David Sider and Dirk Obbink (eds.), Doctrine and Doxography: Studies on Heraclitus and Pythagoras

IF 0.1 0 PHILOSOPHY
P. Curd
{"title":"David Sider and Dirk Obbink (eds.), Doctrine and Doxography: Studies on Heraclitus and Pythagoras","authors":"P. Curd","doi":"10.1515/rhiz-2016-0015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This splendid book has been worth the wait. The papers collected here (four on Pythagoras and eight on Heraclitus) were presented in 2005 at “a bicontinental conference” (as the editors call it) on Samos and in Kuşadaı, organized by Apostolos Pierris of the Institute for Philosophical Research.1 This rich mixture of essays by established international scholars nicely complements the collection from the 2012 Symposium Praesocraticum on Heraclitus published in this journal’s volume 3 issue 1 in 2015, and other recent books on Heraclitus or Pythagoras.2 In the opening essay, “Philosophy’s Numerical Turn: Why the Pythagoreans’ Interest in Numbers is Truly Awesome”, Catherine Rowett fearlessly takes on the problems of just what it was about numbers that interested early Pythagoreans (including the elusive Pythagoras himself) and why. Rowett argues that the pre-Platonic Pythagoreans, in exploring harmony theory and its ratios (which she sees also in pre-Philolaus Pythagoreanism), deserve as much philosophical credit for commitments to reason and to order as Anaximander (who posits a mysterious apeiron) and Heraclitus (who argues that everything happens in accordance with the logos, the fundamental principle(s) of order and rationality).3 That none of these theories turn out to be correct is irrelevant, for all share the fundamental Presocratic philosophical commitment to order and explanation, and to the beauty of the cosmos. What Rowett finds particularly important and worth admiration and celebration in the “Pythagorean turn” as it develops through early Pythagoreanism, Philolaus and Archytas, is its reliance on mathematical knowledge as a prerequisite to any other knowledge and its emerging view of number as incorporeal. Rowett argues that Pythagoreanism begins with a commitment to “the explanatory power of beauty, structure, form, and indeed teleology, in the universe”; thinking of it this way shows how the “idea of appealing","PeriodicalId":40571,"journal":{"name":"Rhizomata-A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science","volume":"104 1","pages":"1 - 276 - 287 - 349"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rhizomata-A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/rhiz-2016-0015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This splendid book has been worth the wait. The papers collected here (four on Pythagoras and eight on Heraclitus) were presented in 2005 at “a bicontinental conference” (as the editors call it) on Samos and in Kuşadaı, organized by Apostolos Pierris of the Institute for Philosophical Research.1 This rich mixture of essays by established international scholars nicely complements the collection from the 2012 Symposium Praesocraticum on Heraclitus published in this journal’s volume 3 issue 1 in 2015, and other recent books on Heraclitus or Pythagoras.2 In the opening essay, “Philosophy’s Numerical Turn: Why the Pythagoreans’ Interest in Numbers is Truly Awesome”, Catherine Rowett fearlessly takes on the problems of just what it was about numbers that interested early Pythagoreans (including the elusive Pythagoras himself) and why. Rowett argues that the pre-Platonic Pythagoreans, in exploring harmony theory and its ratios (which she sees also in pre-Philolaus Pythagoreanism), deserve as much philosophical credit for commitments to reason and to order as Anaximander (who posits a mysterious apeiron) and Heraclitus (who argues that everything happens in accordance with the logos, the fundamental principle(s) of order and rationality).3 That none of these theories turn out to be correct is irrelevant, for all share the fundamental Presocratic philosophical commitment to order and explanation, and to the beauty of the cosmos. What Rowett finds particularly important and worth admiration and celebration in the “Pythagorean turn” as it develops through early Pythagoreanism, Philolaus and Archytas, is its reliance on mathematical knowledge as a prerequisite to any other knowledge and its emerging view of number as incorporeal. Rowett argues that Pythagoreanism begins with a commitment to “the explanatory power of beauty, structure, form, and indeed teleology, in the universe”; thinking of it this way shows how the “idea of appealing
大卫·赛德和德克·奥宾克(编),学说和文献:赫拉克利特和毕达哥拉斯的研究
这本精彩的书值得等待。这里收集的论文(四篇关于毕达哥拉斯,八篇关于赫拉克利特)于2005年在萨莫斯和ku adaii上的“双大陆会议”(编辑们这样称呼它)上发表,由哲学研究所的Apostolos Pierris组织。这一丰富的国际学者论文的混合物很好地补充了2012年发表在该杂志第3卷第1期上的关于赫拉克利特的研讨会。在开篇文章《哲学的数字转向:为什么毕达哥拉斯学派对数字的兴趣是真正令人敬畏的》中,凯瑟琳·罗威特大胆地探讨了早期毕达哥拉斯学派(包括难以捉摸的毕达哥拉斯本人)对数字感兴趣的原因及其原因。Rowett认为,柏拉图之前的毕达哥拉斯学派,在探索和谐理论及其比率(她也在菲洛劳斯之前的毕达哥拉斯主义中看到)中,与阿那克西曼德(他假设了一个神秘的apeiron)和赫拉克利特(他认为一切都是按照逻各斯,秩序和理性的基本原则发生的)一样,应该得到同样多的理性和秩序的哲学荣誉这些理论都没有被证明是正确的,这是无关紧要的,因为它们都有着前苏格拉底哲学对秩序和解释的基本承诺,以及对宇宙之美的承诺。在早期毕达哥拉斯主义(Philolaus和Archytas)发展起来的“毕达哥拉斯转向”中,Rowett发现特别重要和值得钦佩和庆祝的是,它对数学知识的依赖,将其作为任何其他知识的先决条件,以及它新兴的非物质数观。罗威特认为,毕达哥拉斯主义始于对“宇宙中美、结构、形式以及目的论的解释力”的承诺;从这个角度思考,可以看出“吸引人的想法”是怎样的
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信