Empedoclean Epistemology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47661/afcl.v16i31.54009Palavras-chave:
Empedocles, Epistemology, Perception, History of Philosophy, Ancient PhilosophyResumo
Presocratic, and particularly Empedoclean, epistemology has long been the object of intense debate. Unbridgeable (or apparently so) contrasts emerge in the large output of the Agrigentine philosopher, as far as epistemology is concerned. They may partially overlap with the differences among the poems ascribed to him. But sometimes such discrepancies can be traced even inside one and the same work. An obvious example of the first kind is the contradiction between frr. 2–3 D.–K., on one hand, which belongs to the περὶ φύσεως and supports a cautious empiricism, and, on the other hand, frr. 131–134 D.–K. (especially frr. 133–134), which belong to an undetermined poem, but surely convey a much greater confidence in Empedocles’ own capacity of possessing and imparting reliable theological knowledge, although such knowledge is unattainable through the senses. An example of the second kind concerns the contradiction between fr. 2, which insists on the poorness of human means of knowledge, and fr. 3, which recalls religious limits imposed on human knowledge but also encourages investigation through each of the senses. This contribution will clarify the terms of such contrasts, and try to explain their meaning. Another crucial aspect of Empedoclean epistemology will be taken into consideration — i. e. the relationship between thought and perception; and the author will argue against any straight identification between the two.
Attention will be dedicated to specific connections of epistemology with different works by Empedocles, including the lost Proem to Apollo.
Referências
Bibliography
Alt, K. 1987–1988. “Einige Fragen zu den ‘Katharmoi’ des Empedokles.” Hermes 115: 385–411; Hermes 116: 264–271.
Aronadio, F. 2005. “Il campo semantico di noein fra epos e filosofia: il caso emblematico di Senofane”. In: E. Canone (ed.), Per una storia del concetto di mente. Firenze: Olschki, 1–25.
Benzi, N. 2016. “Noos and Mortal Enquiry in the Poetry of Xenophanes and Parmenides.” Methodos. Savoirs et textes 16, https://doi.org/10.4000/methodos.4427 .
Bignone, E. 1916. Empedocle. Torino: Bocca.
Bollack, J. 1965–1969. Empédocle. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit. I–III.
Calzolari, A. 1985. “Empedocle, Frr. 2 e 3 Diels–Kranz.” Studi classici e Orientali 34, 71–81.
Castelletti, C. 2006. Porfirio. Sullo Stige. Milano: Bompiani.
Cerri, G. 2001. “Physikà e Katharmoì di Empedocle.” Aevum Antiquum n. s. 1, 181–196.
Chantraine, P. 1968–1980. Dictionnaire Étymologique de la langue grecque. I–IV, Paris: Klincksieck.
Coxon, A. H. 1986. The Fragments of Parmenides. A critical text with introduction, the ancient testimonia and a commentary. Assen and Maastricht, The Netherlands, and Wolfeboro, NH, U.S.A.: Van Gorcum.
Curd, P. 2005. “On the Question of Religion and Natural Philosophy in Empedocles.” In: A. L. Pierris (ed.), The Empedoclean Kosmos. Part I: Papers. Patras: Institute for Philosophical Research, 137–162.
Curd, P. 2013. “Where are Love and Strife? Incorporeality in Empedocles.” In: J. McCoy (ed.), Early Greek Philosophy: The Presocratics and the Emergence of Reason. Washington, DC: CUA Press, 113–138.
Curd, P. 2016. “Empedocles on Sensation, Perception, and Thought.” Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy 19, special issue on ancient epistemology, edited by K. Ierodiakonou and P. S. Hasper, 38–57.
D.–K.: H. Diels, and W. Kranz. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, I–III, Berlin: Weidmann 1951–19526.
Darcus, S. 1977: “Daimon Parallels the Holy Phren in Empedocles.” Phronesis 22: 175–190.
Fränkel, H. 1923. “Homerische Wörter”. In: ΑΝΤΙΔΩΡΟΝ. Festschrift für J. Wackernagel. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 274–282.
Fränkel, H. 1960. “ΕΦΗΜΕΡΟΣ als Kennwort für die menschliche Natur”. In: Eiusd., Wege und Formen frügriechischen Denkens. München: Beck, 23–39.
Fränkel, H. 1973. Early Greek Poetry and Philosophy. Engl. transl. New York and London: Wolff.
Fränkel, H. 1974. “Xenophanes’ Empiricism and His Critique of Knowledge (B34)”. In: A. P. D. Mourelatos (ed.), The Pre-Socratics. A Collection of Critical Essays. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Frère, J. 20172. “Les dieux d’Élée et d’Agrigent.” In: J. Dillon and Monique Dixsaut (eds.), Agonistes. Essays in Honour of Denis O’Brien. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 3–12.
Gallavotti, C. 1975 (ed.). Empedocle. Poema fisico e lustrale. N. p.: Mondadori (Fondazione Lorenzo Valla).
Gheerbrant, X. 2017. Empédocle, une poétique philosophique. Paris: Classiques Garnier.
Ireland, S. and F. L. D. Steel 1975. “Φρένες as an Anatomical Organ in the Works of Homer.” Glotta 53, 183–195.
Jaeger, W. 1947. The Theology of the Early Greek Philosophers. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press.
Jouanna, J. 2012. Greek Medicine from Hippocrates to Galen. Leiden – Boston: Brill.
