{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"751","_score":null,"_source":{"id":751,"authors_free":[{"id":1116,"entry_id":751,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":81,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Ellis, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Ellis","norm_person":{"id":81,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Ellis","full_name":"Ellis, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Trouble with Fragrance","main_title":{"title":"The Trouble with Fragrance"},"abstract":"By 'in a subject' I mean what (a) is in something, not as a part, and (b) cannot \r\nexist separately from what it is in. (Aristotle, Categories la24-5) \r\nThese lines have been extensively discussed in recent years. [...] The task I've set for myself in this paper is not to argue for either the weak \r\nor the strong interpretation of inherence in Aristotle. That is already a \r\nwell-tr;odden path. Instead I shall look at what the ancient commentators on Aristotle had to say on the subject. Which interpretation, the strong or the \r\nweak, do they support? My strategy is to focus on one of the many problems \r\nthey consider, that of fragrance, and to see if their treatment of it yields an \r\nanswer. [pp. 290 f.]","btype":3,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IaCYIGP7JxpC5ur","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":81,"full_name":"Ellis, John","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":751,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"35","issue":"3","pages":"290-302"}},"sort":["The Trouble with Fragrance"]}