Conferences and Seminars 'filosofiantica' by FILOSOFIANTICA UPO
SIHSPAI 2023 Conference Muenchen LMU September 6-9
Vous trouverez ci-joint le programme d'un cours estival polyphonique autour de mon récent livre s... more Vous trouverez ci-joint le programme d'un cours estival polyphonique autour de mon récent livre sur les Lois de Platon. L'affiche indique le lien où vous pouvez le cas échéant vous inscrire (ou tel étudiant) pour telle ou telle séance, voire l'ensemble.
The Panel’s Program
Wednesday, June 14
4:00-6:00 p.m. Neoplatonic Commentators on Aristotle I... more The Panel’s Program
Wednesday, June 14
4:00-6:00 p.m. Neoplatonic Commentators on Aristotle I
Aula 5
Silvia Fazzo ([email protected]) and Marco Ghione <[email protected]>
Silvia Fazzo <[email protected]>, Università del Piemonte Orientale, “Alexander of Aphrodisias and the Asclepius Commentary: a peculiar case study”
Laura Folli <[email protected]>, Università del Piemonte Orientale,“ A Neoplatonic commentator or Alexander of Aphrodisias? Aristotelian philology in the Laurentian commentary on Metaphysics (Laur. 87.12)”
Marco Ghione <[email protected]>, Università del Piemonte Orientale, “Adrastus apud Theonem on Aristotle’s books in the 2nd century AD”
Luca Gili <[email protected]>, University of Chieti-Pescara, “Aristotelian vs. Platonic Conceptions of Logic in Ammonius and Philoponus”
June 15
11:30-1:00 Neoplatonic Commentators on Aristotle II
Aula 1
Silvia Fazzo ([email protected]) and Marco Ghione <[email protected]>
Angela Longo <[email protected]>, Università dell’Aquila, “Alexander of Aphrodisias and Hermias of Alexandria on the soul as a self-mover and as an incorruptible substance”
Melina G. Mouzala <[email protected]>, University of Patras, “Alexander of Aphrodisias, Simplicius and Philoponus on Soul and Nature as Principles and Causes of Natural Things”
The
Philippe Hoffmann <[email protected]>, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Études/Institut de France, “The exegetical literary genres according to the prologue of Simplicius to Aristotle’s Categories”
4:30-6:00 p.m. Neoplatonic Commentators on Aristotle III
Aula 1
Chair: Angela Longo and Marco Ghione [email protected]
Loredana Cardullo <[email protected]>, Università di Catania, “Plato’s doctrine of participation (μέθεξις) in Asclepius’ commentary to Aristotle’s Metaphysics”
Tomasz Tiuryn, <[email protected] >, University of Warsaw, “Boethius and the Neoplatonic conceptions of universals”
Pieter d’Hoine <[email protected]>, KU Leuven, “Participation and Predication in the Later Neoplatonic Commentaries”
Il nostro momento di confronto, che si è rivelato assai fecondo, ha tratto le mosse da delle rifl... more Il nostro momento di confronto, che si è rivelato assai fecondo, ha tratto le mosse da delle riflessioni sul senso e sul valore della democrazia, oltre che sui motivi che hanno determinato il delinearsi di questa forma di governo in concomitanza alla nascita della filosofia. È infatti stato messo ben in luce come quest'ultima avesse bisogno, per svilupparsi, non soltanto di un'attitudine critica, ma anche di mezzi e spazi per potersi esprimere. Sono poi emerse pregnanti considerazioni sul significato della giustizia, sull'importanza di conciliare giustizia e pace, in relazione a un contesto che si definisce democratico. Ponendosi, in tutto, questo la domanda di quale sia o possa essere il ruolo del filosofo, oggi, sono seguiti argomenti riguardanti il ruolo della conoscenza: l'emergente ruolo della cosiddetta 'Intelligenza Artificiale' (AI) mostra infatti i rischi connessi alla facile manipolabilità dell'informazione, in un certo senso anche della mente, e anzi, in ultima analisi anche della visione collettiva della realtà. Ne è derivato un dibattito stimolante e dall'ampio respiro. Le tematiche affrontate si sono intrecciate in un ventaglio caleidoscopico di suggestioni e, talvolta, anche di provocazioni. Infine, è stato possibile riproporre in modo più definito l'interrogativo iniziale. Se è compito e competenza dei filosofi lavorare sulla struttura stessa della scienza e della comunicazione, quale può essere il loro contributo per il perseguimento della pace e per una società più democratica e più giusta? Gli spunti sono stati molteplici e hanno spaziato in diverse direzioni. Nel complesso si è trattato di un dibattito ricco e animato, in cui diversi punti di vista hanno avuto modo di confrontarsi e creare uno spazio di condivisione aperto e corroborante.
