La critique aristotélicienne des Idées en Physique II 2 et l’interprétation de Simplicius, 2017
By: Golitsis, Pantelis
Title La critique aristotélicienne des Idées en Physique II 2 et l’interprétation de Simplicius
Type Article
Language French
Date 2017
Journal Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques
Volume 101
Pages 569-584
Categories no categories
Author(s) Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This paper examines Aristotle's criticism of the Platonic Ideas in Physics II 2 and the interpretation of Simplicius. Aristotle's critique focuses on the separation of physical realities, performed unconsciously by proponents of Ideas, which he compares to the method of mathematicians. In Physics II 2, Aristotle aims to clarify the distinction between the tasks of mathematicians and physicists. While mathematicians separate accidents (such as figures and numbers) from natural bodies to study them independently, physicists, like geometers, consider figures as essential accidents inherent to natural substances. The paper argues that the Platonic philosophers inadvertently separate natural realities from matter to establish the existence of Ideas. Aristotle maintains that the definitions of mathematical entities do not include motion, whereas definitions of natural entities, like the "camus" nose, involve movement or refer to it. The proponents of Ideas, by separating realities from matter, establish metaphysical and immaterial Ideas, conceiving them erroneously in a material mode due to their participation in physical realities. Aristotle's criticism does not imply petitio principii because it targets the unawareness of Platonic philosophers. They mistakenly posit Ideas as existing independently, akin to mathematical objects separated in thought but not in reality. This leads them to an illusory metaphysics, as they consider Ideas as less separable from matter than mathematical entities are. Instead of grounding a physics that studies forms within matter, they engage in a misguided metaphysical endeavor. [introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1509","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1509,"authors_free":[{"id":2622,"entry_id":1509,"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}}],"entry_title":"La critique aristot\u00e9licienne des Id\u00e9es en Physique II 2 et l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"La critique aristot\u00e9licienne des Id\u00e9es en Physique II 2 et l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Simplicius"},"abstract":"This paper examines Aristotle's criticism of the Platonic Ideas in Physics II 2 and the interpretation of Simplicius. Aristotle's critique focuses on the separation of physical realities, performed unconsciously by proponents of Ideas, which he compares to the method of mathematicians. In Physics II 2, Aristotle aims to clarify the distinction between the tasks of mathematicians and physicists. While mathematicians separate accidents (such as figures and numbers) from natural bodies to study them independently, physicists, like geometers, consider figures as essential accidents inherent to natural substances. The paper argues that the Platonic philosophers inadvertently separate natural realities from matter to establish the existence of Ideas. Aristotle maintains that the definitions of mathematical entities do not include motion, whereas definitions of natural entities, like the \"camus\" nose, involve movement or refer to it. The proponents of Ideas, by separating realities from matter, establish metaphysical and immaterial Ideas, conceiving them erroneously in a material mode due to their participation in physical realities. Aristotle's criticism does not imply petitio principii because it targets the unawareness of Platonic philosophers. They mistakenly posit Ideas as existing independently, akin to mathematical objects separated in thought but not in reality. This leads them to an illusory metaphysics, as they consider Ideas as less separable from matter than mathematical entities are. Instead of grounding a physics that studies forms within matter, they engage in a misguided metaphysical endeavor. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1pNKYrIvZMIsMEt","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1509,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Th\u00e9ologiques","volume":"101","issue":"","pages":"569-584"}},"sort":[2017]}

Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle’s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq, 2015
By: Golitsis, Pantelis
Title Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle’s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq
Type Article
Language English
Date 2015
Journal Revue d’histoire des textes, nouvelle série
Volume 10
Pages 1-23
Categories no categories
Author(s) Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1417","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1417,"authors_free":[{"id":2218,"entry_id":1417,"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}}],"entry_title":"Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq","main_title":{"title":"Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/h4L23WDPkX8y93d","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1417,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue d\u2019histoire des textes, nouvelle s\u00e9rie","volume":"10","issue":"","pages":"1-23"}},"sort":[2015]}

On Simplicius’ Life and Works: A Response to Hadot, 2015
By: Golitsis, Pantelis
Title On Simplicius’ Life and Works: A Response to Hadot
Type Article
Language English
Date 2015
Journal Aestimatio
Volume 12
Pages 56-82
Categories no categories
Author(s) Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This text is a response to Ilsetraut Hadot's book, "Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contem¬poraines. Un bilan critique," which provides a critical overview of scholarly research on the Neoplatonist Simplicius. The author critiques Hadot's approach, arguing that her use of the Neoplatonic curriculum and medieval testimonies is an unsafe guide for assessing Simplicius' life and works. The article concludes by thanking Hadot for her previous work on Simplicius and acknowledging the value of her contributions to the field. [introduction/conclusion]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1322","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1322,"authors_free":[{"id":1956,"entry_id":1322,"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}}],"entry_title":"On Simplicius\u2019 Life and Works: A Response to Hadot","main_title":{"title":"On Simplicius\u2019 Life and Works: A Response to Hadot"},"abstract":"This text is a response to Ilsetraut Hadot's book, \"Le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des recherches contem\u00acporaines. Un bilan critique,\" which provides a critical overview of scholarly research on the Neoplatonist Simplicius. The author critiques Hadot's approach, arguing that her use of the Neoplatonic curriculum and medieval testimonies is an unsafe guide for assessing Simplicius' life and works. The article concludes by thanking Hadot for her previous work on Simplicius and acknowledging the value of her contributions to the field. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/taxGjWx0J8xhRkr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1322,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Aestimatio","volume":"12","issue":"","pages":"56-82"}},"sort":[2015]}

Simplicius et le “lieu”. À propos d’une nouvelle édition du Corollarium de loco, 2014
By: Golitsis, Pantelis, Hoffmann, Philippe
Title Simplicius et le “lieu”. À propos d’une nouvelle édition du Corollarium de loco
Type Article
Language French
Date 2014
Journal Revue des Études Grecques
Volume 127
Issue 1
Pages 119-175
Categories no categories
Author(s) Golitsis, Pantelis , Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The digression labelled “Corollarium de loco” by Hermann Diels in his edition of Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, IX, Berlin 1882) is a key text in the debate - often referred to by specialists as magna quaestio - generated by an apparent lack of consistency between Aristotle’s definition of ‘place’ (topos) as “the first unmoved boundary of the surrounding body” (Phys. IV, 4, 212 a 20-21) and his assertion that the Heaven moves in a circle while not being ‘somewhere’, since it is not surrounded by any body that would be exterior to it. Following the steps of his master Damascius, and at the end of a long discussion initiated by Neoplatonists after Plotinus (principally by Iamblichus, Proclus and Syrianus), Simplicius replaces Aristotle’s definition with a new definition of place as a “gathering (or uniting) measure” (metron sunagôgon), which is one of the four “measures” (number, size, place, time) or gathering powers that protect the intelligible and sensible entities against the dangers of the dispersion related to the procession of reality. This doctrine places physics in a decidedly theological perspective since, in last analysis, these uniting powers derive from the One or Good per se. Our under­standing of this crucial text for our knowledge of the Neoplatonic philosophy of Nature will be improved thanks to a new critical edition (with French translation and notes), to be published soon in the collection “Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca and Byzantina” (by Walter de Gruyter) under the auspices of the Academy of Sciences of Bcrlin-Brandenburg. The new edition is based not only on a fresh collation of the two manuscripts used by Diels (Marciani graeci 227 and 229) but also on a Moscow manuscript (Mosquensis Muz. 3649) unknown to the Ger­man scholar, since it belonged during the nineteenth century to a private Russian collection. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1321","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1321,"authors_free":[{"id":1955,"entry_id":1321,"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":2378,"entry_id":1321,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius et le \u201clieu\u201d. \u00c0 propos d\u2019une nouvelle \u00e9dition du Corollarium de loco","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius et le \u201clieu\u201d. \u00c0 propos d\u2019une nouvelle \u00e9dition du Corollarium de loco"},"abstract":"The digression labelled \u201cCorollarium de loco\u201d by Hermann Diels in his edition of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, IX, Berlin 1882) is a key text in the debate - often referred to by specialists as magna quaestio - generated by an apparent lack of consistency between Aristotle\u2019s definition of \u2018place\u2019 (topos) as \u201cthe first unmoved boundary \r\nof the surrounding body\u201d (Phys. IV, 4, 212 a 20-21) and his assertion that the Heaven moves in a circle while not being \u2018somewhere\u2019, since it is not surrounded by any body that would be exterior to it. Following the steps of his master Damascius, and at the end of a long discussion initiated by Neoplatonists after Plotinus (principally by Iamblichus, Proclus and Syrianus), Simplicius replaces Aristotle\u2019s definition with a new definition of place as a \u201cgathering (or uniting) measure\u201d (metron sunag\u00f4gon), which is one of the four \u201cmeasures\u201d (number, size, place, time) or gathering powers that protect the intelligible and sensible \r\nentities against the dangers of the dispersion related to the procession of reality. This doctrine places physics in a decidedly theological perspective since, in last analysis, these uniting powers derive from the One or Good per se. Our under\u00adstanding of this crucial text for our knowledge of the Neoplatonic philosophy of \r\nNature will be improved thanks to a new critical edition (with French translation and notes), to be published soon in the collection \u201cCommentaria in Aristotelem Graeca and Byzantina\u201d (by Walter de Gruyter) under the auspices of the Academy \r\nof Sciences of Bcrlin-Brandenburg. The new edition is based not only on a fresh collation of the two manuscripts used by Diels (Marciani graeci 227 and 229) but also on a Moscow manuscript (Mosquensis Muz. 3649) unknown to the Ger\u00adman scholar, since it belonged during the nineteenth century to a private Russian \r\ncollection. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VYauzSK0KjIWDqk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1321,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue des \u00c9tudes Grecques ","volume":"127","issue":"1","pages":"119-175"}},"sort":[2014]}

Un commentaire perpétuel de Georges Pachymère à la Physique d'Aristote, faussement attribué à Michel Psellos, 2007
By: Golitsis, Pantelis
Title Un commentaire perpétuel de Georges Pachymère à la Physique d'Aristote, faussement attribué à Michel Psellos
Type Article
Language French
Date 2007
Journal Byzantinische Zeitschrift
Volume 100
Issue 2
Pages 637-676
Categories no categories
Author(s) Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Récapitulons lessentiel des raisonnements philologiques qui nous ont permis de restituer le véritable auteur du commentaire, qui dorénavant doit être attribué à Georges Pachymère. Nous avons vu que l'ensemble de la tradition manuscrite qui attribue le commentaire à Psellos descend d'un ancêtre commun, l'Ambrosianus H 44 sup., écrit à la fin du XIVe siècle. Celui-ci remonte pourtant à un archétype, écrit vers l'an 1300 et aujourdhui perdu (l'Escori- alensis D. IV. 24), dans lequel le commentaire figurait sous le nom de Pachymère, ainsi que nous avons pu le montrer grâce au Vindobonensis phil. gr. 248 et à des témoignages du XVIe siècle. Cet archétype de l'ensemble de la tradition manuscrite du commentaire a été copié sur le Laurentianus plut. 87,5, autographe stricto sensu de Pachymère, dont il se servait pour assurer son enseignement de la Physique. [conclusion, p. 