Type of Media 1
Author 3
Date 7
Type of Media
Author
Speculating about Diogenes, 2008
By: Laks, André, Curd, Patricia (Ed.), Graham, Daniel W. (Ed.)
Title Speculating about Diogenes
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 2008
Published in The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy
Pages 353-364
Categories no categories
Author(s) Laks, André
Editor(s) Curd, Patricia , Graham, Daniel W.
Translator(s)
Twenty-five years ago, I made an attempt (in my book Diogène d’Apollonie, 1983) to take Diogenes somewhat more seriously than he had usually been taken, at least since Diels’s devastating 1881 article in which he portrayed Diogenes as a second-rate eclectic thinker. Diogenes’ popularity in the last third of the fifth century, which Diels greatly contributed to establishing through an analysis of Diogenian echoes in Aristophanes’ Clouds and was confirmed by the discovery in 1962 of the Derveni Papyrus, went along with Diogenes’ depreciated intellectual status: Are not serious thinkers ignored by the vulgar? Has this attempt been successful? The fact that some collections and translations of Presocratic philosophers leave him out may or may not be significant: some publishers obviously think the corpus is too bulky. But Diogenes is certainly still lacking general recognition. Histories of archaic philosophy tend to overlook him and often offer little more than an implicit justification for his exclusion, the core of which is encapsulated in the term “eclecticism.” What makes him visible is his absence, rather than any discussion about him. One complaint made by a reviewer of the Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy was that it nowhere happens even to mention the one achievement Diogenes is credited with, namely his alleged role in the history of teleology, for which he is occasionally praised. It is all the more noteworthy that Graham, in his recent book, has made of Diogenes a landmark in the history of Presocratic philosophy by making him, rather than the older Anaximenes, the real promoter of the doctrine of “material monism.” I personally tend to think that Diogenes’ contribution, on this point, is rather to have explicitly stated the implications of Anaximenes’ monism, rather than substituting a material monism to an Anaximenean pluralism (Graham’s paradoxical point); but Graham’s book came out after this contribution was submitted and could not be taken into account. I shall consequently restate in a rather perfunctory manner, without adding much to what I have written before, what seem to be two basic points about Diogenes. The first one concerns what I take to be the center of Diogenes’ own thought, namely the relation between his noetics (so I shall call his doctrine of Intelligence) and his teleology; the second is about the reception of Diogenes’ thought and the origin of his reputation as an eclectic. [introduction p. 353-354]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1399","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1399,"authors_free":[{"id":2178,"entry_id":1399,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":225,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","free_first_name":"Andr\u00e9","free_last_name":"Laks","norm_person":{"id":225,"first_name":"Andr\u00e9","last_name":"Laks","full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135869161","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2181,"entry_id":1399,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":58,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Curd, Patricia","free_first_name":"Patricia","free_last_name":"Curd","norm_person":{"id":58,"first_name":"Patricia","last_name":"Curd","full_name":"Curd, Patricia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13843980X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2182,"entry_id":1399,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":374,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Graham, Daniel W.","free_first_name":"Daniel W.","free_last_name":"Graham","norm_person":{"id":374,"first_name":"Daniel W.","last_name":"Graham","full_name":"Graham, Daniel W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121454800","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Speculating about Diogenes","main_title":{"title":"Speculating about Diogenes"},"abstract":"Twenty-five years ago, I made an attempt (in my book Diog\u00e8ne d\u2019Apollonie, 1983) to take Diogenes somewhat more seriously than he had usually been taken, at least since Diels\u2019s devastating 1881 article in which he portrayed Diogenes as a second-rate eclectic thinker. Diogenes\u2019 popularity in the last third of the fifth century, which Diels greatly contributed to establishing through an analysis of Diogenian echoes in Aristophanes\u2019 Clouds and was confirmed by the discovery in 1962 of the Derveni Papyrus, went along with Diogenes\u2019 depreciated intellectual status: Are not serious thinkers ignored by the vulgar?