Porphyry's "On Abstinence from Killing Animals "is one of the most interesting books from Greek antiquity for both philosophers and historians. In it, Porphyry relates the arguments for eating or sacrificing animals and then goes on to argue that an understanding of humans and gods shows such sacrifice to be inappropriate, that an understanding of animals shows it to be unjust, and that a knowledge of non-Greeks shows it to be unnecessary. There are no Neoplatonist commentaries on Aristotle's "Ethics "from (...) the period AD 250-600. Thus, although this work is not a commentary on Aristotle, it fills a gap in this series by going to the heart of ethical debates among Neoplatonists around AD 300, and revealing one ascetic Neoplatonist's view of the ideal way of life. It also records rival positions taken on the treatment of animals by Greek philosophers over the previous six hundred years. (shrink)

Although Themistius does not develop a theodicy, his observations on evil are fairly consistent. Both in his paraphrases of Aristotle and in his speeches, he argues that since God is the intelligent and powerful cause of all good things in the universe, evil is due to the στέρησις in matter and to the ἄνοιι of human beings. Despite some (Neo-)Platonic and Stoic influences, Themistius defends a basically Peripatetic world-view, in which evil is minimized.

The doctrines of Parmenides of the one being and of the world of seeming were—as is well known—interpreted in different ways in the course of the history of philosophy, and even in twentieth-century historic-philosophical research, there is no agreement on the meaning of the two parts of the poem. Regarding the one being there are four attempts of explanation to be distinguished: The being is material; the being is immaterial; it is the esse copulae or must be seen as a (...) modal category; it is the entity of being. This latter interpretation, if we can call it an interpretation, is chiefly influenced by Heidegger. The Doxa-part, however, is seen as a more or less critical doxography; a second-best, hypothetic explanation of phenomena which is not truth but verisimilitude; a systematic unit together with the first part, the ἀλήθεια We do not have to discuss the differences between the outlined explanations separately; in the following, we shall show that some modern interpretations were already expressed in a similar way in antiquity. With this, we shall concentrate especially on the Neoplatonist Simplicius who in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics expounds the first part of the Parmenidean poem completely and, in addition, the most important doctrines of the second part. (shrink)

Within the third book of Porphyry's On Abstinence from Animal Food, an ethic of community is developed in order to provide the basis of an account of our ethical obligations to animals. I argue that in spite of Porphyry's rejection of this account, it constitutes a coherent and comprehensive nonanthropocentric ethical theory. It conforms with ethical intuitions insofar as it grants that animals are moral subjects, but does not demand impartiality. By appealing to Theophrastus's notion of to oikeion and to (...) the Stoic notion of oikeic6is it provides the theoretical resources for showing why it is often appropriate to favor human beings over other animals. (shrink)

L'esistenza del commento di Alessandro di Afrodisia al De generatione aristotelico, perduto nella versione greca e nella traduzione araba, è attestata da numerose fonti arabe, tra le quali Averroè, nel suo commento alla stessa opera. L'A. rintraccia la presenza, la tipologia e la distribuzione delle citazioni tratte dal commento di Alessandro nel Kitab al-Tasrif, un'opera del corpus alchemico attribuita a Gabir ibn Hayyan. Secondo l'A., la sezione interessata dalle citazioni assembla tre diversi tipi di testi: 1) lemmi del De generatione (...) in traduzione araba; 2) frammenti lacunosi della traduzione araba del commento di Alessandro; 3) interventi di collegamento. Una più ampia discussione si trova in un saggio visibile sulla pagina "publicationslist" dell'autore: "Alessandro di Afrodisia sulle 'contrarietà tangibili' (De gen. et corr. II.2): fonti greche e arabe a confronto" in: Aristotele e Alessandro di Afrodisia nella tradizione araba, a c. di C. D'Ancona e G. Serra, “Il Poligrafo”, Padova 2002, pp. 151-189. Notasi che il testo ricostruito di Alessandro in GC 2.2-5 è stato pubblicato da E. Gannagé nella serie ACA, che però non menziona il contributo di SF, dalla cui iniziativa, dalle cui analisi e dalla cui ricostruzione integrale, svolta sul manoscritto arabo Paris. 5099, la ricerca prese l'avvio. (shrink)