676]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"536","_score":null,"_source":{"id":536,"authors_free":[{"id":758,"entry_id":536,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"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}}],"entry_title":"Un commentaire perp\u00e9tuel de Georges Pachym\u00e8re \u00e0 la Physique d'Aristote, faussement attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 Michel Psellos","main_title":{"title":"Un commentaire perp\u00e9tuel de Georges Pachym\u00e8re \u00e0 la Physique d'Aristote, faussement attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 Michel Psellos"},"abstract":"R\u00e9capitulons l\u001dessentiel des raisonnements philologiques qui nous ont permis de restituer le v\u00e9ritable auteur du commentaire, qui dor\u00e9navant doit \u00eatre attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 Georges Pachym\u00e8re. Nous avons vu que l\u001d'ensemble de la tradition\r\nmanuscrite qui attribue le commentaire \u00e0 Psellos descend d'\u001dun anc\u00eatre commun, l'\u001dAmbrosianus H 44 sup., \u00e9crit \u00e0 la fin du XIVe si\u00e8cle. Celui-ci remonte pourtant \u00e0 un arch\u00e9type, \u00e9crit vers l\u001d'an 1300 et aujourd\u001dhui perdu (l\u001d'Escori-\r\nalensis D. IV. 24), dans lequel le commentaire figurait sous le nom de Pachym\u00e8re, ainsi que nous avons pu le montrer gr\u00e2ce au Vindobonensis phil. gr. 248 et \u00e0 des t\u00e9moignages du XVIe si\u00e8cle. Cet arch\u00e9type de l\u001d'ensemble de la tradition\r\nmanuscrite du commentaire a \u00e9t\u00e9 copi\u00e9 sur le Laurentianus plut. 87,5, autographe stricto sensu de Pachym\u00e8re, dont il se servait pour assurer son enseignement de la Physique. [conclusion, p. 676]","btype":3,"date":"2007","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RuATZsvpBh8r0qp","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":536,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Byzantinische Zeitschrift ","volume":"100","issue":"2","pages":"637-676"}},"sort":[2007]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1
Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle’s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq, 2015
By: Golitsis, Pantelis
Title Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle’s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq
Type Article
Language English
Date 2015
Journal Revue d’histoire des textes, nouvelle série
Volume 10
Pages 1-23
Categories no categories
Author(s) Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1417","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1417,"authors_free":[{"id":2218,"entry_id":1417,"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}}],"entry_title":"Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq","main_title":{"title":"Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/h4L23WDPkX8y93d","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1417,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue d\u2019histoire des textes, nouvelle s\u00e9rie","volume":"10","issue":"","pages":"1-23"}},"sort":["Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq"]}

La critique aristotélicienne des Idées en Physique II 2 et l’interprétation de Simplicius, 2017
By: Golitsis, Pantelis
Title La critique aristotélicienne des Idées en Physique II 2 et l’interprétation de Simplicius
Type Article
Language French
Date 2017
Journal Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques
Volume 101
Pages 569-584
Categories no categories
Author(s) Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This paper examines Aristotle's criticism of the Platonic Ideas in Physics II 2 and the interpretation of Simplicius. Aristotle's critique focuses on the separation of physical realities, performed unconsciously by proponents of Ideas, which he compares to the method of mathematicians. In Physics II 2, Aristotle aims to clarify the distinction between the tasks of mathematicians and physicists. While mathematicians separate accidents (such as figures and numbers) from natural bodies to study them independently, physicists, like geometers, consider figures as essential accidents inherent to natural substances. The paper argues that the Platonic philosophers inadvertently separate natural realities from matter to establish the existence of Ideas. Aristotle maintains that the definitions of mathematical entities do not include motion, whereas definitions of natural entities, like the "camus" nose, involve movement or refer to it. The proponents of Ideas, by separating realities from matter, establish metaphysical and immaterial Ideas, conceiving them erroneously in a material mode due to their participation in physical realities. Aristotle's