Title | An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Brill’ Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity |
Pages | 341-357 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Opsomer, Jan |
Editor(s) | Falcon, Andrea |
Translator(s) |
Iamblichus (ccl 245-320) is sometimes called the second founder of Neoplatonism.1 His innovations were essential to late Neoplatonic philosophy as it developed in the schools of Athens in particular» but also Alexandria. These innovations do not just pertain to philosophical tenets» but also to philosophi cal method and style. Iamblichus defined stricter exegetical rules and new metaphysical laws. He also created an alliance between philosophy and theurgy and insisted on the philosophical value of various religious traditions and reli gious-philosophical texts like the Chaldaean oracles. Iamblichus was» more over, decisive in shaping the school curriculum and, more generally, the canon of texts that, whether philosophical or religious, carried authority for philo sophical research. He, for instance, systematically included texts belonging to a Pythagorean tradition— a tradition which to some extent was of his own construal. His selection of philosophically important texts was in line with cer tain earlier developments, but it was Iamblichus who established a real canon. Indeed, after Iamblichus the canon remained more or less stable.If we look at the importance assigned to Aristotle and the Peripatetic tra dition, it is clear that the difference between Iamblichus and his arch-rival Porphyry does not reside in which texts were held to be worthy of profound study. Hie difference is situated rather in the role and status attributed to them within the Platonic philosophical system. From the early Imperial era onward, Aristotle was seen by most Platonists as an ally, unlike the Stoics and Epicureans, who were regarded as opponents. Yet the extent to which Aristotelian ideas were incorporated varied greatly. Different parts of Aristotle's thought attracted different Platonists and the strategies used for integrating and assimilating them diverged. Here Iamblichus made his mark, as will become clear below. [Introduction, p. 341] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/9PbBFU6HhLHSXvY |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"935","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":935,"authors_free":[{"id":1387,"entry_id":935,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":211,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Opsomer, Jan","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":{"id":211,"first_name":"Jan","last_name":"Opsomer","full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120966310","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1388,"entry_id":935,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":95,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Falcon, Andrea","free_first_name":"Andrea","free_last_name":"Falcon","norm_person":{"id":95,"first_name":"Andrea","last_name":"Falcon","full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1138844241","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine","main_title":{"title":"An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine"},"abstract":"Iamblichus (ccl 245-320) is sometimes called the second founder of \r\nNeoplatonism.1 His innovations were essential to late Neoplatonic philosophy \r\nas it developed in the schools of Athens in particular\u00bb but also Alexandria. These \r\ninnovations do not just pertain to philosophical tenets\u00bb but also to philosophi\u00ad\r\ncal method and style. Iamblichus defined stricter exegetical rules and new \r\nmetaphysical laws. He also created an alliance between philosophy and theurgy \r\nand insisted on the philosophical value of various religious traditions and reli\u00ad\r\ngious-philosophical texts like the Chaldaean oracles. Iamblichus was\u00bb more\u00ad\r\nover, decisive in shaping the school curriculum and, more generally, the canon \r\nof texts that, whether philosophical or religious, carried authority for philo\u00ad\r\nsophical research. He, for instance, systematically included texts belonging \r\nto a Pythagorean tradition\u2014 a tradition which to some extent was of his own \r\nconstrual. His selection of philosophically important texts was in line with cer\u00ad\r\ntain earlier developments, but it was Iamblichus who established a real canon. \r\nIndeed, after Iamblichus the canon remained more or less stable.If we look at the importance assigned to Aristotle and the Peripatetic tra\u00ad\r\ndition, it is clear that the difference between Iamblichus and his arch-rival \r\nPorphyry does not reside in which texts were held to be worthy of profound \r\nstudy. Hie difference is situated rather in the role and status attributed to them \r\nwithin the Platonic philosophical system. From the early Imperial era onward, \r\nAristotle was seen by most Platonists as an ally, unlike the Stoics and Epicureans, \r\nwho were regarded as opponents. Yet the extent to which Aristotelian ideas \r\nwere incorporated varied greatly. Different parts of Aristotle's thought attracted \r\ndifferent Platonists and the strategies used for integrating and assimilating \r\nthem diverged. Here Iamblichus made his mark, as will become clear below. [Introduction, p. 341]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9PbBFU6HhLHSXvY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":211,"full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":95,"full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":935,"section_of":304,"pages":"341-357","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":304,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Brill\u2019 Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Falcon2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2016","abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle provides a systematic yet accessible account of the reception of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy in Antiquity. To date, there has been no comprehensive attempt to explain this complex phenomenon. This volume fills this lacuna by offering broad coverage of the subject from Hellenistic times to the sixth century AD. It is laid out chronologically and the 23 articles are divided into three sections: I. The Hellenistic Reception of Aristotle; II. The Post-Hellenistic Engagement with Aristotle; III. Aristotle in Late Antiquity. Topics include Aristotle and the Stoa, Andronicus of Rhodes and the construction of the Aristotelian corpus, the return to Aristotle in the first century BC, and the role of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Porphyry in the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vuBWRUwZL9cVKBh","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":304,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
