How are relations between generations shifting? As anthropologists, our take on intergenerational relations and the rationalities on which they are based—i.e., generationality—is historically situated. In many parts of the world, generation has become a major axis of social and political struggle, sometimes of bitter conflict. This, we argue, is a corollary of post-Cold War transformations in economy and society—and a radical rupture in processes of social reproduction. These transformations have conduced to the perception of a rising ‘generation war.’ How, then, (...) in these circumstances, are we to think anew of intergenerational relations—and justice? (shrink)

It might seem quite commonplace to say that Aristotle identifies fire, air, water and earth as the στοιχεῖα, or ‘elements’ – or, to be more precise, as the elements of bodies that are subject to generation and corruption. Yet there is a tradition of interpretation, already evident in the work of the sixth-century commentator John Philoponus and widespread, indeed prevalent, today, according to which Aristotle does not really believe that fire, air, water and earth are truly elemental. The basic premise (...) of this interpretation is that Aristotle takes fire, air, water and earth to be, in some sense, composite bodies and, as such, analysable into simpler constituents. But, of course, an element of bodies is defined by Aristotle himself as something into which bodies can be analysed, and which does not admit further analysis . So if fire, air, water and earth can be analysed into simpler or more basic constituents, then it would seem to follow that the latter ought to be considered Aristotle's true elements. These are usually identified as the primary contraries hot and cold, dry and wet; many, perhaps most, commentators would insist also upon prime matter as the subject upon which these contraries act. (shrink)

K. Lüscher, M. Sánchez, A. Klimczuk, Generations, intergenerational relationships, generational policy: A multilingual compendium, 12 languages, Universität Konstanz, Konstanz 2016, 300pp.

A source of epistemic justification can be either preservative or generative, in that it can either just preserve justification that was provided by some other source or generate justification on its own. This paper asks what is required for generationism about memory to be true and argues that there are rather demanding conditions that a case of memory justification needs to satisfy in order to count as epistemically generative in a substantive sense. By considering a parallel argument for epistemically generative (...) cases of imagination and drawing from empirical data on event completion, we argue that there are such cases of memory justification because the way in which memory processes fill in the content of event memories suggests that memory is fit to provide justification about past events that is not due to a source other than memory. (shrink)

In seiner Schrift "De generatione et corruptione" entwickelt Aristoteles seine Antworten auf die Aporien, die sich aus dem Begriff des Werdens ergeben. Dabei geht es ihm ebenso darum, analytisch - und dies im angelsachsischen Sinne des Wortes - das gesamte Bedeutungsspektrum des griechischen Verbes "genesthai" zu klaren und zu ordnen, wie darum, auf rein physikalischer Ebene allgemeine Betrachtungen zur Einfuhrung in die physiologischen Studien des biologischen Corpus anzustellen.Die philosophische Uberlieferung hat, mehr oder minder bewusst, immer erkannt, dass es in Aristoteles (...) Schrift um die Machbarkeit und den Platz einer physikalischen Untersuchung des Lebendigen ging und - unter monotheistischen Vorzeichen - um das Verhaltnis Gottes zu seinen Geschopfen. Man denke nur an den Ps.-Okellos in hellenistischer Zeit, ferner an die galenische Tradition und an die bahnbrechenden physikalischen Intuitionen des Alexander von Aphrodisias. Man denke auch an die grosse Anziehungskraft, die dieser Text auf die arabischen Philosophen und spater auf die Physiker-Arzte Suditaliens ausgeubt hat. Und man denke schliesslich an die fast siebzig byzantinischen Manuskripte, die uns den Text des Traktats in der Originalsprache uberliefert haben. All das zeugt von der Faszination, die dieser Text auf Denker ausgeubt hat, die zu verstehen versucht haben, warum und wie die Welt der reinen Potenz und Materie unter bestimmten, sehr spezifischen Bedingungen in die Individualisierung der aktualisierten Form munden kann.Auch die Gegner waren sich der Bedeutung des Textes bewusst. So hat Philoponus den Traktat nicht ausdrucklich verworfen, wenn er auch in seinem De Aeternitate mundi contra Aristotelem und seinem De Aeternitate munde contra Proclum die These von der Ewigkeit der Welt und dem Fortbestand der Arten ablehnt, der ja, wie wir gerade gesehen haben, in dem Traktat eine grundlegende Bedeutung zukommt. Eine systematische Widerlegung von De generatione et corruptione wird erstmals von einem der grossten islamischen Theologen zu Anfang des 10. Jahrhunderts gefuhrt. Der Autor zeigt unter anderem, dass die wichtigste unter den drei arabischen Ubersetzungen sehr wahrscheinlich auf das byzantinische Exemplar der physikalischen Traktate zuruckgeht, dass die suditalienischen Arzte es nicht versaumt haben, sich unverzuglich die vielfaltigen, von Burgundio von Pisa zusammen mit seiner Version ubersetzten Randnotizen zunutze zu machen, - dass ubrigens die beiden Manuskripte, die mit Suditalien in Verbindung gebracht werden konnen, jeweils medizinische Texte enthalten -, dass zahlreiche byzantinische Gelehrte es sich haben angelegen sein lassen, den Text durch oft interessante, zuweilen brillante Konjekturen zu verbessern.Der Autor liefert mit seiner Uberlieferungsgeschichte also nicht nur das fur eine wirklich textkritische Ausgabe unerlassliche Stemma. Er fuhrt uns ebenso die Vielgestaltigkeit der Geschichte der Philosophie vor Augen, die sich ebenso mit der Theologie wie mit den Naturwissenschaften befasst. Nur die Uberlieferungsgeschichte kann uns vor historischen Trugbildern bewahren, d. h. vor der pseudo-philosophischen Rekonstruierung riesiger Phantasiefresken. (shrink)

