Erwin Sonderegger

Title descriptionDie Rezeption der Texte von Aristoteles in verschiedenen Welten hat zu Umformungen geführt, von denen manche noch heute als Meinung des Aristoteles selbst behauptet werden. Wenn es möglich ist, diese aus verschiedenen Welten herkommenden Umgestaltungen ausdrücklich zu machen, können sie methodisch ausgeschaltet werden. Beispiele solcher Sedimente der Rezeption betreffen zentrale Themen, beispielsweise, dass Aristoteles eine Substanz-Metaphysik entwickelt habe, aus welcher letztlich eine theologische Ausrichtung oder mindestens ein theologischer Höhepunkt folge. Dass dies eine der Wirkungen der durch verschiedene pseudo-aristotelische Texte bestimmten Rezeption ist, wird heute kaum mehr wahrgenommen, weil die moderne Lektüre des Corpus Aristotelicum schon entsprechend gesteuert ist. Die vorliegende Studie versucht an Hand der Kommentare von Albertus Magnus und von Thomas von Aquin zu Metaphysik XII diese Wirkung der Rezeption zu belegen. Ein Nebenprodukt der Arbeit besteht in der Einsicht in den Paradigmenwechsel in der Theologie bei den zwei Genannten.The reception of Aristotle’s texts in different worlds has led to transformations, some of which are still claimed today as the opinions of Aristotle himself. If it is possible to make these transformations coming from different worlds explicit, they can be methodically eliminated. Examples of such reception sediments concern central themes, for example that Aristotle developed a metaphysics of substance, from which a theological orientation or at least a theological climax ultimately follows. The fact that this is one of the effects of the reception determined by various pseudo-Aristotelian texts is hardly noticed today because the modern reading of the Corpus Aristotelicum is already steered accordingly.The present study attempts to demonstrate this effect of reception using the commentaries of Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas on Metaphysics XII. A by-product of the work is the insight into the paradigm shift in theology among the two mentioned.

Dieses Kapitel ist Teil eines umfangreicheren Buches, das sich mit dem Abbau der Sedimente beschäftigt, welche einzelne Rezeptionen des Werks von Aristoteles hinterlassen haben. Der das Mittelalter betreffende Teil ist 2024 als Band 61 der BOCHUMER STUDIEN ZUR PHILOSOPHIE bei JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY, AMSTERDAM / PHILADELPHIA erschienen unter dem Titel: "ZUR MITTELALTERLICHEN HERKUNFT EINIGER THEOREME IN DER MODERNEN ARISTOTELES-INTERPRETATION, Eine Fallstudie anhand der Kommentare von Albertus Magnus und Thomas von Aquin zu Aristoteles’ Metaphysik Λ." Das Material dazu kann bei philpapers heruntergeladen werden. Der Teil, zu dem dieses Kapitel gehört, befasst sich mit der Rezeption von Aristoteles im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Es wird noch einige Zeit dauern, bis es fertig wird. In diesem Kapitel versuche ich, einen Rückblick auf die früher heftig geführte Diskussion um die sog. Ungeschriebene Lehre Platons zu geben; es werden die Motive dafür, eine solche zu vermuten angegeben, die Quellenlage wird diskutiert, der Zusammenhang der späten Schriften Platons mit den frühen des Aristoteles wird dargestellt, vor allem wird der Charakter der Philosophie dargestellt, den die Vertreter der Ungeschriebenen Lehre bei Platon voraussetzen.

Der hier vorliegende Text befasst sich mit der Rezeption von Aristoteles’ Metaphysik Λ bei Albertus Magnus und Thomas von Aquin. Er stellt das Material bereit für die Auswertung, die als Band 61 der Bochumer Studien zur Philosophie unter dem Titel Zur mittelalterlichen Herkunft einiger Theoreme in der modernen Aristoteles-Interpretation Eine Fallstudie anhand der Kommentare von Albertus Magnus und Thomas von Aquin zu Aristoteles’ Metaphysik Λ, bei John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam / Philadelphia 2024, erscheinen wird. **************************** This text deals with the reception of Aristotle's Metaphysics Λ by Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas. It provides the material for the analysis, which will be published as volume 61 of the BochumerStudien zur Philosophie under the title "Zur mittelalterlichenHerkunft einiger Theoreme in der modernenAristoteles-Interpretation. Eine Fallstudie anhand derKommentare von Albertus Magnus und Thomas vonAquin zu Aristoteles' Metaphysik Λ," by John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam / Philadelphia, 2024.

