Type of Media 1
Author 2
Date 7
Type of Media
Author
Counting Plato's Principles, 1995
By: Sharples, Robert W., Ayres, Lewis (Ed.)
Title Counting Plato's Principles
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1995
Published in The Passionate Intellect. Essays on the Transformation of Classical Tradition
Pages 67-82
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sharples, Robert W.
Editor(s) Ayres, Lewis
Translator(s)
The classification of physical theories by the number of principles involved goes back to Aristotle (Physics 1.2), in a less formal way to Plato (Sophist 242c-d), and perhaps even further to the period of the Sophists. It is still echoed in modern textbooks on the Presocratics. What is perhaps less familiar is that, naturally enough, this approach was not, in antiquity, confined to the Presocratics. The present paper is concerned with ancient attempts to apply such an analysis to one notable successor of the Presocratics, namely Plato. It is greatly indebted to the work of scholars expert in the field, notably John Dillon and Harold Tarrant. However, I hope that it may present familiar material in a new perspective and, even if its main conclusion is highly speculative, stimulate further thought and debate on a period of the history of philosophy which, with some notable exceptions, has been too little studied in English-speaking countries. In his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics 1.2, Simplicius, dealing with those who postulated a limited plurality of principles, mentions those who asserted two (Parmenides in the Way of Seeming and the Stoics), three (Aristotle himself, later in Physics 1), and four (Empedocles). He then deals with Plato and concludes with the Pythagoreans, who, he says, recognized ten principles—the numbers of the decad, or the ten pairs in the Table of Opposites. Where Plato is concerned, Simplicius first states his own view: that Plato postulated three causes (kurias) in the strict sense and three auxiliary causes (sunaitia). The causes in the strict sense are “the maker, the paradigm, and the end,” while the three auxiliary causes are “the matter, the form, and the instrument.” (Here, “form” must refer to the Aristotelian immanent form as opposed to the transcendent Platonic paradigm.) But Simplicius then goes on to cite two other views. Theophrastus, he says, assigned only two principles to Plato: matter, called “receptive of all things” (clearly the Receptacle of Timaeus 51A, generally equated with matter by later interpreters), and the cause and source of movement, which Theophrastus says Plato “attaches to the power of god and of the good.” Alexander of Aphrodisias, however, attributed to Plato three principles: “the matter, the maker, and the paradigm.” This seems a reasonable interpretation of the Timaeus, the “maker” being the Demiurge. For if a principle is that which is primary, not preceded by anything else, then, on a literal interpretation of the Timaeus, the Demiurge, the Forms (which he uses as his model), and the Receptacle each seem to be ultimates, not derived from any further principle. Nothing is said in the Timaeus about the derivation of the Forms from the One or the Good; and the Receptacle does not derive from another principle in the way Neoplatonist Matter derives from the One. Indeed, Dorrie contrasts the “paratactic” nature of this three-principles interpretation—treating the principles as equal and co-ordinate—with the “hierarchic” views of Xenocrates, and sees the former as holding back the development of transcendence in Platonism. Certain passages of the Timaeus suggest rather a two-principles interpretation, but here the principles would be the Receptacle and the Forms, rather than the Demiurge. [introduction p. 67-70]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1026","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1026,"authors_free":[{"id":1549,"entry_id":1026,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1550,"entry_id":1026,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":466,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ayres, Lewis","free_first_name":"Lewis","free_last_name":"Ayres","norm_person":{"id":466,"first_name":"Lewis","last_name":"Ayres,","full_name":"Ayres, Lewis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138237336","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Counting Plato's Principles","main_title":{"title":"Counting Plato's Principles"},"abstract":"The classification of physical theories by the number of principles involved goes back to Aristotle (Physics 1.2), in a less formal way to Plato (Sophist 242c-d), and perhaps even further to the period of the Sophists. It is still echoed in modern textbooks on the Presocratics. What is perhaps less familiar is that, naturally enough, this approach was not, in antiquity, confined to the Presocratics. The present paper is concerned with ancient attempts to apply such an analysis to one notable successor of the Presocratics, namely Plato. It is greatly indebted to the work of scholars expert in the field, notably John Dillon and Harold Tarrant. However, I hope that it may present familiar material in a new perspective and, even if its main conclusion is highly speculative, stimulate further thought and debate on a period of the history of philosophy which, with some notable exceptions, has been too little studied in English-speaking countries.