EMPEDOCLES AND HIS ANCIENT READERS ON DESIRE AND PLEASURE, A. What ae Pinto Spins and Menetemns up to ‘wha swephy though wn ne of an they ne Le el abou hee ello forse se athe Panatonses I snw » group of youngsters inthe ext {round fhe Aendey anid emer deri tie atonishing! They were proposnding definitions bot favre an epeating I estos the forma of Me an urea eet the se of vegetables Ad they ese wrstigwng wo what pea one should Son the pumpin One ofthe boy au an» ou ‘egebeysother ha Hw sony ante ta a ttee When »Steian doctor heard thi, he domed thet mene ava nonsense. (EPICRATES) Racer decades have witnessed concerted re-cxamination of the sncient doxographical tilion ‘This paper coctributes to this ‘8 Ded Water 269 a enue Rahaa Kacey a ono fr BENS Steet ar far a ok LEH Bes, hohe ei eo nd lath ati soot Bae Gens Moun Eh ed. re a) nen svar ar al use fone ‘ALOR (Sen 98, Deb Ate ae se Wee {i ran der Bek ti Ht Man Md Beans tnt Hoa nan ety eed 9 ‘rent, i ay Stes Dm eer 1 ho "The EES Bexcpar ca riya er Nae et epee torn Sd oni ba 3b fe he} Nn {Barby od Boao The Sam ate Pace a ak 2 David Walfderf twend of scholarship It examine set of Ernpedaclean doxographi ‘a pasetges in relation ton elevantars of Empedocleanfragrneta> ‘The doxographicl material purport to give Empedocler views of deste, please, wap, the Gagmentssnchide the concepts of ‘esr, pleasure, 29d pl ‘Beginning most sien with Hermann Diels Dosograph Grae! and Die Pragmente der Vorahrateracholrs have rude ddoxogeaphical mater to eiciateyilosopherd or schools whose ‘work is fragmentary or let ‘This approach to doxogray may be alld reconstruction’ Such recosteuctionsm is backward looking. Somewhat analogously tothe stemmati method of etal criticam, i atempt to work rouge ater account oa ypothe teal archetype Consequently the interpreters ain concerns the ty ofthe doxographial materia ‘Much ofthe research gn the Bmpedoclean dexography for this paper was undertaken in 4 reconesetoniat spirit. But one of the paper's central conclusions i that the doxographers tend 0 ‘oversimplify apd mislead. Thus, according to 4 reconstractonist ‘aun, the doxographiea material rgely lacks vue. On the other hand, showing tha he materi] has these Sees certainly vale Ale ineespect of reconstrctioniom generally and otherwise Inlcontrast to reconsrtionism, doxographica material may be sue from the perspective of reception. From the standpoint of the hypothetical archetype, reesponiem ie forwarding, Te fnterest is how and why later philosophers, commentators, and ddorographers proper interpret and report their predecessors “Teng aii ond Mage imine Wie saben ine rk Pc eo Beebe eats ae Neate ated Solace tess etesens micererarema seamen a Telos penn compa i pa On ae Ee a ee or ame eee ESS cat tye vereExmpedcles ond his Ancient Reaersom Deir and Pleaate 3 Consequently, receptanism doesnot disard untelabe osoare plea materi or unvelible interpretations are no lee interpre. {ations than relible otex “The opening paragraph ofthis paper speak of examining Empe- octean doxographis! materia y wation to? Empedocte’ frag tment. ‘The expression wat chosen to weleone recanstrctionst tnd receptionist inte Although their ais are distinc, the ‘work of reconstructions and reception leary overlaps thus, The wo apptoaches ean be complementary. Indeed, the Papees ‘gate Feconstrucionat esl serve as postive pons a depar {ureforfurther examination long receptionist ines discovery that, ' doxographical panage ie misleading prompt the question why. "To ome extent, receptionismhas been undertaken nthe course of the discussion, Tsay so some seen beeaure the project of fan adequate receptionist interpretation is expecially demanding? For example, envision » book-length study whose chapters were devoted to Plato's interpretation and us of Empedocle Artie, ‘Theeabeastn! and a0 on, Such a sudy would filtate = deep explanation of sa, any one of Aristotle's Emypedoctesn. opisisen, Thus, om a receptionist perspetve, the eflors ofthis paper to cxplanthe donogeaphicl muerialshuld be wiewod x preliminay, nally, we may distinguish a thied approach to dosoetaphy, an approach that to soe eatene coraiaenreconstrucionsn and o> epiioni, Suck an approach, which might be called ‘Saloic, seeks to understand both the archetypal work, igre, or school and its. descendants This ie the main difrence bereen the cit- \oaiclepproach and recepioniam: the daloicl interpreter dows ‘ot abandon the archetype, eventhough the Guxogeapheal ea tion Is errant, The dislogial spprosch precely seeks to clarify by contrast the distineivenear of the aehetype aad the dese ants. This akin to studying for iatanee, the ancient economy tn order to undermand sie madera economy and vice versa. This spproach wil be partiulaly fest when sucesso interpret ton of ther predecessors are inaccurate But tha seems to be the fale in anges Ta sum, this Peper examines, from several perspectives, xt of Enmpedocieandoxographical passages in reason a eecavant et of Empedoclan fragments. Froma reconstracionst perspective he paper assesses the reliability of the doxographical materia, From amp frst lin. 4 Dovid Woiedorf 4 ptt peeve, att lanl he hry of he doroeapien mh pty teen apa cos btn do ae ner nda tes Pes "og penpesive atone cae ego {aati ages om he chy ed aso sa by Sheet ache and ore "he flowing duo ani ne Sw par eh in ching se eo 1 ot hisan denogepbees en Enger Sesame 2 Attioeeontncin f Empedst” ves on desi, lee and pn 5 Theophrartus on Empedare on perception plasre and Pa 4 Complications in Ada and Peon accounts 5: Aratileand Platoon Empedcer an homapencou lemetal 6 Speculation oo Grek sures for Empedols on appetite 2 Bon Ls and peeudo-Phaecs Pace 5 28 4 Aa Erpedecen pincns on appear botaniel appetite 9, Arist’ On Flos and ABs Eepedacean opinion a ota sponte +, Concution she dosograpiel materia) Some trinsoey and gene ear. Binge rte the otto fhe ous Ennpedoceragmentson he etnaone of tle Ermpedoce' rgmentso plese sn pin Conlin to Empey fngent Tete follows » General Couclision, The temainder of this in teoution highlights the central cline and objestives of these ‘Section Ir uses pseudo. Plutarch , 28nd Stobacut +. 50.3 reconstruct Empeocleanopinions on desire pletureyand pein from tin’ fost Placita, Section 1a septa hat ine cared Empedciean opinions oa deste with Empedocian opinions on plessureand pain. The remainder of Par Intempo reconstruct the two pre-Attan doxographiea lineages of Empedoces views of Shste and of plaice snd pain ‘Sections 13-4 focus on the pre-ABtian doxographica! incase of Empedorles’ view of pleasure snd pain. Section 1 argues that ,Empedocler and his Ancient Readers m Desire and Pleasure § hile Atlus derives his Empedoclean opinion on pleasure and Dain from Theophrastus’ On the Sener, Atv iterpets Empe= oct’ opinion on pleasure and pai differently from Theophras- tus Theophrastus primarily constues Empedaclerconesptnn of pleasure and pain in terms ofthe rural conformity and none ‘Conformity of perceptible eMlunces and perceptual pores, Asia Construes Empedocle’ conception of Plesure and pain in tern oF elemental homogeneity and heterogeneity I argue that Aetisr’ transformation of Theophrasts view i due to Ativ’ combina {Non of Empedoclan opinions on desir with those on plarure and pain Section 4, esentially an appendix Section 1.3, araves that ‘Theophrastus’ and Atti respective views are in fact more com. ples then Section L muggesta, Theophastun docs disuan Empes Socles' theory of Peteeption in terme of elemental homogeneity snd heterogeneity and ebewhere inthe Plait Active tributes Enmpedeces the view hat perception occur through the stuctral conformity of efBuences and pores Section L4 suggests x way of integrating these completes. ‘Sections 1.9 foruson the doxographical lineage of Empedoctes’ views of deste: Section 1s argues that Aristotle following Pato, tibute to Empedoctescoomologicl principe of elemental at {rection according fo which elementally Romogensous entities a sttractedtoone another However, Asti’ Empedocleanopinionos| ‘este specially refers o nutritional desire, Le. appetite and this {nn reducible tothe cormologieal principle. Consequenly, Sec- tion Lb speculates on pre-Aétian doxographial sources that might Ihave applied the cotmologicl principle in formulating Empedo cle view of sppetite Arte himeell, Theophrastus, Stato, and ‘Meno are examined as possible source; and while no evidence points conclusively to one ofthese authors, all he evidence points fo the Peripaton “The overarching objective of Sections 17-9 so suggest «more precise identification ofthe pre-Atian source of Empedoce’ op fiom on appetite. Section 17 inteoduces a neglected soute in the mancserpt tradition of preudo-Plotarch’s Placita, Qs iba 5's Arabic translation, Ibn Lids tansaton helpremend cor ruptonsin the Gree manuseriptsf pseude-Pltarch 5, 28.Onthe basis of the emendations snd consideration ofthe broader cote? of pecude- Plutarch. 2 Section L8 argues tht the Empedocean ‘opinion on wppetite specially derives from denographicl mate 6 Dawid Wolfdorf lon ppetitein plants Subsequently, Section Lguses Nicolaus of Damn adapation of Arisole's On Plants oar that Agi" [Empedociean opinion on botanical appetite derives rom Aristotle's lost botanical sete. The conclusion in Section fg thus confirms the speculations in Section 6 dat Attu’ Empedoclean opinion ‘on nutritional desire derives from the Peipatn, ‘Dart Il ofthe paper compare the results fom the doxographi= cal tradition with Emnpedociean feagments in which the concepts of desire, plemure, and pain oceur Section IL} introduces some ‘onvenient terminology and makes some general remarks about Empedodiey’ conception of the cosmos and the place of dest, pleasure, and pain within it. One fundamental dference between Empedocies and his Peripatetic doxographers x that Empedocles sibutes poychologiea states, including desire pleasure, and pat {othe material element of his cosmos, wherea for Artote euch pascholugcal capacities exist only among organically complex be- Ings. Antes fundamental difference that Empedocteswlenties Love and Stile which ae egerded a independent enti principal sources of motivation in other being whereas Aritotle Fegards the itself a the source of mativation, Section Il focureson the motivations of Empedocles soot nd argues thatthe roots have both positive and negative motivations, ‘estes and aversions, to congregate with both homogeneous and heterogeneous roots, Thus the Joxographical adition overimpli- fies insteibuting to Empedocle only the ntracten of ike for ke Taddition othe motivational influences of Love ang Strife on the roots, several fragments suggest eit the roots have certain ints ‘Schinei tendencies and combinatorial dispositions Section Ita oneludes witha dscusion ofthese fagments and consideration oftheir elation tothe influences of Love and Strife, Section IL.3 turns to the motivations of suf ce. elementally complex ents, and speifiallyfcusey on fragments concerning Sppetit, albeit zoologial rather than botanical appetite T argue that eppedte & not ran clementaly homogeneous extn, but rather an elemental portion in which the stuff i deficient. ‘The dlscusion includes an account ofthe disjunctive and conjunctive Toles of Strife and Lave inthe digestive press, Finally, Section H-g argues tha, contrary to Theophrastus’ sug esti, Empedoces not interested in pleature snd prin a mere esations Rather, ofr as elated concept occur within the a=Empadeles and his Ancient Readers om Desir and Pleasure 7 sents, Empedaces is concerned withthe emotions ofjoy and su fering Furthermore, Lave and Strife are responsible for joy ad Sfleringreapectively, which means that, contrary to the donoges. ‘hel tradition, Love is responaible for plemure imu fr we Wave Covjoina heterogeneous entities, ‘THE DOXOGRAPHICAL MATEMAL, 1.1, Post Advan doxographers.on Empedocies on desire and plete “The doxographical materia tht purports to give Empedocles views of dsire, please, and pain divnble ato evo se, post= ‘Adtian and pre-Aétan The pout-Aztian material omnes from St tbe Anthology and peeuso-Phsarcs Paci, ‘Stobacus' Anthology, ok s, chapter 50, i profesedly devoted 1p opinions concerning perepton, the objets of pereption, ahd whether perceptions are trv, Section a8-43 of chapter sooner plenure and pein. Section 38 attebuter te following opinion 0 Empedacls Dray rt toring (3) ep yp pe Baa 1 cap al re YO eran sp impede sts hike things ere pleas rom i hinge ad he {Chey an) a ling i ards withthe hey, Conny, ‘ese tht which ike Beene of hat whic acid! pine ‘ecu beni of ppoier Fr shina hat die ee ost tone sather {Bscordncs wit ath he combination ad be Deng feemente™ A sina pasge acre in peuda-Ptrch’s Plc, bok ‘heorer 28! Th chapter nuns rather nce contain ot ‘Sm perhing tothe quanion “Whence in tina ae dees, Td peruce Served?” One option, Enpetace a ured Inte Grek aio i Fran args Torr es ir Di De ‘ef St le ein Ba Oe a pra Ce ttn. 0, 5 Dawid Wothdorf “Boner se pd pans rt ine td re Deg ae be poolnar foro ovo 3 fe Hoe [al intasspdnc he B Soo ral ie (yin dee) rmpdecen dah bins nai ecording oh deien= ‘ein thee slmente ta compe eae. Ad pleases come fom ‘Sha icongna serding tothe Bends of sted and Ue (element), ‘Phe disturbance and (pts fom wht ancongenia) cers nae one “The Grech text on which this nsltion it baed contains prob- lems, which Tahal disease in Section L7- For the time being, this fendition, based on Dil’ Prgmente der Verzkratiber, etl ‘ofice. ‘Clea, the content of Seobgeus r. go. 38 and petudo-Pluareh 4. a are mil in ac they derive from a common source. Fel- lowing Dil, this common touree i conventionally identified! 