Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle’s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition, 2002
By: Haas, Frans A. J. de, Leijenhorst, Cees (Ed.), Lüthy, Christoph (Ed.), Thijssen, J. M. M. H. (Ed.)
Title Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle’s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 2002
Published in The dynamics of Aristotelian natural philosophy from Antiquity to the seventeenth century
Pages 31-56
Categories no categories
Author(s) Haas, Frans A. J. de
Editor(s) Leijenhorst, Cees , Lüthy, Christoph , Thijssen, J. M. M. H.
Translator(s)
In this essay, Frans A.J. de Haas explores the commentary tradition on Aristotle's Physics, focusing on the first chapter, which is considered pivotal for Aristotelian natural philosophy. The chapter sets the stage for Aristotle's principles of science and the method of scientific inquiry. However, the twenty-two lines of the chapter have not lived up to these high expectations, leading to a bewildering variety of interpretations in the commentary tradition. The essay aims to understand the development of the commentary tradition and the factors that influenced the various interpretations. De Haas presents a method of charting a commentator's philosophical environment to explain their modifications of Aristotle's doctrine. He examines the interpretation of Physics 1.1 by Themistius, an influential ancient commentator. De Haas identifies several factors that may explain Themistius' specific interpretation, such as the assumption of a deductive method in physics, the influence of Theophrastus' logical analysis, and Alexander's proposal of the coherence of all sciences. Themistius introduces the topic of universal concepts, which leads to discussions about the priority of universals in Aristotle's writings. The essay concludes that understanding the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition allows us to recognize the influence of earlier interpretations in later commentators. This realization highlights the importance of carefully considering the original context and intentions of Aristotle's work to avoid misinterpretations in subsequent commentaries. [introduction/conclusion]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"523","_score":null,"_source":{"id":523,"authors_free":[{"id":730,"entry_id":523,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":153,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Haas, Frans A. J. de","free_first_name":"Frans A. J.","free_last_name":"Haas, de","norm_person":{"id":153,"first_name":"Frans A. J.","last_name":"de Haas","full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/128837020","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":731,"entry_id":523,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":155,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Leijenhorst, Cees","free_first_name":"Cees","free_last_name":"Leijenhorst","norm_person":{"id":155,"first_name":"Leijenhorst","last_name":"Cees","full_name":"Leijenhorst, Cees","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173195253","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":732,"entry_id":523,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":156,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"L\u00fcthy, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"L\u00fcthy","norm_person":{"id":156,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"L\u00fcthy","full_name":"L\u00fcthy, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1057979945","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":733,"entry_id":523,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":157,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Thijssen, J. M. M. H.","free_first_name":"J. M. M. H.","free_last_name":"Thijssen","norm_person":{"id":157,"first_name":"Johannes M. M. H.","last_name":"Thijssen","full_name":"Thijssen, Johannes M. M. H.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1173828508","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle\u2019s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition","main_title":{"title":"Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle\u2019s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition"},"abstract":"In this essay, Frans A.J. de Haas explores the commentary tradition on Aristotle's Physics, focusing on the first chapter, which is considered pivotal for Aristotelian natural philosophy. The chapter sets the stage for Aristotle's principles of science and the method of scientific inquiry. However, the twenty-two lines of the chapter have not lived up to these high expectations, leading to a bewildering variety of interpretations in the commentary tradition. The essay aims to understand the development of the commentary tradition and the factors that influenced the various interpretations. De Haas presents a method of charting a commentator's philosophical environment to explain their modifications of Aristotle's doctrine. He examines the interpretation of Physics 1.1 by Themistius, an influential ancient commentator. De Haas identifies several factors that may explain Themistius' specific interpretation, such as the assumption of a deductive method in physics, the influence of Theophrastus' logical analysis, and Alexander's proposal of the coherence of all sciences. Themistius introduces the topic of universal concepts, which leads to discussions about the priority of universals in Aristotle's writings. The essay concludes that understanding the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition allows us to recognize the influence of earlier interpretations in later commentators. This realization highlights the importance of carefully considering the original context and intentions of Aristotle's work to avoid misinterpretations in subsequent commentaries. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ERKCCFGaH9YKQNL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":153,"full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":155,"full_name":"Leijenhorst, Cees","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":156,"full_name":"L\u00fcthy, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":157,"full_name":"Thijssen, Johannes M. M. H.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":523,"section_of":370,"pages":"31-56","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":370,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The dynamics of Aristotelian natural philosophy from Antiquity to the seventeenth century","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Leijenhorst_2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EZqjexic8BQf4du","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":370,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Medieval and early modern science","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1
Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle’s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition, 2002
By: Haas, Frans A. J. de, Leijenhorst, Cees (Ed.), Lüthy, Christoph (Ed.), Thijssen, J. M. M. H. (Ed.)