\r\n\r\nIn his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics 1.2, Simplicius, dealing with those who postulated a limited plurality of principles, mentions those who asserted two (Parmenides in the Way of Seeming and the Stoics), three (Aristotle himself, later in Physics 1), and four (Empedocles). He then deals with Plato and concludes with the Pythagoreans, who, he says, recognized ten principles\u2014the numbers of the decad, or the ten pairs in the Table of Opposites.\r\n\r\nWhere Plato is concerned, Simplicius first states his own view: that Plato postulated three causes (kurias) in the strict sense and three auxiliary causes (sunaitia). The causes in the strict sense are \u201cthe maker, the paradigm, and the end,\u201d while the three auxiliary causes are \u201cthe matter, the form, and the instrument.\u201d (Here, \u201cform\u201d must refer to the Aristotelian immanent form as opposed to the transcendent Platonic paradigm.) But Simplicius then goes on to cite two other views.\r\n\r\nTheophrastus, he says, assigned only two principles to Plato: matter, called \u201creceptive of all things\u201d (clearly the Receptacle of Timaeus 51A, generally equated with matter by later interpreters), and the cause and source of movement, which Theophrastus says Plato \u201cattaches to the power of god and of the good.\u201d Alexander of Aphrodisias, however, attributed to Plato three principles: \u201cthe matter, the maker, and the paradigm.\u201d This seems a reasonable interpretation of the Timaeus, the \u201cmaker\u201d being the Demiurge. For if a principle is that which is primary, not preceded by anything else, then, on a literal interpretation of the Timaeus, the Demiurge, the Forms (which he uses as his model), and the Receptacle each seem to be ultimates, not derived from any further principle.\r\n\r\nNothing is said in the Timaeus about the derivation of the Forms from the One or the Good; and the Receptacle does not derive from another principle in the way Neoplatonist Matter derives from the One. Indeed, Dorrie contrasts the \u201cparatactic\u201d nature of this three-principles interpretation\u2014treating the principles as equal and co-ordinate\u2014with the \u201chierarchic\u201d views of Xenocrates, and sees the former as holding back the development of transcendence in Platonism. Certain passages of the Timaeus suggest rather a two-principles interpretation, but here the principles would be the Receptacle and the Forms, rather than the Demiurge. [introduction p. 67-70]","btype":2,"date":"1995","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/puTtXSWDrrAPkL9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":466,"full_name":"Ayres, Lewis","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1026,"section_of":318,"pages":"67-82","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":318,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Passionate Intellect. Essays on the Transformation of Classical Tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Ayres1995","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1995","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1995","abstract":"Ian Kidd, of the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, has long been known as a world-class scholar of ancient philosophy and of Posidonius, in particular. Through his long struggle with the fragments of Posidonius, Kidd has done more than any other scholar of ancient philosophy to dispel the myth of \"Pan-Posidonianism.\" He has presented a clearer picture of the Posidonius to whom we may have access. The Passionate Intellect is both a Festschrift offered to Professor Kidd and an important collection of essays on the transformation of classical traditions.\r\n\r\nThe bulk of this volume is built around the theme of Kidd's own inaugural lecture at St. Andrews, \"The Passionate Intellect.\" Many of the contributions follow this theme through by examining how individual people and texts influenced the direction of various traditions. The chapters cover the whole of the classical and late antique periods, including the main genres of classical literature and history, and the gradual emergence of Christian literature and themes in late antiquity.\r\n\r\nMany of the papers naturally concentrate on ancient philosophy and its legacy. Others deal with ancient literary theory, history, poetry, and drama. Most of the papers deal with their subjects at some length and are significant contributions in their own right. The contributors to this collection include key figures hi contemporary classical scholarship, including: C. Carey (London); C. J. Classen (Gottingen); J. Dillon (Dublin); K. J. Dover (St. Andrews); W. W. Fortenbaugh (Rutgers); H. M. Hine (St. Andrews); J. Mansfeld (Utrecht); R. Janko and R. Sharpies (London); and J. S. Richardson (Edinburgh). This book will be invaluable to philosophers, classicists, and cultural historians. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2DA4PTzcMdBrmHR","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":318,"pubplace":"New Brunswick \u2013 London","publisher":"Transaction Publishers","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1995]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1
Counting Plato's Principles, 1995
By: Sharples, Robert W., Ayres, Lewis (Ed.)
