ALGRA, Keimpe - 2004 - Aristotle (Phronesis)

7/28/2019 ALGRA, Keimpe - 2004 - Aristotle (Phronesis)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/algra-keimpe-2004-aristotle-phronesis 1/9

Review: Aristotle

Author(s): Keimpe AlgraSource: Phronesis, Vol. 49, No. 3 (2004), pp. 295-302Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4182755 .

Accessed: 13/08/2011 15:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Phronesis.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4182755?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4182755?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap



Book Notes

Aristotle

KEIMPEALGRA

In this set of book notes, on Aristotle and Aristotle-relatedsubjects, I shallfirst discuss some recent works in the area of theoreticalphilosophy (ontol-ogy, physics, biology), then move on to practicalphilosophy, and end withtwo books on poetics.

L. M. de Rijk is probablybest known for his ground-breakingwork onmedieval logic and semantics. Yet ever since his 1952 book The Place of theCategories of Being in Aristotle's Philosophy his work has continued to dis-play a deep and ongoing engagement with Aristotle's thought. His Aristotle:Semantics and Ontology which has now appeared, n two volumes, in Brill'sseries PhilosophiaAntiquamay be seen as representing he fruits of this life-long engagementwith Aristotle, in particularwith the Aristotelianconceptionof the relation between

language and reality.' In R.'s view, understandingsemantics, i.e. the way in which language is used to describe the world, isthe key to our understandingof Aristotle. Since semantics in Aristotle ismainly what we might call a semantica utens (althoughthe Organon perhapsoffers some more explicit theoreticalpointers) its outlines to a large extenthave to be culled from the very texts which R. claims we shall better under-stand once we use semantics as a key. This procedure s not circular,for inthe process of interpretationhe clarificationof the underlyingsemantic modeland the understandingof the texts themselves go hand in hand, as R.'s bookmay itself serve to show.

It is hardly possible here to summarizethe contents of these two substan-tial volumes. Perhaps R.'s leading thoughtmay be claimed to be that 'speak-ing about things' in Aristotle is basically of an onomastic ratherthan, as iscommonly assumed,an apohanticnature.It is name-giving we are faced with,in otherwords, not 'predication'. Ratherthan the well-known dyadic 'S is P'construct, an Aristotelian assertion is basically monadic, with an operator

I L. M. de Rijk, Aristotle:Semantics and Ontology, vol. 1: General Introduction.The Workson Logic, Leiden/Boston/Ko1n Brill) 2002 (series PhilosophiaAntiqua vol.XCI/I); xviii + 749 pp.; ISBN 90-04-12324-5; E 168.00; vol. 2: The Metaphysics.

Semantics in Aristotle'sStrategyof Argument,Leiden/Boston/K6ln Brill) 2002 (seriesPhilosophia Antiqua vol. XCI/II);xi + 498 pp.; ISBN 90-04-12467-5; e 161.00.

( KoninklijkeBrill NV, Leiden, 2004 Phronesis XLIX13Also available online - www.brill.nl



296 BOOK NOTES

(existential or hyparctic 'to be') rangingover a single assertible.The assert-ible may well consist of a combinationof substrateand attributivedetermi-

nation, but the combination is not linked by a copula. Instead the two

elements are 'fused' in virtue of their 'categorial'modes of being ('connota-

tive being', in R.'s word), in accordance with the ontic unity of the two par-

ticularenmattered ormsin the object at issue. Thus (quotingan examplefrom

p. 86) a surface-structure entence like 'a man is pale' can be analysed as

'Is:[(a man&pale)'sbeing]. Focalizationor categorization hendetermines he

variousways in which a thing can be broughtup for discussion.

Even if this may represent he core idea, the book is wide-ranging ndeed.

The first volume starts out with two more or less introductory hapters- thefirst one on preliminarymatters, such as the structural imits of language,

Aristotle's search for 'deep structure',uses of elvax(including a discussion,

and refutation,of Kahn's view of the centralrole for the copulativeuse of 'to

be') and a numberof basic semantic rules in Aristotle;the second is on state-

ment-making,categorizationand argumentation.We then get four chapters

(chs. 3-6) on semantics in the works belonging to the Organon.The second

volume focuses almost entirely (chs. 7-11) on the Metaphysics,with a final

chaptercontaining case studies taken from the biological and physical works

(Phys IV on time, GC I, 3 on matter).R.'s agenda here comprises various objectives: (1) to lay bare the deep

structureof statement-makingutterences in Aristotle, (2) to show how this

view differs from traditional conceptions of statement-making utterances

in terms of the application of copulative 'to be', (3) to outline some other

peculiar features of Aristotelian semantics (such as the absence of a clear-

cut borderline between a linguistic expression taken as a tool on the one

hand and its significate on the other), and (4) to show that this approach

covers Aristotle's actual practice,and that it helps us to understanda num-

ber of key passages in the logical and physical works, and especially in the

Metaphysics,better. Not all of this necessarily hangs together,for one mightaccepte.g., the results of (3) withoutacceptingthe main theoryset out in (1).