criticism does not imply petitio principii because it targets the unawareness of Platonic philosophers. They mistakenly posit Ideas as existing independently, akin to mathematical objects separated in thought but not in reality. This leads them to an illusory metaphysics, as they consider Ideas as less separable from matter than mathematical entities are. Instead of grounding a physics that studies forms within matter, they engage in a misguided metaphysical endeavor. [introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1509","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1509,"authors_free":[{"id":2622,"entry_id":1509,"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}}],"entry_title":"La critique aristot\u00e9licienne des Id\u00e9es en Physique II 2 et l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"La critique aristot\u00e9licienne des Id\u00e9es en Physique II 2 et l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Simplicius"},"abstract":"This paper examines Aristotle's criticism of the Platonic Ideas in Physics II 2 and the interpretation of Simplicius. Aristotle's critique focuses on the separation of physical realities, performed unconsciously by proponents of Ideas, which he compares to the method of mathematicians. In Physics II 2, Aristotle aims to clarify the distinction between the tasks of mathematicians and physicists. While mathematicians separate accidents (such as figures and numbers) from natural bodies to study them independently, physicists, like geometers, consider figures as essential accidents inherent to natural substances. The paper argues that the Platonic philosophers inadvertently separate natural realities from matter to establish the existence of Ideas. Aristotle maintains that the definitions of mathematical entities do not include motion, whereas definitions of natural entities, like the \"camus\" nose, involve movement or refer to it. The proponents of Ideas, by separating realities from matter, establish metaphysical and immaterial Ideas, conceiving them erroneously in a material mode due to their participation in physical realities. Aristotle's criticism does not imply petitio principii because it targets the unawareness of Platonic philosophers. They mistakenly posit Ideas as existing independently, akin to mathematical objects separated in thought but not in reality. This leads them to an illusory metaphysics, as they consider Ideas as less separable from matter than mathematical entities are. Instead of grounding a physics that studies forms within matter, they engage in a misguided metaphysical endeavor. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1pNKYrIvZMIsMEt","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1509,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Th\u00e9ologiques","volume":"101","issue":"","pages":"569-584"}},"sort":["La critique aristot\u00e9licienne des Id\u00e9es en Physique II 2 et l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Simplicius"]}

On Simplicius’ Life and Works: A Response to Hadot, 2015
By: Golitsis, Pantelis
Title On Simplicius’ Life and Works: A Response to Hadot
Type Article
Language English
Date 2015
Journal Aestimatio
Volume 12
Pages 56-82
Categories no categories
Author(s) Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This text is a response to Ilsetraut Hadot's book, "Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contem¬poraines. Un bilan critique," which provides a critical overview of scholarly research on the Neoplatonist Simplicius. The author critiques Hadot's approach, arguing that her use of the Neoplatonic curriculum and medieval testimonies is an unsafe guide for assessing Simplicius' life and works. The article concludes by thanking Hadot for her previous work on Simplicius and acknowledging the value of her contributions to the field. [introduction/conclusion]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1322","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1322,"authors_free":[{"id":1956,"entry_id":1322,"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}}],"entry_title":"On Simplicius\u2019 Life and Works: A Response to Hadot","main_title":{"title":"On Simplicius\u2019 Life and Works: A Response to Hadot"},"abstract":"This text is a response to Ilsetraut Hadot's book, \"Le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des recherches contem\u00acporaines. Un bilan critique,\" which provides a critical overview of scholarly research on the Neoplatonist Simplicius. The author critiques Hadot's approach, arguing that her use of the Neoplatonic curriculum and medieval testimonies is an unsafe guide for assessing Simplicius' life and works. The article concludes by thanking Hadot for her previous work on Simplicius and acknowledging the value of her contributions to the field. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/taxGjWx0J8xhRkr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1322,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Aestimatio","volume":"12","issue":"","pages":"56-82"}},"sort":["On Simplicius\u2019 Life and Works: A Response to Hadot"]}