Aristotle across Boundaries , 2023
In his commentary on Physics II.3 Simplicius quotes a long passage from Alexander’s commentary on... more In his commentary on Physics II.3 Simplicius quotes a long passage from Alexander’s commentary on this chapter where he argues against the Platonic view that nature does not bring about teleological processes by looking at a paradigm, and offers an alternative account that aims to show that teleological processes can come about without design (310.25–311.37). The similarity between this account and a mechanistic account that Galen criticizes in his The Formation of the Fetus gives rise to the question how does Alexander secure the teleological character of natural processes (IV 688 K; 92.10–21 Nickel)? In this talk we address this question, clarifying how he accounts for the directiveness and regularity of natural processes while avoiding anthropomorphism and animism.
org. A. Stavru, S. Chame, L. Napolitano
Il corso per gli studenti delle Lauree Triennali e Magistrali UNIUPO del dipartimento DISUM.
Amm... more Il corso per gli studenti delle Lauree Triennali e Magistrali UNIUPO del dipartimento DISUM.
Ammessi anche i dottorandi FINO che partecipano alle attività del Seminario Aristotelico UNIUPO e i collaboratori del gruppo di la-voro filosofiantica.uniupo (https://filosofianticauniupo.academia.edu/)
. Il corso è aperto ai dottorandi FINO e alle studentesse e agli studenti delle Lauree Triennali ... more . Il corso è aperto ai dottorandi FINO e alle studentesse e agli studenti delle Lauree Triennali e Magistrali UNIUPO del dipartimento DISUM.
The Question of ‘Being’
in Metaph.Z1 and
in Plato’s Sophist
Uploads
Conferences and Seminars 'filosofiantica' by FILOSOFIANTICA UPO
Wednesday, June 14
4:00-6:00 p.m. Neoplatonic Commentators on Aristotle I
Aula 5
Silvia Fazzo ([email protected]) and Marco Ghione <[email protected]>
Silvia Fazzo <[email protected]>, Università del Piemonte Orientale, “Alexander of Aphrodisias and the Asclepius Commentary: a peculiar case study”
Laura Folli <[email protected]>, Università del Piemonte Orientale,“ A Neoplatonic commentator or Alexander of Aphrodisias? Aristotelian philology in the Laurentian commentary on Metaphysics (Laur. 87.12)”
Marco Ghione <[email protected]>, Università del Piemonte Orientale, “Adrastus apud Theonem on Aristotle’s books in the 2nd century AD”
Luca Gili <[email protected]>, University of Chieti-Pescara, “Aristotelian vs. Platonic Conceptions of Logic in Ammonius and Philoponus”
June 15
11:30-1:00 Neoplatonic Commentators on Aristotle II
Aula 1
Silvia Fazzo ([email protected]) and Marco Ghione <[email protected]>
Angela Longo <[email protected]>, Università dell’Aquila, “Alexander of Aphrodisias and Hermias of Alexandria on the soul as a self-mover and as an incorruptible substance”
Melina G. Mouzala <[email protected]>, University of Patras, “Alexander of Aphrodisias, Simplicius and Philoponus on Soul and Nature as Principles and Causes of Natural Things”
The
Philippe Hoffmann <[email protected]>, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Études/Institut de France, “The exegetical literary genres according to the prologue of Simplicius to Aristotle’s Categories”
4:30-6:00 p.m. Neoplatonic Commentators on Aristotle III
Aula 1
Chair: Angela Longo and Marco Ghione [email protected]
Loredana Cardullo <[email protected]>, Università di Catania, “Plato’s doctrine of participation (μέθεξις) in Asclepius’ commentary to Aristotle’s Metaphysics”
Tomasz Tiuryn, <[email protected] >, University of Warsaw, “Boethius and the Neoplatonic conceptions of universals”
Pieter d’Hoine <[email protected]>, KU Leuven, “Participation and Predication in the Later Neoplatonic Commentaries”
