A Critical Survey And Bibliography Of Studies On Renaissance Aristotelianism 1958 1969

The volume results from a seminar sponsored by the ’Foundation for Intellectual History’ at the Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel, in 1992. Starting with the theory of regressus as displayed in its most developed form by William Wallace, these papers enter the vast field of the Renaissance discussion on method as such in its historical and systematical context. This is confined neither to the notion of method in the strict sense, nor to the Renaissance in its exact historical limits, nor yet to the Aristotelian tradition as a well defined philosophical school, but requires a new scholarly approach. Thus - besides Galileo, Zabarella and their circles, which are regarded as being crucial for the ’emergence of modern science’ in the end of the 16th century - the contributors deal with the ancient and medieval origins as well as with the early modern continuity of the Renaissance concepts of method and with ’non-regressive’ methodologies in the various approaches of Renaissance natural philosophy, including the Lutheran and Calvinist traditions.

Averroes the philosopher was the Commentator of Aristotle. In this, the project of his life coincided with the perception of his contemporary readers and with the esteem governing four centuries of European Aristotelianism. It has been the purpose of the 4th Symposium Averroicum to contribute to a better understanding of this philosophy: both on the basis of Averroes' works and in the light of his sources. The Symposium, held in conjunction with the 6th Editors Conference of the Averrois Opera, brought together eminent scholars and researchers on Averroes and adjacent areas. Their contributions are presented in four sections: - The Project of Averroes - Averroes and the Hellenistic Commentators - Averroes, the Commentator - Averroes and the Latin Tradition A bibliography of editions and contributions to the text is appended (to date 1998).

Offers an extremely bold, far-reaching, and unsuspected thesis in the history of philosophy: Aristotelianism was a dominant movement of the British philosophical landscape, especially in the field of logic, and it had a long survival. British Aristotelian doctrines were strongly empiricist in nature, both in the theory of knowledge and in scientific method; this character marked and influenced further developments in British philosophy at the end of the century, and eventually gave rise to what we now call British empiricism, which is represented by philosophers such as John Locke, George Berkeley and David Hume. Beyond the apparent and explicit criticism of the old Scholastic and Aristotelian philosophy, which has been very well recognized by the scholarship in the twentieth century and which has contributed to the false notion that early modern philosophy emerged as a reaction to Aristotelianism, the present research examines the continuity, the original developments and the impact of Aristotelian doctrines and terminology in logic and epistemology as the background for the rise of empiricism.Without the Aristotelian tradition, without its doctrines, and without its conceptual elaborations, British empiricism would never have been born. The book emphasizes that philosophy is not defined only by the ‘great names’, but also by minor authors, who determine the intellectual milieu from which the canonical names emerge. It considers every single published work of logic between the middle of the sixteenth and the end of the seventeenth century, being acquainted with a number of surviving manuscripts and being well-informed about the best existing scholarship in the field. ​

Dr. Schmitt shows that Case was heir to both the traditions of scholastic interpretation of Aristotle and the new humanistic currents, that his Aristotelianism was strongly eclectic, and that he drew heavily upon Renaissance Neoplatonic and other intellectual traditions in compiling well-rounded philosophical manuals adapted to his age. Schmitt argues that, even though Case was the prime representative of peripatetic thought during Elizabeth's reign, he forged strong links with leading figures in such areas of English culture as drama, literature, art, and music, as well as with important ecclesiastical and political figures. He also contends that Aristotelian philosophy had a much more central position in England than has been previously admitted. Case's position in the scholastic revival which marked late sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century English intellectual life is charted, and the historical reality of this revival is firmly established.

This volume deals with philosophically grounded theories of animal generation as found in two different traditions: one, deriving primarily from Aristotelian natural philosophy and specifically from his Generation of Animals; and another, deriving from two related medical traditions, the Hippocratic and the Galenic. The book contains a classification and critique of works that touch on the history of embryology and animal generation written before 1980. It also contains translations of key sections of the works on which it is focused. It looks at two different scholarly communities: the physicians (medici) and philosophers (philosophi), that share a set of textual resources and philosophical lineages, as well as a shared problem (explaining animal generation), but that nevertheless have different concerns and commitments. The book demonstrates how those working in these two traditions not only shared a common philosophical background in the arts curricula of the universities, but were in constant intercourse with each other. This book presents a test case of how scholarly communities differentiate themselves from each other through methods of argument, empirical investigation, and textual interpretations. It is all the more interesting because the two communities under investigation have so much in common and yet, in the end, are distinct in a number of important ways.