Democritus

“Friendship in Early Greek Ethics” examines the accounts of friendship (philia) in the early philosophical literature and argues that there is a coherent narrative of philosophical theorizing of friendship prior to Aristotle, one which does not make the Presocratics and Socratics mere pre-Aristotelian. The main treatments of friendship considered in this chapter—namely, those in Empedocles, Democritus, the Sophists, and the Socratics—can be understood as efforts to provide a convincing explanation of what motivates the relation of philia and to isolate the conditions for and key features of this specific form of relation essential to the good life.

In one of his paradoxes Zeno of Elea had argued for the indivisibility of being. For being to be divisible, its parts should either be divisible themselves, or indivisible. If indivisible, they would have no extension, but how could parts without extension make up an extended whole? If divisible, the same conclusions would apply to the parts as to the whole, and so ad infinitum, and being would turn out to consist of infinitely many parts, but how could infinitely many parts, however tiny, make up a finite whole? Depending on which horn of the dilemma one chooses divisible being would turn out to have no extension at all or be infinitely large. Therefore, Zeno concluded, being could not be divisible at all.
Zeno’s conclusion, so contrary to the evidence of the senses, was rejected by most subsequent philosophers, who thus had to accept one of the two horns of Zeno’s dilemma: finite of infinite divisibility.
Leucippus and Democritus, convinced by Zeno’s argument against infinite divisibility, went for the first option, and introduced a minimal material unit, the atom, which they claimed did have spatial extension, despite its being indivisible.
Aristotle, on the other hand, strongly rejected the notion of indivisible extended bodies, which caused more problems than it solved, and instead went for the other horn of Zeno’s dilemma: matter was infinitely divisible after all, but only potentially so: never would a substance be actually divided to infinity and so consist of infinitely many parts.
Afterwards, the atomist position was revived by Epicurus, who modified the theory in response to certain points of Aristotle’s criticism, without, however, touching upon the most important point: the conceptual inconsistency of indivisible extension. Accordingly, Epicurus’ reformed atomism does not seem to have made a great impression on the adversaries of atomism, who could simply repeat the ancient arguments against Democritus.
In this lecture I will provide a sketch of the ancient debate about the divisibility of matter, and discuss some of the arguments brought forward in favour of and against each position. It will be shown that, however plausible some of the arguments may seem, in the end they were too much bound up with the general theory of their proponents to convince their critics.

Most historians of science credit the traditional players (Aristotle, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton) for gifting us Moderns with a scientific outlook on nature and the cosmos. Few go back as far as the Presocratics (6th and 5th c. BCE), acknowledging that their cosmologies made a lasting impact on what we nowadays know as science.

Bien que les notions de φιλία et δίκη n’apparaissent pas conjointement dans les fragments présocratiques, elles relèvent de champs similaires, qu’il s’agisse de la nécessité cosmique ou d’une forme conditionnelle de nécessité. Mais, tandis que l’amitié cosmique d’Empédocle (la Φιλότης) est conçue comme une force d’unification et d’homogénéisation des contrariétés, le modèle développé par Démocrite des rapports entre amis se fonde sur l’attraction des semblables – contrairement à ce qui pouvait d’abord sembler ressortir des analyses aristotéliciennes. Le concept de justice, initialement relatif aux lois de l’univers et de l’être (avec Anaximandre, Héraclite et Parménide), s’élabore progressivement via la question de la rétribution proportionnelle et de la mesure, mais sans s’élever jusqu’à une dimension vraiment délibérative, puisque le choix se restreint à consentir ou non à la nécessité.

The article highlights the process of understanding love- agape in Greek culture. By using the work of linguists, leading Western experts on the Greek language dwells on hypotheses etymology of the word «agape». As part of the subject introduces the concept of «dictionery of agape» to refer to a group of words in the Greek language, ones with root  «agap», indicating a long history and origin of the well-known concept of «agape». Using a powerful body of ancient sources - epics of Homer, the ancient drama and lyrics shows the basic connotation of the words «dictionery of agape»Particular attention is paid to the consideration of «dictionnery of agape» in the philosophical legacy of Plato and Aristotle. He also argues that the appearance of the word «agape» is one of the stages in the development of the Greek language, and a significant role in this contributed to philosophical reflection .
Keywords: agape, antiquity, «dictionery of agape», eros, life, love, people, philia, philosophy.

