Simplicius Research Environment

Type of Media

Author

BY DATE
BY TITLE

Conflicting Authorities? Hermias and Simplicius on the Self-Moving Soul, 2021
By: Aerts, Saskia, Erler, Michael (Ed.), Heßler, Jan Erik (Ed.), Petrucci, Federico Maria (Ed.)

Title	Conflicting Authorities? Hermias and Simplicius on the Self-Moving Soul
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2021
Published in	Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition
Pages	178-200
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Aerts, Saskia
Editor(s)	Erler, Michael , Heßler, Jan Erik , Petrucci, Federico Maria
Translator(s)

Aristotle plays a highly authoritative role in Neoplatonic philosophy, second only to the almost undisputed authority of Plato. However, as any reader of Plato’s and Aristotle’s works knows, the views of the two philosophers often diverge and generate conflicts. These conflicts provide the Neoplatonic commentators with a serious interpretative challenge: although, as Platonists, their main goal is to defend Plato and the Platonist position, they are also hesitant to openly criticize Aristotle, who is regarded as a true adherent of Plato’s philosophy. The commentators most prominently face such a challenge in the case of the self-moving soul, a core Platonic doctrine severely criticized by Aristotle, implicitly in Physics 8.5 and explicitly in De anima 1.3. The key to dealing with these conflicting authorities lies in the exegetical act of explicating the ‘harmony’ that exists between the views of both philosophers. This approach relies on the idea that the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle are fundamentally in agreement, which comes to the surface when their texts are interpreted in the right way. ‘Harmony’ translates the Greek symphōnia, a term most notably used in this technical meaning by Simplicius.¹ However, the term ‘harmony’ is problematic because it does not identify any absolute concept— instead, it can refer to any kind of agreement, ranging from mere compatibility to theoretical identity. What is more, the operative concept of harmony employed by modern scholars often bears the same ambiguity as its ancient counterpart.² Most studies do not reflect on the polysemy of the term, and the notion of harmony used is not always well defined, which may lead to pointless debates on terminological matters.³ Moreover, the danger of overemphasizing the unity of this ‘harmonizing tendency,’ as I. Hadot calls it, lies in failing to take proper account of the diversity of the commentators’ approaches.⁴ In this paper, I will present two parallel Neoplatonic discussions of the apparent disagreement between Plato and Aristotle about the self-moving soul, namely those of Hermias of Alexandria in his commentary on Plato’s Phaedrus and Simplicius of Cilicia in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics.⁵ Since both philosophers ultimately argue that there is agreement between Aristotle and Plato, I will elucidate (i) what specific kind of ‘harmony’ each of the commentators assumes, (ii) what reasons each provides for supposing such a harmony, and (iii) which exegetical methods they use to explicate this harmony. The harmonizing interpretations of Hermias and Simplicius on this issue have been discussed previously by S. Gertz, who claims that both commentators similarly argue that the disagreement between Plato and Aristotle is ‘merely verbal, motivated by respect for the common usage of names.’⁶ Although I agree that this is the kind of harmony that Simplicius assumes, my interpretation of Hermias’ discussion differs from the one proposed by Gertz. Despite some evident similarities in their approaches, I will suggest that Hermias defends a much less radical form of harmony than Simplicius: whereas Simplicius claims that the views of Plato and Aristotle are verbally different but philosophically identical, Hermias only intends to show that Aristotle would have to approve of the self-moving soul to remain faithful to and consistent with his own doctrines. In addition to showing the individuality of these commentators’ approaches in dealing with conflicting authorities, my analysis also aims at elucidating why it is so important for the commentators to defend the self-motion of the soul. As will become clear, the concept of self-motion is not only crucial in Neoplatonic psychology but also indispensable in their explanation of physical motion. [introduction p. 178-180]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/SGsawecaEHSN9gD

PAGE 1 OF 1

Conflicting Authorities? Hermias and Simplicius on the Self-Moving Soul, 2021
By: Aerts, Saskia, Erler, Michael (Ed.), Heßler, Jan Erik (Ed.), Petrucci, Federico Maria (Ed.)

Title	Conflicting Authorities? Hermias and Simplicius on the Self-Moving Soul
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2021
Published in	Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition
Pages	178-200
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Aerts, Saskia
Editor(s)	Erler, Michael , Heßler, Jan Erik , Petrucci, Federico Maria
Translator(s)

Aristotle plays a highly authoritative role in Neoplatonic philosophy, second only to the almost undisputed authority of Plato. However, as any reader of Plato’s and Aristotle’s works knows, the views of the two philosophers often diverge and generate conflicts. These conflicts provide the Neoplatonic commentators with a serious interpretative challenge: although, as Platonists, their main goal is to defend Plato and the Platonist position, they are also hesitant to openly criticize Aristotle, who is regarded as a true adherent of Plato’s philosophy. The commentators most prominently face such a challenge in the case of the self-moving soul, a core Platonic doctrine severely criticized by Aristotle, implicitly in Physics 8.5 and explicitly in De anima 1.3.

The key to dealing with these conflicting authorities lies in the exegetical act of explicating the ‘harmony’ that exists between the views of both philosophers. This approach relies on the idea that the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle are fundamentally in agreement, which comes to the surface when their texts are interpreted in the right way. ‘Harmony’ translates the Greek symphōnia, a term most notably used in this technical meaning by Simplicius.¹ However, the term ‘harmony’ is problematic because it does not identify any absolute concept— instead, it can refer to any kind of agreement, ranging from mere compatibility to theoretical identity. What is more, the operative concept of harmony employed by modern scholars often bears the same ambiguity as its ancient counterpart.² Most studies do not reflect on the polysemy of the term, and the notion of harmony used is not always well defined, which may lead to pointless debates on terminological matters.³ Moreover, the danger of overemphasizing the unity of this ‘harmonizing tendency,’ as I. Hadot calls it, lies in failing to take proper account of the diversity of the commentators’ approaches.⁴

In this paper, I will present two parallel Neoplatonic discussions of the apparent disagreement between Plato and Aristotle about the self-moving soul, namely those of Hermias of Alexandria in his commentary on Plato’s Phaedrus and Simplicius of Cilicia in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics.⁵ Since both philosophers ultimately argue that there is agreement between Aristotle and Plato, I will elucidate (i) what specific kind of ‘harmony’ each of the commentators assumes, (ii) what reasons each provides for supposing such a harmony, and (iii) which exegetical methods they use to explicate this harmony.

The harmonizing interpretations of Hermias and Simplicius on this issue have been discussed previously by S. Gertz, who claims that both commentators similarly argue that the disagreement between Plato and Aristotle is ‘merely verbal, motivated by respect for the common usage of names.’⁶ Although I agree that this is the kind of harmony that Simplicius assumes, my interpretation of Hermias’ discussion differs from the one proposed by Gertz. Despite some evident similarities in their approaches, I will suggest that Hermias defends a much less radical form of harmony than Simplicius: whereas Simplicius claims that the views of Plato and Aristotle are verbally different but philosophically identical, Hermias only intends to show that Aristotle would have to approve of the self-moving soul to remain faithful to and consistent with his own doctrines.

In addition to showing the individuality of these commentators’ approaches in dealing with conflicting authorities, my analysis also aims at elucidating why it is so important for the commentators to defend the self-motion of the soul. As will become clear, the concept of self-motion is not only crucial in Neoplatonic psychology but also indispensable in their explanation of physical motion. [introduction p. 178-180]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/SGsawecaEHSN9gD

PAGE 1 OF 1