{"_index":"sire","_id":"1259","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1259,"authors_free":[{"id":1838,"entry_id":1259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":25,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chase, Michael ","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Chase","norm_person":{"id":25,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Chase","full_name":"Chase, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031917152","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Albert le Grand sur la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques: Un t\u00e9moignage de l'influence de Simplicius par le biais des Arabes?","main_title":{"title":"Albert le Grand sur la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques: Un t\u00e9moignage de l'influence de Simplicius par le biais des Arabes?"},"abstract":"Faisons donc le bilan de ce parcours qui nous a men\u00e9s du IVe si\u00e8cle av. J.-C. au Moyen \u00c2ge latin. L'argumentation pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e par Albert dans son De quinque universalibus provient d'une ambiance intellectuelle qui baignait dans des influences de la philosophie arabe : al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b, al-Ghaz\u0101l\u012b, Averro\u00e8s, mais surtout Avicenne. Elle est marqu\u00e9e par l'utilisation du sch\u00e9ma de la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques \u00e9l\u00e9mentaires \u2014 point, ligne, surface, corps \u2014 \u00e0 partir du mouvement en flux g\u00e9n\u00e9rateur de chacun de ces \u00e9l\u00e9ments.\r\n\r\nOr, ce sch\u00e9ma de d\u00e9rivation g\u00e9om\u00e9trique joue un r\u00f4le assez important dans la pens\u00e9e d'Albert, qui l'attribue \u00e0 Platon. Cette attribution ne semble pas si farfelue que cela, m\u00eame si la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques \u00e0 partir du flux du point semble provenir de Speusippe plut\u00f4t que de son oncle Platon. Il n'en reste pas moins que, du moins selon l'interpr\u00e9tation de l'\u00c9cole de T\u00fcbingen, le sch\u00e9ma de d\u00e9rivation point\/nombre-ligne-surface-corps est d'une importance tout \u00e0 fait fondamentale pour l'ontologie \u00e9sot\u00e9rique de Platon.\r\n\r\nSans acc\u00e8s aux Dialogues de Platon, Albert le Grand finit donc, quelles qu'aient \u00e9t\u00e9 ses sources prochaines et lointaines pour les doctrines platoniciennes, par d\u00e9fendre une image de Platon qui correspond, dans une large mesure, \u00e0 celle de l'\u00c9cole de T\u00fcbingen.\r\n\r\nQuant \u00e0 la question de ses sources et de la voie de transmission de ces doctrines, Albert a pu trouver chez la plus importante d'entre elles \u2014 la pens\u00e9e d'Avicenne \u2014 de quoi nourrir une r\u00e9flexion approfondie sur cette question de la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques. Cependant, le commentaire d'Albert aux \u00c9l\u00e9ments d'Euclide montre qu'\u00e0 cette influence avicennienne est venue s'ajouter une autre, ind\u00e9pendante : la doctrine g\u00e9om\u00e9trique de Simplicius, v\u00e9hicul\u00e9e par la traduction latine du commentaire euclidien d'al-Nair\u012bz\u012b.\r\n\r\nQu'en est-il de la relation entre Simplicius et Avicenne ? Nous avons vu que certains \u00e9l\u00e9ments du sch\u00e9ma simplicien de la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques se retrouvent d\u00e9j\u00e0 dans l'\u00c9cole de Bagdad, autour de Ya\u1e25y\u0101 ibn \u2018Ad\u012b. G. Freudenthal, pour sa part, avait conclu de son \u00e9tude de la g\u00e9om\u00e9trie d'al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b qu'\u00ab il est fort probable qu'al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b connaissait soit les ouvrages de Simplicius auxquels an-Nair\u012bz\u012b avait acc\u00e8s, soit seulement la br\u00e8ve citation [p. 2, 19-23 Curze] contenue dans le commentaire d'an-Nair\u012bz\u012b \u00bb.\r\n\r\nQuoi qu'il en soit, il semble difficile d'\u00e9viter la conclusion qu'Avicenne connaissait bien la doctrine g\u00e9om\u00e9trique de Simplicius, du moins telle que transmise par le commentaire d'al-Nair\u012bz\u012b, soit par l'interm\u00e9diaire de l'\u00c9cole de Bagdad, soit par ses lectures propres.\r\n\r\nDe Platon \u00e0 Speusippe, en passant par des sources hell\u00e9nistiques telles que Sextus Empiricus, la doctrine de la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques a fini, au VIe si\u00e8cle apr. J.-C., par faire partie int\u00e9grante du bagage intellectuel des derniers n\u00e9oplatoniciens tels que Philopon et Simplicius.\r\n\r\nC'est, semble-t-il, la pens\u00e9e g\u00e9om\u00e9trique de ce dernier qui, traduite en arabe et pr\u00e9serv\u00e9e dans le commentaire euclidien d'al-Nair\u012bz\u012b, contribue \u00e0 former la pens\u00e9e d'Avicenne au premier quart du XIe si\u00e8cle, avant d'arriver, quelque deux si\u00e8cles plus tard, sous les yeux de ce lecteur omnivore qu'\u00e9tait Albert le Grand.