In Metaphysics III, Chapter 4, Aristotle sets out and defends the Law of Non-Contradiction. The arguments are, however, rather less satisfactory than one might have expected, given the enormous historical influence the text has had. His major argument is a particularly tangled one, and the others are often little more than throw-away remarks. This essay is a commentary on the chapter, but its aim is less to interpret the text , than to see whether there is anything that Aristotle could (...) have meant that would have served his purpose. Whilst other commentators have sometimes attempted this, they have always taken his conclusion to be correct, even if his arguments were not; I do not. The commentary is therefore a confrontation between Aristotle and modern dialetheism. (shrink)

The “dragon” that graces the cover of this volume has a story that goes with it. In the summer of 1980, I was on the teaching staff of the Summer Institute on Medieval Philosophy held at Cornell University under the direction of Norman Kretzmann and the auspices of the Council for Philosophical Studies and the National Endowment for the Humanities. While I was giving a series of lectures there (lectures that contribute to this volume, as it turns out), I went (...) to my office one morning, and there under the door some anonymous wag from the Institute had slid the pen and ink drawing you see in the picture. It represents “Supposition” as a dragon, making a rude face at the viewer. The tail of the dragon is divided — not entirely accurately, as it turns out — into the various branches and subbranches of supposition. If the details are not altogether correct, the spirit is certainly understandable. (shrink)

Parmenides believed that he had found the most reliable way of theorizing about ultimate reality. While natural philosophers conceptualized phenomenal differences to explain cosmic change, Parmenides used the least meaningful but most versatile verb in Ancient Greek to engage in a purely intellectual exploration of reality – one that transcended synchronous and asynchronous differences. In this article I explain how the verb εἰμί was useful to Parmenides in his attempt to overcome natural philosophy. First, I argue that the Eleatic philosopher (...) regarded νοεῖν and εἶναι as equivalent because εἰμί-clauses enabled him to express arguably any conceivable content without providing significant additional meaning. I then show that Parmenides’ concept of being implies the present tense and the imperfective aspect but is grounded in the lexical content of the verb εἰμί, which entails no inherent temporal limits. This explains why ἔστι, ἐόν, and εἶναι could be used to indicate unbounded actuality, regardless of whether these forms represented lexical predicates or auxiliaries for predication. Finally, I maintain that the suitability of εἰμί for talking about all kinds of things without introducing temporal limits allowed Parmenides to avoid what he saw as two mistakes made by natural philosophers: identifying ultimate reality with something that cannot cover the full extent of thought and confusing actuality with present occurrence. (shrink)

There is an interpretation of Parmenides’poem which has not yet had, but deserves, a hearing. It reconciles two of the most prominent views of the meaning of the verb ‘to be’ as it occurs in the poem. It agrees with the spirit of those who interpret ‘εἷναι’ as‘existence.’ It agrees with the letter of those who interpret ‘εἷν αι’ as the copula.

When Auerbach writes in Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature that, although Homer can be analyzed, he cannot be interpreted, he puts the reader on notice that not all verbal discourse embodies the structure of interpretation. He equally shows the reader that there is discourse which, in order to be read, must be interpreted—that of the Bible and its heirs. Although Mimesis has long been celebrated, its readers have not properly remarked that what allows Auerbach to achieve his (...) penetrating reading of Western literature is precisely the critical distinction which he makes between analysis and interpretation, between that which is devoid of or lacks (is ignorant of) interpretation and that which consciously involves (wills) interpretation. Given the failure to appreciate the distinction which Auerbach systematically draws between analysis and interpretation, it is hardly surprising that philosophers and literary critics have failed to see that the distinction between analysis and interpretation presupposes a general theory of interpretation which applies no less to philosophy than to literature. (shrink)

Qui sont « les Anciens »? Dans cet article nous allons examiner la signification de l’expression « les Anciens » dans le papyrus médical appelé Anonyme de Londres, en essayant de lui donner une juste attribution. L’examen contextuel des deux occurrences de ce terme révèle que le rapprochement avec les Aristotéliciens, proposé par la plupart des interprétations, est plutôt plausible. Cette conclusion est basée sur deux éléments : d’abord d’étroites analogies avec quelques textes d’Aristote, puis l’usage qui a été fait (...) de cette même expression dans les traités médicaux contemporains de la rédaction du papyrus. La recherche semble démontrer que, dans le premier cas, par l’expression « les Anciens » l’auteur du papyrus ferait allusion à Aristote et non aux Platoniciens, et dans le second, qu’il pourrait s’agir d’une allusion aux philosophes présocratiques, soit Héraclite soit Empédocle. (shrink)

El presente artículo intenta ofrecer un marco documental para la discusión sobre la estructura cosmológica de Ferecides de Siros. Partiendo de la polémica entre quienes le adjudican un cosmograma quinario y aquellos que lo interpretan septenario, proponemos un recorrido por las antiguas doctrinas cosmológicas quinarias, tanto griegas como orientales, a fin de explorar su recurrencia y variedad. Se constata que la disputa religiosa entre los apologetas del cinco y los del siete existía ya en la antigüedad, pudiendo haber afectado a (...) la lectura que los doxógrafos hicieron entonces de la obra de Ferecides. Se expone la teoría de Nick Allen sobre la existencia de una «ideología pentádica» indoeuropea y se critica su sesgo idealista (pitagórico en la línea de Dumézil). Finalmente, se suscribe la hipótesis del origen «protogeométrico» de muchos de estos mapas ontológicos quinarios y se recapitulan las posibles referencias que manejaba el maestro de Pitágoras cuando ideó su teogonía. (shrink)

In the summer of 1980, I was privileged to be on the teaching staff of the Summer Institute on Medieval Philosophy held at Cornell University under the direction of Norman Kretzmann and the auspices of the Council for Philosophical Studies and the National Endowment for the Humanities. While I was giving a series of lectures on supposition theory, I went to my office one morning, and there under the door some anonymous wag from the Institute had slid the pen and (...) ink drawing you see in the graphic. It represents "Supposition" as a dragon, making a rude face at the viewer. The tail of the dragon is divided — not entirely accurately, as it turns out — into the various branches and subbranches of supposition. If the details are not altogether correct, the spirit is certainly understandable. I have absolutely no idea who the inspired artist was, but I have the original framed on the wall in my office. (shrink)

In his essay From Logos to Mythos, I republished on the twentieth anniversary of its first publication, Most saw in the release of Creuzer’s Symbolik und Mythologie the moment when philology distanced itself from philosophy “refraining strictly from any discussion of what the Greek myths could mean for us, and instead concentrating […] into what the Greek myths could have meant for the Greeks”. This essay analyses the case study offered by the mythological dyad Kronos (Κρόνος) and Chronos (Χρόνος). It (...) highlights some elements that place these two figures at a distance on the philological level but closer on the philosophical one. The essay encourages a dialogue between philological rigour and philosophical use of myth: myth, in its prolificity, is eloquent in every age and a careful understanding of what it meant to the Greeks in its time does not necessarily imply giving up understanding what it may mean to us today. (shrink)