\r\n\r\nHas this attempt been successful? The fact that some collections and translations of Presocratic philosophers leave him out may or may not be significant: some publishers obviously think the corpus is too bulky. But Diogenes is certainly still lacking general recognition. Histories of archaic philosophy tend to overlook him and often offer little more than an implicit justification for his exclusion, the core of which is encapsulated in the term \u201ceclecticism.\u201d What makes him visible is his absence, rather than any discussion about him. One complaint made by a reviewer of the Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy was that it nowhere happens even to mention the one achievement Diogenes is credited with, namely his alleged role in the history of teleology, for which he is occasionally praised. It is all the more noteworthy that Graham, in his recent book, has made of Diogenes a landmark in the history of Presocratic philosophy by making him, rather than the older Anaximenes, the real promoter of the doctrine of \u201cmaterial monism.\u201d\r\n\r\nI personally tend to think that Diogenes\u2019 contribution, on this point, is rather to have explicitly stated the implications of Anaximenes\u2019 monism, rather than substituting a material monism to an Anaximenean pluralism (Graham\u2019s paradoxical point); but Graham\u2019s book came out after this contribution was submitted and could not be taken into account. I shall consequently restate in a rather perfunctory manner, without adding much to what I have written before, what seem to be two basic points about Diogenes. The first one concerns what I take to be the center of Diogenes\u2019 own thought, namely the relation between his noetics (so I shall call his doctrine of Intelligence) and his teleology; the second is about the reception of Diogenes\u2019 thought and the origin of his reputation as an eclectic. [introduction p. 353-354]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/438sP1InUW9fsIE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":225,"full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":58,"full_name":"Curd, Patricia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":374,"full_name":"Graham, Daniel W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1399,"section_of":1400,"pages":"353-364","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1400,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Curd2008","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2008","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy brings together leading international scholars to study the diverse figures, movements, and approaches that constitute Presocratic philosophy. In the sixth and fifth centuries bc a new kind of thinker appeared in Greek city-states, dedicated to finding the origins of the world and everything in it, using observation and reason rather than tradition and myth. We call these thinkers Presocratic philosophers, and recognize them as the first philosophers of the Western tradition, as well as the originators of scientific thinking. New textual discoveries and new approaches make a reconsideration of the Presocratics at the beginning of the twenty-first century especially timely. More than a survey of scholarship, this study presents new interpretations and evaluations of the Presocratics' accomplishments, from Thales to the sophists, from theology to science, and from pre-philosophical background to their influence on later thinkers. Many positions presented here challenge accepted wisdom and offer alternative accounts of Presocratic theories. This book includes chapters on the Milesians (Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes), Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, the Pythagoreans, the atomists, and the sophists. Special studies are devoted to the sources of Presocratic philosophy, oriental influences, Hippocratic medicine, cosmology, explanation, epistemology, theology, and the reception of Presocratic thought in Aristotle and other ancient authors. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mXFwMNnXTnju9zT","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1400,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2008]}

Pluralism after Parmenides, 1998
By: Curd, Patricia
Title Pluralism after Parmenides
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1998
Published in The Legacy of Parmenides. Eleatic Monism and Later Presocratic Thought
Pages 127-179
Categories no categories
Author(s) Curd, Patricia
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