35 Ines Wot Placita, Puoulo-Plaare’s Placita ina epitome of ‘Asti’ Plasto and Aetna’ Placita x major soures for the mate- Fal asembled in Stchacus? Anbalgy. Drang on the contents of Stobeeus 1-01 and Paede-Plutrach 28, and without the be- tei of perapective rom the pre-Adtan daxogeaghal tradition or onsiersion of Stobacus’ Anthology or pseudo-Phtarh’s Placita tnd der textual radtions a fet ater to reconstruct Empedo- lee opinions concerning desire, plearure, nd pain from Aétiue Tort Placita might ron s Tlie (An) Desire arses through lack of «certain element and 6 rected atthe element that slacking (a) Pressure aries Yep ining of heer. (Aa) Poin aiaes through mixing of opposite elements (s-2) mitht be conjoined and elaborated into the following a count, Subjects. oh desing, passe, eed pain ace compoved of a Sco elements, The diminution in ane of the elements evokes de- tire in that subject ‘The subject desires the kindof element whose ‘Suanrity diminished, Pleasure arses athe subject regains the ‘ements bind in which rig Seem, Preset, slesneorsea because the portion of the regained element mines with the dimi- ‘ished portion of the same kad of element. On the other handy if 1 efcien subject otaine an elemental portion tht is opposite in kind tothe element which it deficient, pain aves Prec,‘Bmpedecles and his Ancient Readers on Devt ond Peawre 9 ain arises because the portion of the acquired element mixes with the diminished portion of he opporite kind of element “This interpretation of Atsus’ Empedociea optinns 0 dese pleasure, and pain isnot intended to be accurate, only plawsble fn the mere bass of Stobneus 1. 0. 3 and preido-Platarch § 28, without the perspective of the pre-Adtan donographicl adi tion or further consideration of Stobacus and peeudo-Putarch In ‘art, Asia’ opinions are confated and aversimplied, Thscan be shown by direcly comparing (Ba-s) ith Empedoclein fragment Pertaining 29 desire, lense, and pain shal dicuss those tea ments in Pat II. But there good reason to believe that Aa Empedoclean opinions on dest, plearure, ard pain were not di rectly based on an interpretation of Empedoce’ pot On Natare ren though Aétus must have ad acces to the poem. Tn ther ‘words Ati Empedoeieanpionson deste pleasure, and pi, derive from earlier donographers ‘Over three hundred references to Empedoces our in extant Greekliterture between the time of Empedorleshimeel (ft ces tury ne) and Active rst century AD)" Adisionally, we know that ‘many authors whore works ae now lost diseyssed Empedocen For ‘example, Diogenes Lantus mentions or ete teference to Epe- ocles from eighteen authors who had written bythe fw cenry ‘Ao: Avitetle ‘Theophratis, Heracides of Pontus, Hippotot, races of Lembos, Tumaeus, Hermarchus, Hermippus, APO: lodorus, Satyus, Farinas, Neanthes, Alcidamas, Hieronymus Xanthus, Dodoruy of Ephesus,and Demetrius of Troezen, Most ‘fee authors’ works are lo extremely Iragmentary ‘Among extant literature and presumsiy muck that was ti ten by last authors such a those whom Diogenes lise, references to and dicustions of Empedaceslck philosophical content. For ‘ereowe wo Eiprdecn hich weve heed for comcast auth owes Ret inent a Pm Anuie (OL € gue Hipp (6, 25 Tarn 46, eel aK Hesmioin 5 9) lesa 6 Hoop sh Racton 9 Hasee Fah Boden em Te Sart not Bat ESE ells Fomreh as Source or Ermeloce Reenamnad eee Sra of Ploy 9s yes wets weed 0 Dawid Wolfdorf instance, several referenses to Empedoces occur among the eag- ments of Timaeus Histories, but tex ae biographical and poll. ‘al Among references tat have philosophical content, most occur in Artes corpus (e34 Fterences), ‘The second most umes ‘oun but mich fewer, occ in Theophrant’ wack (14 reference) ‘Aproponof(Ax~s)inparicular, Aristotle and Theophrartusare the ‘only estat pre-Aetin authors to speak of Empedoclean doctrines ‘concerning desire, plesure, and pin, ‘Thi encourages the view {hat ultimately (As"s) depend on other sources. Indeed, 1s ‘uggert that (As~3) ultimately derive ffom the early Peripatetic Adoxographicaludion. sal als suggest that Plato influenced inaapectofthe Peripatetic doxographicstedition on Empedocies 1, Attia” conjunction of Empedocts ‘views on desire, pleasure, and pain Before turning tothe pre-Aétan doxographical material, I want to clarify At’ Empedoclean opnighs further Iwano suggest ‘that Agta himself eanoined Empedcleandoxographial material ‘on desir, on the one hand and pleasre and pan, om the other, Tp. go.28-33Stobaeus transmit te views on pleasite and pain of werd other individuals and schools: Epics, the Peripatet= tex, Chrysippus, Anaxagoras, and “other. While sections 28-39, all concern pleaure and pun, sections 28-30 in parca form & aherent subset. Section 28 sibutes to Epicure ie view that pleasures and pain are perceptual, section 29 atributes to the Peripatetic the conteay view that they are cognitive, and sect tion 29 attributes to Chrysippus an intermediate postion secord- ing to which generie pleasure is eogtzed, while specific pleasure is perccived. ‘Thus, sections a8-yo can be vewed #8 responding to the quenton whether pleature and pain are perceived or co nized. Diels pesheps eighty situates #50. 36-30, along with t shumber of other ectons in Stobseu within Ag! Placita book ‘chapter 9, under the rubric ‘Whether perceptions are true.” ‘cieas, tne quero whesher pleasure and pain are perceived or ‘ognize clemlytelevanteo the question whether pereponsare {rae For example 250.17 Stobacusatibutes to Pythagoras,Empedoles and his Ancient Readers om Dev and Pleaare 44 Empedocles, Xenophanes,Parmenies, Zeno, Meliss, Anaxago su, Democritus, Metrodoras, Protagoras, and Plato the view tht perception are false. ‘Thus, if pleasure and pain are perceived ‘ther than cognized, they are false ‘Granted this, Stobweus! Empedeciean opinion at + 0.31 i e= ‘mashable not only in that aye nothing about te selation between pleasure or pain and perception (eePyen but in that eaten 3 ‘oneeption of pleasure and pain to desire, None of the oer doc- tines in 150.2833 has anything to say about desire. In fat, there Inconly one other section fall of». 50 tha contains a doctrine on desing; at + 0.35 Stobscus reports that according to Parmenter and Empedocies desire arse froma ack of nourishment. Diels alss ‘Sues this section in Aton 4, 9 under the ubric "Whether per ‘eptions are true’ and precely, immediate beforethe contents of Stobseus 1. 50. 21—that i before the Empedeclean opinion sbout ‘este pu, ad pleasure Thins very od especialy since Photos informe ws thet chapter 46 of book of Stobaeue’ Anthology, which ‘unfortunately does not survive, was devoted tthe subject of nour- inhment and derrein animals wep! spp Spf a Ue)" ‘As we ave sen, patud-Phitarch’s report a 28 explicitly cone ‘zrnn dere in animals rie dpe =» vat Gifoe). Moreover, the immediately preceding section, 5.27, concerns nourishment and aeomth (np raps al aoros). Init, pseudo-Pltarh report: "Empedostebolds tha animale are nourished through the setting ‘ofvwhat s appropiate™ Caasequenty, Diels should have stated Stabweus 150.25, the Empedoclean st Parimenidean opinion o® desire apd nourishment, it Aétus 6.27, which is Gevoted to the fubjet of nourishment and groweh. Furthermore, Dic situa poeudo-Platarch s.38 in tion, 28 under the rubric ‘Whence testes and pleanores are derived’ Hut surely some ofthe camtent ff Stobaeus to. 1 belong here aswell, [Now since ie contents of pseudo-Platarch 5,28 and Stobteus = we maetconcie tht Ais hinl, aot istesponsibie for eanjoining the Erspedoclean ‘ew of plesure and pu, on the one hand, with that of dese, to the other. Moreover we sould srume that the Ioctin Of hi inns es rar wer gt pee ha ‘Sal (ers, 9) eet oe eae a David Wothidorf pinion in pseudo-Pltareh’'s lai i more accurate relative to ‘Retin Plot tan its lation in Stobocus ntl That to toy the contents of pacudo-Patarch abd ot pear i ei ‘tour the rabrie"Whether perception are rae bul in Aton 5.28 under the rule Whence descend pleasures are derived ‘As we shall se the possibly ha Ast Nims anole Enpedoclean views on sie and on plete and pein eat cnet bythe fact hat the pre-Attan dnographieat aes omthe {opis of desite,on the one hand, sod pleasure and pain om the rhe, derive rom dine sous The tae on Pena te fain derives fom Theophrasts’ On the Sem The mater on ese doesnot indeed te peigre'e mach more obscure eal bein wth the mitral in Pheophastuy Ow the Secs 1.3. Theophrastus on Empedoces ‘on perception, pleasure, and pain Attias’ Empedoclean opinions concerning pleasure and pain, but rot dest, derive frm Theophrastus’ On the Sener. In tht rork ‘Theophrastus categorizes Empedocles views af perception under the division of those who explain perception according tthe pine ciple of likeness. Regarding pleasure and pain, Theophrastus e- {Bmpr ee ta we expense fel heh hinge sate in es moaned anes fart (pea opel he we expres Pa eae} Shout Sing a ar open en) a And again Ines ae tat we] experince nse) tough things ‘that are alike (roi duaioee, and pain ibe hous. Shing that are ‘tu Slog in chpter devel te peep, bat out cher Sever ahmed Mt eo of Sako sk “Al Sion, Thiet ne Gk Pye! Pc eee ‘ngenne (Fhsphaal teepagsaie-a) tr eacdingse iy mpl spe ae Ths met lw in hale oc ina sarc epsBmpedectet and his Ancient Readers on Desir and Pleasure 13, copes [is pring] ..