[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

How can this division be accomplished? One might say: via the same
diferentiae, insofar as they are appropriate dividing diferentiae of the
genus (and not constitutive diferentiae of the species). his is well pos-
sible, but Galen does not suggest anything of the sort. Rather, he mere-
ly argues that, say, rational and mortal are appropriate diferentiae of
the genus animal since they can make up a species (that of man) when
conjoined with that genus. One may well reach the same result (the
deinition of man) by conjoining footed and biped with rational ani-
mal (MM X.24 K.). Such divisions are indeed diferent and the order
of cuts may change (as a matter of fact, the cuts rational/irrational and
mortal/immortal can come in either order, whereas footed has clearly
a greater extension than biped)46. However, the actual end result does
not change, since in either way we have a deinition of the species hu-
man being and in MM X.24 K. Galen overtly states that there is more
than one way of arriving at the species in question. he order of cuts
does not really matter and at PHP V.763 K. Galen does not consider
making the right number of cuts in the wrong places a way in which
division can go wrong: what really matters is that the cuts be neither
too few nor too many (see also MMG XI.4 K.); the reason is simple,
since cuts in the diairesis correspond to species-forming diferentiae
and a wrong number of cuts entails that the deinition of the species
has not been circumscribed correctly. To sum up: the lack of mention
of dividing diferentiae at MM X.23-24 K. may not be haphazard, since
Galen does not claim that we come to deine the species by dividing
the genus through its appropriate (dividing) diferentiae. What Galen s
discussion rather implies is that the deinition of the species in ques-
46
See on this and what follows Hankinson 1991, p. 102. Rashed 2007, p. 155
argues that the choice between rational and biped as species-forming diferentiae of
human being raises some questions concerning Alexander s hylomorphic ontology.
As far as I can judge, Galen s overall approach does not share this kind of concerns.
408 Riccardo Chiaradonna
tion should somehow already be known from the start and act as a
guide for inding the species-forming diferentiae which are appropri-
ate to the genus (i.e. which make up its subordinate species). But how
can this be possible?
Before attempting to answer this question, it is worth discussing
a further parallel with the commentators. We know from Simpl., In
Cat., 57, 22 f. Kalbleisch that Herminus, while interpreting Cat., 3,
1b16-17, argued that diferentiae that occur in diferent parallel gen-
era which fall not one under the other, but rather all under the same
genus (e.g. the diferentiae biped and quadruped that occur both in
the genus terrestrial and in the genus winged, including mythological
creatures such as the sphinx or the gryphon, which both fall under
the genus animal) are primarily diferentiae of the superior genus that
includes the parallel genera (i.e. of the genus animal)47. his view is
obviously open to the objection that animal would thus be both biped
and quadruped: we ind a remark of this sort in Alexander s text Dif.
I, preserved in Arabic (see Dif. I [3i])48. In this work, Alexander reacts
against an adversary whose position is actually extremely close to that
of Herminus49. Galen s view that rational/irrational, mortal/immortal,
tame/wild, are all diferentiae of the genus animal may actually recall
Herminus view that biped and quadruped are primarily diferentiae
of the genus animal. However, Herminus view is certainly connected
to his refusal to admit species-forming diferentiae: on his view, dif-
ferentiae are just dividing diferentiae (see Simpl. In Cat., 55, 22-23
Kalbleisch). his remark does not solve all problems, but can at least
serve to dismiss the objection that the genus animal would be equally
determined by diferentiae such as biped and quadruped: Herminus
merely argues that these diferentiae are primarily dividing diferentiae
of the genus animal. Furthermore, what we know about his views on
how major and minor terms should be determined in syllogistic shows
that Herminus was very interested in ixing the correct order of cuts in
divisions that start from the highest genus (see Alex. Aphr., In APr.,
47 [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

  • zanotowane.pl
  • doc.pisz.pl
  • pdf.pisz.pl
  • szkla.opx.pl

    •