Wissen wir, wer oder was unseren Lebensgang bestimmt? Wissen wir überhaupt, was in uns und ausserhalb von uns abläuft? Das einzig Gewisse ist unser Tod, doch was hilft die Gewissheit unseres Todes, wenn ungewiss bleibt, wann er kommt? Unsere Bedürfnisse kennen wir, aber wo sind die Grenzen der Befriedigung? Wenn unsicher geworden ist, wer oder was das bestimmt, was faktisch geschieht, wenn die Welt uns körperlich und seelisch bedrängt und die einzige Gewissheit in der Zukunft unser Tod ist, wenn uns unsere Bedürfnisse und die Grenzen ihrer Befriedigung unklar geworden sind, dann hilft nichts mehr als das Nachdenken – das Nachdenken über unsere Natur und ihren Platz in der Welt, über die Hierarchie unserer Bedürfnisse, darüber, wie wir das Gelingen unseres Lebens mit Vernunft und Gerechtigkeit in Einklang bringen. Kurz, es hilft nichts als der Epikureismus. ********** Do we know who or what determines the course of our lives? Do we even know what is going on inside and outside of us? The only certain thing is our death, but what good is the certainty of our death if it remains uncertain when it will come? We know our needs, but where are the limits to their fulfilment? When it has become uncertain who or what determines what actually happens, when the world oppresses us physically and emotionally and the only certainty in the future is our death, when our needs and the limits of their fulfilment have become unclear to us, then nothing helps more than reflection - reflection on our nature and its place in the world, thinking about the hierarchy of our needs, about how we can harmonise the success of our lives with reason and justice. In short, nothing helps but Epicureanism.

Today, there are many natural sciences, one of which is physics, but there is no science in the sense of a Theory of Nature. In our everyday life, the opinion is rightly held that there is only one nature, but whether this opinion stands up to reflection is questionable. When we apply the speculation that Aristotle developed in Metaphysics Λ to his Physics, we will see, that Aristotle has developed a Theory of Nature that consists in posing the question of the being of the natural being (Frage nach dem Sein des Naturseienden). The standardinterpretation wants us to believe that Aristotle founded a substance metaphysics with a corresponding theology, and that he practised natural science. But, our hermeneutical situation could lead us to an "Aristotle today" and free us from old beliefs so that we, like Thomas Aquinas and others, could learn from a contemporary Aristotle as an immediate interlocutor. One of the learning points, for example, would be that questions are more crucial than new assertions, even if they are sophisticated, and that unassertive thinking (unbehauptendes Denken) in a topical attitude can lead us to insight into the multiplicity of worlds. This insight would have immediate consequences for our behaviour towards our co-inhabitants of our planet and towards our environment.

Proclus' Stoicheiosis Theologike has had an enormous impact on Christian theological and philosophical thought; it has had a decisive influence on the theological interpretation of Aristotle's Metaphysics. However, the impact was less on the text itself than on the 'excerpt' translated from Arabic into Latin with the title Liber de Causis, which, like the Theologia Aristotelis (a compilation of Plotinian texts), was considered authentically Aristotelian. It was only Thomas, thanks to Moerbeke's translation of the Stoicheiosis Theologike, who realised that the Liber de Causis was not a genuine Aristotelian text; nevertheless, he considered it to be fully compatible in meaning and intention with what Aristotle had thought and also used it accordingly in his argumentations. Although this was not the beginning of the theological reading of Aristotle's Metaphysics, this circumstance has completely cemented this conviction until today. The conviction that Proclus' text is primarily a theological treatise has also persisted to this day (see the recent anthologies and monographs on Proclus, most recently Relire les Éléments de Théologie de Proclus, 2021). With my translation and commentary, I would like to counteract this limitation of Proclusian thought. Already the literary form of the text, 211 general propositions, shows that Proclus has something different in mind here than, for example, in his Platonic theology. I would like to make the philosophical content, the philosophical question of Proclus speak. In this text, Proclus poses the question of being and answers it by saying that being is to be understood as the unity of {staying-emerging-returning}.

