Forms and Concepts: Concept Formation in the Platonic Tradition

407 Pages·2012·1.668 MB·English

by  C. Helmig

Christoph Helmig
Forms and Concepts
Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca
et Byzantina
Quellen und Studien
Herausgegeben von
Dieter Harlfinger · Christof Rapp · Marwan Rashed
Diether R. Reinsch
Band 5
De Gruyter
Christoph Helmig
Forms and Concepts
Concept Formation
in the Platonic Tradition
De Gruyter
IV
ISBN 978-3-11-026631-3
e-ISBN 978-3-11-026724-2
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.
Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen
Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet
über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar.
© 2012 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Satz: Dörlemann Satz GmbH & Co. KG, Lemförde
Druck und buchbinderische Verarbeitung: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ÜGedruckt auf säurefreiem Papier
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com
V
Für Marialucrezia, Enrico und Elena
VI
Table of contents VII
Table of contents
A word of thanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. ‘How comes the mind to be furnished?’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Survey of recent literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Structure and contents of this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
I. Concepts– (ancient) problems and solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. What is a concept? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2. The relevance of concepts in ancient epistemological debates . . . . 24
3. Different models of concept acquisition in antiquity . . . . . . . . 29
4. Forms and concepts & problematic concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
II. Plato on learning as recollection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1. Forms and concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1.1. The role of concepts in Plato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1.2. Forms, concepts, language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2. TheParmenides and the archaeology of conceptualism . . . . . . . 45
2.1. Concepts as ‘one over many’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.2. Refuting conceptualism? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.3. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3. TheMeno on the different stages of recollection . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.1. The transition from opinion(doxa) to knowledge . . . . . . . 52
3.2. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4. ThePhaedo on the necessity of innate knowledge . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.1. The deficiency argument(Phaedo72e–77a) . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.2. The continuity betweenMeno andPhaedo . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5. ThePhaedrus on acquiring universal concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.1. Recollection and concept attainment
(Phaedrus249b–c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.2. Forms, concepts, language again . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
5.3. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6. Concept formation and concepts in theTimaeus,Theaetetus,
andSophist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
VIII Table of contents
6.1. Recollection in Plato’s later works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.2. Innateness and the structure of the human soul . . . . . . . . 73
7. The limits of recollection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
7.1. Some problematic concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
7.2. Recollection and error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
8. Forms, concepts, and recollection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
III. Aristotle’s reaction to Plato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
1. Aristotle and his teacher Plato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
1.1. A strange couple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
1.2. Aristotle’s arguments against innate knowledge. . . . . . . . . 88
2. The origin and nature of mathematical concepts . . . . . . . . . . 90
2.1. Concepts and the division of sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
2.2. A troublesome emendation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
2.3. Abstraction and thequa-operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
2.4. Aristotelian and Platonic separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
2.5. Mathematical objects and concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
2.6. Linking abstractionM and induction? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
3. Universal concepts– induction (epago¯g¯e) and its different domains . 111
3.1. A general definition of induction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
3.2. Induction and its different domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
3.3. The language of induction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
3.4. Different kinds of induction in Aristotle . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
3.4.1. Induction in dialectical and rhetorical practice . . . . . 116
3.4.2. Digression: likeness and the charge of circularity . . . . 119
3.4.3. Induction in ethics and natural science . . . . . . . . . 121
3.4.4. The troublesome case of ‘complete’
or ‘perfect induction’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
3.5. Induction and the starting points of syllogism . . . . . . . . . 125
4. Induction of first principles (Posterior Analytics II19) . . . . . . . . 128
4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
4.2. What is the object ofAnalytica Posteriora II19? . . . . . . . . 129
