Pendant ce temps, Alix revient d'Egypte avec Enak. Mais le sein gauche d'Olivia fait des siennes et le diagnostic est sans appel, il s'agit d'un cancer. Steve Dillon dessin ; Garth Ennis scenario Preacher, vol.
Frantz et Mike, deux adolescents, s'ennuient dans leur village charentais. Seule la musique de la Mano Negra les passionne. Flipflops Darwin's Game, vol. Mais sa vie en France est bien loin de l'image idyllique qu'il s'en faisait. Anneli Furmark Hiver rouge Ed. Mais ce dernier arrive cinq ans trop tard Kengo Hanazawa I am a Hero, vol. Tsukasa Hojo Rash!! Un manga sur les travers des Japonais. Tous les. Il a une dette envers le boss de Chicago et doit, pour s'en acquitter, poursuivre trois braqueurs.
Il devra choisir ce qui le motive le plus et survivre au milieu des gangsters. Depuis la guerre, les courriers fonctionnent mal. En Afghanistan, il est fait prisonnier par les talibans et subit l'amputation de la main gauche. Dans cet espace clos et intimiste, les adolescents se laissent rapidement envahir par des sentiments violents. Eric Liberge dessin ; A. Quel est l'incroyable secret de la soupe miso des Japonais? Nouvelles recettes, carnets de voyages et anecdotes gourmandes de Guillaume Long. Pour les activer, les deux partenaires doivent faire l'amour ensemble et avoir un orgasme.
Sandrine Martin. Sandrine Martin dessin ; Dom. Taiyo Matsumoto Sunny, vol. Dernier volume. Seul le nouveau de la classe technique pourrait l'aider. La France glorifie ses morts et oublie les survivants. Mori Kouji Suicide island, vol. Davy Mourier La Petite mort, vol. La seconde se sert de la peinture pour vivre un amour impossible. L'enregistrement est une version italienne de That's someone you never forget. Ce cadeau exhume des souvenirs et des secrets de famille, rompant la monotonie de l'existence des personnages. Kei Ohkubo Arte, vol. Arte, une jeune fille issue de l'aristocratie, aime par-dessus tout la peinture et le dessin.
Hiroya Oku Last Hero Inuyashiki, vol. Pendant ce temps, Madame attend. Dim D. Avec une carte de Paris et un flash code. Kyungeun Park dessin ; J. Pauline et Blanca ont attendu le retour de leurs hommes durant la guerre. Les deux femmes quittent la montagne et emportent avec elles Florentin, un orphelin de 11 ans. La jeune femme ressuscite Avec un carnet de croquis en fin d'ouvrage.
Ruben Pellejero dessin ; J. Comme du sable dans les sandales. Mais avec la guerre que se livrent les mages, la vie dans la montagne devient impossible. Avec Myrtille, l'unique survivante de son troupeau, il part accomplir sa vengeance. Darick Robertson dessin ; Warren Ellis scenario Transmetropolitan vol. Dans les eaux qui l'emportent, ses amis imaginaires d'autrefois le guident dans ses souvenirs. Meilleur BD reportage aux dBD awards Joe Sacco Bumf, vol.
Kei Sanbe Erased, vol. Kei Sanbe Le Berceau des esprits, vol. Que va-t-il se passer? Quelle sera sa place? Ne devrait-il pas partir et chercher une autre maison? Dash Shaw Doctors Ed. Hiroshi Shiibashi Illegal Rare, vol. Sicomoro dessin ; Makyo scenario La Porte au ciel, vol. Fuyumi Soryo Cesare : il creatore che ha distrutto, vol. Ils se rencontrent lorsque Marko est fait prisonnier. La vie. Goran Sudzuka dessin ; Josh. Masayuki Takano Blood Alone, vol. Jacques Tardi. Tetsuya Tsutsui Poison city, vol. Une vague de puritanisme envahit le pays et des mouvements populaires se multiplient.
Tous les moyens d'expression. Naoki Urasawa Billy Bat, vol. Il rencontre Chuck Culkin, ainsi que son double. Jun Watanabe Montage, vol. Akimi Yoshida Kamakura Diary, vol. Les amazones le capturent pour remplacer leur reproducteur actuel Zep What a Wonderful World! Golo Zhao Entre ciel et terre, vol. Aleixandre, L. Cernuda, P. Neruda, etc. Avec une nouvelle traduction du recueil Divan du Tamarit. Les textes d'I. L'auteur ne commente pas mais fait revivre les mots sous d'autres habits.
Jean-Luc Despax 9. Ils montrent la valeur des mots mis au service de la lutte. Il fonde le Simplisme en , puis la revue du Grand jeu en Suivi de Chants spirituels. Anja Hilling Le Jardin Ed. Il avait promis qu'il reviendrait la chercher. Claudio Tolcachir Le Cas de la famille Coleman. Direct presidential voting would shift power to heavily urbanized areas—why waste time trying to reach more dispersed voters in less populated rural states? For some minorities, sincerity and directness might be preferable to sloganeering by wealthy white urban progressives, who often seem more worried about assuaging their own guilt than about genuinely understanding people of different colors.
The city remains as dependent on elemental stuff—typically produced outside the suburbs and cities—as ever. Trump connected with these rural voters with far greater success than liberals anticipated. Urban minorities failed in to vote en bloc, in their Obama-level numbers; and rural Americans, enthused by Trump, increased their turnout, so that even a shrinking American countryside still had enough clout to win. W hat is insufficiently understood is why a hurting rural America favored the urban, superrich Trump in and, more generally, tends to vote more conservative than liberal.
Ostensibly, the answer is clear: an embittered red-state America has found itself left behind by elite-driven globalization, battered by unfettered trade and high-tech dislocations in the economy. In some of the most despairing counties, rural life has become a mirror image of the inner city, ravaged by drug use, criminality, and hopelessness. Yet if muscular work has seen a decline in its relative monetary worth, it has not necessarily lost its importance. After all, the elite in Washington and Menlo Park appreciate the fresh grapes and arugula that they purchase at Whole Foods.
Someone mined the granite used in their expensive kitchen counters and cut the timber for their hardwood floors. The fuel in their hybrid cars continues to come from refined oil. The city remains as dependent on this elemental stuff—typically produced outside the suburbs and cities—as it always was. The two Palo Altoans at Starbucks might have forgotten that their overpriced homes included two-by-fours, circuit breakers, and four-inch sewer pipes, but somebody somewhere made those things and brought them into their world.
In the twenty-first century, though, the exploitation of natural resources and the manufacturing of products are more easily outsourced than are the arts of finance, insurance, investments, higher education, entertainment, popular culture, and high technology, immaterial sectors typically pursued within metropolitan contexts and supercharged by the demands of increasingly affluent global consumers.
A vast government sector, mostly urban, is likewise largely impervious to the leveling effects of a globalized economy, even as its exorbitant cost and extended regulatory reach make the outsourcing of material production more likely. Asian steel may have devastated Youngstown, but Chinese dumping had no immediate effect on the flourishing government enclaves in Washington, Maryland, and Virginia, filled with well-paid knowledge workers. Few major political leaders before Trump seemed to care. He hammered home the point that elites rarely experienced the negative consequences of their own ideologies.
And senators and bureaucrats in Washington face no risk of having their roles usurped by low-wage Vietnamese politicians. Trump quickly discovered that millions of Americans were irate that the costs and benefits of our new economic reality were so unevenly distributed. As the nation became more urban and its wealth soared, the old Democratic commitment from the Roosevelt era to much of rural America—construction of water projects, rail, highways, land banks, and universities; deference to traditional values; and Grapes of Wrath —like empathy—has largely been forgotten.