In the De Generatione et Corruptione II 9, Aristotle aims to achieve the confirmation of his theory of the necessity of the efficient cause. In this chapter he sets out his criticism on the one hand of those who wrongly attributed the efficient cause to other kinds of causality and on the other, of those who ignored the efficient cause. More specifically Aristotle divides all preceding theories which attempted to explain generation and corruption into two groups: i) those which offered (...) an explanation by using the formal cause ii) those which provided an explanation by using the material or the instrumental causes. According to Philopo­nus, when Aristotle reproaches the other philosophers for adducing no proper notion of the efficient cause he alludes to both Anaxagoras and Plato. Regarding Anaxagoras, in our view this cannot be confirmed by internal textual evidence. In terms of Plato, in this chapter we trace an explicit and an implicit criticism of the Platonic Forms as causes. Aris­totle’s implicit criticism is that the Forms are not at all active causes. We can understand better the grounds for this criticism if we also consider his relevant arguments in Book Lambda of his Metaphysics. His explicit criticism, articulated in two arguments, is formulated in GC 335b18–24. We examine the different lines of its interpretation in the second­ary literature, but primarily we focus on Philoponus’ exegesis, which contributes significantly, not only to the clarification of Aristotle’s thinking, but also to the manifestation of the arguments articulated in defence of the Platonic theory of the Forms. In this paper, through the analysis of Philoponus’ exegesis we set out to prove that Aristotle’s criticism of the Platonic causes can be construed from the perspective of either Aristo­telian theory or the Platonic and Neoplatonic influence. Finally, based on Philoponus’ exegesis, we examine Aristotle’s criticism of those who posited matter or instrumental causes as efficient causes. (shrink)

The witness of the Scriptures and of virtually every human culture suggests that one of the most pivotal and thus crucial dimensions of human formation, and thus spiritual formation, is the intergenerational dynamic: older men with younger men; older women passing on the faith to younger women. One generation encouraging, blessing and transmitting wisdom to the next generation. And yet, it is often observed that this is a missing dimension of congregational life–that congregations are increasing stratified along generational lines. Thus (...) this essay will make the case that the church is a liturgical, catechetical and missional community and that faith formation, in Christian community, will happen through the interplay of the generations in worship, teaching/learning and service. And that therefore congregations would be wise to be more attentive to how they foster intergenerational connections, rather than inadvertently or intentionally create generational divides in the church. Also, it is important to stress that a critical part of congregational life is that of equipping older men and women to be a means of grace to their younger counterparts. The essay will draw on the Biblical references to intergenerational formation, the insights of contemporary social-psychology and the observations of the author regarding contemporary congregational life. (shrink)

