| Title | Love and Strife in Empedocles' Cosmology |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1965 |
| Journal | Phronesis |
| Volume | 10 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 109-148 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Solmsen, Friedrich |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In Heracitus and Parmenides assumptions which form the basis of on the contrary it may be said that difficulties which were less apparent as long as the discussion confined itself to individual fragments or groups of fragments become more visible when the entire scheme is worked out and presented. Perhaps the wisest course would be to admit ignorance on crucial points. If I, nevertheless, prefer to offer an alternative reconstruction - in essential aspects a revival of von Arnim's3 - my hope is that, whether right or wrong, it will serve a good purpose if it shows that opinions currently accepted are not firmly grounded in the evidence at our disposal. [pp. 109 f.] our interpretation are subject to frequent reexaminations and revisions. With Empedocles matters are different. Here large hypotheses have for a long time remained unchallenged and are now near the point of hardening into dogmas. In particular the recon- struction of a dual cosmogony in his "cycle", originally a theory which had to contend with others, is now often regarded as established, treated as though it were a fact, and used as premise for further inferences. The only full scale interpretation of the evidence which backs up this theory is Ettore Bignone's Empedoclel; yet whatever the merits of this book, it can hardly be denied that in the fifty years since its publication we have learned many new lessons regarding the relative value of testimonies and fragments, the trustworthiness of Aristotle's reports on his precursors, and other questions of vital bearing on the reconstruction of a Presocratic system. A recent text book which seeks to fit the material into the framework of two cos- mogonies does not in my opinion succeed in strengthening this position |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mpJ8Nqzof1sydeV |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"846","_score":null,"_source":{"id":846,"authors_free":[{"id":1250,"entry_id":846,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":316,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Solmsen, Friedrich","free_first_name":"Friedrich","free_last_name":"Solmsen","norm_person":{"id":316,"first_name":"Friedrich","last_name":"Solmsen","full_name":"Solmsen, Friedrich","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117754641","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Love and Strife in Empedocles' Cosmology","main_title":{"title":"Love and Strife in Empedocles' Cosmology"},"abstract":"In Heracitus and Parmenides assumptions which form the basis of on the contrary it may be said that difficulties which were less apparent \r\nas long as the discussion confined itself to individual fragments or \r\ngroups of fragments become more visible when the entire scheme is \r\nworked out and presented. Perhaps the wisest course would be to \r\nadmit ignorance on crucial points. If I, nevertheless, prefer to offer an \r\nalternative reconstruction - in essential aspects a revival of von \r\nArnim's3 - my hope is that, whether right or wrong, it will serve a \r\ngood purpose if it shows that opinions currently accepted are not firmly \r\ngrounded in the evidence at our disposal. [pp. 109 f.]\r\nour interpretation are subject to frequent reexaminations and \r\nrevisions. With Empedocles matters are different. Here large \r\nhypotheses have for a long time remained unchallenged and are now \r\nnear the point of hardening into dogmas. In particular the recon- \r\nstruction of a dual cosmogony in his \"cycle\", originally a theory which \r\nhad to contend with others, is now often regarded as established, \r\ntreated as though it were a fact, and used as premise for further \r\ninferences. The only full scale interpretation of the evidence which \r\nbacks up this theory is Ettore Bignone's Empedoclel; yet whatever the \r\nmerits of this book, it can hardly be denied that in the fifty years since \r\nits publication we have learned many new lessons regarding the \r\nrelative value of testimonies and fragments, the trustworthiness of \r\nAristotle's reports on his precursors, and other questions of vital \r\nbearing on the reconstruction of a Presocratic system. A recent text \r\nbook which seeks to fit the material into the framework of two cos- \r\nmogonies does not in my opinion succeed in strengthening this position","btype":3,"date":"1965","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mpJ8Nqzof1sydeV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":316,"full_name":"Solmsen, Friedrich","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":846,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"10","issue":"2","pages":"109-148"}},"sort":[1965]}