In this chapter I turn from Parmenides to two of his successors, examining the Pluralist theories of Anaxagoras and Empedocles, in order to explore the influence of Parmenides on these later thinkers. I argue that this influence appears in two fundamental aspects of their theories: in their conceptions of the fundamental entities that are the genuine beings of their cosmologies, and in the form (mixture and Separation of the basic entities) these cosmologies take. I begin with a short discussion of the question of Pluralism itself and then turn first to Anaxagoras and then to Empedocles. [Introduction, pp. 127 f.]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"910","_score":null,"_source":{"id":910,"authors_free":[{"id":1340,"entry_id":910,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":58,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Curd, Patricia","free_first_name":"Patricia","free_last_name":"Curd","norm_person":{"id":58,"first_name":"Patricia","last_name":"Curd","full_name":"Curd, Patricia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13843980X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Pluralism after Parmenides","main_title":{"title":"Pluralism after Parmenides"},"abstract":"In this chapter I turn from Parmenides to two of his successors, examining the Pluralist theories of Anaxagoras and Empedocles, in order to explore the \r\ninfluence of Parmenides on these later thinkers. I argue that this influence \r\nappears in two fundamental aspects of their theories: in their conceptions of \r\nthe fundamental entities that are the genuine beings of their cosmologies, and \r\nin the form (mixture and Separation of the basic entities) these cosmologies \r\ntake. I begin with a short discussion of the question of Pluralism itself and \r\nthen turn first to Anaxagoras and then to Empedocles. [Introduction, pp. 127 f.]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rPBPoCGoPofFCOl","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":58,"full_name":"Curd, Patricia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":910,"section_of":1284,"pages":"127-179","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1284,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":1,"language":"en","title":"The Legacy of Parmenides. Eleatic Monism and Later Presocratic Thought ","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Curd1998","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1998","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Parmenides of Elea was the most important and influential philosopher before Plato. Patricia Curd here reinterprets Parmenides' views and offers a new account of his relation to his predecessors and successors. On the traditional interpretation, Parmenides argues that generation, destruction, and change are unreal and that only one thing exists. He therefore rejected as impossible the scientific inquiry practiced by the earlier Presocratic philosophers. But the philosophers who came after Parmenides attempted to explain natural change and they assumed the reality of a plurality of basic entities. Thus, on the traditional interpretation, the later Presocratics either ignored or contradicted his arguments. In this book, Patricia Curd argues that Parmenides sought to reform rather than to reject scientific inquiry and offers a more coherent account of his influence on the philosophers who came after him.\r\n\r\nThe Legacy of Parmenides provides a detailed examination of Parmenides' arguments, considering his connection to earlier Greek thought and how his account of what-is could serve as a model for later philosophers. It then considers the theories of those who came after him, including the Pluralists (Anaxagoras and Empedocles), the Atomists (Leucippus and Democritus), the later Eleatics (Zeno and Melissus), and the later Presocratics Philolaus of Croton and Diogenes of Apollonia. The book closes with a discussion of the importance of Parmenides' views for the development of Plato's Theory of Forms. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ySFJ6JlG0mDNxxJ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1284,"pubplace":"Princeton","publisher":"Princeton University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1998]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1
Pluralism after Parmenides, 1998
By: Curd, Patricia
Title Pluralism after Parmenides
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1998
Published in The Legacy of Parmenides. Eleatic Monism and Later Presocratic Thought
Pages 127-179
Categories no categories
Author(s) Curd, Patricia
Editor(s)
Translator(s) 
In  this  chapter  I turn  from  Parmenides  to  two  of his  successors,  examining the Pluralist theories  of Anaxagoras  and Empedocles,  in order to explore the 
influence  of Parmenides  on  these  later  thinkers.  I  argue  that  this  influence 
appears  in two fundamental  aspects  of their theories:  in their conceptions  of 
the fundamental entities that are the genuine beings of their cosmologies,  and 
in the form (mixture  and Separation  of the basic  entities)  these cosmologies 
take.  I begin  with  a short discussion  of the  question  of Pluralism  itself and 