A confident, upbeat urban America promoted its ever more radical culture without worrying much about its effects on a mostly distant and silent small-town other. In , gay marriage and women in combat were opposed, at least rhetorically, by both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in their respective presidential campaigns. By , mere skepticism on these issues was viewed by urban elites as reactionary ignorance. These cultural themes, too, Trump addressed forcefully. I s there something about the land itself that promotes conservatism?
The answer is as old as Western civilization. Country people in the Western tradition lived in a shame culture. Family reputation hinged on close-knit assessments of personal behavior only possible in small communities of the like-minded and tribal. The rural ethos could not afford radical changes in lifestyles when the narrow margins of farming safety rested on what had worked in the past.
By contrast, self-reinvention and social experimentation were possible only in large cities of anonymous souls and varieties of income and enrichment. In classical literature, patriotism and civic militarism were always closely linked with farming and country life. In the twenty-first century, this is still true. The incubator of the U. Farming, animal husbandry, mining, logging—these traditional bodily tasks were often praised in the past as epitomes of the proper balance between physical and mental, nature and culture, fact and theory.
In classical pastoral and Georgic poetry, the city-bound often romanticized the countryside, even if, on arrival, they found the flies and dirt of Arcadia bothersome. Theocritus and Virgil reflected that, in the trade-offs imposed by transforming classical societies, the earthiness lost by city dwellers was more grievous to their souls than the absence of erudition and sophistication was to the souls of simpler farmers and shepherds. Trump, the billionaire Manhattanite wheeler-dealer, made an unlikely agrarian, true; but he came across during his presidential run as a clear advocate of old-style material jobs, praising vocational training and clearly enjoying his encounters with middle-American homemakers, welders, and carpenters.
Trump talked more on the campaign about those who built his hotels than those who financed them. He could point to the fact that he made stuff, unlike Clinton, who got rich without any obvious profession other than leveraging her office. Give the thrice-married, orange-tanned, and dyed-haired Trump credit for his political savvy in promising to restore to the dispossessed of the Rust Belt their old jobs and to give back to farmers their diverted irrigation water, and for assuring small towns that arriving new Americans henceforth would be legal—and that, over time, they would become similar to their hosts in language, custom, and behavior.
C hanges come more slowly to rural interior areas, given that the sea, the historical importer of strange people and weird ideas, is far away. Maritime Athens was liberal, democratic, and cosmopolitan; its antithesis, landlocked Sparta, was oligarchic, provincial, and tradition-bound. Rural people rarely meet—and tend not to wish to meet—the traders, foreigners, and importers who arrive at ports with their foreign money and exotic customs. If one wished to destroy the purity of rural, conservative society, his odd rant went, then the Athens of Pericles would be just about the best model to follow.
A guy who had built hotels all over the world, and understood how much money was made and lost through foreign investment, offered to put such expertise in the service of the heartland—against the supposed currency devaluers, trade cheats, and freeloaders of Europe, China, and Japan. Language is also different in the countryside. Rural speech serves, by its very brevity and directness, as an enhancement to action. Verbosity and rhetoric, associated with urbanites, were always rural targets in classical literature, precisely because they were seen as ways to disguise reality so as to advance impractical or subversive political agendas.
In the countryside, by contrast, crops either grow or wither; olive trees either yield or remain barren; rain either arrives or is scarce. For the rural mind, language must convey what is seen and heard; it is less likely to indulge adornment. To the rural mind, verbal gymnastics reveal dishonest politicians, biased journalists, and conniving bureaucrats, who must hide what they really do and who they really are. To paraphrase Cicero on his preference for the direct Plato over the obscure Pythagoreans, rural Americans would have preferred to be wrong with the blunt-talking Trump than to be right with the mush-mouthed Hillary Clinton.
One reason that Trump may have outperformed both McCain and Romney with minority voters was that they appreciated how much the way he spoke rankled condescending white urban liberals. Poorer, less cosmopolitan, rural people can also experience a sense of inferiority when they venture into the city, unlike smug urbanites visiting red-state America. The rural folk expect to be seen as deplorables, irredeemables, and clingers by city folk. And just as the urban poor have always had their tribunes, so, too, have rural residents flocked to an Andrew Jackson or a William Jennings Bryan, politicians who enjoyed getting back at the urban classes for perceived slights.
I ndeed, one irony of the election is that identity politics became a lethal boomerang for progressives. After years of seeing America reduced to a binary universe, with culpable white Christian males encircled by ascendant noble minorities, gays, feminists, and atheists—usually led by courageous white-male progressive crusaders—red-state America decided that two could play the identity-politics game. In , rural folk did silently in the voting booth what urban America had done to them so publicly in countless sitcoms, movies, and political campaigns.
In sum, Donald Trump captured the twenty-first-century malaise of a rural America left behind by globalized coastal elites and largely ignored by the establishments of both political parties. That a New York billionaire almost alone grasped how red-state America truly thought, talked, and acted, and adjusted his message and style accordingly, will remain one of the astonishing ironies of American political history.
The American middle classes, the Chinese, and Vladimir Putin have never been convinced that Ivy League degrees, vast Washington experience, and cultural sophistication necessarily translate into national wisdom. For Trump, miners were not the human equivalent of the 4, bald eagles that the Obama administration recently assured the wind turbine industry can be shredded for the greater good of alternate energy and green profiteering. In other words, Trump instinctively saw the miners of West Virginia — and by extension the working-class populations of states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio — as emblematic of the forgotten man, in a way few of his Republican rivals, much less Hilary Clinton, grasped.
Trump instinctively saw a different demographic. And even among minority groups, he detected a rising distaste for being patronized, especially by white, nasal-droning, elite pajama-boy nerds whose loud progressivism did not disguise their grating condescension. Trump Dismissed as a Joke Yet even after destroying the Clinton Dynasty, the Bush-family aristocracy, the Obama legacy, and 16 more-seasoned primary rivals, Trump was dismissed by observers as being mostly a joke, idiotic and reckless.
Such a dismissal is a serious mistake, because what Trump lacks in traditionally defined sophistication and awareness, he more than makes up for in shrewd political cunning of a sort not seen since the regnum of Franklin Roosevelt. Take a few recent examples. Or perhaps Trump channeled reports that there was an epidemic of invalid or out-of-date voter registrations. Controversially, the normally staid Pew Charitable Trust found that 2. Or maybe he fanned fears that illegal aliens were voting.
Another controversial study from two professors at Old Dominion suggested that over 6 percent of non-citizens may have voted in ; and the president on the eve of the election, in his usual wink-and-nod fashion, assured the illegal-alien community that there would be no federal interest in examining immigration status in connection with voting status.
Or perhaps Trump was convinced that the media and the Democratic establishment worked hand in hand to warp elections and media coverage. The WikiLeaks trove revealed that media operatives leaked primary debate questions and sent their stories to the Clinton campaign for fact-checking before publication, as two successive DNC chairpersons resigned in disgrace for purportedly sabotaging the primary-challenge efforts of Bernie Sanders.
For all this and more, Trump was roundly denounced by the status quo as a buffoon who cherry-picked scholarly work to offer puerile distortions. But was he? After the election, that supposition was more than confirmed. Then members of the Clinton campaign and powerful Democrats joined an effort to pressure electors of the Electoral College to defy their state-mandated duty to reflect the vote totals of their states and instead refrain from voting for Donald Trump.
Yet our intelligence agencies do have a history of politicization. The national intelligence assessment at the height of the Iraq insurgency and of George W. There is still no solid proof of deliberate Russian cyber interference intended to aid Donald Trump. Loretta Lynch is skeptical that Russia tried to help the Trump campaign. WikiLeaks, for what it is worth, insists its source was not Russian. And we now learn that intelligence authorities are refusing to testify in closed session to the House Intelligence Committee about the evidence that prompted their odd post-election announcements — announcements that contradict their earlier pre-election suggestions that Russian hacking was not affecting the election.
