Allusions to a cosmogony contained in a Vedic hymn present striking analogies to a cosmogony attributed to the Pythagoreans by Aristotle, Simplicius and Stobaeus. The aim of the paper is to evaluate the extent to which they are similar and to which their differences respond to different cultural premises.

Cheikh Moctar Ba avait, dans un précédent traité, défini et constitué un parallèle entre les cosmogonies et les cosmologies grecques et africaines. Il entreprend ici une analyse de la fonction et de la place qu'elles occupent dans la vie des sociétés, et comment elles sont à l'origine de l'établissement d'un certain ordre. Face à ces problématiques qui regroupent en grande partie les questionnements du mouvement existentiel, il s'attèle à construire cet essai autour deux axes principaux: une étude de la question (...) de la centralité, et un examen du rapport entretenu par les cosmologies et les cosmogonies avec les différentes formes d'organisation sociale. (shrink)

The present paper focuses on some aspects of the Neoplatonist literary-metaphysical theory, which has clearly been expressed in the anony­mous Prolegomena to Plato’s philosophy and further confirmed in Proclus’ exegesis of the Timaeus. Thus, this contribution, examines and compares several passages from the Prolegomena and from Proclus’ Commentary on the Timaeus with a view to showing that it is legiti­mate to speak of a certain cosmogony of the Platonic dialogue that is analogous to that of the macrocosm. Moreover, the (...) analogy between macrocosm and microcosm makes it possible to further investigate the similarity between the λόγος-ζῷον of the Demiurge and that of Timaeus, on the one hand, and the reality which the λόγος expresses, on the other. This similarity turns out to be both structural/morphological and content-related/semantic. Thus, by combining the natural and theo­logical science, the analysis of the “generation” of the macrocosm and microcosm brings out the strongly analogical nature of Plato’s dialogues, which is particularly visible in the Timaeus. (shrink)

Le volume rassemble 25 études concernant la cosmologie médiévale, abordée à travers ses diverses composantes, à l’intérieur d’une fourchette chronologique allant de Calcidius jusqu’au XIVe siècle. Dix contributions sont consacrées à des questions de cosmologie hébraïque et islamique, traitant en particulier de Gersonide (R. Gatti), Maïmonide (L. Pepi), Avicenne (C. Di Martino, O. Lizzini), Sohravardî (I. Panzeca), Qûnawî (P. Spallino), les Frères de la Pureté (C. Baffioni) ainsi qu’aux interférences qui existent entre moyen âge islamique et latin : la grande (...) question de la cosmologie alchimique (M. Pereira), des textes traduits comme le De secretis naturae (P. Travaglia), la doctrine de la grande année dans Thebit et Pietro d’Abano (F. Seller). Les travaux de E.S. Mainoldi et de R. Gambino consacrent une large place à l’influence de la patristique grecque sur la pensée occidentale. D’autres études présentent le développement de la pensée cosmologique et scientique latine à partir de Calcidius (C. Militello), par l’intermédiaire d’Adélard de Bath (P. Palmeri), de Guillaume de Conches (G. Pellegrino) et d’autres documents divers (A. Tarabochia Canavero) jusqu’à l’avènement de l’aristotélisme physique, en particulier dans les commentaires universitaires aux Météorologiques (G. Fioravanti), au De caelo (C.A. Musatti, A. Vella) et chez Dante (M. Gallarino, P. Falzone). Quant à la littérature scientifique en langue vulgaire, elle est représentée par Restoro d’Arezzo (U. Villani-Lubelli) et Raymond Lull (J.Gayà). La communication de G. Alliney est dédiée à des questions de méthode historiographique, tandis que la contribution magistrale de Tullio Gregory sur “Cosmogonie et cosmologies chrétiennes” reconstitue de manière idéale l’ensemble des liens constituant les coordonnées générales de l’ensemble de la problématique abordée sous ses différentes facettes par les auteurs du volume. (shrink)

According to the ancient Greek Stoics, the cosmos regularly transitions between periods of conflagration, during which only fire exists, and periods of cosmic order, during which the four elements exist. This paper examines the cosmogonic process by which conflagrations are extinguished and cosmic orders are restored, and it defends three main conclusions. First, I argue that not all the conflagration’s fire is extinguished during the cosmogony, against recent arguments by Ricardo Salles. Second, at least with respect to the (...) class='Hi'>cosmogony, it is not necessary to posit the existence of proto-elements. Third, while scholars such as Salles and David Hahm have argued that Cleanthes held a distinct theory of cosmogony from Zeno and Chrysippus, I argue that each of these Stoics endorse the same cosmogonic theory. (shrink)