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LfdtnhqN4TfwowJUm0pP7K5xbn57EZqK9kvshB69sLw/edit#
This is to invite you to participate in presence or online to one of more of the alleged sessions
Please, in case of interest or of further queries be in contact asap with [email protected]
meet.google.com/zbr-hqen-ziz
The Conference is
An Associated Event of the XXV World Congress of Philosophy 2024,
see: https://wcprome2024.com/category/associated-events/
Aristotle across Boundaries, Verbania, June 8th and 9th, 2023,
Program, Schedule, Abstract, Call for Discussants here:
Response by Thierry Gontier , Univ. Lyon3
Record:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17p2O5Dt58SEEj4VxQLW7SluaIvtze2Up/view
Ammessi anche i dottorandi FINO che partecipano alle attività del Seminario Aristotelico UNIUPO e i collaboratori del gruppo di la-voro filosofiantica.uniupo (https://filosofianticauniupo.academia.edu/)
Wednesday, June 14
4:00-6:00 p.m. Neoplatonic Commentators on Aristotle I
Aula 5
Silvia Fazzo ([email protected]) and Marco Ghione <[email protected]>
Silvia Fazzo <[email protected]>, Università del Piemonte Orientale, “Alexander of Aphrodisias and the Asclepius Commentary: a peculiar case study”
Laura Folli <[email protected]>, Università del Piemonte Orientale,“ A Neoplatonic commentator or Alexander of Aphrodisias? Aristotelian philology in the Laurentian commentary on Metaphysics (Laur. 87.12)”
Marco Ghione <[email protected]>, Università del Piemonte Orientale, “Adrastus apud Theonem on Aristotle’s books in the 2nd century AD”
Luca Gili <[email protected]>, University of Chieti-Pescara, “Aristotelian vs. Platonic Conceptions of Logic in Ammonius and Philoponus”
June 15
11:30-1:00 Neoplatonic Commentators on Aristotle II
Aula 1
Silvia Fazzo ([email protected]) and Marco Ghione <[email protected]>
Angela Longo <[email protected]>, Università dell’Aquila, “Alexander of Aphrodisias and Hermias of Alexandria on the soul as a self-mover and as an incorruptible substance”
Melina G. Mouzala <[email protected]>, University of Patras, “Alexander of Aphrodisias, Simplicius and Philoponus on Soul and Nature as Principles and Causes of Natural Things”
The
Philippe Hoffmann <[email protected]>, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Études/Institut de France, “The exegetical literary genres according to the prologue of Simplicius to Aristotle’s Categories”
4:30-6:00 p.m. Neoplatonic Commentators on Aristotle III
Aula 1
Chair: Angela Longo and Marco Ghione [email protected]
Loredana Cardullo <[email protected]>, Università di Catania, “Plato’s doctrine of participation (μέθεξις) in Asclepius’ commentary to Aristotle’s Metaphysics”
Tomasz Tiuryn, <[email protected] >, University of Warsaw, “Boethius and the Neoplatonic conceptions of universals”
Pieter d’Hoine <[email protected]>, KU Leuven, “Participation and Predication in the Later Neoplatonic Commentaries”
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LfdtnhqN4TfwowJUm0pP7K5xbn57EZqK9kvshB69sLw/edit#
This is to invite you to participate in presence or online to one of more of the alleged sessions
Please, in case of interest or of further queries be in contact asap with [email protected]
meet.google.com/zbr-hqen-ziz
The Conference is
An Associated Event of the XXV World Congress of Philosophy 2024,
see: https://wcprome2024.com/category/associated-events/
Aristotle across Boundaries, Verbania, June 8th and 9th, 2023,
Program, Schedule, Abstract, Call for Discussants here:
Response by Thierry Gontier , Univ. Lyon3
Record:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17p2O5Dt58SEEj4VxQLW7SluaIvtze2Up/view
Ammessi anche i dottorandi FINO che partecipano alle attività del Seminario Aristotelico UNIUPO e i collaboratori del gruppo di la-voro filosofiantica.uniupo (https://filosofianticauniupo.academia.edu/)
