Affiliation:
1. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin , Berlin , Germany
Abstract
Abstract
In Quaestiones 1.3 and 2.14, Alexander presents a distinctly realist or essentialist view of the objects of definition, distinguished, on the one hand, from two types of realism rejected by Aristotle (definienda as separate forms and as particulars), and, on the other, from two types of conceptualism (non-essentialist and essentialist abstractivism) that probably belong within the Peripatetic tradition. The difference between Alexander’s view and essentialist abstractivism lies in his understanding of definienda not as the common concepts of things existing in the particulars, but as the common things conceived of as existing in the particulars. This paper offers a close reading of Quaest. 1.3, whose aim is to flesh out Alexander’s position vis-à-vis the objects of definition against the backdrop of the four rejected alternatives. The distinction between Alexander’s essentialism and the essentialist abstractivist notion of definienda is further explained in light of Quaest. 2.14. The amended Greek text of Quaest. 1.3 is appended with an English translation.
Reference22 articles.
1. Barnes, J. 2003. Porphyry: Introduction. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
2. Bett, R. 1997. Sextus Empiricus: Against the Ethicists. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
3. Bronowski, A. 2013. “Epicureans and Stoics on Universals.” In Universals in Ancient Philosophy, edited by R. Chiaradonna, and G. Galluzzo, 255–97. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale.
4. Bruns, I., ed. 1892. Alexandri Aphrodisiensis praeter commentaria. Scripta minora reliqua: Quaestiones, De fato, De mixtione, CAG Suppl. II 2. Berlin: Reimer.
5. Caston, V. 1999. “Something and Nothing: The Stoics on Concepts and Universals.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 17: 145–213.