{"_index":"sire","_id":"1393","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1393,"authors_free":[{"id":2163,"entry_id":1393,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":348,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","free_first_name":"G\u00e9rard","free_last_name":"Verbeke","norm_person":{"id":348,"first_name":"G\u00e9rard","last_name":"Verbeke","full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118947583","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2165,"entry_id":1393,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":354,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gillispie, Charles Coulston","free_first_name":"Charles Coulston","free_last_name":"Gillispie","norm_person":{"id":354,"first_name":"Charles Coulston","last_name":"Gillispie","full_name":"Gillispie, Charles Coulston","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117710539","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius"},"abstract":"Simplicius was one of the most famous representatives of Neoplatonism in the sixth century. An outstanding scholar, he was the author of extensive commentaries on Aristotle that contain much valuable information on previous Greek philosophy, including the pre-Socratics.\r\n\r\nVery little is known of his life. According to Agathias (History, 11,30,3), he was born in Cilicia. He received his first philosophical education in Alexandria at the school of Ammonius Hermiae, the author of a large commentary on the Peri Hermeneias and on some other logical, physical, and metaphysical treatises of Aristotle. These works strongly influenced not only the commentaries of Simplicius but also those written by the philosophers of the Alexandrian School: Asclepius, Philoponus, and Olympiodorus.\r\n\r\nSimplicius also studied philosophy at Athens in the school of Damascius, the author of Problems and Solutions About the First Principles, known for his doctrine of the Ineffable First Principle. According to Damascius, no name is capable of expressing adequately the nature of that Principle, not even the Plotinian name of \"the One.\" Damascius was the last pagan Neoplatonist in the unbroken succession of the Athenian school, where he was teaching when Justinian closed it in 529. Simplicius, who at that time was a member of Damascius\u2019 circle, left Athens with him and five other philosophers and moved to Persia (531-532). Their exile was only temporary, for they returned to the empire after the treaty of peace between the Byzantines and the Persians (533). According to Agathias (History, 11,31,4), the terms of the treaty would have guaranteed to the philosophers full security in their own environment: they were not to be compelled to accept anything against their personal conviction, and they were never to be prevented from living according to their own philosophical doctrine.\r\n\r\nThere are grounds for supposing that Simplicius settled in Athens after returning from Persia. Presumably, he was not allowed to deliver public lectures and thus could devote all his time to research and writing. Hence his commentaries are not related to any teaching activity; rather, they show the character of written expositions that carefully analyze the Aristotelian text and interpret it in the light of the whole history of Greek philosophy. Simplicius always endeavored to harmonize and reconcile Plato and Aristotle by reducing the differences between them to a question of vocabulary, point of view, or even misunderstanding of some Platonic theories by the Stagirite.\r\n\r\nSimplicius was not the first to take this approach. According to W. Jaeger, this trend can be traced to Posidonius and to Neoplatonic philosophy in general. The same method was certainly used by Ammonius, who always attempted to reduce the opposition between Plato and Aristotle to different viewpoints. For example, in dealing with Aristotle\u2019s criticism of the theory of Ideas, Ammonius believed this criticism to concern not the authentic doctrine of Plato, but rather the opinion of some philosophers who attributed to the Ideas an independent subsistence, separate from the Intellect of the Demiurge (Asclepius, In Metaphysicorum, 69,24-27; 73,27).\r\n\r\nApparently, Simplicius was persuaded that this approach was in agreement with the attitude of the philopatheis and that it uncovered the true meaning of philosophical doctrines. At first glance, he said, some theories seem to be quite contradictory, but a more accurate inquiry shows them to be reconcilable (In de Caelo, 159,3-9). Moreover, in explaining a philosophical text, one should not be biased for or against its author. Hence Simplicius opposed the method of Alexander, who from the beginning is suspicious of Plato in the same way that others are inspired with prejudice against Aristotle (In de Caelo, 297,1-4). Since agreement on an opinion, even a prephilosophical one, has often been considered a criterion of truth, Aristotle and the Stoics frequently used the argument of universal agreement. Therefore, having to cope with the increasing influence of Christianity, late Neoplatonic philosophers wanted to argue against the presumed disaccord between the main representatives of Greek philosophy, Plato and Aristotle, in order to enhance their own doctrine. As a Christian, Philoponus did not have the same motives for harmonizing Plato and Aristotle; he firmly opposed attempts to reconcile them and called this interpretation a kind of mythology. Aristotle, he held, did not argue against those who misunderstood Plato but against the authentic Platonic doctrine.\r\n\r\nAs a commentator, Simplicius did not overestimate his own contributions but was quite aware of his debt to other philosophers, especially to Alexander, Iamblichus, and Porphyry (In Categorias, 3,10-13). He did not hesitate to call his own commentaries a mere introduction to the writings of these famous masters (In Categorias, 3,13-17), nor did he cling fanatically to his own interpretations; he was happy to exchange them for better explanations (In Categorias, 350,8-9). On the other hand, the work of a commentator is far from being a neutral undertaking or a question of mere erudition; it is chiefly an opportunity to become more familiar with the text under consideration and to elucidate some intricate passages (In Enchiridion, Praefatio, 2,24-29; In de Caelo, 102,15; 166,14-16; In Categorias, 3,4-6). Hence Simplicius\u2019 constant concern to obtain reliable documents and to check the historical value of this information, as when he verified the information provided by Alexander about the squaring of the circle according to Hippocrates of Chios (In Physicorum, 60,22-68, 32).\r\n\r\nSimplicius adhered to the Aristotelian doctrine of the eternity of the world, as a theory that fits perfectly into the Neoplatonic ontology insofar as the eternal movement of the heavens is a necessary link between the pure eternity of the intelligible reality and the temporal character of material beings. With respect to this question, Simplicius strongly opposed Philoponus, who asserted the beginning of the world through divine creation. Philoponus, however, did not argue as a Christian, nor did he base his refutation of the Aristotelian doctrine on arguments drawn from his Christian faith. According to him, God is the principle of whatever exists: if time is infinite, nothing may ever come to be, because an infinite number of conditions of possibility are to be fulfilled before anything could begin to exist\u2014which is clearly impossible. Simplicius\u2019 notion of \u201cinfinite\u201d is different; it does not mean an infinity existing at once, but a possibility of transcending any boundary. Consequently, the conception of time exposed by both authors is not the same. Simplicius professed a cyclical conception; Philoponus adhered to a linear view without regular return of the same events. Philoponus also substantiated divine creation in time, without preexisting matter; whereas Simplicius maintained that although heaven, the first and highest corporeal reality, is totally dependent upon God, it has never come to exist; it must be eternal because it springs immediately from God. [introduction p. 440-441]","btype":2,"date":"1975","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dKqS8TkSYL9fWNO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":348,"full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":354,"full_name":"Gillispie, Charles Coulston","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1393,"section_of":1394,"pages":"440-443","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1394,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Volume XII: IBN RUSHD - JEAN-SERVAIS STAS","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1975","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Pt8Q1J4Rc3TbiFs","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1394,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Charles Scriber\u2019s Sons","series":"","volume":"XII","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius"]}