The Dramatization of Determinism: A lexander of Aphrodisias' De Fato

Abstract

'Determinism has many meanings, but there are, mainly and for the most part, four different kinds of problems connected with this notion', Aristotle might have said had he employed the concept of determinism. In his philosophical writings we can distinguish the following questions. (a) There is logical determinism, i.e. the necessity of the conclusions following from their premises (under this title I also want to subsume the problem of the Sea Battle)', (b) there is physical determinism, the necessity of the connection of cause and effect, (c) there is ethical determinism concerning the dependence of human action on internal ('character') and external conditions, and (d) there is teleological determinism, i.e. that everything has an end or serves some purpose. Aristotle does not always distinguish between these kinds of determinateness nor is he always consistent in his own position but it seems clear to me that he was aware of the determinist's dilemma.2 But since no radical deterministic theory comprising all these notions of determinism seems to have been proposed by any of the rival schools (pace Megaricorum) Aristotle did not have to maintain an all encompassing position. The need for a clarification of the Peripatetic position with respect to the problem of determinism and the concept of fate must have existed long before Alexander of Aphrodisias, the most important commentator on Aristotle's writings, produced the little treatise On Fate which he dedicated to the emperors Septimius Severus and Caracalla (terminus ante quem 211 AD). As we know from other sources,3 there raged a never ending battle about the notion of fate among the schools, a battle in which the various opponents seem to have relied on the same kind of arguments, counterarguments and examples time and again. Alexander himself does not claim originality; he professes to give only an account of the A ristotelian position (cf. 164, 13; 212,5) which he compares with and defends against the more rigid determinism of a rival school. All commentators agree that the target of Alexander's criticism must be the Stoa. Opinions differ on the question why Alexander does not mention the Stoa or any of its members. The