Wenn unsere faktische Erfahrung auf etwas beruhen muss, das nicht selbst wieder Erfahrung ist, drängt sich die Frage auf, wie die Vermittlung beider Bereiche zustandekomme. Sowohl Platon als auch Kant haben diese Vermittlung thematisiert, jener im Timaios, dieser im Opus postumum. Platons Dialog ist durch zwei Götteranrufungen in zwei Teile geteilt, denen nach Inhalt und Funktion zwei Werke Kants zugeordnet werden können. Dem ersten Teil, der die Welt unter rein noetischen Voraussetzungen zeigt, entspricht Kants Werk Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft. In der Einleitung zum zweiten Teil des Dialogs führt Platon die Chora und einen neuen Typ von Grund ein. Dem entspricht im Opus postumum die Einführung des Äthers, der es erlaubt, von der Metaphysik zur Physik überzugehen, wie es die Chora erlaubt, von der rein noetischen zum empirischen Welt überzugehen. ************ If our factual experience must be based on something that is not itself experience, the question arises as to how the mediation of both areas comes about. Both Plato and Kant addressed this mediation, the former in the Timaeus, the latter in the Opus postumum. Plato’s dialogue is divided into two parts by two invocations to the gods, to which two of Kant’s works can be assigned in terms of content and function. The first part, which shows the world un- der noetic conditions, corresponds to Kant’s work Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwis- senschaft (Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science), and in the introduction to the second part of the dialog Plato introduces the chora and a new type of reason. In the Opus postumum, this corresponds to the introduction of the ether, which makes it possible to move from metaphysics to physics, just as the chora makes it possible to move from the purely noetic to the empirical world.

Die 'vier Gattungen' sind selbst nichts Dingliches. Ihr Zweck ist nicht, die Dinge in vier Gruppen einzuteilen. Sie sind vielmehr Unterscheidungen oder Hinsichten an ein und demselben Ding. Jedes einzelne Ding gehört zugleich in jede der vier Gattungen. Schliesslich ist das, was durch die vier Gattungen insgesamt bestimmt werden soll, das Sein des Seienden, oder für die Stoiker eben die Dinglichkeit des Dings. Die vier Gattungen geben das stoische Verständnis von „sein“ wieder. Meine These bezüglich der Personen lautet, dass die vier Personen der Anwendungsfall dieses allgemeinen Schemas sind. Was mit den vier Gattungen für das Sein des körperlichen und einzelnen Seienden geleistet werden soll, wird in den vier Personen für den Menschen als je einzelnes „ich“ geleistet. Das Schema antwortet auf die Frage „Wer bin ich als einzelner Mensch?“

It is becoming increasingly clear that there is something wrong with the way we treat nature, because it is apparently even harmful to ourselves. Therefore it could be good for us, if this dealing with nature would be corrected by an alternative conception of nature. Since our own thinking is influenced by Aristotle in some deep and essential aspects - but in a very mediated form - and nevertheless originates from another world, it has at the same time a closeness and a distance to our own thinking. This is favorable for a comparison. Reflection on this thinking about nature could therefore be particularly helpful. The attempt to understand Aristotle's theory of nature might also be helpful because, as will be shown, the physis of which Aristotle speaks is not at all the nature of modern natural science, as is usually assumed. The basic premise of this assumption, that there is only one nature and only one correct and successful handling of it, namely the modern natural scientific one, has to be questioned, even if it rightly exists in everyday life. Second, not only the Aristotelian concept of nature differs from ours, but also that of theory. We use the term theory today, often thinking that we are following Aristotle; some might not even make a distinction between a "scientific theory" and a "theory of nature." A correction of this view might be helpful. Aristotle's theory neither wants to assert anything, on the contrary, it is the reflection on that which is first in nature with the method of topical attitude, it is an example of "unassertive thinking." Aristotle's theory of nature is not a model to find out something or to produce something, it is the ideal of a knowledge for its own sake.