\r\n\r\nPour expliquer cet itin\u00e9raire de la pens\u00e9e, il n'est sans doute pas n\u00e9cessaire de postuler que, comme le soutient Mme Hadot, Simplicius ait r\u00e9dig\u00e9 son Commentaire d'Euclide \u00e0 Harran. Mais rien n'exclut cette hypoth\u00e8se non plus, et quand on pense aux \u00e9l\u00e9ments de preuve rassembl\u00e9s par Mme Hadot et d'autres concernant l'importance du legs de l'\u00c9cole math\u00e9matique de Simplicius dans le monde arabe, on peut estimer que le cas du sch\u00e9ma de la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques \u00e0 partir du point ne fait qu'ajouter une brique de plus \u00e0 l'\u00e9difice des preuves t\u00e9moignant en faveur de l'hypoth\u00e8se de l'\u00ab \u00c9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne de Harran \u00bb. [conclusion p. 28-29]","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mVjTC4EIjO2Aggg","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":25,"full_name":"Chase, Michael ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2008]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1406","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1406,"authors_free":[{"id":2197,"entry_id":1406,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":25,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chase, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Chase","norm_person":{"id":25,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Chase","full_name":"Chase, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031917152","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Creation and Continuity In Neoplatonism: Origins and Legacy (forthcoming)","main_title":{"title":"Creation and Continuity In Neoplatonism: Origins and Legacy (forthcoming)"},"abstract":"I think, to make a rather long story short, that Rashed is basically right. The notion of continuity is fundamental for al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b and probably determines his rejection of the instantaneous, all-at-once character of creation advocated by al-Kind\u012b. Yet while Rashed ascribes this attitude to F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b\u2019s \"Aristotelian puritanism,\" I would rather attribute it to his fundamental Neoplatonism\u2014unless we want to say, rather paradoxically, that someone like Simplicius was also an Aristotelian purist. As we have seen, in his debate against Philoponus, Simplicius also denies instantaneous motion or change on the basis of the Aristotelian continuity of time, space, and motion, explaining away the examples of the instantaneous transition of sunlight and other \"phase transitions\" by which Philoponus had attempted to explain how God created the universe instantaneously and ex nihilo.\r\n\r\nAmong the factors that distinguish Philoponus\u2019 creationism from Simplicius\u2019 emanationism is that for the former, it makes sense\u2014in fact, it is unavoidable\u2014to speak of a first instant in the history of the universe, prior to which the universe did not exist. Such a notion makes no sense for Simplicius, and it makes no sense because Simplicius, like Aristotle, believes time and motion are continuous, at least in the physical world. In the Arabo-Islamic world, Kind\u012b sides with Philoponus, as has been noted by scholars for quite some time. It has been less well noted, I think, that F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b sides just as resolutely with Simplicius.\r\n\r\nIn the article on which I have relied so heavily in this paper, Marwan Rashed argues that, given the lacunary state of the evidence that remains to us, we can reconstruct only F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b\u2019s physical proof of the eternity of the world: the fact, based on an analytical proof (hoti), that it is eternal. In another, lost part of F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b\u2019s work, Rashed speculates, F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b will have given a demonstrative proof of this affirmation from a synthetic viewpoint, of why (dioti) the universe is eternal. It may, he thinks, have looked like this:\r\n\r\n God is an eternal cause.\r\n Every eternal cause has an eternal effect.\r\n Therefore, God has an eternal effect.\r\n\r\nBut this is nothing other than a simplified version of the proof of continuous creation as we studied it above in Proclus and Porphyry. If Rashed is right on this point, and I suspect he is, we would have one more reason to agree with Philippe Vallat (2004) that F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b is basically a Neoplatonist rather than the doctrinaire Aristotelian he is usually made out to be.\r\n\r\nTo return to our starting point, on the basis of this notion of continuity, we may have made some progress toward identifying the difference between creationism and emanationism in general. Assuming that we have some kind of First Principle that provides the world with existence, if the world can be said to have a first moment of its existence\u2014i.e., if time is discontinuous\u2014we have to do with creation; if not\u2014i.e., if time is continuous\u2014we have to do with emanation. This seems to me to be a criterion at least as important as others that are usually brought up in this context, such as the role of the will of the First Principle, or whether or not the process takes place ex nihilo. The role of will is often hard to determine, as we can see in the case of Plotinus, while ex nihilo is perhaps even more tricky, implying as it does the question of the origin of matter, which is even more obscure in Plotinus. But either the world has a first instant in its existence, or it does not. Tertium non datur.\r\n[conclusion p. 29-31]","btype":3,"date":"","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HdCRKhOALHddyFH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":25,"full_name":"Chase, Michael ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[-2147483648]}