This paper examines the central criticisms that come, broadly, from the modern, ‘analytic’ tradition, of Pierre Hadot’s idea of ancient philosophy as a way of life.: Firstly, ancient philosophy just did not or could not have involved anything like the ‘spiritual practices’ or ‘technologies of the self’, aiming at curing subjects’ unnecessary desires or bettering their lives, contra Hadot and Foucault et al. Secondly, any such metaphilosophical account of putative ‘philosophy’ must unacceptably downplay the role of ‘serious philosophical reasoning’ or (...) ‘rigorous argument’ in philosophy. Thirdly, claims that ancient philosophy aimed at securing wisdom by a variety of means including but not restricted to rational inquiry are accordingly false also as historical claims about the ancient philosophers. Fourthly, to the extent that we must (despite (3)) admit that some ancient thinkers did engage in or recommend extra-cognitive forms of transformative practice, these thinkers were not true or ‘mainline’ philosophers. I contend that the historical claims (3) and (4) are highly contestable, risking erroneously projecting a later modern conception of philosophy back onto the past. Of the theoretical or metaphilosophical claims (1) and (2), I argue that the second claim, as framed here, points to real, hard questions that surround the conception(s) of philosophy as a way of life. (shrink)

A long-established view has deprecated Renaissance humanists as primarily literary figures with little serious interest in philosophy. More recently it has been proposed that the idea of philosophy as a way of life offers a useful framework with which to re-assess their philosophical standing. However, this proposal has faced some criticism. By looking again at the work of three important figures from the period I defend the claim that at least some thinkers during the Renaissance did see philosophy as a (...) way of life, while also acknowledging the force of reservations made by recent critics. (shrink)

El artículo cuestiona la oposición entre platonismo y aristotelismo que se discute en el Renacimiento. Específicamente examina los argumentos de Ficino sobre el movimiento del cielo. Estos han dado lugar a considerar su pensamiento como incoherente ya que incorpora elementos aristotélicos en un marco platónico. Si bien estas consideraciones han sido cuestionadas, se profundiza en ello y se muestra que la incorporación de nociones aristotélicas es una característica de la tradición platónica renacentista.

RESUMEN El artículo cuestiona la oposición entre platonismo y aristotelismo que se discute en el Renacimiento. Específicamente examina los argumentos de Ficino sobre el movimiento del cielo. Estos han dado lugar a considerar su pensamiento como incoherente ya que incorpora elementos aristotélicos en un marco platónico. Si bien estas consideraciones han sido cuestionadas, se profundiza en ello y se muestra que la incorporación de nociones aristotélicas es una característica de la tradición platónica renacentista. ABSTRACT The article questions the opposition between (...) Platonism and Aristotelianism discussed during the Renaissance. Specifically, it examines Ficino's arguments regarding the motion of heaven which have led to the consideration of his thought as incoherent given that it incorporates Aristotelian elements into a Platonic framework. Although these considerations have been questioned, the article delves further into the matter, showing that the incorporation of Aristotelian notions is typical of the Renaissance Platonic tradition. (shrink)