Between Saying and Doing: Aristotle and Speusippus on the Evaluation of Pleasure.Wei Cheng -2024 -Apeiron (3):391-426.detailsThis study aims to provide a coherent new interpretation of the notorious anti-hedonism of Speusippus, Plato’s nephew and the second scholarch of the Academy, by reconsidering all the relevant sources concerning his attitude toward pleasure—sources that seem to be in tension or even incompatible with each other. By reassessing Speusippus’ anti-hedonism and Aristotle’s response, it also sheds new light on the Academic debate over pleasure in which he and Aristotle participated: This debate is not merely concerned with the truth and (...) credibility of the arguments for or against hedonism; there are also notable differences among the participants in their understanding of the practical significance of evaluating hedonic experiences. This new interpretation allows us to better understand Aristotle’s selective representation of the intra-school debate and some neglected features of his responses to different interlocutors. (shrink)
The Chicken or the Egg? Aristotle on Speusippus’ Reasons to Deny the Principle is (the) Good.Giulia De Cesaris -2023 -Apeiron 56 (1):105-130.detailsIn 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. (shrink)
Speusipps Reise nach Makedonien.Tobias Hirsch -2023 -Hermes 151 (3):373-378.detailsA journey to Macedonia, which, according to Diogenes Laertius and Flavius Philostratus, Speusippus, the Academy’s head after the death of Plato, is said to have made in order to attend the wedding of Cassander, the later Macedonian king, has puzzled scholars long since. They either consider it a story of pure fiction denying its historical relevance or by conveniently altering Cassander’s year of birth try to reconcile both events. This article argues for changing ‘Cassander’ into ‘Asander’, as both names were (...) often confused in the manuscript tradition of various authors. The most fitting bearer of this name later became the satrap of Caria, was a relative of Philip’s right hand Parmenio, and had a suitable age for marriage in the late 340’s BC, the likely time of Speusippus’ journey. The hypothesis underpins the story’s historical accuracy and sheds light on the relations between the Academy and the Macedonian court after Plato’s death. (shrink)
Speusippus, teleology and the metaphysics of value: Theophrastus’ Metaphysics 11a18–26.Wei Cheng -2020 -Journal of Hellenic Studies 140:143-175.detailsThis paper reexamines Theophrastus’ Metaphysics 11a18–26, an obscure testimony about Speusippus, the second head of the Platonic Academy. As opposed to the traditional interpretation, which takes this passage as Theophrastus’ polemic against Speusippus’ doctrine of value, I argue that he here dialectically takes advantage of, rather than launches an attack on, the Platonist. Based on this new reading, I further propose a revision and a reassessment of the ‘gloomy metaphysics’ of Speusippus which will shed new light on his ethics.
Aristotle and Eudoxus on the Argument from Contraries.Wei Cheng -2020 -Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 102 (4):588-618.detailsThe debate over the value of pleasure among Eudoxus, Speusippus, and Aristotle is dramatically documented by the Nicomachean Ethics, particularly in the dialectical pros-and-cons concerning the so-called argument from contraries. Two similar versions of this argument are preserved at EN VII. 13, 1153b1–4, and X. 2, 1172b18–20. Many scholars believe that the argument at EN VII is either a report or an appropriation of the Eudoxean argument in EN X. This essay aims to revise this received view. It will explain (...) why these two arguments differ in premises, contents and purposes, and why these distinctions matter for a proper assessment of Aristotle’s understanding of pleasure and pain in general and his dialectical art in particular. (shrink)
Dyschereia and Aporia: The Formation of a Philosophical Term.Wei Cheng -2018 -TAPA 148 (1):75-110.detailsPlato’s nephew Speusippus has been widely accepted as the historical person behind the mask of the anti-hedonists in Phlb. 42b–44c. This hypothesis is supported by, inter alia, the link between Socrates’ char- acterization of them as δυσχερεῖς and the frequent references of δυσχέρεια as ἀπορία to Speusippus in Aristotle’s Metaphysics MN. This study argues against assigning any privileged status to Speusippus in the assimilation of δυσχέρεια with ἀπορία. Instead, based on a comprehensive survey of how δυσχερ- words were used in (...) classical antiquity, the semantic shift of δυσχέρεια can be explained in an alternative way. (shrink)
Speusippus and Xenocrates on the Pursuit and Ends of Philosophy.Phillip Sidney Horky -2017 - In Harold Tarrant, Danielle A. Layne, Dirk Baltzly & François Renaud,Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity. Leiden: Brill. pp. 29-45.detailsThe philosophical practices undertaken in Plato's Academy remain, in the words of Cherniss, a 'riddle'. Yet surviving accounts of the views of the first two scholarchs of Plato's Academy after his death, Speusippus and Xenocrates, reveal a sophisticated engagement with their teacher's ideas concerning the pursuit of knowledge and the ends of philosophy. Speusippus and Xenocrates transform Plato's views on epistemology and happiness, and thereby help to lay the groundwork for the transformation of philosophy in the Hellenistic era.