Kamtekar, R. 2009. “Knowing by Likeness in Empedocles.”
Phronesis 54, 215–238.
Karsten, S. 1838. Empedoclis Agrigentini Carminum Reliquiae. Amstelodami: Müller.
Kingsley, P. 2002. “Empedocles for the New Millennium.” Ancient Philosophy 22, 333–413.
Kranz, W. 1949. Empedokles. Antike Gestalt und romantische Neuschöpfung. Zürich: Artemis.
Kraus, M. (forthcoming). “Ὁμόν, ὁμοῦ, ὁμῶς etc. and Parmenidean Monism”, paper read at the 7th Conference of The International Association for Presocratic Studies (Delphi, 27th June—1st July 2022).
Laks, A. and Most, G. W. (eds.) 2016. Early Greek Philosophy. Western Greek Thinkers. Part 2. Cambridge, MA, and London, England: Harvard University Press.
Laurenti, R. 1999. Empedocle. Revised by C. Santaniello. Napoli: D’Auria.
Lesher, J. H. 1999. “Early Interest in Knowledge”. In: A. A. Long (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 225–249.
Lesher, J. H. 20012 (ed.) Xenophanes of Colophon. Fragments. A Text and Translation with a Commentary. Toronto, Ont.: University of Toronto.
Long, A. A. 1966. “Thinking and Sense-Perception in Empedocles: Mysticism or Materialism?” Classical Quarterly 16, 256–276.
Mansfeld, J. 1996. “Aristote et la structure du ‘De sensibus’ de Theophraste”. Phronesis 41, 158–188.
Mansfeld, J. 1999. “Parménide et Héraclite avaient-ils une théorie de la perception?” Phronesis 44, 326–346.
McKirahan, R. 20112. Philosophy before Socrates. An Introduction with Texts and Commentary. Second Edition. Indianapolis–Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.
Onians, R. B. 1951. The Origins of European Thought about the Body, the Mind, the Soul, the World, Time and Fate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Primavesi, O. 2008. “Empedocles: Mythical and Physical Divinity.” In: P. Curd and D. W. Graham (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 250–283.
Primavesi, O. 2021: Mansfeld, J., and O. Primavesi, eds. (2021). Die Vorsokratiker. Stuttgart: Reclam.
Rashed, M. 2018. “La pupille et l’infante: reconstitution et interprétation du fragment 84.” In: Eiusd., La jeune fille et la sphère. Études sur Empédocle, Paris: PUPS, 151–172.
Santaniello, C. 2012. “Θεός, Δαίμων, Φρὴν Ἱερή: Empedocles and the Divine”. In: Empédocle. Les Dieux, le sacrifice et la grâce, numéro dirigé par A. G. Wersinger, Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 3, juillet, 301–313.
Santaniello, C. (forthcoming). “Putting Fragments in Their Places: The Lost Works of Empedocles.” Elenchos.
Sassi, M. M. 2016. “Parmenides and Empedocles on Krasis and Knowledge.” Apeiron 49, 451–470.
Sassi, M. M. 2022. “Blood and the Awareness of Perception. From Early Greek Thought to Plato’s Timaeus”, https://doi.org/10.1515/apeiron-2021-0117 .
Sider, D. 2022. “Ordovico or Viricordo: Empedocles and the Seim Anew.” In: M. Alexandrou, C. Carey, and G. B. D’Alessio (eds.), Song Regained: Working with Greek Poetic Fragments. Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter, 54–76.
Solmsen, Fr. 1980. “Empedocles’ Hymn to Apollo.” Phronesis 25: 219–227.
Stein, H. 1852. Empedoclis Agrigentini fragmenta. Bonnae: apud Adolphum Marcum. I–II.
Stella, F. 2016 (ed.). La notion d’Intelligence (nous-noein) dans la Grèce antique, in Methodos. Savoirs et textes 16, https://doi.org/10.4000/methodos.4427 .
van der Ben, N. 2019. Empedocles: A radical edition, published by J.-C. Picot with the help of K. and S. Van der Ben, https://sites.google.com/site/empedoclesacragas/nicolaas-van-der-ben.
von Fritz, K. 1943. “Νόος and Nοεῖν in the Homeric Poems.” Classical Philology 38, 79–93.
von Fritz, K. 1945. “Νοῦς, Nοεῖν and Their Derivatives in Pre-Socratic Philosophy (Excluding Anaxagoras). Part I. From the Beginnings to Parmenides.” Classical Philology 38, 223–242.
von Fritz, K. 1946. “Νοῦς, νοεῖν and Their Derivatives in Pre-Socratic Philosophy (Excluding Anaxagoras). Part II. The Post-Parmenidean Period.” Classical Philology 41, 12–34.
von Fritz, K. 1971. “Der Νοῦς des Anaxagoras”. In: eiusd. Grundprobleme der Geschichte der antiken Wissenschaft. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 576–593.
von Wilamowitz, U. 1929. “Die Καθαρμοί des Empedokles.” Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Kl., 626–661.
West, M. L. 1983. The Orphic Poems. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Wright, M. R. 1981. Empedocles: The Extant Fragments. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Zafiropulo, J. 1953. Empédocle d’Agrigente. Paris, Les Belles Lettres.
Zuntz, G. 1971. Persephone. Three essays on religion and thought in Magna Graecia. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