Embryology was a subject that inspired great cross-disciplinary discussion in antiquity, and Plato’s Timaeus made an important contribution to this discussion, though Plato’s precise views have remained a matter of controversy, especially regarding three key questions pertaining to the generation and nature of the seed: whether there is a female seed; what the nature of seed is; and whether the seed contains a preformed human being. In this paper I argue that Plato’s positions on these three issues can be adequately determined, even if some other aspects of his theory cannot. In particular, it is argued that (i) Plato subscribes to the encephalo-myelogenic theory of seed, though he places particular emphasis on the soul being the true seed; (ii) Plato is a two-seed theorist, yet the female seed appears to make no contribution to reproduction; and (iii) Plato cannot be an advocate of preformationism.

L'objet de la correspondance fictive, intégrée à la Collection hippocratique, au sujet du cas de Démocrite, n'est pas réductible à l'ambiguïté du rire du philosophe qui paraît d'abord relever de la folie avant de s'avérer l'expression d'une sagesse extrême. Ces lettres tardives ont le mérite de révéler ce vieil antagonisme dissimulé entre la
médecine relativiste et immanentiste et la philosophie transcendante et absolue, en procédant, comme chez Platon, à une assignation faussement fraternelle de la médecine au domaine des soins du corps, témoignant ainsi, malgré elles, de la prétention totalisante de l’hippocratisme.

Sokrates öncesi filozofların doğayı açıklama çabası varlık, oluş, değişim sorunları etrafında döner. Bu sorunlara önerilen çözümlerde Sokrates öncesi filozofların gözettiği temel izlek ise doğanın birlikteliğini, biraradalığını diğer bir deyişle doğanın dayanışmasını sağlamaktır. Bu makalede, dayanışma sorununun Sokrates öncesi doğa filozofları için varlık, oluşum, değişim sorunlarından daha belirleyici olduğu ileri sürülmekte, bu sorulara önerilen çözümlerin dayanışma sorunuyla doğrudan ilişkisi serimlenmektedir.
Pre-Socratic philosophers have engaged in the problems of being, becoming, and change in nature. Pre-Socratics have followed up the principle of solidarity through their explanations of the nature. In this article, it is claimed that PreSocratics have considered the problem of the solidarity prior to the problems of being, becoming, and change, and then it is argued how the problem of solidarity is related to the problems of being, becoming, and change.

Democritus’ theory of vision combines the notions of images (eidola) streaming from objects and air imprints, which gives him the resources to account for the perception of the relative size and distance of objects, not just their characteristics. This perspectival explanation of the visual theory accommodates important but overlooked evidence from Vitruvius. By comparing Democritus’ theory with ancient developments in visual representation, my analysis provides a new approach to the evidence of atomist vision. I begin with the process of vision before turning to the Peripatetic objections, showing how a unified theory of vision takes into account all of the ancient testimony and provides possible atomist responses to the criticisms raised against it. I also identify the importance of vision via air imprints as an important metaphor for the conventionality of sensible qualities. Understanding these fundamental issues puts us in a better position to assess Democritus’ place in the development of ancient optics and of atomist approaches to sense perception.

Demokritos (Δημόκριτος, Dēmókritos), doğum ve ölüm yılına dair birçok spekülasyon bulunuyor olsa da yaklaşık olarak M.Ö. 460  ile MÖ 370 yılları arasında yaşamış ve hocası olarak bilinen Leukippos (Λεύκιππος) ile atom öğretisini geliştirmiş olan ve ismi aynı zamanda öğretisinin sürdürücüsü olduğu için Epikouros (Ἐπίκουρος) ile birlikte anılan bir Eskiçağ Yunan filozofudur. Düşünceleri ve çalışmaları Leukippos’unki ile çok yakın bir ilişki içinde oluştuğu için hangi düşüncenin ve eserin hangisine ait olduğunu ayırt etmek her zaman tam olarak mümkün olmayabiliyor. Zaten Leukippos’tan bize ulaşmış olan orijinal tek bir fragmandan başka birşey de bulunmamaktadır. Atomcu materyalist felsefenin sürdürücüsü olan Epikouros, Leukippos’un yaşamamış olduğunu ileri sürmüştür. Bu bakımdan Wilhelm Nestle gibi Eskiçağ felsefesi araştırmacıları Leukippos isminin Demokritos’un gençlik döneminde kullandığı bir isim olup olamayacağı sorusunu sormaya götürmüştür. Bu nedenle birçok çağdaş Eskiçağ felsefe tarihçisi genellikle Demokritos’u atomculuğun ve materyalizmin kurucusu olarak sunmayı tercih etmektedir. Buna karşın Wilhelm Capelle, Leukippos’u Demokritos’tan bağımsız atomculuğun ve materyalizmin kurucusu olarak ayrıca ortaya koymayı tercih etmektedir.  Diogenes Leartius da Leukippos’a “atomu kökensel ilk olarak ortaya koydu” diye işaret ediyor.  Platon’un, hiçbir zaman Demokritos’un adını anmasa da onun atom öğretisinden ve tin felsefesinden çok etkilendiği, ondan kaynak göstermeden birçok düşünceyi devraldığı ve kaynaklarını açık etmeden onun düşüncelerinin tam zıddını geliştirmeye çalıştığı da bilinmektedir.  Bu nedenle Diogenes Laertius trafından Demokritos’un eserlerini ilk derleyen ve sınıflandıran olarak belirlenen Platoncu Thrasylos, Demokritos’u Platon’un eserlerinde ‘adlandırılmayan karşıt’ (ἀντεραστής) olarak tanımlamıştır.  Bu bakımdan ‘Atina Okulu’nun oluşmasında alınan hareket noktası, ortaya koyduğu felsefesiyle kendi çağının tüm felsefesini ve bilgisini ansiklopedik bir kafayla derlemeye çalışmış olan Demokritos’tur.

