| Title | A “New” Text of Alexander on the Soul’s Motion |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1997 |
| Published in | Aristotle and after |
| Pages | 181-195 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Rashed, Marwan |
| Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
| Translator(s) |
| [Conclusion, pp. 181 f.]: To conclude, then, the historical evolution of the polemics may be summarised as follows: 1. ‘Aristotelian’ claim of the intellect from without; 2. Atticus attacks the intellect from without because of its inability to move; 3. Aristoteles of Mytilene (as reported by Alexander in Cl) defends the intellect from without by claiming its ubiquity; 4. Alexander (De intell., C2) criticises Aristoteles’ solution to Atticus’ criticisms and gives an alternative reply to Atticus by accounting for separation in terms of thought processes; 5. Alexander {In Phys.) attacks Atticus’ vehicle-theory on the grounds that it does not resolve the question at all and alludes indirectly to his previous solution. Thus, we may conclude that the De intellectu is an authentic work of Alexander, but an earlier one than the commentary on the Physics. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/uG5k4khKdCtgMTb |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1061","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1061,"authors_free":[{"id":1610,"entry_id":1061,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1611,"entry_id":1061,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"A \u201cNew\u201d Text of Alexander on the Soul\u2019s Motion","main_title":{"title":"A \u201cNew\u201d Text of Alexander on the Soul\u2019s Motion"},"abstract":"[Conclusion, pp. 181 f.]: To conclude, then, the historical evolution of the polemics \r\nmay be summarised as follows:\r\n1. \u2018Aristotelian\u2019 claim of the intellect from without;\r\n2. Atticus attacks the intellect from without because of its inability to move;\r\n3. Aristoteles of Mytilene (as reported by Alexander in Cl) defends the intellect from \r\nwithout by claiming its ubiquity;\r\n4. Alexander (De intell., C2) criticises Aristoteles\u2019 solution to Atticus\u2019 criticisms and \r\ngives an alternative reply to Atticus by accounting for separation in terms of thought \r\nprocesses;\r\n5. Alexander {In Phys.) attacks Atticus\u2019 vehicle-theory on the grounds that it does not \r\nresolve the question at all and alludes indirectly to his previous solution.\r\nThus, we may conclude that the De intellectu is an authentic work of Alexander, but an \r\nearlier one than the commentary on the Physics.","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/uG5k4khKdCtgMTb","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1061,"section_of":199,"pages":"181-195","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":199,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and after","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1997a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1997","abstract":"A selection of papers given at the Institute of Classical Studies during 1996. They cover a variety of new work on the 900 years of philosophy from Aristotle to Simplicius. There is a strong concentration on stoicism with papers by: Michael Frede ( Euphrates of Tyre ); A. A. Long ( Property ownership and community ); Brad Inwood ( 'Why do fools fallin love?' ); Susanne Bobzein ( freedom and ethics ); Richard Gaskin ( cases, predicates and the unity of the proposition ); Richard Sorabji ( stoic philosophy and psychotherapy ); Bernard Williams ( reply to Richard Sorabji ). The other papers are by: Heinrich von Staden ( Galen and the 'Second Sophistic' ); Hans B. Gottschalk ( continuity and change in Aristotelianism ); Travis Butler ( the homonymy of signification in Aristotle ); Andrea Falcon ( Aristotle's theory of division ); Sylvia Berryman (Horror Vacui in the third century BC ); M. B. Trapp ( On the Tablet of Cebes ); Marwan Rashed ( a 'new' text of Alexander on the soul's motion ). [authors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YmwXqTgEl5I3UF5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":199,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study","series":"BICS (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies) Supplement","volume":"68","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1997]}
| Title | A “New” Text of Alexander on the Soul’s Motion |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1997 |
| Published in | Aristotle and after |
| Pages | 181-195 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Rashed, Marwan |
| Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
| Translator(s) |
[Conclusion, pp. 181 f.]: To conclude, then, the historical evolution of the polemics
may be summarised as follows:
1. ‘Aristotelian’ claim of the intellect from without;
2. Atticus attacks the intellect from without because of its inability to move;
3. Aristoteles of Mytilene (as reported by Alexander in Cl) defends the intellect from
without by claiming its ubiquity;
4. Alexander (De intell., C2) criticises Aristoteles’ solution to Atticus’ criticisms and
gives an alternative reply to Atticus by accounting for separation in terms of thought
processes;
5. Alexander {In Phys.) attacks Atticus’ vehicle-theory on the grounds that it does not
resolve the question at all and alludes indirectly to his previous solution.
Thus, we may conclude that the De intellectu is an authentic work of Alexander, but an
earlier one than the commentary on the Physics. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/uG5k4khKdCtgMTb |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1061","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1061,"authors_free":[{"id":1610,"entry_id":1061,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1611,"entry_id":1061,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"A \u201cNew\u201d Text of Alexander on the Soul\u2019s Motion","main_title":{"title":"A \u201cNew\u201d Text of Alexander on the Soul\u2019s Motion"},"abstract":"[Conclusion, pp. 181 f.]: To conclude, then, the historical evolution of the polemics \r\nmay be summarised as follows:\r\n1. \u2018Aristotelian\u2019 claim of the intellect from without;\r\n2. Atticus attacks the intellect from without because of its inability to move;\r\n3. Aristoteles of Mytilene (as reported by Alexander in Cl) defends the intellect from \r\nwithout by claiming its ubiquity;\r\n4. Alexander (De intell., C2) criticises Aristoteles\u2019 solution to Atticus\u2019 criticisms and \r\ngives an alternative reply to Atticus by accounting for separation in terms of thought \r\nprocesses;\r\n5. Alexander {In Phys.) attacks Atticus\u2019 vehicle-theory on the grounds that it does not \r\nresolve the question at all and alludes indirectly to his previous solution.\r\nThus, we may conclude that the De intellectu is an authentic work of Alexander, but an \r\nearlier one than the commentary on the Physics.","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/uG5k4khKdCtgMTb","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1061,"section_of":199,"pages":"181-195","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":199,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and after","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1997a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1997","abstract":"A selection of papers given at the Institute of Classical Studies during 1996. They cover a variety of new work on the 900 years of philosophy from Aristotle to Simplicius. There is a strong concentration on stoicism with papers by: Michael Frede ( Euphrates of Tyre ); A. A. Long ( Property ownership and community ); Brad Inwood ( 'Why do fools fallin love?' ); Susanne Bobzein ( freedom and ethics ); Richard Gaskin ( cases, predicates and the unity of the proposition ); Richard Sorabji ( stoic philosophy and psychotherapy ); Bernard Williams ( reply to Richard Sorabji ). The other papers are by: Heinrich von Staden ( Galen and the 'Second Sophistic' ); Hans B. Gottschalk ( continuity and change in Aristotelianism ); Travis Butler ( the homonymy of signification in Aristotle ); Andrea Falcon ( Aristotle's theory of division ); Sylvia Berryman (Horror Vacui in the third century BC ); M. B. Trapp ( On the Tablet of Cebes ); Marwan Rashed ( a 'new' text of Alexander on the soul's motion ). [authors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YmwXqTgEl5I3UF5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":199,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study","series":"BICS (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies) Supplement","volume":"68","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["A \u201cNew\u201d Text of Alexander on the Soul\u2019s Motion"]}