- Moron. knded things [wre abe produce plete tough cota whey. 18! “Theophrastus hereby appear 10 supply Iter doxographers with the view thar Empedeeles held that pleasure aries through the blending of ike element, while pai arses through the blending ‘ot pgosite clement" Yt whetetsAétys and hie followers speak ff plenute and prin the Blending of like and opporite elrments, {Bas is actually not the meaning of the Theophrestean passages sited. Ta bis diseussion of Empedocler acount of perception is (On de Sones, Theophrastus primarily) emphasize ‘priar ‘ot ‘only'™—treteikenes and opposition in ters of structural ‘conformity or nonconformity between perceptible eMluenes and ‘ereeptal pore" Theophrartus begins his account of Empeda= flee theory of perception as fllows: [Empedcles haa common mato often al the ees. He yeh everpion aout ect (he etic} Snape de eee (the ple percept felt 9), Subsequently, he cli: ort i earth what an (ape 8 he pot i wht alte (8 dune 00) “Ths, Pacopheastinerpets structure nntaemty (ype be tween perceptible fluences and perceptual pores slike (un orm ‘We can understand ‘Theophrasts’ subsequent cic of Emx- pedocies accordingly In §8 Theat spt act of pec ie pane Pac pg oe mir ers omen fr en tt wep ile ery in FReotong sso cll ht Pai’ cn tal! step cy ae om 3° A Lang Phnng wed Spe eset a Empl: Mii sei Cid Gare aah een rahe (thd fience) eda ete he fo ae of enc mul pra (ie ters dt pecs pnd oom eet ‘Scent pu tans cep peo Enoclaie sree cy Dawid Wolford [Einoedct' exptaaton of pare an pain inconsistent for be a> {vis peur heaton of like gyi ine dives from Seponter Peure and pin ze thu egarded peptone o eeu with perceptn;coneuents Ye persian proc Gs ok inevry owe ataefomIapen 98) “Theophrastus lain that Empedoce is inconsistent bestuse he presents a kenerl sesount of poresption i es af eset) onformityof effuences cd pores YetTe ao explsing the disine tianbetwcen plesure and pain interme of ikeness andl opposition CConnegventy nthe cae fps, the pereton of ean mus be Spud acevding tote stecurl conforms of elences nd pure but the pesepion of pan must be explained according 0 The nucturl sonconfmity of fluences and pores™ vide, brown Pheophrants and Actin a ignificat tine formation in the sporting of Empedecls opinions concerning panure and pin occured. Inthe ight ofthe disparity beeen "Gheophasan and si,eepeialy noteworthy that Ati” ‘port on Empedocle view of pleture and pin conjoined with Innecount of Empedocl view of desir heres Theophrat Snie Semss makes no tention of Empedotes ew of desir: Sto~ feu wants Aza cm fat scording to Empedoces desire ‘Srihat which nti because of deh As suggested in Seetion Ts ths meno that dite diesed towards x kindof element do hich the chmetally Bonpagenans subj of desire i dete ‘Sent For coovenience shal herefer peak of lerentalikenee ‘lcmentl homogenciys Consequently, AzSus conjunction of Erapedocte view of lamar andpa nh is we of desire lays Tm mprtan role im Asta opnion shat te iene Savoved In Pasueisclemental homoge ater than Theophrat view, recur conformity of euences sod pores the sre of Toeopsst own iterpretion. One might respond a, yl) ey eh nese tem hee na et (Sohp ee Nee ant aon of Pen emtBmpedoce and ir Aniot Readert on Deve od Plearure $ 1.4, Complications in Ati’ and "Theophraes” acount While Aza and Theophrastus’ accounts Empedocles’ concep tion of plenure an pain diverge aeording tothe distinct concep tion of kenny, elemental hmmogenet, and structural contort) respectively their accounts ue actualy more complicated than the ‘receding section indicates, Her, I discus two complictions with "Theophrastas’ and Attar accounts respectively In discussing ‘Theophrastus! account of Empedoce' theory of perception, I sal dat ikesess and opposition ae primarily, but ‘etonlytreuteditevtnsofstructuraleanformity or nonconformity bbeoweea perceptible eluences and perceptual pores. Theophrae- tus westment ef ikeness in Empedcterpeychology is complex ‘Theophrartus also suggests that Enspedocle”peychologia the ‘ony slung the experieoes af plasuee and gin, involves ke ness Understood a elemental homogerty. In rection 0 of On the ‘Senet Theopheatun reports tht Beypedaces conceives of know ledge in terme of Heme: (a (mpc sae speak of owed (perder and gerne a {he ame way fr he apes of percapson)™ Fr he mye that bowing irae to Ike things [vidoe ane being ignorant i de tule ‘hing [vain for ni we kate iterator os pe “too. Forte he emumertes how each lomen) recog each {opr erating to to) eels by ang ht from these flmen) al things hase een fein ened (doe revtrane iguana" aed by men of re te have knee ad ‘Rpt lessee pin Fo coral [- to, Go} Pere: fer pris by ean fh lod tha we ow, on he ad ‘heclements [oral re ended me fll tha ore pars” ‘terrains the general point shat Empedoces was com= tite to the view that knowledge, at well 8 perception s bared Nts Pepe it ended in D4 tj rue Rew of ge (Rev) Cla Review 2 gh eo athe Pe of Ep eo romeo f Tht int 6 Dovid Wofdorf on likeness, Theophrastus alle int the following verses of Empedoces! poem (B 109) ori wih cart that eae 4; with ater, ater wih, dine i “wie desacie Bt none ae se ith i see Ini Theophrastacites fragment B 107 Butsince Theophrattus introduces roy with the words he concluded by adding’ (x ht poodaes), nd this olows the allasion to B x09, Henrich Stein, Talowed by other commentator, propores appending B 107 to B roo, vie ori wih cart ht we copia inna] erth with water water ‘iat, vine a th ne Sortie Breton wp trea hing ating ben itinay cone, ad by es Se Ge ty ne len tenet pn Saarre Granted this relation between 109 and 107, e can inter that “Theophrastus interprets Empedocies view of cognition as follows Blood is responsible for cognition because the material element, in, water, re, end earth, tht enter the blood through the percep” tu pores are reognizedby homogeneous elements that constitute the blood. Blood lag recognises Love and Stife—Theophrastus appeats to believe Empeocls i liming—in so far 93 Love and Seife inher inthe bod ax wel. Finally, Theopheastusimerpre- tation implies that Empedocles understands please an pain like omnition,anthis sugest that pleasureand pain arise through the ‘conjunction of homogeneous elements. Consequently, Theophrar {us iterpetation of pain in B t07 i inconsistent withthe ew, Inhich heals attributes Empedortey, tha ain aries through te blending of opposites, for in that case opponition implin structural ronconforesity. Furthermore, its unclear bow pain and pleasure Canbe understood ralogouly te cognitinn since pain a plese ‘sre not material element that can contact one another” "Theophrartus interpretation Of B 109 and B roy must be con fused: Tagice with David Sediey that Theophrastus’ identifaion Aut Peon Te fe pat gee ry ot Vik ra Toph De wb (so WW Paenbaug dB. cael, Prt Bape oll WanBmpedece and his Ancient Realers on Dove wid Plesire 17 ‘of structural conformity with likeness and his conflation of the likeness of structurat conformity and the likeness of elemental ho mogencity ates function of Theophrastur Aristotelian at im Theophyastar’ “(mprieonment in) an overechematized doxo- iraphicl view according which Empedoces ha goto came out a lke-by-liketheriat? "Theophrasts’ view tht Empedoces was committed tos theory ‘of cognition bared on ikeses dont deren Irom Ariatotl, In On ‘the Soul Aristotle writes 2 hae. sho aoe othe ct that hat at ou A perce then iat sol with the principe or principe trae Ths Empedocte declare tt souls ond out alt cee t ah ce tnt ting sol ha words ae (Da ge r3) Aristotle now cite B r09, Again, in Metapyice Aristotle cits B 109 within the content of = series of crtcams of Empedocles, Acisote claims that i ax Empedocle maintains, Rnowledge i of like by likes then god would be lest intelligent tes other! since strife does not inher in god, god would fal to recognise and #0 luck knowledge of strife (s0005-). 1h short, Theophrastus acount of Empedocles view of know. ledge and ot least some forms of perception, namely pleasure and pain, inchides both conceptions of hemes, scttl conformity tnd elemental homogenesty and inthe ater eare, Theoprantos fatione Aristo Let us now tur toa corerponding complication i Adi ac count. Although Aétiue’ conjunction of Erapedocls views of de- ‘ire and of pleasure and pain suggest that te likeper involved in Pleasure i elemental homogeneity, Ati Hho ehewhere reports that for Enpedocle perception involves the structural conformity ‘fluence and pores, The evidence fortis comes from poeudo- Protarch 4.9 "Borah Hahn wapd vis emer nip vi nat wo bie yet et att yrs tntra dot, Empedecles and Heraclieclei thatthe parce pacepins (ht, Beene re Secon (la) a Pheohin contain Ses south po ‘SS ardsy istene Weg tt Peso coe 6 David Wolfdors serceptions othe ptr tris ocr whe thee cometh [rar omgepi] with he pores hen ch proper jet of pereton tonite ppp) fac of pereetion 18 is questionable whether this passage canbe reconciled withthe pastage in greudo-Plutarch 28, Hereisone possi. In contrat to teing, Bearing, andthe Functions of the ten spent sensory Inodalites, experiencing pleasure and pain are cosmmon fall the ‘tones. ‘Chum, while league and pun occur through elemental homogeneity, perception by means of specie ansery modalities cours theough structural conform of fluences and pores Thus, for example, the pain experienced i touching « bureing coal may Ibe explained, aa form of tactile perception, ar involving ewes conformity of pores and efflcnces and, hedonieally, a volving Jreeropentour amet. This interpretation ialzocompanible with ‘Theophrastus’ claim that for Empedoces pleasure and pein hes are percetions or sccompany perception! (ur lo Boras. ‘Finally, one may ak whether this chertable interpretation of tia ie ccurate The maindificulty eat requtesu 0 main- tain that Aston ether deliberately improved spon Theoprart pethape in defence of x sare coherent arcount of Empedocls, ot {hat he improved upon Theophrastus rather acidentlly™ W te igument im Section [2 is round, that Adtn himwelf conoined Empedocian opinions Avie and on plesture and pin, then this provides some support forthe claim that Actus ors a rather tctive constructor of opinions, That, in turn, support the view that Actas” improvemean on "Pheopiartus Was intentional. But corroborating ths suggestion would require comparizn of other ‘Avtan opinions with those af his predeeseors sina bate Bans Reagan Boner, Epos Sec ser et a Snes tee ay Shae Blinn oom Ray Woe At 9cEmpedoces and hit Anion Readers on Desire ond Pleasure 19 Ls. Arnotle and Plat on Empedactes ‘on homogencous elemental atacton. | wn noe from the pre-ABtian doxographica material on Empedo~ evan pleasure and paint the pre-Adtan donogeaphicl mates] ‘r Empedoctes on desire, Aetue’ Empedociean opinion om desi “Specially concerns utitinal esr, that appetite. Granted this, if ficult to identify pre-Adtian source Sos this Emoe= Uelean opinion. Among aur Greek sources, we have material on Empedoces views on dee, an boanial nourishment, ever a bit on digestion. The pseudo Aristotelian Ow Plants attributes ‘0 Empedores tye view that plants are moved by desire (ndfople rriod, $1510). and thine rsstnnal desire; however mo ‘explanation of this appetite i given. Moreover, nothing rom he Greck tration ofthe doxogespbical material on these othe 0 ‘desire, botanical nourishment oF digeton, can straightforvardly ‘be constructed into the doctrine on appetite Theres lacuna hee. ‘Arabic sources wil uty Belp illuminate the Grek waitin tnd il ora lent partially il thi acura, Bu or expository and Iheuitc reasons i wll be veunble to begin By focusing exclu sively on the Greek tradition, Fist, couider the folowing analysis of Ais’ Empedoctean “opinion en wppetite, Aétur Empedoclean opinion on appetite con- ‘ern the phicogy of mutton, poe dhe view that appetite ree through outed defcency and is directed rowsnde tat Which ia ike ite subject, where likeness implies elemental homo ifeneity. This nutritional principle is anasable into sw0 compo~ ments One introns deficiency a the cause of desire the other ie the homogeneity ot the abject and subject of desir. The frst component may be paisularto nuttin prac The second Se tpects of what T sal al the cormological principle of ho- Imogencous elemental atraction’, ‘The cosmological principle of homogeneous elemental nraction ie the view that homogeneous ‘ltments ae tnd to one another Tahal ein ny exusisson athe pe-Adsan doxographica ta {Pe Trlr Pll ern, ah 248) Tc tee ae ex Sate pio reins. 2 Dovid Watt dition on Empedocles views on deste by focuting on the principle ‘ot homogeneous elemental aration This Empedcletn principle ‘ecursexplicly im Aristotle and implicitly in Pao. Aristotle refers ‘Seimpedocte' principle vie, both timeninethicl works Inbal 1 of Meomacheon Biker news: Some hol that fensbip 2 Kn of hence pera) and that ike treme ee Hence the yng eke an ad fener Back {epee Osher wo ofa trade ever ape’ Friis yt ‘red crh over dean and ay been wh filed witha ae tefl tocar and ecm estat ti what opposes ht help ar “om fret tne comes the fest tne an A hinge ate proce hes ste. Buber, and epi Epedocten 0 he oppose ot ‘Bin tha ie desi (Sun ope ae (NE wispy" Acistotle's dire of opinions concerning friendship according to the principles iene and opposition derives from Plato's [AtLys a1 3-216 6 Socrates explores with Lis the views that {tsendship is based on the atraction of ike thingeand the stration opposites Regarding the steation of lke things, Socrates ies the Following were rom Homies Odyszy ait or Guo Bye (ey de dpe (47. 