Abstract:
In the Posterior Analytics (APo), Aristotle defends an account of scientific demonstration. There are many competing interpretation in the literature, and while my interpretation shares many features with some of the other interpretations (e.g., Charles, Peramatzis, Lennox, Bronstein), it is also distinctive in several respects. In this talk I will focus on giving a presentation of my own view, rather than criticism of these competing interpretations, focusing on the (fairly) distinctive features of my interpretation. First, I take serious Aristotle’s repeated claim that in a scientific demonstration, the middle term is the aitia and the dioti. Second, that the terms of a demonstration are universals (katholou – not to be confused with universally quantified statements). Third, that Aristotle holds the connection between the universal which is the cause of the hoti to be immediate (i.e., immediate in itself, not immediate to us). This makes the cause, to use contemporary terminology, something like a full immediate ground (which is non-transitive, irreflexive, and asymmetric). This is relevant for assessing the relation of Aristotle’s view and axiomatical views (cf. Scholz). Fourth, that this account is independent from, yet compatible with, Aristotle’s hylomorphism which he develops in distinct works, with no trace of it in the APo. Fifth, that the universals which can be causes in scientific demonstrations, are essences which gives the ti esti of the hoti. Sixth, that Aristotle gives generic and fallible methods of identifying the correct middle term, specifically in APo II 13-18.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wAhY6P6wMNoOeEYYLJLQxHPFmxzeqevlpafUt1e_AYM/edit
In Appendice contiene 24 domande tipo, indicate solo sinteticamente nella precedente versione
- quello di TECHNE, che è strettamente connesso al processo di apprendimento e insegnamento secondo la mentalità dell’epoca;
- quello di EIDENAI l'uso dell'infinito sostantivato TO EIDENAI , già presente in Platone.
Vorrei inoltre soffermarmi sull’uso delle particelle men oun... de ripetuto per tre volte da Aristotele, per segnalare gli EPANABASMOI (CF. Platone Symp 221 c) da salire
E1 [Met A 1, 980 a 27-29]
È per natura (φύσει), dunque (μὲν οὖν), che gli animali sono dotati di sensazione, ma (δέ) da questa in alcuni di essi non nasce la memoria, in altri sì.
E2 [Met A 1, 980 b 25-28]
Nella vita degli altri animali, dunque (μὲν οὖν), sono presenti immagini e ricordi, mentre l’esperienza (ἐμπειρία) vi ha solo una limitatissima parte; nella vita del genere umano, invece (δέ), sono presenti techne e ragionamenti.
E3 [Met A 1, 981 b 12-26]
Orbene (μὲν οὖν), in rapporto all’agire (πρὸς… τὸ πράττειν), sembra che l’esperienza non differisca affatto dalla techne, anzi gli esperti conseguono un successo anche maggiore rispetto a quelli che hanno un concetto (λόγον) senza avere esperienza […]; ma, tuttavia (ἀλλ' ὅμως), noi siamo del parere che il sapere, appunto (τό γε εἰδέναι), e l’intendere appartengano piuttosto alla techne che all’esperienza…
(draft from the "Aristotle's Metaphysics Epsilon" Verona 2009 Conference, org. M. Sgarbi)
Org. Marco Sgarbi 16th December 2009 Aula Magna Collegio Universitario Pontenavi Via San Giusto, 9, Verona Participants: Enrico Berti (Università di Padova), Introduction; Silvia Fazzo (Université de Paris-IV, Sorbonne), The Greek Text of Metaphysics E; André Laks (Université de Paris-IV, Sorbonne), Metaphysics, E.1; Christoph Rapp (Humboldt Universität zu Berlin), Metaphysics, E.2; Tomás Calvo (Universidad Complutense Madrid), Metaphysics, E.3; David Charles (University of Oxford), Metaphysics, E.4. The Conference proceedings have not been published.