Beginning from a basis in the theoretical analysis of comparative religious ethics provided by David Little and Sumner Twiss, this essay extends that analysis by sketching certain "benchmark" theoretical options in comparative religious ethics and by identifying certain fundamental questions which ethicists ought to address to the data supplied by descriptive studies of comparative religions. To illustrate the application of the theoretical model thus defined, the essay concludes with an analysis of selected themes in the essays by Campany, Guberman, and (...) Read in this Focus. (shrink)

: This essay examines the Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate and its shifting interpretations—those of Zhu Xi (1130–1200) and Wang Tingxiang (1474–1544) in particular—and by doing so explores the significance of ‘‘cosmogony’’ in the Confucian tradition and its significance for the change of political philosophy from the Song dynasty through the Ming. First, through a close reading of Zhu Xi’s commentaries on the Diagram, it is argued that they should be interpreted primarily as a statement of political philosophy rather (...) than a mere textual study of Zhou Dunyi’s metaphysics. Wang Tingxiang’s reworking of the Diagram is examined in order to explore the transformation of its worldview through the shifted focus from li to qi. Then, by connecting the fundamental structures of the two cosmogonies to other aspects of their systems of thought, the moral and political implications that develop from the cosmogonies are unraveled. This examination of shifting interpretations of the Diagram will shed light on the cosmogonies as crucial expressions of political philosophy in the Confucian tradition without losing sight of their historical contexts. (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain (...) in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:On Cosmogony and Ecpyrosis In HeraclitusAryeh FinkelbergThe traditional attribution to heraclitus of the theory of recurrent reabsorption of the world into fire was challenged as early as 1807 by F. Schleiermacher. That contention, supported by F. Lassalle, was criticized by E. Zeller but was restated by J. Burnet in 1892. Burnet’s argument was elaborated by K. Reinhardt and then revised and restated by G. S. Kirk. The endeavors (...) of these commentators, supported by the contributions of a number of other critics, have firmly established the new interpretation (which I call “cosmological”). However the controversy has not ceased: the traditional interpretation (which I conventionally term “cosmogonical”) has been maintained and defended by a number of critics.1 The argument against cosmogony and ecpyrosis in Heraclitus is not easy to appreciate. Concerned as it is with a wide range of evidence, both secondary and authentic, and repeatedly refashioned and improved, it has accumulated many assessments, exegeses, and inferences. The critical objections put forward by supporters of the traditional interpretation, failing to meet the argument in its entirety, remain indecisive. Discussion is further complicated in that both sides tend to treat the problem within the broader framework of Heraclitus’ teaching. It thus seems desirable to examine the problem thoroughly as a separate issue, seeking a judgment independent of one or another general construal of Heraclitus’ thought. Hence in the first part of this essay I discuss the argument of Burnet and his followers with the aim of appraising its success in producing conclusive evidence against cosmogony and ecpyrosis. In the second part I propose a reconsideration of the evidence, in order to appreciate whether and to what extent it supports the cosmogonical interpretation. [End Page 195]THE ARGUMENT AGAINST COSMOGONY AND ECPYROSISSecondary EvidenceBurnet and his followers contend that the earliest testimonia do not ascribe the theory of cosmic cycles to Heraclitus, whereas the later authors followed Theophrastus’ supposedly erroneous interpretation which was adopted by the Stoics,2 eager to see in Heraclitus a partisan of their own theory of world conflagration, and, through the Stoics, by Christian writers. This assessment rests on questioning Aristotle’s support of ecpyrosis,3 on relying heavily on Plato’s Sophist 242d–e, and on tracing a heterodox opinion in certain late sources.(1) Aristotle De Caelo 1.10.279b12 and Physica 3.5.205a1–6:(De Caelo 1.10)... and some, as Empedocles of Acragas and Heraclitus of Ephesus, [believe] that it [the heaven] alternately is now in this state and now, in the course of destruction, in another...(Physica 3.5)Grammatical construction of the latter passage is ambiguous. Burnet (1930, 157–59) dismisses both passages as irrelevant. Yet as Kirk (1962, 320–21) acknowledges, Burnet’s interpretation of the De Caelo passage, to the effect that Aristotle’s reference to the alternations of the in Empedocles and Heraclitus concerns not the whole world but only the first heaven, “unfortunately involves a neglect of the context, in which without question refers (as often in this treatise: see the definition at 1.9.278b11) to the whole sum of things enclosed by the outer ‘heaven.’ ” In dismissing the second passage Burnet quotes the dependent clause and says that nothing [End Page 196] implies that all things become fire at once. Again unfortunately, this interpretation makes the example from Heraclitus irrelevant to the view Aristotle is refuting, namely that, the world as a whole, becomes one of the elements.4 But if Heraclitus’ doctrine exemplifies the view Aristotle is refuting, then, on the traditional construal of the Greek, he says that Heraclitus believed that “at some time or other” the world becomes fire, which would mean a recurrent conflagration, or, on Cherniss’s reading,5 that “at some time or other” fire becomes the world, which would mean a recurrent cosmogony and would imply a recurrent conflagration.(2) Plato Sophist 242d–e:According to one [person] there are three real things, some of which now carry on a sort of warfare with one another, and then make friends and set about marrying and begetting and bringing up their children. Another tells us that there are two—moist and dry, or hot and... (shrink)

Following Xiao Gongchuan and F. Mote, this paper discussed the reasons why there is no myth of cosmogony in China. It was written before the tomb excavations that contain some cosmogony essays.

