In this paper, I compare the Megarian thesis of Metaphysics IX 3 with other sources on the Megarians in order to clarify two questions: that of the unity and nature of the so-called Megarian school and that of Aristotle’s broader argument in IX 3. I first review the disputed issue of the status of the Megarian school and then examine two hypotheses regarding the identity behind Aristotle’s allusion in IX 3. Third, I explore the connection between Megarianism and Plato’s Euthydemus, (...) a task that helps us to contextualize Aristotle’s anti-Megarian polemic. Lastly, I build on the preceding argument in a re-examination of the Eleatic hypothesis with regard both to the Megarians as a whole and to the thesis that Aristotle transmits. (shrink)

: Metaphysics B considers two sets of views that hypostatize mathematicals. Aristotle discusses the first in his B.2 treatment of aporia 5, and the second in his B.5 treatment of aporia 12. The former has attracted considerable attention; the latter has not. I show that aporia 12 is more significant than the literature suggests, and specifically that it is directly addressed in M.2 – an indication of its importance. There is an immediate problem: Aristotle spends most of M.2 refuting the (...) view that mathematicals are separate; but the B.5 mathematicals are inherent. I argue that the B.5 inherence is compatible with the M.2 separateness, and further, that aporia 12 is more than just a puzzle about the hypostatization of mathematicals. It is also a puzzle about the ontological status of mathematicals relative to sensibles. (shrink)

Este ensayo discute el problema de la causalidad del motor inmóvil de Aristóteles; el problema, surgido ya a partir de Teofrasto, constituye aún hoy una de las cuestiones mayormente debatidas. La teoría dominante entre los comentadores antiguos y desde hace largo tiempo entre los modernos, según la cual el motor inmóvil movería como causa final, ha encontrado ahora una nueva posible interpretación, sostenida también por Salis en su trabajo, en virtud de la cual el primer motor produciría el movimiento como (...) causa eficiente. Salis se propone analizar la interpretación que ha dado de la cuestión uno de los comentadores antiguos de Aristóteles, conocido como Pseudo Alejandro. El comentador, antesconsiderado un neoplatónico, ha sido recientemente identificado con Miguel de Éfeso, literato bizantino que vivó entre los s. XI-XII. De acuerdo con la interpretación inaugurada por Alejandro de Afrodisia, el cielo se movería con el fin de uniformarse con el primer motor, y se movería con un movimiento circular (el tipo de movimiento más cercano a la inmovilidad absoluta de la causa primera, de la que sería una imitación). Pseudo Alejandro, sugiere Salis, aun siguiendo la interpretación tradicional, construye una teoría completamente original al sostener que, respecto del problema de la causalidad del primer motor, se aparta de Alejandro e introduce un ingrediente innovador: según él, el primer cielo no tendería a imitar el motor inmóvil, sino que apuntaría a apropiarse de él o a unirse a él. (shrink)

É comumente aceito, atualmente, que Aristóteles não teria enfrentado ou tentado seriamente resolver o famoso paradoxo do mentiroso, embora ele tenha sido formulado por Eubúlides de Mileto, membro da escola megárica e rival filosófico de Aristóteles. No máximo, assim reza a visão tradicional, ele parece apenas fazer uma menção desse paradoxo nas Refutações sofísticas, Capítulo 25, talvez esboçando a sua solução. O meu intento, no presente artigo, é desafiar essa opinião geral mostrando que o Estagirita fornece uma explicação implícita para (...) duas versões do paradoxo do mentiroso, a saber, a versão autorreferencial, e a versão anafórica. A minha alegação é que a solução aristotélica para essas duas versões do paradoxo encontra-se no núcleo de sua refutação de duas teses, as quais denominei como tese da synalethia e como tese da sympseudia. Tal refutação é realizada no oitavo capítulo do quarto Livro da Metafísica, um texto até agora subestimado pelos intérpretes modernos, mesmo sendo a parte final de um dos mais importantes escritos de Aristóteles. A solução aristotélica, assim defendo, é levada a cabo por meio dos seguintes princípios: toda declaração é sempre precedida por um operador de verdade da forma ‘é verdade que...’, ou seja, toda declaração, qualquer que seja o que ela possa declarar a mais, primariamente assevera a sua própria verdade; e, em conformidade com o princípio anterior, toda declaração que assevera a sua própria falsidade ou acarreta a verdade de sua contraditória é necessariamente falsa. Através desses princípios, a refutação de Aristóteles da synalethia e da sympseudia é bem-sucedida. Mostrarei que obtemos uma boa solução para as versões do mentiroso acima mencionadas, apenas aplicando esses mesmos princípios a elas. Esse tipo de solução ao mentiroso tanto quanto para as teses antes citadas é muito parecido com aquele explicitamente encontrado nas obras de diversos filósofos, a saber, Guilherme de Sherwood, Tomás Bradwardine, João Buridano, Alberto da Saxônia, Paulo Venetus, Charles S. Peirce e Arthur Prior. Assim, também defendo que essa linhagem tem as suas raízes na solução de Aristóteles. (shrink)