Title Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle’s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 2002
Published in The dynamics of Aristotelian natural philosophy from Antiquity to the seventeenth century
Pages 31-56
Categories no categories
Author(s) Haas, Frans A. J. de
Editor(s) Leijenhorst, Cees , Lüthy, Christoph , Thijssen, J. M. M. H.
Translator(s)
In this essay, Frans A.J. de Haas explores the commentary tradition on Aristotle's Physics, focusing on the first chapter, which is considered pivotal for Aristotelian natural philosophy. The chapter sets the stage for Aristotle's principles of science and the method of scientific inquiry. However, the twenty-two lines of the chapter have not lived up to these high expectations, leading to a bewildering variety of interpretations in the commentary tradition. The essay aims to understand the development of the commentary tradition and the factors that influenced the various interpretations. De Haas presents a method of charting a commentator's philosophical environment to explain their modifications of Aristotle's doctrine. He examines the interpretation of Physics 1.1 by Themistius, an influential ancient commentator. De Haas identifies several factors that may explain Themistius' specific interpretation, such as the assumption of a deductive method in physics, the influence of Theophrastus' logical analysis, and Alexander's proposal of the coherence of all sciences. Themistius introduces the topic of universal concepts, which leads to discussions about the priority of universals in Aristotle's writings. The essay concludes that understanding the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition allows us to recognize the influence of earlier interpretations in later commentators. This realization highlights the importance of carefully considering the original context and intentions of Aristotle's work to avoid misinterpretations in subsequent commentaries. [introduction/conclusion]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"523","_score":null,"_source":{"id":523,"authors_free":[{"id":730,"entry_id":523,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":153,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Haas, Frans A. J. de","free_first_name":"Frans A. J.","free_last_name":"Haas, de","norm_person":{"id":153,"first_name":"Frans A. J.","last_name":"de Haas","full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/128837020","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":731,"entry_id":523,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":155,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Leijenhorst, Cees","free_first_name":"Cees","free_last_name":"Leijenhorst","norm_person":{"id":155,"first_name":"Leijenhorst","last_name":"Cees","full_name":"Leijenhorst, Cees","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173195253","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":732,"entry_id":523,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":156,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"L\u00fcthy, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"L\u00fcthy","norm_person":{"id":156,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"L\u00fcthy","full_name":"L\u00fcthy, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1057979945","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":733,"entry_id":523,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":157,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Thijssen, J. M. M. H.","free_first_name":"J. M. M. H.","free_last_name":"Thijssen","norm_person":{"id":157,"first_name":"Johannes M. M. H.","last_name":"Thijssen","full_name":"Thijssen, Johannes M. M. H.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1173828508","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle\u2019s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition","main_title":{"title":"Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle\u2019s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition"},"abstract":"In this essay, Frans A.J. de Haas explores the commentary tradition on Aristotle's Physics, focusing on the first chapter, which is considered pivotal for Aristotelian natural philosophy. The chapter sets the stage for Aristotle's principles of science and the method of scientific inquiry. However, the twenty-two lines of the chapter have not lived up to these high expectations, leading to a bewildering variety of interpretations in the commentary tradition. The essay aims to understand the development of the commentary tradition and the factors that influenced the various interpretations. De Haas presents a method of charting a commentator's philosophical environment to explain their modifications of Aristotle's doctrine. He examines the interpretation of Physics 1.1 by Themistius, an influential ancient commentator. De Haas identifies several factors that may explain Themistius' specific interpretation, such as the assumption of a deductive method in physics, the influence of Theophrastus' logical analysis, and Alexander's proposal of the coherence of all sciences. Themistius introduces the topic of universal concepts, which leads to discussions about the priority of universals in Aristotle's writings. The essay concludes that understanding the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition allows us to recognize the influence of earlier interpretations in later commentators. This realization highlights the importance of carefully considering the original context and intentions of Aristotle's work to avoid misinterpretations in subsequent commentaries. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ERKCCFGaH9YKQNL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":153,"full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":155,"full_name":"Leijenhorst, Cees","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":156,"full_name":"L\u00fcthy, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":157,"full_name":"Thijssen, Johannes M. M. H.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":523,"section_of":370,"pages":"31-56","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":370,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The dynamics of Aristotelian natural philosophy from Antiquity to the seventeenth century","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Leijenhorst_2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EZqjexic8BQf4du","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":370,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Medieval and early modern science","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle\u2019s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition"]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1