L'esistenza del commento di Alessandro di Afrodisia al De generatione aristotelico, perduto nella versione greca e nella traduzione araba, è attestata da numerose fonti arabe, tra le quali Averroè, nel suo commento alla stessa opera. L'A. rintraccia la presenza, la tipologia e la distribuzione delle citazioni tratte dal commento di Alessandro nel Kitab al-Tasrif, un'opera del corpus alchemico attribuita a Gabir ibn Hayyan. Secondo l'A., la sezione interessata dalle citazioni assembla tre diversi tipi di testi: 1) lemmi del De generatione (...) in traduzione araba; 2) frammenti lacunosi della traduzione araba del commento di Alessandro; 3) interventi di collegamento. Una più ampia discussione si trova in un saggio visibile sulla pagina "publicationslist" dell'autore: "Alessandro di Afrodisia sulle 'contrarietà tangibili' (De gen. et corr. II.2): fonti greche e arabe a confronto" in: Aristotele e Alessandro di Afrodisia nella tradizione araba, a c. di C. D'Ancona e G. Serra, “Il Poligrafo”, Padova 2002, pp. 151-189. Notasi che il testo ricostruito di Alessandro in GC 2.2-5 è stato pubblicato da E. Gannagé nella serie ACA, che però non menziona il contributo di SF, dalla cui iniziativa, dalle cui analisi e dalla cui ricostruzione integrale, svolta sul manoscritto arabo Paris. 5099, la ricerca prese l'avvio. (shrink)

De generationewas the last of the three works published by William Harvey during his lifetime. Although this work on generation was most ambitious, being the product of prolonged and detailed researches, it has received relatively little attention from modern writers. It is generally felt that this work, like William Gilbert'sDe mundo, departs significantly from the more pronounced empirical approach to science which characterized Harvey's first publication,De motu cordis. De generationeshows that Harvey regarded reference to teleological and vitalistic principles as necessary (...) for the solution of crucial problems in biology. In this respect he differed from his contemporaries, the iatrochemical and iatromechanical physiologists, whose non-teleological approach seems, at least superficially, to be in sympathy with the modern biological tradition. The structure and content ofDe generationeare so evidently determined by Aristotle's biological writings, that the work is used to illustrate Harvey's failure to emancipate himself from the philosophical encumbrances of antiquity. (shrink)

In De Partibus Animalium I Aristotle sets out his philosophy of biology, discussing cause, necessity, soul, genus, and species, definition by logical division, and general methodology. In De Generatione Animalium I he applies his hylomorphic philosophy to the problem of animal reproduction. The translation is close, and includes passages from De Generatione Animalium II which complete Aristotle's theory of reproduction. The notes interpret Aristotle's arguments and discuss his views on major issues such as natural teleology. The original edition was published (...) in 1972. (shrink)

Aristotle's Physics is a study of nature and of natural objects. According to him, these objects—either all of them or at least some of them—are in motion. That is, they are kinoumena, things that are subject to change. The first book of the Physics is largely devoted to this task. The account of substantial change in the Physics is devoid of any commitment to prime matter. Aristotle also takes up the topics of alteration and coming-to-be in De Generatione et Corruptione. (...) He adopts a kind of conservation principle: “the corruption of one thing is the generation of another, and vice versa.” In addition, Aristotle points out that all changes involve both a subject and an attribute of a sort which can be predicated of the subject, and says that either one of these is capable of “change”. (shrink)

