Philosophy Atlas
Things this atlas does not know. Each entry is a question that specialists
have posed and not settled, recorded with what would actually resolve it and which
expertise the answer needs.
These are kept deliberately, rather than quietly omitted. An atlas that shows
only what it is sure of implies a confidence it has not earned, and the gaps are often where
the interesting work is. Several sit exactly where two fields fail to meet: identifying the
hyssop of the Hebrew Bible needs a botanist and a philologist of Biblical Hebrew, and neither
one settles it alone.
Grouped by the field an answer needs. A question sitting between two disciplines appears under both, which is why the group counts add up to more than the number of questions.
Showing 21 to 23 of 23 open questions, page 2 of 2.
Not Yet Classified 23
The Nicomachean Ethics
Which Work Did the Common Books of the Nicomachean and Eudemian Ethics Originally Belong To?
Open The Nicomachean Ethics
Why It Is Open Books V, VI and VII of the Nicomachean Ethics are word for word identical to Books IV, V and VI of Aristotle's other ethical treatise, the Eudemian Ethics. Wikipedia's own background section names two competing explanations still in circulation: that three books were lost from the Nicomachean Ethics and replaced with the parallel Eudemian material, or that an editor rather than Aristotle himself gave both works their current shape, without resolving between them.
What Would Settle It A manuscript tradition or independent ancient testimony establishing which treatise originally contained the shared material, or a stylistic analysis accepted across Aristotle scholarship, would settle which work the common books belong to.
Expertise Needed Aristotle scholarship (textual transmission)
Question posed in
Nicomachean Ethics (Wikipedia), Wikipedia, Nicomachean Ethics, Background section.
The Bhagavad Gita
When Was the Bhagavad Gita Actually Composed?
Open The Bhagavad Gita
Why It Is Open Wikipedia's dating and authorship section reports estimates for the Gita's composition ranging from around the fifth or fourth century BCE, per Kashi Nath Upadhyaya, to the first century CE, with the second or first century BCE cited as the generally favored range. The scholar Jeaneane Fowler is quoted there as saying the dating varies considerably, depending partly on whether the Gita is treated as part of the Mahabharata's earliest layer or as a later insertion into the epic.
What Would Settle It An independently datable reference within the text, or a broad consensus among Sanskritists on which layer of the Mahabharata the Gita belongs to, would narrow the range.
Expertise Needed Indology and Sanskrit textual dating
Question posed in
The Bhagavad Gita (Wikipedia), Wikipedia, Bhagavad Gita, Dating and authorship section, quoting Jeaneane Fowler.
Leucippus
Did Leucippus exist as a historical individual distinct from Democritus?
Open Leucippus
Why It Is Open Ancient sources (Aristotle, Theophrastus) name Leucippus as the founder of atomism and Democritus's teacher, but almost nothing of his life survives independently of Democritus's much larger body of testimony, and some scholars, ancient and modern, have questioned whether he existed as a distinct person at all rather than being a name later attached to Democritus's own ideas.
What Would Settle It A securely dated, independently attested fragment or testimony naming Leucippus that cannot be explained as a later back-formation from Democritus's teaching would settle his existence as a distinct historical figure; no such text is agreed to exist.
Expertise Needed Classical philology / history of philosophy
Question posed in
Leucippus (Wikipedia), Body, third paragraph, first two sentences.