Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Empedocles publications

Expand Messages
  • vaeringjar
    ... Question ... of ... as ... I would certainly be interested in these papers. I searched the Web and got this hit from David Sedley s webpage - one of the
    Message 1 of 8 , Dec 14, 2005
      > --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, Michael Chase <goya@u...>
      wrote:
      > The
      > > most interesting recent publication has just been kindly sent by
      > the
      > > editor to the Paris office of the Année Philologique : *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)*. It contains a series
      of
      > > important-looking papers (I haven't had time to read them yet),
      as
      > well
      > > as a new reconstruction with new Greek text of E's work.

      I would certainly be interested in these papers. I searched the Web
      and got this hit from David Sedley's webpage - one of the articles is
      by him:

      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:
      archeolo@...

      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.

      >>The
      > second
      > > part of Peter Kingsley's *Reality* is also worth a look, for an
      > > unorthodox (Sufi-inspired) view.

      Curiously enough I had just bought this book the day before you
      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
      intent.

      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
      > Empedocles
      > > in particular allowed an important place to the One has become
      > popular
      > > lately : we could call it the henological approach. It's been
      > > championed by the Milan school around G. Reale, and by others
      like
      > Jens
      > > Halbwassen (see, for instance, his article *Metaphysik* in the
      > *Neue
      > > 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.
      > >

      I imagine there is criticism that it's too Neoplatonic also.
      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.

      Dennis Clark
      Issaquah

      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.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.