218), He continues ‘A ave you came arn the wings ne ey wn, mich sy the ‘he things an of veces te Tend ef Ue [8 Sunn r p Aye ee ea for hee en ho nese and ws about acre and te abe fd dhl gn 2s) Socrates refine to he very ise who write bout nature snd the ‘shot sera 10 allude particnaly Yo Empedocles for Empedecles Uses the phrase la to efer othe coumos in fragment B 2, ‘Socrates subsequently describes the contary view bagel on the snraction of opposites ey dee at cod desires ttre, sbarp nt, et all and secon according tothe ame prince Frthe apposite innurishnent feet, ee ot jy oan) the et Clearly, in Nicomacheaw Bihis 8 Aristotle adopts Plato's divisionEmpedoles cud his Anco Readerson Desire and Pleaure 28 in Lyi of conceptions of friendship and aso desire according to [keness and opposition (Granted this iin uncleat YW we get from Aristotle's Empe- doclean cosmological principle of elemental attraction tothe ni titional principle in Aste. Between Aristotle and Aetue there te no exant reference to Empedocles as proponent of the cos ‘mologial principle Presumably, either Avistoe’s view influenced ‘others who wrote on Ermpedocles on nutritional Suite and thereby Informed Actus, or some lst Aristotelian work tall diacuared Empedocies on nutritional desire 1.6. Speculation on Greck sources for Empedocles on appetite Here, entertain several posible sources for Aiur! Empedocean ‘opinion on appetite, three relating othe Peripatetic tradition and ‘Tours slang tothe medical oaographical tradition, The Peri pateticand media taditionsactealy overlap since the Peripaetics ‘tere le involved in medical doxography. However, or expontory Teasons i i convenient to segregate the traditons, ‘Our rst guess might be that Actua’ Empedorlean opinion on appetite derives from Theophrastus As we noted above, however, ielesly does not derive from Theophrastus’ On the Somes since thas work contains no account of Empedoces’ view of desire. Ale \ernaively, Pheephrastor Physical Opinions might have contained 2 siseusion of nutrition, including appetite. However, there is 30 ‘aplicit evideice that i did. Indesdy nating in Theophratu ‘Surviving works ot fragments concerns Empsocles and desire” ‘Moreover, noneof the works attributed to Theophraste by ancient futhorso in Diogenes Lattu’ catalogue of Theophrastus! works is reasonable eanddate fr the source of Astor Empedocian opinion on appetite™ Since ii widely believed tht ‘Theophras fe rig, Pout nd ic ee gen tnt ont ‘nthe fre (Aten 44m 39pm Frnnbugh) sn bebe Ate ‘iSdenandng oP oe en wheel Pe NHR Spe “ Dawid Wolfdorf ‘us’ Physical Opinion ea major source fr Attu! Pacts we il ‘hould not exclude the powsiblity that A@tius' Empedectean opi. tion on deste derives from Theophrastus. None the les we need {0 consider alternative. Anno afles anther avenue. In book 2 of On the Seal Arie tote briefly discusses nation (1 $"22=916%31). Therein he erit- ‘Sees Empedocles’ view of auton und growth plants (1 3"=7— 110618), Arittle’criteim says nothing about Empedocl view ‘St desi or nutritional desir in plants or animale: Yet Aristotle ‘oneludes hi reatment of auztion in Or the Soul by saying: "We have now given an ouline of the nature of nourishment further de tals mun be given in the appropriate place’ (Dal 4160-1), This Feference to an appropriate place for a detailed dreurion of nut ‘Sonispuasling. Bbewherein Artois corpus thereare references {o-ediacuston of sutton that has already occurred (backward f= ference) and that will occur (forward references” bu there no independenr estive dedicated tothe subject. Moreover, none of the ancient ilogues of Aristo’ writing list euch 4 work, Of ‘ours, the references toa drcussion of nutrition need not rele to tnindependent eats they could refer to discunsions of mutton tvthin ether work, im parucular On the Generation of Animals” However though nutrition sporadically discussed inthe corpus, nothing qualifies a sustained, deailed examination ofthe topic Pierre Louis has attempted to exphsn Aristotle's backward and forward references discussions of nourhmest by arguing that ‘Arinole compoted one treatise onthe subject ery in his career, thee planned supplant the reatre with nother athe ultimately ‘never rote and the original resi wt lor before Att’ or pot was compiled and edited. An alternative explanation that the references to dscumions of nourishment in Aristotle, wher made by Artie or editors of Aristotle, are to works composed Leta seperate sh Gono nae ey On ea Se ne rig Sh ett Peet aEmpedocte ond his Anion Readers on Dsine and Pleoture 23 bby other members ofthe Peripatos, James Lennox fers this ge sestion in remarks on PA 65010 cig Asistoes veletenaee fo discassions of plant, which may well refer to Theophrastus swore ‘Futher, albeit mised support for Lennox's ia derives fromm Diogenes Laertus. Diogenes catalogue of Strato's writings in -ladeya testi in one book ened On Nourishment and Grote = ‘Thisis the only Peripatetic woreon the subject wexnawot Feehan some ofthe Aristotelian references to discussions of nourishment tllude to this work, Unfortunately, no other reference to Strata's frente survives Consequently even granting that Aristo re- {erences to discusion of nourishment allude to Stratos work, the ‘ea that Aétua derived hi lim about Empedoces on notional deste fom Strato, and perhaps alo used Stray for his opinions fon nourishment and growth, mast remain specular “Another possiblity is that Asus opinions on nutrition an mu tritonal desire derive fem the medial doxographical tradition ‘Thereissome enerl and some specie suppor for this suggestion ‘Genealy, moat opiiane trated t doctors in Aes’ Placita ac: cir towards the end of bok s, where the Empedoclean opinion ‘on nourishment and growth and on sutriional desire occur" Pulte {hermor, in some caer nutritional deste wae diacussed within Uiscussions of natrtion in medial iterature. Perhape the meet telling example sls the earliest In chapter 3 of the Hippocratic Diseazer WV, whith may oe dated ta can nee we Bnd 4 comer tion of nutrisondl desire and even pleasure ha resembles the views Ati ateibutes to Empedocies: The Hippocratic author probably Hippocrate son-in-law Poly, relates desire and pleare to his ‘cmeeption of physical health 5 equilibrium ofthe humours rn a he pn da ine SFr Paro Ann AV (Oxon 0020 Mme pen ahr moti Oe Reina er rant Le ae 0 CD. Runa, The Maia Assn wo Doctors in Ati Donaghy 00 pe cn er no ‘the Cid, Dinemes IV ipment) Bet, so) 8 zs 4 David Wolfidorf Now if wear in ned (deja of food or drnk the inthis atthe “ody om wl dew from the sures (tha tre thesia hmm) ‘nt the huneare ae reed Below whet ting carro ue). [At that point man ha the desi [cea] ext. dik rarhing Sf wnat fl up [hie the porn sep nd make ea lin to te there Tn hy, evan after ste ave eaten dan 4 lage trout, we sree il ne Cup aod ad wet none ele with pleasure (Bar), exept he particu hing hat Ire dese (hepa. But hen Se ane enen an he tame the Sources an in the bodys equaled [Cats fara pn, then the ‘esie (ae ceven (9.9) Tn his commentary, Iain Lonie agents that ‘the autor simply ving his own physiological form #0 theory of pleasure and pin Tien so far awe ao ve Geet expressed by Empedo ley" However, in support ofthe association ofthe Hippocratic ‘aime with Empedocies, Loni citer Asus opinion st 5.28. OS- ‘iol it Would be queston-begging for us to endorse Loni’s ‘laim. Consequendh fe should any tht the Hippocratic passage contains sgnieant correspondences with Aétiae’ opinion a 28 ‘Thus, | appeal to these corresponds ony in support the speciation that Adu’ dacusson of putiionl desire may devive ftom # medical dosographicl tration” Tn considering the medical doxogrsphical tradition upon which Aatus might have depended a good fst guce is Meno's Medical Colleton Garp ewer). An immediste objection that most ofthe doctor to wshom Atti steibutes opinions are Contempo Faneous with or postedate Mene'scallestion, and this might te ‘against Atv’ use of Meno's collection more generally. However, Sen teat fp i tin amin ‘al Cat nh ‘sepa he mene shen pbc scone uke apes aed See es (erie pune ob} del Pe) es Nee ean “he Mata! Wri of dwg Eo.Empedoles and his Ancient Readers om Desire and Plearare 25 the authorities whose opinions on nourishment and growth and fon desire and pleasure Activ ct namely Parmenides, Emped {es and Anazagors,areallPresocratie Thuy the speculation that ‘Aétus used Meno for these opinions remaine viable” Tn sum, onthe basis ofthe Greek tradition ofthe doxographi- ‘eal material alone, we can do no better than speculate om AEtus outer the Empedoclean opinion on appetite Yet with expert to both the medical andthe non-medical dovograpiea! radon, ‘he evidence points tomar the Pevipatoe 1.7 ba Lg and preudo-Pltarch’s Placita. 28 Fortunately our quet forthe source of Adu! Expedoclean op rion on appeite need ot end in apeculative obscurity Arabic fourcs illuminate the Greck doxogeapica raion, We sal p proach these by way of pecudo-Plutareh’s Placita. 28, In See- fion Lt L mentioned dati that passage, which i devoted to the ‘question Whence in animale are desines and pleasures derived”, ‘only ene opinion, Empedoce’, has survived in the Greck tex ‘ition T presented an English faslatin ofthe opinion bated on Diele's presentation ofthe Green Frapmente The Sirs part ofthe pinion, on Empedockes on deste, i unproblematic: Empedocles (Gays that) desteroccurin animals acovdingo their Sfeiences in thore element that completeeach one rendered the second par, fom pleasure and pain ‘And pleasures come from what i co Bent according fo the bends of related and ike (element), wile ‘Ssurbances and (pains from what isuncongenial) "This rendition is bined om the following Gretk of Diels Prapmente () 1g 5 ore 3 tin md vb npr pie BL Shou nal ve yb Some) fa Diino he Grek nei bet er ak Trowee, Dice's prentan's Pagventes miesng See tele ins Cec mans exe meaty aero STI man al coe aa eg ee ne aerate) SE ie 6 Dovid Wolfdors (©) ne i eth ao seen, (Bi ghjous wei ic!” = SS noe Bt anne canteen gol Egan ae ar etre ere ee gree ‘Sofie eee ee > i (Dyn Bi pte Panne eget rion opel Paces not to ne borne vo nk tte coapn of ees Tne crs ie hte iaranon tt ci lah Sogn e ei eee 2 ee are ee eaeepeictemtera a seedlbormrer ti aan entry Bath scp icecseeoee a tease ferro reer openers ie errcan Bia Ease jen sarcasm tet tmnuerbet Snapucnenonigiemc cea Sonne opener pe green ery ee er ean Carma ea iot ee Ste iy avs vi wi (ee sep ea ae te 7g} aren Pe Pre os ante wr ae ‘phi Oren Put par Epis eden ih'® ng pet Php ar nd ge: cs onl Pega re ina One os an ted ome, Bop Seo ‘is eas eco coer some elec arries fet cheaonpan Sone chee ds rar aos Pe ios SEES cece ween “aaa aeBmpadoctes and is Ancint Readers om Desire and Pleasure 29 Bollack translates (Quan aut pain, produset pri de uid, de én que {tapers gen rounds esto pile pour da cers Chemtime gear, uant mx tener tu (pete 23) “This spproach is atrctve becuse it leaves the txt intact and ateibutes a prima facie plausible conception of pleasure to Empe= Alocls, Bollack explains: 4 yet de eat od toi. Ce od vane dau at précan pai (G20, Le corps derande sors wn supplement de hale ere {pla pun (Quanta "sittin pirlewer) Ag ane de As Vente puerresurmortant a sentiment de cae Fecha Fement,ptel lis du plinsuce ae au li. Le sentit eligi sont anim de pis dane ste scat home, ‘Brose 158) “Ths, Bollck suggests dat (Be wasable Because it reveae that Empedoce’ poem contained ‘une etude des pusions (er des ops- thie) In oer words, the report eles 208 smply to sensation fof plesure and pain, but to emotions of joy and gre. Regarding the concept of grief specifically, Bollack emphasizes thatthe word in(E) 8 Sybfoug, not slyybées oF Mine In suppor of his interpretation, Ballack appeals o Erpedac! Sragment B21, 3s: 'the sun, bright (0 lok on and hot in every respect andthe immortals which are drenched in het and shining lighe, a esn, in al things dark an cole But this ees su port The relation been the content of B24. 