Volume 46, Issue 1

Aristotle refers to some animal kinds as μέγιστα γένη, or greatest kinds. The goal of this paper is to make clear the nature and significance of these kinds. I argue that Aristotle thinks of greatest kinds as the most general kinds within a specified domain. I then consider the fact that Aristotle’s discussion of animals’ reproductive parts and modes of reproduction in Generation of Animals is organized around divisions related to the cause of each of the features being explained. I conclude that, while classification is an important goal in Aristotle’s biological treatises, it is of little significance that some of the kinds he identifies are referred to as greatest kinds. The important divisions are, for Aristotle, the divisions that best serve his goal of explaining the various features of animals and these divisions sometimes group together and sometimes cut across the commonly recognized, including the greatest, animal kinds.

Books M and N of Aristotle’s Metaphysics receive relatively little careful attention. Even the scholars who do give detailed analyses of the arguments in M-N dismiss many of them as hopelessly flawed and biased, and find Aristotle’s critique to be riddled with mistakes and question-begging. This assessment of the quality of Aristotle’s critique of his predecessors (and of the Platonists in particular), is quite widespread. The series of arguments in M 2 (1077a14-b11) that targets separate mathematical objects is the subject of particularly strong criticism by Annas and Ross. Two related arguments in this series (1077a14-20 and 1077a24-31) will serve as cases in point. The principal charges made against these arguments (that Aristotle misunderstands or misrepresents his opponents’ views, and that he engages in question-begging because he presupposes his own metaphysical views) are frequently made against Aristotle’s critique of Platonist positions more generally. Thus if, as I argue, these charges are false for our two test case arguments, then there is good reason to think that they might also be false when they are leveled against the other arguments in this M 2 series. And, although presenting an argument for this is beyond the scope of this paper, I would suggest that these two charges are more often than not false when applied to Aristotle’s critique of Platonist mathematical views in M-N and beyond.

In ‘The Limits of Being in the Philebus’, Russell Dancy argues that the Philebus is incoherent because a central concept - that of the apeiron (the unlimited) - functions entirely differently in the discussions of the ‘Heavenly Tradition’ and the ‘Fourfold Division’. I argue that a phenomenological reading of the type developed by Hans-Georg Gadamer, one according to which ‘limit’ and ‘unlimitedness’ describe the way entities appear when approached with certain concepts, shows Dancy’s worry of incoherence to be unfounded. On this reading, in both the Heavenly Tradition and the Fourfold Dividsion for a thing to be apeiron is for it to escape comprehension due to its appearing in terms of an indefinite plurality rather than a defined (limited) unity. I argue further that this interpretation allows us to properly understand the methodological character of Plato’s discussion. His account aims to help us distinguish the damaging instances of apeiron from the benign and to show how the former can be avoided.

Three problems threaten any account of philosophical rule in the Republic. First, Socrates is supposed to show that acting justly is always beneficial, but instead he extols the benefits of having a just soul. He leaves little reason to believe practical justice and psychic justice are connected and thus to believe that philosophers will act justly. In response to this problem, I show that just acts produce just souls. Since philosophers want to have just souls, they will act justly. Second, Socrates’ alleged aim is to demonstrate that justice is beneficial, but philosophers, who have to give up a life of philosophy to rule, actually appear to be harmed by ruling. I explain that, since the founders of the city justly command them to rule, philosophers cannot, in fact, obtain a better life, and so ruling does not harm them. Third, it seems incongruous that philosophers, who should, as just people, jump at the opportunity to rule Kallipolis, must be compelled to rule. I show that Plato carefully constructs an educational system that produces rulers who do not want to rule, since such rulers alone will rule best.