Yet elements (1), (2) and (4) are clearly connected,and if what R. has to sayhere is right, many students of Aristotle will have to change the way they

approachhis ontology and semantics.At the very least R.'s approach s provo-

cative, and it challenges received views with good arguments,forcing us to

reconsiderour own interpretativepresuppositions.The book should be com-

pulsoryreadingfor anyone working on Aristotle's logic or metaphysics.Unfortunately,however,once startedmost readerswill indeedneed a mod-

icum of compulsionin order to carryon, since the book does not at all make

for easy reading.For one thing, it is definitelytoo long (morethan 1150 pagesof text) even if we take into accountthat its scope is very broadindeed.Some

sectionswhich are devotedto items whichareperipheralo the mainargument

(such as the merits and demeritsof the Jaegerian'developmental'approach,



BOOK NOTES 297

or 'the agonistic spirit of Greek culture') should have been prunedand tosome extent relegated to the footnotes. Despite its many sections and sub-

sections, the book is also in a sense less well organizedthan one would wish,given the difficultyof the subject matter: the uninitiated reader in particularwill look in vain for a convenientintroductoryoverview of R.'s position;dis-

cussions of side-issues are frequent;and the argumentvery often develops ina dialecticalway, i.e. througha discussionof the views of others,which tends

to complicatethe structure.Finally, the book could definitelyhave done withan extra round of copy-editing to get rid of the occasional misshapen sen-tence (e.g. 'Thus its scope basically differs from those of other disciplines,

which arebeingsaswell', p. I1)ornon-existingwords(suchas 'correlationship',p. 14). I know this is expensive and time-consuming,but so is buying andreadingthese two volumes in their presentform. R. has written an importantand challenging book. But despite my admiration or much of its contents, Ialso think that author,editors and publisher ought to have taken more timeto shape it up.

According to the blurb, Ben Morison's On Location: Aristotle's Conceptof Place is 'the first book in English exclusively devoted to [...] Aristotle'saccount of place in the Physics', which is true to the extent that there is noothermonographon the subject available in English.2Even so a lot has been

written about this topic in studies on Aristotelian physics or ancient theoriesof space and place. This means that M.'s book, which basically attemptstoreconstruct,articulateand defend Aristotle's theory of place inevitably con-tains much that is relatively uncontroversial nd familiar to anyone acquaintedwith Phys. IV and the recent scholarly literature.Distinctive of M.'s approachare basically two things. First, he stresses of what we might call a 'meta-physical' context for the physical theory of place, by showing how the latterprovidesthe basis for understanding n what way non-emplaced 'things', likequalities, or parts of bodies, can be 'somewhere', though not 'in a place'.Secondly, he comes up with a coherent (though highly charitable) nterpreta-tion of Aristotle's theory of place and tries to defend it against some of themostfrequently aisedobjections.Thisentailsthathe not only defends Aristotle'sdefinition of place as the limit of the surroundingbody, but also his overalltheory and the way in which he deals with rival theories.

As to the definition,M. himself indicates that his interpretationn a waycomes close to that defended by some medieval commentators.In order tosave both the contiguityand the immobilityof Aristotelianplace (qua surfaceof the surroundingbody) these commentators ntroduceda distinction betweenmaterialplace (the actual surface of the immediately surroundingbody, which

2 Benjamin Morison, On Location. Aristotle's Concept of Place, Oxford (OxfordUniversity Press) 2002; viii + 194 pp.; ISBN 0-19-9247919; ?27.50.



298 BOOK NOTES

may be mobile) and formal place (the surrounding surface, considered inabstracto,as if it were immobile). M.'s interpretation f Aristotle'sdefinitionresembles the medieval conception of formal place, the difference being thathe does not treat the relevantsurface in abstracto, but as a real entity,which,however, gets the required mmobility in virtue of the fact that it can be dif-ferently specified. Thus, in the notorious example of the boat being mooredin, or moving through,a flowing river, the boat's (immobile) place shouldnotbe specified as the surface of the surrounding(flowing) water, but as thesurface of the (immobile) river as a whole or even as the inner surface ofthe whole universe surrounding he boat. In itself this way of resolving the

problemof the ontological status of Aristotelian places tallies neatly with thefamiliar Aristotelian practice of specification by means of qua-locutions.Yetone may still wonder whether this intricate interpretation is really whatAristotle had in mind when he put forward the rathercrude formula of placeas the immobile limit 'of the surroundingbody'.