Title | Simplicius and Philoponus on the Authority of Aristotle |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Brill’ Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity |
Pages | 419-438 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Falcon, Andrea |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius endeavoured to establish Aristotle not only as an unshakable authority in philosophy of language and natural philosophy but also as a philosopher who fully shared with Plato knowledge of the divine truth (i.e. the truth about the first realities of cosmos: the Soul, the Intelligence, and the One). Philoponus, on the other hand, rejected Aristotle as an authority, countered many of his arguments in his Aristotelian commentaries, and openly opposed Aristotle in his treatise On the Eternity of the World against Aristotle. One should abstain, however, from thinking in a simplistic man- ner of Simplicius as the “traditionalist” and of Philoponus as the “modernist.” Philoponus seems to have fully accepted the authority of Moses while commenting on the Genesis, and the fully equal rank that Simplicius granted to Aristotle and Plato was a novelty within the Neoplatonic tradition. Both philosophers, we might say, served a religious purpose by using a philosophical method; they both had recourse to philosophical exegesis, the former in order to demolish Hellenic authorities and establish the truth of Christianity, mainly its doctrine of creationism, the latter in order to defend Hellenism as a unitary and perennial system of thought. [introduction, p. 419-420] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/jYm8rtR0v0S9ee1 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1323","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1323,"authors_free":[{"id":1957,"entry_id":1323,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2222,"entry_id":1323,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":95,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Falcon, Andrea","free_first_name":"Andrea","free_last_name":"Falcon","norm_person":{"id":95,"first_name":"Andrea","last_name":"Falcon","full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1138844241","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and Philoponus on the Authority of Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and Philoponus on the Authority of Aristotle"},"abstract":"Simplicius endeavoured to establish Aristotle not only as an unshakable authority in philosophy of language and natural philosophy but also \r\nas a philosopher who fully shared with Plato knowledge of the divine truth (i.e. the truth about the first realities of cosmos: the Soul, the Intelligence, and the One). Philoponus, on the other hand, rejected Aristotle as an authority, countered many of his arguments in his Aristotelian commentaries, and openly opposed Aristotle in his treatise On the Eternity of the World against Aristotle. One should abstain, however, from thinking in a simplistic man-\r\nner of Simplicius as the \u201ctraditionalist\u201d and of Philoponus as the \u201cmodernist.\u201d Philoponus seems to have fully accepted the authority of Moses while commenting on the Genesis, and the fully equal rank that Simplicius granted to Aristotle and Plato was a novelty within the Neoplatonic tradition. Both philosophers, we might say, served a religious purpose by using a philosophical method; they both had recourse to philosophical exegesis, the former in order \r\nto demolish Hellenic authorities and establish the truth of Christianity, mainly its doctrine of creationism, the latter in order to defend Hellenism as a unitary and perennial system of thought. [introduction, p. 419-420]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jYm8rtR0v0S9ee1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":95,"full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1323,"section_of":304,"pages":"419-438","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":304,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Brill\u2019 Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Falcon2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2016","abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle provides a systematic yet accessible account of the reception of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy in Antiquity. To date, there has been no comprehensive attempt to explain this complex phenomenon. This volume fills this lacuna by offering broad coverage of the subject from Hellenistic times to the sixth century AD. It is laid out chronologically and the 23 articles are divided into three sections: I. The Hellenistic Reception of Aristotle; II. The Post-Hellenistic Engagement with Aristotle; III. Aristotle in Late Antiquity. Topics include Aristotle and the Stoa, Andronicus of Rhodes and the construction of the Aristotelian corpus, the return to Aristotle in the first century BC, and the role of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Porphyry in the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RHiGvAiG1uBRmx5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":304,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