In the fourth century A.D., the cult of the capricious goddess Tyche was alive and kicking among pagans, while it was vehemently criticized by Christian thinkers. Themistius, however, the most influential pagan philosopher at the Christian court of Constantinople, took up a middle position between pagans and Christians. In his paraphrases of Aristotle, he interpreted chance and luck as accidental causes which presuppose the finality of the cosmos and of the human mind. His teleology implied that тύχη is not a (...) divine power but rather a coincidence of purposeful activities. In his speeches, he argued that luck and fate play a subordinate role in the realization of the happy life. Although Themistius worshipped the Greek pantheon, his Peripatetic view on chance and luck isincompatible with the post-modern idolization of Tyche. (shrink)

L'étude présente s'efforce de démontrer que, dans son Commentaire sur les Météorologiques, S. Thomas a utilisé le Commentaire d'Alexandre d'Aphrodise sur le même traité d'Aristote. Quelques remarques concernant les manuscrits latins du Commentaire d'Alexandre et son traducteur précèdent l'étude proprement dite. Ces manuscrits sont au nombre de neuf. L'un d'entre eux, le ms. de Tolède, Bibl. Cat., 95.13 , se sépare nettement des autres. Son lieu d'origine est, selon toute vraisemblance, Viterbe ; il est très proche de l'archétype et en (...) est probablement une copie directe. Les huit autres mss. appartiennent à un même groupe. L'indication de peciae dans C et le rapprochement du Commentaire d'Alexandre avec la Physiognomonica dans CEMP, renvoient à la première liste de manuscrits dont l'Université de Paris fixe le prix de location. Le lieu et la date de la traduction , la comparaison du Commentaire avec l'ordre des traités d'Aristote donné par Guillaume de Moerbeke dans le prologue du De Partibus Animalium , ainsi que la comparaison des lemmes d'Aristote, cités par Alexandre, avec la traduction latine des Météorologiques par Guillaume de Moerbeke, montrent que ce dernier est le traducteur du Commentaire d'Alexandre. A défaut de citations explicites d'Alexandre dans le Commentaire de S. Thomas, nous comparons d'abord quelques textes qui en montrent la dépendance littéraire vis à vis du Commentaire d'Alexandre. Le grand nombre de textes parallèles justifie la conclusion que S. Thomas a consulté un manuscrit d'Alexandre pour la rédaction de son propre Commentaire. Vient ensuite la recherche du manuscrit utilisé par S. Thomas. La comparaison de quelques textes cités littéralement par celui-ci avec les variantes des différents mss. d'Alexandre, nous oriente vers le ms. T. Certaines notes marginales de la première main et d'une seconde main se retrouvent dans le texte même de S. Thomas. Ces correspondances ne peuvent être expliquées, qu'en faisant du texte de T la source de S. Thomas, là où il utilise Alexandre. Nous nous basons surtout sur une interprétation fautive du mot exscintillat ajoutée en marge du ms. T par T². Cette interprétation doit son origine au ms. T lui-même, et S. Thomas l'a faite sienne dans son explication d'Aristote au passage correspondant. Puisque le ms. T est selon toute vraisemblance originaire de Viterbe, il est assez probable que S. Thomas ait composé son Commentaire en cette ville avant septembre 1268. Cette date serait en même temps le terminus ad quem du ms. T, du moins pour la partie utilisée par S. Thomas . Une difficulté subsiste pour la datation du ms. T en entier, qui contient la traduction latine du De Intellectu de Jean Philopon achevée par Guillaume de Moerbeke le 17 décembre 1268. (shrink)