Genesis and Nature in Early Greek Philosophy

Abstract

The Greek Concept of Nature. Gerard Naddaf (New York: State University of New York Press, 2005), x  + 263 pp. $70.00 cloth.

Notes

Notes

1. Gerard Naddaf's The Greek Concept of Nature will henceforth be referred to as GCN, and page references will be cited in the text.

2. Hans-Georg Gadamer, The Beginning of Philosophy, trans. Rod Coltman (New York: Continuum, 1998), 10; henceforth page references are cited in the text.

3. There is good reason to raise the sort of concerns Gadamer raises in relation to the pre-Socratics in relation to the work of Aristotle himself. Many parallel issues have arisen throughout the history of Aristotle scholarship, for example, Aspasius (d. AD 150), the author of the earliest extant commentary on Aristotle's ethical treatises, cites Eudemus of Rhodes as the author of the Eudemian Ethics. Zeller later accepts this attribution, citing a number of sources previous to him who concur on this point. Eduard Zeller, Aristotle and the Earlier Peripatetics Vol. 1, trans. B. F. C. Costelloe and J. H. Muirhead (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1897), 98, cf. 1. The Eudemian Ethics–with the exception of Book III, which is common to both the Nicomachean and the Eudemian Ethics, and is generally accepted to be the work of Aristotle himself–is Eudemus’ epitome of the Nicomachean Ethics, in which Eudemus analyzes the political and theological implications of Aristotle's doctrine. According to Hans B. Gottschalk, the Eudemian Ethics is “now generally accepted as a genuine work of Aristotle.” Hans B. Gottschalk. “Eudemus and the Peripatos” in István Bodnár ed. Eudemus of Rhodes: Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities. (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2002), 28. In his Renaissance Thought and its Sources, Paul Oskar Kristeller comments on the influence Alexander of Aphrodisias had specifically upon the Aristotelian notion of the soul:

Alexander, who lived around 200 AD, was one of the most authoritative commentators of Aristotle; it was he who modified the Aristotelian doctrine in a more naturalistic and anti-Platonic direction, denying, for example, the immortality of the soul, a point on which Aristotle had been somewhat ambiguous. (34)

The suggestion that Alexander of Aphrodisias not only interpreted but actually modified the Aristotelian notion of soul serves to undermine our hermeneutic access to the doctrine to an even greater extent than the suggestions by Aspasius, Grayeff, and Gottschalk concerning the authorship of the texts. Felix Grayeff tells us that only during the latter half of the first century BC “Aristotle was revalued not because the esoteric treatises were newly discovered–they had been known before, though not widely–but because they were only now attributed to Aristotle's sole authorship.” Felix Grayeff, Aristotle and His School (London: Gerald Duckworth  & Company Ltd., 1974), 77. Grayeff's comment raises the following questions: what is it we are talking about when we speak of “Aristotle's doctrine”? Are we talking about a doctrine that was held and taught by the single man who lived from 384/3 BC through 322 BC? Are we talking about a doctrine born of a single man that was taught within a school and, through such teaching evolved and changed? Or, are we talking about a doctrine that was perhaps influenced by a single man and/or his school, but which was/is primarily informed by its teachers and interpreters? All of these questions are of primary relevance to those who seek to reconstruct the genuine doctrine of Aristotle the man. Even those who seek an authoritative interpretation of the extant texts (setting aside the issue of authorship) must, at the very least, be cognizant of such matters. Further, despite his reservations about Eudemus’ authorship of the Eudemian Ethics, Gottschalk tells us that it was a nephew of Eudemus, Pasikles, who composed Book II (or Book α) of the Metaphysics. Hans B. Gottschalk. “Eudemus and the Peripatos” in István Bodnár ed. Eudemus of Rhodes: Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities. (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2002), 26.

4. This sort of hermeneutic access is what I would describe as the precondition for the sort of reenactment spoken of by Schleiermacher (see Mitscherling, Di Tommaso, and Nyed's The Author's Intention (2004) for a concise explication of Schleiermacher's general hermeneutics).

5. Here, Naddaf speaks to the birth of the discipline in general implying that Anaximander is its founder.