亚里士多德的《论善》与 "分类还原论证"

IF 0.4 3区 历史学 0 CLASSICS
Roberto Granieri
{"title":"亚里士多德的《论善》与 \"分类还原论证\"","authors":"Roberto Granieri","doi":"10.1163/1568525x-bja10257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Alexander of Aphrodisias reports a series of arguments from Aristotle’s <styled-content lang=\"el-Grek\" xmlns:dc=\"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/\" xmlns:ifp=\"http://www.ifactory.com/press\">Περὶ τἀγαθοῦ</styled-content> purportedly deployed by Plato to defend his doctrine of principles. One of these arguments, the so-called “categorial reduction argument”, underpins the postulation of the two first principles, the One and the Great and Small, through a bipartition of all beings into two categories, labeled ‘in themselves’ and ‘opposites’. I scrutinize this argument and compare it with other Early Academic bicategorial divisions and especially with the tripartite categorial distinction, itself apparently based on material of Early Academic provenance, included in Sextus Empiricus’ <em>Adversus Physicos</em> 2.262-275. I argue that the <styled-content lang=\"el-Grek\" xmlns:dc=\"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/\" xmlns:ifp=\"http://www.ifactory.com/press\">Περὶ τἀγαθοῦ</styled-content> account of the “categorial reduction argument” leaves open certain philosophical problems, and Sextus’ report is best interpreted, rather than as a more detailed version of that account (as a common view would have it), as an alternative formulation of it that incorporates a philosophical attempt to disentangle those problems.</p>","PeriodicalId":46134,"journal":{"name":"MNEMOSYNE","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Aristotle’s On the Good and the “Categorial Reduction Argument”\",\"authors\":\"Roberto Granieri\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/1568525x-bja10257\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Alexander of Aphrodisias reports a series of arguments from Aristotle’s <styled-content lang=\\\"el-Grek\\\" xmlns:dc=\\\"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/\\\" xmlns:ifp=\\\"http://www.ifactory.com/press\\\">Περὶ τἀγαθοῦ</styled-content> purportedly deployed by Plato to defend his doctrine of principles. One of these arguments, the so-called “categorial reduction argument”, underpins the postulation of the two first principles, the One and the Great and Small, through a bipartition of all beings into two categories, labeled ‘in themselves’ and ‘opposites’. I scrutinize this argument and compare it with other Early Academic bicategorial divisions and especially with the tripartite categorial distinction, itself apparently based on material of Early Academic provenance, included in Sextus Empiricus’ <em>Adversus Physicos</em> 2.262-275. I argue that the <styled-content lang=\\\"el-Grek\\\" xmlns:dc=\\\"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/\\\" xmlns:ifp=\\\"http://www.ifactory.com/press\\\">Περὶ τἀγαθοῦ</styled-content> account of the “categorial reduction argument” leaves open certain philosophical problems, and Sextus’ report is best interpreted, rather than as a more detailed version of that account (as a common view would have it), as an alternative formulation of it that incorporates a philosophical attempt to disentangle those problems.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46134,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"MNEMOSYNE\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"MNEMOSYNE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/1568525x-bja10257\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"CLASSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MNEMOSYNE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1568525x-bja10257","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CLASSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

阿佛洛狄西亚的亚历山大报告了亚里士多德的《Περὶ τἀγαθοῦ》中的一系列论证,据称柏拉图利用这些论证为自己的原则学说辩护。其中一个论证,即所谓的 "分类还原论证",通过将所有存在物划分为 "本体 "和 "对立面 "两个类别,为 "一 "和 "大小 "这两个第一原则的假设提供了依据。我仔细研究了这一论点,并将其与其他早期学术的二分类法进行比较,尤其是与塞克斯图斯-恩比里克斯 (Sextus Empiricus) 的《物理学启示录》(Adversus Physicos) 2.262-275 中的三分类法进行比较。我认为,Περὶ τἀγαθοῦ关于 "分类还原论证 "的论述留下了某些哲学问题,而塞克斯图斯的报告最好被解释为,与其说是该论述的更详细版本(如一般观点所认为的那样),不如说是该论述的另一种表述,其中包含了一种试图解决这些问题的哲学尝试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Aristotle’s On the Good and the “Categorial Reduction Argument”

Alexander of Aphrodisias reports a series of arguments from Aristotle’s Περὶ τἀγαθοῦ purportedly deployed by Plato to defend his doctrine of principles. One of these arguments, the so-called “categorial reduction argument”, underpins the postulation of the two first principles, the One and the Great and Small, through a bipartition of all beings into two categories, labeled ‘in themselves’ and ‘opposites’. I scrutinize this argument and compare it with other Early Academic bicategorial divisions and especially with the tripartite categorial distinction, itself apparently based on material of Early Academic provenance, included in Sextus Empiricus’ Adversus Physicos 2.262-275. I argue that the Περὶ τἀγαθοῦ account of the “categorial reduction argument” leaves open certain philosophical problems, and Sextus’ report is best interpreted, rather than as a more detailed version of that account (as a common view would have it), as an alternative formulation of it that incorporates a philosophical attempt to disentangle those problems.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
MNEMOSYNE
MNEMOSYNE CLASSICS-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: Since its first appearance as a journal of textual criticism in 1852, Mnemosyne has secured a position as one of the leading journals in its field worldwide. Its reputation is built on the Dutch academic tradition, famous for its rigour and thoroughness. It attracts contributions from all over the world, with the result that Mnemosyne is distinctive for a combination of scholarly approaches from both sides of the Atlantic and the Equator. Its presence in libraries around the globe is a sign of its continued reputation as an invaluable resource for scholarship in Classical studies.
×
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