Not available / text

Claudius Aelianus was recognized by Philostratus and the author of the Suda as a participant in the literary and intellectual movement of the Second Sophistic. Philostratus' biographical sketch in the Lives of the Sophists, however, makes it clear that Aelian did not perform publicly as did the other sophists whom Philostratus described; Aelian's retiring and scholarly nature is emphasized by Philostratus, who implies that Aelian's choice of literature over performance followed a pattern established by Demosthenes and Cicero. Most scholarship on the Varia Historia during the past 150 years addresses the question how Aelian made his collection, i.e. what sources he accessed. This directly reflects modern use of the Varia Historia as a quarry from which to mine information about the ancient world. Such scholarship must conclude that Aelian was not a modern research scholar with the goals, techniques, and readership of the modern "scientific" historian. What then were his goals, techniques, and readership? The Varia Historia cannot be fairly assessed without taking into account its membership in the genre of the miscellany. The Imperial miscellanist concerns himself with a specific subset of traditional literature: the material which supplements the standard literary education and may be termed polymathic. The miscellanist assumes a readership with whom he shares certain educative goals: specifically, further detailed education in literature beyond the primary level, including further work in the encyclic artes and a general increase in detailed information "for its own sake." Because the miscellanist adopts the stance of a mature amateur scholar gathering data for a younger reader, he reveals a patronizing tone in his collection. The data the miscellanist offers his reader is presented in a manner characterized by rroiKiXia or "variety"; as such it reflects the Imperial attitude toward the cultured person's correct use of leisure. An analysis of passages from the Varia Historia reveals that Aelian conceives his reader as a young person currently in the process of acquiring paideia. In his miscellany Aelian has provided this reader with material that conveys a moral message at the same time that it provides models of the correct way to respond to traditional literature.

The field of rhetoric has recently begun to position the Sophists as an integral part of the history of the discipline. Sophistic influence has been acknowledged in other fields as well, particularly philosophy and literary theory; however, Sophistic influence on political theory has been virtually ignored. This thesis examines the epistemology of the Sophists within the context of the debates of ancient Greece, and illustrates the connections between Sophistic thought and the ideology behind the structuring of the American federal government. Specific connections are made between the epistemology of the Sophists and that expressed in The Federalist, as well as that of earlier political theorists Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. / Department of English

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 1998. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [188]-198).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Sydney, 2009. / Title from title screen (viewed October 15, 2009) Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy to the Dept. of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts. Degree awarded 2009; thesis submitted 2008. Includes bibliographical references. Also available in print form.

Thesis--Munich. / Includes indexes. Includes bibliographical references (p. 234-236).

This thesis is about Plato‘s dialogue Cratylus, which is one of the earliest texts in the history ofphilosophy of language and has generated much interpretive controversy. In the dialogue, Platoexamines two theories on the correctness of names; conventionalism and naturalism. However,there is no clear positive outcome in the dialogue in regard to the debate betweenconventionalism and naturalism. Therefore, scholars have long been divided as to what Plato‘sown position on the correctness of names is. Another puzzling feature of the dialogue concernsthe etymological section, which has often been ignored or treated in isolation in modernscholarship. This section takes up about half of the dialogue and offers elaborate explanations ofa large number of words in the Greek language. Some recent studies of the Cratylus, however,are shedding much welcome light on the etymological section and the role it plays in thedialogue as a whole. In this thesis, I compare two competing interpretations of the etymologicalsection and discuss how an understanding of the etymologies can help us understand Plato‘sposition on the correctness of names and the purpose of the dialogue as a whole. In TimothyBaxter‘s interpretation, the etymological section should be read as a parody which amounts to aPlatonic critique of a mistaken attitude towards names and language found especially in thepoetry and philosophy in Plato‘s time. David Sedley, on the other hand, argues that theetymologies are seriously intended by Plato as a method of linguistic and historical analysis, amethod he himself endorsed and practiced. If the etymologies are taken seriously, Sedley argues,they show that Plato favored a form of naturalism in regard to the correctness of names. Afterproviding an outline and evaluation of these two interpretations, the thesis concludes with myown proposal. Although I disagree with some of Sedley‘s particular interpretations andarguments, I find myself in broad agreement with his general conclusions.

