AMUR Repository

Communities & Collections Help Add to Repository

Recent Submissions

Access status: Open Access ,
ΠΑΙΣ ΠΑΙΖΩΝ. Homer, Iliad XV 362–364, Heraclitus, DK 22 B 52, and F. Nietzsche
(Wydział Filozoficzny UAM, 2024-12-12) Pòrtulas, Jaume
Friedrich Nietzsche resorted several times to the image of a child play-ing with sand or pebbles. His purpose in doing so was to evoke a cyclical process of construction and destruction devoid of both responsibility and finality. This essay examines, on the one hand, the relation of the child’s image to its two main hypotexts (Heraclitus DK 22 B 52 and IliadXV 362-64) and, on the other, the range of Nietzsche’s uses of the simile.
Access status: Open Access ,
Riflessioni sul demiurgo in Plotino a partire dall’interpretazione del Timeo e dell’Epinomide
(Wydział Filozoficzny UAM, 2024-12-12) Volpe, Enrico
The problem of the interpretation of the Timaeus represents one of the greatest exegetical challenges for Plotinus. For Plotinus the Timaeus is a problematic dialogue due to its mythical-allegorical language and the fact that some doctrines in the work seem incompatible with his hypostatic vision. The Plotinian conception of the demiurge is critical of the concept of “artisanal causality.” Plotinus does not agree that the cosmos could have been generated according to a plan, i.e., according to dianoetic and contingent reasoning. At the same time, he identifies the demiurge with the Intellect, but then, in other treatises, also equates the demiurge with the world soul and nature, i.e., the aspect of the third hypostasis that has the task of acting directly on matter. While this ambiguity of Plotinus is found in several places of his Enneads, it finds justification in a spurious dialogue of Plato, the Epinomis, in which the role of the demiurgic soul is central. In my opinion, Plotinus is likely to have taken his cue from the Epinomis as an endorsement for his doctrine of the demiurgic soul. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the identification of the demiurgic soul with a single hypostasis leads Plotinus to several aporias.
Access status: Open Access ,
Cosa è esterno alla mente stoica?
(Wydział Filozoficzny UAM, 2024-12-12) Alessandrelli, Michele
This paper explores the role of external factors in the constitution of the Stoic mind. It will show how the external influences the Stoic mind in several crucial ways: 1) Constitutive Role: The external world acts as a constitutive factor for the soul (the third level of the scala naturae), shaping its development. At the fourth level, the logos (rational principle) interacts with qualified external objects. These objects form the basis of abstract reasoning and teachings derived from external sources; 2) Truth-Making Function: The external world serves as a truth-maker for phantasiai and the axiomata associated with them, providing validation and substance to internal representations and core beliefs; 3) Opposition to External Goods: For the Stoic soul dedicated to virtue, external goods are elements to be opposed or transcended. The Stoic perspective emphasizes the pursuit of virtue as independent of external goods, which are considered indifferent or secondary to moral development; 4) Condition of Possibility: the external void or incorporeal space is a necessary condition for the growth of the cosmos, including its periodic conflagration (destruction) and subsequent reconstitution.
Access status: Open Access ,
Seneca’s Heraclitus DK 22 B 49a and Parmenides
(Wydział Filozoficzny UAM, 2024-12-12) Franchi, Leonardo
Several scholarly inquiries have explored the possibility that Parmenides was acquainted with Heraclitus and engaged in polemics against him, in light of the fact that their respective chronologies do not preclude this scenario. However, with few exceptions, the debate remains polarized between two main positions: the first contends that Heraclitus and Parmenides were likely unaware of each other, or at least that no conclu-sive evidence exists to prove their acquaintance; the second posits that Parmenides was indeed aware of Heraclitus and argued against him. This paper focuses on Heraclitus B 49a DK to offer additional, albeit measured, support for the latter position and to suggest a hypothe-sis, at least a partial one, concerning the origins of Parmenides’ κρίσις between εἶναι and μὴ εἶναι.
Access status: Open Access ,
Πλάτων τρόπον τινὰ οὐ κακῶς τὴν σοφιστικὴν περὶ τὸ μὴ ὂν ἔταξεν (Aristot. Metaph. 1026b14)
(Wydział Filozoficzny UAM, 2024-12-12) Wesoły, Marian Andrzej
Aristotle’s observation that “Plato not wrongly ordered sophistry around non-being” (Metaph. E 2, 1026b14; also in K 8, 1064b29) refers generally to Plato’s Sophist. The admission of non-being (τὸ μὴ ὄν) could be considered as a certain consequence of the Eleatic monism, which gave rise to the Sophistic movement as has been recognized by Plato and Aristotle. In this paper, we try to identify more precisely the context of this setting of non-being of polemical and very particular importance. Pl a to’s Sophist discusses non-being, but the inspiration came precisely from the audacious argument of an unnamed sophist who dares to challenge Parmenides’ solemn prohibition of non-being. In fact, the Stranger of Elea recounts that even as a boy he knew the prohibition of the great Parmenides (Soph. 237a). Moreover, being younger, he believed he understood exactly this difficulty, that is, when “someone” (τις) spoke of non-being; now he entangles himself in various aporiasregarding this issue (Soph. 243b). Thus, it is the unnamed sophist, who “takes refuge in the darkness of non-being and attaches himself to it in its exercise, which is hard to grasp because the place is so dark” (Soph. 254a). The discussion that follows has a twofold purpose: first, against Parmenides’ prohibition, to admit non-being, and secondly, by refuting the sophist’s meontological argument, to propose a better solution. We observe that Plato in his polemic with a “sophist,” although in an allu-sive form and without ever explicitly naming Gorgias, but in such a way as to allow an implicit identification of him, draws nourishment from his “own demonstration” (ἴδιος ἀπόδειξις), which is based on the formula of identity, i.e., on the assertion that “non-being is non-being” (cf. De MXG, 979a25-33). Thus, the Elean Stranger (Soph. 258b-c), when arguing with the sophistic invention of non-being, has taken up the same tautological “is” that was coined by Gorgias in order to overturn the ontological argu-ment of Parmenides, albeit his understanding in this regard was differ-ent from that of the Leontinian. This testifies to a positive qualification of non-being which in this way is not in absolute opposition to being, but is only different from it. This solution also allows Plato to solve the problem of negative predication and the statement of falsehood. Schol-ars of Plato do not suppose that the author of the Sophist could have had precisely the Sophist Gorgias in mind. But in our opinion, in this way the meaning of this difficult sentence (Soph. 258c) is clarified and it becomes evident which of the sophistic arguments Plato has in mind here. But it was none other than Gorgias who accepted the possibility of identi-ties in expressions and used the refuting method to show that even that which is different is somehow identical and vice versa, and in particular that the identical is the opposite of being and of non-being (cf. Phaedr. 267a-b with reference to Gorgias). Plato, however, stopped only at the formulation of the meontological argument, unlike the sophist Gorgias, who proceeded further in the direction of ontological nihilism, conse-quently nullifying the possibility of λόγος, which is discussed in the next part of the Sophist (259d-260b), where the sophist Gorgias is criticized, though not named. The author of this paper has already presented the above theses in several Polish and Italian articles, but so far has not found a critical response in the literature on the subject.