Este ensayo discute el problema de la causalidad del motor inmóvil de Aristóteles; el problema, surgido ya a partir de Teofrasto, constituye aún hoy una de las cuestiones mayormente debatidas. La teoría dominante entre los comentadores antiguos y desde hace largo tiempo entre los modernos, según la cual el motor inmóvil movería como causa final, ha encontrado ahora una nueva posible interpretación, sostenida también por Salis en su trabajo, en virtud de la cual el primer motor produciría el movimiento como (...) causa eficiente. Salis se propone analizar la interpretación que ha dado de la cuestión uno de los comentadores antiguos de Aristóteles, conocido como Pseudo Alejandro. El comentador, antesconsiderado un neoplatónico, ha sido recientemente identificado con Miguel de Éfeso, literato bizantino que vivó entre los s. XI-XII. De acuerdo con la interpretación inaugurada por Alejandro de Afrodisia, el cielo se movería con el fin de uniformarse con el primer motor, y se movería con un movimiento circular (el tipo de movimiento más cercano a la inmovilidad absoluta de la causa primera, de la que sería una imitación). Pseudo Alejandro, sugiere Salis, aun siguiendo la interpretación tradicional, construye una teoría completamente original al sostener que, respecto del problema de la causalidad del primer motor, se aparta de Alejandro e introduce un ingrediente innovador: según él, el primer cielo no tendería a imitar el motor inmóvil, sino que apuntaría a apropiarse de él o a unirse a él. (shrink)

In Metaphysics Z 13 Aristotle argues that no universal can be substance. Prima facie, this appears to rule out the possibility that any universal can be substance, species as well as genera. Nevertheless, many commentators have denied that this chapter intends to rule out the possibility that any universal can be substantial. Aristotle, it is thought, cannot wish to deny that any universal can be substance because he believes that some universals are substances, viz. species.

Although Aristotle’sMetaphysicsreceived much attention in the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries, scholars and historians of science were not particularly interested in clarifying the aim of Aristotle’s appeal to astronomy in Λ 8. Read with monotheistic prejudices, this chapter was quickly abandoned by Aristotelian scholars as a gratuitous insertion, which downgrades Aristotle’s God for the sake of some supplementary principles, whose existence was dictated by celestial mechanics. On the other hand, historians of astronomy read the astronomical excursus as providing a picture (...) of Aristotle as an able astronomer, who made an important contribution to the theory of concentric celestial spheres of Eudoxus and Callippus by adding the counteracting spheres. The present article argues (a) that Aristotle purposefully turned to astronomy as the only mathematical science whose objects were correlative to the immaterial first substances or gods, the number of which had to be precisely determined by his own project of first philosophy; and (b) that he had no aspiration of improving the astronomical theory of his peers, contrary to an interpretation that first emerged with the Peripatetic exegete Sosigenes in the second century A.D. (shrink)

The Stoics identified thephantasiawith the impression (typos) in the soul, or the impressing process (typōsis). Alexander of Aphrodisias engages directly with this account atDe anima68.10–21, and argues against the applicability of the impression in a theory of perception inMantissa10, especially 133.25–134.23. I analyse Alexander’s polemic account atDe anima68.10–21, I demonstrate that it differs from Chrysippus’ criticism of Cleanthes (contrary to some commentators), and I show how it fits in the context of his argument. From this analysis it will emerge how (...) Alexander uses Stoic ideas to form his Aristotelian account. Then, I show that Alexander, by taking ‘typos’ metaphorically, not only prefers the term ‘enkataleimma’ over ‘typos’ in his theory ofphantasia, but he keeps the ‘typos’ terminology only to remain faithful to Aristotle’s use (contrary to some commentators). (shrink)

‘There are important differences between Aristotle's account of homonymy and synonymy on the one hand, and Speusippus' on the other; in particular, Aristotle treated homonymy and synonymy as properties of things, whereas Speusippus treated them as properties of words. Despite this difference, in certain significant passages Aristotle fell under the influence of Speusippus and used die words “homonymous” and “synonymous” in their Speusippan senses.’.

I examine Alexander of Aphrodisias’ theory of action, addressing the question how his view that human actions are determined by reason accounts for the capacity of doing otherwise. Calling into question the standard view that Alexander frees agents from internal determination, I argue that (1) the capacity of doing otherwise is a consequence of determination by reason, since it enables agents to do something different from what they would have done had they followed external circumstances; and (2) this capacity is (...) compatible with causal determination by reason because as a case of potentiality for opposites, it grants agents the qualified possibility of doing otherwise insofar as their nature as human beings is concerned – a possibility which remains also when their actions are causally determined by reason and by their internal disposition. I show further that these elements of Alexander’s theory of action are ultimately based on his conception of the soul, specifically on his commitment to Aristotle’s view that the human soul is not purely rational, as the Stoics hold, but has nonrational and rational parts. (shrink)