This critical edition of Epsilon has been the basis of E. Berti, Aristote – Métaphysique Epsilon. Vrin : Paris 2015; and of the relevant section in Aristotele, Metafisica, Traduzione, introduzione e note di Enrico Berti, Laterza, 2017..
https://meet.google.com/srv-wkue-gre
è dedicato a un tema trasversale a tutta la teoria antica dei principi, in specie a quella aristotelica, cioè l'uso dell'analogia.
È possibile un uso scientifico dell'analogia?
Aristotele ne parla in Lambda 4-5 cioè nella parte del libro Lambda che precede la dimostrazione del primo motore immobile (Lambda 6-7): un principio universale unico, uno di numero per tutti gli enti.
In Lambda 4-5 parla delle cause. Dice che i principi causali, quali forma, materia, causa efficiente, sono gli stessi, e dunque sono principi universali, per tutti gli enti per analogia.
Da qui la domanda di cui ci occupiamo stasera: Aristotele intende dire che dunque forma e materia sono principi universali, visto che sono gli stessi per tutti gli enti per analogia, o che non lo sono, perché sono gli stessi per tutti gli enti solo per analogia?
In allegato, da scaricare, trovate la traduzione e l'edizione di Lambda 4-5: ne leggeremo alcune parti, che ho evidenziato, quindi vale da HandOut principale.
Attenzione: sono testi non facili, che mobilitano anche molti altri problemi (inclusa una elaborazione dei concetti di parte e di tutto probabilmente più avanzata di quella in atto nel libro Zeta). Ho evidenziato le sezioni dove ricorre la parola 'analogia'. L'ultima occorrenza riguarda atto e potenza. Non è sicuro che questa seduta di seminario potrà occuparsene ma sono apprezzati gli interventi al riguardo.
"Historia Memoria Antigüedad" Agosto-Novembre 2020
- non-triviality of existence and existential plurality (modes of beings)
• primacy of things (i.e. reducibility of our talk of states of affairs, events, and processes to substance/accidents)
• actuality and potentiality (and its application e.g. in hylomorphism)
• "four-category ontology" (universal/particular, substance/accident)
• essentialism and de re modalities
• non-Humean concept of causality
• non-reductionism of ordinary particulars (especially persons)
• endurantism and presentism.
Analyzing some crucial phases of his thought, this paper brings up some hypotheses on the role that language played in characterizing the nature of man in the space where his animality and his spirituality meet.
In the most important part of the paper, Owen offered an interpretation of the Parmenidean way of truth’. Cornford and others had taken Parmenides to be referring to the One Being when he says:
‘[ıt] is and cannot not be’.
Owen argued that by importing this subject from previous cosmology— by looking too far afield—these scholars had overlooked a remarkable argument. The subject of Parmenides’s dictum is not ‘what is’ nor yet ‘the One’. It 1s whatever can be talked or thought about, i.e. any subject. Owen reached this conclusion by attending to the actual arguments by which Parmenides himself supports and elaborates his dictum. Concepts and arguments that we associate with philosophical logic rather than with metaphysics predominate. In a final sectıon of the paper Owen elaborated some points about tensed statements, truth, and existence that were to receive fuller treatment later. The paper convinced many that Parmenides was indeed ‘the most radical and conscious pioneer known to us among the Presocratics.
(from G.E.. Owen 1922-1982 by J.L. Ackrill © Proceedings of the British Academy 1985)
and tò ón) used by Aristotle in his Metaphysics and discusses the validity of the different
translations proposed (essence, quiddity, what is, entity…).
Methodologically, it starts with the assumption that philosophical terms come from
ordinary language, which is where we look in it for the origin of these formulas. We discuss the presence of the imperfect tense ên (was) in the long formula, and we explore the
reason for the apparent duplicity of formulas (tò tí esti and tò tí ên eînai). The conclusion
is that the use of the imperfect tense is perfectly normal in this context, furthermore,
necessary, and both formulas are not equivalent: tò tí esti is asking for the abstract definition of something, whereas tò tí ên eînai is asking about the individual reality of one thing
in particular.