Title Counting Plato's Principles
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1995
Published in The Passionate Intellect. Essays on the Transformation of Classical Tradition
Pages 67-82
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sharples, Robert W.
Editor(s) Ayres, Lewis
Translator(s) 
The classification of physical theories by the number of principles involved goes back to Aristotle (Physics 1.2), in a less formal way to Plato (Sophist 242c-d), and perhaps even further to the period of the Sophists. It is still echoed in modern textbooks on the Presocratics. What is perhaps less familiar is that, naturally enough, this approach was not, in antiquity, confined to the Presocratics. The present paper is concerned with ancient attempts to apply such an analysis to one notable successor of the Presocratics, namely Plato. It is greatly indebted to the work of scholars expert in the field, notably John Dillon and Harold Tarrant. However, I hope that it may present familiar material in a new perspective and, even if its main conclusion is highly speculative, stimulate further thought and debate on a period of the history of philosophy which, with some notable exceptions, has been too little studied in English-speaking countries.

In his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics 1.2, Simplicius, dealing with those who postulated a limited plurality of principles, mentions those who asserted two (Parmenides in the Way of Seeming and the Stoics), three (Aristotle himself, later in Physics 1), and four (Empedocles). He then deals with Plato and concludes with the Pythagoreans, who, he says, recognized ten principles—the numbers of the decad, or the ten pairs in the Table of Opposites.

Where Plato is concerned, Simplicius first states his own view: that Plato postulated three causes (kurias) in the strict sense and three auxiliary causes (sunaitia). The causes in the strict sense are “the maker, the paradigm, and the end,” while the three auxiliary causes are “the matter, the form, and the instrument.” (Here, “form” must refer to the Aristotelian immanent form as opposed to the transcendent Platonic paradigm.) But Simplicius then goes on to cite two other views.

Theophrastus, he says, assigned only two principles to Plato: matter, called “receptive of all things” (clearly the Receptacle of Timaeus 51A, generally equated with matter by later interpreters), and the cause and source of movement, which Theophrastus says Plato “attaches to the power of god and of the good.” Alexander of Aphrodisias, however, attributed to Plato three principles: “the matter, the maker, and the paradigm.” This seems a reasonable interpretation of the Timaeus, the “maker” being the Demiurge. For if a principle is that which is primary, not preceded by anything else, then, on a literal interpretation of the Timaeus, the Demiurge, the Forms (which he uses as his model), and the Receptacle each seem to be ultimates, not derived from any further principle.

Nothing is said in the Timaeus about the derivation of the Forms from the One or the Good; and the Receptacle does not derive from another principle in the way Neoplatonist Matter derives from the One. Indeed, Dorrie contrasts the “paratactic” nature of this three-principles interpretation—treating the principles as equal and co-ordinate—with the “hierarchic” views of Xenocrates, and sees the former as holding back the development of transcendence in Platonism. Certain passages of the Timaeus suggest rather a two-principles interpretation, but here the principles would be the Receptacle and the Forms, rather than the Demiurge. [introduction p. 67-70]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1026","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1026,"authors_free":[{"id":1549,"entry_id":1026,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1550,"entry_id":1026,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":466,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ayres, Lewis","free_first_name":"Lewis","free_last_name":"Ayres","norm_person":{"id":466,"first_name":"Lewis","last_name":"Ayres,","full_name":"Ayres, Lewis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138237336","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Counting Plato's Principles","main_title":{"title":"Counting Plato's Principles"},"abstract":"The classification of physical theories by the number of principles involved goes back to Aristotle (Physics 1.2), in a less formal way to Plato (Sophist 242c-d), and perhaps even further to the period of the Sophists. It is still echoed in modern textbooks on the Presocratics. What is perhaps less familiar is that, naturally enough, this approach was not, in antiquity, confined to the Presocratics. The present paper is concerned with ancient attempts to apply such an analysis to one notable successor of the Presocratics, namely Plato. It is greatly indebted to the work of scholars expert in the field, notably John Dillon and Harold Tarrant. However, I hope that it may present familiar material in a new perspective and, even if its main conclusion is highly speculative, stimulate further thought and debate on a period of the history of philosophy which, with some notable exceptions, has been too little studied in English-speaking countries.