Marco Sgarbi

This volume takes cue from the idea that the thought of no philosopher can be understood without considering it as the result of a constant, lively dialogue with other thinkers, both in its internal evolution as well as in its reception, re-use, and assumption as a starting point in addressing past and present philosophical problems. In doing so, it focuses on a feature that is crucially emerging in the historiography of early modern philosophy and science, namely the complexity in the production of knowledge. The book explores the applicability of this approach to a long-considered armchair philosopher, namely René Descartes, who is now more and more understood as a full-blown scientist, networker, and intellectual éminence grise rather than as the mere philosopher of the cogito, as well as the originator of different ‘Cartesianisms’ which encompassed many ideas and approaches for long captured by dichotomic historiographical categories as rationalism and empiricism, or speculative and experimental philosophy. The essays gathered in the volume aim to address the ways in which Descartes’s philosophy evolved and was progressively understood by scientists, philosophers, and intellectuals from different contexts and eras, either by considering direct interlocutors of Descartes such as Isaac Beeckman and Elisabeth of Bohemia, early modern thinkers who developed upon his ideas and on particular topics as Nicolas Malebranche or Thomas Willis, those who adapted his overall methodology in developing new systems of knowledge as Johannes Clauberg and Pierre-Sylvain Régis, and contemporary thinkers from continental and analytic traditions like Emanuele Severino and Peter Strawson.

Abstract The aim of the paper is to reassess the role of British Aristotelianism within the history of early modern logic between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as a crucial moment of cultural transition from the model of humanistic rhetoric and dialectic to that of facultative logic, that is, a logic which concerns the study of the cognitive powers of the mind. The paper shows that there is a special connection between Paduan Aristotelianism and British empiricism, through the mediation of British Aristotelianism. British Aristotelians took the ideas of the Paduan Aristotelian tradition and carried them to an extreme, gradually removing them from the original Aristotelian context in which they were grounded and developing what would later become the fundamental ideas of British empiricism

Gli storici della filosofia solitamente attribuiscono ai pensatori moderni l'invenzioni di concetto "soggetto", "oggetto" e "soggettività" e li concepiscono in direttamente in contrasto con la filosofia scolastica e aristotelica. Questo articolo suggerisce la presenza di una proto-teoria della soggettività in Aristotele. La teoria aristotelica della soggettività è fondata principalmente su quattro dottrine. In primo luogo, si può riscontrare nell'epistemologia aristotelica la presenza di una "prospettiva" e di un "punto di vista". Il secondo aspetto significativo è il concetto di determinazione dell'oggetto della conoscenza, che nella filosofia aristotelica è rappresentato dalla nozione di "prosthesis". La terza dottrina si fonda sulla distinzione fra ciò che è più conoscibile per noi e ciò che è più conoscibile per natura. L'ultima dottrina riguarda la seconda natura del soggetto e gli abiti della conoscenza acquisiti attraverso l'esperienza, i quali spiegano perché i soggetti abbiano conoscenze diverse degli stessi oggetti secondo le loro precedenti esperienzePhilosophers usually attribute to modernity the invention of concepts like 'subject', 'object' and 'subjectivity' and they understand them in contrast to Scholastic and Aristotelian philosophies. The present paper suggests the presence of a proto-theory of subjectivity in Aristotle. The Aristotelian theory of subjectivity is grounded principally on four doctrines. First, we can recognize the presence of a 'perspective' and of a 'point of view' in the Aristotelian epistemology. The second relevant aspect is the concept of determination of the object of knowledge, which is in Aristotelian philosophy the notion of 'prosthesis'. The third doctrine lies on the distinction between 'what is more known to us' and 'what is more known by nature'. The last doctrine concerns the 'second nature' of the subject and the habits of knowledge acquired by experience, which explain why knowing subjects have different cognitions of the same object according to their own previous experience.