Marx Notizbücher zur epikureischen, stoischen und skeptischen Philosophie, einschließlich seiner Dissertation: "Unterschied zwischen demokritischer und epikurischer Naturphilosophie", nebst einem Anhang/ Marx's Notebooks on Epicurean, Stoic and Skeptical philosophy, including his doctoral dissertation: "Difference between Democritus and Epicurus natural philosophy", together with an appendix.

Como uma espécie de sombra ou como os ecos de uma voz distante, não é difícil, para um estudioso do pensamento atomista, reconhecer a presença de Demócrito nas entrelinhas de alguns diálogos platônicos, o que se dá de modo subliminar pela discussão ou apropriação de algumas teses reconhecidamente atomistas. Pretendemos neste texto indicar e examinar algumas passagens que permitem entrever como as ideias deste personagem-fantasma, personna silenciosa cuja sombra se deixa apenas tangenciar, podem ser surpreendidas em certas discussões e argumentos da mise-en-scène do pensamento platônico e nos mais diferentes contextos de sua investigação.

It is a commonplace among scholars that the early Pythagoreans posited an immortal soul. The earliest source to associate immortality of the soul to the Pythagoreans unequivocally, Dicaearchus of Messana, stipulates that they held that (a) the soul is immortal; (b) it changes into other kinds of animals; (c) there is eternal recurrence; and (d) embodied animate creatures are of the same genus. A problem with Dicaearchus' account is that each of these doctrines can also be found in the dialogues of Plato. Given Dicaearchus' penchant for conflating Platonic with Pythagorean philosophy, we cannot employ this account for a historical understanding of Pythagorean psychology in a straightforward way. This chapter instead investigates Pythagorean psychology through analysis of two passages of Aristotle’s De anima that are often not brought to bear on the question. One passage draws important comparisons between the psychology of the Pythagoreans and Democritean and Ecphantic atomism, suggesting that the early Pythagoreans held a material theory of soul; by reference to arguments similar to Cebes' in Plato's Phaedo (87b-e), the other explains how a transmigratory soul could nevertheless be mortal. The early Pythagoreans are thus likely to have held that the soul is material, mortal, and transmigratory.

En e presente libro se han tomado tres pensadores –Demócrito de Abdera, Epicuro de Samos y Tito Lucrecio Caro – y de lo que queda de sus obras se han seleccionado fragmentos significativos, sobre los que se han aplicado distintos tipos de tares filológica. En el caso de Demócrito, un seguimiento argumental en el plano de la ética, de los fragmentos y citas conservados. En el de Epicuro, una transcripción de textos originales, citas de otros autores, y sobre todo comentarios de pensadores de distintas escuelas, esto es, un  trabajo de confrontación textual. En el de Lucrecio, una tarea de exégesis textual que permite entresacar conceptos éticos en un poema en el que ellos están implícitos.