One possibility is that the likelihood of a Clinton victory spurred the administration and the likely president-elect to suggest that the election process remained sacrosanct and immune from all tampering — while the completely unforeseen loss to Trump abruptly motivated them to readjust such assessments. Trump has a habit of offering off-the-cuff unconventional observations — often unsubstantiated by verbal footnotes and in hyperbolic fashion. Then he is blasted for ignorance and recklessness by bipartisan grandees.
Only later, and quietly, he is often taken seriously, but without commensurate public acknowledgement. A few more examples. Europeans, shocked by gambling in Casablanca, scrambled to assure that they were upping their defense contributions and drawing the NATO line at the Baltic States. President-elect Trump generated even greater outrage in the aftermath of the election when he took a call from the Taiwanese president.
Pundits exploded. Foreign policy hands were aghast. Did this faker understand the dimensions of his blunder? Was he courting nuclear war? Trump shrugged, as reality again intruded: Why sell billions of dollars in weaponry to Taiwan if you cannot talk to its president? Are arms shipments less provocative than receiving a single phone call? Why worry what China thinks, given that it has swallowed Tibet and now created artificial islands in the South China Sea, in defiance of all maritime custom, law, and tradition?
Two weeks later after the call, analysts — true to the pattern — meekly agreed that such a phone call was hardly incendiary. Perhaps, they mused, it was overdue and had a certain logic. Perhaps it had, after all, sent a valuable message to China that the U. Perhaps the Taiwan call had, after all, sent a valuable message to China that the U. More recently, Trump asked in a tweet why we should take back a sea drone stolen by China from under the nose of a U. On most issues, Trump sensed what was verbiage and what was doable — and what was the indefensible position of his opponents.
Finishing the existing southern border wall is sane and sober. Ending sanctuary cities will win majority support: Who wants to make the neo-Confederate argument that local jurisdictions can override U. Deporting illegal-alien law-breakers — or those who are fit and able but without any history of work — is likewise the sort of position that the Left cannot, for political reasons, easily oppose. As for the rest, after closing off the border, Trump will likely shrug and allow illegal aliens who are working, who have established a few years of residence, and who are non-criminal to pay a fine, learn English, and get a green card — perhaps relegating the entire quagmire of illegal immigration to a one-time American aberration that has diminishing demographic and political relevance.
Trump the Brawler Finally, Trump sensed that the proverbial base was itching for a bare-knuckles fighter. They wanted any kind of brawler who would not play by the Marquess of Queensberry rules of and that had doomed Romney and McCain, who, fairly or not, seemed to wish to lose nobly rather than win in black-and-blue fashion, and who were sometimes more embarrassed than proud of their base. So Trump said the same kinds of things to Hillary Clinton that she, in barely more measured tones, had often said to others but never expected anyone to say out loud to her.
No doubt his tweets will continue to offend. But lost amid the left-wing hatred of Trump and the conservative Never Trump condescension is that so far he has shattered American political precedents by displaying much more political cunning and prescience than have his political opponents and most observers. Key is his emperor-has-no-clothes instinct that what is normal and customary in Washington was long ago neither sane nor necessary.
And so far, his candidacy has not only redefined American politics but also recalibrated the nature of insight itself — leaving the wise to privately wonder whether they were ever all that wise after all. The brilliant Donald Trump deserves to win. His political achievements are already unprecedented, and his insight amounts to genius. Almost anyone who has followed the US presidential selection process closely could realise what a brilliant campaign Donald Trump has conducted. He saw that in its self-absorption, the US political class had completely failed to grasp the extent of public anger at the deterioration of almost everything.
American public policy has brought about the greatest sequence of disasters since the s, when the liquor business was given to gangsters by Prohibition, followed by the equities debt bubble and the Great Depression. In the past 20 years, both parties shared in the creation of the housing bubble, which produced the greatest financial crisis since the s, and a decade of war in the Middle East which, despite excellent military execution, Obama has turned into a victory for Iran and an immense humanitarian disaster.
Both political parties share the blame for the admission of 12 million unskilled workers into the US illegally, and for trade pacts with cheap-labour countries that appear to import unemployment. There has never been anything remotely like the rise of America from a small number of colonists to the most dominant power in history, and Americans are not philosophical about being held up to ridicule in the world. Donald Trump, a great public figure — as the developer of famous buildings, an impresario and television host — saw the depth of American outrage at all this and as a non-politician was not complicit in any of it.
He won from the start, piling up astonishing pluralities as the commentariat slowly retreated. They claimed he could not aspire to more than 20, 30, 40 per cent of Republicans, would be sandbagged at the convention, would attract a Ross Perot-like third party to splinter the Republican vote, and would be routed in a horrible landslide by Hillary Clinton. The flabby Republican establishment backed Ted Cruz, an intelligent man who nevertheless told the world that God had commanded he run and who pitched his campaign to the Bible-thumping corn-cobbers with Ms in the rear windows of their pick-up trucks.
The media have remained smugly hostile to Trump, despite warnings that a majority of Americans despise the media too — and that they were just stoking a pro-Trump backlash. As Trump has moved up, Hillary Clinton has had to move far to the left to hold off Bernie Sanders, a septuagenarian former Stalinist kibbutznik and socialist senator for Vermont. Trump and Clinton both went to great lengths to maintain the centrists in control of both parties, against severe challenges from the far Republican right and Democratic left; but almost none of the media, foreign or domestic, has noticed.
The best is yet to come: the last refuge of his opponents is that Trump will be an undignified and frightening candidate. He will be the sane and educated man he is. Even Whitewater is due for a rerun. In taking over a major US political party from the outside, he has done something that has never been done before, and he should win. Edward-Isaac Dovere. Standing with some 30, people in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia the night before the election watching Hillary Clinton speak, exhausted aides were already worrying about what would come next.
Some of them had already started gaming out names for who it would be. What happened the next night shocked even the most pessimistic Democrats. But in another sense, it was the reckoning the party had been expecting for years. Or the Russians. Or James Comey. Or all the problems with how Clinton and her aides ran the campaign. Win or lose, Democrats were facing an existential crisis in the years ahead—the result of years of complacency, ignoring the withering of the grass roots and the state parties, sitting by as Republicans racked up local win after local win.
As Trump takes over the GOP and starts remaking its new identity as a nationalist, populist party, creating a new political pole in American politics for the first time in generations, all eyes are on the Democrats. How will they confront a suddenly awakened, and galvanized, white majority?
Worried liberals are watching with trepidation, fearful that Trump is just the beginning of worse to come, desperate for a comeback strategy that can work. Barack Obama? Hillary Clinton? Too damaged. Bernie Sanders? Too socialist. Joe Biden? Too tied to Obama. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer? Too Washington. Elizabeth Warren? And all of them old, old, old. After all, Clinton did beat Trump by 2.
But they are stuck in the minority in Congress with no end in sight, have only 16 governors left and face 32 state legislatures fully under GOP control. Their top leaders in the House are all over Their top leaders in the Senate are all over They differ in their prescriptions, but all boil down to the same inconvenient truth: If Republicans dominate the midterms, they will control the Senate and with it, the Supreme Court for years, and they will draw district lines in states that will lock in majorities in the House and across state capitals, killing the next generation of Democrats in the crib, setting up the GOP for an even more dominant and beyond.
