The cause of human action according to Alexander of Aphrodisias, Mantissa 23 and De Fato 15
Keywords:Aristotle, Alexander, deliberation, determinism
Carlo Natali’s essay is concerned with closely examining Alexander’s debate with the determinists as well as his reasons to show the crucial role of deliberation in the account of action. Alexander’s starting point is chapter 9 of De interpretatione, text that indicates that Aristotle clearly envisaged the consequences, absurd in his view, of determinism. In his discussion, Natali examines the in uence of Alexander’s arguments on Boetius’commentary on De interpretatione; an aspect particularly remarkable of Natali’s essay is that he shows that Alexander –and previously Aspasius–, even taking for granted the assumed crucial relevance of deliberation in the account of action, modifies in part the Aristotelian theory of deliberation, since he attempts to adapt it to the new cultural situation and the new philosophical debate of his time. Natali notes that Alexander’s apparent incorporation of Stoic terminology and notions (such as that of assent) is part of a clever strategy to fight against the Stoic determinists in their own ground: the crucial point is the deliberation as a central ingredient in the explanation of action, as well as the fact that one is able to choose a thing or something different from it (De fato 178, 22), if that appears preferable.
ALBERTI, A. “Il volontario e la scelta in Aspasio”, en: Alberti, A. - Sharples, R. W. Aspasius: the earliest extanto commentary on Aristotle’s Ethics. Berlin - New York , 1999.
AMAND, D. (E. Amand de Mendieta). Fatalisme et liberté dans l’antiquité grecque. Louvain, 1945, repr. Amsterdam 1973.
AUBENQUE, P. La prudence chez Aristote. Paris, 1963.
BOBZIEN, S. Determinism and freedom in Stoic philosophy. Oxford, 1998.
DONINI, P. L. Alessandro d’Afrodisia, L’anima. A cura di P. Accattino e P. L. Donini. Roma-Bari, 1996.
DONINI, P. L. Ethos. Aristotele e il determinismo. Alessandria, 1989.
DONINI, P. L. “Testi e commenti, manuali e insegnamento: la forma sistematica e i metodi della filosofia in età postellenistica”, en: Haase, W. - Temporini, H. (hrsg.). Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt. Berlin-New York, T. II, Bd. 36/7, 1994, pp. 5027-5099.
DONINI, P. L. Tre studi sull’aristotelismo del II secolo d.C. Torino, 1974.
GAUTHIER, R. A., Jolif, J. Y. Aristote. L’éthique à Nicomaque. Introd., trad. et comm. Louvain-Paris, 1959, 19702, voll. 4
LONG, A. A. “Stoic determinism and Alexander of Aphrodisias De fato (I-XIV)”, en: Archiv f. Geschichte d. Philosophie 52, 1970, pp. 247-268.
NATALI, C. “Causa formale e causa motrice in Alessandro d’Afrodisia”, en: Movia, G. (a cura di). Alessandro d’Afrodisia e la Metafisica di Aristotele. Milano, 2003, pp. 153-165.
NATALI, C. L’action ef cace. Études sur la philosophie de l’action d’Aristote. Louvain-la-Neuve, 2004.
SHARPLES, R. W. “Alexander of Aphrodisias, ‘De fato’: some parallels”, en: Classical Quarterly 72, 1978, pp. 243-266.
SHARPLES, R. W. Alexander of Aphrodisias: Ethical problems. Transl. London, 1990.
SHARPLES, R. W. Alexander of Aphrodisias. On fate. Text, translation and commentary. London, 1983.
SHARPLES, R. W. Alexander of Aphrodisias: quaestiones. Transl. London, 1992-1994, voll. 2.
SHARPLES, R. W. “Alexander of Aphrodisias: scholasticism and innovation”, en: Haase, W. - Temporini, H. T. II, Bd. 36/2, 1987, pp. 1176-1243.
SHARPLES, R. W. Alexander of Aphrodisias: Supplement on the soul. Transl. London, 2004.
SHARPLES, R. W. “Responsibility, chence and not-being (Alexander of Aphrodisias mantissa 169-172”, en: Bull. Inst. Classical Studies 22, 1975, pp. 37-64.
SORABJI, R. Preface, a Ammonius, On Aristotle’s De interpretatione IX. Transl. by D. Blank e N. Kretzamnn. London, 1998.
VERBEKE, G. “Aristotélisme et stoïcisme dans le ‘De fato d’Alexandre d’Aphrodise”, en: Archiv f. Geschichte d. Philosophie 50, 1968, pp. 73-100.
ZIERL, A. Alexander von Aphrodisias. Über das Schicksal. Üb. u. kmm. Berlin, 1995.
How to Cite
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term "Work" shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher a nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoCommercia-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions: (a) Attribution: Other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;(b) Noncommercial: Other users (including Publisher) may not use this Work for commercial purposes;
4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal;
5. Authors are permitted, and Estudios de Filosofía promotes, to post online the preprint manuscript of the Work in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work is expected be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Estudios de Filosofía's assigned URL to the Article and its final published version in Estudios de Filosofía.