Unser alltägliches Wissen und das Wissen der Wissenschaften beruhen auf Voraussetzungen unterschiedlicher Fundamentalität. Zum gleichsam untersten Fundament gehören die Meinungen über das Sein, die Art und Weise, wie eine jeweilige Sprache die Wirklichkeit sortiert, Gebote der Logik, das, was Husserl die natürliche Einstellung genannt hat. Im Weiteren sind in den einzelnen Wissenschaften spezifische inhaltliche Voraussetzungen und Überzeugungen massgeblich. Auch moderne Leser Aristotelischer Texte teilen einige solche Überzeugungen. Von zweien davon möchte ich hier sprechen, da sie leicht ersichtlich falsch sind und das Verständnis der Texte erheblich behindern. Die erste Überzeugung besteht darin, dass Aristoteles eine Substanzmetaphysik entwickelt habe, die zweite, dass er damit eine Theologie begründet habe mit einem ‚unbewegten Beweger‘ als Zentrum, der mit Gott identifiziert werden kann. Da es sich bei diesem Text um eine Art Pamphlet handelt, habe ich die Anmerkungen in Endnoten zusammengefasst.

Our everyday knowledge and the knowledge of the sciences are based on presuppositions of different fundamentality. The most general framework includes opinions about being, then the way a particular language sorts reality, precepts of logic, what Husserl called the natural attitude. Furthermore, specific content-related prerequisites and convictions are decisive in the individual sciences. Also modern readers of Aristotelian texts share some such specific convictions. I would like to speak of two of them here, since they are evidently false and considerably hindering the understanding of the texts. The first conviction is that Aristotle developed a metaphysics of substance, the second that he thereby founded a theology with an ‘unmoved mover’ as its center, which can be identified with God. Since this text is a kind of pamphlet, I have summarized the remarks in endnotes.

The leading question of our lecture series is in which areas and in which sense fractures and incompleteness are relevant for us. Are brokenness and incompleteness only accidental and singular, or do they belong to the style of things in general? Is wholeness and perfection the rule, and fracture the exception? The same question must be applied to the distinction between our knowledge of the world and the world itself. Is brokenness and incompleteness due to the things themselves, or only to our perception and knowledge of them? - For the time being, the term "world" will be used in the sense of the "whole of things", which is usual, later this term of the world will be supplemented by a second one.

Globalisation Considering the Multitude of Worlds This book deals with globalisation, its foundations, its rise and fall and the question of its future. It discusses the conditions that have led, each in its own way, to the reduction of the many worlds to one. The first foundations were laid in the time of the discoveries, the earth was recognised and measured as a unified space. Missionary work and colonisation have made the geographical unit into a unity of fundamental beliefs, values and Western European languages. The brisk trade with the colonies also unified the financial and economic situation of the conquered foreign worlds, which were managed according to Western patterns. The small gain of the political independence of the states achieved in the decolonisation movement was unfortunately destroyed by the great losses already suffered in the area of the fundamental values of the original worlds, their languages, their ways of living, their faith. In the new situation it became apparent that the economic dependence on the former colonial states was increasing rather than decreasing, the way of doing politics had remained by habit that of the colonial powers. Decolonisation was not a way back to the old world. Two metaphysical assumptions of globalisation are discussed in more detail. One is the assumption of realism that the world is one. This assumption justifies missionary and colonialist action. On the other hand, there is the thesis of liberalism that the being of the beings is its economic value. Against the realistic assumption of the one world, arguments are put forward which justify and make plausible the opposite assumption of a multitude of worlds. Now that the world is de facto one thanks to globalisation, and now that it is suffering from problems that affect all people, a new kind of globalisation is needed, one that recognises and respects different worlds on the one hand, but is nevertheless capable of tackling environmental, financial and social problems together. Depending on the subject, two very different ways of reasoning are used. In the preparatory historical part, the arguments are empirical and stick to details; in the part dealing with the justification of the multiplicity of worlds, the argumentation is theoretical, not to say speculative.