Most doubt Democrats have the stamina or the stomach for the kind of cohesive resistance that Republicans perfected over the years. Some thinking has started to take shape. Obama is quickly reformatting his post-presidency to have a more political bent than he had planned. Vice President Joe Biden is beginning to structure his own thoughts on mentoring and guiding rising Democrats. No one seems to be waiting to hear from Clinton. And everyone from Obama on down is talking about going local, focusing on the kinds of small races and party-building activities Republicans have been dominating for cycle after cycle.
But all that took decades, and Democrats have no time. What are they going to do next? And there may never have been a party less ready to confront it. The tiles need to be tight. We have to get through this heat. Those are fights they can wrap their heads around. No, the existential, hair-on-fire threat to the Democratic Party is just how easy it was for Trump to sneak around their flank and rob them of an issue they thought was theirs alone—economic populism—even as they partied at fundraisers in Hollywood and the Hamptons. The mission now, Warren believes, can be summed up in five words: Take back populism from Trump.
But that national focus has become myopic. Murphy is all for saying no to Trump, but he argues that Democrats need to come up with their own proposals, however unrealistic, and say yes—big league. Entitlement reform? She won by 20 percentage points in a northwest Illinois district that Trump carried by half a point and Obama carried by 17 points in Bustos wants each member to identify constituents who will be affected by policy shifts under Trump and have district staff promote those people in local media.
Tell their stories, she says. This has echoes of how Bill Clinton campaigned in —as a champion of globalization who would make it work better for ordinary Americans—but that was before so many of the factories had closed, before the culture felt different, before the internet made everything more immediate and more immediately infuriating. Over emails, texts and phone calls, ad hoc networks of younger Democrats have started to form, eager to talk about a new start for the party. He wanted Clinton to win. Those who do, he says, are all basing their thinking on what they did to George W.
Bush or what Mitch McConnell did to Obama. This is a new world for them. The only mechanism Democrats have to actually shape what happens in Washington is the Senate—with 48 votes that give them an eight-vote margin for error on filibusters and the hope that three Republicans will break away on some votes to join them in the majority. And here, Democrats have more of a strategy than they are perhaps letting on. In essence, the idea is to focus on issues that drive a wedge through the Republican caucus.
On Obamacare, they will step out of the way and let Republicans squirm among themselves. On infrastructure, the plan is to split Republicans between those leery of new spending and those who just want to get along with Trump. As for Trump, they will just wait him out.
Many on the left view Schumer warily, suspicious of his breaks with Obama on Israel and Iran, his close ties to Wall Street and his reputation for cutting deals and hogging the spotlight. The base wants McConnell-style, uncaring and unapologetic obstruction, or at least the old Harry Reid, burn-the-place-down and taunt-the-flames kind of pushback.
It would be a mistake to lose sight of what has made us the best party to represent a rapidly evolving nation: our inclusiveness. Relentless obstruction could easily be a trap, too. Schumer and Van Hollen have a complex calculus ahead of them, driven not only by the need to keep the party base energized against Trump, but also the reality that 10 of their incumbents come from states Trump won and may often align with the president for their own survival.
Republicans are defending eight seats, but only one in a state Clinton won. A good way to make Van Hollen stop short and almost laugh is to ask him about candidate recruitment for next year. Maybe so. Governors like Hickenlooper, Jay Inslee in Washington, Jerry Brown in California and Andrew Cuomo in New York are going to be blocking and tackling in their capitols, pushing state-level legislation on immigration, Medicare, environmental standards and reproductive rights.
On the other end of the spectrum is Montana Governor Steve Bullock, a Democrat who won reelection by 4 percentage points on the same day Trump won his state by more than 20, running on a record of Medicaid expansion, campaign finance reform, equal pay and expanding public education—on top of having issued more vetoes than any Montana governor in history.
Instead of raging against Trump and the Republicans in Congress, Bullock wants to ignore them. Democrats have the opportunity to show how all Americans can be a part of the economy of the future, and how we need the diverse talents of all our people to be at our best. Add in likely pickups in blue New Jersey this year and potentially Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts next year, and Democrats could end up with a slew of new governors. He has no intention of making the same mistake in Some Democrats see a different lesson in , with a takeaway best summed up by a Samuel L.
Jackson line from Pulp Fiction: Personality goes a long way. On paper, Trump had none of the characteristics of a successful GOP nominee—a Manhattan billionaire who bragged about cheating on his first wife with the mistress who later became his second divorce, a closet full of skeletons and a history of cozying up to Democrats?
But he was able to connect on such a visceral level that none of those liabilities mattered. What he also showed is how irrelevant parties are—before he pulled chunks of the Democratic base away from Clinton, he swallowed the strongest field of up-and-coming Republican leaders in decades, all while throwing conservative dogma in the toilet. It often took a village of Clinton advisers just to produce one tweet; Trump pulls out his Android smartphone and lets loose. Several times since the election, between knocks on Clinton for running a low-energy campaign, Obama has compared this moment for Democrats to , when George W.
Bush was narrowly reelected, the House stayed Republican, and he and Ken Salazar were the only Democrats newly elected to a Republican-dominated Senate. Two years later, he points out, Democrats swept Congress. Now, no one has any idea who the field will be in , and no one outside Washington knows the names that get talked about in Washington. Warren might spark a movement, and she could almost certainly count on winning New Hampshire, but she would be 71 and make a lot of Democrats worry she would take the party too far left.
Booker can, and likes to assert that he can, tap into an Obama-esque post-racial aspirationalism. Cuomo would have a socially progressive, fiscal centrist record to tout. Obama and Biden have both rethought their retirement plans to help shape the next generation of Democrats—Obama focused more on rebuilding party infrastructure, cultivating the grass roots and potentially meeting with presidential candidates as gets closer; Biden more engaged with nurturing talented up-and-comers.
But both are determined to sit out day-to-day politics, people close to them say, though Trump could easily goad either or both of them back into the fray. Many Democrats want Obama now to be the field marshal on the campaign trail and the architect of the revival, if only out of penance for the eight years of Democratic decimation on his watch—a record that culminated in his sharing a limo from the White House to the Inauguration with a man once thought to be the most unelectable major-party nominee in generations.
Roosevelt and John F. They are petrified that everyone will keep underestimating Trump and will be busy fighting over basic values while the president and his Republican majority roll over them and roll back most of what they fought for during the past eight years. Elections are usually won on pocketbook issues; nobody really knows how it would work to run on abstract concepts like freedom of the press or transparency—but many Democrats are tempted to turn their opposition to Trump into a crusade to save America itself.
Or that Republicans will continue to overreach and get eaten by a Trump tweet the way they did the very first day of this Congress with the attempt to scrap the Office of Congressional Ethics. Or that the savior candidate will come from nowhere and rescue the party by sheer force of personality—another Obama. Whatever the truth of that statement, the next two and four years are going to be all about Trump. If you drive anywhere in Pennsylvania, from the turnpike to the old U. Large signs, small signs, homemade signs, signs that wrap around barns, signs that go from one end of a fence to another, all dot the landscape with such frequency that, if you were playing the old-fashioned road-trip game of counting cows, you would hit in just one small town like this one.
Democrats, Republicans, independents, people who have not voted in presidential elections for years — they have not wavered in their support. The study backs up what many of my interviews across the state found — that these people are more concerned about their children and grandchildren. Today, they are the people who are accused of creating every social injustice imaginable; when anything in society fails, they get blamed. The places where they live lack economic opportunities for the next generation; they know their children and grandchildren will never experience the comfortable situations they had growing up — surrounded by family who lived next door, able to find a great job without going to college, both common traits among many successful small-business owners in the state.
These are voters who are intellectually offended watching the Affordable Care Act crumble because they warned six years ago that it was an unworkable government overreach. They are the same people who wonder why President Obama has not taken a break from a week of golfing to address the devastating floods in Louisiana. Voice such a remark, and you risk being labeled a racist in many parts of America.
