| Title | The Will and its Freedom: Epictetus and Simplicius on what is up to us |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2014 |
| Published in | What is up to us? Studies on Agency and Responsibility in Ancient Philosophy |
| Pages | 329-350 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Wildberg, Christian |
| Editor(s) | Destrée, Pierre , Zingano, Marco |
| Translator(s) |
| The text explores the historical development of the concept of free will, drawing parallels with the evolution of understanding projectile motion. Three distinct periods are identified: an initial stage marked by a misunderstanding of projectile motion, where objects were thought to require continuous external motion; a second stage where the concept of "impetus" was introduced to explain forced motion at a distance; and a final stage, ushered in by Galileo, Descartes, and Newton, where the correct understanding of inertia emerged. The discovery of free will is compared to the discovery of the will as a distinct human faculty in late antiquity. Similar to the concept of impetus, the will is depicted as capable of being strong or weak and has significant influence over human actions. The philosophical discussion surrounding free will is likened to the debates on projectile motion, with various perspectives on its existence and nature. Some argue for the existence of free will, while others contend that it is unnecessary and incoherent. The text concludes by pointing out the need for a deeper understanding of the historical context and metaphysical assumptions underlying the concept of free will. It suggests that the concept of free will is a remnant of past intellectual certainty about metaphysical truths and may not be as morally neutral as commonly believed. The modern discussion on free will is encouraged to consider its historical development and potential implications more carefully. [introduction] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mOZ7OMN3pKwTAfd |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"427","_score":null,"_source":{"id":427,"authors_free":[{"id":573,"entry_id":427,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":360,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wildberg, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Wildberg","norm_person":{"id":360,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Wildberg","full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139018964","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":574,"entry_id":427,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":90,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Destr\u00e9e, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Destr\u00e9e","norm_person":{"id":90,"first_name":"Pierre ","last_name":"Destr\u00e9e","full_name":"Destr\u00e9e, Pierre ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1085171485","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":576,"entry_id":427,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":472,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Zingano, Marco","free_first_name":"Marco","free_last_name":"Zingano","norm_person":{"id":472,"first_name":"Marco","last_name":"Zingano","full_name":"Zingano, Marco","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1102225592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Will and its Freedom: Epictetus and Simplicius on what is up to us","main_title":{"title":"The Will and its Freedom: Epictetus and Simplicius on what is up to us"},"abstract":"The text explores the historical development of the concept of free will, drawing parallels with the evolution of understanding projectile motion. Three distinct periods are identified: an initial stage marked by a misunderstanding of projectile motion, where objects were thought to require continuous external motion; a second stage where the concept of \"impetus\" was introduced to explain forced motion at a distance; and a final stage, ushered in by Galileo, Descartes, and Newton, where the correct understanding of inertia emerged. The discovery of free will is compared to the discovery of the will as a distinct human faculty in late antiquity. Similar to the concept of impetus, the will is depicted as capable of being strong or weak and has significant influence over human actions. The philosophical discussion surrounding free will is likened to the debates on projectile motion, with various perspectives on its existence and nature. Some argue for the existence of free will, while others contend that it is unnecessary and incoherent. The text concludes by pointing out the need for a deeper understanding of the historical context and metaphysical assumptions underlying the concept of free will. It suggests that the concept of free will is a remnant of past intellectual certainty about metaphysical truths and may not be as morally neutral as commonly believed. The modern discussion on free will is encouraged to consider its historical development and potential implications more carefully. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mOZ7OMN3pKwTAfd","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":90,"full_name":"Destr\u00e9e, Pierre ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":472,"full_name":"Zingano, Marco","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":427,"section_of":329,"pages":"329-350","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":329,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"What is up to us? Studies on Agency and Responsibility in Ancient Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Destr\u00e9e2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"The problem of responsibility in moral philosophy has been lively debated in the last decades, especially since the publication of Harry Frankfurt's seminal paper, 'Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility' (1969). Compatibilists - also known as 'soft' determinists - and, on the other side, incompatibilists - libertarians and 'hard' determinists - are the main contenders in this major academic controversy. The debate goes back to Antiquity. After Aristotle, compatibilists, and especially the Stoics, debated this issue with the incompatibilists, notably Epicurus (though his classification as an incompatibilist has been disputed in modern scholarship), Alexander of Aphrodisias and Plutarch.\r\n\r\nThe problem debated at that time and the problem debated nowadays are fundamentally the same, even though the terms and the concepts evolved over the centuries. In Antiquity, the central notion was that of 'what is up to us', or 'what depends on us'. The present volume brings together twenty contributions devoted to examining the problem of moral responsibility as it arises in Antiquity in direct connection with the concept of what is up to us - to eph' h\u00eamin, in Greek, or in nostra potestate and in nobis, in its Latin counterparts, aiming to promote classical scholarship, and to shed some light on the contemporary issues as well.\r\n\r\nWith contributions by Marcelo D. Boeri, Mauro Bonazzi, Susanne Bobzien, Pierre Destr\u00e9e, Javier Eche\u00f1ique, Dorothea Frede, Michael Frede, Lloyd P. Gerson, Laura Liliana G\u00f3mez, Jean-Baptiste Gourinat, Christoph Horn, Monte Ransom Johnson, Stefano Maso, Susan Sauv\u00e9 Meyer, Pierre-Marie Morel, Ricardo Salles, Carlos Steel, Daniela Patrizia Taormina, Emmanuele Vimercati, Katja Maria Vogt, Christian Wildberg and Marco Zingano. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WCz3sdLMsMTkFmE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":329,"pubplace":"Sankt Augustin","publisher":"Academia Verlag","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2014]}
| Title | Philosophy in the Age of Justinian |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2005 |
| Published in | The Cambridge companion to the Age of Justinian |
| Pages | 316-340 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Wildberg, Christian |
| Editor(s) | Maas, Michael |
| Translator(s) |
| In order to bring some clarity to the sometimes confusing list of names of nowadays little-known philosophers active during the period in ques tion, it is necessary to begin with a short prosopography. A history of philosophy in the Age ofjustinian must include an account of two tow ering but very different figures, Damascius (c. 460-540) and Ammonius, (c. 440-517 or 526). The philosophical activities of both these men oc cur well before the accession ofjustinian, but through their pupils they shaped the views and methods of their philosophical successors in the period that concerns us. [p. 318] To illustrate the point that commentaries were not written to elucidate otherwise obscure texts but were the preferred genre of discourse to establish, negotiate, and criticize substantive philosophical claims, we now turn to some of the controversies that were discussed in a more or less open fashion. In an influential article, Karl Praechter once argued that one can distinguish clearly between different schools and directions within the broader Neoplatonic movement in late antiquity.23 In partic ular, Praechter argued that the salient difference between the two major schools, the Athenian and the Alexandrian branch, lay in their differ ent exegetical methods. Whereas the Athenian school (represented by Syrianus, Proclus, Damascius, and Simplicius) was heavily influenced, broadly speaking, by Iamblichuss tendency to bring out in any text, as far as possible, the understanding it offers of the intelligible world, the Alexandrian School (represented by Hierocles in the fifth century, and by Ammonius, Philoponus, Olympiodorus, Elias, and David in the sixth) tended toward a more sober and less metaphysical technique of interpretation. Praechter connected these observations with two socio cultural differences separating the schools: Alexandria had traditionally been a center of learning in the exact sciences (hence the preference for Aristotle) and possessed a large Christian intellectual community attending the Alexandrian philosophers’ lectures and classes (which would temper the propagation of Platonism as an antigospel). Thus, as compared to the Athenians, the Alexandrian Neoplatonists were less of a sect (hairesis) and more of a collegium of higher education. [p. 323-324] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/5eGVb60bqhLTv0z |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"428","_score":null,"_source":{"id":428,"authors_free":[{"id":577,"entry_id":428,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":360,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wildberg, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Wildberg","norm_person":{"id":360,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Wildberg","full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139018964","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":578,"entry_id":428,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":471,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Maas, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Maas","norm_person":{"id":471,"first_name":"Michael","last_name":"Maas","full_name":"Maas, Michael","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12626094X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philosophy in the Age of Justinian","main_title":{"title":"Philosophy in the Age of Justinian"},"abstract":"In order to bring some clarity to the sometimes confusing list of names \r\nof nowadays little-known philosophers active during the period in ques\u00ad\r\ntion, it is necessary to begin with a short prosopography. A history of \r\nphilosophy in the Age ofjustinian must include an account of two tow\u00ad\r\nering but very different figures, Damascius (c. 460-540) and Ammonius, \r\n(c. 440-517 or 526). The philosophical activities of both these men oc\u00ad\r\ncur well before the accession ofjustinian, but through their pupils they \r\nshaped the views and methods of their philosophical successors in the \r\nperiod that concerns us. [p. 318] \r\nTo illustrate the point that commentaries were not written to elucidate \r\notherwise obscure texts but were the preferred genre of discourse to \r\nestablish, negotiate, and criticize substantive philosophical claims, we \r\nnow turn to some of the controversies that were discussed in a more or \r\nless open fashion. In an influential article, Karl Praechter once argued \r\nthat one can distinguish clearly between different schools and directions \r\nwithin the broader Neoplatonic movement in late antiquity.23 In partic\u00ad\r\nular, Praechter argued that the salient difference between the two major \r\nschools, the Athenian and the Alexandrian branch, lay in their differ\u00ad\r\nent exegetical methods. Whereas the Athenian school (represented by \r\nSyrianus, Proclus, Damascius, and Simplicius) was heavily influenced, \r\nbroadly speaking, by Iamblichuss tendency to bring out in any text, \r\nas far as possible, the understanding it offers of the intelligible world, \r\nthe Alexandrian School (represented by Hierocles in the fifth century, \r\nand by Ammonius, Philoponus, Olympiodorus, Elias, and David in the \r\nsixth) tended toward a more sober and less metaphysical technique of \r\ninterpretation. Praechter connected these observations with two socio\u00ad\r\ncultural differences separating the schools: Alexandria had traditionally \r\nbeen a center of learning in the exact sciences (hence the preference for Aristotle) and possessed a large Christian intellectual community \r\nattending the Alexandrian philosophers\u2019 lectures and classes (which \r\nwould temper the propagation of Platonism as an antigospel). Thus, \r\nas compared to the Athenians, the Alexandrian Neoplatonists were less \r\nof a sect (hairesis) and more of a collegium of higher education. [p. 323-324]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5eGVb60bqhLTv0z","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":471,"full_name":"Maas, Michael","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":428,"section_of":17,"pages":"316-340","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":17,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Cambridge companion to the Age of Justinian","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Maas2005","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2005","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2005","abstract":"This book introduces the Age of Justinian, the last Roman century and the first flowering of Byzantine culture. Dominated by the policies and personality of emperor Justinian I (527\u2013565), this period of grand achievements and far-reaching failures witnessed the transformation of the Mediterranean world. In this volume, twenty specialists explore the most important aspects of the age including the mechanics and theory of empire, warfare, urbanism, and economy. It also discusses the impact of the great plague, the codification of Roman law, and the many religious upheavals taking place at the time. Consideration is given to imperial relations with the papacy, northern barbarians, the Persians, and other eastern peoples, shedding new light on a dramatic and highly significant historical period. [a.a]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VO13SyosuR7rCEZ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":17,"pubplace":"Cambridge \u2013 New York","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2005]}
