In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

ll6 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 22:1 JAN 1984 ories from that work, even if the theories (e.g., the theory of ideas) are not to be found as such in Plato. Nonetheless, he comes to the end of his study convinced that such interpretations can never leave the realm of shadows described in Republic I. One of my concerns with the work is the use of citations from contemporary writers. The literature on Plato is vast, and no one person could be expected to treat all of it. Wieland demonstrates his familiarity with a good deal of the work that has been done in English; indeed, there are twice as many references to English language works as there are to those in all other languages combined, including the author's own, German. But in any discussion of knowledge and the forms in the Sophist, a writer who ignores G. E. L. Owen's paper, "Plato on Not-being," does so at the price of the loss of some uniquely rewarding insights. Likewise, any discussion of the timing of the Timaeus and its significance should refer to the classic exchange between Owen and Harold Cherniss. The way Wieland presents his views is another matter of concern. It is often difficult to see where he feels the crux of his argument lies. This is due in part at least to the large number of issues he tackles. For example, Wieland devotes only three pages to the problem of self-predication as it relates to the Platonic forms, in the space of which he describes the problem, sets out what he takes to be the wrong solution, and gives what he considers the right solution. Those who are not familiar with the issue will need more explanation; those who are familiar with it will need more refinement and argument. EUGENE E. RYAN East Carolina University Lambros Couloubaritsis. L'Avknement de la science physique: Essai sur la Physique d' Aristote. Editions Ousia. Publi6 avec du Minist~re de la Communaut6 fran~aise de Belgique, 198o. Pp. 339. Couloubaritsis' L'Avknement de la science physique is an important contribution to the study of Aristotle's philosophy of nature. It discusses the principles of physics as a theoretical discipline and seeks to establish four objectives: the philosophical significance of physics as a theoretical science, the textual unity of the Physics, the founding of the principles of natural beings, and, finaly, the methods of securing the continuity of physics and metaphysics. The author defends the view that Aristotle's physics is neither an empirical science whose principles are derived from sense experience, nor an inquiry limited to the analysis of the language of physics, as Wieland holds. Rather, he claims that Aristotle establishes a theoretical science which offers explanations by proceeding from principles with the highest degree of certainty. In a sense, the book is a sustained argument to demonstrate how Aristotle was able to found the principles of natural things without committing the errors of circularity and contradiction. Positively put, Aristotle overcomes the Platonic denial of the possibility of a theoretical i In Plato: A Collectionof Critical Essays: I Metaphysicsand Epistemology, ed. Gregory Vlastos. New York: Anchor Books, 1971; 223-67. BOOK REVIEWS 1 17 science of the sensible world by arriving at universals, based on logical and ontological grounds, that have the generality and permanence required of explanatory principles in a theoretical science. The significance of Aristotle's contribution is further elaborated in a section where the author compares it to Kant's philosophy. Whereas Kant sought to overcome skepticism by undertaking a fresh investigation into the conditions of the possibility of modern physics as certain knowledge, Aristotle's originality lies in establishing a science of nature despite Plato's reservations. This makes Aristotle, in a special sense, Kant's predecessor. Couloubaritsis argues that, had Aristotle proceeded along the lines Wieland suggests , he could not have avoided the error of circularity because once the Physics is limited to the empirical study of language, the granting of a privileged position to the inductive method becomes inevitable. The author appeals to Physics I. 2, 185a 2off to show that Aristotle did in fact introduce...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 116-119
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.