Volume 11, Issue 1

This paper offers a new reading of Heraclitus fragment B90 (Diels-Kranz). It argues that we can enrich our understanding of the fragment by reading it, not as a primitive analogy, but as a skillful simile grounded both in the poetic tradition and in the cultural context that would have conditioned its significance for Heraclitus and his audience. Read in this way, B90’s evocation of a cosmos whose common measure parallels the common measure of the polis’ marketplace is not simply a source of cosmological doctrine. It is also an epistemic challenge that threatens to undermine the very possibility of cosmology.

This paper considers some aspects of the early conception and use of the infinite in ancient Greece, in the spirit of recent results in the history of ancient mathematics. It follows aspects of the practice of reasoning ad infinitum from the extant corpus of and about Zeno of Elea up to early Hellenistic examples in Aristotle and Euclid. Starting with the idea of ‘reasoning from indefinite iteration’, based on the metalogical recognition of the unachievability of an inference process, it identifies several different classes of more or less sophisticated arguments that make use of this idea, and examines the logical devices and notions required for their acceptance in the philosophical practice. Those include ‘Infinite regress’ properly speaking, where Non-Contradiction is used in the formation of indirect infinitary arguments.

The paper explores the interrelations between Pindar, Heraclitus and the Hippocratic author with regard to ideas of the body, the soul and dreams. I shall consider Pindar’s fr.131b as an overlooked testimony of the poet’s interest in a non-Homeric conceptualization of the soul. I will suggest reading Heraclitus’ fragments B26 and B21 together and offer a new interpretation of the latter. Furthermore, I will compare Pindar’s fr. 131b with the Hippocratic On Regimen (4. 86, 87) and Pindar’s fr. 133 with On Regimen (4. 92) respectively, in order to highlight unnoticed similarities.

This paper offers a fresh examination of a salient distinction located at the beginning of the Affinity Argument between the composite (τὸ σύνθετον) and the incomposite (τὸ ἀσύνθετον). I offer reasons for why Plato may have intended for us to assume that the soul is an incomposite unity in its essential nature. I then substantiate this claim by reviving an ancient interpretation to the Affinity Argument according to which the soul is of the same metaphysical kind as the Forms. I thus suggest that the argument may be seen as supporting the basic indestructibility cum immortality of all souls.

In Plato’s Gorgias , Socrates says to Callicles that “your love of the people, existing in your soul, stands against me, but if we closely examine these same matters often and in a better way, you will be persuaded” (513 c 7– d 1). I argue for an interpretation that explains how Socrates understands Callicles’s love of the people to stand against him and why he believes examination often and in a better way will persuade Callicles.

I have argued elsewhere that the idea that Aristotle aspired to improve the theories of the planetary motions of Eudoxus and Callippus by adding the ‘counteracting’ spheres (ἀνελίττουσαι) first emerged with the Peripatetic exegete Sosigenes in the second century CE. This paper supplements that argument by contrasting two major lines of interpretation of the astronomical system set out in Metaphysics Λ.8: Adrastus of Aphrodisias’ widely ahistorical account, and Sosigenes’ attempt to save Aristotle against later developments of astronomical science.