Simplicius Research Environment

Type of Media

Author

BY DATE
BY TITLE

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]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dDhNbH3yjSg3bKC

Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature, 1998
By: Haas, Frans A. J. de, Raalte, Marlein van (Ed.), van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. (Ed.)

Title	Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	1998
Published in	Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources
Pages	171-189
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Haas, Frans A. J. de
Editor(s)	Raalte, Marlein van , van Ophuijsen, Johannes M.
Translator(s)

In the new edition of the fragments of Theophrastus, we find two testimonies (144A-B FHS&G) concerned with the first sentence of Aristotle’s Physics. There, Aristotle stated that, since knowledge is always knowledge of principles, the science of physics must look for the principles of physical things. Both Philoponus and Simplicius, in their commentaries on this passage (144A and 144B, respectively), report that Theophrastus supplied the minor premise of the syllogism, which was not mentioned by Aristotle—namely, “all physical things have principles.” Moreover, they state that Theophrastus argued for this premise based on the composition of all physical things. Unlike Simplicius, Philoponus inserts an account of the notion of composition involved here and devotes special attention to the various ways in which physical forms and powers can be considered composite. This elaboration (144A 9–28) had been put between parentheses in the Berlin edition of Philoponus’ commentary, thus suggesting a digression by Philoponus rather than a continuation of an originally Theophrastean argument. As Robert Sharples has informed me, in FHS&G the parentheses were omitted to avoid the impression that these lines had nothing to do with Theophrastus at all; nor was it deemed correct to use parentheses to indicate the flow of the argument. In any case, there is no need to challenge the inclusion of this passage in the source book that FHS&G is intended to be. This leaves us with the question: to what extent can we ascribe the contents of Philoponus’ insertion (144A 9–28) to Theophrastus? Professor Laks was the first to raise this question at the Leiden Theophrastus Conference, and he also provided an analysis of the argument. In this paper, I want to address the following questions: Is Philoponus reporting Theophrastean thought here or not? And what motive could Philoponus have had to include this passage at this point in his commentary? [introduction p. 171-172]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/5LsO2XY3SoVzgrW