Simplicius et le “lieu”. À propos d’une nouvelle édition du Corollarium de loco, 2014
By: Golitsis, Pantelis, Hoffmann, Philippe
Title Simplicius et le “lieu”. À propos d’une nouvelle édition du Corollarium de loco
Type Article
Language French
Date 2014
Journal Revue des Études Grecques
Volume 127
Issue 1
Pages 119-175
Categories no categories
Author(s) Golitsis, Pantelis , Hoffmann, Philippe
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The digression labelled “Corollarium de loco” by Hermann Diels in his edition of Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics (Commentaria  in Aristotelem  Graeca, IX, Berlin  1882) is a key text in the debate - often referred to by specialists as magna quaestio -  generated by an apparent lack of consistency between Aristotle’s definition of ‘place’ (topos) as “the first unmoved boundary 
of the surrounding body”  (Phys. IV, 4, 212 a 20-21) and his assertion that the Heaven moves in a circle while not being ‘somewhere’, since it is not surrounded by  any  body that  would be  exterior to it.  Following the  steps of his  master Damascius, and at the end of a long discussion initiated by Neoplatonists after Plotinus (principally by Iamblichus, Proclus and Syrianus), Simplicius replaces Aristotle’s definition with a new definition of place as a “gathering (or uniting) measure” (metron sunagôgon), which is one of the four “measures” (number, size, place, time) or gathering powers that protect the intelligible and sensible 
entities against the dangers of the dispersion related to the procession of reality. This doctrine places physics in a decidedly theological perspective since, in last analysis, these uniting powers derive from the One or Good per  se. Our under­standing of this crucial text for our knowledge of the Neoplatonic philosophy of 
Nature will be improved thanks to a new critical edition (with French translation and notes), to be published soon in the collection “Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca and Byzantina” (by Walter de Gruyter) under the auspices of the Academy 
of Sciences of Bcrlin-Brandenburg. The new edition is based not only on a fresh collation of the two manuscripts used by Diels (Marciani  graeci 227 and 229) but also on a Moscow manuscript (Mosquensis Muz. 3649) unknown to the Ger­man scholar, since it belonged during the nineteenth century to a private Russian 
collection. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1321","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1321,"authors_free":[{"id":1955,"entry_id":1321,"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":2378,"entry_id":1321,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius et le \u201clieu\u201d. \u00c0 propos d\u2019une nouvelle \u00e9dition du Corollarium de loco","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius et le \u201clieu\u201d. \u00c0 propos d\u2019une nouvelle \u00e9dition du Corollarium de loco"},"abstract":"The digression labelled \u201cCorollarium de loco\u201d by Hermann Diels in his edition of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, IX, Berlin 1882) is a key text in the debate - often referred to by specialists as magna quaestio - generated by an apparent lack of consistency between Aristotle\u2019s definition of \u2018place\u2019 (topos) as \u201cthe first unmoved boundary \r\nof the surrounding body\u201d (Phys. IV, 4, 212 a 20-21) and his assertion that the Heaven moves in a circle while not being \u2018somewhere\u2019, since it is not surrounded by any body that would be exterior to it. Following the steps of his master Damascius, and at the end of a long discussion initiated by Neoplatonists after Plotinus (principally by Iamblichus, Proclus and Syrianus), Simplicius replaces Aristotle\u2019s definition with a new definition of place as a \u201cgathering (or uniting) measure\u201d (metron sunag\u00f4gon), which is one of the four \u201cmeasures\u201d (number, size, place, time) or gathering powers that protect the intelligible and sensible \r\nentities against the dangers of the dispersion related to the procession of reality. This doctrine places physics in a decidedly theological perspective since, in last analysis, these uniting powers derive