| Title | Philosophy in the Age of Justinian |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2005 |
| Published in | The Cambridge companion to the Age of Justinian |
| Pages | 316-340 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Wildberg, Christian |
| Editor(s) | Maas, Michael |
| Translator(s) |
In order to bring some clarity to the sometimes confusing list of names of nowadays little-known philosophers active during the period in ques tion, it is necessary to begin with a short prosopography. A history of philosophy in the Age ofjustinian must include an account of two tow ering but very different figures, Damascius (c. 460-540) and Ammonius, (c. 440-517 or 526). The philosophical activities of both these men oc cur well before the accession ofjustinian, but through their pupils they shaped the views and methods of their philosophical successors in the period that concerns us. [p. 318] To illustrate the point that commentaries were not written to elucidate otherwise obscure texts but were the preferred genre of discourse to establish, negotiate, and criticize substantive philosophical claims, we now turn to some of the controversies that were discussed in a more or less open fashion. In an influential article, Karl Praechter once argued that one can distinguish clearly between different schools and directions within the broader Neoplatonic movement in late antiquity.23 In partic ular, Praechter argued that the salient difference between the two major schools, the Athenian and the Alexandrian branch, lay in their differ ent exegetical methods. Whereas the Athenian school (represented by Syrianus, Proclus, Damascius, and Simplicius) was heavily influenced, broadly speaking, by Iamblichuss tendency to bring out in any text, as far as possible, the understanding it offers of the intelligible world, the Alexandrian School (represented by Hierocles in the fifth century, and by Ammonius, Philoponus, Olympiodorus, Elias, and David in the sixth) tended toward a more sober and less metaphysical technique of interpretation. Praechter connected these observations with two socio cultural differences separating the schools: Alexandria had traditionally been a center of learning in the exact sciences (hence the preference for Aristotle) and possessed a large Christian intellectual community attending the Alexandrian philosophers’ lectures and classes (which would temper the propagation of Platonism as an antigospel). Thus, as compared to the Athenians, the Alexandrian Neoplatonists were less of a sect (hairesis) and more of a collegium of higher education. [p. 323-324] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/5eGVb60bqhLTv0z |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"428","_score":null,"_source":{"id":428,"authors_free":[{"id":577,"entry_id":428,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":360,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wildberg, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Wildberg","norm_person":{"id":360,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Wildberg","full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139018964","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":578,"entry_id":428,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":471,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Maas, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Maas","norm_person":{"id":471,"first_name":"Michael","last_name":"Maas","full_name":"Maas, Michael","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12626094X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philosophy in the Age of Justinian","main_title":{"title":"Philosophy in the Age of Justinian"},"abstract":"In order to bring some clarity to the sometimes confusing list of names \r\nof nowadays little-known philosophers active during the period in ques\u00ad\r\ntion, it is necessary to begin with a short prosopography. A history of \r\nphilosophy in the Age ofjustinian must include an account of two tow\u00ad\r\nering but very different figures, Damascius (c. 460-540) and Ammonius, \r\n(c. 440-517 or 526). The philosophical activities of both these men oc\u00ad\r\ncur well before the accession ofjustinian, but through their pupils they \r\nshaped the views and methods of their philosophical successors in the \r\nperiod that concerns us. [p. 318] \r\nTo illustrate the point that commentaries were not written to elucidate \r\notherwise obscure texts but were the preferred genre of discourse to \r\nestablish, negotiate, and criticize substantive philosophical claims, we \r\nnow turn to some of the controversies that were discussed in a more or \r\nless open fashion. In an influential article, Karl Praechter once argued \r\nthat one can distinguish clearly between different schools and directions \r\nwithin the broader Neoplatonic movement in late antiquity.23 In partic\u00ad\r\nular, Praechter argued that the salient difference between the two major \r\nschools, the Athenian and the Alexandrian branch, lay in their differ\u00ad\r\nent exegetical methods. Whereas the Athenian school (represented by \r\nSyrianus, Proclus, Damascius, and Simplicius) was heavily influenced, \r\nbroadly speaking, by Iamblichuss tendency