Type of Media 1
Author 2
Date 7
Type of Media
Free Search
Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World, 2022
By: Lammer, Andreas (Ed.), Jas, Mareike (Ed.)
Title Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 2022
Publication Place Leiden – Boston
Publisher Brill
Series Philosophia Antiqua
Volume 160
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Lammer, Andreas , Jas, Mareike
Translator(s)
Aristotle is famous for beginning his discussions of particular problems with earlier views (doxai) on the subject at hand, whether in physics (Phys. I.2–6), biology (Hist. anim. III.2–3; De respir. 1–9), psychology (De an. I.2–4), metaphysics (Met. Α.1–10), or astronomy (Cael. I.1; 10–12). Part of the procedure is, as he often puts it, to “go over or rehearse the puzzles” (diaporêsai). Ever since Hermann Diels tried to collect and reconstruct the doctrines of the Presocratics, Aristotle’s discussions (and those of his collaborator and immediate successor Theophrastus) became associated with the wider pathways of transmission of early Greek philosophy. Subsequently, Diels’ work emphasized Theophrastus’ role as the origin for this network of interconnected texts. Diels’ two pioneering works resulting from these investigations, his Doxographi Graeci (mapping and clarifying the various streams of transmission) and his Vorsokratiker (an authoritative collection of the fragments and testimonia), have both dominated the twentieth-century study of early Greek thought. In this chapter, I aim to revisit how we should characterize Aristotle’s habit of examining such “received opinions” and how influential it was on his successors, in particular Theophrastus. The nature of these discussions is, I submit, in need of a more precise characterization. For added perspective on the larger timeframe and the continuity in the Aristotelian tradition, I will include comments on the late Platonist Simplicius (ca. 480–ca. 540 CE), who not only still had access to Theophrastus and several works of Aristotle but also seems to echo aspects of the doxai-discussions in his commentaries on Aristotle, with certain important adjustments. By defining “received opinions” in the sense of “accepted” as well as “transmitted,” we are in a position to distinguish between different kinds of doxai-collections, depending on the context and the questions we ask about the material. In Greek, “received opinions” relates closely to endoxa, which I shall also clarify. The overall aim is to gain more insight into the role of these endoxa in the Aristotelian tradition as well as characterize the method(s) used to frame a scientific discussion with “historical” depth. This three-step analysis aims to offer an answer to the question implied in my title: is Diels’ label accurate for the method used by Aristotle and his successor, or should we consider an alternative description? I have introduced the term “endoxography” in my title in an attempt to coin a phrase that describes more accurately certain types of doxai-collections in contradistinction to Diels’ notion of doxography and its modern use, which seems to have become wider in scope. In my study of Theophrastus’ work, I came up with the phrase “critical endoxography” a long time ago. It was meant to characterize the dialectical argument forms in Theophrastus’ De sensibus as a way of specifying how these “well-known views” (endoxa) received critical attention from both Aristotle and Theophrastus. My focus on the terms doxography and endoxography in the earlier part of this paper is not just an exercise in semantics, but one that concerns the very nature of Aristotle’s activity and how it impacted his successor and later commentators. Diels’ modern term may be more or less appropriate for this wider and later tradition of doxai transmission, but it hardly describes the early Peripatetic habit of retrospective evaluation of previous views related to specific investigations into problems of particular knowledge domains. [introduction p. 151-152]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1521","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1521,"authors_free":[{"id":2639,"entry_id":1521,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":565,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lammer, Andreas","free_first_name":"Andreas","free_last_name":"Lammer","norm_person":{"id":565,"first_name":"Andreas","last_name":"Lammer","full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031936807","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2640,"entry_id":1521,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":564,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jas, Mareike ","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Jas","norm_person":{"id":564,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Jas","full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116742073X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World","main_title":{"title":"Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World"},"abstract":"Aristotle is famous for beginning his discussions of particular problems with earlier views (doxai) on the subject at hand, whether in physics (Phys. I.2\u20136), biology (Hist. anim. III.2\u20133; De respir. 1\u20139), psychology (De an. I.2\u20134), metaphysics (Met. \u0391.1\u201310), or astronomy (Cael. I.1; 10\u201312). Part of the procedure is, as he often puts it, to \u201cgo over or rehearse the puzzles\u201d (diapor\u00easai).\r\n\r\nEver since Hermann Diels tried to collect and reconstruct the doctrines of the Presocratics, Aristotle\u2019s discussions (and those of his collaborator and immediate successor Theophrastus) became associated with the wider pathways of transmission of early Greek philosophy. Subsequently, Diels\u2019 work emphasized Theophrastus\u2019 role as the origin for this network of interconnected texts. Diels\u2019 two pioneering works resulting from these investigations, his Doxographi Graeci (mapping and clarifying the various streams of transmission) and his Vorsokratiker (an authoritative collection of the fragments and testimonia), have both dominated the twentieth-century study of early Greek thought.\r\n\r\nIn this chapter, I aim to revisit how we should characterize Aristotle\u2019s habit of examining such \u201creceived opinions\u201d and how influential it was on his successors, in particular Theophrastus. The nature of these discussions is, I submit, in need of a more precise characterization. For added perspective on the larger timeframe and the continuity in the Aristotelian tradition, I will include comments on the late Platonist Simplicius (ca. 480\u2013ca. 540 CE), who not only still had access to Theophrastus and several works of Aristotle but also seems to echo aspects of the doxai-discussions in his commentaries on Aristotle, with certain important adjustments.\r\n\r\nBy defining \u201creceived opinions\u201d in the sense of \u201caccepted\u201d as well as \u201ctransmitted,\u201d we are in a position to distinguish between different kinds of doxai-collections, depending on the context and the questions we ask about the material. In Greek, \u201creceived opinions\u201d relates closely to endoxa, which I shall also clarify. The overall aim is to gain more insight into the role of these endoxa in the Aristotelian tradition as well as characterize the method(s) used to frame a scientific discussion with \u201chistorical\u201d depth.\r\n\r\nThis three-step analysis aims to offer an answer to the question implied in my title: is Diels\u2019 label accurate for the method used by Aristotle and his successor, or should we consider an alternative description? I have introduced the term \u201cendoxography\u201d in my title in an attempt to coin a phrase that describes more accurately certain types of doxai-collections in contradistinction to Diels\u2019 notion of doxography and its modern use, which seems to have become wider in scope.\r\n\r\nIn my study of Theophrastus\u2019 work, I came up with the phrase \u201ccritical endoxography\u201d a long time ago. It was meant to characterize the dialectical argument forms in Theophrastus\u2019 De sensibus as a way of specifying how these \u201cwell-known views\u201d (endoxa) received critical attention from both Aristotle and Theophrastus. My focus on the terms doxography and endoxography in the earlier part of this paper is not just an exercise in semantics, but one that concerns the very nature of Aristotle\u2019s activity and how it impacted his successor and later commentators.\r\n\r\nDiels\u2019 modern term may be more or less appropriate for this wider and later tradition of doxai transmission, but it hardly describes the early Peripatetic habit of retrospective evaluation of previous views related to specific investigations into problems of particular knowledge domains. [introduction p. 151-152]","btype":4,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Gzd2QU7XGDORXfc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":565,"full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":564,"full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1521,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"160","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2022]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1
Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World, 2022
By: Lammer, Andreas (Ed.), Jas, Mareike (Ed.)
Title Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 2022
Publication Place Leiden – Boston
Publisher Brill
Series Philosophia Antiqua
Volume 160
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Lammer, Andreas , Jas, Mareike
Translator(s) 
Aristotle is famous for beginning his discussions of particular problems with earlier views (doxai) on the subject at hand, whether in physics (Phys. I.2–6), biology (Hist. anim. III.2–3; De respir. 1–9), psychology (De an. I.2–4), metaphysics (Met. Α.1–10), or astronomy (Cael. I.1; 10–12). Part of the procedure is, as he often puts it, to “go over or rehearse the puzzles” (diaporêsai).