4.3. Articulation and summary of the argument . . . . . . . . . . 132
4.4. The relation of sense perception and intellect . . . . . . . . . 134
IV. Three case studies: Alcinous, Alexander & Porphyry, and Plotinus . . . 141
1. Alcinous between empiricism and recollection . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
1.1. The doctrine of the doxasticlogos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
1.2. Alcinous’ psychology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
1.3. Empiricism vs. innate knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
2. Alexander of Aphrodisias & Porphyry on abstraction and universals . 154
2.1. Alexander– elaborating Aristotle’s notion of abstraction . . . . 155
Table of contents IX
2.2. Neoplatonic readings of Alexander. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
2.3. Immanent forms, definitional natures, and universal concepts . 161
2.4. A unitary theory of intellect?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
2.5. Porphyry– an abstractionist malgré lui? . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
2.6. The ‘short commentary’ on Aristotle’sCategories . . . . . . . . 172
2.7. The epistemological digression in the commentary on Ptolemy 175
3. Plotinus– ‘Wegbereiter’ of Syrianus and Proclus . . . . . . . . . . 184
3.1. The doctrine of the twofold nature of thelogoi (I):
logoi as criteria in perceptual judgements . . . . . . . . . . . 186
3.2. The doctrine of the twofold nature of thelogoi (II):
logoi as causes in matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
3.3. Plotinus on innate knowledge and recollection . . . . . . . . 195
V. Syrianus’ and Proclus’ attitude towards Aristotle . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
1. Amicus Aristoteles, sed… . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
2. Syrianus’ and Proclus’ criticism of induction and abstraction . . . . 208
2.1. Criticizing abstracted universals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
2.2. Who is the target of Syrianus’ and Proclus’ criticism? . . . . . 219
VI. The crucial role of doxastic concepts in Proclus’ epistemology . . . . . 223
1. Proclus on sense perception andphantasia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
1.1. Place and character of sense perception . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
1.2. Olympiodorus on the ambiguity of sense perception . . . . . 227
1.3. Proclus onphantasia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
1.4. Phantasia and geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
1.5. Résumé: sense perception,phantasia, and concept formation . 231
2. An innovation by Proclus: his theory ofdoxa . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
2.1. Unfair to Proclus?– Alleged inconsistencies in his theory
ofdoxa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
2.2. More recent studies on Proclus’ theory ofdoxa. . . . . . . . . 233
2.3. Digression:doxa in Plato and Aristotle. . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
2.4. Proclus ondoxa and innate knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
2.5. Proclus on doxastic concepts (logoi doxastikoi) . . . . . . . . . 254
2.6. Doxa correcting sense perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
VII. Proclus’ Platonic theory of concept attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
1. The soul and its innate knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
1.1. The discursive nature of soul: Proclus ondianoia . . . . . . . 264
1.2. Dianoia and thelogoi of the soul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
1.3. Sources of Proclus’ doctrine of the psychiclogoi . . . . . . . . 268
1.4. Common notions and psychiclogoi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
X Table of contents
2. The triad of recollection: forgetting– articulation–probol¯e . . . . . 272
2.1. Recollection after Aristotle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
2.2. Forgetting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
2.3. Articulation(diarthro¯sis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
2.3.1. The sources: Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, and Middle
Platonism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
2.3.2. TheAnonymous in Theaetetum (AT) . . . . . . . . . . 282
2.3.3. Articulation: talent and error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
2.3.4. Proclus on articulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
2.4. Probol¯e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
2.4.1. Meaning and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
2.4.2. Probol¯e and geometry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
2.4.3. Résumé. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
3. Proclus on learning and the acquisition of concepts . . . . . . . . . 299
3.1. Concept formation and the Platonic dialogue . . . . . . . . . 300
3.2. Recollection as an intentional act of the soul . . . . . . . . . . 304
3.3. Different stages of recollection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
3.4. Different kinds of concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
3.5. A difficult passage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
3.6. Recollection and error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
3.7. Problematic concepts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
VIII. Plato and Aristotle in harmony?– Some conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 335
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
1. Editions and translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
2. Secondary literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381
1. Index nominum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381
2. Index locorum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383
3. Index rerum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390