Leukippos (MÖ V. yüzyıl): Sokrates öncesi felsefe ekollerinden Atomcu Felsefe’nin kurucu figürü olan Leukippos’un hayatı hakkında bilinenler çok azdır. Gerçekten yaşayıp yaşamadığı antik dünyada bile tartışma konusu olmuştur. Diogenes Laertius’tan bir alıntıda Hermarkhos gibi Epikuros’un da Leukippos adlı bir filozofun yaşamadığını düşündüğü söylenir, bununla birlikte ona dair alıntılar daha fazladır. Milet’te yaşadığı, Demokritos’un hocası olduğu kabul edilir.
Demokritos (yaklaşık MÖ 460-370): Birçok kaynakta Abderalı olarak anılmıştır. Atomcu Felsefe ve evrenin atom teorisinin gelişiminde merkezi bir yer işgal eder. Temel konularda hocası Leukippos’un izinden giden Demokritos, onun teorisini daha kuşkucu ve daha az tümdengelimci bir yöntemle ele alıp geliştirmiştir. Doğu’da çok seyahat etmiş, Mısır, Persia, Hindistan ve Babil’de birçok şey öğrenmiştir. Demokritos etik konulara da ilgi duymuş ya da kendisinden sonraki yazarlar ona bazı etik fragmanların atfedilmesini garipsememiştir. Atomcu Felsefe Fragmanları, daha sonra Epikurosçu fiziğe ve materyalist felsefeye zemin hazırlayan bu felsefe ekolünün temsilcilerine ve onların kabul veya reddedilişlerine dair tüm erken dönem yazılı kaynakları Türkçeye aktarma amacını taşımaktadır.

C. Cengiz Çevik (1983): İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Latin Dili ve Edebiyatı Anabilim Dalı’nda lisans, yüksek lisans ve doktorasını tamamladı. Hasan Âli Yücel Klasikler Dizisi için Epiktetos, Sextus Empiricus,  Bacon, Horatius, Seneca, Cicero, Copernicus ve Luther’den birçok eser çevirdi. Temel akademik çalışma alanı olan  Antikçağ’da siyaset ve felsefe ilişkisi başta olmak üzere farklı konularda çeviri ve telif eserleri üzerinde çalışmaya  devam ediyor.

Il n'y a pas de préoccupation qui soit plus universelle et intemporelle que celle portant sur le bonheur. Chacun d'entre nous s'accorde en effet pour dire que le bonheur est un bien, et par conséquent, se met à sa poursuite tout en questionnant les modalités de sa mise en œuvre. Or, cette inclination au bonheur et la réflexion qui l'accompagne au sujet des conditions pour l'atteindre sont vieilles comme le monde. A la période hellénistique, et même avant dans l'Antiquité, des conceptions eudémonistes, qui font de la quête du bonheur la fin de l'existence voient le jour. Nous nous concentrerons ici plus particulièrement sur deux courants de pensée ayant proposé leur réflexion concernant les moyens d'atteindre l'eudaimonia : l'épicurisme et le stoïcisme. Leurs théories, deux millénaires après avoir été élaborées, ont encore un immense retentissement de par leur étonnante modernité. Souvent aussi, elles ont été et sont encore vivement critiquées : on a mis en doute la possibilité même que de telles entreprises puissent fonctionner en pratique, et on a dénoncé la vision du bonheur qu'elles défendaient en affirmant qu'il s'agissait là d'un bonheur uniquement illusoire. Mais qu'en est-il vraiment ?

In this paper, I defend the claim that for Aristotle the phrase “art imitates nature” does not express a novel belief about teleology as often assumed, but a belief common to Aristotle and his predecessors about how artistic methods of production were first discovered and how arts progress. I trace the history of this belief from some early Greek medical writers, as preserved in the Hippocratic Corpus, through Democritus and Plato to Aristotle. I also try to show that by looking at how early Greek medical and philosophical writers understood discovery and progress in the arts, we can better understand Aristotle’s expectations for a scientific investigation into nature and what motivated the method of inquiry he thinks the natural scientist should adopt. One advantage of this approach is that it accounts for resemblances among Aristotle’s claim and similar ones in other writers from Democritus to Dante.

In 1889, the German philologist Friedrich Blass isolated a section of Chapter 20 from Iamblichus’ Exhortation to Philosophy (mid- or late 3rd Century CE) as an extract from a lost sophistic or philosophical treatise from the late 5th Century BCE.  In this article, I introduce the text, which is now known as 'Anonymus Iamblichi' (or 'the anonymous work preserved in Iamblichus') by appeal to its two main contexts (source preservation and original historical composition), translate and discuss all eight surviving fragments in their entirety, and provide some closing remarks about its importance to this history of democratic thought.  The text itself presents a series of very carefully interwoven arguments concerning the three “parts” of excellence (ἀρετή) – wisdom, courage, and eloquence – and their successful application in society.  In the course of presenting this case, Anonymus Iamblichi comments on the conditions under which one should learn to be excellent (Fragments 1-2) and the ends to which one should direct one’s excellence (Fragments 3-4); he provides an anthropological discussion of the weaknesses of human psychology and its effects on the good man (Fragments 5-6) and an hypothetical thought experiment concerning the “Superman” (which naturally solicits comparison with Nietzsche’s übermensch) and his inability to overcome the multitude in a lawless state (Fragments 6 and 8); and a positive defense of law and justice, reflecting a pro-democratic philosophical perspective (Fragments 7-8) – a rara avis indeed in ancient philosophy.

