Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 5

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Theophrastus
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
This article examines Theophrastus’ definition of tragedy, as preserved by the Latin grammarian Diomedes, focusing on two questions that still need discussion. First, what is the meaning of the variously interpreted peristasis? An analysis of Diomedes’ text and a survey of the use of the word in Peripatetic works, both neglected by scholars up to now, suggest that it means “reversal”. Second, is the definition anti-Aristotelian? Not only katharsis, as is frequently emphasized, but, indeed, all the elements in Aristotle’s definition are absent from Theophrastus’. Nonetheless, references to characters and plot, on which Theophrastus’definition centres, can be found in Aristotle’s discussion of tragedy.
EN
Innocenty Maria Bocheński expounded his interpretation of Theophrastus’ logic chiefly in his book La logique de Théophraste (1947). In Bocheński’s reconstruction, Theophrastus worked on the last insights of Aristotle’s syllogistic and systematized it, thereby opening the door to later (Stoic) developments in the history of logic. A closer look at Bocheński’s interpretation of Theophrastus’ logic can lead us to reassess the originality of the contribution of the philosopher of Eresus. As more recent studies have convincingly shown, Aristotle’s modal system is grounded on the theory of predication expounded in the Topics. The validity of Barbara LX-L rests on the essential predications that the major premise and the conclusion are descriptive. According to Bocheński, Theophrastus had an extensional understanding of logic, as is clear from his proof for the rules of conversion of categorical universal propositions. Bocheński also stresses that Theophrastus consistently avoids Aristotle’s two-sided possibility and this might also be read as an attempt to develop a self-contained logical system that is not merely seen as the deductive system of a theoretical discipline. Bocheński’s overall assessment of Theophrastus’ logic might be in need of revision, inasmuch as our understanding of Aristotle’s logical enterprise has radically changed in the last decades, but the minutiae of Bocheński’s reading of Theophrastus are compelling and can stimulate new studies on the successor of the Stagirite.
Vox Patrum
|
2013
|
vol. 60
405-415
EN
Even though the ancient Greeks did not recognize humility as a virtue, in the later Christian sense, their literature (Solon, Hesiod, Herodotus, Euripides) and philosophy (Plato, Aristotle, Theophrastus, stoics, Plutarch, Plotinus) contains some elements of the idea of the humble lowliness. Pride – considered as the greatest vice – was not contrasted with humility, but with the attitude of just pride arising from a based on the principle of moderation sense of finding oneself suffi­cient and confident in one’s own capabilities. This virtue – which can be defined as a sense of self-worth – was reserved for those capable of ethical courage, the morally strong. The attitude that Christianity considered as the virtue of humility was associated in antiquity with modesty, which was the equivalent of a just pride, referring to the weak people, unfit to accomplish great deeds, or with shyness, fear or cowardice.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.