William Wians

_Physics_ VIII 1 presents a multi-stage argument concluding that there was not, nor ever will be, a time when there was not nor will not be motion (_Phys_. VIII 1.252b5-6). In this paper I shall argue that chapter’s argument is dialectical in a precise way. My claim will be that _Physics_ VIII 1 is apodeictically conditioned – its structure must be understood in terms of the theory of science in the _Posterior Analytics_ and the methods for establishing principles in the _Topics. Physics_ VIII 1 is not demonstrative in a straightforward deductive way, but is structured with the nature of a scientific _genos_ and requirements for scientific knowledge always in mind. Aristotle begins by asking about the eternality of motion, posing a pair of conceptual opposites that form a mutually exclusive and logically exhaustive dichotomy. But the initial statement of the dichotomy turns out to require substantial unpacking, leading eventually to a single remaining option, that motion in the cosmos is eternal. But the status of this conclusion itself turns out to be problematic. Put in terms of Aristotle’s theory of science, all _phusiologoi_ made motion a posit or hypothesis, whether they regarded motion as eternal or not. Though Aristotle has rejected one option, at a deeper level, he finds all previous accounts lacking. Because motion is fundamental to all coming-to-beand-passing-away, what is at stake is the status and adequacy of a principle governing the whole science of nature (_tên theôrian pasan_; 250b17). In this way, the chapter prepares for the subsequent investigation into the principles of cosmic motion.

In his fine paper on the aims of Aristotle’s methods, Sean Kirkland suggests that Aristotle practiced a proto-phenomenological approach to truth. In doing so, Kirkland reminds us of the lived dimension of Aristotle’s philosophizing, an active and ongoing response to the world that begins long before the emergence of philosophical concepts and systems. I am in sympathy with much of what Kirkland argues. However, I think more needs to be said about the relationship between dialectic and demonstration, and about the precise nature of dialectic itself, which Aristotle characterizes as a form of deductive argument, rather than the loose collection of inductive techniques implied by Kirkland. Aristotle shows a remarkable sensitivity to the complexity of searching for principles, and the variety of means by which the search is conducted, implying a need for a discourse on methods, though he himself supplies it only unsystematically.

Essays on Greek philosophy and literature from Homer and Hesiod to Aristotle. In Logoi and Muthoi, William Wians builds on his earlier volume Logos and Muthos, highlighting the richness and complexity of these terms that were once set firmly in opposition to one another as reason versus myth or rationality versus irrationality. It was once common to think of intellectual history representing a straightforward progression from mythology to rationality. These volumes, however, demonstrate the value of taking the two together, opening up and analyzing a range of interactions, reactions, tensions, and ambiguities arising between literary and philosophical forms of discourse, including philosophical themes in works not ordinarily considered in the canon of Greek philosophical texts. This new volume considers such topics as the pre-philosophical origins of Anaximander’s calendar, the philosophical significance of public performance and claims of poetic inspiration, and the complex role of mythic figures (including perhaps Socrates) in Plato. Taken together, the essays offer new approaches to familiar texts and open up new possibilities for understanding the roles and relationships between muthos and logos in ancient Greek thought. “This is a stellar effort. The essays are all of extremely high quality and interest. The scholarship is rigorous and the content is innovative. The conception of the book is highly original, well-grounded, and well-thought-out. William Wians’s work as a scholar and as an editor has been consistently first-rate, and with this volume he has surpassed himself.” — Rose M. Cherubin, George Mason University.