from the One or Good per se. Our under\u00adstanding of this crucial text for our knowledge of the Neoplatonic philosophy of \r\nNature will be improved thanks to a new critical edition (with French translation and notes), to be published soon in the collection \u201cCommentaria in Aristotelem Graeca and Byzantina\u201d (by Walter de Gruyter) under the auspices of the Academy \r\nof Sciences of Bcrlin-Brandenburg. The new edition is based not only on a fresh collation of the two manuscripts used by Diels (Marciani graeci 227 and 229) but also on a Moscow manuscript (Mosquensis Muz. 3649) unknown to the Ger\u00adman scholar, since it belonged during the nineteenth century to a private Russian \r\ncollection. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VYauzSK0KjIWDqk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1321,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue des \u00c9tudes Grecques ","volume":"127","issue":"1","pages":"119-175"}},"sort":["Simplicius et le \u201clieu\u201d. \u00c0 propos d\u2019une nouvelle \u00e9dition du Corollarium de loco"]}

Un commentaire perpétuel de Georges Pachymère à la Physique d'Aristote, faussement attribué à Michel Psellos, 2007
By: Golitsis, Pantelis
Title Un commentaire perpétuel de Georges Pachymère à la Physique d'Aristote, faussement attribué à Michel Psellos
Type Article
Language French
Date 2007
Journal Byzantinische Zeitschrift
Volume 100
Issue 2
Pages 637-676
Categories no categories
Author(s) Golitsis, Pantelis
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Récapitulons lessentiel des raisonnements philologiques qui nous ont permis de restituer le véritable auteur du commentaire, qui dorénavant doit être attribué à Georges Pachymère. Nous avons vu que l'ensemble de la tradition
manuscrite qui attribue le commentaire à Psellos descend d'un ancêtre commun, l'Ambrosianus H 44 sup., écrit à la fin du XIVe siècle. Celui-ci remonte pourtant à un archétype, écrit vers l'an 1300 et aujourdhui perdu (l'Escori-
alensis D. IV. 24), dans lequel le commentaire figurait sous le nom de Pachymère, ainsi que nous avons pu le montrer grâce au Vindobonensis phil. gr. 248 et à des témoignages du XVIe siècle. Cet archétype de l'ensemble de la tradition
manuscrite du commentaire a été copié sur le Laurentianus plut. 87,5, autographe stricto sensu de Pachymère, dont il se servait pour assurer son enseignement de la Physique. [conclusion, p. 676]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"536","_score":null,"_source":{"id":536,"authors_free":[{"id":758,"entry_id":536,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"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}}],"entry_title":"Un commentaire perp\u00e9tuel de Georges Pachym\u00e8re \u00e0 la Physique d'Aristote, faussement attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 Michel Psellos","main_title":{"title":"Un commentaire perp\u00e9tuel de Georges Pachym\u00e8re \u00e0 la Physique d'Aristote, faussement attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 Michel Psellos"},"abstract":"R\u00e9capitulons l\u001dessentiel des raisonnements philologiques qui nous ont permis de restituer le v\u00e9ritable auteur du commentaire, qui dor\u00e9navant doit \u00eatre attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 Georges Pachym\u00e8re. Nous avons vu que l\u001d'ensemble de la tradition\r\nmanuscrite qui attribue le commentaire \u00e0 Psellos descend d'\u001dun anc\u00eatre commun, l'\u001dAmbrosianus H 44 sup., \u00e9crit \u00e0 la fin du XIVe si\u00e8cle. Celui-ci remonte pourtant \u00e0 un arch\u00e9type, \u00e9crit vers l\u001d'an 1300 et aujourd\u001dhui perdu (l\u001d'Escori-\r\nalensis D. IV. 24), dans lequel le commentaire figurait sous le nom de Pachym\u00e8re, ainsi que nous avons pu le montrer gr\u00e2ce au Vindobonensis phil. gr. 248 et \u00e0 des t\u00e9moignages du XVIe si\u00e8cle. Cet arch\u00e9type de l\u001d'ensemble de la tradition\r\nmanuscrite du commentaire a \u00e9t\u00e9 copi\u00e9 sur le Laurentianus plut. 87,5, autographe stricto sensu de Pachym\u00e8re, dont il se servait pour assurer son enseignement de la Physique. [conclusion, p. 676]","btype":3,"date":"2007","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RuATZsvpBh8r0qp","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":536,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Byzantinische Zeitschrift ","volume":"100","issue":"2","pages":"637-676"}},"sort":["Un commentaire perp\u00e9tuel de Georges Pachym\u00e8re \u00e0 la Physique d'Aristote, faussement attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 Michel Psellos"]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1