Hicks' edition of the De Anima contains valuable commentary from Hicks as well as useful summaries of the views of earlier commentators.

Aristotle's highly influential work on the soul, entitled De anima, formed part of the core curriculum of medieval universities and was discussed intensively. It covers a range of topics in philosophical psychology, such as the relationship between mind and body and the nature of abstract thought. However, there is a key difference in scope between the so-called "science of the soul," based on Aristotle, and modern philosophical psychology. This book starts from a basic premise accepted by all medieval commentators, (...) namely that the science of the soul studies not just human beings but all living beings. As such, its methodology and approach must also apply to plants and animals. The Science of the Soul discusses how philosophers from Thomas Aquinas to Pierre d'Ailly dealt with the difficult task of giving a unified account of life and traces the various stages in the transformation of the science of the soul between 1260 and 1360. The emerging picture is that of a gradual disruption of the unified approach to the soul, which will ultimately lead to the emergence of psychology as a separate discipline. (shrink)

Saint Thomas Aquinas explains that, according to the method followed by the Philosopher in metaphysics, it is convenient in science to treat first the determinations in the most common and general fashion in order to attend later to what is proper to each species. And it is in these sense that, according to Aquinas, the De Anima studies the most general and common affairs of the animated realities in order to treat later, in other books, about what is proper (...) of the animated in particular. (shrink)

In 1974, Winfried Fauser published his edition of Radulphus Brito’s commentary on the third book of Aristotle’s De anima. This contribution continues his project by providing an edition of Brito’s commentary on the first book and the first third of the second book. An analysis of this part of the commentary shows that Brito developed some original views that had an impact on the fourteenth-century commentary tradition.

t. 1. Texto inédito de los doce primeros capítulos. Facsímil de la segunda versión suareciana (Lyon 1621).

The most important things in this seminal paper are (a) showing that the first part of the chapter is only setting up the aporia and does not provide the solution; (b) showing that the rest of the chapter provides the material for resolving the aporia; (c) showing that the question is not about how we perceive that we perceive, but how we can distinguish between seeing and hearing—how we are aware that we are seeing rather than hearing; (c) showing that (...) this is reducible to how we are aware that a colour is not a sound, and how we perceive the unity of objects that present themselves under more than one sense-modality. Hence the remainder of De anima 3.2 presents both the materials for the solution (actuality of sense and sensed object are one thing) and the solution (there is a common perceiver who receives the input from several senses and can unite them and also differentiate). De anima 3.2 is not about perceiving that we perceive, nor about reflexive self-awareness. The problems of interpretation and of the unity of the chapter are resolved once we see that the topic is how we can tell the difference between input from different sense modalities, how we distinguish between white things and sweet things, or between seeing and hearing, and how we perceive objects as a unity when they present themselves to separate senses. (shrink)

In recent years, the attention of scholars to the figure and work of Iamblichus has increased, while the emphasis is on his thought in the history of the Platonic school. However, a major work still remains to be studied: the De Anima. Preserved only in fragments in the anthology of Stobaeus, it proves to be of crucial importance for the understanding of the development of Platonism at the end of antiquity.

