In the 13th century, the availability of Aristotle’s treatises of natural philosophy encouraged forms of integration between libri naturales and sapientia biblica. Instead of diving into allegory and symbolism, several Dominican exegetes began to explore more realistic approaches. The foremost figure is Albert the Great. In his biblical commentaries, philosophy of nature and theology join forces as complementary forms of knowledge. By focusing on Albert’s De vegetabilibus, this paper is aimed at analyzing in which ways the Dominican master reuses his (...) naturalistic and, especially, botanical knowledge as an exegetical tool to deepen both the historical and the allegorical sense, realism and spiritual interpretation. (shrink)

Este ensayo, dedicado a las doctrinas psicológicas de Alejandro, se divide en tres partes: la primera ilustra, a través de ejemplos tratados por el De anima, la concepción que tenía Alejandro de su actividad filosófica. Dado que Aristóteles ha transmitido las doctrinas más verdaderas, cree Alejandro, lo que hay que hacer es simplemente exponerlas de nuevo del modo más claro y completo, valiéndose de todo lo que dice Aristóteles respecto de las funciones psíquicas, incluso en obras diferentes del tratado principal. (...) La segunda parte del ensayo se centra en la sección inicial (1-26 Bruns) del tratado alejandrino, donde principalmente se prueba que el alma, como cualquier otra forma, es sólo la conjunción de las capacidades del cuerpo, cuya forma es el alma. Más aún, argumenta Accattino, tales capacidades anímicas nunca pueden expresarse independientemente del cuerpo, y menos aún con la desaparición del cuerpo. Por lo tanto, como forma del cuerpo, el alma es completamente mortal. La otra tesis célebre de Alejandro (la identificación del intelecto activo con el dios aristotélico de Metafísica Lambda) es tratada por Accattino en la tercera parte de su ensayo. Allí examina la noética del De intellectu de Alejandro y la sección dedicada a la noética en su De anima (80, 16-91, 6). En esta parte de su artículo el autor aclara, primero, los términos usados en la noética alejandrina (intelecto en potencia o intelecto “material”, intelecto entendido como “hábito”, intelecto “que viene de afuera”, el intelecto “agente”); luego ilustra el modo en que Alejandro da cuenta de la actividad intelectiva del intelecto humano y, finalmente, se concentra en el papel diferente que atribuye al intelecto agente (o el intelecto “que viene de afuera”, identificado por Alejandro con el intelecto divino) en el De intellectu y en la sección del De anima, respectivamente, de modo de mostrar que la posición más madura de Alejandro es la indicada en el De anima. (shrink)

In this paper, I investigate how Xenophanes was ‘eleaticised’, i.e. attributed theses and arguments that belong to Parmenides and Melissus. I examine texts of Plato, Aristotle and Theophrastus in order to determine if they considered Xenophanes as a philosopher and a monist. I show that neither Plato nor Aristotle regarded him as a philosopher, but rather as a pantheist poet who claimed, in a vague way, that everything is one. But Theophrastus interpreted too literally Aristotle’s claims and was the first (...) to make Xenophanes a proper monist philosopher. (shrink)

This paper is a commentary on Epicurus’ Kuria Doxa 33, according to which “justice is not anything in itself [τι καθ᾽ ἑαυτό].” It explores what it means for something to exist ‘in itself’ in Hellenistic philosophy, speculating on the sources of Epicurean technical vocabulary and suggesting an ontological reading of KD 33.

This paper aims to assess the epistemological value of the notion of sympathy in Galen’s thought. It first shows that Galen makes use of two different concepts of sympathy: the ambient concept, according to which the human body manifests a harmonious part-whole relationship, and the technical concept, with which one connects two pathologies on the basis of the fact that the cause of the ailment is elsewhere than where it surfaces. Neither of these sympathies constitutes in itself a causal explanation (...) of reality. The first merely acknowledges an obvious interrelationship, the second acts as an epistemic tool to shift the focus of diagnosis away from the place where the condition manifests itself. However, the two concepts are not absolutely unrelated; and they come together when the sympathetic paradigm is used to understand the unifying action of the psychic and natural faculties. Very significantly, Galen then provisionally defines the cause as a power or faculty (δύναμις) not out of theoretical necessity but for practical reasons. (shrink)

_ Source: _Volume 62, Issue 1, pp 69 - 89 Galen’s physiology—his theory of elements, mixtures and the emergence of natural capacities—compels him to conceive of each part of the soul as a peculiar mixture of elementary qualities in the material substance of the organ in which it is located. The reason why Galen, nevertheless, refrains from making a dogmatic assertion about the substance of the soul, or of human nature in general, is the acknowledged failure to account for two (...) goal-directed activities—the formation of bodily organs and human intelligence—in terms of elementary qualities and their mixtures. (shrink)

Simplicius in Cat. 12,10-13,12 presents an interesting justification for the study of Aristotle's Categories, based in Neoplatonic psychology and metaphysics. I suggest that this passage could be regarded as a testimonium to Iamblichus' reasons for endorsing Porphyry's selection of the Categories as an introductory text of Platonic philosophy. These Iamblichean arguments, richly grounded in Neoplatonic metaphysics and psychology, may have exercised an influence comparable to Porphyry's.

This paper focuses on Galen’s views about the formal cause against the wider background of his account of causation. In his works on the pulse, Galen provides an in-depth discussion of issues such as the theory of causes and the problem of definition. While Galen is inclined to incorporate Peripatetic doctrines and vocabulary, he neglects Aristotle’s formal cause both in his account of causes and in that of definition. Further parallels outside the corpus on the pulse confirm Galen’s reserved attitude (...) towards the (Peripatetic) formal cause. In his work That the Faculties of the Soul Follow the Mixtures of the Body, however, Galen refers favourably to the Peripatetic theory of hylomorphic form. More precisely, Galen equates the Peripatetic en-mattered form with the mixture of homoeomerous bodies (the ratio or proportion of the elementary qualities in them). Here I will attempt to provide an explanation of Galen’s mixed attitude towards the formal cause and I will argue that his general position is consistent after all. In addition to this, I will try to set Galen’s position against the background of the Peripatetic debates on the status of form. (shrink)