarily directed to plant and animal studies. Sharing their interests, Albert devoted much of his efforts to articulating, correcting, and extending their original scientific researches. (shrink)

Historians of philosophy often overlook the fact that the reception of Aristotle's works in the Latin West during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was largely the reception of a natural science. More than half the corpus is devoted to such topics as zoology, animal psychology, atmospheric studies, cosmology, chemistry, and physical mechanics. A full quarter of the corpus is devoted to zoology alone. This point was well understood among the first generation of Latin commentators. Scholars such as Robert Grosseteste and (...) Albert the Great, while interested in Aristotle's metaphysics and ethics, realized that he was first and foremost a naturalist. Albert, in particular, understood that the work of the early peripatetics was primarily directed to plant and animal studies. Sharing their interests, Albert devoted much of his efforts to articulating, correcting, and extending their original scientific researches. (shrink)

During the past three decades, Aristotle studies have been significantly influenced by a series of ground-breaking investigations of the zoological works, especially the Historia animalium. As a result, contemporary Aristotle scholars have developed a clearer and more consistent interpretation of the zoology and have demonstrated its consonance with Aristotle’s logic and metaphysics. This revolution in Aristotle studies was anticipated by the medieval natural philosopher Albertus Magnus. As the first thinker since Theophrastus to pursue an Aristotelian research program in the life (...) sciences, he interpreted Aristotle’s animal histories as a series of pre-demonstrative researches preparatory to causal explanation as prescribed in the Posterior Analytics and the Topics. The medieval anticipation of these recent developments in Aristotle studies provides a compelling comparison of the interpretation of Aristotle now and then. (shrink)

Among the more important contributions to late twentieth-century Aristotle studies was Pierre Pellegrin’s La Classification des animaux chez Aristote: Statut de la biologie et unité de l’aristotélisme, which appeared in 1982. This revisionist reading of the Historia animalium not only directed scholarly attention to Aristotle’s hitherto little-studied biological works, but it also discouraged the attempt to understand these works solely in terms of developments in modern biology. The result was a flurry of activity on the part of scholars who attempted (...) to reread the corpus in light of the biology and the biology in light of the corpus. Thus was born a new development in Aristotle studies that redirected attention toward finding unity within the corpus through the integrating value of key concepts, descriptions, and methods of the biological works. One of the best examples of this development can be found in the work of James Lennox who, over the past twenty years, has written extensively on Aristotle’s philosophy of biology. (shrink)