The present text is the revised and corrected English translation of the book published in German by the Lang Verlag, Bern 2008. Unfortunately the text still has some minor flaws (especially in the Index Locorum) but they do not concern the main thesis or the arguments. It will still be the final version, especially considering my age. It is among the most widespread and the least questioned convictions that in Metaphysics Lambda Aristotle presents a theology which has its basis in a metaphysics of substance. Doubts about theological interpretation are beginning to stir in a growing number of publications, but nevertheless the majority of research literature, compendiums and histories of philosophy argues within this frame. A closer look at the facts reveals that this conviction has no basis in the text. Quite the contrary it is based on a reception with theological interests. It arised over centuries, starting from Patristic times and the Middle Ages; it was influenced by Neoplatonic texts as the Liber de Causis or the Theologia Aristotelis, texts for a long time considered as original Aristotelian books. And, if you read not translations but the Greek text, you see that the word 'god' occurs much less than in a theological book should be. In some translations we find more occurences of that word, and especially in French, Italian, English translations some words as le Bien, l'Intelligence etc. are written with capitals to inticate that it is about god. To make it even more clear, we read often the term 'First Mover' or 'Unmoved Mover' as an other name for god, but this expression is never used by Aristotle. So the reader has the impression that Aristotle speaks continuously about god. In addition, in the present book you will find arguments which clean up with the outdated concept of substance in the Aristotelian text, a concept which was developed for quite other problems than Aristotle had, namely theolgical ones. And, if there is no substance, there is no corresponding metaphysics of substance and no theology or onto-theology. If substance, metyphysics, theology play no role in Metaphysics Lambda, what else is its content and aim? That is not so difficult to say because Aristotle says it sufficiently clear in his first sentence, περὶ οὐσίας ἡ θεωρία: our inquiry is about being; its aim is to develop the Frage nach dem Sein and to state a speculative answer: being is noesis, Sein ist Gewahren.

Is reality the basis of everything or has reality itself an other basis? What makes reality – not the real things – to be active, to exist? The question of what is real seems to be an easy question, because in our daily lives we are and must be naive realists. We ourselves, the things around us, the world, the facts, all that is real. there must be several concepts of reality if we want to say that not only physical or material things of everyday life are real, e. g. numbers, π, Dr. Faustus, thoughts, emotions and other things. On the other hand, given the difference of classical physics and modern physics, we see that even that form of knowledge, which seems to be most responsible for reality, natural science, cannot give the desired uniqueness in terms of what itself wants or needs to understand as real. Alternatively, when we see that nothing can be and nothing can be real without being in a world, and when we understand the world as the order of things, which I call worldI , then this leads us to the speculative answer that it is exactly the “unreal” worldI which is the reason why the everyday reality, worldI I , is real. The worldI is the basis for the reality of our empirical worldI I . The considerations presented here have nothing to do with the idealistic conception of possibility, founded in the power of the subject, nor with the existential concept of potentiality, founded in the Entwurf des Daseins.

The aim of this article is to free Aristotle's Metaphysics, especially book XII (Lambda), frome some metaphysical and theological presuppositions by detecting their inappropriate conceptual framwork, which once was progressive, but now holds an obsolete position. Ousia, being (not substance, a much later concept, construed to solve other problems than Aristotle's), stand for a question, not for an answer. Book Lambda develops a highly speculative argument for this queston. The famous noesis noeseos says that empirical being and knowledge is the realization of a noetic structure (noesis), laid down in our most fundamental opinioons about being.

Abstract Most histories of philosophy make us believe, that there is a line of thought from the Greeks on until today. This impression should be checked by this article. At first we contrast some pros and cons of the view that philosophy in general has a history. Then we come back to the question, if Plato or / and Aristotle are really the founders of historiography in philosophy. As test-piece we take the passage in the centre of Plato's Sophist, which shows that the references to past thinkers don't have the purpose to inform us historically, but, first, to continue the current dialogue about being, second, to lead us to the aporie about being, which allows a fresh start for this question. A glance at the doxographies of Aristotle shows (we have a look at that of De Anima), that they have the same target in view, namely to reveal the fundamental opinions of being in a respective world. This way the “history of philosophy” becomes an account of succeeding worlds and the related reflection on it. – This article is an extended version of a short lecture held in Geneva, 15. sept. 2016, within the scope of the Symposium of the Schweizerische Philosophische Gesellschaft. Unfortunately it was not accepted for publication.