The focus of this paper is a fascinating but hitherto unstudied 1742 manuscript treatise by Johannes Daniel Schlichting (1705–1765) titled “Sapientiæ Problema” that contains something extremely rare in the mid-eighteenth century: a full-blown speculative cosmogony. As this article reveals, Schlichting developed a distinctive vital liquid matter in an effort to account for the generation of all natural bodies and combat the stamina-based theories that were dominant in his day. He hoped that his treatise would be published in the Philosophical (...) Transactions of the Royal Society, but an accompanying abridgment by the FRS Henry Baker (1698–1774) strongly implies that Schlichting’s speculative bent and desire to divulge causal explanations were unacceptable to the Englishman and generally ill-suited to the intellectual climate of mid-century England. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Ovid’s Causes: Cosmogony and Aetiology in the MetamorphosesMargaret Worsham MusgroveK. Sara Myers. Ovid’s Causes: Cosmogony and Aetiology in the Metamorphoses. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994. xvi + 206 pp. Cloth, $32.50.This book takes seriously Ovid’s claim in the proem of the Metamorphoses that his work will encompass the entire universe. Ovid’s primaque ab origine mundi (1.3) must be read as a statement of thematic, (...) not merely chronological scope. “The origin of the world” will continue as a central concern throughout the poem. Myers reads the cosmogony of Book 1 as a continuation of the programmatic statement of the proem: Ovid is allying himself with the tradition of natural-philosophical poetry, as originated by Hesiod and adapted to Hellenistic standards by Apollonius and Vergil. The theme of cosmogony does not merely “frame” the poem, and does not surface only in the explicit creation stories of Book 1 and the didactic discourse of Pythagoras in 15, but instead pervades the entire work. Aetiological stories, as explanations of where individual phenomena come from, continue the scientific theme displayed in the opening cosmogony. The whole Metamorphoses can thus be read as an exploration of the type of poetry which investigates origins of everything, from the universe to natural features to cultural institutions. We should credit Myers with elucidating this cosmogony-aetiology link, which breaks us free of narrow, literal categories, and allows us to see the similar poetic aims of these two literary devices. Her introductory chapter, exploring “The Generic Question” of the Metamorphoses and of post-Callimachean literature in general, points out how recent Latin scholarship has already begun to blur some of those long-unquestioned black-and-white distinctions between genres.At the same time, Myers acknowledges the clash between science (or natural philosophy) and myth. Ovid uses “scientific” language, often in the form of Lucretian allusions, to recount fantastic mythological tales of creatures whose very existence would be questioned by the philosophers. Chapter 1 examines metamorphosis stories which involve natural phenomena, such as the cosmos itself, various animals, etc. Metamorphosis is seen and narrated as a kind of scientific process; hence Ovid’s detailed descriptions of the moment of transformation. [End Page 338] But by calling attention to the incongruity of his subject and his language, Ovid questions the authority of cosmogony to validate myth and of myth to convey the truth.The remainder of Myers’ book focuses on the way in which Ovid unmasks the devices used in aetiological poetry’s claim to a voice of authority. Chapter 2 examines the Alexandrian affiliations of aetiological stories explaining the origins of cultural or religious institutions. This chapter follows something of the approach of P. Knox in the studious attempt to look at the elegiac, unepic features of Ovid’s narrative. Myers investigates the language used to mark a story as an aetion: words such as causa, origo, novus, and unde. Partially through comparison with Ovid’s technique in Fasti (a consistently aetiological, didactic poem) and through examination of the fragments of Callimachus, she also points out certain narrative techniques as characteristic of aetiology. The embedded narrative, related by a supposedly authoritative informant, is revealed as part of the modus operandi of didactic and aetiological poetry.This chapter is perhaps Myers’ most valuable contribution, because it gives us a rationale for some of the seemingly odd features of Ovid’s narrative. One example: why, at Met. 4.772–89, are Perseus’ most famous adventures reported only in indirect statement? Variatio for its own sake is not an adequate answer. Genre would seem to be part of the explanation: battles with monsters belong in epic, a genre which Ovid eschews, at least for the moment. But beyond that negative explanation, Myers suggests a positive one. After the indirect report, someone asks Perseus for an aetiological story: why Medusa had snakes in her hair. His answer in direct speech displays several of the linguistic features which Myers has identified as characteristic of aetia. Thus, Ovid depicts Perseus not so much at a Homeric banquet, with stories of battles and conquests, but at a Callimachean one, with learned exchanges of aetiological myths (cf... (shrink)