3-5 and Bolle’ [nerpretation of (E) is obaureBollack might eve fund stronger support for his interpretation of (E) in DIC 31 A BS ‘Empl ays that sep occurs ya dere cooing of he het in the ‘ond sd death bya tol eoling-” Erpedocer ay tha Seth Separation of he fry tom things whose craton ms compounded {Errmn "Au slegp ccurs yt atpraton af the Bory (Ati 524 Beane "This tetimony, at leat asorates vitality with hea andits opposite with cold” Gwven ahs, Hollck might find support forthe view that Empedoces associated vitality with pleure sid morbidity nae, 89 s Dovid Weldon} ‘But while Bollack’'s effort to preserve the manuscript reading ‘admirable, on grounds ofboth grammar and content hi inter pretation cannot be accepted. On Bolac’s interpretation, nis 80 ‘Bonds Uf bypod san independent clause. Some verb must there- fore be understood, eg, pivolac Vis. rde Bors & Syed yeaa The phrse df yeti famular enough among the dovographice literature; i occurs elsewhere inthe Placita and in StObaeus as well a in Diogenes Laerive and Hippolytus in all sees a= pears to have an Aviation pedigree Pacudo-Phaarch reports {that Thales msintane dat all shings ve Unis aig 4 Set" ‘Similarly, Hippolytusreportsof Hippo of Rhegium tat soul comes into beng 2 typo. ‘The hase &f typos sed in thew cae to describe water or motte a the ote from which ll things oF Soul ae derived, But thi is clearly not the senge in hich on Bol lach’s interpretation the phase i ued in the caute ve ori 26 Spe (vocab). Rater, on this interpretation and despite Bole 5 own tanaation a parti de™—Empedocies isos to hold that pleasures arin ou of te, in dhe sense that plearoes follow the replacemer ofthe cold of water by the heat of Bre. Surely, this ‘ban extraordinary amount of information to pat into the phrase bye ‘On to ofall his work o make sense of df Spm is jutring to Ihave to take rds ro nena na! Stay ninfove 8 4 aecuaaive of respect syntactically paallel to £6 iypoe, Furthermore, wows ioan exceedingly vague word forthe iu that Bollack eads in the tex. By movements of dangers and the lke’ we are supposed to Understand actions in which dangers and the like are overcome. But ean xia possibly be used with the genitive of separation to convey Wllrk'sidea? A search on TL cevals that in fac ther ie oother instanceof the pra’ adwabieo airysin extant Greek Iiterature though the sith century an." Consexeenl either we forcean extaotdinary interpretation oucoF «syntactically sexed textor we admit thatthe texts conrupt I maitain with Del that the text corrupt Tn iewing (E) as corrupt, Die aged with his predecersors SAME re kn Mipilinse yesh te ae RE Lae tn ed inEmpedoler ond hit Ancient Readers om Desire and Pleasure 29 Gost Schneider and Simon Karsten, Inacomment on hit edition ‘of Theophrastus wos, published in 181821, Schneider writes of (By ‘ub verb diniecta et defect sens ex hot loco restitere ali ‘quate shits rr 82 ends Bl ny Suntan mejon rds 3° Nowe Bu vy. Sear." In his Philavphoram Graccarum reiguae published in 1838," Karsten cites the lines om peed Plutach's Placita upto rie 8 onde and Write: sed quae se~ ‘unter ut proreus corrupt, omit” Then in esubsequent footnote Karsten offers his own tentative emendation and supplement. oe 82 onde dfeppecoceard rg na ola elute ninfour, re 8 Shou wai ri hygbévas wis varie Tnshort, Diels ention| ‘of (Eas (D) does aot report the gospel truth, ony an interpreta tion of ie This misleading impreaion can easly be rectified by eediting to indicate that Diels emended and supplemented the text ftom rae 82 fonds of But stl iti questionable he (E) thould be reconeructed, Ts justifying is endition of (E) over those of Schneider and Karsten, Die, ia Dosographi Grae writer “props 4 adits bessent hace = (D440), apd he refers tothe passage from Stobseus 190.30 “Speen 138 # hier aps rip book dare ne Bho | fda. re ‘Shyinar rot tan []Sierpabte feet ea eb nar Granting Diels that Aétas ie the common source of Stobueu preado Plutarch, if Stabsese et be the basin of 3 rvonstruction| ‘of (E), presumably we shuld adhere even ae closely to Stabaee. For example, we might reconsract (Ea (©) vis fet nobus ad rg panera wal apa, Bho ard te ae eran (eugene ep ‘But further light ie ehroen on the reconstruction of (E) fom ans other pre of evidence, unsealble to Diss andunlnoxen to more cent editors of Empedorle” In his booklist al-Pivist,com= Than 67 iia Ando. preety Tear febein Byam dane west oe "5 asuencan's Miny Myuty, ho oo however, xe Dovid Woyeers posed in ao 978 bn an-Nam «bookseller fom Baghdad, en- tions Quay iba Lag as eralator of pseudo-Pltareh’s Pact Tn Ligh (d. aD 9r3) was a Christan doctor, philosopher, and astronomer originally fom Baslbeic in Syria, with commend of| ‘Amabe and Greek. During his ty i Baghdad he translated into Arabi Gree texts he had acquired in Asin Minor Copies of ib Lia's Arabic transation of pseudo-Plutsrch’s Placita came to light ony ithe thirties forties, and Hie of the wench ene tury Ta 1980 Hans Daiber published an edition of ibz Ula’ Placita with facing German tanelaton Oureniest Greek manacript for pacido-Phtarch’s Plaitaare ‘entries later than the cet ibn Lig used: APar 1691, 401296; E=Par. 1672, shorly afer ap 1303; PePat 1957, «ai and Me Morgu. $8 3 In their discussion ofthe taion of peu Putte’ Placita, Jap Mansfeld and David Run conclude that ‘hesourceof fbn Lagi’ translation earmat he reduced any other of our fexts, whether in directo indirect tration. Indeed, ibn Lags'swurce diverges from the ret of the Greck manseript teaditon in numerous noteworthy ways” Regarding Placita 5. 2 and specially (E), ibn Lil's text reads ema adhe tinh mine Lata min hooks Lariat aha jo, eam dh fomin a ary mat Fam wag As for pleasures they che from toiatre dae te movetents of gmk that ae smn bv genu a for Pin aan topsite things ‘ing ita contact and mong" In contrast tothe Greek manuserit tradition, in dhe Arabic tram Inton the second clase, on pain, is complete: Moreover, the Ar bie coreaponds alma crt mith our rconstvtion (8) based fon Stebaeus: née 82 yds ward rig nae erin eerie nak Inder Arvachpacheyden Waptmesenerungen ar aie der Bewepnge Seine hathaledecae tac ethno nae ‘hve Zameen Winch sean Bae Cla) Sie yan dete thr i oa a,Eeedoles and his Ancient Readers on Desire and Pleasure 38 "Tae frst clause, howeves, i more problematic. tains a grammatical ambiguits The Arabic aed foe tashabiat, can modify ether the word or movement arch ‘or the word Tor growth’, Liebiyat This isthe ese even though Ioratat is plural and Liariyat is singlat. My tanaation pre= Serves thie ambiguity. Second, the Arabic version confor with the Gree manuscript eaiton’s readings of yes and maou "Thing the Arabic version contains nothing corresponding to sseBinorin the Greck manuscript tradition, Rather, the Arabic Yer- Som is -tarbiyat (corresponding to the Greek vis alfjove), ‘uhich hes no equivalent inthe Greek manvsctpt tradition. Fouth, the Greek manurcript tedion’s dust does no agree with the [Arabic mutarhabihat esuse, at we have esd, mutasbinat o> tier stherharokati oe -arbivat; however Sate and morons a in we diferent aren and uot doesnot autee with ry oleforer in number Fifth, the Oreck alo has two conjencione wot ‘aly Which correspon to nothing in the Arabic version. I the Tight of these five points the Greek manuscript fem which Ibo Lg worked must have looked very clore othe following (A) 183 fe i gp ced vi oat Sut ent ht Wright tad ewan mpl spc Let us now compar the problematic tions in the first tases oF ©, (S), and (AY vie 8 Hoe (Ef byes on ri v2 tine a gow ero (G1) yetas and ve foto eget oa poe (30) pps an ev aon rr yan nr Comparison suggents the following points its, ybcafas should ‘be left implicit Second nerd rater than the Bre alin (E1), it correct. Third, ar eBioww in (Et) i coerup.Usuggest uyepans inatad Fourth, the presence of we adforurin (At) may be con ceptly relevant to the remaining eontent—certsily more than ‘in short rle in (Ar) el lea. Filth, urns a [ies corruption of apdoes or vice versa, Sith, (Ax) erroborates the presence of Jf Sy in (Ex), but of ype emai pursing "Besar ecm Leal io ra ee gern pe ne ie nna ues phan oi eee Sioinln pai otitine cher hack asa 3 avid Wolfdorf Evidently, these considerations alone de not clarify how we should reconstruct the archerype ofthe Empedoclean apinton on pleasure im poeata-Phtach's Placita 28 Hut further elp come’ From consivering the brotder content of Placta 5.x and ibn [Lag traslation of materia n that broader context 1.8, Atte’ Empedoclean opinion ‘on appetite a botanical appetite Recall how pasudo-Plueh’s report at 5.28 begs: Epes sts desire ocr roto scoring other diene in thovesloment hw songs cach ae Compare this with Stobseus raped say te thing (i at) fling in aecerdanee with the fsncy. Conquer dhe wid eco at wich len One difference between preudo-Patach’s and Stobeeus'foerula- tions that peeudo-Pitarch speaks of desires oecursing ois Gos, theres Stobaeus dors nt idenily the subjects of desire Stobucus Inerelyapeake a ke things (reir pong). This aes the question nether Ati’ opinion refered specticlly to Gear rather toa Trower set of entities, In particular, up to this pout I have rans Tnted vie Enea ail" ut th what means here? {Could vd {ga be weed here mote broadly to mean “ving dings? “The Pesiatetic ease On Plant report: Anaxagoras and Em pdoctes say that plants are moved by deste (ErBos) and that they ste eapericnte perception and fe pain Pera and ple tur (Beata? (8151518), Indeed, the Peripatetic athorcepors ‘Anaxagoras and Democritus and Eapedoces have at that plants ind (ois andunderstending [seu] (8116-17). Com re these testimonies with ‘Times’ position in Plato's epony- fous dialogue." Timeu rejects the atsibution to plants of Beit (Gis), reazoning Qoyiouse), and mind (0), bathe too mainains thet plants purine e'sleasant and paul peteepions 8 well as * Lien he gto Tl a dd ra rs a a Bots 3 GTR" Reoy Pun Ps nan, Cal Gy oeEmpedoles and his Ancient Readers om Desire and Pleasure 33 desis Pedpind (738 5-6.” Furthermore, Timaeu deliberately refers to plana at {aon the ground that anything tha ‘patakes| file (ot ili entitled to be called a Zor’ (7782). Plata conception of plane ae Za follows a mamber of other Presoceatica Ip contas, in On the Sou Aristotle agus, inst his predecesors tht plants lac the capacity for perepiion, let lone cognition (4"32-"3} Thus, at we move rom the Pres tates to Ariat the at of entities tht cout a8 fea Shrinks and the poychologicl functions tributed to plants ate reducrd. ‘hen, Ait options ave bated on Peripatetic sources, if those Sources follow Artie in denying percepion and soon plana, td nally if paedo-Pluareh’sdentfcation ofthe subjects of de Sine with animals crcety represents Ast’ opinion, then wee Conude tat ARS opinion expen concerned die i ae ‘mals and not plants. Indeed thie conclusion seem fo be confirmed by the contents of Ads’ Placita 5 26, which fall under the rubric "hor planta gow and whether they are animals oir nS od ‘dont wol fel The fet that Aes poses the question this sony indiatn that he takes {orto meen animal’ “Yet inthe cate of Empedocles’ opinions on desire and plant in ia at Placita $8, the question remains complieated. Peewdo~ iutarch's chepite 526, devoted tothe questions how plans Erow and whether they are Za, begins withthe claim that Pato and ‘Thales regard plants ab daloya a, whoten although Arte regards plants 8 Gafoys, he deen that they are Ube. Pseudo- Phuttrch, chen, proceeds ogivea lengthy necount of Empedoclan ‘opinions, eginning withthe lum: “Empedocls sys Unt trees tree te fart {gato grow up frm the earth.” This t least per ‘nis dhe interpretation tht the Empedosian opinion on deste and 2 Set ln lem na te et i docand Dit hak hee vce baked ogee, Surly Psa Poy Oxon Stes nn apy 0 e950. 