Aristotle’s De Interpretatione opens with some norms designed to guide philosophical discour- se. One of these norms–of greatest importance for the discourse about being–is the distinction between the affirmation and the content of a proposition. No verb, not even the verb to be, will by itself state the existence of its content. – The oppositon to the traditional interpretation of the text in this article is primarily founded on observations of ordinary Greek speech. ”A verb uttered just by itself“ doesn’t mean ”the verb without a subject noun“ as normaly assumed, but it means ”the verb without the intention to affirm what it means.“ – Some glances at Platon and Kant conclude the article

This article shows the origin of the famous Aristotelian expression τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι in everyday language. The expression is analysable in τὸ εἶναι and τί ἦν, and this part is the core of the common language question τουτὶ τί ἦν; or τουτὶ τί ἦν τὸ πρᾶγμα; always in imperfect form. This question is often found in Aristophanes’ comedies, which represent common Attic language. The imperfect ἦν is noted as a common Attic form indicating the present already by early comentators of Aristotle as Alexander of Aphrodisias, the scholia to Aristophanes, later by Budaeus, but also in the modern Greek Lexikon of D. Demetrakos. Therefore not the imperfect is the problem, by mere embarrassement it was called "philosophic." The situations in the Aristophanean comedies, in which the question occurs, show that the thing about which somebody asks, is present, in front of the speaker, that it is an individual thing and something absolutly unexspected. The questioner will ask "What on the whole is this?" He asks about the first ground of being of the thing. The term τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι quotes only the use of εἶναι in this question in common language (like many other terms are quotations as τὸ τί ἐστίν; τὸ οὗ ἕνεκα etc.) and may be paraphrased by "Think of ’to be’ as you use it in the question ’What at all is this?’ " See also my article: Sonderegger (2001). Zur Sprachform des Ausdrucks to ti en einai. Rheinisches Museum Für Philologie 144:113–122. The consequences of this linguistic finding can be found in my comments on Metaphysik Z and Metaphysics Λ (English version from 2020).

In the past Boethius was primarily considered to be the author of the Consolatio, or a theologician or logician. But as a philosopher he was the first to reflect on the concept of person, while Augustinus and others only made use of this concept. It is the purpose of this article to show that it was exactly Boethius’ situation in the late antiquity with its many differing traditions that urged and enabled him to ask himself what person essentially is. His new concept of person (: naturae rationabilis individua substantia) puts person first and strengthens - problematically - the position of substance.

Is there a possible profit from the loss of the sense of reality? The loss of the sense of reality is a mental disorder that needs treatment, otherwise the person concerned will suffer harm in the short term. We cannot imagine that therefrom a profit could result. Don Quixote gives an example of a loss of reality in a slightly different sense. He is no longer committed to the banal, everyday reality, in this area he fails completely. But he has another field, as it were, a higher reality, where he wins. A similar case is told to us by Plato in the story of Thales, who falls into the well while observing the stars, and is therefore laughed at by a Thracian maid. But for Plato, Thales is a positive example. The philosopher is less concerned with the reality that lies just before his feet than with what is generally true and real. Plato himself devalues what can be experienced around us in favour of the ideas. These are not perceptible, but nevertheless they are what actually exists.

Discussions about the content of Plato’s Gorgias mostly follow the structure of this dialogue given by the change of the interlocutors. As plain as this change is, as little does it correspond with the development of the subject. This becomes obvious if we compare the division of the dialogue by the interlocutors with the division of the leading questions. New themes do not start with a new person, but only in the course of the conversation with Gorgias, Polos, and Callicles respectively Socrates gets a more fundamental niveau for an old question or introduces a new subject.

The variety and ambiguity of our use of negation has often been classified according to the classes of negated terms. But if we take into account, first, the negations of possibility and necessity, and second, the negations of questions and wishes, it seems that not only negated expressions change, but the way to negate as well. If we consider that up to here every negation has only been a relative one, we may ask if it is possible to say „nothing“ or „not“ in an absolute manner. This attempt is not idle, since great principles, such as that of sufficient reason , possibly make use of an absolute „not.“ How to speak of an "absolute nothing"? - Our negative speech is not exhausted by negation, since opposition, contradiction and difference contain some idea of the negative too. Certain remarks in Plato’s Sophist point to a prerogative position of difference within the whole group of negative speech mentioned above