| Title | Love and Strife in Empedocles' Cosmology |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1965 |
| Journal | Phronesis |
| Volume | 10 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 109-148 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Solmsen, Friedrich |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
In Heracitus and Parmenides assumptions which form the basis of on the contrary it may be said that difficulties which were less apparent as long as the discussion confined itself to individual fragments or groups of fragments become more visible when the entire scheme is worked out and presented. Perhaps the wisest course would be to admit ignorance on crucial points. If I, nevertheless, prefer to offer an alternative reconstruction - in essential aspects a revival of von Arnim's3 - my hope is that, whether right or wrong, it will serve a good purpose if it shows that opinions currently accepted are not firmly grounded in the evidence at our disposal. [pp. 109 f.] our interpretation are subject to frequent reexaminations and revisions. With Empedocles matters are different. Here large hypotheses have for a long time remained unchallenged and are now near the point of hardening into dogmas. In particular the recon- struction of a dual cosmogony in his "cycle", originally a theory which had to contend with others, is now often regarded as established, treated as though it were a fact, and used as premise for further inferences. The only full scale interpretation of the evidence which backs up this theory is Ettore Bignone's Empedoclel; yet whatever the merits of this book, it can hardly be denied that in the fifty years since its publication we have learned many new lessons regarding the relative value of testimonies and fragments, the trustworthiness of Aristotle's reports on his precursors, and other questions of vital bearing on the reconstruction of a Presocratic system. A recent text book which seeks to fit the material into the framework of two cos- mogonies does not in my opinion succeed in strengthening this position |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mpJ8Nqzof1sydeV |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"846","_score":null,"_source":{"id":846,"authors_free":[{"id":1250,"entry_id":846,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":316,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Solmsen, Friedrich","free_first_name":"Friedrich","free_last_name":"Solmsen","norm_person":{"id":316,"first_name":"Friedrich","last_name":"Solmsen","full_name":"Solmsen, Friedrich","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117754641","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Love and Strife in Empedocles' Cosmology","main_title":{"title":"Love and Strife in Empedocles' Cosmology"},"abstract":"In Heracitus and Parmenides assumptions which form the basis of on the contrary it may be said that difficulties which were less apparent \r\nas long as the discussion confined itself to individual fragments or \r\ngroups of fragments become more visible when the entire scheme is \r\nworked out and presented. Perhaps the wisest course would be to \r\nadmit ignorance on crucial points. If I, nevertheless, prefer to offer an \r\nalternative reconstruction - in essential aspects a revival of von \r\nArnim's3 - my hope is that, whether right or wrong, it will serve a \r\ngood purpose if it shows that opinions currently accepted are not firmly \r\ngrounded in the evidence at our disposal. [pp. 109 f.]\r\nour interpretation are subject to frequent reexaminations and \r\nrevisions. With Empedocles matters are different. Here large \r\nhypotheses have for a long time remained unchallenged and are now \r\nnear the point of hardening into dogmas. In particular the recon- \r\nstruction of a dual cosmogony in his \"cycle\", originally a theory which \r\nhad to contend with others, is now often regarded as established, \r\ntreated as though it were a fact, and used as premise for further \r\ninferences. The only full scale interpretation of the evidence which \r\nbacks up this theory is Ettore Bignone's Empedoclel; yet whatever the \r\nmerits of this book, it can hardly be denied that in the fifty years since \r\nits publication we have learned many new lessons regarding the \r\nrelative value of testimonies and fragments, the trustworthiness of \r\nAristotle's reports on his precursors, and other questions of vital \r\nbearing on the reconstruction of a Presocratic system. A recent text \r\nbook which seeks to fit the material into the framework of two cos- \r\nmogonies does not in my opinion succeed in strengthening this position","btype":3,"date":"1965","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mpJ8Nqzof1sydeV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":316,"full_name":"Solmsen, Friedrich","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":846,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"10","issue":"2","pages":"109-148"}},"sort":["Love and Strife in Empedocles' Cosmology"]}