scholarly journals History of Greek Philosophy: Thales to Democritus.

1924 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 416
Author(s):  
Glenn R. Morrow ◽  
B. A. G. Fuller
Keyword(s):  
Greek Philosophy ◽  
History Of

A History of Greek Philosophy

1978 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. K. C. Guthrie
Keyword(s):  
Greek Philosophy ◽  
History Of

A History of Greek Philosophy

1975 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. K. C. Guthrie
Keyword(s):  
Greek Philosophy ◽  
History Of

‘Planets’ in Simplicius De caelo 471.1 ff.

1971 ◽  
Vol 91 ◽  
pp. 138-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. J. Hall
Keyword(s):  
Greek Philosophy ◽  
History Of

In four of the last five numbers of the JHS, Doctors D. R. Dicks and D. O'Brien have disputed about Simplicius De caelo 471.1 ff. (DK 12A19), which runs (in part, 471.2–6): καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῑ [i.e. ἐκ τῶν περὶ ἀστρολογίαν] περὶ τῆς τάξεως τῶν πλανωμένων καὶ περὶ μεγεθῶν καὶ ἀποστημάτων ἀποδέδεικται Ἀναξιμάνδρου πρώτου τὸν περὶ μεγεθῶν καὶ ἀποστημάτων λόγον εὑρηκότος, ὡς Εὔδημος ἱστορεῖ τὴν τῆς θέσεως τάξιν εἰς τοὺς Πυθαγορείους πρώτους ἀναψέρων. In his History of Greek philosophy (i 93), Professor Guthrie translates the latter part of this as follows: ‘(…speaking of the planets) “Anaximander was the first to discuss their sizes and distances, according to Eudemus, who attributes the first determination of their order to the Pythagoreans.”’ Guthrie, Dicks and O'Brien all agree that πλανωμένων is accurately translated as ‘planets’; they also evidently agree that Anaximander would not have distinguished the planets from the fixed stars, at least in this matter; and consequently Guthrie (op. cit. i 95) finds Simplicius' statement about Anaximander ‘confusing’; Dicks finds it ‘nonsensical’; and O'Brien speaks of Simplicius' ‘rather ragged context’, and supposes that Eudemus was actually speaking, not of planets, but of sun, moon and stars, i.e. that Simplicius has quite misrepresented his source.

scholarly journals Гермотим из Клазомен и начало афинской философии

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 141-148
Author(s):  
О.А. Матвейчев
Keyword(s):  
Ancient Greece ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
History Of Philosophy ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Greek Philosophy ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Classical Greek Philosophy ◽  
Available Information ◽  
Greek World

Гермотим из Клазомен – фигура в истории греческой философии, можно сказать, маргинальная. В современной литературе он появляется разве что в ряду других колдунов и мистиков VII–VI вв. до н.э. В таком статусе он включается и в собрание Дильса. Анализируя сведения о Гермотиме, автор ставит перед собой цель найти ему место среди малоазийских философов первой величины, которых считают основателями греческой философии. Различение духа (души) и материи (тела) станет основополагающим принципом греческой философии, понятие Ума (нуса) выступит фундаментом для системы Анаксагора, первого афинского философа, с которого, собственно, и начнется история классической греческой философии. Автор разделяет точку зрения Э. Доддса и др., что появление нового для Греции представления о различии души и тела коренится в северной (гиперборейской?) ментальности, привнесенной в греческий мир во времена колонизации VII–VI вв. до н.э., а возможно – и в более ранние. Ключевые слова: история философии, Древняя Греция, Гиперборея, Гермотим из Клазомен, Анаксагор, шаманизм, нус, душа, тело Hermotimus of Clazomenae can be called a marginal figure in the history of Greek philosophy. In modern literature he is mentioned only among other sorcerers and mystics of the VIIth–VIth centuries BC. The collection of Hermann Diels describes him in the same manner. Analyzing available information about Hermotimus, the author makes an attempt to place him among the primary Anatolian philosophers who are considered the founders of Greek philosophy. The distinction between spirit (soul) and matter (body) will become the fundamental principle of Greek philosophy; the concept of Nous (cosmic Mind) will be the foundation for the system of Anaxagoras, the first Athenian philosopher, from which, in fact, the history of classical Greek philosophy begins. The author shares the point of view of E. Dodds and others that the emergence of a new concept about the difference between soul and body in Greece is rooted in the northern (Hyperborean?) mentality introduced into the Greek world during the colonization of the VIIth–VIth centuries BC or possibly in earlier times. Keywords: history of philosophy, Ancient Greece, Hyperborea, Hermotimus of Clazomenae, Anaxagoras, shamanism, nous, soul, body

On Contents Division of Ancient Greek Philosophy

2018 ◽  
pp. 369-374
Author(s):  
Shaoyu Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Natural Science ◽  
Practical Philosophy ◽  
Western Philosophy ◽  
Greek Philosophy ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Speculative Philosophy ◽  
Science Ethics ◽  
Ancient Greek Philosophy ◽  
History Of

The history of Western philosophy usually divides the ancient Greek philosophy into three parts, namely, natural science, ethics, and logic. The author deems that the ancient Greek philosophy should be divided into two categories: speculative philosophy and practical philosophy, for which writings of Plato and Aristotle provide sufficient grounds.