What about the theory as a whole? According to the blurb it is 'of endur-ing philosophical interest and value'. I am not sure on what viable conceptionof philosophythis claim would be true. However this may be, as a physicaltheoryin the Aristoteliansense, Aristotle'saccount, thoughof course far fromsilly, still appearsto have several shortcomingswhich I think even M. hasnot been able to remove. Thus it is not clearhow Aristotle's conceptof place,however charitably nterpreted,would allow one in all cases to specify placeas something that can be left behind (as it should, even on Aristotle's own

presuppositions),nor how it could be used to describe a trajectoryof motion.Also when it comes to the Aristotelian arguments for rejecting the mostimportant ival theory (place as a three-dimensional art of 'space'), M. seemsto defend Aristotle by concluding (p. 132) that Aristotle was right to arguethat on the diastematheoryof place a particularmass of water, for example,will have an infinity of internalplaces 'hanging around',whereasin truth he

partsof the water 'are not the right sort of item to have a place'. To me thelatter claim ratherappearsto amount to a petitio principii, for although it istrue on Aristotle's own principles,it far from clear why in general parts ofsuch a mass should not have a place of their own.

Though perhaps a bit over-charitable,M.'s reconstruction is in generalcarefully argued,well written and worth taking seriously. All the more rea-son for me to be surprised o find myself referred o (p. 52) as a primeexam-ple of those scholars who want 'to convince themselves that place has nocausal role' in Aristotle,whereas to my mind my position comes close to the'alternative' defended by M. himself (p. 53). But that, I think, is something

to be discussed on another occasion.Next are two importantnew books in the area of Aristotelian biology.First there is David Balme's posthumously publishedcritical editio maior of

the Historia Animalium in the series CambridgeClassical Texts and Com-



BOOK NOTES 299

mentaries,prepared or publicationby Allan Gotthelf.3David Balme died in1989, before he was able to finish this project,which originatedin his workon the Loeb edition of books VII-X (published in 1991, also by AllanGotthelf). It was while workingon his Loeb edition that Balme became con-vinced of the inadequacyof existing editions (which were as a rule based onpreviouseditionsrather han on a survey of the MSS), andconversationswithHaroldChernisspersuadedhim to undertake he task of a full review of themanuscripts.In what is basically Balme's original 'Introduction' on the MSevidence of books VII-IX) he distiguishes three MS families (where previ-ously only two had been recognized), but concludes his survey by claiming

that none of these is really superiorto the others, so that one cannot auto-maticallyattachmoreweight to the readingsof any of them. Latervariae lec-tiones and Latinversions - by Michael Scotus, AlbertusMagnus, William ofMoerbeke,George of Trebizond,TheodorosGaza - have been scrutinizedfortheir usefulness in establishingthe text as well. A more detailed assessmentof the edition would be beyond my competence and would also be inappro-priatewithin the confines of these book notes. There can be no doubt, thatthis first full critical edition constitutes a major work of scholarship. Weshould be grateful to both Balme and Gotthelf (and his team) for the enor-mous amount of work they have invested in this project.

Some of the early translationsof the HA (such as Moerbeke's)remaincloseto the original, others (such as Albertus Magnus' translationor the Arabicversionunderlying hat of MichaelScotus) are moreparaphrastic ndexplana-tory. Also modern translators ace a choice between being as literal as pos-sible (with the concomitant danger of being at times obscure) or allowingoneself to smoothen the translationwhile clarifyingthe supposed sense of theoriginal. In his new translation of the On the Parts of Animals for theClarendon Aristotle series James Lennox has clearly opted for the formeralternative(which he defends with good arguments in his Introduction,pp.xii-xiii).4 For philosophicallyorientedstudents the PA may be more attractivethan the HA, not only because it constitutesthe core of Aristotle's scientificinvestigation of animals, but also because it famously includes a first bookwhich sets out the philosophicalfoundations of the whole biological enter-prise. The way in which these philosophical'norms of explanation'relate tothe actual investigationsof books II-IV on the one hand, and to the theory ofdemonstrationand inquiry outlined in the Prior and Posterior Analytics on

3 Aristotle: Historia Animalium, vol. I: books I-X: Text, edited by D. M. Balme,

prepared or publicationby Allan Gotthelf, Cambridge(CambridgeUniversity Press)2002; xxiv + 628 pp.; ISBN 0-52148002-7 (hardback);? 95.00.