Yet, if you dig down deep into the Gallup survey — or, better yet, take a drive 15 minutes outside of most cities in America — you will learn a different story. In , Russia surpassed Germany, and Israel joined the list for the first time. No surprise here: as it has for the last century, the United States remains the most powerful country on earth.
Not that American power increased over the past year. In Syria, Russia brutally assisted Assad in consolidating control over Aleppo and sidelined Washington in the subsequent peace talks. China continued to defy the American-led international order, building up its military presence in the South China Sea and reaching out to American allies like the Philippines. Meanwhile, the widespread foreign perception that Donald Trump was unqualified to serve as the President of the United States contributed to a growing chorus of doubt as to whether the American people posses the wit and the wisdom to retain their international position.
Those concerns seemed to be growing in the early weeks of The populist surge that almost gave the Democratic nomination to the Socialist senator Bernie Sanders and brought Donald J. Trump to the White House was a sign of just how alienated from politics as usual many Americans have become. Still, for all this gloom, there was good news to be had. As the Trump administration gets under way, the United States is poised for what could be the most consequential shift in American policy in several generations. In the face of American passivity, Beijing projected power in the South and East China Seas, built up its artificial outposts and snatched a U.
Aside from its own forceful actions, China also enjoyed several strokes of good fortune in , from the election of a China-friendly populist in the Philippines to the demise of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which will grant China a new opportunity to set the trade agenda in the Asia-Pacific.
China continued to alternate between intimidating and courting its neighbors, scoring some high-profile victories in the process. Most prominent was the turnaround from Manila, as the new Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte embraced China: in part because of his anti-Americanism, but also thanks to Chinese support for his anti-drug campaign and the promise of lucrative trade ties and a bilateral understanding on the South China Sea.
Not all the news was good for Beijing last year. Over the course of the year, Chinese leaders found themselves coping with asset bubbles, massive capital flight, politically driven investment boondoggles, pension shortfalls, brain drain, and a turbulent bond market. The instinctual response of the Chinese leadership, more often than not, was for greater state intervention in the economy, while Xi sidelined reformers and consolidated his power.
In , Vietnam militarized its own outposts in the South China Sea as it watched China do the same. Indonesia began to pick sides against China, staging a large-scale exercise in China-claimed waters. Japan and South Korea agreed to cooperate on intelligence sharing—largely in response to the threat from North Korea, but also, implicitly, as they both warily watch a rising Beijing. For all its power, then, China is also engendering some serious pushback in its neighborhood.
The new year finds China in an improved position but also a precarious one, as its economic model falters and it seeks to break out of its geopolitical straitjacket. Here at TAI we have long argued that Japan is a perennially underrated global power whose influence has been steadily increasing over the past few years. The threat from North Korea also strengthened Japan, allowing Tokyo and Seoul to find common ground on missile defense and an intelligence-sharing pact that infuriated Beijing. Farther abroad, Japan inked a landmark civil nuclear deal with India and continued to lay the groundwork for a promising partnership with New Delhi.
Not every Japanese initiative paid off: despite much hoopla about the Putin-Abe summit, Japan made little headway with Russia in their decades-old islands dispute. But on the whole, Abe can claim a remarkably successful year in foreign policy. Economic growth continued to be sluggish for much of , despite a better-than-expected third quarter. All in all, Japan in continued to prove its mettle, acting not only as a powerful balance against China but as a major power in its own right.
Vous consultez AlloCinй depuis l\'Espagne ?
Russia rose in our power rankings this year as Vladimir Putin continued to punch above his weight, defying predictions of economic collapse and military quagmire. Putin scored both tactical and symbolic victories in Syria, allowing Assad to retake Aleppo while repeatedly humiliating the United States in the process. Are we to suppose, for example, that i the Unmoved Mover is unaware of anything outside himself and does not exercise provi- dence, while the sphere-souls, motivated in their movements primar- ily by desire to be like the Unmoved Mover, are nevertheless also aware of the sublunary world and of the effects of their movements upon it, at least in general terms, so that we can speak of them exercising providence even though the Unmoved Mover does not?
Pines , Rist, J. Movia , I am grateful to Tad Brennan for pressing me on this issue. See Lloyd , ; Sharples , ; Genequand , 17, I 25; below , Hager, F. Or should we rather opt, as Ruland does, for the intermediate view, that iii the Unmoved Mover exercises conscious providence over the heavens, while they in turn exercise providence over the sublunary — which raises similar problems to i? It is difficult to be certain; and this is because Alexander is, it appears, more concerned to establish that there is divine providence for the sublunary than to argue by which divinities precisely it is exercised, or whether it is really appropriate to speak of providential care for the heavens themselves as well.
At de Prov. I 25 and II Lloyd , The reference here to care for what is primary in nature is however bracketed as misplaced or reworded by Fazzo and Zonta , n. I 25 we are told that if one accepts a looser definition of providence, so that everything affected by anything is the object of its providence, one could say that the heavens are the object of the providence of the Unmoved Mover, but that if one adopts a narrower definition so that providence implies acting for the sake of some- thing, then the sublunary is the object of the providence of the heavenly body.
The implication clearly is that the narrower definition should be accepted. One may note that I 25 I 25, it is not described in terms of providence at all, even providence in a broadly defined and improper sense. Already at Things may be influenced by the divine in a primary way i. Thomas; Nemes. Nemesius, however, we may note, includes among the objects of primary providence both the heavens and universals, as opposed to sublunary coming-to-be.
Compare above, n. The starting-point of the Platonist doctrine is exegesis of Timaeus , and Alexander was, we know, interested in the Timaeus; cf. Alexander presents his own view of providence as inter- mediate between this Stoic view and the Epicurean wholesale rejection of divine providence: de Prov. On these texts cf. Sharples , and Dobbin , ; both Epictetus late 1st-early 2nd century B. The highest god here is in fact, as Dillon, J. III Conclusion This however raises a final and more general question.
Certainly cultural pressures, and challenges from other philoso- phical schools played a part; so too possibly did simple misunder- standing, and the use of second- and third-hand reports. Aristotle himself gives indications at different points in his own works of what the relation between the divine and the sublunary might be, but those indications are neither clear in themselves nor easy to reconcile in a single theory.
He had however argued that the universe should not be made up of disconnected parts. For the later Aristotelian Aristotle is, himself, pre-eminent among the wise — and Alexander, at least, held a state-endowed appointment specifically to expound the philosophy of Aristotle. Of course, one possible reaction would simply be to say — as Philoponus, later on, did — that Aristotle is simply wrong.
Whether saying this excludes one from being considered an Aristotelian is perhaps a matter for debate; but it was a step that many Aristotelians, and especially Alexander, were unwilling to take. L 10, a Ironically enough, it is precisely such disconnected- ness that Atticus brings as a charge against the Aristotelian position in fr. Some ancient discussions of Aristotle, De generatione et corruptione 2. Berlin , Berti, E. Su Aristotele, Metaph. Bos, A. Brentano, F. George, Berkeley Originally published as Die Psychologie des Aristoteles, Mainz Cherniss, H. Dobbin, R. Fazzo, S. Questioni sulla provvidenza, Milan Frede, D.
Freudenthal, J. Berlin, phil. Genequand, C. George, R. Gill, M. Guthrie, W. Happ, H. Jaeger, W. Robinson, Oxford, 2nd ed. Judson, L. Kahn, C. Koninck, T. Kosman, A. Kraye, J. Lloyd, A. Longrigg, J. Moraux, P. Movia, G. Mueller, I. Natali, C.
- Best of Styx Songbook?