Ever since Hermann Diels tried to collect and reconstruct the doctrines of the Presocratics, Aristotle’s discussions (and those of his collaborator and immediate successor Theophrastus) became associated with the wider pathways of transmission of early Greek philosophy. Subsequently, Diels’ work emphasized Theophrastus’ role as the origin for this network of interconnected texts. Diels’ two pioneering works resulting from these investigations, his Doxographi Graeci (mapping and clarifying the various streams of transmission) and his Vorsokratiker (an authoritative collection of the fragments and testimonia), have both dominated the twentieth-century study of early Greek thought.

In this chapter, I aim to revisit how we should characterize Aristotle’s habit of examining such “received opinions” and how influential it was on his successors, in particular Theophrastus. The nature of these discussions is, I submit, in need of a more precise characterization. For added perspective on the larger timeframe and the continuity in the Aristotelian tradition, I will include comments on the late Platonist Simplicius (ca. 480–ca. 540 CE), who not only still had access to Theophrastus and several works of Aristotle but also seems to echo aspects of the doxai-discussions in his commentaries on Aristotle, with certain important adjustments.

By defining “received opinions” in the sense of “accepted” as well as “transmitted,” we are in a position to distinguish between different kinds of doxai-collections, depending on the context and the questions we ask about the material. In Greek, “received opinions” relates closely to endoxa, which I shall also clarify. The overall aim is to gain more insight into the role of these endoxa in the Aristotelian tradition as well as characterize the method(s) used to frame a scientific discussion with “historical” depth.