4 Aristotle. On the Parts of Animals, Translatedwith a Commentaryby James G.Lennox, Oxford (ClarendonPress) 2001, xv + 404 pp.; ISBN 0-19-875109-5 (hard-back); ? 52.50.



300 BOOK NOTES

the other, constitutes one of the Leitmotive of L.'s commentary. DavidBalme's researchfor his edition of the HA had led him to the conclusionthat

much of the informationin HA I-IV was derived from PA II-IV, and this

hypotheticalconnectionconsitutesyet anotherrecurrenthemethroughoutL.'s

commentary.The translation,as said, tries to offer a transparentaccess to

Aristotle's Greek, without smoothing over obscurities.For clarificationone

can turn to the extensive, excellent commentary.Otherwise than the title might seem to suggest, LorraineSmith Pangle's

Aristotle and the Philosophy of Friendship is not merely about books VIII

and IX of the Nicomachean Ethics.' Indeed it is not even about Aristotle

alone, for it locates his theory within a broader 'tradition'of philosophiesof friendship which also encompasses Plato, Epicurus, Cicero, Seneca,

Montaigneand Bacon. In the introductionS. arguesthatthis 'single tradition'

(in the sense that these philosophersare 'engaged in a single conversation

about the same problemson friendshipand humannature',p. 5) more or less

ended in the seventeenth century, with Hobbes' reinterpretationof human

nature as basically selfish (a claim which perhapsslightly overstates Hobbes'

influence on the history of philosophy),and that this ancient model of con-

ceivingof interpersonalelationshipswas gradually vershadowed y approaches

based on a fundamentallyLockean understanding f humanrightson the one

hand and the Kantianbelief in the duty to act unselfishlyfor the good of oth-

ers. On the whole S. convincingly presentsAristotle'sEthics, thus embedded,

as not only a source of practicalguidance in life, but also as a theoretical

investigationof human nature.In passing, she offers a well-writtendefense

of these pre-Kantianapproaches,even if her analysis of the Epicureanposi-

tion seems a bit bland and inconclusive when comparedto what she has to

offer on Aristotle,and thoughthe argument s not in all cases crystalclear to

this reader (I am not sure, for example, how S. can maintain both that in

Aristotle's view friends, qua 'otherselves', are loved 'not as an end that has

nothingto do with oneself', p. 153, andthat

theyare cared for 'as indepen-

dent ends', ibid.).Even more focusedon the contemporary elevanceof ancientethics, in par-

ticularof the various brands of eudaemonism, s the volume Eudaimoniaand

Well-Beingwhich collects papers that were originally presenteday a 1996

conference in Cincinnati.6These papers include valuable contributionsby

JuliaAnnas('ShouldVirtue Makeyou happy?')andL. J. Summer 'HappinessNow andThen')on the statusandrole of eudaimonia.StephenWhite(Happinessin the Hellenistic Lyceum', with comments by Brad Inwood) discusses the

I LorraineSmith Pangle, Aristotle and the Philosophy of Friendship, Cambridge

(CambridgeUniversity Press) 2003; vii + 255 pp.; ISBN 0-521-81745-5 (hardback);

?47.50.6 LawrenceJ. Jost & Roger A. Shiner (eds.), Eudaimoniaand Well-Being.Ancient



BOOK NOTES 301

way in which the Aristotelian theory was maintained and defended in theHellenistic periodby such philosophersas Lyco, Hieronymusof Rhodes, andCritolaus against the Stoic 'Sufficiency of Virtue' thesis. Thomas Hurka

('Capability,Functioningand Perfectionism')and David Sobel ('The MoralImportanceof the Capabilityto Achieve Elementary Functionings') discussvarious aspects of what has been called the 'capability theory', developedin tandem by Amartya Sen and MarthaNussbaum, a theory which thoughdrawing on welfare economics and consequentialist moral theorizing hasobvious roots in Aristotle as well.7 In short, a useful and stimulating volume.