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1297","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1297,"authors_free":[{"id":1890,"entry_id":1297,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":1988,"entry_id":1297,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":154,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","free_first_name":"Marlein","free_last_name":"Raalte, van","norm_person":{"id":154,"first_name":"Marlein van","last_name":"Raalte","full_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172515270","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1989,"entry_id":1297,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":87,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M.","free_first_name":"Johannes M.","free_last_name":"van Ophuijsen","norm_person":{"id":87,"first_name":"Johannes M. ","last_name":"van Ophuijsen","full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120962365","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature","main_title":{"title":"Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature"},"abstract":"In the new edition of the fragments of Theophrastus, we find two testimonies (144A-B FHS&G) concerned with the first sentence of Aristotle\u2019s Physics. There, Aristotle stated that, since knowledge is always knowledge of principles, the science of physics must look for the principles of physical things.\r\n\r\nBoth Philoponus and Simplicius, in their commentaries on this passage (144A and 144B, respectively), report that Theophrastus supplied the minor premise of the syllogism, which was not mentioned by Aristotle\u2014namely, \u201call physical things have principles.\u201d Moreover, they state that Theophrastus argued for this premise based on the composition of all physical things.\r\n\r\nUnlike Simplicius, Philoponus inserts an account of the notion of composition involved here and devotes special attention to the various ways in which physical forms and powers can be considered composite. This elaboration (144A 9\u201328) had been put between parentheses in the Berlin edition of Philoponus\u2019 commentary, thus suggesting a digression by Philoponus rather than a continuation of an originally Theophrastean argument. As Robert Sharples has informed me, in FHS&G the parentheses were omitted to avoid the impression that these lines had nothing to do with Theophrastus at all; nor was it deemed correct to use parentheses to indicate the flow of the argument. In any case, there is no need to challenge the inclusion of this passage in the source book that FHS&G is intended to be.\r\n\r\nThis leaves us with the question: to what extent can we ascribe the contents of Philoponus\u2019 insertion (144A 9\u201328) to Theophrastus? Professor Laks was the first to raise this question at the Leiden Theophrastus Conference, and he also provided an analysis of the argument.\r\n\r\nIn this paper, I want to address the following questions: Is Philoponus reporting Theophrastean thought here or not? And what motive could Philoponus have had to include this passage at this point in his commentary? [introduction p. 171-172]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5LsO2XY3SoVzgrW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":153,"full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":154,"full_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":87,"full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1297,"section_of":1298,"pages":"171-189","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1298,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Ophuijsen_Raalte1997","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Theophrastus was Aristotle's pupil and second head of the Peripatetic School. Apart from two botanical works, a collection of character sketches, and several scientific opuscula, his works survive only through quotations and reports in secondary sources. Recently these quotations and reports have been collected and published, thereby making the thought of Theophrastus accessible to a wide audience. The present volume contains seventeen responses to this material.\r\n\r\nThere are chapters dealing with Theophrastus' views on logic, physics, biology, ethics, politics, rhetoric, and music, as well as the life of Theophrastus. Together these writings throw considerable light on fundamental questions concerning the development and importance of the Peripatos in the early Hellenistic period. The authors consider whether Theophrastus was a systematic thinker who imposed coherence and consistency on a growing body of knowledge, or a problem-oriented thinker who foreshadowed the dissolution of Peripatetic thought into various loosely connected disciplines. Of special interest are those essays which deal with Theophrastus' intellectual position in relation to the lively philosophic scene occupied by such contemporaries as Zeno, the founder of the Stoa, and Epicurus, the founder of the Garden, as well as Xenocrates and Polemon hi the Academy, and Theophrastus' fellow Peripatetics, Eudemus and Strato.\r\n\r\nThe contributors to the volume are Suzanne Amigues, Antonio Battegazzore, Tiziano Dorandi, Woldemar Gorier, John Glucker, Hans Gottschalk, Frans de Haas, Andre Laks, Anthony Long, Jorgen Mejer, Mario Mignucci, Trevor Saunders, Dirk Schenkeveld, David Sedley, Robert Sharpies, C. M. J. Sicking and Richard Sorabji. The Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities series is a forum for seminal thinking in the field of philosophy, and this volume is no exception. Theophrastus is a landmark achievement in intellectual thought. Philosophers, historians, and classicists will all find this work to be enlightening. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1SV1t3Xkh1BCyWm","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1298,"pubplace":"New Brunswick & London","publisher":"Transaction Publishers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"8","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1998]}

PAGE 1 OF 1

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)

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dDhNbH3yjSg3bKC

Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature, 1998
By: Haas, Frans A. J. de, Raalte, Marlein van (Ed.), van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. (Ed.)

Title	Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	1998
Published in	Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources
Pages	171-189
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Haas, Frans A. J. de
Editor(s)	Raalte, Marlein van , van Ophuijsen, Johannes M.
Translator(s)

Both Philoponus and Simplicius, in their commentaries on this passage (144A and 144B, respectively), report that Theophrastus supplied the minor premise of the syllogism, which was not mentioned by Aristotle—namely, “all physical things have principles.” Moreover, they state that Theophrastus argued for this premise based on the composition of all physical things.

Unlike Simplicius, Philoponus inserts an account of the notion of composition involved here and devotes special attention to the various ways in which physical forms and powers can be considered composite. This elaboration (144A 9–28) had been put between parentheses in the Berlin edition of Philoponus’ commentary, thus suggesting a digression by Philoponus rather than a continuation of an originally Theophrastean argument. As Robert Sharples has informed me, in FHS&G the parentheses were omitted to avoid the impression that these lines had nothing to do with Theophrastus at all; nor was it deemed correct to use parentheses to indicate the flow of the argument. In any case, there is no need to challenge the inclusion of this passage in the source book that FHS&G is intended to be.

This leaves us with the question: to what extent can we ascribe the contents of Philoponus’ insertion (144A 9–28) to Theophrastus? Professor Laks was the first to raise this question at the Leiden Theophrastus Conference, and he also provided an analysis of the argument.

In this paper, I want to address the following questions: Is Philoponus reporting Theophrastean thought here or not? And what motive could Philoponus have had to include this passage at this point in his commentary? [introduction p. 171-172]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/5LsO2XY3SoVzgrW

PAGE 1 OF 1