- Submit
-
Browse
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- More
Switch to: References
Citations of:
Add citations
You must login to add citations.
|
|
|
In Metaphysics B 3 Aristotle sets out a famous argument for the thesis that being is not a genus. In his commentary on Metaphysics B, Syrianus criticizes this argument and explains in what sense being is to be regarded as a genus. I reconstruct both Syrianus’ criticisms and his own view. I bring out ways in which they can help us rethink key assumptions of Aristotle’s ontology and shed light both on Syrianus’ critical attitude towards Aristotle and on some of (...) |
|
|
This paper argues that Augustine did not take the proof inSoliloquia2.22-4, which centers on the Aristotelian notion of ‘being in a subject’, from a single source but constructed it in a deliberately imperfect manner from several passages from Porphyry’s works on Aristotle’sCategoriesin order to supplement it with further arguments in Book Three. InDe immortalitate animaeAugustine explicitly discloses the weaknesses of the proof and repairs them by means of a Neoplatonic notion of causality. |
|
|
In book 3 of On Abstinence from Animal Food, Porphyry is traditionally taken to argue that animals are rational and that it is, therefore, unjust to kill them for food. Since the vast majority of scholars endorse this interpretation, I call it ‘the consensus interpretation’. Yet, strangely enough, elsewhere in his corpus Porphyry claims that the non-human animals are irrational. Jonathan Barnes notices this discrepancy and suggests that an appeal to the distinction between specific and non-specific predication can resolve the (...) |
|
|
Vers la fin, probablement, du vie siècle de notre ère, David a composé un Commentaire à l’Isagoge de Porphyre comprenant un proème substantiel, lui-même précédé de très longs Prolégomènes à la philosophie (soixante-dix-neuf pages dans les CAG). Contrairement aux leçons préliminaires d’Ammonius qui précédaient le Commentaire de celui-ci à l’Isagoge, les Prolégomènes de David semblent former un tout autonome, sans relation évidente avec le Commentaire qui suit. Cet article a pour but de montrer que David a pourtant tissé des liens (...) |
|
|
In his Commentary on Ptolemy’s Harmonics, Porphyry debunks Ptolemy’s quantitative theory of pitches by demonstrating that pitches are qualitative attributes of sound. I argue that Porphyry’s main concern is to save the phenomenological dimension of sound while preserving the possibility of a quantitative analysis of music. I show how he draws on the Aristotelian tradition to develop a theory of pitches as emergent properties that covary with some underlying quantitative features without being reducible to them. Porphyry offers an original and (...) |
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-5d8df9484f-rkp68 uwo