Title | Brill’ Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity |
Type | Edited Book |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Publication Place | Leiden – Boston |
Publisher | Brill |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | |
Editor(s) | Falcon, Andrea |
Translator(s) |
Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle provides a systematic yet accessible account of the reception of Aristotle’s philosophy in Antiquity. To date, there has been no comprehensive attempt to explain this complex phenomenon. This volume fills this lacuna by offering broad coverage of the subject from Hellenistic times to the sixth century AD. It is laid out chronologically and the 23 articles are divided into three sections: I. The Hellenistic Reception of Aristotle; II. The Post-Hellenistic Engagement with Aristotle; III. Aristotle in Late Antiquity. Topics include Aristotle and the Stoa, Andronicus of Rhodes and the construction of the Aristotelian corpus, the return to Aristotle in the first century BC, and the role of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Porphyry in the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to Late Antiquity. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RHiGvAiG1uBRmx5 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"304","_score":null,"_source":{"id":304,"authors_free":[{"id":379,"entry_id":304,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":95,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Falcon, Andrea","free_first_name":"Andrea","free_last_name":"Falcon","norm_person":{"id":95,"first_name":"Andrea","last_name":"Falcon","full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1138844241","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Brill\u2019 Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Brill\u2019 Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity"},"abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle provides a systematic yet accessible account of the reception of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy in Antiquity. To date, there has been no comprehensive attempt to explain this complex phenomenon. This volume fills this lacuna by offering broad coverage of the subject from Hellenistic times to the sixth century AD. It is laid out chronologically and the 23 articles are divided into three sections: I. The Hellenistic Reception of Aristotle; II. The Post-Hellenistic Engagement with Aristotle; III. Aristotle in Late Antiquity. Topics include Aristotle and the Stoa, Andronicus of Rhodes and the construction of the Aristotelian corpus, the return to Aristotle in the first century BC, and the role of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Porphyry in the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RHiGvAiG1uBRmx5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":95,"full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":304,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
Title | An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Brill’ Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity |
Pages | 341-357 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Opsomer, Jan |
Editor(s) | Falcon, Andrea |
Translator(s) |
Iamblichus (ccl 245-320) is sometimes called the second founder of Neoplatonism.1 His innovations were essential to late Neoplatonic philosophy as it developed in the schools of Athens in particular» but also Alexandria. These innovations do not just pertain to philosophical tenets» but also to philosophi cal method and style. Iamblichus defined stricter exegetical rules and new metaphysical laws. He also created an alliance between philosophy and theurgy and insisted on the philosophical value of various religious traditions and reli gious-philosophical texts like the Chaldaean oracles. Iamblichus was» more over, decisive in shaping the school curriculum and, more generally, the canon of texts that, whether philosophical or religious, carried authority for philo sophical research. He, for instance, systematically included texts belonging to a Pythagorean tradition— a tradition which to some extent was of his own construal. His selection of philosophically important texts was in line with cer tain earlier developments, but it was Iamblichus who established a real canon. Indeed, after Iamblichus the canon remained more or less stable.If we look at the importance assigned to Aristotle and the Peripatetic tra dition, it is clear that the difference between Iamblichus and his arch-rival Porphyry does not reside in which texts were held to be worthy of profound study. Hie difference is situated rather in the role and status attributed to them within the Platonic philosophical system. From the early Imperial era onward, Aristotle was seen by most Platonists as an ally, unlike the Stoics and Epicureans, who were regarded as opponents. Yet the extent to which Aristotelian ideas were incorporated varied greatly. Different parts of Aristotle's thought attracted different Platonists and the strategies used for integrating and assimilating them diverged. Here Iamblichus made his mark, as will become clear below. [Introduction, p. 341] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/9PbBFU6HhLHSXvY |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"935","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":935,"authors_free":[{"id":1387,"entry_id":935,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":211,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Opsomer, Jan","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":{"id":211,"first_name":"Jan","last_name":"Opsomer","full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120966310","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1388,"entry_id":935,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":95,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Falcon, Andrea","free_first_name":"Andrea","free_last_name":"Falcon","norm_person":{"id":95,"first_name":"Andrea","last_name":"Falcon","full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1138844241","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine","main_title":{"title":"An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine"},"abstract":"Iamblichus (ccl 245-320) is sometimes called the second founder of \r\nNeoplatonism.1 His innovations were essential to late Neoplatonic philosophy \r\nas it developed in the schools of Athens in particular\u00bb but also Alexandria. These \r\ninnovations do not just pertain to philosophical tenets\u00bb but also to philosophi\u00ad\r\ncal method and style. Iamblichus defined stricter exegetical rules and new \r\nmetaphysical laws. He also created an alliance between philosophy and theurgy \r\nand insisted on the philosophical value of various religious traditions and reli\u00ad\r\ngious-philosophical texts like the Chaldaean oracles. Iamblichus was\u00bb more\u00ad\r\nover, decisive in shaping the school curriculum and, more generally, the canon \r\nof texts that, whether philosophical or religious, carried authority for philo\u00ad\r\nsophical research. He, for instance, systematically included texts belonging \r\nto a Pythagorean tradition\u2014 a tradition which to some extent was of his own \r\nconstrual. His selection of philosophically important texts was in line with cer\u00ad\r\ntain earlier developments, but it was Iamblichus who established a real canon. \r\nIndeed, after Iamblichus the canon remained more or less stable.If we look at the importance assigned to Aristotle and the Peripatetic tra\u00ad\r\ndition, it is clear that the difference between Iamblichus and his arch-rival \r\nPorphyry does not reside in which texts were held to be worthy of profound \r\nstudy. Hie difference is situated rather in the role and status attributed to them \r\nwithin the Platonic philosophical system. From the early Imperial era onward, \r\nAristotle was seen by most Platonists as an ally, unlike the Stoics and Epicureans, \r\nwho were regarded as opponents. Yet the extent to which Aristotelian ideas \r\nwere incorporated varied greatly. Different parts of Aristotle's thought attracted \r\ndifferent Platonists and the strategies used for integrating and assimilating \r\nthem diverged. Here Iamblichus made his mark, as will become clear below. [Introduction, p. 341]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9PbBFU6HhLHSXvY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":211,"full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":95,"full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":935,"section_of":304,"pages":"341-357","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":304,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Brill\u2019 Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Falcon2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2016","abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle provides a systematic yet accessible account of the reception of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy in Antiquity. To date, there has been no comprehensive attempt to explain this complex phenomenon. This volume fills this lacuna by offering broad coverage of the subject from Hellenistic times to the sixth century AD. It is laid out chronologically and the 23 articles are divided into three sections: I. The Hellenistic Reception of Aristotle; II. The Post-Hellenistic Engagement with Aristotle; III. Aristotle in Late Antiquity. Topics include Aristotle and the Stoa, Andronicus of Rhodes and the construction of the Aristotelian corpus, the return to Aristotle in the first century BC, and the role of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Porphyry in the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vuBWRUwZL9cVKBh","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":304,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine"]}
Title | Brill’ Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity |
Type | Edited Book |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Publication Place | Leiden – Boston |
Publisher | Brill |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | |
Editor(s) | Falcon, Andrea |
Translator(s) |
Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle provides a systematic yet accessible account of the reception of Aristotle’s philosophy in Antiquity. To date, there has been no comprehensive attempt to explain this complex phenomenon. This volume fills this lacuna by offering broad coverage of the subject from Hellenistic times to the sixth century AD. It is laid out chronologically and the 23 articles are divided into three sections: I. The Hellenistic Reception of Aristotle; II. The Post-Hellenistic Engagement with Aristotle; III. Aristotle in Late Antiquity. Topics include Aristotle and the Stoa, Andronicus of Rhodes and the construction of the Aristotelian corpus, the return to Aristotle in the first century BC, and the role of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Porphyry in the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to Late Antiquity. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RHiGvAiG1uBRmx5 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"304","_score":null,"_source":{"id":304,"authors_free":[{"id":379,"entry_id":304,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":95,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Falcon, Andrea","free_first_name":"Andrea","free_last_name":"Falcon","norm_person":{"id":95,"first_name":"Andrea","last_name":"Falcon","full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1138844241","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Brill\u2019 Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Brill\u2019 Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity"},"abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle provides a systematic yet accessible account of the reception of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy in Antiquity. To date, there has been no comprehensive attempt to explain this complex phenomenon. This volume fills this lacuna by offering broad coverage of the subject from Hellenistic times to the sixth century AD. It is laid out chronologically and the 23 articles are divided into three sections: I. The Hellenistic Reception of Aristotle; II. The Post-Hellenistic Engagement with Aristotle; III. Aristotle in Late Antiquity. Topics include Aristotle and the Stoa, Andronicus of Rhodes and the construction of the Aristotelian corpus, the return to Aristotle in the first century BC, and the role of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Porphyry in the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RHiGvAiG1uBRmx5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":95,"full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":304,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Brill\u2019 Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity"]}
