Invited Speakers

Workshop in Ancient Philosophy - HT 2025

Expand All

 

Jenny Bryan (Manchester) ‘Heraclitus’ Epistemic Pessimism

Abstract: Heraclitus is often treated as an epistemic optimist, promising a route to understanding through the proper understanding of (his) logos. And yet there is very little in Heraclitus’ fragments which indicates or explains the route to that success. In fact, I argue, there is a strong case for understanding Heraclitus as presenting a much more limited promise of qualified epistemic achievement for humans.

 

Chair: Marion Durand

 

Isabelle Chouinard (Yale) ‘Epictetus’ On Cynicism and the Stoic Debate on the Cynic Lifestyle

Abstract: Epictetus’ lecture On Cynicism (III 22) is both an enthusiastic praise of the Cynic sage and a disapproval of one of his student’s leanings toward Cynicism. This ambiguous attitude towards Cynicism stems from the complex relationship that the Stoics have with their Cynic heritage. The Stoics generally consider Diogenes to be a sage, but they do not want this example of virtue to translate into an unrestricted endorsement of the Cynic’s unconventional lifestyle. Thus, they establish specific conditions under which it is appropriate for philosophers to ‘Cynicize’ their way to virtue. In this talk, I will highlight the originality of Epictetus’ view by comparing it with earlier Stoic endorsements of Cynicism. Epictetus ingeniously co-opts Cynicism by using Stoic doctrines to defend the lifestyle of the Cynic sage and transforms true Cynicism into a kingly role that only the sage is allowed to perform.

Chair: Simon Shogry

 

Mika Perälä (Helsinki) ‘Simultaneous perception in Aristotle’s De anima 3.2’

Abstract: In De Anima 3.2, 426b8–427a14, Aristotle examines the sense by which we discriminate between sensible features. The problem he addresses can be reconstructed as follows: (i) a sense can distinguish x from y only if it perceives both simultaneously; (ii) there are homogeneous sensible features, such as white and black, that a single sense cannot perceive simultaneously. Therefore, there are cases where a sense cannot distinguish x from y. According to the standard interpretation, Aristotle resolves this problem by rejecting the second premise, proposing instead that a common sense can perceive not only heterogeneous (e.g., white and sweet) but also homogeneous features simultaneously.
I contend that this interpretation is flawed for two reasons. First, it fails to resolve Aristotle’s problem: if the sense of sight cannot simultaneously perceive white and black, neither can the common sense. Second, it overlooks Aristotle’s conceptualisation of each sense as a discriminative capacity, both in this context and throughout the De anima. My interpretation suggests that Aristotle rejects the second premise by qualifying two underlying assumptions: that one and the same entity can possess contrary predicates in potentiality but not in actuality, and that perceiving is merely a form of being affected. Aristotle cannot uphold these assumptions, as they are overly simplistic in light of his conception of the senses as discriminative capacities.

Chair: Michael Peramatzis

 

Teddy Jennings (Oxford) ‘Visible Kinds and "True" Mathematics in Republic VI and VII

Abstract: There is a curiosity of Socrates’ analysis of the mathematical sciences in Republic VI and VII. His criticisms of the sciences seem to centre around necessary features: mathematicians treat hypotheses as first principles; they speak of ‘changing’ what they admit to be changeless entities; and they make use of ‘visible kinds’. Intuitively, Socrates is not here criticising mathematicians themselves for proceeding in this way, but rather commenting on the intellectual limitations of mathematics, given the kind of science that it is.
The idea is that for the mathematicians to stop doing any of what Socrates complains about would be to stop doing mathematics itself, and to take up dialectic. Yet it seems at least questionable whether mathematics evaporates at the removal of e.g. visible kinds. More, Socrates explicitly suggests that astronomy and harmonics can be upgraded, analogising them to geometry. I argue that the analogy between geometry on the one hand and astronomy/harmonics on the other implies that the use of ‘visible kinds’ is – at least in principle – dispensable. Further, I argue that Socrates envisions a version of mathematics which avoids his criticisms while still retaining its status as mathematics, and conclude by suggesting some consequences for the relationship of mathematics to dianoia, the second-best condition of the soul.

Chair: Flora Nelson

Allison Piñeros-Glasscock (Georgia State University) 'Others and Oikeiōsis: A Platonic source for the Stoic theory'

Abstract: The Stoic corpus offers two, competing accounts of the grounds of other-oriented ethical concern: one according to which concern for others is grounded in love of oneself and one according to which it is grounded in love of reason as such. I argue that the same, competing accounts are found in Plato’s Republic and that the Stoics inherited their accounts from Plato. I make my case, in part, by showing that the Stoics were already drawing on these passages to develop their theory of oikeiōsis. Their accounts of other-oriented ethical concern are, so to speak, byproducts of this more fundamental intellectual debt. A major implication of the paper is that Plato’s influence on the Stoic theory of oikeiōsis is stronger than has been recognized.

Chair: Kassandra Dugi

  • This is a speaker series devoted to discussing work in progress by speakers within and outside Oxford pertaining to the field
  • Seminars take place on Thursdays at 4pm-6pm, in the Radcliffe Humanities Building, Ryle Room (2nd floor)
  • Convenors: Prof. Ursula Coope, Prof. Simon Shogry, Prof. Alexander Bown
  • Members of the Faculty, students, and visitors are welcome
  • If you would like to go out to dinner with the speaker, then please contact the chair of the meeting before Tuesday of that week