{"_index":"sire","_id":"1003","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1003,"authors_free":[{"id":1508,"entry_id":1003,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":34,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Anton, John Peter","free_first_name":"John Peter","free_last_name":"Anton","norm_person":{"id":34,"first_name":"John Peter","last_name":"Anton","full_name":"Anton, John Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/171952154","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ancient Interpretations of Aristotle's Doctrine of Homonyma","main_title":{"title":"Ancient Interpretations of Aristotle's Doctrine of Homonyma"},"abstract":"The main pourpose of this paper is to offer an exposition and a critical examination of the ancient interpretations of Aristotle's doctrine of homonymy. A circumlocution of what Aristotle means by homonymous things is given in Categories, Ch. 1, 1a. The ancient interpretations with which we are concerned in this paper are to be found in the extant commentaries on this treatise. Evidently, more commentaries had been written on the Categories than the vicissitudes of time allowed to survive, but we have only those of the following writers: Porphyrius (c. 233\u2013303), Dexippus (fl. c. 350), Ammonius (fl. c. 485), Philoponus (c. 490\u2013530), Olympiodorus (fl. c. 535), Simplicius (fl. c. 533), and Elias (fl. c. 550). One might add here the relevant writings of John Damascene (675\u2013749), Photius (820\u2013891), and Michael Psellus (1018\u20131079), which are useful paraphrases rather than full commentaries; for that reason, the interpretations they support are not discussed in this paper.\r\n\r\nThe main body of this paper is given to a discussion of the interpretations which the ancient commentators offered and to an analysis of the assumptions which underlie them. It can be stated here, in anticipation of what follows, that the commentators often attached to Aristotle's meaning of homonymy aspects that were quite foreign to his views, and that by doing so, these commentators were taking extensive liberties with the text at hand. As we hope to show, the commentators brought into their discussions of this particular portion of the Categories issues and views that were far more relevant to their own ontologies and logical theories than to Aristotle's doctrines. In order to show how this is the case, we must first give a summary of what we believe our text permits us to say about the meaning of homonymy, as given in the opening chapter of the Categories. Suffice it to add at this point that the interpretations of the doctrine of homonymy with which we are concerned here are only those that are discussed exclusively in the relevant commentaries on this work. [introduction p. 1-2]","btype":3,"date":"1969","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1BGmQytPmPF1QPa","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":34,"full_name":"Anton, John Peter","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1003,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Journal of the History of Philosophy","volume":"7","issue":"1","pages":"1\u201318"}},"sort":["Ancient Interpretations of Aristotle's Doctrine of Homonyma"]}