then turn first to Anaxagoras  and then to Empedocles. [Introduction, pp. 127 f.]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"910","_score":null,"_source":{"id":910,"authors_free":[{"id":1340,"entry_id":910,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":58,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Curd, Patricia","free_first_name":"Patricia","free_last_name":"Curd","norm_person":{"id":58,"first_name":"Patricia","last_name":"Curd","full_name":"Curd, Patricia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13843980X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Pluralism after Parmenides","main_title":{"title":"Pluralism after Parmenides"},"abstract":"In this chapter I turn from Parmenides to two of his successors, examining the Pluralist theories of Anaxagoras and Empedocles, in order to explore the \r\ninfluence of Parmenides on these later thinkers. I argue that this influence \r\nappears in two fundamental aspects of their theories: in their conceptions of \r\nthe fundamental entities that are the genuine beings of their cosmologies, and \r\nin the form (mixture and Separation of the basic entities) these cosmologies \r\ntake. I begin with a short discussion of the question of Pluralism itself and \r\nthen turn first to Anaxagoras and then to Empedocles. [Introduction, pp. 127 f.]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rPBPoCGoPofFCOl","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":58,"full_name":"Curd, Patricia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":910,"section_of":1284,"pages":"127-179","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1284,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":1,"language":"en","title":"The Legacy of Parmenides. Eleatic Monism and Later Presocratic Thought ","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Curd1998","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1998","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Parmenides of Elea was the most important and influential philosopher before Plato. Patricia Curd here reinterprets Parmenides' views and offers a new account of his relation to his predecessors and successors. On the traditional interpretation, Parmenides argues that generation, destruction, and change are unreal and that only one thing exists. He therefore rejected as impossible the scientific inquiry practiced by the earlier Presocratic philosophers. But the philosophers who came after Parmenides attempted to explain natural change and they assumed the reality of a plurality of basic entities. Thus, on the traditional interpretation, the later Presocratics either ignored or contradicted his arguments. In this book, Patricia Curd argues that Parmenides sought to reform rather than to reject scientific inquiry and offers a more coherent account of his influence on the philosophers who came after him.\r\n\r\nThe Legacy of Parmenides provides a detailed examination of Parmenides' arguments, considering his connection to earlier Greek thought and how his account of what-is could serve as a model for later philosophers. It then considers the theories of those who came after him, including the Pluralists (Anaxagoras and Empedocles), the Atomists (Leucippus and Democritus), the later Eleatics (Zeno and Melissus), and the later Presocratics Philolaus of Croton and Diogenes of Apollonia. The book closes with a discussion of the importance of Parmenides' views for the development of Plato's Theory of Forms. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ySFJ6JlG0mDNxxJ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1284,"pubplace":"Princeton","publisher":"Princeton University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Pluralism after Parmenides"]}

Speculating about Diogenes, 2008
By: Laks, André, Curd, Patricia (Ed.), Graham, Daniel W. (Ed.)
Title Speculating about Diogenes
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 2008
Published in The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy
Pages 353-364
Categories no categories
Author(s) Laks, André
Editor(s) Curd, Patricia , Graham, Daniel W.
Translator(s) 
Twenty-five years ago, I made an attempt (in my book Diogène d’Apollonie, 1983) to take Diogenes somewhat more seriously than he had usually been taken, at least since Diels’s devastating 1881 article in which he portrayed Diogenes as a second-rate eclectic thinker. Diogenes’ popularity in the last third of the fifth century, which Diels greatly contributed to establishing through an analysis of Diogenian echoes in Aristophanes’ Clouds and was confirmed by the discovery in 1962 of the Derveni Papyrus, went along with Diogenes’ depreciated intellectual status: Are not serious thinkers ignored by the vulgar?

Has this attempt been successful? The fact that some collections and translations of Presocratic philosophers leave him out may or may not be significant: some publishers obviously think the corpus is too bulky. But Diogenes is certainly still lacking general recognition. Histories of archaic philosophy tend to overlook him and often offer little more than an implicit justification for his exclusion, the core of which is encapsulated in the term “eclecticism.” What makes him visible is his absence, rather than any discussion about him. One complaint made by a reviewer of the Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy was that it nowhere happens even to mention the one achievement Diogenes is credited with, namely his alleged role in the history of teleology, for which he is occasionally praised. It is all the more noteworthy that Graham, in his recent book, has made of Diogenes a landmark in the history of Presocratic philosophy by making him, rather than the older Anaximenes, the real promoter of the doctrine of “material monism.”

