From the book
Empedocles’ The Testimonia, Volume II
Empedocles of Acragas · Diotimos Editions · 2026
Browse this book’s lexicon →Orientation
At a Glance
- The wordAlogos means without logos, hence irrational or lacking reason in this setting; kyriōs qualifies the claim as “strictly” or “in the proper sense.”
- In this workAfter reporting that Parmenides, Empedocles, and Democritus identify mind and soul, Aëtius says no animal would be strictly irrational on their view.
- In this editionThe edition says Empedocles “would not have resisted” the conclusion.
- A place to readDraws the qualified no-irrational-animal consequence from mind–soul identity.
Meaning
Alogos means without logos, hence irrational or lacking reason in this setting; kyriōs qualifies the claim as “strictly” or “in the proper sense.” The phrase occurs in a consequence introduced conditionally by the doxographer.
Use in the book
After reporting that Parmenides, Empedocles, and Democritus identify mind and soul, Aëtius says no animal would be strictly irrational on their view. The inferential wording is decisive. It is not an extant Empedoclean declaration that every animal reasons in the same way or at the same level as a human.
The qualification also permits a distinction between possessing cognition at all and exercising the particular capacities discussed in the perception dossier. Theophrastus's differences of intelligence and local aptitude would make little sense if the whole tradition simply erased every difference of ability. Conversely, his bloodless-animal objection assumes that a cognitive explanation must account for a broad range of animals. These passages illuminate the scope of the problem without proving a single fully articulated theory of comparative intelligence or an explicit ethical conclusion about treatment of animals.
Places to read
- A 96 (testimony)Aëtius. Draws the qualified no-irrational-animal consequence from mind–soul identity.
- A 86 §§ 10–11 (testimony)Theophrastus, On the Senses 11. Presents graded and specialized differences of cognitive performance.
- A 86 §§ 22–23 (polemical)Theophrastus, On the Senses 23. Invokes bloodless animals as a difficulty for blood-centred thinking.
Translation in this edition
The edition says Empedocles “would not have resisted” the conclusion. That statement speculates about assent; the source supports attributing the inference to Aëtius, not a recovered response by Empedocles.