|
1.
|
Philosophical Inquiry:
Volume >
43 >
Issue: 1/2
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Philosophical Inquiry:
Volume >
43 >
Issue: 1/2
Emese Mogyoródi
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
3.
|
Philosophical Inquiry:
Volume >
43 >
Issue: 1/2
Michael Sevel
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
4.
|
Philosophical Inquiry:
Volume >
43 >
Issue: 1/2
Barbara M. Sattler
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
5.
|
Philosophical Inquiry:
Volume >
43 >
Issue: 1/2
Livio Rossetti
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
Was Parmenides a distinguished ‘astronomer’ and ‘biologist’ other than the great ‘philosopher’ he has been unanimously considered from the times of Plato onwards? Many admirers of the ‘philosopher’ are not just refractory to consider this possibility: they simply ignore what Parmenides was able to discover in the additional domains I have just mentioned. But he was great as an ‘astronomer’ and a ‘biologist’ too, probably not less great than as a ‘philosopher’.The aim of this paper is to supply the basic information about Parmenides' achievements in these domains (thus about the discovery of the sphericity of earth as well as the physiological bases of homosexuality, plus a number of further areas of investigation), that were of the highest order, I presume.Presocratic Philosophy and ‟Natural Theology”
|
|
|
|
6.
|
Philosophical Inquiry:
Volume >
43 >
Issue: 1/2
Joel E. Mann
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
7.
|
Philosophical Inquiry:
Volume >
43 >
Issue: 1/2
Iakovos Vasiliou
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
8.
|
Philosophical Inquiry:
Volume >
43 >
Issue: 1/2
Mehmet M. Erginel
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
9.
|
Philosophical Inquiry:
Volume >
43 >
Issue: 1/2
John Bowin
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
This contribution offers an interpretation of the last half of chapter 1 of book 5 of Aristotle’s Physics in the form of a commentary. Among other things, it attempts an explanation of why Aristotle calls the termini of changes ‘something underlying’ (ὑποκείμενον) and ‘something not underlying’ (μὴ ὑποκείμενον). It also provides an analysis of Aristotle’s argument for the claim that what is not simpliciter does not change in the light of this interpretation.
|
|
|
|
10.
|
Philosophical Inquiry:
Volume >
43 >
Issue: 1/2
Corien Bary
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
11.
|
Philosophical Inquiry:
Volume >
43 >
Issue: 1/2
Spiros A. Moschonas
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
Based on A. P. D. Mourelatos's "Events, Processes, and States" (1978), an overview of the literature on „verb types‟ (or Aktionsarten) is provided in this paper;the basic conceptual, logical and grammatical tests for the identification of different verb types are also briefly reviewed.Such tests, it is argued, reveal variations in a verb’s grammatical and/or lexical aspect; accordingly, verb types should be viewed as regularities governing aspectual variation within and across sentences. Verb types are not associated with particular verbs, predicates or sentences; rather, a verb type (or a verb‟s Aktionsart) is the sum of ways in which a verb‟s aspect may vary. In other words, verb types describe the possibilities for a verb to appear in one or another of a series of interrelated constructions. Verb types are verbal possibilities or, to use B. L. Whorf‟s apt term, fashions of speaking which cut across typical grammatical classifications. It is further argued that verb types, as “mere” fashions of speaking, cannot provide a firm basis for any metaphysics of „situation types‟; i.e., the metaphysics of verb types cannot be founded on their linguistics.
|
|
|
|
12.
|
Philosophical Inquiry:
Volume >
43 >
Issue: 1/2
Alexander P. D. Mourelatos
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
13.
|
Philosophical Inquiry:
Volume >
43 >
Issue: 1/2
Stephen Leighton
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
|
14.
|
Philosophical Inquiry:
Volume >
43 >
Issue: 1/2
Georgia Mouroutsou
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
The paper starts by setting the stage for two perennial pairs of problems about the receptacle: “metaphysics / physics” and “matter / space” (I.). Then it provides a close reading of 49a6-50a4 that reinforces the reconstructionist interpretation, but also deviates from Cherniss in some respect. When applying the proposals Plato makes in 49a6-50a4, it reveals a Plato in search of a feature-placing language or language without particulars (LWOP) (II. and III.): though not formulating it himself, Plato provides all necessary material for doing so. Having argued ex negativo and against the exclusivity-thesis regarding the first debate about the receptacle (in III.), the paper offers a new piece of evidence for the space interpretation of the receptacle—though not breaking new ground—because my LWOP thesis presupposes the interpretation of the receptacle as space and argues against the material-substrate reading (IV). Throughout the paper, I have consciously operated with a less Aristotle-centered framework than those most often applied, a procedure that does justice to Plato’s different ontology and semantics of the sensible phenomena. My Plato does not pave the way to Aristotle in this passage because he does not wish to do so.
|
|
|
|
15.
|
Philosophical Inquiry:
Volume >
43 >
Issue: 1/2
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|