Love and Strife in Empedocles' Cosmology, 1965
By: Solmsen, Friedrich
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

{"_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]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1
Love and Strife in Empedocles' Cosmology, 1965
By: Solmsen, Friedrich
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

{"_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"]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1