It is commonly assumed that Aristotle thinks that his claim that being exhibits a category-based pros hen structure, which he introduces to obviate the problem of categorial heterogeneity, is sufficient to defend the possibility of a science of being qua being. We, on the contrary, argue that Aristotle thinks that the pros hen structure is necessary only, but not sufficient, for this task. The central thesis of our paper is that Aristotle, in what follows 1003b19, raises a second problem for (...) the possibility of the science of being qua being; and that he does not think that the resolution of the first, the category-based problem, is either necessary or sufficient for resolving this problem. This is the problem: how can a plurality of apparently primary kinds and their opposites (they include to hen, to on, to auto, to homoion, to heteron and to anhomoion) be the subject-matter of the science of being qua being? It has been argued that these kinds are per se attributes of ousia and that, therefore, this problem is not different from the first problem. This, we argue, is mistaken; for nowhere in Gamma 2 does Aristotle claim that unity is a per se attribute of ousia. Rather, he says that identity, similarity, etc. are per se attributes of being qua being and unity qua unity. Aristotle’s resolution of the second problem, we argue, is that most of these kinds are reducible to a single compound principle: being-and-unity. Being and unity, moreover, are themselves related to each other as primary ousia and consequent ousia; but, we argue, Aristotle leaves it open, in Gamma 2, which of the two is primary, and which is consequent ousia. (shrink)

The philosophy of biomimicry, I argue, consists of four main areas of inquiry. The first, which has already been explored by Freya Mathews, concerns the “deep” question of what Nature ultimately is. The second, third, and fourth areas correspond to the three basic principles of biomimicry as laid out by Janine Benyus. “Nature as model” is the poetic principle of biomimicry, for it tells us how it is that things are to be “brought forth”. “Nature as measure” is the ethical (...) principle of biomimicry, for it tells us that Nature places ethical limits or standards on what it is possible for us to accomplish. And “Nature as mentor” is the epistemological principle of biomimicry, for it affirms that Nature is the ultimate source of truth, wisdom, and freedom from error. Within this overall framework, I argue that seeing Nature as physis—understood as “self-production” or “self-placing-into-the-open”—constitutes the requisite ground for the poetic, ethical, and epistemological principles of biomimicry, and that biomimicry thus conceived involves a new philosophical paradigm, which I call “enlightened naturalism”. (shrink)

En el comienzo de la filosofía la problemática ontológica que hunde sus raíces en la propia lengua griega y más precisamente en el participio presente del verbo ser, va a cobrar una importancia decisiva para el desarrollo del pensamiento occidental. Esta marca lingüística, exclusiva de la lengua griega, justifica el hecho de que la filosofía sea función de la diferencia ontológica y que para aquella, ser y pensar sean lo mismo. Porque el ser sólo puede ser pensado desde la aprioridad (...) que gnoseológicamente impone su estatuto transcendental. (shrink)

Within Hegel's system of science, judgement(Urteil)is thought's original dividing from identity into difference. In the same context, judgement is also an act of predication where “subject” must be understood in both a grammatical and psychical sense. Thus, judgement expresses a language act that is a self-positing into the difference of being. This article looks at two examples where Hegel's ontological notion of judgement obtains, then finds, the roots of this notion in Hölderlin and Fichte.

Philosophie grecqueest un ouvrage d'histoire de la philosophie du Vlesiècle av. J.-C. au XVesiècle byzantin et qui vient s'ajouter aux nombreuses histoires de la philosophie ancienne que nous a données l'historiographie française du xxesiècle. Le rythme de ces publications, même limitées à la tradition française, demeure impressionnant. En effet, une recherche rapide nous indiquerait facilement un rythme de publication d'environ une histoire de la philosophie ancienne tous les trois ans au cours de ce siècle. Une recherche plus poussée augmenterait sans (...) doute cette moyenne. Un esprit malin et tant soit peu insolent pourrait soutenir quePhilosophie grecqueest un ouvrage de trop sur les rayons déjà amplement garnis de nos bibliothèques et poserait la question fondamentale de la pertinence d'une nouvelle histoire de la philosophie ancienne en cette fin de siècle. (shrink)

La détermination du statut de la dialectique aristotélicienne aura certes été l'une des principales tâches auxquelles se seront consacrés les chercheurs de cette seconde moitié du siècle. Le nombre d'études qui traitent de cette question est en effet considérable. Or en dépit de tous ces travaux, l'interprétation de certains passages, où Aristote traite expressément du statut de la dialectique, demeure controversée. C'est entre autres le cas d'un court passage du chapitre 11 desRéfutations sophistiques(=RS), chapitre à propos duquel É. Weil a (...) déjà écrit, dans un article célèbre, qu'il «est décisif pour l'interprétation de la dialectique». Nous nous efforcerons donc, dans un premier temps, d'interpréter ce passage (11, 172a9–15) à la lumière du contexte précis où il s'inscrit; puis, dans un second temps, nous présenterons et discuterons les interprétations que certains des plus grands aristotélisants contemporains (G. E. L. Owen, J. Owens et P. Aubenque) ont données de ce passage. (shrink)

