Christopher Healow

In “Aristotle, Empedocles, and the Unity of All Things,” Michael Shaw has provided a novel and intriguing account of Empedocles’ cosmology, wherein he attempts to outline a few ways in which interpreters (beginning with Aristotle) have failed to capture fully Empedocles’ most important ideas. Central to Shaw’s account of Empedoclean cosmology is a distinctive interpretation of the life cycle of the cosmos that presupposes that the four elements that make up everything and the twin forces that govern them—Love and Strife—interact in ways quite different than often is supposed. The upshot of this is that Shaw thinks Empedocles’ theory may not fall prey to the Aristotelian critiques designed to undermine it because they are based on a misunderstanding of his actual view. While I am sympathetic to his impulse to defend Empedocles against Aristotle’s attacks, I am not convinced that Shaw’s reading should be widely adopted, both because I highly doubt that the depiction of Empedoclean cosmology developed by Shaw is Empedocles’ own and because I think the traditional interpretation of Empedocles’ cosmology fares better against Aristotelian critiques than Shaw’s interpretation of it does. Such are the contentions I intend to show in what follows.

The Cratylus’ main concern is to outline and evaluate the competing views of language held by two characters, Hermogenes and Cratylus, who disagree about whether convention or nature (respectively) are the source of onomastic correctness. Hermogenes has been thought to hold two radically different views by different scholars, one extreme conventionalism whereby all names are correct relative to their speakers, and another modest conventionalism according to which distinct naming actions – establishment and employment – explain why some names are correct and others are not, depending on the speaker. In this paper I argue that, though Hermogenes ultimately endorses a conventionalism of the latter kind, it is a mistake to assign him this position from the outset. Rather, to understand the structure of the conversation about conventionalism, we must view Hermogenes’ position, and Socrates’ understanding of it, as developing instead of settled. For it is only by discussing the matter that Hermogenes comes to express a moderate conventionalist view and Socrates comes to appreciate the position Hermogenes actually holds.