2 aanethtnes Daberdnte oes ‘Popes ede seer en Late grander." ara, serene ean "CC kya be Empty tea Phar SECURE NTA Sten ts nat fn tm thy cam Secret demu mpedece mye the te mal ™ David Wolfdorf Dear at 38 incades plant In fc, Twat argu or he ‘tronger cain the tur Enpedolen opinn ats 28 speci $y concern dene ted plenarin plants tnd dat Ain Cee the opinion from donographie! mera on platts—reqaees of steiner Ais employs de opinion win aperon te que Tso the eure f dsr el lene anil “Rete Placta . 37 sonceraa nourishment and grow he ranieapeno-Phach 52) yp pf rl se fonun™ Ob ‘ive hss oe nt pel eects of roth ad Seurithent Inthe Greckmatncrpt edn of paride Par Eile Packs, 39 ontaon an Ermpedalen apiton oot {Sven and gomh ad theo begine wits one fom Ansragore, Henkes spe wie Ate pin the mance ea Of The entage rons ioe hs spibnbs pi vk Ga Snore ro an fee, HUGE cp vopnotn ed Beppn pcinbes BL rl fue hae es ecru rls i pmo 1 pve ipbasbentn pti wee iu Mafra udv (Dil, Doe.) (iEmpedots eythane noite hgh he sting doe ‘sch ai od sn] nth hy rom teh he ene ‘thet hey simi ed pra (snd xa] huh the lack teach one [tr iden) [i But homane a today in emperen ‘wih the Eat humans Have the form of bore [ii] Anata ee {had ate nou on Ligaen difers fom that ofthe Greek manuscript raion Snryeverh epee Fits, ton La begins with the Ananagoreat ‘opinion (il and completes Anas eine ht ania pond re ihe fe mascure [eereraea which ech Of thr Organ devin during feeding od nei een vo det wale frm, se Bot ee Lik on ohh Bar ta 9) Sse een Sere mantis oe)‘Empedaclt ond hit Ancient Reader on Dee nourishing ‘They row when thy aque ltf maurishren ut become Second, in ibn Lagi’ text the ie about humans of sy bein Tie neeborns in comparison wih te at numa 4s rmediscyfllowing the preceding quotation and thus satributed fo Anmagoras, not Empedocls" Third, ibn Liga’ rendition of the Empedoclean opinion [i others, dential that ofthe {Greek tradition, withthe exception of one word, ‘The Acaie bas \Bcheruabat, which corresponds co the Gresk fyped, cater han tm Arabic word corverpondiog € 740 lai. ‘Pus ibn LOgis sesion ranelates| Emedeces (says tat) vi a sf poured trou the veting re i engare fo pet) sa tht they Brow soup the preence of eat Trees eras uote at pee] trough the ck of ch se eden" “The phrase ‘each one (ixardpus) can now be seen freer to moi thn ind heat respectively On tie eading, moisture is responsible for nourishment the sense of increase of bul, while heat i Grate fur tenet grow The ghroreeach one"~that i, fre and heat (eather than that whichis akin and heat)—hueher Confirms tht pedis he coerect reading. "RS we have seen, pueudo-Phtarch S36 conecrns the gener sion of Plame ved whether they are animale. A Tong Empedocean opinion on this abject includes the following esi “rego benny ices schema na te wt en scien Thana dere ‘Sesion tw eae Se di mss tam hanes cea ne Tener items di emir te Be orcad acne cela seas Jina son oto rman nF om aa 2 hee rte ae roe och Jc eee x6 David Wotfesorf Considering thes claims in conjuncion withthe opinion v.22. swe can infer that pants grow vertically hough the absorption of heat, derived from fre ad that they are nourished by moisture, derived from water, These inferencea conforns with iba Lis presentation of the Empedoclea pions ing, 27 that xd a are foutished through the selling dona of moisture [rod yp" and fh they grow through the presence of hea. ‘This eonelsion, in ture, supports the conclusion thatthe Empedoclean opinion on noishment nd proms 8.29 petals to plants ‘Consequently suggest that we cat make the following see of the opinion at 5. a8 Fist, in view ofthe compariton of (E), (81), and (A) fromthe preceding section, now considered in conjunction sri ourGineeion ofthe broader conten peeido-Pltath inthe Greceand Arabetradtions, we shouldrender the ase pertaining to pleasure at 5 a8 a) “ ons Syed aad ere aden ros wl Sunn oy Peaszes une fom apdture asordnce with movement of sronth td th Weningo ite semen, Consequently, he frst two chants of he Faapeclean opinion a peetdorPltatch s, 28 shoul be rendered Epos athe deste osu nana ecording tori ‘(en hae nt pe cho dn forme croc mth nso oe "The phrase of éypa3 can now be understood ax refering to the rmoleture that nouriahes pare, Ae 27 eases plants ‘diminish and Devs (uso xa $e] tough the lack (ede ofeach one [eeardpa agin, hest and moisture) Tha, plearure is conceived se function of replenishing & lack of moutur, Moreover, the ene mea pets sare stomataExpects and his Ancient Readers on Desire and Pleavire 37 ‘epenishment of mointre, which pleasure accompanies, occurs in ome unspecified way) i aosrdance withthe process of growth, Perhaps hisean be keno mean thet when planta sos mitre they do not merely increase in tly butter increase fy Bulk confor to thelr vert growth ‘Let us now consider the rendition ofthe lat clause of 5.28 on pain, Jon Lags's Greek text probably tea: se 38 dou sora ‘He nae donne oer wal npn, Thi ela 10 the Bal Clause at Stobacur 1. go. 30 (ie 8 Dippin ora (arnt pp ia Su Bad) ‘Thus, pseado-Plutarehs Empedoclean opinion en pain might be rendered in Engh au ‘psinn come from the blending al ming ‘foppmite element But this approximately corres, i aso problematic in the light of our preceding conclusion regarding the ‘pinion on pleasure; ori pleasure arses not oly font eben like elements ut from moisture in accordance with movement ‘ofgrowth hen une wo expect some correlative pot shout pa forexsmpie pain arses from the Blending of oppose erent, bt also from lack of moisste or movements enthetical to growth ‘One explanation of thi problem i that paeudo-Plutach's Empe- dloctean opinion on pain is abbreviate, Inde qveuide-Pltarch ‘nenerallyabbrevates Agius: [f2, however then Stebaeas report trust also be abbreviate. This at lout, conistent with Ma {eld and Runin's genera eonclusons regarding Stabs! method ofexcerpting ” ButsinceStobseu and ton Logis Frrmlin of the Empedoctee opinion on pain are nearly identical, there should ‘bea more retbleexplaation for why the opinioe on pain docs not precisely eorrelate withthe opinion on pete. ‘Asecond explanation derives frm the view defended in Section 1a, th Aétan himsel war responsible fr combining Emapedo clean opinions desire, om he ont hand, and peana ad pai ‘heather In doings, Actvseems thane been under teinfutice ofa familiar conception of pean related to dsie-atiuction ‘Aswe havescer the Emgedeclean opinion identifies deste a a Jing from a lack nd pleasure a accompanying the seri ofthe lack, The dsie-tatsfacion conception of pleasure is relatively easy we uce witha comeeptin of plemure bused ot the blending Astana 7, tm) 38 Dei Wospidorf fle elements, sncethevetmedying of lack cam be unerstood a= Supplying «deficient elemental portion with epleniing Momo {encous elemental portion, But the desire-atisfsction conception of peanut square lee eaiy with a coreatve conception of pit based on the blending of opposite cements. Un thi ese, pain is Understood to arise wen, following desir, an elemental supply ot ‘coe hind mies with « deficient elemental portion of a hetroge ‘neous hind, However, thie conception doe not explain the pain of lack tae, assuming asthe desre-aaifacton mode) typielly da, that pain artes precinely from a lack, Consequently, the failure of recite correinion between poeudo-Plutareh's and thus Aétu Empedosiean opinions on pleasure and on pu say reflect an = herent difficulty in Aetr’ combination of opinions on desir, om ‘he ome band, and on pleasure and pain, onthe other, ‘We now have good reason toxins that the Empedoclean op: sion on desire mt Active Placita 5 38 concert botanic] appears, ‘egulcasof whether the opinion wa put toute to explain appetite lnvanimals aswell plans. However, we sil have not identified the soee of chis Empetoclean opinion. The min pungane of hit section his een t show tha the Ezmpedoclean opinion on desire ‘sentially concerns botanical desire and to emphusize the role of ‘he Arabic tradition im lluminating tha pois. Inthe follow Sec= tion I suggest he identity ofthe source of Ati’ Empedocian ‘pinion on desire, Defore we tura to hat dscutson, however, one ‘utetanding emu concerning pacado-Platarch's Placita §. 27 de= Recal (i rors pasudo-Plutarch’s Placita 5. 27: ‘But humans of today in compasion with the rt humans hve the form of hewborns” We have noted that in the Greek rutin, (8) fllos= the Empedoclean opinion on nourishment and growth i however, jn fo Uns translation [i follows the Anakagoresn opiaion on ‘ourishment and growth [i]-"Two austion thon, present the selves. Fest, to whom does [i] belong? And second, does the B that [i concerns humana got complicate, if nt undersnine, the 3 ‘gument thatthe Empedocian opinion [ij at Placita. 27 concerns Botanical nourishment and growth? “The contents offi are not consistent with say ofthe tetimoniex Lier eh i ale ah Pm‘Bmpedoces and ie Ancient Renders on Deve and Peaitre 39 or fagments of Empedoctes or Anatagoras” Thus itscem likely ‘hat [a] belongs to another pllosopher and that indeed tb mis placed in both the Greck and Arabic traditions, The most likely “andidate a the proponent of i Anaximander, or testimonies Sftribute to him the opinion thatthe feet urmane emerged filly formed from fh of Bah-likecreature" accordingly ineomparizon withthe Best huntns, humane of today would lok ike newborns [At pseudo-Platarch’s Plata, 19, whose rubric is "Concerning the generation of animals howanimils were generated and whether they are destrctible' the Ananinandrens tetimony’ix described ‘fhe fir land ssinals (24a), not imsanespeiicaly however, in ‘Centorinur and Plitarch iis described of humans Since, moet likely, i] snot an opinion of Empedacies or Anantgorar ad doce fotbciong at Placita a should not further complicate ou at [rument dat the Empedosiean inion on sourshment and prowth SU. 2, haji, concerms plats. Consequently, now turn #0 ‘he source of Aasus? Empedoclan opinians on botany. 1.9. Aristotle's On Plants and Aétivs™ Empedocear opinion on botsnical appetite ‘A work On Plants into books is listed in Diogenes Laertve! catabogue of Assis writings (5. 29). Neaander says thie re ‘work wa lst thus lot, at lest to Alexander and hin circle, by the ate second century Ab. Aristotle hinself refers to sh a wor ‘ine ais, snes gelquey somnetimes Gnesi” Fragment fom the work compiled by Rove we negligible However 2s HJ Ces ena. Pa. usr cm ha. 13 1 pie pi ti fn Devi eles Cetin iC Sl’ ting gas FP st le ibaa og “Alam Sey, Sm ws: Deng ty ere De pete i ee a 0m he Ce ‘eat te a6 98 han 2 Dovid Wastns etna ti a Re "has Ost npn ne ie Gd ted ie pa Me Bue Sista done gene emp wi Fen or fy Hite en Spent at Sr ee Traps Rn is pana le Sin asa tle eos sintPingnt Anta Dera Wh tet ent pe Pa oh Sister Sea pn ted ee Pe ei ena See aba ease ‘rte Lat Rs Dans Bhs Brgy a Ase an ra Son a aber ec me roa tn tra, Talus arm in te Latin oe SB es hinting chr mise ganas cee 8 ee ee er enone nim acP6 ree”Bmpedoce and is Ancint Readers on Deve ond Pleaure 41 Aristotelian theorists in Nicolas’ On Plant derives from Theo: Dhrastus. This strongly suggests that sis doxographical material from Nicolaus" On Plants derives fom Aristat’s On Pent. In prcular, Nicolay refers othe views of Empedocles, Anasagoras, ‘Democritus, and ao on the prychologcal capacities of plans, We cited several of ese above In brie, Empeocles and Amaxagoras te sd to maintain tat plants have perception ml experience Pleasure and pain” Empedocies, Anaxagoras, and Democritus ‘maintain that plants have reason and understanding” Empe- Aocles, Ananagoran, and Plato ateibute desi to plants” And ‘Anaxaorae maintains that plans ee aimals™ ‘These opinions fare then contested with the Aristotelian view that plants do ot have theve higher payetchgiea! capacities ‘Thus appears that ‘onc of the copie Aristotle dicutted in On Plant was the range of Drychologialcapaciin of pant, andi appears dat, presuraly tay in book «Aristotle dacussed and crtcized the views of his predecessors Empedacles, Ananagoras, Democritus, and Platoon the subject Thir well conforms to Aristotle's doxoprephial habits In his vorviving works Finalyonedoxographcal