Eudaimonia is not the only importantancient concept to appear to have

lost much of its appeal to post-Kantianphilosophers. The notion of mimesisin aesthetics, though central to the ancient debate and immensely influentialin aesthetics from the Renaissance to the ninetheenthcentury, seems to havelost its unchallenged position in aesthetic theories due to formalistic ap-proaches or approaches that characterizeart as primarily expressive. In hisThe Aesthetics of Mimesis Stephen Halliwell explores the history of the con-cept, showing that it has been more variable and complex than is often real-ized - with the concept being able to figurewithin what the author calls both'world-reflecting'and 'world-simulating' heories, and with mimetic art workshaving either a truth-bearing r a sense-makingstatus.8H. arguesthat a properawareness of this complexity and of the subtleties involved allows us to seethatmany of the issues connected with the conceptof mime'sis eturn n twen-tieth century aesthetic disputes and artistic practices. Part I contains fourchaperson Plato (on various conceptions of mimesis in his work, on the psy-chology of mime'sis,on Plato's repudiationof tragedy, and on the mirror-image of Rep. X, respectively). PartII is devoted to Aristotle, with chapterson the nature of his conception of mimesis, the roles of pleasure, under-standingand emotion in Aristotelianaesthetics, tragic pity, and music and thelimits of mime'sis. n the latterchapter H. discusses Aristotle's conceptionofmusic as mimesis ton ethon (Pol. VIII),pittingit against the positiondefendedby Philodemus(while acknowledging that the latter's favourite targetwas infact not Aristotle but the Stoic Diogenes of Babylon). Of course these chap-

and ModernConceptions,ApeironXXXV, 4 (special issue), Kelowna(AcademicPrintingandPublishing)2002; xxxiii + 198pp.;ISBN0-920980-78-3 (cloth), 0-920980-1 (paper);$64.95 (cloth), $24.95 (paper).

I The other contributionsare on Epicurus(Philip Mitsis, 'Happiness and Death inEpicureanEthics'; Glenn Lesses, 'Happiness, Completenessand Indifference o Deathin Epicurean Ethical Theory') and Polybius (David E. Hahm, 'From Platonism to

Pragmatism';LawrenceJ. Jost, 'Was Polybius a Meta-ethicalTheorist of a Skepticalor SubjectivistStripe?').8 Stephen Halliwell, The Aesthetics of Mimesis: Ancient Texts and Modern

Problems, Princeton/Oxford Princeton University Press) 2002; ix + 424 pp.; ISBN0-691-09258-3 (paper),0-691-04882-7 (cloth); ?17.95 (paper), ?45.00 (cloth).



302 BOOK NOTES

ters on Plato and Aristotle can to a large extent draw on H.'s earlier work(his book on the Poetics and his commentaries on Rep. X and the Poetics),but there is much that is new as well (e.g. the more extensive discussion ofPlato's attitudetowards tragedy, and the elaborate discussion of Aristotle andPhilodemus on music). Part III of the book breaks new ground in coveringconceptions of mime'sisn Hellenistic thought and in Neoplatonism (includingan excursus into the Byzantine iconophile aesthetics of John of Damascus).It ends with a chapter entitled 'An Inheritance Contested: Renaissance toModernity'. As may appear from this brief survey, the scope of this book isimpressive. H. offers clear guidance throughan area where historical and con-

ceptual boundaries(e.g. between mimesis and expression) are less clear-cutthan scholars have often believed. His subtleargumentsand the qualityof hisscholarshipreally bringus further.MarthaNussbaum, quotedon the blurb,isright to praise this book as 'a stunning achievement,which will define thesubjectfor many generations'.

Let me finally signal what may or may not be another book on Aristotle'spoetics (depending on how we assess the author's main hypothesis): the

paperbackedition of Richard Janko's 1984 Aristotle on Comedy, containinghis edition of the TractatusCoislinianus, accompanied by a facing transla-tion, introductoryessays, reconstructionand commentary.9All this with the

controversial, hough vigourously arguedconclusion that(otherwisethan most

previous scholars had assumed) the treatisedoes indeed supply the cardinal

points of the lost Poetics II. A new prefacehas been added,and a few addi-

tions have been made to the bibliography,but J. has made no changes to the

contentsof his book which twenty years after its firstappearanceremains as

challengingand interestingas ever. Of course, barring he appearanceof spec-tacularnew evidence, neither J. nor anyone else will ever be able to provethat the Tractatus s not a forgery, althoughJ. certainly managesto arguethat

is not an ignorantcompilationeither. But in its own way the book has become

a classic, and it is wonderful that this paperbackedition is available.

I RichardJanko,Aristotleon Comedy.Towardsa Reconstruction f Poetics11,London

(Duckworth)2002; x + 294 pp.; ISBN 07156-31691 (paperback);?14.99.

ALGRA, Keimpe - 2004 - Aristotle (Phronesis)

Documents

Transcript of ALGRA, Keimpe - 2004 - Aristotle (Phronesis)