This is a close scrutiny of "De Anima II 5", led by two questions. First, what can be learned from so long and intricate a discussion about the neglected problem of how to read an Aristotelian chapter? Second, what can the chapter, properly read, teach us about some widely debated issues in Aristotle's theory of perception? I argue that it refutes two claims defended by Martha Nussbaum, Hilary Putnam, and Richard Sorabji: (i) that when Aristotle speaks of the perceiver (...) becoming like the object perceived, the assimilation he has in mind is ordinary alteration of the type exemplified when fire heats the surrounding air, (ii) that this alteration stands to perceptual awareness as matter to form. Claim (i) is wrong because the assimilation that perceiving is is not ordinary alteration. Claim (ii) is wrong because the special type of alteration that perceiving is is not its underlying material realisation. Indeed, there is no mention in the text of any underlying material realisation for perceiving. The positive aim of II 5 is to introduce the distinction between first and second potentiality, each with their own type of actuality. In both cases the actuality is an alteration different from ordinary alteration. Perception exemplifies one of these new types of alteration, another is found in the acquisition of knowledge and in an embryo's first acquisition of the power of perception. The introduction of suitably refined meanings of 'alteration' allows Aristotle to explain perception and learning within the framework of his physics, which by definition is the study of things that change. He adapts his standard notion of alteration, familiar from "Physics" III 1-3 and "De Generatione et Corruptione" I, to the task of accounting for the cognitive accuracy of (proper object) perception and second potentiality knowledge: both are achievements of a natural, inborn receptivity to objective truth. Throughout the paper I pay special attention to issues of text and translation, and to Aristotle's cross-referencing, and I emphasise what the chapter does not say as well as what it does. In particular, the last section argues that the textual absence of any underlying material realisation for perceiving supports a view I have defended elsewhere, that Aristotelian perception involves no material processes, only standing material conditions. This absence is as telling as others noted earlier. Our reading must respect the spirit of the text as Aristotle wrote it. (shrink)

Aristoteles’ Traktat De anima befasst sich mit der Natur der Seele. Die verhältnismäßig kurze Schrift – sie umfasst nicht mehr als 33 Seiten in der Bekker-Ausgabe – teilt sich in drei mehr oder weniger gleichlange ›Bücher‹. Sie gehört neben der Metaphysik zu den besonders häufig kommentierten Schriften des Aristoteles.

Originally published in 1907, this book contains the ancient Greek text of Aristotle's De Anima, his treatise on the differing souls of living things. An English translation is provided on each facing page, and Hicks supplies a very detailed commentary on each line at the end of the book, as well as a summary of each section. This book will be of value to anyone with an interest in Greek philosophy and the history of classical scholarship.

Ever since the first edition of the De anima by Trendelenburg, modern scholars have been in trouble as to the exact interpretation of this phrase and especially of the expression Although the right one, as we think, was suggested a long time ago by Shorey, a restatement of it seems justified, because the later treatment of the problem in the edition of Sir David Ross has apparently established a different communis opinio. The first detailed examination of the whole passage (...) was given by Bonitz, who saw no other possibility of making the text render the required sense than to alter This is indeed ‘a rather improbable corruption’. It is also clear that such an emendation of a reading defended by the consensus of all our manuscripts should only be accepted if there really is no other way out. (shrink)

This essay constructs a picture of the meaning of life based on De Anima 2. 2-4. It shows that there are organisms that preserve their form through the exercise of identifiable functions. For an individual to be a short, living thing is for it to be one of these naturally species-preserving organisms. For an individual living thing to be actually living is for it to be able to perform one of the psychic or living functions appropriate to its species.

Aristoteles’ Traktat De anima untersucht die Natur der Seele. Unter ›Seele‹ ist dabei jedoch nicht das subjektive Zentrum unseres mentalen Lebens zu verstehen, sondern dasjenige Prinzip, dessen Vorhandensein lebendige von leblosen Körpern unterscheidet. Es umfasst alle Formen des Lebendigen, also pflanzliches, tierisches und menschliches Leben. Ziel der Schrift ist es, die Seele zu definieren, d.h. zu erklären, was es für diese Formen des Lebendigen jeweils heißt, lebendig zu sein. Diskutiert werden: der vegetative Selbsterhalt, Wahrnehmung, menschliches Denken sowie die Ortsbewegung (...) der Lebewesen. De anima gehört zu den faszinierendsten, philosophisch lohnendsten, aber auch schwierigeren Schriften des Aristoteles. Die zweisprachige Studienausgabe bietet eine vollständige Neu­übersetzung. Benutzt wird die Edition des griechischen Textes von Aurelius Förster (Budapest 1912), von der sich die heutzutage sehr verbreitete Ausgabe von W. D. Ross textkritisch hat leiten lassen (OCT 1956 und 1971). Sie ist auch durch die späteren Ausgaben von Siwek (Rom 1965) und Jannone (Paris 1966) nicht ersetzt. Eine Einleitung führt in die Grundlagen und Voraussetzungen der aristotelischen Seelenlehre ein und gibt einen Überblick über den Gedankengang der Schrift. Der Kommentarteil ist so knapp wie möglich gehalten. Im Anhang sind ein Glossar und ein Verzeichnis der Abweichungen von der Ausgabe von Ross beigefügt. (shrink)

