Christof Rapp

Just as Aristotelian dialectic sharply distinguishes between real and fallacious arguments, Aristotelian rhetoric distinguishes between real and fallacious enthymemes. For this reason Aristotle’s Rhetoric includes a chapter – chapter II.24 – that is exclusively devoted to what Aristotle calls “topoi” of fallacious enthymemes. Thus, the purpose of this chapter seems to be equivalent to the purpose of the treatise Sophistici Elenchi, which attempts to give a complete list of all possible types of fallacious arguments. It turns out that, although the Rhetoric’s list of fallacious types of rhetorical arguments basically resembles the list from the Sophistici Elenchi, there also are some striking differences. The paper tries to account for the relation between these two, more or less independent, Aristotelian approaches to the phenomenon of fallacious arguments. Can one of these two lists be seen as the basic or original one? And what is the point in deviating from this basic list? Are all deviations occasioned by the specific contexts of the rhetorical use on the one hand, and the dialectical on the other? Or do the two lists display different logical assumptions? Even an only tentative answer to this set of questions will help to clarify another but closely related scholarly problem, namely the relation between the Rhetoric’s list of topoi for real enthymemes and the Topics’ list of topoi for real dialectical arguments. It will also help to account for the general place of fallacious arguments within Aristotle’s dialectic-based approach the rhetoric.

In der antiken Philosophie wird das Altern in verschiedenen Kontexten thematisiert. Regelmäßig setzen sich Philosophen mit den sprichwörtlichen Lasten des Alters auseinander und kontrastieren dabei die körperliche und die geistige Entwicklung, da gewisse körperliche Gebrechen mit einem geistig-intellektuellen Wohlergehen im fortgeschrittenen Alter durchaus vereinbar sind. Auch der von Philosophen unterschiedlicher Prägung hochgeschätzte Zustand der Weisheit wird im Allgemeinen eher mit älteren als jüngeren Menschen in Verbindung gebracht.

Aristoteles nimmt in seinen Werken häufig auf die Natur und die Eigentümlichkeiten des Menschen Bezug. Auch macht er häufig »anthropologische« Aussagen in dem Sinn, dass er beschreibt, was Menschen unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen »für gewöhnlich« zukommt, z. B. was ihnen auf verschiedenen Altersstufen widerfährt, was reiche von armen, mächtige von ohnmächtigen Menschen, Völker im warmen Süden von Völkern im kalten Norden unterscheidet. In seinem umfangreichen zoologischen Werk geht er immer wieder von Beobachtungen z. B. zur Anatomie des Menschen aus, weil der Mensch für Menschen das bekannteste Lebewesen sei. In den Schriften zur Ethik und politischen Philosophie spielen Aussagen zum Menschen bzw. zur Eigenart der menschlichen Seele eine wesentliche Rolle, u. a. weil Aristoteles die Tugend als vortrefflichen Zustand der spezifisch menschlichen Seele konzipiert.

Este artículo se ocupa de dar una respuesta a la pregunta de si, y hasta qué punto, la philia (amistad), tal como es tratada por Aristóteles en Retórica II 4, puede considerarse una genuina emoción tal como son, por ejemplo, el miedo y la ira. El autor identifica y discute, en tal sentido, tres anomalías en la definición y el tratamiento de la philia (y el verbo asociado, philein) en este texto, que podrían inclinar hacia una respuesta negativa a la pregunta inicial. No obstante, cada una de estas anomalías es analizada y explicada en términos de las notas específicas de la philia, para mostrar que, en efecto, la presentación de Retórica II 4 permite considerar de todos modos a la amistad como una genuina emoción.

