Alexander of Aphrodisias and the problem of instrumentality’ of logic. Notes on in A. Pr. 2, 22-33

Authors

  • Ricardo Salles Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México D.F., México https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7249-1222

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ef.11623

Keywords:

Alexander, Stoicism, philosophy

Abstract

Ricardo Salles’ contribution is focused on Alexander’s Peripatetic interpretation against the Stoic thesis that logic is not an “instrument”, but a “part” of philosophy. According to Alexander, if logic were part of philosophy, as the Stoics maintain, philosophy could not occupy the highest place in the hierarchy of knowledge. Salles takes this to be paradoxical since both the Stoics and the Peripatetics consider that philosophy is, due to its object, the highest discipline. According to Salles, Alexander’s acute criticism is not penetrating enough to make obvious a real inconsistency in Stoicism. In his view, Alexander’s main weakness is that the reasoning on which such criticism is based depends upon some Aristotelian assumptions that the Stoics reject.

|Abstract
= 371 veces | PDF (ESPAÑOL (ESPAÑA))
= 41 veces|

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

ALEJANDRO DE AFRODISIA (in A. Pr.) In Aristotelis analyticorum priorum librum i commentarium. M. Wallies (ed.) Berlin, Reimer, 1883.

ALEJANDRO DE AFRODISIA (in Top.) In Aristotelis topicorum libros octo commetaria. M. Wallies (ed.). Berlin, Reimer, 1891.

AMONIO (in A. Pr.) In Aristotelis analyticorum priorum librum i commentarium. M. Wallies (ed.). Berlin, Reimer, 1899.

ARISTOTLE (A. Pr.) Analytica Priora. Ross (ed.). Oxford, Oxford Classical Texts, 1964. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oseo/instance.00263626

ARISTOTLE (EN) Ethica Nicomachea. Bywater (ed.). Oxford, Oxford Classical Texts, 1894 (21a. reimp. 1991). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oseo/instance.00262063

ARISTOTLE (Phys.) Physica. Ross (ed.). Oxford, Oxford Classical texts, 1950 (9a. reimp. 1990)

DIÓGENES LAERCIO (DL) Vitae Philosophorum. Marcovich (ed.). Stuttgart-Leipzig, Teubner, 1999.

FILÓPONO (in A. Pr.) Ioannis Philoponi in Aristotelis analytica priora commentaria. Wallies (ed.). Berlin, Reimer, 1905.

GALENO. Institutio Logica. Kalb eisch (ed.). Leipzig, Teubner, 1896 [Hay traducción al español por A. Ramírez Trejo bajo el título: Galeno. Iniciación a la Dialéctica. México, UNAM, 1982].

GALENO (PHP) De placitis Hippocratis et Platonis. De Lacy (ed.). Berlin, Akademie, 1978.

OLIMPIODORO. In Aristotelis categorias commentarium. Busse (ed.). Berlin, Reimer, 1902.

PLUTARCO. (Stoic. Rep.) De Stoicorum Repugnantiis. Cherniss (ed.). Cambridge- Massachusetts, Loeb Classical Library, 1976.

SÉNECA (Ep.) Epistulae Morales. Reynolds (ed.). Oxford, Oxford Classical Texts, 1965. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oseo/instance.00169611

SEXTO EMPÍRICO (AM) Adversus mathematicos. Mutschmann (ed.). Stuttgart-Leipzig, Teubner, 1914.

SEXTO EMPÍRICO (PH) Pyrrhoniae hypotyposes. Mutschmann (ed.). Stuttgart-Leipzig, Teubner, 1912.

SIMPLICIUS (in Cael.) In Aristotelis de caelo commentaria. Heiberg (ed.). Berlin, Reimer, 1894.

Obras de referencia

DIELS, H. (DG) Doxographi Graeci. Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, 1965 (ed. original: 1879).

HÜLSER, K. (FDS) Die Framentezur Dialektik der Stoiker. Stuttgart/ Bad Cannstatt, Frommann-Holzboog, 1987-88.

LIDDELL, H. G., SCOTT, R., JONES, H. S., MCKENZIE, R. (LSJ) Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1968.

LONG, A. A. & SEDLEY, D. N. (LS) The Hellenistic Philosophers. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1987.

VON ARNIM, H. (SVF) Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta. Leipzig, Teubner, 1903-1905.

Obras Modernas

BARNES, J., BOBZIEN, S., FLANNERY, K., IERODIAKONOU, K. Alexander of Aphrodisias. On Aristotle’s Prior Analytics 1. 1-7. Cornell, Cornell University Press, 1991.

BARNES, J. “Galen and the utility of logic”, en: Kollesch, J. & Nickel, D. (eds.). Galen und das Hellenistische Erbe. Stuttgart, Franz Striner Verlag, 1993.

BOBZIEN, S., BARNES, J., MIGNUCCI, M. “Logic”, en: Algra, K., Barnes, J., Mansfeld, J. and Scho eld, M. (eds.). Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521250283.006

BOBZIEN, S. “Stoic Syllogistic”, en: Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 14, 1996, pp. 133-192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198236702.003.0004

BOBZIEN, S. “Wholly Hypothetical Syllogisms”, en: Phronesis 45.2, 2000, pp. 87-137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156852800510144

BOERI, M. “Does cosmic nature matter? Some reflections on the cosmological aspects of Stoic ethics”, en: Salles, R. (ed.). God and Cosmos in Stoicism. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199556144.003.0008

FREDE, M. Die Stoische Logik. Göttingen, 1974.

FREDE, M. “Stoic vs. Aristotelian Syllogistic”, in: Essays in Ancient Philosophy. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1987; reprinted from: Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie LVI. Berlin, 1974, pp. 1-32.

IERODIAKONOU, K. “The Stoic division of philosophy”, en: Phronesis 38, 1993, pp. 57-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156852893321052451

INWOOD, B. Reading Seneca. Stoic Philosophy at Rome. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199250899.001.0001

INWOOD, B. “Why Physics?”, en: Salles, R. (ed.). God and Cosmos in Stoicism. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199556144.003.0009

KNEALE, W. & KNEALE, M. The Development of Logic. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1962.

LEE, T. S. Die griechische Tradition der aristotelischen Syllogistik in der Spätantike. Hypomnemata 79. Göttingen, 1984. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666251771

LONG, A. A. & SEDLEY, D. N. The Hellenistic Philosophers. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1987. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808050

MATES, B. Stoic Logic. Berkeley & Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1961.

MIGNUCCI, M. “The Stoic Themata”, en: Döring, K. und Ebert, T. (eds.). Dialektiker und Stoiker: Zur Logik der Stoa und Ihrer Vorläufer. Stuttgart, 1993.

MÜLLER, I. “Stoic and Peripatetic Logic”, in: Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 51.2, 1969, pp. 173-187. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/agph.1969.51.2.173

MÜLLER, I. “The Completeness of Stoic Propositional Logic”, en: Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 20, 1979, pp. 201-215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1305/ndjfl/1093882418

Published

2009-07-16

How to Cite

Salles, R. (2009). Alexander of Aphrodisias and the problem of instrumentality’ of logic. Notes on in A. Pr. 2, 22-33. Estudios De Filosofía, (40), 223–243. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ef.11623

Issue

Section

Original or Research articles

Categories