Christopher Shields presents a new translation and commentary of Aristotle's De Anima, a work of interest to philosophers at all levels, as well as psychologists and students interested in the nature of life and living systems. The volume provides a full translation of the complete work, together with a comprehensive commentary. While sensitive to philological and textual matters, the commentary addresses itself to the philosophical reader who wishes to understand and assess Aristotle's accounts of the soul and body; perception; (...) thinking; action; and the character of living systems. It aims to present controversial aspects of the text in a neutral, fair-minded manner, so that readers can come to be equipped to form their own judgments. (shrink)

Book synopsis: For the Pre-Socratic philosophers the soul was the source of movement and sensation, while for Plato it was the seat of being, metaphysically distinct from the body that it was forced temporarily to inhabit. Plato's student Aristotle was determined to test the truth of both these beliefs against the emerging sciences of logic and biology. His examination of the huge variety of living organisms - the enormous range of their behaviour, their powers and their perceptual sophistication - convinced (...) him of the inadequacy both of a materialist reduction and of a Platonic sublimation of the soul. In De Anima, he sought to set out his theory of the soul as the ultimate reality of embodied form and produced both a masterpiece of philosophical insight and a psychology of perennially fascinating subtlety. (shrink)

Aristotle's De Anima is the first systematic philosophical account of the soul, which serves to explain the functioning of all mortal living things. In his commentary, Ronald Polansky argues that the work is far more structured and systematic than previously supposed. He contends that Aristotle seeks a comprehensive understanding of the soul and its faculties. By closely tracing the unfolding of the many-layered argumentation and the way Aristotle fits his inquiry meticulously within his scheme of the sciences, Polansky answers (...) questions relating to the general definition of soul and the treatment of each of the soul's principal capacities: nutrition, sense perception, phantasia, intellect, and locomotion. The commentary sheds light on every section of the De Anima and the work as a unit. It offers a challenge to earlier and current interpretations of the relevance and meaning of Aristotle's highly influential treatise. (shrink)

El presente artículo es una propuesta de una nueva lectura del capítulo quinto del libro tercero del De anima de Aristóteles. Por lectura se entiende no una interpretación, sino una cuidadosa atención al momento filológico: qué dice literalmente el texto, antes de las interpretaciones filosóficas. Para esto, se atiende minuciosamente a la semántica de los términos, al modo de adjetivación de la lengua griega, y al contexto general, gramatical y semántico de este capítulo quinto. El resultado de este análisis (...) filológico es una es una nueva comprensión del texto, que permite una nueva traducción, que se ofrece al final. (shrink)

The soul is an explanatory principle of Aristotle’s natural science, accounting both for the fact that living things are alive as well as for the diverse natural attributes that belong to them by virtue of being alive. I argue that the explanatory role of the soul in Aristotle’s natural science must be understood in light of his view, stated in a controversial passage from Parts of Animals (645b14–20), that the soul of a living thing is a “complex activity” of its (...) organic body. This paper explores the role of this “complex activity” model of soul in Aristotle’s study of soul in De Anima. I argue, first, that the model has its origins in De Anima II.4, where Aristotle argues that living things do all they do by nature for the sake of a single, teleologically primary end. I argue further that Aristotle uses this model to account for the psychological attributes naturally present in living things, including their capacities for vital activities like nutrition, reproduction, and perception, and that this is the task to which Aristotle devotes the obscure final chapters of De Anima III. (shrink)