passage in Nicolae’ On Plat, which 1 asgme derives from Aristotle's Ox Plans. x paralleled in Aziun 5,26. The Empedoctean opinion at Ais 5,26 begin: Emped les says that tres were the fist (Ga to grow up from the earth before the sun was unfolded szound it and before night and db ser separated. The Arabic translation of Nicolaus! On Plant re- yore watement of Empedocte i excllen, namely that plants tere generted when the world was incomplete pc “ain ct anh ene Ee eh tp wi ey tye Ln se {n s69)“Thesenement scribed o Empeco=i mrt gucston Becta ‘kndegurs aed ranma a care fam murs ech he 2 David Wolfiderf Inu, the evidence sugges that ome ofthe doxographical me terion Botany m Aitus 36, the Empedaclan and Ananagoreas opinions on nourishment and grove aes 37 (bath of which, af hive argued, concern plats), nd alo che Empedetcan opine ‘on deizet 38 hich again as Ihave argued, concern botanist ope) derive from Arstote’s On Pants. This conclusion leo "guaresnicely with our evidence rom Nicomachean Bier concer ing Empedocte’comtological principe of elemental attraction. IF Arisiote’s On Plans did discuss Empedoces' conception of bo- ‘anicl appetite, then presumaly Aratolle's account would have been informed by Aristotle's view that Empedocle ws commited 10 the coomologcal principle [.to, Conclusion othe donographica materia Figure 1 repress the doxographisl tradition on Empedocles on deste, pleasure and pain, according the preceding rerlts. The Aiagran distinguishes two pre-Astian doxographiea eager, one Detaiing to Empedeclean opinionson desire, the other pertaining to Empedoclean opinions on pleasure and pain The doxograpi Gal lineage desire begine with Pat's Ly, wher the conmo- legal principle of homogeneous elemental atraction is pliily stributed to Empedocles hit cormologicl principle i alo on ‘rived as principe of die st motivation; in ether words, i is ‘conceived aa poychologicl principle In thi reagect Plato icloser to Empedortes than Arstale For inmance Ihave reenter Dhasiaed that in Ly Plato develope the view shat uma doo eesti Seer sys a na era as =i ad ewes tO ew i, et fhEmpedectes and his Ancient Readers om Desire and Please 43 one, albeit for us humane expecially important, instance of a much ‘more general condition -- fii analvsed a3 ewo-place relation ‘whose participants (326) may oF may not be humane" For ex- tiple, Socrates considers one theory i which the wet desire the dry andthe cold desires the hot (Ls. 318). Se Lan Plate as a) i Ass Oat Sou apr Pea io. Stans ofthe danogapicaledton In Nicomachean Bthis 8 Aristotle appropriates the commotogca principle of elemental attraction from Ly, ste deploying itis ‘tamination of fiendship and slo within the Platonic framework ‘ofa dichotomy between conceptions of trenship based em ike hess and opposition, Aritrle explcly attributes the principle to “Empeocls In contrast a Pit, however, Arion hime woshd not have regarded the cosmological principle sa principle of de tr, since Arntotle denies that ents more peyelolgiclly basic than animals have desire. Arabic translation of pacudo-Pltarch’sPlctaelps ‘more specifically cancers appetite in pant. The Syrse-Arabic~ Latin- Greek tradition of Niclaur of Damascur’ On Plants sup- port he view thatthe source of Aétus Empedocean opinion on “” avid Wothdor! botanical sppetit ix boot 1 of Aristotle's lot treatise On Plant. Given thin Aristotle's acount of Empedoce’ conception of bots: eal appetite as preumablyinformedby Aristtle'sown concep- ton of Bmpedocler commitment tothe cosmologica principle of homogeneous clementl attraction. Indeed, the cosmological prin- ‘ipl is an analytic component ofthe ntetonal princple Them “ftione' principe supplement the coamaogiel principle with the interrelated concepts of deficiency and completion and the inter- related concepts of subjective and objective complements within a ‘physiological sytem Sericlly speaking, the doxographical lineage on Empedoctes on pleasure and pain begins with Theophrastus’ On the Senses how ‘rer, Aristotle's On the Sou signeantly influences Theophras- tho" treatient, In On the Sou Aristotle interpret Empedocles fragment B 107 10 imply that Empedocles war commited t0 2 conception of knowledge and perception involving the elemeotal homogeneity of ubjectand abject Since B 107 seks of knowledge savella nado ant ood, Phonpiransar applion Ate’ ine terpretation of B07 totheae Greek concepts, cocepts Theopheas tus himeel interprets within the context of his dscusion of the lysiology of perception, ax eesations of pleasure and pain. "This Theophrastean interpretation of Empedoclean opinions on lesen pein's, however, only one of twa in On he Senses, and ‘minor one at that. "Theophrastus simaltaneoy maintine st tinder the influence of Arist’ schematintion, although perhaps ‘on the basis of his own interpretation of Empedocles—that Empe- Aloctes’ conception of perception depends upon likeness. But here Iikenes in understood a structural conformity between effluences sd paces, Eurthermace, Theophratisapoie this interpretation toplearure aid pain so that pleasures unerstond to wise through the structural conformity of eMluences and pore, while pain arses ‘rough nonconformity. I doubt that Theophrastus regatds these two intespetations of pleasure and pain as compatible, especially nce he erfeae aie tnconistent Emnpedace' conception of pain aed om structural nonconformity of eMiuences mn pores Sill, in what survives, Theophrastus docs not explicitly addeese the selon between the 800 tnterpretetion “Actus appropriates Theophrastey conceptual framework forthe interpretation of Empedoclean opinions on pleasureand pin based fon likeness and opponition. Yet Astivs understands ikeness andEmpedctet ond his Ancient Readers om Deir and Pleasure 48 oppoition here a elemental homogenity, aot a structural con formity or somconformaty of effluences and porex. Elsewhere i the Placte Aviv also appropriates Theophrastus’ Empedocies recount of pefeeption as structural conformity between efllenees tnd pores, but thet secount doesnot gure in Attys Empedocean ‘pinion on pleasure and pain ‘Ati himlfsppeas responsible or uniting the doxographical lineages on Empedocles on deive or appetite and on pleasure and pain. One consequenceaf thi unification is precisely the excltion tf the Theophrasean conception of Empedociean pleasure a i Solving titeness understood a stracural conformity of eluences Ind pores This cems tobe duet Aston’ understanding of Erpe- docls’ conception of pleasure according Yo = desre-atisftion ‘model and because the object and abet of desire are elementlly homogeneous ‘Thus, pleavure aries through the restoration of defct, and that cestoration involves the eanjunetion of homoze “Two faa points shout the dosographical tradition, Fist, Fi irre 1 aboveis bared on knowledge and hypotheses that aelimited boy te paucity of extant texte, For example, thar been thought that Pheophrastus’ On the Sens isaconntuent of Theopheast Ply sical Opinions however, the jury femainowut ieee confirmed that On the Senzei one of the books of the Phra! Opinion and 4 Theaphrastu’ Physical Opinions inchaded sections on pant nd their peychologicaleapacite that were indebted vo Arittl's On| Plant, our acount and the accompanying diagram would change, “More generally, the diagram should not be interpreted # suggest, defintely shat there wereno intermediate sources between Aetus ta Arntole's On Panton the onc hand, and Theophasts’ On the Semen tveehar For example, whether Aétive derived Ais- totes Empedocian autrional pipe directly fom Aristotle's (On Plant ox fom an intermediate source ie unclear "The second point concerns the role of dicrsisbaved on ike ness and opposition within the doxographical mateta- One such inves is explicit in the oarologieal principle in Plato ad Aree toe: Who knows whether sme such diirer informe Aristotle's tiscussion of appetite in Om Plant? Another such dares ex Dic in Theophastar’' doxography of theories of perception and Tnowledge While Theophrastur’ account of Empedocley concep: hin inane ae’ sine Papa, 48 6 Dovid Wolfdor) tion of cognition and perception i ia this resect, specifically in- debted to Aristotle, no pamage in the Aristotelian corpus confirms ‘har Aristotle himeelf x responsible for istiating such x diane in doxography on perception and cognition generally. Likewise, eo sschevidence derives fom Pat's dslagues None the es, Plates formative role in wha: may be elled dairetic donogeaphy xhould beapprecited. This role i confirmed the aire in Lys ielf tnd the fact that Plato is rexponsibe forthe inteoducion of the Alairetic method in dilesc generally” 1.1, Some terminology and general remarks 1 begin the dizcusion of hon Empedectean fragments in which the concepts of desire, pleature, and pain occar by introducing some terminology and making some genetl remarks about the plsce af desir, plesear, and pain in Empedecles’ cosmos, TEmpedecies ses the word "oot" Gildpare) to refer to cath, water ai, and fre, the material elements of the cosmos (B 6.1) ‘The word 001 ony loosely correspondsto the doxographers word ‘clement (erase since the word element is used te refer Love sna Site a Well at to the roots Ih contrast tothe donographers, Thal! use the word “principle” to cover the four roots plas Love and Sue Te wil be convenient to speak of ‘radical portions” a well at ‘ota By a radical portion’ I mein 's part ofa rot’ To some extent, this phrat x tupported by Empedocts” own language at Baz. 1-2, where "the gleam (ofthe sun), earth, sky and sea are ences 'Sted together with theirown parts [aur pee ‘Adiitedly, the phrae ‘radical portion’ is somewhat misleading ‘ince Empedocies himself understands the four roots qua e008 belingrediens of whinge. As ave, root may be and wally i 2 portion ofa comples. Consequently, he reader should understand ‘hat | am wing the phrase ‘ada! portion’ in contrast rac ‘masts whee, for instance the Earth, understoodasthe aevegation ‘fall earth inthe conmon, constitutes radial mage of earls and ‘hue the oot earth in fly ued state earth nx radical portionBwpedoces and hit Ancient Readers om sie and Pleavire 47 ‘would be any gare oF subset ofthis radical mas, fom a hand hall distinguish desires and aversions a two motivational a siuudes The motivation of one entity to congregate with another, 1 shall alla “desise's the motivation of ene ety to separate from another, sah ell an vere Usall speak a ae este desire fora heterogeneous entity aa heterogencousdesre’, <8 partion offire's deste to congregate witha portion ofairIshallspesk of ‘nt’ desire fors homogencous entity sx «homogeneous deste’, 4 portion of e's deseo congregate wth another portion of fre." Accordingly [shall abo speak of heterogeneous ana homo: [encoun everson, For example, «portion of he’s motivation to ‘Separate from a portion af water isa heterogeneous aversion, while 4 portion of fire's motivation to teparate om another portion of {ites = homogeneous wero ‘Now, sone general remarks rbout the place of desire, plaeure, snd pain within Empedocls! conception of nature. First emus bbe emphasized that, na a, the donographer lead bythe very fat that they suggest that Empecocles had opinions on the ‘subjects of dest, pleasure and pun. This x mishading xo fo fr Empedocls nowhere deliberately ses out to anser questions such a8" Whence do desires and pleases derive?” While desi, n particular, plays alent ole within the cosmological and perhaps ‘otania and eaalgical wpect of Empedocle’ pot, the tine tion of desire, pleasure, 2nd pain ae explicit ropca of onologea ‘and peycholoncal enquiry aries only ltr inthe Greek theoreti ‘tadition, Consequently, is more accurate to speak less abtraelly ftherole that theconceptof desire, pleasure, and pan play within Empedociey poem, Empedoci’uaerstndingo thee ences, his commitment sssocsted with them, and the context in which they are deployed, orEmpedocey, the oot ar sive and divin, Therooteareaive insataranthey have peychoogial foretions, including mate, ‘motion and reson. Ins far nthe foots ae ungenerated anit