The present contribute aims to reconstruct, using the methodology of intellectual history, the broad spectrum of metaphysical doctrines that Kant could know during the years of the formation of his philosophy. The first part deals with the teaching of metaphysics in Königsberg from 1703 to 1770. The second part examines the main characteristics of the metaphysics in the various handbooks, which were taught at the Albertina, in order to have an exhaustive overview of all metaphysical positions.O presente trabalho, valendo-se da metodologia da história das idéias, visa reconstruir o amplo espectro de doutrinas metafísicas às quais Kant poderia ter acesso durante os anos de formação de sua filosofia. A primeira parte trata do ensino de metafísica em Königsberg, de 1703 a 1770. A segunda parte examina as principais características da metafísica com base nos diversos manuais em uso na Albertina, a fim de que se tenha um panorama exaustivo de todas as posições então objeto de ensino

In this paper I aim to investigate Hume’s well-known distinction between impressions and ideas, following the methodology of the history of ideas, and showing its specificity and suggesting a possible source, which has not been given much attention by the scholarship, namely the logical doctrines of the physician and anatomist William Harvey, which provide the key concepts to understand Hume’s logic of ideas. After some introductory remarks, the second part deals with the many issues involved in Hume’s distinction, and in the third part I examine Harvey’s logic of ideas. In conclusion I assess Hume’s debt to the English physician

A historical and philosophical reassessment of the impact of Aristotle and early-modern Aristotelianism on the development of Kant’s transcendental philosophy. Kant and Aristotle reassesses the prevailing understanding of Kant as an anti-Aristotelian philosopher. Taking epistemology, logic, and methodology to be the key disciplines through which Kant’s transcendental philosophy stood as an independent form of philosophy, Marco Sgarbi shows that Kant drew important elements of his logic and metaphysical doctrines from Aristotelian ideas that were absent in other philosophical traditions, such as the distinction of matter and form of knowledge, the division of transcendental logic into analytic and dialectic, the theory of categories and schema, and the methodological issues of the architectonic. Drawing from unpublished documents including lectures, catalogues, academic programs, and the Aristotelian-Scholastic handbooks that were officially adopted at Königsberg University where Kant taught, Sgarbi further demonstrates the historical and philosophical importance of Aristotle and Aristotelianism to these disciplines from the late sixteenth century to the first half of the eighteenth century.

Offers an extremely bold, far-reaching, and unsuspected thesis in the history of philosophy: Aristotelianism was a dominant movement of the British philosophical landscape, especially in the field of logic, and it had a long survival. British Aristotelian doctrines were strongly empiricist in nature, both in the theory of knowledge and in scientific method; this character marked and influenced further developments in British philosophy at the end of the century, and eventually gave rise to what we now call British empiricism, which is represented by philosophers such as John Locke, George Berkeley and David Hume. Beyond the apparent and explicit criticism of the old Scholastic and Aristotelian philosophy, which has been very well recognized by the scholarship in the twentieth century and which has contributed to the false notion that early modern philosophy emerged as a reaction to Aristotelianism, the present research examines the continuity, the original developments and the impact of Aristotelian doctrines and terminology in logic and epistemology as the background for the rise of empiricism.Without the Aristotelian tradition, without its doctrines, and without its conceptual elaborations, British empiricism would never have been born. The book emphasizes that philosophy is not defined only by the ‘great names’, but also by minor authors, who determine the intellectual milieu from which the canonical names emerge. It considers every single published work of logic between the middle of the sixteenth and the end of the seventeenth century, being acquainted with a number of surviving manuscripts and being well-informed about the best existing scholarship in the field. ​

Philosophers usually attribute to modernity the invention of concepts like 'subject', 'object' and 'subjectivity' and they understand them in contrast to Scholastic and Aristotelian philosophies. The present paper suggests the presence of a proto-theory of subjectivity in Aristotle. The Aristotelian theory of subjectivity is grounded principally on four doctrines. First, we can recognize the presence of a 'perspective' and of a 'point of view' in the Aristotelian epistemology. The second relevant aspect is the concept of determination of the object of knowledge, which is in Aristotelian philosophy the notion of 'prosthesis'. The third doctrine lies on the distinction between 'what is more known to us' and 'what is more known by nature'. The last doctrine concerns the 'second nature' of the subject and the habits of knowledge acquired by experience, which explain why knowing subjects have different cognitions of the same object according to their own previous experienceGli storici della filosofia solitamente attribuiscono ai pensatori moderni l'invenzioni di concetto "soggetto", "oggetto" e "soggettività" e li concepiscono in direttamente in contrasto con la filosofia scolastica e aristotelica. Questo articolo suggerisce la presenza di una proto-teoria della soggettività in Aristotele. La teoria aristotelica della soggettività è fondata principalmente su quattro dottrine. In primo luogo, si può riscontrare nell'epistemologia aristotelica la presenza di una "prospettiva" e di un "punto di vista". Il secondo aspetto significativo è il concetto di determinazione dell'oggetto della conoscenza, che nella filosofia aristotelica è rappresentato dalla nozione di "prosthesis". La terza dottrina si fonda sulla distinzione fra ciò che è più conoscibile per noi e ciò che è più conoscibile per natura. L'ultima dottrina riguarda la seconda natura del soggetto e gli abiti della conoscenza acquisiti attraverso l'esperienza, i quali spiegano perché i soggetti abbiano conoscenze diverse degli stessi oggetti secondo le loro precedenti esperienze.