In consequence, we establish that tò tí ên eînai cannot be translated as “essence” or
“quiddity”, since these terms have an abstract content. They would be useful, though, to
translate tò tí esti, although the articulated expression is preferable (the what-is-it). We
maintain that the most appropriate version of the long translation is “the what-it-was-being”. In concerning tò ón, we propose that, still translating it as entity, we should also add
existent as an alternative and complementary translation.
RESUMEN El presente artículo busca determinar el sentido de tres fórmulas empleadas por Aristóteles en su metafísica (τὸ τί ἐστι, τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι y τὸ ὄν) y discutir la validez de las diversas traducciones propuestas (esencia, quididad, qué es, ente…). Metodológicamente se parte de que los términos filosóficos surgen del lenguaje ordinario y en él se busca el origen de esas fórmulas. Se discuten especialmente los aspec-tos que parecen contradecir el uso ordinario; en concreto, la presencia del imperfecto ἦν (era) en la fórmula larga. Y además, se investiga el porqué de la aparente duplicidad de fórmulas (τὸ τί ἐστι y τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι), pues ambas parecen preguntarse por lo mismo. Se concluye que el uso del imperfecto es totalmente normal en ese contexto, incluso viene exigido, y que ambas fórmulas no son equivalentes, sino que τὸ τί ἐστι pregunta por la definición abstracta de algo, mientras que τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι cuestiona por la realidad individual de una cosa concreta. En consecuencia, se establece que τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι no puede traducirse como esencia o quididad, pues estos términos tienen un contenido abstracto. Servirían más bien para traducir τὸ τί ἐστι, aunque es preferible la expresión articulada (el qué es). Se sostiene que la mejor traducción de la fórmula larga es: el qué era ser. En cuanto, a τὸ ὄν se propone que, además de mantener ente como su traducción, habría que introducir existente, como una traducción alternativa y complementaria. Palabras clave: el qué era ser, el qué es, esencia, quididad, ente, Aristóteles, metafísica.
-Nel punto II.1. Non capisco bene come finisce la frase: " the « what X is » in the middle"
-Nel punto I.5 "can the tradition be bypassed?" sarebbe meglio.
-Nel punto III.1 "as Plato's legacy" (senza "a"), o "as a legacy of Plato".
I. The initial dilemma. I.1 The gradual rise of the Metaphysics. I.2 A bold contribution from textual history. I. 3 A new perspective on late ancient commentaries. I.4 First philosophy or Metaphysics? I.5 Can tradition be ignored? II. "Being" and οὐσία at the core of Aristotle’s theoretical research. II.1 Ontology as a science of "being" in Aristotle: "What is X?" in the foreground. II.2 The first caveat: the copula function of Aristotle’s ‘being’. II.3 The definite article τό as quotation marks before the flexed forms of
" be " : τὸ ὄν, τὸ εἶναι, τὸ ἔστιν. II.4. Further explanations about Aristotle's 'being'. III. Οὐσία, the core of Aristotle’s theoretical philosophy
III.1 οὐσία and the criterion of pre-eminence as Plato’s legacy. III.2 The dialectical roots of ontology. III.3 οὐσία from Zeta to Lambda. III.4 οὐσία as essence and οὐσία as substance. III.5 οὐσία as a syntactical core; the word’s etymology. III.6 οὐσία as the first sense of being in Aristotle’s first philosophy
IV. Historicizing: the semantic gap IV.1 Editorial tradition: ontology and οὐσία as a fil rouge in the order of Metaphysics books. IV.2 οὐσία in the first century B.C. IV.3 οὐσία by Alexander of Aphrodisias. IV.4 "Metaphysics" and its purpose: the role of the Lambda book. IV.5 Being and οὐσία: a relationship lost over time. IV.6 The Aristotelian tradition as a way to cooperation
forthcoming:
Publisher : Rosenberg ‹ Sellier, Torino
OJS platform: ILIESI Institute - CNR - Roma
Expositor: Glenn. W.Most
Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa
Committee on Social Thoutght, University of Chicago
Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin
Lecture en english