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi

• Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  

  D'Everand

  Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  Phil Knight

  Évaluation : 4.5 sur 5 étoiles

  4.5/5 (537)
• Salazar Bondy Augusto - Iniciacion Filosofica

  

  Document188 pages

  Salazar Bondy Augusto - Iniciacion Filosofica

  Delton Luiz Cavalli

  100% (1)
• The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  

  D'Everand

  The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  Mark Manson

  Évaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles

  4/5 (5794)
• • Magazines
  • Podcasts
  • Partition
• Nocturne Op. 9 No 2 - Chopin - Partitura para Flauta

  

  Document2 pages

  Nocturne Op. 9 No 2 - Chopin - Partitura para Flauta

  Delton Luiz Cavalli

  100% (1)
• Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  

  D'Everand

  Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  Margot Lee Shetterly

  Évaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles

  4/5 (895)
• ( (Biblioteca Clasica Gredos) (Spanish Edition) ) Homero - La Odisea (1982, Gredos)

  

  Document25 pages

  ( (Biblioteca Clasica Gredos) (Spanish Edition) ) Homero - La Odisea (1982, Gredos)

  Delton Luiz Cavalli

  Pas encore d'évaluation
• The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  

  D'Everand

  The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  Sarah M. Broom

  Évaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles

  4/5 (98)
• Astronomia - Genesis y Transfiguración de Las Estrellas

  

  Document71 pages

  Astronomia - Genesis y Transfiguración de Las Estrellas

  Delton Luiz Cavalli

  100% (2)
• Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  

  D'Everand

  Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  Angela Duckworth

  Évaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles

  4/5 (588)
• História Do PR - Ruy Wachowski+..

  

  Document2 pages

  História Do PR - Ruy Wachowski+..

  Delton Luiz Cavalli

  Pas encore d'évaluation
• The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  

  D'Everand

  The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  Meik Wiking

  Évaluation : 3.5 sur 5 étoiles

  3.5/5 (400)
• Teología Guaraní PDF

  

  Document368 pages

  Teología Guaraní PDF

  Delton Luiz Cavalli

  100% (1)
• The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  

  D'Everand

  The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  Siddhartha Mukherjee

  Évaluation : 4.5 sur 5 étoiles

  4.5/5 (271)
• (Phoenix Supplementary Volumes) Brad Inwood-The Poem of Empedocles - A Text and Translation-University of Toronto Press (2001) PDF

  

  Document350 pages

  (Phoenix Supplementary Volumes) Brad Inwood-The Poem of Empedocles - A Text and Translation-University of Toronto Press (2001) PDF

  Delton Luiz Cavalli

  100% (3)
• Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  

  D'Everand

  Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  Chris Voss

  Évaluation : 4.5 sur 5 étoiles

  4.5/5 (838)
• Frede M Essays in Ancient Philosophy

  

  Document412 pages

  Frede M Essays in Ancient Philosophy

  dobizo

  100% (1)
• The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  

  D'Everand

  The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  Thomas L. Friedman

  Évaluation : 3.5 sur 5 étoiles

  3.5/5 (2259)
• Bibliografia de História Da Ciencia e Suas Influ Culturais PDF

  

  Document301 pages

  Bibliografia de História Da Ciencia e Suas Influ Culturais PDF

  Delton Luiz Cavalli

  Pas encore d'évaluation
• On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  

  D'Everand

  On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  Naomi Klein

  Évaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles

  4/5 (74)
• Bibliografia Plotino

  

  Document71 pages

  Bibliografia Plotino

  Delton Luiz Cavalli

  Pas encore d'évaluation
• Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  

  D'Everand

  Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  Ashlee Vance

  Évaluation : 4.5 sur 5 étoiles

  4.5/5 (474)
• Apeiron Volume 48 Issue 2 2015 (Doi 10.1515/apeiron-2014-0016) Zingano, Marco - The Conceptual Unity of Friendship in The Eudemian and The Nicomachean Ethics

  

  Document25 pages

  Apeiron Volume 48 Issue 2 2015 (Doi 10.1515/apeiron-2014-0016) Zingano, Marco - The Conceptual Unity of Friendship in The Eudemian and The Nicomachean Ethics

  Delton Luiz Cavalli

  Pas encore d'évaluation
• A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  

  D'Everand

  A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  Dave Eggers

  Évaluation : 3.5 sur 5 étoiles

  3.5/5 (231)
• Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  

  D'Everand

  Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  Doris Kearns Goodwin

  Évaluation : 4.5 sur 5 étoiles

  4.5/5 (234)
• Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  

  D'Everand

  Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  Gilbert King

  Évaluation : 4.5 sur 5 étoiles

  4.5/5 (266)
• The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  

  D'Everand

  The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  Ben Horowitz

  Évaluation : 4.5 sur 5 étoiles

  4.5/5 (345)
• Yes Please

  

  D'Everand

  Yes Please

  Amy Poehler

  Évaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles

  4/5 (1891)
• The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  

  D'Everand

  The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  George Packer

  Évaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles

  4/5 (45)
• Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  

  D'Everand

  Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  Jay Sekulow

  Évaluation : 3.5 sur 5 étoiles

  3.5/5 (137)
• Principles: Life and Work

  

  D'Everand

  Principles: Life and Work

  Ray Dalio

  Évaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles

  4/5 (599)
• Fear: Trump in the White House

  

  D'Everand

  Fear: Trump in the White House

  Bob Woodward

  Évaluation : 3.5 sur 5 étoiles

  3.5/5 (738)
• Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  

  D'Everand

  Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  Frank McCourt

  Évaluation : 4.5 sur 5 étoiles

  4.5/5 (440)
• Bad Feminist: Essays

  

  D'Everand

  Bad Feminist: Essays

  Roxane Gay

  Évaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles

  4/5 (1016)
• Steve Jobs

  

  D'Everand

  Steve Jobs

  Walter Isaacson

  Évaluation : 4.5 sur 5 étoiles

  4.5/5 (806)
• The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  

  D'Everand

  The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  Jeannette Walls

  Évaluation : 4.5 sur 5 étoiles

  4.5/5 (1713)
• The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  

  D'Everand

  The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  Brené Brown

  Évaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles

  4/5 (1090)
• John Adams

  

  D'Everand

  John Adams

  David McCullough

  Évaluation : 4.5 sur 5 étoiles

  4.5/5 (2409)
• The Outsider: A Novel

  

  D'Everand

  The Outsider: A Novel

  Stephen King

  Évaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles

  4/5 (1839)
• The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  

  D'Everand

  The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  M.L. Stedman

  Évaluation : 4.5 sur 5 étoiles

  4.5/5 (789)
• Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  

  D'Everand

  Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  Jennifer Egan

  Évaluation : 3.5 sur 5 étoiles

  3.5/5 (792)
• The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  

  D'Everand

  The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  Viet Thanh Nguyen

  Évaluation : 4.5 sur 5 étoiles

  4.5/5 (121)
• The Woman in Cabin 10

  

  D'Everand

  The Woman in Cabin 10

  Ruth Ware

  Évaluation : 3.5 sur 5 étoiles

  3.5/5 (2322)
• Brooklyn: A Novel

  

  D'Everand

  Brooklyn: A Novel

  Colm Tóibín

  Évaluation : 3.5 sur 5 étoiles

  3.5/5 (1937)
• A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  

  D'Everand

  A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  Fredrik Backman

  Évaluation : 4.5 sur 5 étoiles

  4.5/5 (4610)
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  

  D'Everand

  The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  Stephen Chbosky

  Évaluation : 4.5 sur 5 étoiles

  4.5/5 (2104)
• Wolf Hall: A Novel

  

  D'Everand

  Wolf Hall: A Novel

  Hilary Mantel

  Évaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles

  4/5 (3811)
• Little Women

  

  D'Everand

  Little Women

  Louisa May Alcott

  Évaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles

  4/5 (104)
• Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  

  D'Everand

  Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  Carmen Maria Machado

  Évaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles

  4/5 (821)
• The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  

  D'Everand

  The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  Garth Stein

  Évaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles

  4/5 (4200)
• Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  

  D'Everand

  Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  Jesmyn Ward

  Évaluation : 4 sur 5 étoiles

  4/5 (1103)
• The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  

  D'Everand

  The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  John le Carré

  Évaluation : 3.5 sur 5 étoiles

  3.5/5 (104)
• A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  

  D'Everand

  A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  Betty Smith

  Évaluation : 4.5 sur 5 étoiles

  4.5/5 (1929)