In this contribution, which is part of a more comprehensive research project on the reception of the Aristotelian libri naturales in the XIIIth century, I wish to present the results of a preliminary investigation into an anonymous collection of questions on the De generatione et corruptione preserved in the MSS Erlangen, UB, 213 and Kassel, Stadt- und Landesbibl., Phys. 2° 11. Albeit still unpublished and hitherto almost completely ignored by scholars, this quaestiones commentary is not without interest for historians of (...) medieval Latin Aristotelianism. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:We have here the critical edition of Richard Rufus’s commentary on Aristotle’s treatment of generation and corruption. The Greek philosopher explained how living beings came about and passed on. His text was much studied by scholastics in the latter part of the thirteenth century. Rufus’s commentary is, as far as we know, “the earliest surviving commentary” on the text. Understandably it influenced succeeding commentaries. This edition has come about (...) as the continuation of Rega Wood’s study and use of the one manuscript that has the text, a manuscript that contains other texts ascribed Rufus. Wood used the manuscript for her edition of Aristotle’s In Physicam. In that book she described the manuscript and her use of it for the edition. The edition of In De Generatione et Corruptione follows the critical procedure discussed there. The long introduction to this further edition of a commentary on a work by Aristotle presents the case for its authorship by Rufus, examines the arguments of Rufus, and surveys its influence on later commentators.The key point, of course, is authorship. Did Rufus write the commentary? First the editors show that In Physicam and In De Generatione et Corruptione have a common author. Then, on pages 17–48, they offer their argument for Rufus as author. The two editors tread carefully, for Wood’s argument on Rufus as author of the In Physicam has been contested at length . Once Rufus is established as author, they proceed to date its composition. It is clear that it was written between 1225 and 1245. They narrow the date to “ca. 1232–1236.”The editors’ proof of Rufus’s authorship brings together a number of indications that invite us to look in Rufus’s direction as author. Wood and Lewis have found no evidence out of which Rufus springs, with a smile, confessing: Yes, it is I, Rufus, speaking. Someone did write it, however, and possible authors are definitely not legion. The indications fit our smiling Rufus as they fit no other. It is definitely something that Rufus might well do in the time frame of its production and he would have done it in that way and with those sources. The text lines up well doctrinally with certified Rufus texts, though not verbally. Moreover, the text occurs in the manuscript quires that contain authentic works of Rufus. I do not belong to those who have studied Rufus and his learned production. I understand that there exists actually a critical process that is putting together the writings and the role of Rufus in scholasticism. I find this book’s argument a valid and serious contribution to the process.Once authorship and then date and place of the authoring have been decided, the editors speak to the sources on which Rufus drew and may have drawn. Then they examine three topics, infinite divisibility, growth, and mixture, which show that, however appreciative of Aristotle’s ideas, Rufus was a critical reader of Aristotle’s writings. The editors finish their study of Rufus’s In De Generatione et Corruptione by showing the influence of the text in the history of the following decades.After the thorough scrutiny of the text there comes the critical edition of the text itself. Wood and Lewis follow the method used by Wood in her edition of In Physicam. The edition is an excellent piece of work.It is not without trepidation that I have seen to the publication of this review in Studies. I think it merits a place here, for Studies has published previously on Rufus, while scholarship will not advance if the various contributions to scholarly discussion do not circulate well. (shrink)

In his commentary on Aristotle’s De generatione et corruptione Marsilius of Inghen defends the view—unusual in the Middle Ages—that there is no such thing as intermittent or “gappy” existence. Even God cannot restore things that have been corrupted. This paper examines Marsilius’s unusual position, connecting them to another view he defends, namely that a thing’s origins—and in particular the time at which it comes about—are essential to its numerical identity as the particular individual it is. I consider John Buridan and (...) Nicole Oresme’s influence upon Marsilius’s views, and ultimately evaluate their plausibility, drawing on some recent work of Gyula Klima’s on gappy existence in Thomas Aquinas. (shrink)

This publication offers the first critical edition of John Buridan’s second set of questions on Aristotle's “De generatione et corruptione”. The edition was made by Michiel Streijger, Paul Bakker and Hans Thijssen. First published as a printed book in 2010, the publication has been converted to open access with the CC BY-NC-ND license as of September 2023.