This three-step analysis aims to offer an answer to the question implied in my title: is Diels’ label accurate for the method used by Aristotle and his successor, or should we consider an alternative description? I have introduced the term “endoxography” in my title in an attempt to coin a phrase that describes more accurately certain types of doxai-collections in contradistinction to Diels’ notion of doxography and its modern use, which seems to have become wider in scope.

In my study of Theophrastus’ work, I came up with the phrase “critical endoxography” a long time ago. It was meant to characterize the dialectical argument forms in Theophrastus’ De sensibus as a way of specifying how these “well-known views” (endoxa) received critical attention from both Aristotle and Theophrastus. My focus on the terms doxography and endoxography in the earlier part of this paper is not just an exercise in semantics, but one that concerns the very nature of Aristotle’s activity and how it impacted his successor and later commentators.

Diels’ modern term may be more or less appropriate for this wider and later tradition of doxai transmission, but it hardly describes the early Peripatetic habit of retrospective evaluation of previous views related to specific investigations into problems of particular knowledge domains. [introduction p. 151-152]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1521","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1521,"authors_free":[{"id":2639,"entry_id":1521,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":565,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lammer, Andreas","free_first_name":"Andreas","free_last_name":"Lammer","norm_person":{"id":565,"first_name":"Andreas","last_name":"Lammer","full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031936807","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2640,"entry_id":1521,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":564,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jas, Mareike ","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Jas","norm_person":{"id":564,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Jas","full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116742073X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World","main_title":{"title":"Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World"},"abstract":"Aristotle is famous for beginning his discussions of particular problems with earlier views (doxai) on the subject at hand, whether in physics (Phys. I.2\u20136), biology (Hist. anim. III.2\u20133; De respir. 1\u20139), psychology (De an. I.2\u20134), metaphysics (Met. \u0391.1\u201310), or astronomy (Cael. I.1; 10\u201312). Part of the procedure is, as he often puts it, to \u201cgo over or rehearse the puzzles\u201d (diapor\u00easai).\r\n\r\nEver since Hermann Diels tried to collect and reconstruct the doctrines of the Presocratics, Aristotle\u2019s discussions (and those of his collaborator and immediate successor Theophrastus) became associated with the wider pathways of transmission of early Greek philosophy. Subsequently, Diels\u2019 work emphasized Theophrastus\u2019 role as the origin for this network of interconnected texts. Diels\u2019 two pioneering works resulting from these investigations, his Doxographi Graeci (mapping and clarifying the various streams of transmission) and his Vorsokratiker (an authoritative collection of the fragments and testimonia), have both dominated the twentieth-century study of early Greek thought.\r\n\r\nIn this chapter, I aim to revisit how we should characterize Aristotle\u2019s habit of examining such \u201creceived opinions\u201d and how influential it was on his successors, in particular Theophrastus. The nature of these discussions is, I submit, in need of a more precise characterization. For added perspective on the larger timeframe and the continuity in the Aristotelian tradition, I will include comments on the late Platonist Simplicius (ca. 480\u2013ca. 540 CE), who not only still had access to Theophrastus and several works of Aristotle but also seems to echo aspects of the doxai-discussions in his commentaries on Aristotle, with certain important adjustments.\r\n\r\nBy defining \u201creceived opinions\u201d in the sense of \u201caccepted\u201d as well as \u201ctransmitted,\u201d we are in a position to distinguish between different kinds of doxai-collections, depending on the context and the questions we ask about the material. In Greek, \u201creceived opinions\u201d relates closely to endoxa, which I shall also clarify. The overall aim is to gain more insight into the role of these endoxa in the Aristotelian tradition as well as characterize the method(s) used to frame a scientific discussion with \u201chistorical\u201d depth.\r\n\r\nThis three-step analysis aims to offer an answer to the question implied in my title: is Diels\u2019 label accurate for the method used by Aristotle and his successor, or should we consider an alternative description? I have introduced the term \u201cendoxography\u201d in my title in an attempt to coin a phrase that describes more accurately certain types of doxai-collections in contradistinction to Diels\u2019 notion of doxography and its modern use, which seems to have become wider in scope.\r\n\r\nIn my study of Theophrastus\u2019 work, I came up with the phrase \u201ccritical endoxography\u201d a long time ago. It was meant to characterize the dialectical argument forms in Theophrastus\u2019 De sensibus as a way of specifying how these \u201cwell-known views\u201d (endoxa) received critical attention from both Aristotle and Theophrastus. My focus on the terms doxography and endoxography in the earlier part of this paper is not just an exercise in semantics, but one that concerns the very nature of Aristotle\u2019s activity and how it impacted his successor and later commentators.\r\n\r\nDiels\u2019 modern term may be more or less appropriate for this wider and later tradition of doxai transmission, but it hardly describes the early Peripatetic habit of retrospective evaluation of previous views related to specific investigations into problems of particular knowledge domains. [introduction p. 151-152]","btype":4,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Gzd2QU7XGDORXfc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":565,"full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":564,"full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1521,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"160","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World"]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1