Summary. Section (1) explains why the Derveni papyrus has often been misunderstood: among the main reasons are the wrong label «Orphic» and the confusion of two types of pantheism in Greek thought: the ethico- religious and the naturalistic. The Orphic hymn to Zeus is a classical example of the first type, the Derveni commentary – of the second which is incompatible with the immortality of the soul and afterlife. Section (2) deals with the literary genre, the general purpose and the hermeneutical method of the Derveni treatise, and draws a preliminary intellectual portrait of its author describing his peculiar features, a kind of a «composite image». In the section (3) we argue for Prodicus as the author of PDerv and present 18 testimonia on which this attribution is based. These include both the verbatim quotations with Prodicus’ name that find an exact correspondence in the text of PDerv and the common peculiar features of the language and style. In the section (4) we propose a reconstruction and interpretation of the text of the col. IV that contains a quotation from Heraclitus. This column is of primary importance for the understanding of the aims and allegorical method of the author in general as well as for his theory of names. Section (5) detects a neglected (polemical) peritrope of Prodicus’ benefaction theory of the origin of religion in Xenophon’s Memorabillia 4.4. In the section (6) the problems of the original title and date of the Derveni treatise are addressed, its relation to the Psephisma of Diopeithes (432 BC) as well as to the trial and death of Anaxagoras. The last section (7) clarifies our use of the term peritrope and explains the Derveni treatise as a polemical naturalistic peritrope of a religious text (Orphic theogony).
Key-terms: Ancient philosophy, Derveni papyrus, Prodicus, Sophists, Orphism, Orpheus, Anaxagoras, Archelaus, Heraclitus, theogony, origin of civilisation, origin of religion, origin of language, origin of mythology, allegory, psephisma of Diopeithes, ancient atheism, Greek Enlightenment, philosophy of language, ancient Athens.

In this paper a new reconstruction of the text and interpretation of the fragment 580 Luria / B 30 DK is proposed. The author refutes the widespread opinion going back to Reinhardt (1912), according to which the fragment speaks of ancient sages, and argues that those who pray in the open air and call ‘Zeus’ air, are Iranian magi performing a Zoroastrian ritual. The fragment comes from the ‘Small Diakosmos’ of Democritus, which expounded the history of civilization and the origin of religion. For the reconstruction of the ancient phase of religion, Democritus uses the principle “as among barbarians now, so among the Greeks in ancient times”, which was widespread in the epoch of Sophists. The worship of the elements, preserved by the Persians, the absence of temples and statues, is a relic of the ancient phase of religion, which was replaced in Greece by the worship of anthropomorphic gods invented by the poets, a religion of “fools” (axynetoi).

Expanded version of paper delivered at the International conference "Heraklit von Ephesos und seine Zeit" (7-12 Oktober 2013, Selcuk Municipality, Turkey), in:  „Heraklit im Kontext” hrsg. von Enrica Fantino, Ulrike Muss, Charlotte Schubert, Kurt Sier", Studia Praesocratica Bd. 8, De Gruyter, 2017, 231-267.

          A.Lebedev, Metaphor of Liber Naturae and Alphabet Analogy in Heraclitus' Logos-Fragments (Abstract)

