Ammonius On Aristotle On Interpretation 9 With Boethius On Aristotle On Interpretation 9

This book is about determinisism. It contains the two most important commentaries on the determinists' sea battle argument, and on other deterministic arguments besides. It includes the earliest full exposition of the Reaper argument for determinism, and a discussion of whether there can be changeless knowledge of the passage of time. It also contains the two fullest expositions of the idea that it is not truth, but only definite truth, that would imply determinism. Ammonius and Boethius both wrote commentaries on Aristotle's On Interpretation and on its ninth chapter, where Aristotle discusses the sea battle. Their comments are crucial, for Ammonius' commentary influenced the Islamic the Islamic Middle Ages, while that of Boethius was of equal importance to medieval Latin-speaking philosophers. It was once argued that Boethius was influenced by Ammonius, but these translations are published together in this volume to enable the reader to see clearly that this was not the case. Ammonius draws on the fourth- and fifth-century Neoplatonists lamblichus, Syrianus, and Proclus. He arranges his argument around three major deterministic arguments and is our main source for one of them, the Reaper argument, which has hitherto received insufficient attention. Boethius, on the other hand, draws on controversies from 300 years earlier between Stoics and Aristotelians as recorded by Alexander of Aphrodisias and Porphyry. This volume is essential reading for all those with an interest in the history of determinism. Ammonius' commentary on the first eight chapters of Aristotle's On Interpretation has appeared in a previously published volume in this series, translated by David Blank.

This volume is essential reading for anyone interested in the history of determinism. It contains the two most important commentaries on the determinists' sea battle argument as well as on other deterministic arguments. The book includes the earliest full exposition of the Reaper argument for determinism, a discussion of whether changeless knowledge of the passage of time is possible, and the two fullest expositions of the idea that determinism is implied not by truth, but only by definite truth. Ammonius and Boethius both wrote commentaries on Aristotle's On Interpretation and on its ninth chapter, where Aristotle discusses the sea battle. Their comments are crucial, for Ammonius' commentary influenced the Islamic Middle Ages, while that of Boethius was of equal importance to medieval Latin-speaking philosophers.

Enth.: On Aristotle / On interpretation 1-8.

Boethius (c.480-c.525) wrote his highly influential second commentary on Aristotle's On Interpretation in Latin, but using the style of the Greek commentaries on Aristotle. It was part of his project to bring knowledge of Plato and Aristotle to the Latin-speaking world of his fellow Christians. The project was cruelly interrupted by his execution at the age of about 45, leaving the Latin world under-informed about Greek Philosophy for 700 years. Boethius reveals to us how On Interpretation was understood not only by himself, but also by some of the best Greek interpreters, especially Alexander and Porphyry. Alexander had insisted that its subject was composite thoughts, not composite sentences nor composite things - it is thoughts that are primarily true or false. Although Aristotle's first six chapters define name, verb, sentence, statement, affirmation and negation, Porphyry had claimed that Aristotelians believe in three types of name and verb, written, spoken and mental, in other words a language of the mind. Boethius discusses individuality and ascribes to Aristotle a view that each individual is distinguished by having a composite quality that is not merely unshared, but unshareable. Boethius also discusses why we can still say that the dead Homer is a poet, despite having forbidden us to say that the dead Socrates is either sick or well. But Boethius' most famous contribution is his interpretation of Aristotle's discussion of the threat of that tomorrow's events, for example a sea battle, will have been irrevocable 10,000 years ago, if it was true 10,000 years ago that there would be a sea battle on that day. In Boethius' later Consolation of Philosophy, written in prison awaiting execution, he offered a seminal conception of eternity to solve the related problem of future events being irrevocable because of God's foreknowledge of them. Boethius' influential commentary was part of his ideal of bringing Plato and Aristotle to the Latin-speaking world. Throughout the Latin Middle Ages, it remained the standard introduction to On Interpretation. This volume contains the first English translation of Boethius' commentary, as well as a detailed introduction, notes and bibliography.

Boethius (c. 480-c. 525) was a Christian philosopher and author of many translations and works of philosophy, most famously the Consolations of Philosophy which were probably written when he was under house arrest, having been accused of treason by King Theoderic the Great. He was subsequently executed. On Interpretation is the second part of the Organon, as Aristotle's collected works on logic are known; it deals comprehensively and systematically with the relationship between logic and language. In his first six chapters, Aristotle defines name, verb, sentence, statement, affirmation and negation. Boethius preserves lost interpretations by two of the greatest earlier interpreters, Alexander and Porphyry, and the defence of the work's authenticity against criticism. He records the idea of Porphyry that Aristotelians believe in three types of name and verb, written, spoken and mental, in other words a language of the mind. Boethius' commentary formed part of his project to bring knowledge of Plato and Aristotle to the Latin-speaking world. It had great influence, remaining the standard introduction to On Interpretation throughout the Latin Middle Ages.

Human life is susceptible of changing suddenly, of shifting inadvertently, of appearing differently, of varying unpredictably, of being altered deliberately, of advancing fortuitously, of commencing or ending accidentally, of a certain malleability. In theory, any human being is potentially capacitated to conceive of—and convey—the chance, view, or fact that matters may be otherwise, or not at all; with respect to other lifeforms, this might be said animal’s distinctive characteristic. This state of play is both an everyday phenomenon, and an indispensable prerequisite for exceptional innovations in culture and science: contingency is the condition of possibility for any of the arts—be they dominantly concerned with thinking, crafting, or enacting. While their scope and method may differ, the (f)act of reckoning with—and taking advantage of—contingency renders rhetoricians and philosophers associates after all. In this regard, Aristotle and Blumenberg will be exemplary, hence provide the framework. Between these diachronic bridgeheads, close readings applying the nexus of rhetoric and contingency to a selection of (Early) Modern texts and authors are intercalated—among them La Celestina, Machiavelli, Shakespeare, Wilde, Fontane.