This paper aims to analyze one of the highest achievements of humankind, the classical tragedy, via the application of the heuristic paradigm proposed by Aristotle in his Physics, the fourfold determination of the concept of cause. This scientific methodology – one of the most effective viatica for a comprehensive response to the question of the nature of an object – informs the inquiry into the universal nature of tragedy, its hypercomplexity and hence its ethical and human relevance. Firstly, the concept (...) of tragedy is dissected into its four causes – material, formal, efficient and final; given that the object of research is at the same time tragedy in general and this specific tragedy , each cause is subdivided in two, a distal one and a proximal one . Then, the methodology of the four causes is applied to the formal cause alone, the tragic conflict, in an attempt to better understand tragedy’s quiddity. The results of this more specific causal determination are finally applied to the four causes of tragedy, supporting the hypothesis of a close relationship between hybris, amartia, tragic conflict and education of the phronesis. (shrink)

Thinking the origin in a radical way amounts to thinking the movement by which what does not proceed from something else - what does not have its origin elsewhere - comes to itself, has within itself precisely the ontological energy to detach itself from itself and to exist as origin. In its primordial sense, then, origin is self-origin: it is, becomes, and is known starting from itself. This self-presupposition of the origin constitutes the very advent of Being, its unmotivated and (...) permanent upsurge, which has to be thought in terms of creation. Human creation responds to this ontological genesis, to its indeterminacy and to its incompletion - and, consequently, to its temporality. At once individual and collective - that is, both psychical and social - human creation alone can give meaning to ontological genesis. (shrink)

Die Phänomenologie Husserls ist nicht nur als ein metaphysikkritisches Unternehmen, sondern als eine kritische Wiederaufnahme aristotelischer Themen aufzufassen. Denn die Frage nach dem Sinn des Seins führt Husserl anfänglich dazu, eine transzendentale Phänomenologie als eidetische Wissenschaft zu entwerfen, welche die aristotelische Ontologie auf formale und materiale Regionen erweitert. Später aber führt sie Husserl nicht nur zu einer Revision der Beziehungen zwischen Phänomenologie und Metaphysik, sondern zu einer Erweiterung des phänomenologischen Bereiches auf Fragen der letzten absolut gegebenen Urtatsachen, die eine phänomenologische (...) Metaphysik ausmachen. Dabei unternimmt Husserl eine kritische Rehabilitierung der aristotelischen Ontologie, indem er die materiale Ontologie sowohl mit einem ‚Unterbau‘ als auch mit einer ‚Krönung‘ versieht: Sie gründet auf einer apodiktischen Urfaktizität, die eine affektive Lebendigkeit aufweist, und gipfelt in einer Gottesauffassung, welche die erste Philosophie Aristoteles in einer praktischen Wende wieder aufnimmt. Die anfängliche Trennung beider Disziplinen wird somit in Richtung einer Phänomenologie überwunden, die eine phänomenologische Metaphysik miteinschließt und dadurch ihre Spannbreite neu definiert. (shrink)

En su defensa del Principio de no-contradicción, Aristóteles discute con varios interlocutores, desde los presocráticos hasta el sofista Protágoras, este último ampliamente conocido en la Antigüedad por trastocar el concepto de verdad con su doctrina del “homo mensura”, declarando así la imposibilidad del discurso falso. Consideramos que una lectura atenta del Libro Γ que rescate la figura del abderita puede mostrar cómo la crítica del sofista es clave para la constitución del pensamiento aristotélico en torno al problema de la verdad. (...) En la primera sección expondré algunas consideraciones sobre el PNC que son relevantes para entender las motivaciones detrás de las críticas aristotélicas al sofista. A continuación, analizaré dos de los argumentos aristotélicos contra los adversarios que discuten de mala fe: por una parte, la “refutación” de Metaph. Γ. 4 y, por otra parte, el “argumento de las apariencias contrarias” de Metaph. Γ. 5. Mi hipótesis es que algunos elementos teóricos esbozados en Γ. 4 permiten reconstruir una crítica aristotélica seria contra Protágoras en Γ. 5. Finalmente expondré una síntesis del camino recorrido y ofreceré algunas conclusiones. (shrink)