Introduction

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Timothy Clarke
Keyword(s):  
Fifth Century ◽  
The Sun ◽  
Greek Philosophy ◽  
History Of ◽  
Night And Day ◽  
Eleatic Monism

This book is a study of Aristotle’s engagement with Eleatic monism, the theory of Parmenides of Elea and his followers that reality is ‘one’. Parmenides wrote a single philosophical poem, sometime in the early fifth century BCE. This poem, which now survives only in fragments, is widely acknowledged to be a pivotal work in the history of Greek philosophy. It tells the story of a young man who is taken on a journey by the daughters of the Sun. After passing through the gates of the paths of Night and Day, he is greeted by a goddess:...

Eternity

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleonore Stump ◽  
Norman Kretzmann
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Religion ◽  
History Of Philosophy ◽  
Human Freedom ◽  
Greek Philosophy ◽  
Medieval Philosophy ◽  
Divine Omniscience ◽  
History Of ◽  
Necessary Truths ◽  
Temporal Location

The distinctive, philosophically interesting concept of eternity arose very early in the history of philosophy as the concept of a mode of existence that was not only beginningless and endless but also essentially different from time. It was introduced into early Greek philosophy as the mode of existence required for fundamental reality (being) contrasted with ordinary appearance (becoming). But the concept was given its classic formulation by Boethius, who thought of eternity as God’s mode of existence and defined God’s eternality as ‘the complete possession all at once of illimitable life’. As defined by Boethius the concept was important in medieval philosophy. The elements of the Boethian definition are life, illimitability (and hence duration), and absence of succession (or timelessness). Defined in this way, eternality is proper to an entity identifiable as a mind or a person (and in just that sense living) but existing beginninglessly, endlessly and timelessly. Such a concept raises obvious difficulties. Some philosophers think the difficulties can be resolved, but others think that in the light of such difficulties the concept must be modified or simply rejected as incoherent. The most obvious difficulty has to do with the combination of atemporality and duration. Special objections have arisen in connection with ascribing eternality to God. Some people have thought that an eternal being could not do anything at all, especially not in the temporal world. But the notion of an atemporal person’s acting is not incoherent. Such acts as knowing necessary truths or willing that a world exist for a certain length of time are acts that themselves take no time and require no temporal location. An eternal God could engage in acts of cognition and of volition and could even do things that might seem to require a temporal location, such as answering a prayer. The concept of God’s eternality is relevant to several issues in philosophy of religion, including the apparent irreconcilability of divine omniscience with divine immutability and with human freedom.

scholarly journals Diodorus Cronus and Hellenistic Philosophy

1977 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. 74-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Sedley
Keyword(s):  
Propositional Logic ◽  
Direct Influence ◽  
Greek Philosophy ◽  
Philosophical Background ◽  
History Of ◽  
Validity Criteria ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Hellenistic Philosophy ◽  
First Time

During the last four decades historians of ancient logic have become increasingly aware of the importance of Diodorus Cronus and his pupil Philo as pioneers of the propositional logic which came to flourish in the Stoa. Their direct influence has so far been recognised in two main areas of Hellenistic controversy – the validity-criteria for conditional propositions, and the definition of the modal terms ‘possible’ and ‘necessary’. But some broader questions have not been satisfactorily answered. What were Diodorus' own philosophical allegiances and antecedents? What is his place in the history of Greek philosophy? How far-reaching was his influence on the post-Aristotelian philosophers?There was little chance of tackling these questions confidently until 1972, when Klaus Döring published for the first time the collected fragments of Diodorus, in his important volume Die Megariker. Meagre though they are, these fragments confirm my suspicion that Diodorus' philosophical background has not been fully explored, and also that his influence on the three emerging Hellenistic schools – the Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics – was far wider than has hitherto been recognised. There has been much discussion as to which earlier philosophers played the most decisive part in shaping Hellenistic philosophy, and the respective claims of the Platonists and of Aristotle have never lacked expert advocacy. In all this, the claims of so obscure a figure as Diodorus have been underrated.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document