  This article criticizes both the traditional metaphysical interpretation of Heraclitus’ notion of logos (logos as divine reason, universal law etc.) and the widespread verbalist interpretation (logos as the discource of Heraclitus humself). On the basis of the systematical study of Heraclitus’ metaphorical language a new interpretation is proposed that takes the phrase “this logos” in the beginning of Heraclitus’ book as a metaphor of “book of nature” with a referential meaning “Universe”. This interpretation was known in antiquity and is attested by a group of ancient sources including Plato (λόγος σημαίνει τὸ πᾶν) and the Stoic source of Philo Alexandrinus who ascribes to Heraclitus the notion of τὰ τῆς φύσεως γράμματα. The metaphor of book of nature is a part of a more complex metaphorical model based on the grammarical or alphabet analogy between speech or text (logos in grammatical sense)  and  the external world. In Greek grammar “logos” (both phonetic speech and written text)  is analyzed into “syllables”,  syllables into “letters”, stoicheia (later this term came to denote “elements”). In this analogy “letters” correspond to separate elementary opposites of the physical world, syllables to their combinations and “logos” to the total sum of all “syllables”, i.e. to the Universe. The metaphor of “book of nature” in Heraclitus has both epistemological-metaphysical, and ethical-political as well as a theological dimension.  First of all its purpose is to explain the fundamental thesis of Heraclitus’ metaphysics about the identity of opposites and the unity of the cosmos: all visible phenomena (τὰ φανερά) without a single exception form pairs of opposites which should be “joined together” in thought, and the resultig “syllables”  should be all incorporated into a single Logos which is the only true reality, τὸ ξυνόν. Reading the book of nature is like killing the lice: the more you “grap”, the less is left (against polymathia of the positive science of  the Milesians).  Wisdom consists in knowing all things as one (ἓν πάντα εἰδέναι keeping the MSS reading εἰδέναι). At the same time it contains a hidden polemics against the mechanistic physics of the Milesians (Anaximander). The physical cosmos should be “read” and interpreted like a book rather than explained by mechanistic causes. It has not been produced by a blind vortex of the dead matter, but created by the divine fire endowed with consciousness and providential reason. When interpreted correctly it displays the Cosmopolis or the City of Zeus perfectly governed by the divine Mind (Gnome). The Cosmopolis is the divine paradigm for ideal legislation in the human world. Polytheism and democracy (the rule of “many”) go “against nature” and therefore should be replaced by monotheism and the rule of “one the best”, i.e. philosopher-king. Heraclitus can be ragarded as the author of the first Greek political utopia as well as the proponent of the first consistent and well-argued theory of natural law. Heraclitus’ book was written during or after the Ionian revolt (499 – 494 BC) and contained an appeal to Ionian Greeks to overcome the local separatism of the multiple city-states and to create a unfied federal Greek state in order to fight against the Achaemenid empire. The unifying common cult, accordung to Heraclitus, had to become that of Apollo the Sun. The words “attending not to mine logos…” (but to the logos of the Universe, i.e. to divine command) in the incipit of Heraclitus’ book is a prophetic formula: Heraclitus speaks as a prophet of Apollo.

La tesi tenta di studiare l'opera teofrastea del De sensibus, importante testimonianza di scritto di ricerca all'interno del Peripato. Nei tre capitoli della tesi ho affrontato i problemi della tradizione manoscritta del testo, ho compiuto uno studio sulla teoria della percezione in Aristotele, Teofrasto e Stratone, ho analizzato l'impianto dialettico che struttura il testo del trattato e ho studiato il concetto di "endoxon". Infine ho interpretato il contenuto dossografico dell'opera, proponendo alcune interpretazioni originali per la comprensione delle dottrine dei pensatori presenti nel De sensibus. In appendice compare la mia traduzione in italiano, basata sul testo edito da Diels nei Doxographi Graeci.

The proposed book is dedicated to the theme of love, which was first and completely sung by the ancient Greeks and Romans in different genres of prose. The book considers not only conjugal, sexual love, but also friendship and love between parents and children. Excerpts from the original works of ancient Greek authors and their translations are presented in this publication in diachronic and in genre unity. The first section contains excerpts from ancient Greek and Roman historical prose. The second section, representing texts and translations from Democritus to Plotinus, reveals the specifics and features of the explication of love in ancient philosophy. Also in this publication are detailed studies on the detailed coverage of love in the ancient philosophical tradition.

The presented book will be useful for teachers and students of humanities, philosophers, philologists, historians, translators, cultural experts, and will enrich everyone who is interested in antiquity.

It seems to be crystal clear that Spinoza cannot be regarded an atomist given the fact that the Dutch philosopher seems to deny, in his early as well as in his later work, the existence of atoms and vacuum. This paper argues, however, that there are nevertheless elements from atomistic philosophies in his philosophy, and that they are very important in his ontology, his theory of affects, his epistemology, his views on life and death, and in his ethics.

Βασιλείου-Δαμβέργης, Αλέξανδρος-Νεκτάριος, Ιω. «Η πολιτική φιλοσοφία του Δημοκρίτου και η ελληνική πόλις-κράτος: συγκριτική θεώρηση και επίκαιρες προεκτάσεις για την Ελλάδα και την Ευρώπη του 21ου αιώνα», Πρακτικά 3ου Πανελληνίου Συνεδρίου Πολιτικής Φιλοσοφίας, Θεσσαλονίκη 27-29 Απριλίου 2018, Καβάλα 2020, σ. 49-61.

The present collection of eight essays, earlier versions of which have appeared separately – several of them now expanded and revised in this edition – offers a sustained analysis of conceptual connections between (i) the metaphysics and epistemology of Parmenides of Elea and (ii) corresponding themes in the philosophies of other Presocratics. The book’s central part explores how the early philosophers of Greece became progressively sensitized to the importance of such concepts as “form”, “type”, “structure”, “arrangement”. This historical process unfolded in large measure because the cited concepts, importing as they do plurality and
differentiation, are conspicuously rejected by Parmenides as problematic. Accordingly, the book also provides a narrative of the “discovery of Form” in early Greek philosophy.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Author’s Prefatory Note
Prefazione (M. Pulpito)
Acknowledgments
Abbreviations

Part I: Preliminaries and Fundamentals
1. Presocratic Origins of the Principle that There Are No Origins from Nothing
2. “Nothing” as “Not-Being”: Some Literary Contexts That Bear on Plato and also on Parmenides

Part II: The Discovery of Form
3. Form as Shape, Array, Order: Earliest Approaches and Eleatic Scruples
4. Quality, Structure, Emergence: in Anaxagoras, Philolaus, Democritus, and in Empedocles
5. The Concept of the Universal in Some Later pre-Platonic Cosmologists
6. Democritus on the Distinction Between Universals and Particulars: the Relevance of Fragments B124 and B165
7. Intrinsic and Relational Properties of Atoms in the Democritean Ontology

Part III: The Sophist’s Demurrer
8. Gorgias on the Function of Language

Bibliography
Indexes

The following study is considering Democritus' suicide in De rerum natura. In his list of great dead men (III, 1024-1052), Lucretius is mentioning Democritus' name just before the one of Epicurus. He is therefore paying a tribute to the founder of atomism and implicitly admits the philosophical debt of Epicurus towards him. However, the mors uolontaria theme is contributing to fade Democritus' praise, as Epicurians had a severe judgement concerning suicide. That is the reason why, even if Democritus' figure is particularly enhanced by the style Lucretius is using, it is put in the shade by Epicurus, whose life offers a perfect example of wisdom.

Recorrido crítico por la figura y la obra de Hecateo de Abdera, escritor de comienzos de la época helenística (entre finales del s. IV y principios del s. III a.C.). Presentado como discípulo de Pirrón (Diógenes Laercio IX 69), fue autor de monografías histórico-etnográficas de tendencia filosófica (de las que sólo conservamos fragmentos) que ejercieron una gran influencia tanto sobre la literatura utópica como sobre la literatura apologética judía de finales de la época helenística. Esquema del estudio: Bibliografía general. Ediciones del conjunto de los fragmentos. Ediciones de los fragmentos sobre los judíos. Lugar de origen. Cronología y datos biográficos. Obra. Dimensión filosófica. Pseudoepigrapha. Influencia.

Il presente saggio ha come oggetto l’intepretazione relativa alla figura e all’insegnamento del filosofo e medico presocatico Alcmeone di Crotone offerta da Luigia Achillea Stella negli anni Trenta del secolo scorso. Attraverso un’acuta analisi dell’evidenza a lui relativa, Alcmeone emerge dalle nebbie del primo pensiero greco come une delle più influenti e moderne personalità del suo tempo, le cui teorie esercitarono un enorme impatto nei due secoli a lui successivi fino a Platone e Aristotele.

This study focuses on the interpretation of the figure and the teaching of the Presocratic philosopher and physician Alcmaeon of Croton offered by Luigia Achillea Stella in the Thirties of the past century. Through her insightful analysis of the relevant evidence, Alcmaeon emerges from the shadows of early Greek thought as one of the most influencial and most modern personalities of his time, whose theories had a huge impact in the two subsequent centuries up to Plato and Aristotle.

What did the early Greek philosophers think about animals and their lives? How did they view plants? And, ultimately, what type of relationship did they envisage between all sorts of living beings? On these topics there is evidence of a prolonged investigation by several Presocratics. However, scholarship has paid little attention to these issues and to the surprisingly “modern” development they received in Presocratics’ doctrines. This book fills this lacuna through a detailed (and largely unprecedented) analysis of the extant evidence.

The volume includes also the first extensive collection of the ancient sources pertaining to living beings and life in early Greek philosophy, organized chronologically and thematically.

In this second revised edition I corrected the typos, added a few sources, and engaged with some relevant new bibliography, refining and further supporting, at specific points, the positions argued for in the first edition.

