En la obra que ahora presentamos al público hispanoparlante, reunimos diez trabajos previamente publicados en lengua italiana que abordan importantes cuestiones que ocupan en este momento a los estudiosos de la filosofía helenística y romana. Sus autores son diez de los más importantes especialistas italianos actuales en el estudio de este periodo histórico.

We offer a sceptical examination of a thesis recently advanced in a monograph published by Princeton University Press, entitled Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia. In this dense and probing work, Christopher I. Beckwith, a professor of Central Eurasian studies at Indiana University, Bloomington, argues that Pyrrho of Elis adopted a form of early Buddhism during his years in Bactria and Gandhāra, and that early Pyrrhonism must be understood as a sect of early Buddhism. In making (...) his case Beckwith claims that virtually all scholars of Greek, Indian, and Chinese philosophy have been operating under flawed assumptions and with flawed methodologies, and so have failed to notice obvious and undeniable correspondences between the philosophical views of the Buddha and of Pyrrho. In this study we take Beckwith’s proposal and challenge seriously, and we examine his textual basis and techniques of translation, his methods of examining passages, his construal of problems and his reconstruction of arguments. We find that his presuppositions are contentious and doubtful, his own methods are extremely flawed, and that he draws unreasonable conclusions. Although the result of our study is almost entirely negative, we think it illustrates some important general points about the methodology of comparative philosophy. (shrink)

Apeiron Issue: Ahead of print. This paper is dedicated to exploring the alleged difference between Cleanthes’ and Chrysippus’ accounts of the post-mortal survival of the souls and the conceptions of personal identity that these accounts underpin. I argue that while Cleanthes conceptualised the personal identity as grounded in the rational soul, Chrysippus conceptualised it as an embodied rational soul. I also suggest that this difference between the two early Stoics might have been due to Chrysippus' metaphysical commitments arising from his (...) response to the Growing Argument put forth by the Academics rather than the critique of his teacher. (shrink)

This paper offers some clarifications about the meaning of the formula “οὐ μᾶλλον” as it is presented in one of the most controversial passages of Aristocle’s On Philosophy, where he discusses with the Pyrrhonians. My thesis is that the formula “οὐ μᾶλλον” has practical and therapeutical functions insofar as it plays the role of a purgative drug against “predication” rather than being an epistemological or metaphysical claim. In this sense, it is a philosophical tool against the vanities of dogmatism. To (...) reach this conclusion, I will analyze the passage and the possible roots of this formula in the Socratic tradition. (shrink)

El artículo presenta un análisis comparativo de los últimos parágrafos de la Vida de Pirrón de Diógenes Laercio y de un capítulo del Adversus ethicos de Sexto Empírico. Los resultados de este análisis harán plausible la hipótesis de una fuente común, reproducida parcialmente en DL, pero elaborada y refinada en Sexto. En ambos textos son centrales las nociones de fin y de elección. Se presentan las diferencias entre ambos textos entorno a la primera, y las tensiones internas comunes que implica (...) el tratamiento de la segunda. The article provides a comparative analysis of the final paragraphs of Diogenes Laertius' Life of Pyrrho and a chapter from the Adversus ethicos by Sextus Empiricus. The results of the analysis make plausible the hypothesis regarding a common source, partially reproduced in DL, but elaborated on and refined in Sextus. The notions of end and choice are central in both texts. The paper presents the differences between the texts regarding the former and the common internal tensions entailed by treatment of the latter. (shrink)

In this paper I revisit Aristocles’ formulation of the objection of immorality addressed to the Pyrrhonists, as well as a possible skeptical answer transmitted by the same source. Concerning the objection, I will try to show that it is an ethical and not a practical charge, which should not therefore be confused with the objection of apraxia. Concerning the answer, I will argue that it is necessarily a de ationary solution, which leaves part of the accusation intact, simply because the (...) Pyrrhonist cannot and should not admit the terms in which it has been raised. (shrink)