Syllogism is a form of logical argument allowing one to deduce a consistent conclusion based on a pair of premises having a common term. Although Aristotle was the first to conceive and develop this way of reasoning, he left open a lot of conceptual space for further modifications, improvements and systematizations with regards to his original syllogistic theory. From its creation until modern times, syllogism has remained a powerful and compelling device of deduction and argument, used by a variety of figures and assuming a variety of forms throughout history. The Aftermath of Syllogism investigates the key developments in the history of this peculiar pattern of inference, from Avicenna to Hegel. Taking as its focus the longue durée of development between the Middle Ages and the nineteenth century, this book looks at the huge reworking scientific syllogism underwent over the centuries, as some of the finest philosophical minds brought it to an unprecedented height of logical sharpness and sophistication. Bringing together a group of major international experts in the Aristotelian tradition, The Aftermath of Syllogism provides a detailed, up to date and critical evaluation of the history of syllogistic deduction.

Kant, Rabe e la logica aristotelica - This article shows the influence of the Aristotelian Paul Rabe on Immanuel Kant’s philosophy. In the first part, I reconstruct the status quaestions regarding Rabe in Aristotelian studies and in Kantforschung. The second part looks at Rabe’s life and works. It is demonstrated in the third part that Kant’s definition of dialectic as Logik des Scheins comes from Rabe’s definition of dialectic as logica ex apparentibus. The fourth part shows the Aristotelian origin of Kant’s doctrine of categories and schema and the fifth analyses the meaning of Rabe’s Analytica and its legacy in Kant. In the sixth section, the Aristotelian distinction kat’anthropon-kat’aletheian is examined in Rabe and Kant. The conclusion suggests that the chapter "Idee einer transzendentalen Logik" in Kritik der reinen Vernunft is an Einladungsschrift and that Kant became acquainted with Aristotle’s writings mainly between 1766 and 1772 when he was librarian at the Schlossbibliothek in Königsberg

L’articolo mostra come la riscoperta della Poetica di Aristotele nel XVI secolo abbia portato all’emergere della critica d’arte, di contro all’idea tradizionale secondo la quale essa sarebbe nata durante l’Illuminismo. L’articolo si concentra sulla poliedrica figura di Ludovico Dolce il quale, nel suo Dialogo sulla Pittura (1557), utilizza i precetti della poetica aristotelica per stabilire rigidi criteri di giudizio delle opere d’arte. A differenza di molti altri autori suoi contemporanei che scrissero sul medesimo soggetto, le riflessioni di Dolce non offrirono né una storia dell’arte, né un corpus di regole per la pittura o la scultura; piuttosto, si rivolsero alla ricerca dei modi più consoni per interpretare in maniera accurata il lavoro artistico in tutti i suoi aspetti, anche il più soggettivo. Attraverso stringenti paralleli con la Poetica di Aristotele, Dolce delinea quella che può essere considerata una delle prime forme di critica d’arte.

A pervasive and much cherished paradigm among historians of science is to view the origin of “modern science” as a reaction against Aristotelians and Aristotle’s ruling authority. But what does a Renaissance Aristotelian really look like? This article seeks to answer this question by bringing to light direct accounts of what it meant to be an Aristotelian at that time and by showing a connection between the antiauthoritarian stance that is typical of early modern scientists and thinkers and that of certain Renaissance Aristotelians.