- Ahrimans Light: A Story of the Occult.
- Home For The Holidays (The Replacement Guitarist Book 2).
- 2485 commentaires.
- Navigation des articles;
Norman, R. Nussbaum, M. Pines, S. Rashed, M. Sorabji, ed. Ross, W. Ruland H. Theiler, W. Verdenius, W. Zeller, E. Diogenes of Oenoanda fr. On the one hand, the doctrine sets up Stoic pantheism from the very outset with a breathtaking decisiveness, enabling god to enter the physical world on the ground floor.
On the other hand, it may look like a doctrine appearing suddenly and mysteriously on the scene, with no pre-history to lend it either credibility or even a clear philosophical meaning. This is a remarkable job-description for any deity. Most individual aspects of it no doubt had precedents of some sort. Thus, even though these same views were flatly rejected by Aristotle — frequently, if controversially, seen as a major formative influence on Stoic physics2 — they were certainly available from the Socratic-Platonic tradition.
On the other hand, it is hard to 1 X. Long , ; Pl. See most recently the balanced reflections of Long , Clearly, then, if we are to understand the Stoic identification of god as a principle, matter and god must be taken as a pair. The main alternative, developed by H. I have no doubt that the doctrine is a close relative of both, but one implication of my conclusions in this paper will be that its most direct inspiration lay in late fourth-century Platonism, with the Timaeus its primary ancestor.
In my view — although I will not have space to argue the point adequately here — its Aristotelian affinities, such as they are, may be best explained by the fact that Aristotelian physics had itself similarly emerged from debates within the Academy. Stoic physics, if I am right, has Plato as its grandfather but Aristotle as its uncle. The first is Theophrastus fr. He devoted the greater part of his work to first philosophy, but also paid attention to appearances, trying his hand at physical inquiry.
When it comes to the second principle, then, we should expect similar care. There is a striking disparity between these two aspects of the report. That of the causal principle, by contrast, is anything but a direct report of the same dialogue. Even less obvious, at first sight, is how Theophrastus has got the number of Platonic principles down to a stark two, thus apparently excluding any role for the Forms.
These are questions to which we will return. But for now we must broach the question, what kind of report are we dealing with? Brunschwig, M. Nussbaum ed. So far as truth is con- cerned, he holds the all to be one, ungenerated and spherical. But so far as the opinion of the many is concerned, in order to account for the generation of appearances, he makes the principles two in number, namely fire and earth, the one as matter, the other as cause and agent.
II , whose Theophrastean origin has long been recognised e. Diels, Doxographi Graeci, Berlin, ; Mansfeld , After following one tradition from Thales to Anaxagoras, Cicero then goes back to Xenophanes and his successors: a Xenophanes postulated an unchanging unity, which he identified with god; b Parmenides postulated fire, which imparts motion and form to earth; c Leucippus and Democritus posited the full and the empty, d Empedocles the four elements, e Heraclitus fire, and f Melissus an infinite everlasting being; finally g Plato held that the world had been created by god out of an all-receiving matter, to last for ever.
Here a , b and g are recognisable from our Theophrastean material, and Theophrastus fr. What motivated so explicit an exegetical innovation? It is hard to imagine Theophrastus imposing a procrustean re- interpretation on Plato merely in order to make him the natural heir to Xenophanes and Parmenides. The dualist physics which we have encountered is not readily attributed to Speusippus on the evidence available. On the other of a - g under a single thematic link. A: Parmenides at b, Plato at a Dualist inter- pretations which posit a material plus an efficient cause, although they have antecedents in Aristotle cf.
Mansfeld , But in Sedley , chs.
Wikipédia:Le Bistro/décembre 2006
At all events, any suggestion that in his extreme old age he was so impressed by Stoic physics as to re-interpret the Timaeus in its light, and to rewrite a significant part of his Presocratic doxography to match, would defy all credulity. But whether it represents Xenocrates himself, or a subsequent development of his physics, is a question we must consider further, and this means asking what became of Academic physics in the generation after Xenocrates, who died in BC.
This is the assumption which I wish to challenge. Where, then, is this reborn Platonic physics to be found? In Cicero, Academica I In the surviving part of this book, Varro sets out a history of philosophy explicitly borrowed from Antiochus of Ascalon. Now it is very important to bear in mind whom Antiochus means by the early Academy. He saw himself as rescuing the Platonic tradition from the two centuries of suppression which it had under- gone after falling into the hands of sceptics in the s BC.
Conse- quently — to judge from his ethics, the best-documented area of his work — he advocated a return not so much to Plato himself as to the true Platonic tradition in the most fully developed form that it had achieved before the rot set in. The identification of god not only with the active physical principle, but also with the world as a whole, is a well-known thesis of Stoic physics, and therefore so far as it goes this fragment is fully consistent with the hypothesis that Stoic cosmology stemmed from that of Polemo.
V 14, Ac. II , but as represented in Cic. V he reveals very little actual knowledge of Aristotelian ethics. While the enterprise of so construing philosophical history as to legitimise his own position was undoubtedly characteristic of Antio- chus, we would need to know what motive he might have had, in this particular case, for resorting to historical fiction.
Since we know next to nothing about his own physical views, that is no easy question to answer. But there is no reason, either general or specific to this passage, why we should expect any falsification here. I is, in every aspect for which we can administer an independent check, very far from being a falsification. The one, repeated claim which will strike most of us as manifestly unsatisfactory is that the old Academy and the Peripatos were de facto one and the same school 18, But at both its occurrences Varro is quite honest about the perspective from which he feels the claim is legitimised: on the classification of goods, a topic of absolutely pivotal importance to any Antiochean, the Platonists and Peripatetics were in agreement.
There is nothing either simplistic or palpably dishonest about this evaluation. So what is the evidence for his untrustworthiness? He is neither a Stoic himself, nor opposed to the Stoics on every issue. It would be nearer the truth to say that he considers the Platonists to be the real philosophical giants, and the Stoics to be dwarves on their shoulders. On some questions of absolutely central philosophical importance the Stoics have distorted, disguised under a new terminology, or even in the case of the classification of goods altogether betrayed the true Platonist position.
But I see no evidence that Varro is indicating any such commitment; cf. Glucker , Antiochus Ac. II 29 is said to have considered the two main concerns of philosophy to be the criterion of truth and the ethical goal with the latter, ethics, the most important of all: ib.
I 34, Fin. In Fin. V, although Antiochean ethics requires the study of nature 44 , it ap- proaches this subject esp. IV The same could have been said about his epistemology, but that does not stop its being attached to his name in the Academica. II the dualistic Platonic physics is just one of many among which the Antiochean sage vester sapiens will have to choose. At Cicero helps himself to the assumption on which he then relies down to that the Antiochean sage will opt for Stoic physics, but only by means of an inference from the mischievous and blatantly simplistic premise quoniam Stoicus est.
If he had genuinely believed that the Antiocheans actually declared an allegiance to Stoic physics, he would not have needed to rely on so opportunistic an inference. It is worth adding Fin. IV 36 whose importance has been emphasised by Dillon , , where Cicero, thought to be speaking as an Antiochean, declares his conviction that the mind is a kind of body.
This might seem to favour the hypothesis that Antiochus adopted Stoic physics, since at Ac. I 39 he presents this very thesis as a Stoic innovation with respect to the old Academy; but in fact the position is not so clear cut, see below pp. I 6, on which see p. If some react with incredulity to my unfamiliar portrayal of Antiochus as a trustworthy historian, the likely original context of his historical survey may help counteract their disbelief.
I 17 fin. More important for our purposes is the consideration that, so far as any falsification of the record is concerned, one would expect Antiochus to have been on his best behaviour in writing this survey. Nor does it seem that his account of Platonist physics did in the event incur any counter-charge of lying. II has no qualms about attributing the same two-principle theory to Plato himself.