Греческая арифмология: Пифагор или платон?Leonid Zhmud -2017 -Schole 11 (2):428-459.detailsThis essay considers the origins of the arithmological genre, the first specimen of which was an anonymous Neopythagorean treatise of the first century BCE. Arithmology as a special genre of philosophical writings dealing with the properties of the first ten numbers should be distinguished from number symbolism, which is a universal cultural phenomenon related to individual significant numbers. As our analysis shows, the philosophical foundations of arithmology were laid down in the treatise of Plato’s successor Speusippus On Pythagorean Numbers, who (...) relied on the Platonic doctrine of the ten ideal numbers, whereas in ancient Pythagoreanism arithmological notions, unlike number symbolism, are not attested. In the first century BCE, an epoch of revival of Platonism and Aristotelianism, Speusippus’ ideas received a second birth, thus marking the beginning of arithmology as a popular genre. (shrink)
Remove from this list
Export citation
Bookmark
5 citations Plato and Pythagoreanism.Phillip Sidney Horky -2013 - Oxford University Press USA.detailsWas Plato a Pythagorean? Plato's students and earliest critics thought so, but scholars since the nineteenth century have been more skeptical. With this probing study, Phillip Sidney Horky argues that a specific type of Pythagorean philosophy, called "mathematical" Pythagoreanism, exercised a decisive influence on fundamental aspects of Plato's philosophy. The progenitor of mathematical Pythagoreanism was the infamous Pythagorean heretic and political revolutionary Hippasus of Metapontum, a student of Pythagoras who is credited with experiments in harmonics that led to innovations in (...) mathematics. The innovations of Hippasus and other mathematical Pythagoreans, including Empedocles of Agrigentum, Epicharmus of Syracuse, Philolaus of Croton, and Archytas of Tarentum, presented philosophers like Plato with novel ways to reconcile empirical knowledge with abstract mathematical theories. Plato and Pythagoreanism demonstrates how mathematical Pythagoreanism established many of the fundamental philosophical questions Plato dealt with in his central dialogues, including Cratylus, Phaedo, Republic, Timaeus, and Philebus. In the process, it also illuminates the historical significance of the mathematical Pythagoreans, a group whose influence on the development of philosophical and scientific methods has been obscured since late antiquity. The picture that results is one in which Plato inherits mathematical Pythagorean method only to transform it into a powerful philosophical argument about the essential relationships between the cosmos and the human being. (shrink)
Speusippo:Frammenti.Margherita Isnardi Parente &Marcello Isnardi Parente -1980 - Napoli: Bibliopolis. Edited by Margherita Isnardi Parente.detailsÈ questa la prima raccolta completa dei frammenti relativi a questo autore, comprendente anche testimonianze biografiche che precedentemente non erano state prese in considerazione. This is the first comprehensive collection of fragments related to this author, including biographical accounts that had not previously been considered.