Wie arbeitet Aristoteles als wissenschaftlicher Autor? Wie nutzt er das Schreiben für seine Argumentation und ihre Darstellung? Dieser Frage geht die vorliegende Monografie für die Schrift De generatione animalium systematisch nach. In ihr entwickelt Aristoteles eine komplexe Theorie, mit der er Fortpflanzungs- und Vererbungsphänomene in der gesamten Tierwelt einschließlich des Menschen erklären möchte. Aristoteles‘ Argumentation ist dicht und wechselt zwischen Beweisführung, Diskursivität und Darstellung. Eine im Rahmen einer Makroplanung insgesamt prozessuale Vorgehensweise schließt die rhetorische Gestaltung einzelner Passagen nicht aus. Insgesamt (...) kann gezeigt werden, wie Aristoteles das Schreiben nutzt, um auf innovative Weise die eigene Theorie zu entwickeln (‚epistemisches Schreiben‘) und gleichzeitig den Weg seiner Forschung zu vermitteln. Mit der detaillierten Analyse der Bücher I-IV, der systematischen Auswertung der Ergebnisse und einem Katalog signifikanter Formulierungen bietet das Buch einen Ausgangspunkt und ein Instrumentarium für die weitere detaillierte Erforschung Aristotelischer Schriften und gleichzeitig einen Beitrag zur Geschichte der Wissenschaftsliteratur. (shrink)

In this book, a dozen distinguished scholars in the field of the history of philosophy and science investigate aspects of the commentary tradition on Aristotle's De generatione et corruptione, one of the least studied among Aristotle's treatises in natural philosophy. Many famous thinkers such as Johannes Philoponus, Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, John Buridan, Nicole Oresme, Francesco Piccolomini, Jacopo Zabarella, and Galileo Galilei wrote commentaries on it. The distinctive feature of the present book is that it approaches this commentary tradition (...) as a coherent whole, thereby ignoring the usual historiographical distinctions between the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the seventeenth century. Frans de Haas and Henk Kubbinga address the Greek commentary tradition on De generatione et corruptione. Simone van Riet's essay is devoted to the Latin version of Avicenna's third treatise of his Kitab al Shifa, which discusses Aristotle's De generatione et corruptione. James Otte traces the intricate history of the identification of the Latin translator of Aristotle's treatise as Burgundio of Pisa. The essay by John Murdoch explores the fortuna of atomistic arguments in the Latin commentary tradition. Jurgen Sarnowsky, Henk Braakhuis, and Stefano Caroti examine various themes in the commentaries that were produced by the so-called Buridan School, that is, John Buridan, Albert of Saxony, Nicholas Oresme, and Marsilius of Inghen. The article by Silvia Donati focuses on the influential commentary by the Expositor, Giles of Rome. The final essay, written by Anita Guerrini, tackles Robert Boyle's attitude in the Origin of Forms and Qualities toward such Aristotelian key concepts as forms, matter, qualities, and mixture. These essays are prefaced by a preliminary survey by Hans Thijssen of Aristotle's text, its Latin translations and its Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries. (shrink)

In De Partibus Animalium I Aristotle sets out his philosophy of biology, discussing cause, necessity, soul, genus, and species, definition by logical division, and general methodology. In De Generatione Animalium I he applies his hylomorphic philosophy to the problem of animal reproduction. The translation is close, and includes passages from De Generatione Animalium II which complete Aristotle's theory of reproduction. The notes interpret Aristotle's arguments and discuss his views on major issues such as natural teleology. The original edition was published (...) in 1972. (shrink)

