Volume 57, Issue 3

This paper studies an argument in the prologue of the Charmides which defends the view that it is impossible to cure the body independently of the soul. I argue that Socrates is committed to an account of the psychē as an embodied soul, causally responsible for the biological condition of the body. Furthermore, the prescription of kaloi logoi as a treatment for the soul’s biological failures suggests that Socrates appears to initially regard the ethical and biological dimensions of the soul as intimately connected. But I also show that Socrates is unable to maintain this position consistently throughout the passage. A similar conflation of functions can be traced in R. X.608d–611a.

Aristotle presented an influential conception of the universe consisting of a sphere of fixed stars with a spherical Earth at its centre. A spherical conception of heaven and Earth appears also in Plato’s writings. In presocratic cosmology, the idea of a spherical universe appears probably first in the thoughts of the Pythagoreans and Parmenides. But while there is no surviving evidence for the cosmology of early Pythagoreans, various sources mention in relation to Parmenides a solid surrounding part and a spherical Earth at the centre of the universe. Being, which Parmenides had likened to a sphere, may have moreover in a cosmological sense referred to ‘heaven.’ Furthermore, we can observe in presocratic cosmologies a development which shows that the cosmology of heavenly sphere appeared in the fifth century BCE. Although Parmenides is commonly thought to have influenced especially ontology, one can argue that it was he who introduced the concept of a heavenly sphere to cosmology, a notion which in Aristotle’s thought evolved into the notion of a sphere of fixed stars forming the boundary of the world.

Aristotle is often taken to define priority in being in Metaphysics Δ.11, where he says that those things are prior in being which “admit of being without other things, while these others cannot be without them: a division which Plato used” (1019a3-4). But Aristotle’s pattern of arguments about priority – some of which use Plato’s Test and others of which use distinct, causal tests – looks puzzling if Plato’s Test is his definition. This paper offers a new interpretation of Δ.11 on which it offers a guide to the Aristotelian use of Plato’s Test, given that being is said in many ways, rather than endorsing it as Aristotle’s own definition of priority. This reading illuminates Aristotle’s pattern of arguments in the corpus – explaining why Aristotle uses Plato’s Test in some cases and departs from it in others – and suggests a plausible story about how these arguments were shaped by engaging with Plato.

This study aims to provide a coherent new interpretation of the notorious anti-hedonism of Speusippus, Plato’s nephew and the second scholarch of the Academy, by reconsidering all the relevant sources concerning his attitude to pleasure, sources that seem to be in tension or even incompatible with each other. By reassessing Speusippus’ anti-hedonism and Aristotle’s response, it also sheds new light on the Academic debate over pleasure in which he and Aristotle participated. This debate is not merely concerned with the truth and credibility of the arguments for or against hedonism, but also with notable differences among the participants in their understanding of the practical significance of evaluating hedonic experiences. This new picture allows us to better understand Aristotle’s selective representation of the intra-school debate and some neglected features of his responses to different interlocutors.

This paper presents a detailed reconstruction of Theophrastus’ account of human ontogeny, which is built around Aristotle’s notoriously difficult claim in Generation of Animals II 3 that “νοῦς alone enters from without.” I argue that this account (which is known to us via quotes from Theophrastus’ de Anima II and On Motion I) provides a viable alternative to the traditional trilemma between naturalist traducianism, creationism, and pre-existence, as well as offering an attractive but so far unappreciated interpretation of Aristotle’s account of human ontogeny. More specifically, I argue that the extant evidence poses a challenge to the two dominant interpretations of “νοῦς from without” in the last decades: a dialectical one, according to which Aristotle ultimately rejects this claim, and a naturalizing one (often inspired by Alexander of Aphrodisias) that obliterates the essential difference between νοῦς and the other parts of the soul.