This article deals with Averroes’s interpretation of Metaph. Ε 1, where Aristotle discusses the nature and object of metaphysics, as well as its place in the hierarchy of sciences. Among Averroes’s predecessors, al-Kindī seems to see a coincidence between metaphysics and theology, since God can be described as the “first cause of everything”. However, al-Fārābī and Avicenna discovered that “first philosophy” could be conceived as an ontology distinct from theology; moreover, they considered theology to be only a part of metaphysics, (...) not even the most important one. In the Great Commentary on Metaphysics - where the Arabic translation of the work by the Jacobite monk Usṭāth is quoted, Averroes often just paraphrases the original passages. One may infer that theology in the strict sense is merely mentioned by way of example. In the Epitome of Metaphysics, the objects of metaphysics are “general” ones; metaphysics studies the “absolute being” and cannot be identified with theology as “pertaining to God”. (shrink)

No núcleo da leitura efetuada por Emmanuel Lévinas do projeto de uma "ontologia fundamental", concretizado por Martin Heidegger em Ser e Tempo , encontramos uma severa crítica à noção de "compreensão do ser". Lévinas não considera essa expressão senão o solo de uma filosofia sobremaneira incapaz de dimensionar a questão do outro. O objetivo deste artigo é, com base em reflexões de Heidegger acerca da expressão "sentido do ser" - reunidas em diversas passagens de seus Contributos à filosofia -, analisar (...) a pertinência e os limites dessa crítica levinasiana, estabelecendo, com isso, alguns elementos sobre o quais se pode fundar um debate, que historicamente nunca existiu, entre Lévinas e o segundo Heidegger.The most important aspect of the reception of Martin Heidegger's project of a "fundamental ontology", which can be found in Being and Time , by Emmanuel Lévinas lays in the critique of the concept of "comprehension of being". This expression is for Lévinas nothing else but a cornerstone of a philosophy which cannot deal adequately with the question of the other. The aim of this article is to estimate properly the relevance as well as the limits this critique by the means of the interpretation of some passages of Heidegger's Contributions to Philosophy which handle with the concept of "comprehension of being" By showing this we hope to identify elements which could consolidate a philosophical debate - which historically never took place - between Lévinas and the later Heidegger. (shrink)

This paper discusses Aristotle’s account of multivocity as expounded in Topics 1.15. This article argues that an inquiry into how many ways something is said becomes for Aristotle a tool of dialectical examination that he employs throughout his entire philosophical career: investigating the many/multiple ways something is said allows one to recognize the ambiguity of the term in question and, consequently, to construct an adequate definition of its referent. The present study reconstructs the various strategies for detecting ambiguity and discusses (...) its different types. Subsequently, the paper accounts for why Aristotle moves so easily from words and their meanings to things and their essences. Finally, the article presents an analysis of the connection between the many ways something is said and the various categories it is predicated in. The considerations are supported by a new translation of Topics 1.15. (shrink)

In the work of Henri Bergson and Martin Heidegger we find different responses to traditional ideas of ‘creation’. Bergson advances a philosophy of creation, wherein ‘creation’ is presented as the production of a ‘radical’ or ‘absolute’ novelty, not only in art, but in all forms of human experience and biological life. Heidegger, in contrast, comes to criticise ideas of ‘creation’ in art as the expression of an alienated ‘humanism’ and ‘subjectivism’ essential to the modern age. This paper illuminates this divergence (...) by showing how Bergson and Heidegger, despite appearances, grapple with the question of art-production – and with the attendant issues of inheritance and originality – in similar ways. It is only in recognising this proximity, I argue, that it is possible to perceive adequately what essentially distinguishes their approaches: Bergson’s conception of creation as a function of the will. (shrink)

In his Kitab al-ḥuruf, al-Fârâbî exposed a problem: Arabic language doesn’t have a word corresponding to the Greek verb einai. This paper examines the way Arabic philosophers managed to practice me...

One of the elements that obstruct the access to a presumed meaning of Plato’s doctrine is the use of the conventional meaning of the term “philosophia”, that is the signification that has prevailed after Aristotle. In order to eliminate this anachronism, it is necessary to review the meanings that the term had before Plato and in his dialogues. We should see that for the founder of the Academy philosophy was not a purely contemplative act, but one that was concerned with (...) politics. In his opinion, philosophy as dialectics was the art of contentious reasoning, of continuous and everlasting validation of true opinions. This method does not lead to truth; it substitutes the truth – and all this happens in the field of language. Thus philosophy is also a way to govern and make politics. Ergo the expression “philosopher king” does not unite terms that were previously opposites, but rather expresses the need that this model of making politics takes the place of the already established political power. (shrink)