Re: Empedocles publications
> --- In email@example.com, Michael Chase <goya@u...>wrote:
> > most interesting recent publication has just been kindly sent by
> > editor to the Paris office of the AnnÃ©e Philologique : *A.
> > (ed.), The Empedoclean Cosmos: Structure, Process and the
> > Cyclicity. Proceedings of the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae
> > Myconense. 6-13 July 2003 (Patras, 2005)*. It contains a series
> > important-looking papers (I haven't had time to read them yet),as
> wellI would certainly be interested in these papers. I searched the Web
> > as a new reconstruction with new Greek text of E's work.
and got this hit from David Sedley's webpage - one of the articles is
A. Pierris (ed.), The Empedoclean Cosmos: Structure, Process and the
Question of Cyclicity. Proceedings of the Symposium Philosophiae
Antiquae Tertium Myconense. 6-13 July 2003 (Patras, 2005) was
published in summer 2005, but is not yet being distributed. The only
way you can buy a copy at present is from the Athens bookseller
Andromeda: Tel. +30 210 3600825. Fax: +30 210 3390469. E-mail:
I suspect it's not that cheap - I can only shudder at the prospect of
mail getting from Athens to Seattle. I will at least email the
bookstore for info on price etc. Probablement tres cher.
>>TheCuriously enough I had just bought this book the day before you
> > part of Peter Kingsley's *Reality* is also worth a look, for an
> > unorthodox (Sufi-inspired) view.
posted this. What to say about Kingsley's new approach,
stylistically? I found the book on Parmenides certainly worthwhile
but curiously much more difficult to get through because he HADN'T
written it in the usual scholarly style. I assume that is his intent,
anyway - to write without footnotes and in such a way as to address
the so-called "general" audience. At least I think that was his
But I certainly respect his scholarship, and have pored over his
earlier book on Empedocles more than once (although I don't think he
has proved that Empedocles does not associate Zeus with fire, if I
may be so bold, but then that may be my own axe grinding a bit, now
that I have fallen down this noeric fire rabbit-hole). I notice
in "Reality" that he has a lot of references, separate from the text
but not directly referenced! I find that really annoying, to be
honest, since it's impossible sometimes to link an interesting
statement in the text with its reference.
If readers want to ignore footnotes, they can just do that, ignore
them. Like the delete key on a computer when in email or posted group
discussions, it can be pressed or not as needed.
> > In general, the idea that the Presocratics in general and
> > in particular allowed an important place to the One has become
> > lately : we could call it the henological approach. It's been
> > championed by the Milan school around G. Reale, and by others
> JensI imagine there is criticism that it's too Neoplatonic also.
> > Halbwassen (see, for instance, his article *Metaphysik* in the
> > Pauly*). Obviously the so-called Unwritten Docrines of Platon are
> > important for this approach. Others are leery of this approach,
> > suspecting it, rightly or wrongly, being crypto-Christian.
> > Best, Mike.
Catherine Osborne in her book on Hippolytus and Jonathan Barnes in
his review of it would deny the Neoplatonic interpretation's having
any relevance to Empedocles' 'real' views. O'Brien it seems to me,
much less so, but I need to study him a bit more on that. I am not so
sure, personally, since the Pythagorean can be lurking thereabouts
also and can create his usual chronological ambiguity and be the real
source of what appear as Neoplatonic interpretations, in my opinion.
More on that later, as I keep finding more puzzles surrounding the
dread noeric pyr the more I dig into that rabbit hole.
PS Does anyone know about this other new book on Empedocles by Simon
Trepanier, from Routledge, 2004: "Empedocles: An Interpretation"? The
only detail about it I found online so far was that he believes he
wrote only one poem, not two. As I recall, Osborne takes that view
also, from her reading of Hippolytus.