Does Aristotle's terminology provide some guidance when we inquire into the origins of the notion of thing? Naturally, one might think of Aristotle's notion of being, which is meant to capture everything that is. However, ‘being’ in Aristotle seems to be significantly broader than what we take to be a ‘thing’. I will take up a thesis introduced and defended by Rainer-Wolfgang Mann, namely that Aristotle is actually the inventor of the notion of thing in that his Categories conceptualized the distinction between properties on the one hand and their bearers, individual substances, on the other. It will be argued though that Aristotle, when conceptualizing things as bearers of properties, depicts a notion that is actually stronger than what we usually mean by ‘thing’.

In the epistemology of his middle period, Plato repeatedly describes the alleged ‘intellection of true reality’ in terms of sight, vision, illumination, or touch. Does this show more than Plato’s preference for optic and haptic metaphors? Should we assume that this goes back to a specific reason to be found in his underlying epistemological position? On the traditional reading, Plato actually wants to defend a sort of intuitionism. According to this still wide-spread reading, he claims that there is a very particular way of grasping Forms: Philosophers manage to come into a sort of direct contact with intelligible objects. Intellection is thus conceived as a quasi-visual presence of intelligible Forms. In our contribution, we want to challenge this interpretation by raising several objections against it. Surprisingly, there exists a close parallel in Aristotelian scholarship: Although Aristotle’s epistemology is built on considerably different foundations, there is an interpretative tradition according to which one has to assume a strict discontinuity between the methodical procedure and the intellection of the highest epistemic objects. As for Plato, we want to refuse an interpretation of Aristotle based on a concept of intuition characterized by the following features: Intuition is a specific way of gaining knowledge. It is independent of empirical conditions and leads to apriori knowledge. It consists of some experience of evidence or is accompanied by it. Knowledge gained by this kind of intuition does not need any further argument or justification

In der modernen philosophischen Handlungstheorie finden sich nur wenige Theoretiker, die sich in ihren zentralen Punkten explizit auf bestimmte Thesen des Aristoteles berufen. Roderick Chisholm, der versucht hat, durch direkten Import der aristotelischen These vom unbewegten Beweger das Determinismusproblem in der Handlungstheorie kausaltheoretisch zu lösen, ist eine Ausnahme von dieser Regel. Gleichwohl war und ist Aristoteles in vielen handlungstheoretischen Debatten gegenwärtig. Sein Einfluss wird sichtbar besonders bei den drei führend an der Ausbildung der modernen analytischen Handlungstheorie beteiligten Personen nämlich Gilbert Ryle, Elizabeth Anscombe und Donald Davidson.

In De caelo II.12 Aristotle considers the following problem. If the sphere of the fixed stars shows only one (kind of) movement it would be reasonable to expect that the number of movements of the other celestial bodies would proportionally increase with the increasing distance from the outermost sphere. However, the contrary happens: while the planets, which are placed between the outermost sphere and sun and moon, exhibit many and various movements, the sun and the moon perform only a few movements. In dealing with this problem Aristotle surprises his readers with an alarming comparison: when playing dice, he says, it is most difficult to make ten thousand successful throws in a series, while it is comparatively easy to make one or two of them. So the reader is faced with the image of a game of dice at a crucial point in Aristotle’s account of superlunary movement, which, apart from that, is supposed to be the embodiment of well-orderedness and regularity.The paper works out the whole comparison to which the mentioning of the game of dice belongs. It offers a reading of the corresponding passages that avoids the perplexing consequence that certain celestial bodies move just like dice.

Aristoteles wurde geboren, arbeitete und starb. Mit diesen Worten begann Heidegger seine Vorlesung über Aristoteles. Über das Leben des Philosophen liegen uns nur wenige verlässliche Informationen vor, sein Werk ist jedoch im Wesentlichen überliefert. Er nahm damit maßgeblich Einfluss auf sämtliche Wissenschaften von der Philosophie und Literatur über die Biologie bis zur Kosmologie. Das Handbuch gibt Einblick in sämtliche Werke Aristoteles , behandelt ausführlich die Rezeption und macht mit wiederkehrenden Begriffen wie Glück, Tugend, Freundschaft, Polis und Verfassung vertraut.