In this paper, I consider Richard Rufus’ account of generation and corrup- tion. This is a fundamental metaphysical question in the Aristotelian framework. Given that there are things that are corruptible (such as trees and cats and the human body), and things that are incorruptible (such as the celestial bodies and angels), what is it that makes one one, and the other the other? In other words, what is the ultimate explanation (in Rufus' terminology, the principle or principles) of corruptibility (...) and incorruptibility? Do corruptible and incorruptible things have the same principles – the same fundamental metaphysical constitution – or are their principles different? Richard Rufus was among the first ones lecturing on Aristotle’s _Metaphysics_ at the University of Paris. He addresses these questions in book 4 (Gamma), lectio 1, question 2 of his longer commentary on Aristotle’s work (the _Scriptum_), which will provide the main textual basis of this paper. The other textual basis is an anonymous commentary on Aristotle’s _On generation and corruption_, found in Oxford, Corpus Christi MS 119, whose treatment of these issues is remarkably similar to Rufus’. As I show, we can learn a great deal about Rufus’ general metaphysical commitments by looking at this particular question, especially concerning his view of prime matter and his view of the qualities of the resurrected bodies. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:John Buridan, Quaestiones super libros "De generatione et corruptione" Aristotelis: A Critical Edition with an IntroductionPeter G. SobolMichiel Streijger, Paul J. J. M. Bakker, and Johannes M. M. H. Thijssen, editors. John Buridan, Quaestiones super libros "De generatione et corruptione" Aristotelis : A Critical Edition with an Introduction. History of Science and Medicine Library, 17. Medieval and Early Modern Science, 14. Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2010. Pp. ix + 269. (...) Cloth, $141.00.To readers of these pages, John Buridan needs no introduction. A popular and influential teacher in his own time, he came early to the attention of historians of medieval intellectual history who, for the most part, have rested content to read his works in manuscripts and early printed editions. So it is a happy occasion to welcome a new critical edition of a work by Buridan, especially one that expands our access to Buridan's thought beyond his logic, physics, and cosmology.In the introduction, the editors recount the manuscript traditions of Buridan's literal commentary on De generatione et corruptione and the more complex tradition of the Quaestiones, which is the work edited here. The editors discovered two versions of the Quaestiones and chose to work with the version represented by the greater number of manuscripts. They provide detailed evidence from shared accidents among the manuscripts of this version to support their stemma codicum. Using the stemma, they selected a base manuscript and two others, each representing a distinct branch, for collation. The text itself is accompanied by an apparatus criticus and an apparatus fontium.In De generatione et corruptione, Aristotle tried to improve upon the inadequate efforts of his predecessors to explain growth and change in the terrestrial realm. After dismissing atomism and theories relying on a single or several persisting elements, he offered his own theory, in which four primary qualities inhere in prime matter to form four elements, which in turn combine to form mineral, vegetable, and animal bodies. But, as they tried to work out the consequences of his theory, Aristotle's Arabic and Latin commentators discovered several problems, one of which became perhaps the most widely discussed problem in medieval philosophy: how to reconcile the idea that the properties of compound substances derive from the proportion of their constituent elements with the idea that those properties derive from the compound's substantial form. This problem becomes even more difficult when the compound in question is a living body, especially when the living body is human. The problem was addressed by philosophers in commentaries on various works of Aristotle, by theologians in commentaries on the Sentences, and even by physicians. Some historians, such as Anneliese Meier, have seen this as a conflict between the Aristotelian theory of matter and Aristotelian metaphysics, with the metaphysicians insisting that a thing is what it is because of its substantial form, and the natural scientists insisting that a thing it what it is because of what it is made of. For several centuries this problem provoked many unsatisfactory solutions, remaining intractable right up to the time that natural philosophers began to abandon the Aristotelian worldview; indeed, its intractability may have contributed to their willingness to look elsewhere for a coherent theory of matter.Given the importance of this problem in the thirteenth- and fourteenth-century commentaries on De generatione, this edition may frustrate readers who expect pedagogy along with philology. Readers will find where in the text the three manuscripts have column breaks, but will find no explanatory notes. The introduction surveys Buridan's life and ponders the sequence of events through which a medieval quaestiones commentary made [End Page 140] its way from the master in his lecture hall to the copyist's pen, but it offers no overview of the subject matter treated in the commentary itself.Buridan dealt with the problem of the elements in the longest question of his commentary, the twenty-second question of book 1, "Whether the substantial forms of elements remain in a mixed body." He found that incompatible consequences followed whether a mixed body's qualities arose from its constituent elements or from its substantial form. How, for example, could fire and water persist in a compound... (shrink)

Commentaries on Aristotle's writings have been produced since the 2nd century AD. This edition contains Greek commentaries on his work from the 3rd to the 8th centuries AD by, among others, Alexander of Aphrodiensias, Themistios, Joh. Philoponus, Simplicius in Greek.