\r\n\r\nIn his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics 1.2, Simplicius, dealing with those who postulated a limited plurality of principles, mentions those who asserted two (Parmenides in the Way of Seeming and the Stoics), three (Aristotle himself, later in Physics 1), and four (Empedocles). He then deals with Plato and concludes with the Pythagoreans, who, he says, recognized ten principles\u2014the numbers of the decad, or the ten pairs in the Table of Opposites.\r\n\r\nWhere Plato is concerned, Simplicius first states his own view: that Plato postulated three causes (kurias) in the strict sense and three auxiliary causes (sunaitia). The causes in the strict sense are \u201cthe maker, the paradigm, and the end,\u201d while the three auxiliary causes are \u201cthe matter, the form, and the instrument.\u201d (Here, \u201cform\u201d must refer to the Aristotelian immanent form as opposed to the transcendent Platonic paradigm.) But Simplicius then goes on to cite two other views.\r\n\r\nTheophrastus, he says, assigned only two principles to Plato: matter, called \u201creceptive of all things\u201d (clearly the Receptacle of Timaeus 51A, generally equated with matter by later interpreters), and the cause and source of movement, which Theophrastus says Plato \u201cattaches to the power of god and of the good.\u201d Alexander of Aphrodisias, however, attributed to Plato three principles: \u201cthe matter, the maker, and the paradigm.\u201d This seems a reasonable interpretation of the Timaeus, the \u201cmaker\u201d being the Demiurge. For if a principle is that which is primary, not preceded by anything else, then, on a literal interpretation of the Timaeus, the Demiurge, the Forms (which he uses as his model), and the Receptacle each seem to be ultimates, not derived from any further principle.\r\n\r\nNothing is said in the Timaeus about the derivation of the Forms from the One or the Good; and the Receptacle does not derive from another principle in the way Neoplatonist Matter derives from the One. Indeed, Dorrie contrasts the \u201cparatactic\u201d nature of this three-principles interpretation\u2014treating the principles as equal and co-ordinate\u2014with the \u201chierarchic\u201d views of Xenocrates, and sees the former as holding back the development of transcendence in Platonism. Certain passages of the Timaeus suggest rather a two-principles interpretation, but here the principles would be the Receptacle and the Forms, rather than the Demiurge. [introduction p. 67-70]","btype":2,"date":"1995","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/puTtXSWDrrAPkL9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":466,"full_name":"Ayres, Lewis","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1026,"section_of":318,"pages":"67-82","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":318,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Passionate Intellect. Essays on the Transformation of Classical Tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Ayres1995","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1995","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1995","abstract":"Ian Kidd, of the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, has long been known as a world-class scholar of ancient philosophy and of Posidonius, in particular. Through his long struggle with the fragments of Posidonius, Kidd has done more than any other scholar of ancient philosophy to dispel the myth of \"Pan-Posidonianism.\" He has presented a clearer picture of the Posidonius to whom we may have access. The Passionate Intellect is both a Festschrift offered to Professor Kidd and an important collection of essays on the transformation of classical traditions.\r\n\r\nThe bulk of this volume is built around the theme of Kidd's own inaugural lecture at St. Andrews, \"The Passionate Intellect.\" Many of the contributions follow this theme through by examining how individual people and texts influenced the direction of various traditions. The chapters cover the whole of the classical and late antique periods, including the main genres of classical literature and history, and the gradual emergence of Christian literature and themes in late antiquity.\r\n\r\nMany of the papers naturally concentrate on ancient philosophy and its legacy. Others deal with ancient literary theory, history, poetry, and drama. Most of the papers deal with their subjects at some length and are significant contributions in their own right. The contributors to this collection include key figures hi contemporary classical scholarship, including: C. Carey (London); C. J. Classen (Gottingen); J. Dillon (Dublin); K. J. Dover (St. Andrews); W. W. Fortenbaugh (Rutgers); H. M. Hine (St. Andrews); J. Mansfeld (Utrecht); R. Janko and R. Sharpies (London); and J. S. Richardson (Edinburgh). This book will be invaluable to philosophers, classicists, and cultural historians. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2DA4PTzcMdBrmHR","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":318,"pubplace":"New Brunswick \u2013 London","publisher":"Transaction Publishers","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Counting Plato's Principles"]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1