I personally tend to think that Diogenes’ contribution, on this point, is rather to have explicitly stated the implications of Anaximenes’ monism, rather than substituting a material monism to an Anaximenean pluralism (Graham’s paradoxical point); but Graham’s book came out after this contribution was submitted and could not be taken into account. I shall consequently restate in a rather perfunctory manner, without adding much to what I have written before, what seem to be two basic points about Diogenes. The first one concerns what I take to be the center of Diogenes’ own thought, namely the relation between his noetics (so I shall call his doctrine of Intelligence) and his teleology; the second is about the reception of Diogenes’ thought and the origin of his reputation as an eclectic. [introduction p. 353-354]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1399","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1399,"authors_free":[{"id":2178,"entry_id":1399,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":225,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","free_first_name":"Andr\u00e9","free_last_name":"Laks","norm_person":{"id":225,"first_name":"Andr\u00e9","last_name":"Laks","full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135869161","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2181,"entry_id":1399,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":58,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Curd, Patricia","free_first_name":"Patricia","free_last_name":"Curd","norm_person":{"id":58,"first_name":"Patricia","last_name":"Curd","full_name":"Curd, Patricia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13843980X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2182,"entry_id":1399,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":374,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Graham, Daniel W.","free_first_name":"Daniel W.","free_last_name":"Graham","norm_person":{"id":374,"first_name":"Daniel W.","last_name":"Graham","full_name":"Graham, Daniel W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121454800","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Speculating about Diogenes","main_title":{"title":"Speculating about Diogenes"},"abstract":"Twenty-five years ago, I made an attempt (in my book Diog\u00e8ne d\u2019Apollonie, 1983) to take Diogenes somewhat more seriously than he had usually been taken, at least since Diels\u2019s devastating 1881 article in which he portrayed Diogenes as a second-rate eclectic thinker. Diogenes\u2019 popularity in the last third of the fifth century, which Diels greatly contributed to establishing through an analysis of Diogenian echoes in Aristophanes\u2019 Clouds and was confirmed by the discovery in 1962 of the Derveni Papyrus, went along with Diogenes\u2019 depreciated intellectual status: Are not serious thinkers ignored by the vulgar?\r\n\r\nHas this attempt been successful? The fact that some collections and translations of Presocratic philosophers leave him out may or may not be significant: some publishers obviously think the corpus is too bulky. But Diogenes is certainly still lacking general recognition. Histories of archaic philosophy tend to overlook him and often offer little more than an implicit justification for his exclusion, the core of which is encapsulated in the term \u201ceclecticism.\u201d What makes him visible is his absence, rather than any discussion about him. One complaint made by a reviewer of the Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy was that it nowhere happens even to mention the one achievement Diogenes is credited with, namely his alleged role in the history of teleology, for which he is occasionally praised. It is all the more noteworthy that Graham, in his recent book, has made of Diogenes a landmark in the history of Presocratic philosophy by making him, rather than the older Anaximenes, the real promoter of the doctrine of \u201cmaterial monism.\u201d\r\n\r\nI personally tend to think that Diogenes\u2019 contribution, on this point, is rather to have explicitly stated the implications of Anaximenes\u2019 monism, rather than substituting a material monism to an Anaximenean pluralism (Graham\u2019s paradoxical point); but Graham\u2019s book came out after this contribution was submitted and could not be taken into account. I shall consequently restate in a rather perfunctory manner, without adding much to what I have written before, what seem to be two basic points about Diogenes. The first one concerns what I take to be the center of Diogenes\u2019 own thought, namely the relation between his noetics (so I shall call his doctrine of Intelligence) and his teleology; the second is about the reception of Diogenes\u2019 thought and the origin of his reputation as an eclectic. [introduction p. 353-354]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/438sP1InUW9fsIE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":225,"full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":58,"full_name":"Curd, Patricia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":374,"full_name":"Graham, Daniel W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1399,"section_of":1400,"pages":"353-364","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1400,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Curd2008","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2008","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy brings together leading international scholars to study the diverse figures, movements, and approaches that constitute Presocratic philosophy. In the sixth and fifth centuries bc a new kind of thinker appeared in Greek city-states, dedicated to finding the origins of the world and everything in it, using observation and reason rather than tradition and myth. We call these thinkers Presocratic philosophers, and recognize them as the first philosophers of the Western tradition, as well as the originators of scientific thinking. New textual discoveries and new approaches make a reconsideration of the Presocratics at the beginning of the twenty-first century especially timely. More than a survey of scholarship, this study presents new interpretations and evaluations of the Presocratics' accomplishments, from Thales to the sophists, from theology to science, and from pre-philosophical background to their influence on later thinkers. Many positions presented here challenge accepted wisdom and offer alternative accounts of Presocratic theories. This book includes chapters on the Milesians (Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes), Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, the Pythagoreans, the atomists, and the sophists. Special studies are devoted to the sources of Presocratic philosophy, oriental influences, Hippocratic medicine, cosmology, explanation, epistemology, theology, and the reception of Presocratic thought in Aristotle and other ancient authors. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mXFwMNnXTnju9zT","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1400,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Speculating about Diogenes"]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1