Title | Simplicius and Philoponus on the Authority of Aristotle |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Brill’ Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity |
Pages | 419-438 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Falcon, Andrea |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius endeavoured to establish Aristotle not only as an unshakable authority in philosophy of language and natural philosophy but also as a philosopher who fully shared with Plato knowledge of the divine truth (i.e. the truth about the first realities of cosmos: the Soul, the Intelligence, and the One). Philoponus, on the other hand, rejected Aristotle as an authority, countered many of his arguments in his Aristotelian commentaries, and openly opposed Aristotle in his treatise On the Eternity of the World against Aristotle. One should abstain, however, from thinking in a simplistic man- ner of Simplicius as the “traditionalist” and of Philoponus as the “modernist.” Philoponus seems to have fully accepted the authority of Moses while commenting on the Genesis, and the fully equal rank that Simplicius granted to Aristotle and Plato was a novelty within the Neoplatonic tradition. Both philosophers, we might say, served a religious purpose by using a philosophical method; they both had recourse to philosophical exegesis, the former in order to demolish Hellenic authorities and establish the truth of Christianity, mainly its doctrine of creationism, the latter in order to defend Hellenism as a unitary and perennial system of thought. [introduction, p. 419-420] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/jYm8rtR0v0S9ee1 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1323","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1323,"authors_free":[{"id":1957,"entry_id":1323,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2222,"entry_id":1323,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":95,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Falcon, Andrea","free_first_name":"Andrea","free_last_name":"Falcon","norm_person":{"id":95,"first_name":"Andrea","last_name":"Falcon","full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1138844241","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and Philoponus on the Authority of Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and Philoponus on the Authority of Aristotle"},"abstract":"Simplicius endeavoured to establish Aristotle not only as an unshakable authority in philosophy of language and natural philosophy but also \r\nas a philosopher who fully shared with Plato knowledge of the divine truth (i.e. the truth about the first realities of cosmos: the Soul, the Intelligence, and the One). Philoponus, on the other hand, rejected Aristotle as an authority, countered many of his arguments in his Aristotelian commentaries, and openly opposed Aristotle in his treatise On the Eternity of the World against Aristotle. One should abstain, however, from thinking in a simplistic man-\r\nner of Simplicius as the \u201ctraditionalist\u201d and of Philoponus as the \u201cmodernist.\u201d Philoponus seems to have fully accepted the authority of Moses while commenting on the Genesis, and the fully equal rank that Simplicius granted to Aristotle and Plato was a novelty within the Neoplatonic tradition. Both philosophers, we might say, served a religious purpose by using a philosophical method; they both had recourse to philosophical exegesis, the former in order \r\nto demolish Hellenic authorities and establish the truth of Christianity, mainly its doctrine of creationism, the latter in order to defend Hellenism as a unitary and perennial system of thought. [introduction, p. 419-420]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jYm8rtR0v0S9ee1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":95,"full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1323,"section_of":304,"pages":"419-438","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":304,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Brill\u2019 Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Falcon2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2016","abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle provides a systematic yet accessible account of the reception of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy in Antiquity. To date, there has been no comprehensive attempt to explain this complex phenomenon. This volume fills this lacuna by offering broad coverage of the subject from Hellenistic times to the sixth century AD. It is laid out chronologically and the 23 articles are divided into three sections: I. The Hellenistic Reception of Aristotle; II. The Post-Hellenistic Engagement with Aristotle; III. Aristotle in Late Antiquity. Topics include Aristotle and the Stoa, Andronicus of Rhodes and the construction of the Aristotelian corpus, the return to Aristotle in the first century BC, and the role of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Porphyry in the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RHiGvAiG1uBRmx5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":304,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius and Philoponus on the Authority of Aristotle"]}