In June 2023, a group of ‘Aristotelians without Borders’ met in the splendid Villa San Remigio in Verbania, one of the beautiful premises of the University of Eastern Piedmont. Following in the footsteps of Aristotelians over the centuries, the participants were committed to the belief that engaging in dialogue has a value in itself. Our Aristotelian predecessors have collectively bequeathed to us a common language, a shared form of rationality and a grammar of thought which allow us to engage in (...) dialogue despite our differences. (shrink)

In _Historia animalium_ VIII 1.588a18 ff., Aristotle describes the cognitive powers of non-human animals as sketches of human cognitive powers. According to the wording he chooses here, the cognitive powers of non-human animals are “traces” or “footprints” (ἴχνη, 588a19) of human ones. In this paper I explore the conceptual framework that lays behind this image, in order to show that it is much more than a rhetorical figure, and that Aristotle’s wording encompasses a whole articulated theory, whose details are set (...) out in _De anima_ and the _Parva naturalia_. Moreover, I try to clarify some technicalities of the scientific model he devises in order to explain certain features of the sensory-perceptual part of the soul (with particular attention to the perception of the so-called “common” and “incidental” sensory items) that bear a real analogy to the functions of reason and intellect, and that can consequently be considered their precursors. (shrink)

Wholes have parts, and wholes are prior to parts according to Aristotle. Aristotle’s accounts of continuity, in _Phys_. V 3 (plus sections in Metaph. Δ 6 and Ι 1) on the one hand and in _Phys_. VI on the other, are specified in terms of ways in which wholes are related to parts. The synthesis account in Phys. V 3 etc. applies primarily to bodies (in, e.g., anatomy). It indicates a variety of ways in which parts of a body are (...) kept together by a common boundary and are thereby combined into a mostly inhomogeneous, functional whole. Only the analysis account in _Phys_. VI applies primarily to linear continua such as movements, paths of movements, and time. The structure it indicates is only superficially described as indefinite divisibility: what matters is the transfer of potential divisions from path to movement and time (and conversely) which, surprisingly, requires an equivalent to Dedekind’s continuity principle to be tacitly presupposed. – In the present paper, my agenda will focus on the exposition of the relevant theories offered by Aristotle in _Phys_. V 3 and _Phys_. VI 1-2, respectively, with a view to the applications envisaged by Aristotle and to the mathematics involved. (shrink)

Aucun auteur de l’Antiquité, peut-être, n’a permis autant qu’Aristote de mettre en contact les êtres humains entre eux malgré les frontières du temps et de l’espace, à travers les barrières des langues et de leurs traductions, des cultures, des religions et des idéologies diverses. Aucun philosophe n’aura entretenu des visées aussi universalisantes et sans frontières. C’est le cas, notamment, dans le domaine de la métaphysique, de la logique, du politique ou de la poétique. En métaphysique, le questionnement poursuivi sur l’étant (...) en tant qu’étant, sur les causes de l’être en général et sur tout ce qui relève de l’universel – c’est-à-dire du καθόλου – témoigne d’une volonté de se dégager de tout particularisme pour atteindre la scientificité la plus exigeante et la plus englobante. (shrink)

Until the last years of his life, Charles Darwin had actually never read Aristotle. The sole reference he makes to his naturalist forebear in _On the Origin of Species_ came in an addition to the fourth edition, published in 1866, in which he mistakenly refers to Aristotle’s summation of Empedocles’ position at _Physica_ II 8, as Aristotle’s own, and notes that ‘we see here the principle of natural selection shadowed forth’ (while disputing the specific scientific point Aristotle – though actually (...) Empedocles – was supposedly making). So when his friend William Ogle, a minor scientist and physician, and an evangelist Christian, published a translation of Aristotle’s _De partibus animalium_ in 1882 and sent a copy to Darwin, he was able to declare that he felt “some self-importance in thus being a kind of formal introducer of the father of Naturalists [Aristotle] to his great modern successor [Darwin].” Ogle, who despite his religious inclinations was nevertheless a strong proponent of Darwin’s theories, did not agree with Aristotle’s scientific theories – not least because Aristotle’s teleological model of animal development, which had been adopted as a model by many post-classical Christian scientists and theologians for centuries, was dealt a serious blow by Darwin’s theory of natural selection. So it is perhaps surprising to see Ogle produce a translation of one of Aristotle’s major biological treatises. By looking at key passages of Aristotle and Ogle’s translation, this paper will examine the reasons for Ogle’s curious choice to publish his work, setting it into the wider scientific, and Darwinian, context of late-nineteenth century Britain, and explaining how Aristotle the teleologist was used by Ogle to re-enforce Darwin’s position as a modern natural historian. (shrink)

Aristotle posits that time, as defined by the “number of motion in respect of before and after” (_Physics_ IV 11.219b1-2), is an inherent property of motion itself rather than a prerequisite. This implies the possibility of identifying time-independent properties of natural motions. One such critical feature, crucial to understanding the basic meaning of time, is the presence of an inherent order of before and after within motion, regardless of time. The concept of a non-temporal before and after within motion is (...) now accepted or seriously considered in scholarly discussions. However, it remains one of the most confusing and difficult issues in the interpretation of Aristotle’s conception of time. How can we conceive of motion apart from time? Moreover, how does Aristotle seemingly take this aspect for granted? In order to address these issues, I propose to combine philosophical inquiry with grammatical and mathematical reflections. I will examine the analysis of motion alongside the verbs used to describe it, with a keen focus on aspect. Hence I will draw connections between the relationship of motion and time and that of physical and mathematical objects. (shrink)