이 글에서는 『장자』와 『열자』에 공통적으로 등장하는 일화에서 발견할 수 있는 수양의 지향점을 짚어보고, 그것이 두 저작에 등장하는 우주생성론적 텍스트와 어떻게 연결되는 지 탐색해 보고자 한다. 특히 수양의 단계나 지인(至人)의 경지를 묘사하는 일화들을 우주 생성론에 비추어 이해해 봄으로써 수양관과 우주생성관 사이의 유비 관계를 읽어낼 수 있 다. 예컨대 생성론에서 등장하는 무형(無形)과 유형(有形), 혼륜(渾淪) 과 일(一), 태초(太 初) 등의 개념들은 수양의 과정에서 요청되는 인식론적 전환과 맞닿아 있다. 인식의 다층적 경계들을 지워나가는 마음의 수양은 허(虛), 망(忘) 등으로 대변된다. 『장자』와 『열자』에 공통적으로 등장하는 지인의 일화에서는 (...) 이러한 마음 수양이 주체와 대상 사이 물리적 경계를 초월하는 상태로 이어지고, 더 나아가 경계 없이 비워진 마음으로 대상과 감응함으로써 만물의 이치를 체득하는 앎을 얻을 수 있음을 말한다. 수양이 몸 과 마음의 타고난 순수 상태의 회복이라면, 그것은 태초에서 분화된 만물의 생성 과정을 거슬러 올라가 다다르는 경지이다. 『장자』나 『열자』에 등장하는 우주생성론적 텍스트를 각 사상의 특성, 특히 수양론과 인식론의 맥락에 비추어 볼 때 그 의의와 가치를 보다 명 확히 규명할 수 있을 것이다. (shrink)

How should we treat the cosmogonies of the early ancient Greek philosophers? Much work has been done in showing how these cosmogonies differ from creation myths and how they relate to philosophical issues such as change, persistence through change and matter theory. Here, using Leucippus and Democritus as examples, Gregory tries to show that interesting light can be shed on these cosmogonies by looking at them in relation to perennial problems in cosmogony and perennial types of solutions to these (...) problems. Ancients and moderns have formulated both in different ways, but there are significant structural similarities. To understand ancient cosmogonies, we need to understand how these perennial problems were perceived, and what types of solutions were available. We then need to analyse how the basic ontological and aetiological principles of their systems lead them to choose certain types of solution over others. (shrink)

The Taiyi shengshui 太一生水 is one of only a few texts in the early Chinese corpus to present a detailed cosmogony, one that traces the beginnings of the cosmos back to a variety of spiritual and natural forces, such as the divinity Taiyi and water. My primary question in this chapter is not to ask what that cosmogony was, but why such a cosmogonic text might have been written in the first place. Why in particular did authors in (...) Warring States China deem it necessary to go all the way back to the very beginning of everything to try to situate their thought and recommendations for human action? By comparing the Taiyi shengshui to various other cosmogonies in the textual tradition, we arrive at interesting insights into both the overarching moral agenda of the text as well as its specific contributions to cosmological thinking in early China. (shrink)

_ Source: _Volume 61, Issue 1, pp 43 - 59 Contemporary debate on Plato’s cosmogony often assumes that the ‘literal’ reading of the _Timaeus_ yields an account of creation, while the view that the cosmos always existed is non-literal. In antiquity, Taurus has been seen as a forerunner of the ‘non-literal’ interpretation. This paper shows, on the contrary, that Taurus’ argument for the sempiternity of the cosmos is a literalist one, relying on a strict linguistic analysis of _Timaeus_ 28b6-8.

This article is primarily a reply to criticisms leveled against Kant by Stanley Jaki in the Introduction to his translation of Kant's Allgemeine Naturgeschichte.

This paper critically reads and analyzes the first discourse of Āruṇi and Śvetaketu in the first half of the sixth chapter of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad. It argues that, except for a few interpolated lines in VI.2 and VI.3, the entire discourse constitutes one integrated whole with a specific indicatory knowledge at its core that indicates deeper truth underlying all realities, and its characterization and twofold elaboration with reference to macro- and microcosmos. In light of two cosmogonic accounts from the JaiminīyaBrāhmaṇa (...) and some other Vedic passages, this paper argues that Āruṇi’s cosmogony originally posited asat as the primordial entity, which has not yet acquired any phenomenal form. Incidentally it also demonstrates that in this discourse the term ādeśa cannot denote a ‘method of substitution’ as proposed by Thieme and taken over since then by several scholars. (shrink)