I provide a survey of the contents of the works belonging to Aristotle's Organon in order to define their nature, in the light of his declared intentions and of other indications (mainly internal ones) about his purposes. No unifying conception of logic can be found in them, such as the traditional one, suggested by the very title Organon, of logic as a methodology of demonstration. Logic for him can also be formal logic (represented in the main by the De Interpretatione), (...) axiomatized syllogistic (represented in the main by the Prior Analytics) and a methodology of dialectical and rhetorical discussion. The consequent lack of unity presented by those works does not exclude that both the set of works called Analytics and the set of works concerning dialectic (Topics and Sophistici Elenchi) form a unity, and that a certain priority is attributed to the analytics with respect to dialectic. (shrink)
The book is a reconstruction and detailed presentation (close to a commentary) of Aristotle's lost work On Ideas, based, in the main, on the testimony of Alexander of Aphrodisias in his commentary to the Metaphysics; Alexander's text is included in the critical edition by D. Harlfinger.
ACCORDING TO MANY of the most authoritative interpreters and commentators of Aristotle, there is in his thought "a discrepancy between the real and the intelligible," that is to say, a failure to reconcile the requirements of his ontology with those of his logic and epistemology. From the point of view of his ontology, the individual, in effect the substance provided with matter, is basic, while the universal is derivative. From the point of view of his logic and epistemology, only the (...) "ideal," that is to say, what is universal and formal, is intelligible; and therefore, if the intelligible coincided with the real, this would also have to be basic ontologically. This conflict in his system is usually attributed to the existence of two incompatible strands of thought, one of which is close to a form of empiricism and is typically Aristotelian, while the other is "idealistic" and derives from Plato. (shrink)
The paper offers a survey of contributions to the interpretation of Aristotle's thought by scholars belonging to the analytic tradition (G.E.M. Anscombe, J.L. Ackrill, J. hintikka, G.E.L. Owen, W.F.R. Hardie), with some general considerations on their approach.
The book includes a collection, in Italian translation, of essays on Presocratic philosophy by Cherniss, Cornford, Vlastos, Kahn, Verdenius, Owen and others, with a long introduction of mine which, in addition to presenting the papers, tries to give an idea of the main problems of interpretation raised by the fragments and testimonies we have about the Presocratics.
The paper is a long, detailed, critical presentation of Ingemar Duering's Aristoteles. Darstellung und Interpretation seines Denkens, Heidelberg 1966, on the occasion of the publication of the Italian translation (by P.L. Donini, Milano 1976) of the same.
A general survey of Aristotle's contributions to physics (in the Ancient sense of the word), including his "De anima" but leaving out his zoological works, with some attention for the differences between his science and modern science.
The paper offers a critical discussion of H. Happ's wide-ranging book entitled "Hyle. Studien zum aristotelischen Materiebegriff", Berlin 1971. While recognizing the importance of this contribution to Aristotelian scholarship I express some revervations to the approach adopted, which tends to make of Aristotle a continuator of the so-called unwritten doctrines by Plato.
The paper was originally intended to serve as an introduction to the Italian translation of Kurt von Fritz's "Grundprobleme der antiken Wissenschaft, Berlin, 1971, pointing out the merits but also certain limitations of the book. (Because it appeared too critical it was not accepted by the italian publisher Il Mulino.).
The paper offers a rather long discussion of E. Berti's book entitled Aristotele: dalla dialettica alla filosofia prima, questioning some important aspects of the approach he adopts. (He replied to my criticism in a successive issue of the same review.).
The paper offers a discussion of Philip Merlan's contributions (in "From Platonism to Neoplatonism, The Hague 1960, e in some papers of his, now included in his "Kleine Philosophische Schriften", Hildesheim 1976) to the understanding of Aristotle's metaphysics, with particular reference to the science of being qua being.
The paper is concentrated on Aristotle's "Posterior Analytics" and attempts to show that his account of the sciences is less uniform than it is usually taken to be but shows some awareness of important differences between the mathematical and the physical sciences.