to bring out in any text, \r\nas far as possible, the understanding it offers of the intelligible world, \r\nthe Alexandrian School (represented by Hierocles in the fifth century, \r\nand by Ammonius, Philoponus, Olympiodorus, Elias, and David in the \r\nsixth) tended toward a more sober and less metaphysical technique of \r\ninterpretation. Praechter connected these observations with two socio\u00ad\r\ncultural differences separating the schools: Alexandria had traditionally \r\nbeen a center of learning in the exact sciences (hence the preference for Aristotle) and possessed a large Christian intellectual community \r\nattending the Alexandrian philosophers\u2019 lectures and classes (which \r\nwould temper the propagation of Platonism as an antigospel). Thus, \r\nas compared to the Athenians, the Alexandrian Neoplatonists were less \r\nof a sect (hairesis) and more of a collegium of higher education. [p. 323-324]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5eGVb60bqhLTv0z","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":471,"full_name":"Maas, Michael","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":428,"section_of":17,"pages":"316-340","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":17,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Cambridge companion to the Age of Justinian","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Maas2005","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2005","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2005","abstract":"This book introduces the Age of Justinian, the last Roman century and the first flowering of Byzantine culture. Dominated by the policies and personality of emperor Justinian I (527\u2013565), this period of grand achievements and far-reaching failures witnessed the transformation of the Mediterranean world. In this volume, twenty specialists explore the most important aspects of the age including the mechanics and theory of empire, warfare, urbanism, and economy. It also discusses the impact of the great plague, the codification of Roman law, and the many religious upheavals taking place at the time. Consideration is given to imperial relations with the papacy, northern barbarians, the Persians, and other eastern peoples, shedding new light on a dramatic and highly significant historical period. [a.a]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VO13SyosuR7rCEZ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":17,"pubplace":"Cambridge \u2013 New York","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Philosophy in the Age of Justinian"]}
| Title | The Will and its Freedom: Epictetus and Simplicius on what is up to us |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2014 |
| Published in | What is up to us? Studies on Agency and Responsibility in Ancient Philosophy |
| Pages | 329-350 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Wildberg, Christian |
| Editor(s) | Destrée, Pierre , Zingano, Marco |
| Translator(s) |
The text explores the historical development of the concept of free will, drawing parallels with the evolution of understanding projectile motion. Three distinct periods are identified: an initial stage marked by a misunderstanding of projectile motion, where objects were thought to require continuous external motion; a second stage where the concept of "impetus" was introduced to explain forced motion at a distance; and a final stage, ushered in by Galileo, Descartes, and Newton, where the correct understanding of inertia emerged. The discovery of free will is compared to the discovery of the will as a distinct human faculty in late antiquity. Similar to the concept of impetus, the will is depicted as capable of being strong or weak and has significant influence over human actions. The philosophical discussion surrounding free will is likened to the debates on projectile motion, with various perspectives on its existence and nature. Some argue for the existence of free will, while others contend that it is unnecessary and incoherent. The text concludes by pointing out the need for a deeper understanding of the historical context and metaphysical assumptions underlying the concept of free will. It suggests that the concept of free will is a remnant of past intellectual certainty about metaphysical truths and may not be as morally neutral as commonly believed. The modern discussion on free will is encouraged to consider its historical development and potential implications more carefully. [introduction] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mOZ7OMN3pKwTAfd |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"427","_score":null,"_source":{"id":427,"authors_free":[{"id":573,"entry_id":427,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":360,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wildberg, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Wildberg","norm_person":{"id":360,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Wildberg","full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139018964","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":574,"entry_id":427,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":90,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Destr\u00e9e, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Destr\u00e9e","norm_person":{"id":90,"first_name":"Pierre ","last_name":"Destr\u00e9e","full_name":"Destr\u00e9e, Pierre ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1085171485","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":576,"entry_id":427,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":472,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Zingano, Marco","free_first_name":"Marco","free_last_name":"Zingano","norm_person":{"id":472,"first_name":"Marco","last_name":"Zingano","full_name":"Zingano, Marco","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1102225592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Will and its Freedom: Epictetus and Simplicius on what is up to us","main_title":{"title":"The Will and its Freedom: Epictetus and Simplicius on what is up to us"},"abstract":"The text explores the historical development of the concept of free will, drawing parallels with the evolution of understanding projectile motion. Three distinct periods are identified: an initial stage marked by a misunderstanding of projectile motion, where objects were thought to require continuous external motion; a second stage where the concept of \"impetus\" was introduced to explain forced motion at a distance; and a final stage, ushered in by Galileo, Descartes, and Newton, where the correct understanding of inertia emerged. The discovery of free will is compared to the discovery of the will as a distinct human faculty in late antiquity. Similar to the concept of impetus, the will is depicted as capable of being strong or weak and has significant influence over human actions. The philosophical discussion surrounding free will is likened to the debates on projectile motion, with various perspectives on its existence and nature. Some argue for the existence of free will, while others contend that it is unnecessary and incoherent. The text concludes by pointing out the need for a deeper understanding of the historical context and metaphysical assumptions underlying the concept of free will. It suggests that the concept of free will is a remnant of past intellectual certainty about metaphysical truths and may not be as morally neutral as commonly believed. The modern discussion on free will is encouraged to consider its historical development and potential implications more carefully. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mOZ7OMN3pKwTAfd","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":90,"full_name":"Destr\u00e9e, Pierre ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":472,"full_name":"Zingano, Marco","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":427,"section_of":329,"pages":"329-350","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":329,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"What is up to us? Studies on Agency and Responsibility in Ancient Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Destr\u00e9e2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"The problem of responsibility in moral philosophy has been lively debated in the last decades, especially since the publication of Harry Frankfurt's seminal paper, 'Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility' (1969). Compatibilists - also known as 'soft' determinists - and, on the other side, incompatibilists - libertarians and 'hard' determinists - are the main contenders in this major academic controversy. The debate goes back to Antiquity. After Aristotle, compatibilists, and especially the Stoics, debated this issue with the incompatibilists, notably Epicurus (though his classification as an incompatibilist has been disputed in modern scholarship), Alexander of Aphrodisias and Plutarch.\r\n\r\nThe problem debated at that time and the problem debated nowadays are fundamentally the same, even though the terms and the concepts evolved over the centuries. In Antiquity, the central notion was that of 'what is up to us', or 'what depends on us'. The present volume brings together twenty contributions devoted to examining the problem of moral responsibility as it arises in Antiquity in direct connection with the concept of what is up to us - to eph' h\u00eamin, in Greek, or in nostra potestate and in nobis, in its Latin counterparts, aiming to promote classical scholarship, and to shed some light on the contemporary issues as well.\r\n\r\nWith contributions by Marcelo D. Boeri, Mauro Bonazzi, Susanne Bobzien, Pierre Destr\u00e9e, Javier Eche\u00f1ique, Dorothea Frede, Michael Frede, Lloyd P. Gerson, Laura Liliana G\u00f3mez, Jean-Baptiste Gourinat, Christoph Horn, Monte Ransom Johnson, Stefano Maso, Susan Sauv\u00e9 Meyer, Pierre-Marie Morel, Ricardo Salles, Carlos Steel, Daniela Patrizia Taormina, Emmanuele Vimercati, Katja Maria Vogt, Christian Wildberg and Marco Zingano. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WCz3sdLMsMTkFmE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":329,"pubplace":"Sankt Augustin","publisher":"Academia Verlag","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Will and its Freedom: Epictetus and Simplicius on what is up to us"]}