This dissertation proposes a reconstitution of the elementary aspects and of the processes of the atomist chemistry of Leucippus and Democritus from the testimony of Aristotle in his treatise On generation and corruption (GC), which contains the earliest and largest testimonies regarding ancient Greek atomism. An initial difficulty lies in establishing the degree of reliability of the Aristotelian testimony, for this author cannot be considered as a historian of philosophy in strict sense. On the contrary, Aristotle has his own objectives, which, in the case of GC, involve advancing his own chemical theory and stand against contemporary theories that do not include atomism. Once the necessary qualifications and reservations regarding the intentions and biases of the Aristotelian testimony are made, especially in relation to the origins of the atomic theory, this dissertation proceeds to an exam of other aspects revealed by Aristotle’s testimony, which allow the assembly of a fairly complex framework about the atomist chemistry, from its elementary aspects to the how these aspects articulate themselves to form compounds and raise their sensible characteristics.

One striking oddity about Democritus and Epicurus is that, even though Epicurus' theory of perception is largely the same as that of Democritus, Democritus and his followers draw skeptical conclusions from this theory of perception, whereas Epicurus declares that all perceptions are true or real. I believe that the dispute between Democritus and Epicurus stems from a question over what sort of ontological status should be assigned to sensible qualities. In this paper, I address three questions: 1) Why were Democritus and his followers skeptical? 2) How did Epicurus modify Democritus' metaphysics in order to avoid these skeptical conclusions? and 3) How successful was he?
1) I argue that Democritus allows only the intrinsic properties of atoms into his ontology, and then runs into skeptical difficulties because of the relativity of perception. 2) I propose that Epicurus modifies Democritus' ontology by allowing dispositional and relational properties as real properties of bodies. Sensible qualities are conceptualized as dispositional properties of bodies to cause certain experiences in percipients. 3) I argue that Epicurus does not run into the same problems as Democritus. Finally, I consider how my interpretation of Epicurus' ontology helps to make sense of his claim that all perceptions are alethes--'true' or 'real.'

ARISTÓTELES EL HOMBRE DE GENIO Y LA MELANCOLÍA. PROBLEMA XXX, I.
Publicado por Quaderns Crema, S. A. Barcelona, abril de 1996.

SOBRE LA RISA DE DEMÓCRITO
(Versión griego-francés en: É. Litreé Oeuvres Compléts D’Hippocrate. Vol.9, Paris 1861, pp.349-381). [Cartas pseudo-hipocráticas nº17: Hipócrates a Damageto].

Corpuscularianism (from the Latin corpusculum meaning 'little body') refers to a set of theories that explain natural transformations as the result of the interaction of particles (minima naturalia, partes exiles, partes parvae, particulae, semina). It differs from atomism in that corpuscles are usually endowed with a property of their own and are further divisible, whilst atoms are neither. Although often associated with the emergence of early modern mechanical philosophy, and especially with the names of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), René Descartes (1596-1650) and Robert Boyle (1627-1691), corpuscularian theories can be found throughout the history of Western philosophy. As distinct from physical and geometrical atomism, corpuscularianism originates with Aristotle (384-322 B. C.) and it remained vital, both in continuation of and in opposition to his teachings, until the late seventeenth century. A fundamental change occurring in the early modern period was that corpuscles were postulated as a necessary aspect of the mechanical model of the world and thus endowed with distinctly geometrical properties, such as shape, quantity, and weight.

Este ensayo compara el potencial explicativo de las principales filosofías materialistas y dualistas de la Antigua Grecia a la luz de las explicaciones científicas contemporáneas. Explora el problema metafísica de la existencia, específicamente, ¿de qué está compuesta la existencia? Propone que la filosofía materialista de la Antigua Grecia pudo haber sentado las bases metafísicas de la ciencia moderna. Se intentan responder las siguientes preguntas ¿Cuál es el origen del pensamiento materialista? ¿Cómo surge y evoluciona la filosofía materialista? ¿Qué papel jugó el materialismo filosófico en el advenimiento de la ciencia moderna?
Para ello se hace une breve recuento de algunas posturas metafísicas materialistas y se contrastan con explicaciones dualistas de la realidad.

L’on pourrait ainsi comprendre valablement l’argument onfrayien selon lequel il n’existe pas de transcendance, mais dans la visée démocritéenne d’un matérialisme non- réductionniste : il y aurait, selon les deux héritages des philosophes présocratiques que sont Anaximandre et Démocrite, les conditions d’émergence et de possibilité d’une épistémologie originairement matérialiste – fondée ontologiquement dans l’être, l’une atomiste (Onfray), l’autre néoténique (Simondon).