Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter January 17, 2022

The Chicken or the Egg? Aristotle on Speusippus’ Reasons to Deny the Principle is (the) Good

  • Giulia De Cesaris EMAIL logo
From the journal Apeiron

Abstract

In Metaphysics Λ7 1072b30–1073a3, Aristotle introduces a Speusippean theory according to which ‘what is most beautiful and best is not en archēi’. Through a detailed analysis of the passage, I argue that Aristotle’s refutation of Speusippus’ thesis is favoured by the introduction of the seed example, which conflates both ontological and temporal priority. The elements gathered from the analysis of Aristotle’s polemical strategy will support a broader conclusion: Speusippus’ reason not to characterise his principle(s) as (the) good is related to the problematic relationship Forms and sensibles had within Plato’s account, or, in other words, participation.


Corresponding author: Giulia De Cesaris, FWO Fellow at KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; and De Wulf-Mansion Centre for Ancient, Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy, Leuven, Belgium, E-mail:

Funding source: European Research Council (ERC)

Award Identifier / Grant number: 885273

Funding source: Research Foundation - Flanders, FWO Junior Postdoctoral Fellowship

Award Identifier / Grant number: 1209221N

Acknowledgments

This paper was originally a section of my Ph.D. thesis, Aristotle’s Account of Speusippus and Xenocrates’ Metaphysical and Epistemological Theories, which I completed in Durham (Department of Classics and Ancient History) under the supervision of Phillip Horky and George Boys-Stones. I presented earlier versions of this paper in Milan, Durham and Princeton, and I am thankful for the helpful discussions and feedback from the participants at those conferences. I owe my greatest thanks to my first supervisor, Phillip Horky, who encouraged me to develop my arguments further and read multiple versions of this paper, which is now significantly revised. Lastly, I want to thank Roberto Granieri, Jan Opsomer and Federico Petrucci for their useful comments on this draft. All misuse of their ideas is my own.

  1. Research funding: This paper is part of a project that has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant agreement No. 885273). The last version of this paper was developed during a FWO Junior Postdoctoral Fellowship at KU Leuven, De Wulf-Mansion Centre for Ancient, Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy, founded by FWO - Research Foundation - Flanders (Award Number: 1209221N).

References

Abraham, P. B. 2010. “A Lost Sentence on Seed as Instrument of the Soul in Aristotle’s On the Soul II, 4, 415b 7.” Hermes 138: 276–87.10.25162/hermes-2010-0018Search in Google Scholar

Annas, J. 1976. “Aristotle’s Metaphysics.” In Books M and N. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/oseo/instance.00258586Search in Google Scholar

Bolton, R. 2010. “Définition et Méthode Scientifique dans Les Seconds Analytiques et dans La Génération des Animaux d’Aristote.” In Science, Dialectique et Éthique chez Aristote: Essais d’Épistémologie Aristotélicienne, edited by Id, 163–218. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.Search in Google Scholar

Bonazzi, M. 2015. Il Platonismo. Torino: Einaudi.Search in Google Scholar

Bonitz, H. 1848. Aristotelis Metaphysica Recognovit et Enarravit. Bonn: Ad Marcus.Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, S. M. 2021. Aristotle’s metaphysics. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), edited E. N. Zalta. Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/.Search in Google Scholar

Corkum, P. 2008. “Aristotle on Ontological Dependence.” Phronesis 53: 65–92.10.1163/156852808X252594Search in Google Scholar

Crubellier, M. 1994. Les livres ‘Mu’ et ‘Nu’ de la Métaphysique d’Aristote: Traduction et Commentaire. Université Charles-de-Gaulle Lille III.Search in Google Scholar

Dancy, R. M. 1989. “Ancient Non-Beings: Speusippus and Others.” Ancient Philosophy 9: 207–43.10.5840/ancientphil1989925Search in Google Scholar

Dancy, R. M. 1991. Two Studies in the Early Academy. Albany (N.Y.): State University of New York Press.Search in Google Scholar

Dancy, R.M. (2016). Speusippus. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), edited E.N. Zalta. Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/speusippus/.Search in Google Scholar

Dillon, J. M. 2003. The Heirs of Plato. A Study of the Old Academy (347-274 BC). Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/0198237669.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Fine, G. 1984. “Separation.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 2: 31–88.Search in Google Scholar

Glucker, J. 1994. “The Origin of ΥΠΑΡΧΩ and ΥΠΑΡΞΙΣ as Philosophical Terms.” In HYPARXIS e HYPOSTASIS nel Neoplatonismo, edited by F. Romano, and D. P. Taormina, 1–23. Firenze: Olschki.Search in Google Scholar

Isnardi Parente, M. 1977. “Dottrina delle Idee e Dottrina dei Principi nell’Accademia Antica.” Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore 7: 1017–128.Search in Google Scholar

Isnardi Parente, M. 1980. Speusippo. Testimonianze e Frammenti. Napoli: Bibliopolis.Search in Google Scholar

Isnardi Parente, M. 2005. Speusippo. Testimonianze e Frammenti. Roma: ed. Elettronica. Available at http://rmcisadu.let.uniroma1.it/isnardi/fronte.htm.Search in Google Scholar

Katz, E. 2017. “Ontological Separation in Aristotle’s Metaphysics.” Phronesis 62: 26–68.10.1163/15685284-12341318Search in Google Scholar

Lefebvre, D. 2016. “Le Sperma: Forme, Matière ou les Deux?” Philosophie Antique 16: 31–62.10.4000/philosant.585Search in Google Scholar

Makin, S. 2003. “What Does Aristotle Mean by Priority in Substance?” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 24: 209–38.Search in Google Scholar

Makin, S. 2006. Aristotle. Metaphysics, Book Θ. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/actrade/9780198751076.book.1Search in Google Scholar

Menn, S. (unpublished). The Aim and the Argument of Aristotle’s Metaphysics.Search in Google Scholar

Merlan, P. 1953. From Platonism to Neoplatonism, 1st ed. The Hague: Nijhoff.10.1007/978-94-017-6205-2Search in Google Scholar

Merlan, P. 1975. From Platonism to Neoplatonism, 3rd ed. revised. The Hague: Nijhoff.10.1007/978-94-010-1592-9Search in Google Scholar

Meyrav, Y. 2019. Themistius’ Paraphrase of Aristotle’s Metaphysics 12. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004400443Search in Google Scholar

Peramatzis, M. 2011. Priority in Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199588350.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Ravaisson, F. 1838. Speusippi de Primis Rerum Principiis Placita Qualia Fuisse Videntur ex Aristotele. Paris: Didot.Search in Google Scholar

Ross, W. D. 1924. Aristotle’s Metaphysics. A Revised text with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar

Steinthal, H. 1863. Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bei den Griechen und Römern. Berlin: F. Dümmler’s Verlagsbuchhandlung.Search in Google Scholar

Taran, L. 1981. Speusippus of Athens. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004320604Search in Google Scholar

Trabattoni, F. 2016. “L’Accademia Antica.” In Storia della Filosofia Antica II, edited by Id, 143–64. Roma: Platone e Aristotele.Search in Google Scholar

Tredennick, H. 1945. Aristotle. Metaphysics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Witt, C. 1994. “The Priority of Actuality.” In Unity, Identity and Explanation in Aristotle’s ‘Metaphysics’, edited by T. Scaltsas, D. Charles, and M. L. Gill, 215–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Witt, C. 2003. Ways of Being: Potentiality and Actuality in Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.10.7591/9781501711503Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2022-01-17
Published in Print: 2023-01-27

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 28.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/apeiron-2021-0074/html
Scroll to top button