But it is precisely there that I think his truthfulness can be most effectively vindicated. There are a number of ways in which the report differs significantly from Stoic physics, and in nearly every such case the difference lies in a closer proximity to the ideas of the Timaeus. The obvious explanation is that we really are here encountering a physical system which, histo- rically speaking, served as a link between the Timaeus and Stoicism.
There are in fact several possible such cases, and I shall attempt, in relation to each as we come to it, to show that it did in fact have a legitimate place within the debates of the fourth-century Academy. First however we must turn to the text. To facilitate discussion I shall introduce my own line numbering.
III 69 see n. In the active one they held that there eo quod efficeret vim esse censebant, in was a power, in the one which was acted upon just eo autem quod efficeretur tantum modo a kind of matter. But they said that each of the materiam quandam; in utroque tamen two was present in the other. For neither would utrumque: neque enim materiam ipsam matter have been able to cohere if held together by 10 cohaerere potuisse si nulla vi no power, nor would a power be able to cohere contineretur, neque vim sine aliqua without some matter, since there is nothing which materia; nihil est enim quod non alicubi is not compelled to be somewhere or other.
That esse cogatur. The primary principes sunt unius modi et simplices; ones are each of a single kind and simple, while ex his autem ortae variae sunt et quasi the ones derivative from them are various and, so 20 multiformes. Thus air for this too we use utimur enim pro Latino et ignis et as a Latin word , fire, water and earth are primary, aqua et terra prima sunt; ex his autem while derivative from them are the forms of ortae animantium formae earumque animals and of the things which grow out of the rerum quae gignuntur e terra.
From movendi vim habent et efficiendi, them air and fire have their power to move and act, reliquae partes accipiendi et quasi while the other parts — I mean water and earth — patiendi, aquam dico et terram. Aristotle believed there to be a certain singulare eorumque quattuor quae fifth kind, of which stars and minds consisted, supra dixi dissimile Aristoteles one which was unique and unlike those four quoddam esse rebatur.
This matter as a whole has the 5 eaque codd. All nequeat. Outside that world there is no portion of matter, partis autem esse mundi omnia quae and no body. They are under the control quae sit eadem sempiterna nihil enim of a sentient nature, which contains perfect reason, valentius esse a quo intereat ; 29 quam and which is also eternal, there being nothing vim animum esse dicunt mundi, stronger than it to destroy it.
Sometimes too they call it 75 eandem fortunam, quod efficiat multa luck, because it produces many things which to us improvisa et necopinata nobis propter are unforeseen and unexpected because of the obscuritatem ignorationemque obscurity of their causes and our ignorance of causarum. Taken separately, however, neither appears to have a single, fixed name. Nor is there any clearer indication what name, if any, was given to the active principle as such. It is on the other hand an equivalence explicitly sanctioned in the Timaeus 48b-c.
Like the Timaeus, so too this Academic summary is addressed to people not fully familiar with a single technical term for matter. But the passage does nevertheless make some use of the word materia. We have no explicit evidence either that it had or that it had not, and Sandbach, in a measured discussion of the same question,28 27 D. It is important, however, to take note of a further and perhaps better option. Reid , , cf. Besides, materia is a common term in Cicero, and Varro has in fact already used it, without a hint of apology, at Ac.
The next task is to reconstruct, in outline, the dualist physical thesis which the terminology for active and passive principles seeks to articulate. The passive principle is devoid of quality and totally pliable lines The active principle is, or at least contains , a force which shapes the passive one. Neither principle is ever found apart from the other With this last phrase we run into an exegetical problem. If so, it seems from lines that every body is a quality, including not just the traditional elements listed at lines , but even the complex objects exemplified by animals and plants at lines Viewed in their own right, the passive and the active principle are, respectively, prime matter and a creative force; but when they are viewed in any actual combination the passive principle becomes some specific primitive body — whether earth, fire, air or water — and the active principle becomes some specific quality of that body, say heat or wetness.
VIII This is also a Stoic thesis: D. On its possible Academic links, via Philistion, see Sandbach , This reading — like any, I suspect — requires a small measure of charity.
Wikisource:Scriptorium/ - Wikisource
The secondary qualities are represented by the species forms belonging to animals and plants, not by the individual animals and plants themselves , ; yet it may appear that the primary qualities are exemplified by actual stuffs like air and fire , 2 , not, as we would expect, by the properties belonging to those stuffs. Thus far, a mere formalisation of the Timaeus. What really does go beyond the letter of the Timaeus is the explicit move of distin- guishing, within a quale, that active component which is its qualitas a term which, as Varro emphasises at some length — Ac.
I , omitted from the above text — needs to be coined in order to translate 36 That at the first qualia generated out of the two principles are the four elemental stuffs is confirmed by the closely parallel summary of the Timaeus at D. III travpesqai de; th;n oujsivan tauvthn [sc. Reid , Thus far we have dealt only with the primary qualities which characterise the four basic stuffs lines The four stuffs themselves, out of which complex secondary qualia are formed, are divided into two active ones, air and fire, and two passive ones, water and earth In this we can certainly glimpse a familiar Stoic doctrine, according to which those same two passive stuffs constitute the material substrate on which the active elements air and fire act to produce complex beings.
Once more we must ask whether we are witnessing a Stoic retrojection. There is certainly no need to think so. There is good reason to believe that this Stoic scheme grew out of work in the Academy, in that Xenocrates is reported to have operated with a similar distinction. According to Xenocrates fr. However, the Stoics did normally recognise air as a second active element, and indeed it was usually the combination of air and fire, known as pneuma, that was presented as the active shaping power.
Perhaps what we are meeting in our old Academic text is a Stoic retrojection. The interaction of the active and passive principles is a purely theoretical 38 R. Sorabji, Matter, Space and Motion, London , shows that for the Stoics air or fire, even taken singly, can count as pneuma. How- ever, this is probably, at best, an overinterpretation of Aristotle, cf.
If so, a very large part of Stoic physics is already built into the Academic theory. The biggest question of all, to which we must now turn, is why and how a two-principle theory was extracted from the Timaeus. Yet, it is often observed, the Timaeus clearly offers three principles: not only god and the receptacle, but also that eternal paradigm, the Forms. III 69, II note 7 and p. For a full list of ancient attributions to Plato of a two-principle theory, see M. Baltes, Der Platonismus in der Antike 4, Stuttgart , ff.
Alexander Simpl. Sharples , 73ff. All three should therefore, according to the standard ancient doxographical practice, be listed as principles of the physical world. It is actually rather easy to answer this question. If these two canonical sources of doctrine — the written and the oral — were to be successfully synthesised, there may have seemed little choice but to reduce the three Timaean principles to two.
On his account, everything else is somehow derivative from these two principles, and that includes not only numbers but also souls and Forms, since both of the latter are themselves numbers frr. Hence Forms, while fully real, are not among the first principles. However, it seems reasonable to assume, as I have done here, that we may at least place some trust in the later reports of the nomen- clature they employed.
And because they were not subject to the same intense interpretative scrutiny as Plato and Aristotle themselves, there was a better chance of their own original formulations surviving without gross exegetical contamina- tion. However, the indefinite principle is now more clearly restricted to physical matter — the Timaean receptacle — and hardly seems something from which numbers and their further derivatives could be held to arise.
Yet Forms there must be, because Varro clearly implies that the theory of Forms, while abandoned by Aristotle, was maintained by all Platonists down to the generation of Polemo Ac. I A key task was to fit the unwritten One-plus-Dyad ontology to the ontology of the dialogues. A crucial datum for the latter was that the One is at Rep. VII e6 made a first principle, not of everything, but specifically of arithmetic; hence somehow it was numbers that had to come out as the first products in the ladder of being.