In der gegenwärtigen Debatte um Aristoteles’ Wahrnehmungstheorie herrscht ein Dissens darüber, welche Relevanz dem Kapitel De Anima II 5 beizumessen ist. Während Burnyeat davon ausgeht, daß in diesem Kapitel eine für die Wahrnehmung spezifische und gegenüber physischen Vorgängen vollkommen andere Art von Veränderung eingeführt wird, sehen die Literalisten in diesem Kapitel lediglich eine Erweiterung des Bewegungsmodells der Physik, das für seelische wie nicht-seelische Tätigkeiten gleichermaßen gilt. Ich zeige, daß beide Interpretationsstrategien der Aussage und Relevanz von De an. II 5 (...) nicht gerechtwerden. Meine Interpretation konzentriert sich auf die Klärung zweier Punkte, die für den Status von De an. II 5 entscheidend sind: das Verhältnis von De an. II 5 zur Bewegungslehre von Phys. III 1-3 und die Funktion von De an. II 5 innerhalb der Argumentation des zweiten Buchs von De Anima. Die Klärung beider Punkte beantwortet die Frage, was der Sinn der umstrittenen Termini alloiôsis tis und sôteria ist und auf welche Klasse von Vermögen sie sich beziehen. (shrink)

Este artigo apresenta uma comparação conceitual entre a obra De anima, de Aristóteles, e a concepção das faculdades da alma no Kitáb al-Nafs – edição árabe – (Livro da Alma, De anima), de Ibn Sina (Avicena), com o intuito de mostrar similitudes e in#uências de Aristóteles sobre o pensamento de Ibn Sina, nessa temática. Destaca, ainda, como e a época em que o estagirita foi recebido em terras do Islã, indicando o seu primeiro receptor, o &lósofo Al-Kindi, assim (...) como, de modo pormenorizado, uma comparação sobre a de&nição de alma dada pelos dois &lósofos, e as três espécies de alma, com ênfase para o conceito de alma racional. Apresenta, também, a estrutura de cada uma das obras. (shrink)

Como é que três eminentes Jesuítas comentadores de Aristóteles poderiam ler o método concebido por Inácio de Loyola nos Exercícios Espirituais, denominado “aplicação dos sentidos” externos? A resposta a esta hipotética questão, absolutamente inédita, será dada em três passos. Começando com a doutrina dos sentidos e tocando na passagem da ontologia para a semiótica, atender-‑se-‑á ao aparecimento do mundo – mediante uma segunda passagem, da psicologia para a cosmologia – em que o lugar do ser humano, entendido no espaço de (...) uma antropologia criatural, nos conduz a uma nova perceção das relações entre imaginação e espiritualidade mundana, na aceção de “incarnada”. (shrink)

A blatant contradiction seems to characterize the first part of DA II 12: 424a24-25 entails that possession of the power to ‘receive forms without the matter’ is sufficient for being a sense organ, while the ‘wax simile’ supposedly preceding it (424a19-23) attributes the same power to both senses and wax blocks. To solve the contradiction, I contend that Aristotle does not in fact endorse the described ‘wax simile’. He offers, instead, a ‘signature simile’ between the forms received by senses and (...) the analogously matterless signatures transmitted by signet rings. This reading is supported by the use of the clause ‘forms without matter’ in Aristotle’s Corpus, which consistently refers to causally powerless and metaphysically sterile abstractions. I accordingly contend that the reception of perceptible forms without matter only describes the mental dimension of perception, and that the idea has no implications whatsoever with regard to physiology. The resulting attempt at capturing the mental aspect of perception is original and philosophically interesting: no unanalysable opposition of the mental to the physical is postulated, and currently crucial notions like ‘consciousness’ or ‘intentionality’ are playing no role at all. (shrink)

Aristotle, De Anima: Translation, Introduction, and Commentary. By Shields Christopher.