Claudius Aelianus was recognized by Philostratus and the author of the Suda as a participant in the literary and intellectual movement of the Second Sophistic. Philostratus' biographical sketch in the Lives of the Sophists, however, makes it clear that Aelian did not perform publicly as did the other sophists whom Philostratus described; Aelian's retiring and scholarly nature is emphasized by Philostratus, who implies that Aelian's choice of literature over performance followed a pattern established by Demosthenes and Cicero. Most scholarship on the Varia Historia during the past 150 years addresses the question how Aelian made his collection, i.e. what sources he accessed. This directly reflects modern use of the Varia Historia as a quarry from which to mine information about the ancient world. Such scholarship must conclude that Aelian was not a modern research scholar with the goals, techniques, and readership of the modern "scientific" historian. What then were his goals, techniques, and readership? The Varia Historia cannot be fairly assessed without taking into account its membership in the genre of the miscellany. The Imperial miscellanist concerns himself with a specific subset of traditional literature: the material which supplements the standard literary education and may be termed polymathic. The miscellanist assumes a readership with whom he shares certain educative goals: specifically, further detailed education in literature beyond the primary level, including further work in the encyclic artes and a general increase in detailed information "for its own sake." Because the miscellanist adopts the stance of a mature amateur scholar gathering data for a younger reader, he reveals a patronizing tone in his collection. The data the miscellanist offers his reader is presented in a manner characterized by rroiKiXia or "variety"; as such it reflects the Imperial attitude toward the cultured person's correct use of leisure. An analysis of passages from the Varia Historia reveals that Aelian conceives his reader as a young person currently in the process of acquiring paideia. In his miscellany Aelian has provided this reader with material that conveys a moral message at the same time that it provides models of the correct way to respond to traditional literature. / Arts, Faculty of / Classical, Near Eastern and Religious Studies, Department of / Graduate

Mit der Einsicht in den Aufbruch und Realisierung des Logos beschäftigt sich diese Arbeit mit der Architektonik im Anfang der Philosophie bei den Griechen und ihrer Erfüllung in den poietischen und praktischen Wissenschaften des Aristoteles.

My dissertation advances a solution to what I have called the problem of opposites in Heraclitus. The problem is this: Heraclitus often juxtaposes pairs of opposites, but the opposites he cites seem to be of many different kinds. How are we to explain this feature of the fragments? The default method of solution for interpreters has been to find a single thesis under which to subsume all the divergent examples of opposites. Some such theses are as follows: opposites are identical (Aristotle, Barnes), opposites are essentially connected (Kirk), opposites are transformationally equivalent (Graham), identical things can have opposite significances in different situations (Osborne). The main problem all these solutions face is that each is only able to make sense of some of the examples of opposition in Heraclitus, while ignoring or downplaying the significance of others. In order to solve this problem, I offer an interpretation on which Heraclitus was advancing multiple opposites theses, each of which contains interesting, philosophical content. The theses are as follows: The Transformation Thesis: the world contains opposing stuffs which transform into one another in such a way that they are transformationally equivalent, and therefore unified. The Dependence Thesis: objects are ontologically dependent for their existence (i.e. that they exist) and their identity (i.e. their ‘nature’ or φύσις) on opposing, yet essential properties which are necessarily inherent in them. The Value Thesis: it is possible for one and the same object to have opposing values (i.e. to be both objectively good and objectively bad). But why would Heraclitus promote multiple opposites theses? On my interpretation Heraclitus was responding to his Ionian predecessors who treated opposites as explanatory principles. Heraclitus seems to be saying that opposites are not explanatory principles since opposites themselves need to be explained. Hence the opposites are explananda, for Heraclitus, and the three theses are his explanantia. / Dissertation / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / In this dissertation I offer a new interpretation of an ancient Greek philosopher named Heraclitus who stands at the beginning of the timeline of Western philosophy (around 500BC). It has often been thought that Heraclitus had something interesting to say about opposites (e.g. hot and cold, up and down). Most scholars think that Heraclitus intended to say that opposites are connected; that is, hot is connected to cold since we cannot think of hot without its opposite, cold. I argue in this dissertation that this interpretation and other, alternative interpretations, fail to make good sense of what Heraclitus said about opposites. Rather, I argue that Heraclitus was treating opposites (e.g. hot and cold, up and down) as philosophical problems that need to be explained in order to be solved.