The One and Dyad are the supreme principles only in this rather attenuated sense. If so, he must somehow have found a way to ignore or explain away the special relation of the One to arithmetic implied in Rep.
*Le seul Blog optimiste du monde occidental*
The trick was perhaps to de-emphasise Rep. We must take it, then, that one aspect of the slimming operation, which has enabled these Academics to beat Plato down to just two primary principles, is to conflate the two gods in question into a single being. Thus a simple conflation within the Platonic pantheon has delivered a world- immanent deity already barely distinguishable from the Stoic god, especially when we bear in mind that the Platonic world-soul, just like the Stoic god, is co-extensive with the entire cosmos Ti.
Dillon , 29, P. Comparably reductive treatments of the Timaean demiurge have been not uncommon in the subsequent interpretative tradition: see e. Cornford , Rather, we must suppose that when the active principle is viewed in relation to individual qualia it is present as their qualities cf. These attributes of the active principle when viewed as god are well supported by the Timaeus. The absolute centrality of the world- soul to the Timaean cosmology needs no demonstration. These associa- tions and equivalences are Stoic too.
But in general its range of equated concepts constitutes entirely common ground between Plato and Stoicism. Presumably yes thus also Cornford , 96 , especially as the world-soul reasons about to; aijsqhtovn 37b — a point also emphasised by Crantor, fr. SVF I Reid , represent the same Greek word in our text at line Cicero more than once invokes the derivation of prudentia from providere Leg.
I 60, quae virtus ex providendo est appellata prudentia; Nonius, Tullius in Hortensio, id enim est sapientis, providere; ex quo sapientia est appellata prudentia, …et De republica lib. VI: totam igitur expectas prudentiam huius rectoris, quae ipsum nomen hoc nacta est ex providendo. One point where a serious case for a Stoic retrojection can be made is the fuller description of providence at lines Now the first half of this description goes to the very heart of the Timaean cosmo- logy, where the world-soul is constructed above all with a view to the ordering of the celestial orbits.
There is no comparable emphasis to be found in Stoicism. But there is no difficulty in reconstructing how the Polemonian Academy might have extracted the thesis of secondary anthropocentrism from the Timaeus. Correspondingly, the human body has been given eyes primarily so that we may benefit from the study of the celestial orbits 47a-c. If this is right, the partly anthropocentric doctrine attributed to the old Academy is no retrojection of Stoicism, but a genuinely intermediate stage between the Platonic and Stoic notions of divine providence.
Before that, we must turn to the passive principle. The Academic doctrine, as reported, once again seems to stand somewhere between the Timaeus and Stoicism. The status of space is worth pursuing a little further. The old Academic doctrine describes the world as single, with no matter or body outside it lines These Academics are still committed to some version of the theory of Forms above p.
Not only can matter be infinitely fragmented , but also, because the intervals over which movement takes place are also infinitely divisible, the active principle itself moves over infinitely divisible intervals, thus travelling ubiquitously59 and achieving total penetration of matter Although the infinite divisibility of matter and extension became a Stoic thesis too, it is not nearly so forcefully underlined in our sources on Stoic physics, a difference which suggests that an explana- tion of it within its Platonic context is required.
I think this explana- tion is forthcoming, but I shall work my way to it indirectly, starting from Xenocrates. Sedley , , where I argue that this cosmology, rather than its Stoic successor, is the direct target of the Epicurean critique found at Lucr. SVF II I cannot find any close enough textual or conceptual parallels to support this idea, however. In context, in any case, the emphasis is mainly on sic: because the active principle moves to and fro in the aforementioned way i.
One might locate possible Timaean antecedents for the locution e.
I doubt if the combination of these two theses is accidental. The Timaeus, read literally, propounds the notorious asymmetric thesis that the world had a beginning but will have no end. However, it mitigates the asymmetry by observing that the world is perishable, but will in fact never perish since only god is capable of destroying it, and he, being good, would not want to do so 32c, 38b, 41a-b, 43d, cf.
Now in the Timaean world, destruction at the lowest level of analysis stops with the primary triangles. These are separated and recombined in the intertransformations of air, fire and water, but they themselves, although they apparently have ajrcaiv of their own 53d , are never resolved into them. Hence readers of the Timaeus since Aristotle have regularly understood that the primary triangles are indivisible and indissoluble. And since this indissolubility can hardly derive from the entirely passive and featureless receptacle in which they inhere, it can only belong to the triangles themselves, viewed as mathematical objects.
That would be quite enough motivation to set Xenocrates off on his defence of mathematical indivisibles. GC b, 33, a These triangles should not be confused with the composite triangles making up the faces of the elementary particles, which are dissoluble e. I am not sure how he derived indivisible scalene triangles from indivisible lines, since the latter should all be of equal size, but our earliest and fullest source, [Ar.
The passive principle is infinitely divisible, they insist, there being no smallest magnitude and no smallest distance. Consequently matter is totally pliable, and can be altered in any way at all, without restriction, by the active power in it. If so, we might wonder which of the two revi- sionary theses is driving the other. I cannot see how to set about answering such a question.
What can be said, however, is that the initially surprising length at which infinite divisibility is maintained is much more readily explicable in the context of this Academic debate than as a retrojection of Stoicism. II Plato ex materia in se omnia recipiente mundum factum esse censet a deo sempiternum. The fact that this asymmetric thesis found particular favour in the late 4th-century BC Academy helps provide via Epicurus a target for Lucr. V , where precisely the same thesis is criticised.
See further Sedley , ; C. Poignault ed. I 79 confirm what already seems to me the natural reading of Philo, Aet. However, this impression would probably be too hasty. I 6 suggest a differ- ent explanation. We must assume, then, that the full summary of old Academic physics from which Cicero is working did include the geometry of the primary particles. What is certain, however, given what we have just seen, is that neither these particles nor the triangles composing them were presented as indivisible.
In the light of the emphasis on infinite divisibility, it is now possible to speculate a little further about the nomenclature of the passive element. According to the Timaeus 35a, 37a-b , there are two kinds of ouj s iv a of which the world-soul is constituted, and about which it thinks. What exactly is meant by this 63 Varro here uses the unusual term effectio for the active principle. The reason is no doubt that his later designation of it as qualitas requires an extensive excursus on the Latinisation of technical terminology , which he does not wish to anticipate in his prefatory remarks.
The fact that, as we saw above p.
The divisible ousia is, on this view, simply matter. Thus matter is, on their reading of Plato, an inherently divisible, and thus pliable, ousia. But, as we have seen, according to the Academic physics which we are examining the Forms are not to be found among the primary principles.
For there, as we have seen, any portion of the passive principle in itself lacks intrinsic qualities, although it contains a corresponding portion of the active principle which constitutes its quality or qualities. Given 65 Crantor fr. III 70 quoted in n. Here then we seem to have a plausible story about how oujsiva, a key term from the Timaeus, acquired the material connotations which then stuck to it for the remainder of the Hellenistic age.
If my general reconstruction in this paper is right, Aristotle may not be the major influence on Stoic physics that he is sometimes taken to be. Is this, then, one genuine vestige of Aristotelianism? I think that it may be. But whether it derives from Aristotle himself is less clear. See e. I agree with Long that Cleanthes, and no doubt other Stoics, read Heraclitus for themselves. But it remains quite credible that Theophrastus helped influence how they read him. We have encountered no Stoic-looking features which could not have been legitimately derived from Timaean material.
Related Les pensées ordinaires du quidam lambda (FICTION) (French Edition)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved