| Title | Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic Interpretation of the ‘Categories’ |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1987 |
| Published in | Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie |
| Pages | 955-974 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Strange, Steven, K. |
| Editor(s) | Haase, Wolfgang |
| Translator(s) |
| The claim is often made that the most extensive of Plotinus’ treatises, On the Genera of Being (Περὶ τῶν γενῶν τοῦ ὄντος, Enn. VI.1-3), contains a polemical attack on Aristotle’s theory of categories. This claim would seem to be well-grounded, given that in the first part of the work (VI.1.1–24), Plotinus proceeds through the list of categories given by Aristotle and systematically raises a series of powerful objections to claims Aristotle makes about them in the text of the Categories. At the same time, Plotinus’ student Porphyry is rightly given credit for establishing Aristotle's Categories, along with the rest of the Aristotelian logical treatises usually referred to as the Organon, as the fundamental texts for logical doctrines in the Neoplatonic scholastic tradition, and through this tradition later for medieval philosophy, by means of his Isagoge or introduction to the Categories and his commentaries on that work. Taken together, these two propositions tend to give the impression that there was deep and substantive disagreement between master and pupil about the value of the theory found in the Categories. This impression is reinforced by the implication in the introduction to the extant commentaries on the Categories of Dexippus (5.1–12) and Simplicius (2.3–8) that Porphyry, in the massive commentary on the Categories which he dedicated to Gedalius, probably one of his students, replied in detail to Plotinus’ objections against the Categories. Indeed, in Porphyry’s extant catechism-commentary and throughout Dexippus’ and Simplicius’ commentaries, both of which seem to be following closely either Porphyry’s lost To Gedalius or Iamblichus’ lost commentary, itself based on To Gedalius, we can see Porphyry doing precisely this. Moreover, it is clear from the text of Simplicius that many of the objections Plotinus raises against the Categories in On the Genera of Being he got from a work or works of Lucius and Nicostratus, who were certainly hostile to Aristotle. Nevertheless, I am convinced that this simple way of putting the matter is more than a little misleading: it both misrepresents the nature and originality of Porphyry’s contribution to the history of logic and metaphysics and distorts our view of the fundamental Neoplatonic problem of the relationship between Plato and Aristotle. My purpose in the following essay will be to try to sharpen the statement of the historical situation by examining some of the connections between Porphyry’s interpretation of the Categories and Plotinus’ discussion of the problem of the nature of the categories, especially the category of substance, in On the Genera of Being. I will be suggesting that Plotinus’ and Porphyry’s attitudes toward the Categories are much closer to one another than has previously been supposed, and that in particular Porphyry’s position on the nature of categories has been deeply influenced by Plotinus’ arguments. The consequence of this is that Plotinus ought to be accorded a much more prominent place than he standardly has been in the history of the Neoplatonic interpretation of Aristotle, in which the problem of the proper interpretation of the Categories plays an important role. My discussion will fall into four parts. In the next section, I will look at some of the more important features of Porphyry’s interpretation of the Categories that enabled him to downplay the evidently anti-Platonic metaphysical elements that the work contains and to turn it into a basic textbook of logic for his revived school-Platonism. Here, I will be relying heavily upon an important and seminal paper by A. C. Lloyd. Then I will turn to the main arguments that Plotinus employs against what was in his day the standard interpretation of Aristotle’s Categories, and their implications for his view of the nature of that work and its relation to Platonism. In the final section of the paper, we will be able to see some important connections between Plotinus’ position and Porphyry’s which throw light on the metaphysical issues connected with the important Neoplatonic thesis of the fundamental harmony of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. [introduction p. 955-957] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AVNTI4tBsipTJL7 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1151","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1151,"authors_free":[{"id":1726,"entry_id":1151,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":324,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Strange, Steven, K.","free_first_name":"Steven, K.","free_last_name":"Strange","norm_person":{"id":324,"first_name":"Steven K.","last_name":"Strange","full_name":"Strange, Steven K.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/111772655X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2412,"entry_id":1151,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":325,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","free_first_name":"Wolfgang","free_last_name":"Haase","norm_person":{"id":325,"first_name":"Wolfgang","last_name":"Haase","full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117757527","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic Interpretation of the \u2018Categories\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic Interpretation of the \u2018Categories\u2019"},"abstract":"The claim is often made that the most extensive of Plotinus\u2019 treatises, On the Genera of Being (\u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, Enn. VI.1-3), contains a polemical attack on Aristotle\u2019s theory of categories. This claim would seem to be well-grounded, given that in the first part of the work (VI.1.1\u201324), Plotinus proceeds through the list of categories given by Aristotle and systematically raises a series of powerful objections to claims Aristotle makes about them in the text of the Categories.\r\n\r\nAt the same time, Plotinus\u2019 student Porphyry is rightly given credit for establishing Aristotle's Categories, along with the rest of the Aristotelian logical treatises usually referred to as the Organon, as the fundamental texts for logical doctrines in the Neoplatonic scholastic tradition, and through this tradition later for medieval philosophy, by means of his Isagoge or introduction to the Categories and his commentaries on that work. Taken together, these two propositions tend to give the impression that there was deep and substantive disagreement between master and pupil about the value of the theory found in the Categories.\r\n\r\nThis impression is reinforced by the implication in the introduction to the extant commentaries on the Categories of Dexippus (5.1\u201312) and Simplicius (2.3\u20138) that Porphyry, in the massive commentary on the Categories which he dedicated to Gedalius, probably one of his students, replied in detail to Plotinus\u2019 objections against the Categories. Indeed, in Porphyry\u2019s extant catechism-commentary and throughout Dexippus\u2019 and Simplicius\u2019 commentaries, both of which seem to be following closely either Porphyry\u2019s lost To Gedalius or Iamblichus\u2019 lost commentary, itself based on To Gedalius, we can see Porphyry doing precisely this.\r\n\r\nMoreover, it is clear from the text of Simplicius that many of the objections Plotinus raises against the Categories in On the Genera of Being he got from a work or works of Lucius and Nicostratus, who were certainly hostile to Aristotle. Nevertheless, I am convinced that this simple way of putting the matter is more than a little misleading: it both misrepresents the nature and originality of Porphyry\u2019s contribution to the history of logic and metaphysics and distorts our view of the fundamental Neoplatonic problem of the relationship between Plato and Aristotle.\r\n\r\nMy purpose in the following essay will be to try to sharpen the statement of the historical situation by examining some of the connections between Porphyry\u2019s interpretation of the Categories and Plotinus\u2019 discussion of the problem of the nature of the categories, especially the category of substance, in On the Genera of Being. I will be suggesting that Plotinus\u2019 and Porphyry\u2019s attitudes toward the Categories are much closer to one another than has previously been supposed, and that in particular Porphyry\u2019s position on the nature of categories has been deeply influenced by Plotinus\u2019 arguments.\r\n\r\nThe consequence of this is that Plotinus ought to be accorded a much more prominent place than he standardly has been in the history of the Neoplatonic interpretation of Aristotle, in which the problem of the proper interpretation of the Categories plays an important role.\r\n\r\nMy discussion will fall into four parts. In the next section, I will look at some of the more important features of Porphyry\u2019s interpretation of the Categories that enabled him to downplay the evidently anti-Platonic metaphysical elements that the work contains and to turn it into a basic textbook of logic for his revived school-Platonism. Here, I will be relying heavily upon an important and seminal paper by A. C. Lloyd.\r\n\r\nThen I will turn to the main arguments that Plotinus employs against what was in his day the standard interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories, and their implications for his view of the nature of that work and its relation to Platonism.\r\n\r\nIn the final section of the paper, we will be able to see some important connections between Plotinus\u2019 position and Porphyry\u2019s which throw light on the metaphysical issues connected with the important Neoplatonic thesis of the fundamental harmony of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. [introduction p. 955-957]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AVNTI4tBsipTJL7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":324,"full_name":"Strange, Steven K.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":325,"full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1151,"section_of":335,"pages":"955-974","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":335,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aufstieg und Niedergang der r\u00f6mischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Haase1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"AUFSTIEG UND NIEDERGANG DER R\u00d6MISCHEN WELT (ANRW) ist ein internationales Gemeinschaftswerk historischer Wissenschaften. Seine Aufgabe besteht darin, alle wichtigen Aspekte der antiken r\u00f6mischen Welt sowie ihres Fortwirkens und Nachlebens in Mittelalter und Neuzeit nach dem gegenw\u00e4rtigen Stand der Forschung in Einzelbeitr\u00e4gen zu behandeln. Das Werk ist in 3 Teile gegliedert:\r\nI. Von den Anf\u00e4ngen Roms bis zum Ausgang der Republik\r\nII. Principat\r\nIII. Sp\u00e4tantike\r\nJeder der drei Teile umfa\u00dft sechs systematische Rubriken, zwischen denen es vielfache \u00dcberschneidungen gibt: 1. Politische Geschichte, 2. Recht, 3. Religion, 4. Sprache und Literatur, 5. Philosophie und Wissenschaften, 6. K\u00fcnste.\r\n\r\nANRW ist ein handbuchartiges \u00dcbersichtswerk zu den r\u00f6mischen Studien im weitesten Sinne, mit Einschlu\u00df der Rezeptions- und Wirkungsgeschichte bis in die Gegenwart. Bei den Beitr\u00e4gen handelt es sich entweder um zusammenfassende Darstellungen mit Bibliographie oder um Problem- und Forschungsberichte bzw. thematisch breit angelegte exemplarische Untersuchungen. Die Artikel erscheinen in deutscher, englischer, franz\u00f6sischer oder italienischer Sprache.\r\n\r\nZum Mitarbeiterstab geh\u00f6ren rund 1000 Gelehrte aus 35 L\u00e4ndern. Der Vielfalt der Themen entsprechend geh\u00f6ren die Autoren haupts\u00e4chlich folgenden Fachrichtungen an: Alte, Mittelalterliche und Neue Geschichte; Byzantinistik, Slavistik; Klassische, Mittellateinische, Romanische und Orientalische Philologie; Klassische, Orientalische und Christliche Arch\u00e4ologie und Kunstgeschichte; Rechtswissenschaft; Religionswissenschaft und Theologie, besonders Kirchengeschichte und Patristik.\r\n\r\nIn Vorbereitung sind:\r\nTeil II, Bd. 26,4: Religion - Vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Neues Testament - Sachthemen, Fortsetzung\r\nTeil II, Bd. 37,4: Wissenschaften: Medizin und Biologie, Fortsetzung. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vkva8h1vt1Po53c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":335,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
| Title | Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1987 |
| Published in | Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie |
| Pages | 1079-1174 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gottschalk, Hans B. |
| Editor(s) | Haase, Wolfgang , Temporini, Hildegard |
| Translator(s) |
| It is time to place our findings in a wider perspective. The propagation of Aristotelianism in the first two centuries AD seems to have taken place at several levels. For the committed student, there was the study and exposition of Aristotle’s school treatises. Much sound and lasting work was done in this field, but it seems to have been confined to a fairly restricted circle, although some contributions were made by members of other schools or by those, like Galen, who did not tie themselves to any school at all, as well as by professed Aristotelians. For a wider audience, there were compilations and handbooks purveying Aristotle’s doctrines in a more accessible form and the 'exoteric’ writings of Aristotle and his pupils, which continued to circulate in this period; the impression sometimes given that they were driven out of circulation as soon as Andronicus made the school treatises available is seriously misleading. Lastly, there was an immense production of sub-philosophical tracts, like the pseudo-Pythagorean writings, which might include some Aristotelian ideas but always diluted and heavily contaminated with others of a different origin. We may ignore the third of these, which contributed little or nothing to the development of Aristotelianism as such. Historians naturally concentrate on the first, which so profoundly influenced the subsequent tradition, but it would be a mistake to neglect the second entirely. The eminent men of affairs who professed themselves followers of Aristotle will not have been motivated by a passionate belief in the priority of the categorical over the hypothetical syllogism or the eternity of the physical universe. What Aristotelianism had to offer them was a view of the world and a reasoned set of ethical beliefs that avoided the mechanism and hedonism of the Epicureans, the determinism and rigorism of the Stoics, and the other-worldliness of Platonism; and this is more or less what we find in the popular writings influenced by Aristotle’s philosophy, whether composed by members of the school or by outsiders like Plutarch. However we rate the philosophical value of this side of the school’s activity, it undoubtedly helped to establish its position in society and the claim of its members to publicly funded teaching posts and the other privileges accorded to philosophers. This dualism entered into the popular image of the school and was believed to go back to its very beginnings. Lucian, in a well-known passage, describes the Peripatetic as the thinker with two philosophies, the 'exoteric’ and the 'esoteric,’ to offer, and according to Aulus Gellius, Aristotle used to give rigorous courses for specialists in the morning and more popular ones in the afternoon. The diffusion of this view in the literature of the second century AD suggests that it accurately reflected the conditions of the time, but this does not mean that we need doubt its historical truth. Gellius’ source was probably Andronicus, who is quoted later in the same chapter; the distinction between 'esoteric’ (or 'acroamatic’) and 'exoteric’ writings is already found in Cicero, who probably had it from Antiochus of Ascalon, and Aristotle himself refers to the 'exoteric’ works in the extant treatises. The history of the Hellenistic Peripatos is, to a large extent, one of the tension between these tendencies in the work of the school. The same continuity is found in the school’s teaching, especially at the popular level. The dialogues and handbooks read in the Hellenistic age continued in use, and the opinions about the school and its beliefs current among outsiders in the first two centuries AD hardly differed from those of the Ciceronian age. At the more specialized level, Andronicus’ edition made a new start in the study of Aristotle’s writings, but his way of presenting Aristotle’s philosophy was a legitimate extension of the work of Theophrastus and Eudemus. Even the freedom with which he and his immediate followers suggested the need for changes in details imitated the practice of the first generation of Peripatetics. There is one difference, however. The early Peripatetics not only expounded Aristotle’s philosophy but tried to extend its scope by independent study of the natural world and human behavior. The absence of this element from the work of Andronicus and those who came after him resulted in the growth of the book-centered scholasticism we meet in the Imperial age. All this is not to say that the popular and scholarly traditions were isolated from one another. The popular books and lectures of professed Peripatetics were meant to give a true outline of the philosophy developed fully in the school treatises, and even some of the pseudo-Pythagorean books contain material clearly derived from the extant pragmateiai, at however many removes; a few of them, notably the pseudo-Archytean reworkings of the Categories, reflect a stage in their understanding that can be clearly defined and connected with the names of known commentators. On the other hand, some of the commentaries on Aristotle’s pragmateiai seem to have originated in elementary lecture courses, and this may account for the superficiality of some of their contents. The specialized work of the school was based on the exegesis of Aristotle’s writings. In this field, its members developed a high degree of competence, and its influence is not exhausted even today, but the thrust of their interpretation was very different from that of the modern historian of philosophy. Their aim was to present Aristotle’s philosophy as a system and to elucidate his doctrines; they were less interested in the character of his arguments and not at all in the origin and growth of his ideas. New developments of his teaching took one of two directions. On the one hand, real or apparent discrepancies in Aristotle’s writings had to be explained. This was part of exegesis and subordinated to the systematic tendency of the school (we find no genetic explanations); some of the difficulties raised were of a kind that would only be felt by elementary students, and clearly much attention was paid to their needs. But there are real loose ends in Aristotle’s work, which his followers tried to tie up as best they could. Secondly, new problems had arisen in the course of philosophical debate in the period since Aristotle’s death, which Aristotle had not discussed or only in a marginal way; the question of Fate and Providence is the most notable instance. Here there was a constant tension between the implications of the problem and the requirements of orthodoxy, and progress was limited. On the whole, orthodoxy prevailed, backed up by polemics against rival viewpoints. At this point, we can observe a rigidity that inhibited the further development of Aristotelianism and may explain its failure to resist the encroachment of Platonism. We have already seen that many Aristotelian ideas, including the whole of his logic and a good part of his metaphysics, natural philosophy, and ethics, were taken over by Platonists from the first century onwards. In spite of some opposition, from Plotinus as well as lesser figures, this process continued until all Aristotelian doctrines that could be brought into conformity with Platonic principles were incorporated into the developed Neoplatonic systems. As this happened, Aristotelianism ceased to exist as an independent philosophy. There is a Protean quality about Platonism that has allowed it at various times to absorb alien ideas without losing its essential character, perhaps precisely because its fundamental insights were not tied to a fixed system. Aristotelianism, in the systematic form it had acquired, lacked this flexibility. It was well suited to the enlightened atmosphere of the first two centuries AD but could no longer meet the needs, especially the religious aspirations, of the centuries that followed. But it could offer the Platonists something they lacked—a ready-made set of components for building their own system. Many of the parts proved more durable than the whole; they constituted the Erkenntnisse, in N. Hartmann’s sense of the word, of Aristotle’s thinking. Within the new framework, Aristotle’s leading ideas retained their vigor, and Aristotle became what, by and large, he has remained ever since: the philosopher’s philosopher. [conclusion p. 1172-1174] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/FPwm868kRTy5Ier |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1332","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1332,"authors_free":[{"id":1965,"entry_id":1332,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":135,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","free_first_name":"Hans B.","free_last_name":"Gottschalk","norm_person":{"id":135,"first_name":"Hans B.","last_name":"Gottschalk","full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1161498559","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2382,"entry_id":1332,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":325,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","free_first_name":"Wolfgang","free_last_name":"Haase","norm_person":{"id":325,"first_name":"Wolfgang","last_name":"Haase","full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117757527","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2383,"entry_id":1332,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":453,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Temporini, Hildegard","free_first_name":"Hildegard","free_last_name":"Temporini","norm_person":{"id":453,"first_name":"Hildegard","last_name":"Temporini","full_name":"Temporini, Hildegard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117754013","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD","main_title":{"title":"Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD"},"abstract":"It is time to place our findings in a wider perspective. The propagation of Aristotelianism in the first two centuries AD seems to have taken place at several levels. For the committed student, there was the study and exposition of Aristotle\u2019s school treatises. Much sound and lasting work was done in this field, but it seems to have been confined to a fairly restricted circle, although some contributions were made by members of other schools or by those, like Galen, who did not tie themselves to any school at all, as well as by professed Aristotelians. For a wider audience, there were compilations and handbooks purveying Aristotle\u2019s doctrines in a more accessible form and the 'exoteric\u2019 writings of Aristotle and his pupils, which continued to circulate in this period; the impression sometimes given that they were driven out of circulation as soon as Andronicus made the school treatises available is seriously misleading. Lastly, there was an immense production of sub-philosophical tracts, like the pseudo-Pythagorean writings, which might include some Aristotelian ideas but always diluted and heavily contaminated with others of a different origin.\r\n\r\nWe may ignore the third of these, which contributed little or nothing to the development of Aristotelianism as such. Historians naturally concentrate on the first, which so profoundly influenced the subsequent tradition, but it would be a mistake to neglect the second entirely. The eminent men of affairs who professed themselves followers of Aristotle will not have been motivated by a passionate belief in the priority of the categorical over the hypothetical syllogism or the eternity of the physical universe. What Aristotelianism had to offer them was a view of the world and a reasoned set of ethical beliefs that avoided the mechanism and hedonism of the Epicureans, the determinism and rigorism of the Stoics, and the other-worldliness of Platonism; and this is more or less what we find in the popular writings influenced by Aristotle\u2019s philosophy, whether composed by members of the school or by outsiders like Plutarch. However we rate the philosophical value of this side of the school\u2019s activity, it undoubtedly helped to establish its position in society and the claim of its members to publicly funded teaching posts and the other privileges accorded to philosophers.\r\n\r\nThis dualism entered into the popular image of the school and was believed to go back to its very beginnings. Lucian, in a well-known passage, describes the Peripatetic as the thinker with two philosophies, the 'exoteric\u2019 and the 'esoteric,\u2019 to offer, and according to Aulus Gellius, Aristotle used to give rigorous courses for specialists in the morning and more popular ones in the afternoon. The diffusion of this view in the literature of the second century AD suggests that it accurately reflected the conditions of the time, but this does not mean that we need doubt its historical truth. Gellius\u2019 source was probably Andronicus, who is quoted later in the same chapter; the distinction between 'esoteric\u2019 (or 'acroamatic\u2019) and 'exoteric\u2019 writings is already found in Cicero, who probably had it from Antiochus of Ascalon, and Aristotle himself refers to the 'exoteric\u2019 works in the extant treatises. The history of the Hellenistic Peripatos is, to a large extent, one of the tension between these tendencies in the work of the school.\r\n\r\nThe same continuity is found in the school\u2019s teaching, especially at the popular level. The dialogues and handbooks read in the Hellenistic age continued in use, and the opinions about the school and its beliefs current among outsiders in the first two centuries AD hardly differed from those of the Ciceronian age. At the more specialized level, Andronicus\u2019 edition made a new start in the study of Aristotle\u2019s writings, but his way of presenting Aristotle\u2019s philosophy was a legitimate extension of the work of Theophrastus and Eudemus. Even the freedom with which he and his immediate followers suggested the need for changes in details imitated the practice of the first generation of Peripatetics.\r\n\r\nThere is one difference, however. The early Peripatetics not only expounded Aristotle\u2019s philosophy but tried to extend its scope by independent study of the natural world and human behavior. The absence of this element from the work of Andronicus and those who came after him resulted in the growth of the book-centered scholasticism we meet in the Imperial age.\r\n\r\nAll this is not to say that the popular and scholarly traditions were isolated from one another. The popular books and lectures of professed Peripatetics were meant to give a true outline of the philosophy developed fully in the school treatises, and even some of the pseudo-Pythagorean books contain material clearly derived from the extant pragmateiai, at however many removes; a few of them, notably the pseudo-Archytean reworkings of the Categories, reflect a stage in their understanding that can be clearly defined and connected with the names of known commentators. On the other hand, some of the commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s pragmateiai seem to have originated in elementary lecture courses, and this may account for the superficiality of some of their contents.\r\n\r\nThe specialized work of the school was based on the exegesis of Aristotle\u2019s writings. In this field, its members developed a high degree of competence, and its influence is not exhausted even today, but the thrust of their interpretation was very different from that of the modern historian of philosophy. Their aim was to present Aristotle\u2019s philosophy as a system and to elucidate his doctrines; they were less interested in the character of his arguments and not at all in the origin and growth of his ideas.\r\n\r\nNew developments of his teaching took one of two directions. On the one hand, real or apparent discrepancies in Aristotle\u2019s writings had to be explained. This was part of exegesis and subordinated to the systematic tendency of the school (we find no genetic explanations); some of the difficulties raised were of a kind that would only be felt by elementary students, and clearly much attention was paid to their needs. But there are real loose ends in Aristotle\u2019s work, which his followers tried to tie up as best they could. Secondly, new problems had arisen in the course of philosophical debate in the period since Aristotle\u2019s death, which Aristotle had not discussed or only in a marginal way; the question of Fate and Providence is the most notable instance. Here there was a constant tension between the implications of the problem and the requirements of orthodoxy, and progress was limited. On the whole, orthodoxy prevailed, backed up by polemics against rival viewpoints.\r\n\r\nAt this point, we can observe a rigidity that inhibited the further development of Aristotelianism and may explain its failure to resist the encroachment of Platonism. We have already seen that many Aristotelian ideas, including the whole of his logic and a good part of his metaphysics, natural philosophy, and ethics, were taken over by Platonists from the first century onwards. In spite of some opposition, from Plotinus as well as lesser figures, this process continued until all Aristotelian doctrines that could be brought into conformity with Platonic principles were incorporated into the developed Neoplatonic systems. As this happened, Aristotelianism ceased to exist as an independent philosophy.\r\n\r\nThere is a Protean quality about Platonism that has allowed it at various times to absorb alien ideas without losing its essential character, perhaps precisely because its fundamental insights were not tied to a fixed system. Aristotelianism, in the systematic form it had acquired, lacked this flexibility. It was well suited to the enlightened atmosphere of the first two centuries AD but could no longer meet the needs, especially the religious aspirations, of the centuries that followed. But it could offer the Platonists something they lacked\u2014a ready-made set of components for building their own system. Many of the parts proved more durable than the whole; they constituted the Erkenntnisse, in N. Hartmann\u2019s sense of the word, of Aristotle\u2019s thinking. Within the new framework, Aristotle\u2019s leading ideas retained their vigor, and Aristotle became what, by and large, he has remained ever since: the philosopher\u2019s philosopher.\r\n[conclusion p. 1172-1174]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FPwm868kRTy5Ier","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":135,"full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":325,"full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":453,"full_name":"Temporini, Hildegard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1332,"section_of":335,"pages":"1079-1174","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":335,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aufstieg und Niedergang der r\u00f6mischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Haase1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"AUFSTIEG UND NIEDERGANG DER R\u00d6MISCHEN WELT (ANRW) ist ein internationales Gemeinschaftswerk historischer Wissenschaften. Seine Aufgabe besteht darin, alle wichtigen Aspekte der antiken r\u00f6mischen Welt sowie ihres Fortwirkens und Nachlebens in Mittelalter und Neuzeit nach dem gegenw\u00e4rtigen Stand der Forschung in Einzelbeitr\u00e4gen zu behandeln. Das Werk ist in 3 Teile gegliedert:\r\nI. Von den Anf\u00e4ngen Roms bis zum Ausgang der Republik\r\nII. Principat\r\nIII. Sp\u00e4tantike\r\nJeder der drei Teile umfa\u00dft sechs systematische Rubriken, zwischen denen es vielfache \u00dcberschneidungen gibt: 1. Politische Geschichte, 2. Recht, 3. Religion, 4. Sprache und Literatur, 5. Philosophie und Wissenschaften, 6. K\u00fcnste.\r\n\r\nANRW ist ein handbuchartiges \u00dcbersichtswerk zu den r\u00f6mischen Studien im weitesten Sinne, mit Einschlu\u00df der Rezeptions- und Wirkungsgeschichte bis in die Gegenwart. Bei den Beitr\u00e4gen handelt es sich entweder um zusammenfassende Darstellungen mit Bibliographie oder um Problem- und Forschungsberichte bzw. thematisch breit angelegte exemplarische Untersuchungen. Die Artikel erscheinen in deutscher, englischer, franz\u00f6sischer oder italienischer Sprache.\r\n\r\nZum Mitarbeiterstab geh\u00f6ren rund 1000 Gelehrte aus 35 L\u00e4ndern. Der Vielfalt der Themen entsprechend geh\u00f6ren die Autoren haupts\u00e4chlich folgenden Fachrichtungen an: Alte, Mittelalterliche und Neue Geschichte; Byzantinistik, Slavistik; Klassische, Mittellateinische, Romanische und Orientalische Philologie; Klassische, Orientalische und Christliche Arch\u00e4ologie und Kunstgeschichte; Rechtswissenschaft; Religionswissenschaft und Theologie, besonders Kirchengeschichte und Patristik.\r\n\r\nIn Vorbereitung sind:\r\nTeil II, Bd. 26,4: Religion - Vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Neues Testament - Sachthemen, Fortsetzung\r\nTeil II, Bd. 37,4: Wissenschaften: Medizin und Biologie, Fortsetzung. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vkva8h1vt1Po53c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":335,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
| Title | Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1987 |
| Published in | Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie |
| Pages | 1079-1174 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gottschalk, Hans B. |
| Editor(s) | Haase, Wolfgang , Temporini, Hildegard |
| Translator(s) |
It is time to place our findings in a wider perspective. The propagation of Aristotelianism in the first two centuries AD seems to have taken place at several levels. For the committed student, there was the study and exposition of Aristotle’s school treatises. Much sound and lasting work was done in this field, but it seems to have been confined to a fairly restricted circle, although some contributions were made by members of other schools or by those, like Galen, who did not tie themselves to any school at all, as well as by professed Aristotelians. For a wider audience, there were compilations and handbooks purveying Aristotle’s doctrines in a more accessible form and the 'exoteric’ writings of Aristotle and his pupils, which continued to circulate in this period; the impression sometimes given that they were driven out of circulation as soon as Andronicus made the school treatises available is seriously misleading. Lastly, there was an immense production of sub-philosophical tracts, like the pseudo-Pythagorean writings, which might include some Aristotelian ideas but always diluted and heavily contaminated with others of a different origin. We may ignore the third of these, which contributed little or nothing to the development of Aristotelianism as such. Historians naturally concentrate on the first, which so profoundly influenced the subsequent tradition, but it would be a mistake to neglect the second entirely. The eminent men of affairs who professed themselves followers of Aristotle will not have been motivated by a passionate belief in the priority of the categorical over the hypothetical syllogism or the eternity of the physical universe. What Aristotelianism had to offer them was a view of the world and a reasoned set of ethical beliefs that avoided the mechanism and hedonism of the Epicureans, the determinism and rigorism of the Stoics, and the other-worldliness of Platonism; and this is more or less what we find in the popular writings influenced by Aristotle’s philosophy, whether composed by members of the school or by outsiders like Plutarch. However we rate the philosophical value of this side of the school’s activity, it undoubtedly helped to establish its position in society and the claim of its members to publicly funded teaching posts and the other privileges accorded to philosophers. This dualism entered into the popular image of the school and was believed to go back to its very beginnings. Lucian, in a well-known passage, describes the Peripatetic as the thinker with two philosophies, the 'exoteric’ and the 'esoteric,’ to offer, and according to Aulus Gellius, Aristotle used to give rigorous courses for specialists in the morning and more popular ones in the afternoon. The diffusion of this view in the literature of the second century AD suggests that it accurately reflected the conditions of the time, but this does not mean that we need doubt its historical truth. Gellius’ source was probably Andronicus, who is quoted later in the same chapter; the distinction between 'esoteric’ (or 'acroamatic’) and 'exoteric’ writings is already found in Cicero, who probably had it from Antiochus of Ascalon, and Aristotle himself refers to the 'exoteric’ works in the extant treatises. The history of the Hellenistic Peripatos is, to a large extent, one of the tension between these tendencies in the work of the school. The same continuity is found in the school’s teaching, especially at the popular level. The dialogues and handbooks read in the Hellenistic age continued in use, and the opinions about the school and its beliefs current among outsiders in the first two centuries AD hardly differed from those of the Ciceronian age. At the more specialized level, Andronicus’ edition made a new start in the study of Aristotle’s writings, but his way of presenting Aristotle’s philosophy was a legitimate extension of the work of Theophrastus and Eudemus. Even the freedom with which he and his immediate followers suggested the need for changes in details imitated the practice of the first generation of Peripatetics. There is one difference, however. The early Peripatetics not only expounded Aristotle’s philosophy but tried to extend its scope by independent study of the natural world and human behavior. The absence of this element from the work of Andronicus and those who came after him resulted in the growth of the book-centered scholasticism we meet in the Imperial age. All this is not to say that the popular and scholarly traditions were isolated from one another. The popular books and lectures of professed Peripatetics were meant to give a true outline of the philosophy developed fully in the school treatises, and even some of the pseudo-Pythagorean books contain material clearly derived from the extant pragmateiai, at however many removes; a few of them, notably the pseudo-Archytean reworkings of the Categories, reflect a stage in their understanding that can be clearly defined and connected with the names of known commentators. On the other hand, some of the commentaries on Aristotle’s pragmateiai seem to have originated in elementary lecture courses, and this may account for the superficiality of some of their contents. The specialized work of the school was based on the exegesis of Aristotle’s writings. In this field, its members developed a high degree of competence, and its influence is not exhausted even today, but the thrust of their interpretation was very different from that of the modern historian of philosophy. Their aim was to present Aristotle’s philosophy as a system and to elucidate his doctrines; they were less interested in the character of his arguments and not at all in the origin and growth of his ideas. New developments of his teaching took one of two directions. On the one hand, real or apparent discrepancies in Aristotle’s writings had to be explained. This was part of exegesis and subordinated to the systematic tendency of the school (we find no genetic explanations); some of the difficulties raised were of a kind that would only be felt by elementary students, and clearly much attention was paid to their needs. But there are real loose ends in Aristotle’s work, which his followers tried to tie up as best they could. Secondly, new problems had arisen in the course of philosophical debate in the period since Aristotle’s death, which Aristotle had not discussed or only in a marginal way; the question of Fate and Providence is the most notable instance. Here there was a constant tension between the implications of the problem and the requirements of orthodoxy, and progress was limited. On the whole, orthodoxy prevailed, backed up by polemics against rival viewpoints. At this point, we can observe a rigidity that inhibited the further development of Aristotelianism and may explain its failure to resist the encroachment of Platonism. We have already seen that many Aristotelian ideas, including the whole of his logic and a good part of his metaphysics, natural philosophy, and ethics, were taken over by Platonists from the first century onwards. In spite of some opposition, from Plotinus as well as lesser figures, this process continued until all Aristotelian doctrines that could be brought into conformity with Platonic principles were incorporated into the developed Neoplatonic systems. As this happened, Aristotelianism ceased to exist as an independent philosophy. There is a Protean quality about Platonism that has allowed it at various times to absorb alien ideas without losing its essential character, perhaps precisely because its fundamental insights were not tied to a fixed system. Aristotelianism, in the systematic form it had acquired, lacked this flexibility. It was well suited to the enlightened atmosphere of the first two centuries AD but could no longer meet the needs, especially the religious aspirations, of the centuries that followed. But it could offer the Platonists something they lacked—a ready-made set of components for building their own system. Many of the parts proved more durable than the whole; they constituted the Erkenntnisse, in N. Hartmann’s sense of the word, of Aristotle’s thinking. Within the new framework, Aristotle’s leading ideas retained their vigor, and Aristotle became what, by and large, he has remained ever since: the philosopher’s philosopher. [conclusion p. 1172-1174] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/FPwm868kRTy5Ier |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1332","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1332,"authors_free":[{"id":1965,"entry_id":1332,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":135,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","free_first_name":"Hans B.","free_last_name":"Gottschalk","norm_person":{"id":135,"first_name":"Hans B.","last_name":"Gottschalk","full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1161498559","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2382,"entry_id":1332,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":325,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","free_first_name":"Wolfgang","free_last_name":"Haase","norm_person":{"id":325,"first_name":"Wolfgang","last_name":"Haase","full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117757527","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2383,"entry_id":1332,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":453,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Temporini, Hildegard","free_first_name":"Hildegard","free_last_name":"Temporini","norm_person":{"id":453,"first_name":"Hildegard","last_name":"Temporini","full_name":"Temporini, Hildegard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117754013","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD","main_title":{"title":"Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD"},"abstract":"It is time to place our findings in a wider perspective. The propagation of Aristotelianism in the first two centuries AD seems to have taken place at several levels. For the committed student, there was the study and exposition of Aristotle\u2019s school treatises. Much sound and lasting work was done in this field, but it seems to have been confined to a fairly restricted circle, although some contributions were made by members of other schools or by those, like Galen, who did not tie themselves to any school at all, as well as by professed Aristotelians. For a wider audience, there were compilations and handbooks purveying Aristotle\u2019s doctrines in a more accessible form and the 'exoteric\u2019 writings of Aristotle and his pupils, which continued to circulate in this period; the impression sometimes given that they were driven out of circulation as soon as Andronicus made the school treatises available is seriously misleading. Lastly, there was an immense production of sub-philosophical tracts, like the pseudo-Pythagorean writings, which might include some Aristotelian ideas but always diluted and heavily contaminated with others of a different origin.\r\n\r\nWe may ignore the third of these, which contributed little or nothing to the development of Aristotelianism as such. Historians naturally concentrate on the first, which so profoundly influenced the subsequent tradition, but it would be a mistake to neglect the second entirely. The eminent men of affairs who professed themselves followers of Aristotle will not have been motivated by a passionate belief in the priority of the categorical over the hypothetical syllogism or the eternity of the physical universe. What Aristotelianism had to offer them was a view of the world and a reasoned set of ethical beliefs that avoided the mechanism and hedonism of the Epicureans, the determinism and rigorism of the Stoics, and the other-worldliness of Platonism; and this is more or less what we find in the popular writings influenced by Aristotle\u2019s philosophy, whether composed by members of the school or by outsiders like Plutarch. However we rate the philosophical value of this side of the school\u2019s activity, it undoubtedly helped to establish its position in society and the claim of its members to publicly funded teaching posts and the other privileges accorded to philosophers.\r\n\r\nThis dualism entered into the popular image of the school and was believed to go back to its very beginnings. Lucian, in a well-known passage, describes the Peripatetic as the thinker with two philosophies, the 'exoteric\u2019 and the 'esoteric,\u2019 to offer, and according to Aulus Gellius, Aristotle used to give rigorous courses for specialists in the morning and more popular ones in the afternoon. The diffusion of this view in the literature of the second century AD suggests that it accurately reflected the conditions of the time, but this does not mean that we need doubt its historical truth. Gellius\u2019 source was probably Andronicus, who is quoted later in the same chapter; the distinction between 'esoteric\u2019 (or 'acroamatic\u2019) and 'exoteric\u2019 writings is already found in Cicero, who probably had it from Antiochus of Ascalon, and Aristotle himself refers to the 'exoteric\u2019 works in the extant treatises. The history of the Hellenistic Peripatos is, to a large extent, one of the tension between these tendencies in the work of the school.\r\n\r\nThe same continuity is found in the school\u2019s teaching, especially at the popular level. The dialogues and handbooks read in the Hellenistic age continued in use, and the opinions about the school and its beliefs current among outsiders in the first two centuries AD hardly differed from those of the Ciceronian age. At the more specialized level, Andronicus\u2019 edition made a new start in the study of Aristotle\u2019s writings, but his way of presenting Aristotle\u2019s philosophy was a legitimate extension of the work of Theophrastus and Eudemus. Even the freedom with which he and his immediate followers suggested the need for changes in details imitated the practice of the first generation of Peripatetics.\r\n\r\nThere is one difference, however. The early Peripatetics not only expounded Aristotle\u2019s philosophy but tried to extend its scope by independent study of the natural world and human behavior. The absence of this element from the work of Andronicus and those who came after him resulted in the growth of the book-centered scholasticism we meet in the Imperial age.\r\n\r\nAll this is not to say that the popular and scholarly traditions were isolated from one another. The popular books and lectures of professed Peripatetics were meant to give a true outline of the philosophy developed fully in the school treatises, and even some of the pseudo-Pythagorean books contain material clearly derived from the extant pragmateiai, at however many removes; a few of them, notably the pseudo-Archytean reworkings of the Categories, reflect a stage in their understanding that can be clearly defined and connected with the names of known commentators. On the other hand, some of the commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s pragmateiai seem to have originated in elementary lecture courses, and this may account for the superficiality of some of their contents.\r\n\r\nThe specialized work of the school was based on the exegesis of Aristotle\u2019s writings. In this field, its members developed a high degree of competence, and its influence is not exhausted even today, but the thrust of their interpretation was very different from that of the modern historian of philosophy. Their aim was to present Aristotle\u2019s philosophy as a system and to elucidate his doctrines; they were less interested in the character of his arguments and not at all in the origin and growth of his ideas.\r\n\r\nNew developments of his teaching took one of two directions. On the one hand, real or apparent discrepancies in Aristotle\u2019s writings had to be explained. This was part of exegesis and subordinated to the systematic tendency of the school (we find no genetic explanations); some of the difficulties raised were of a kind that would only be felt by elementary students, and clearly much attention was paid to their needs. But there are real loose ends in Aristotle\u2019s work, which his followers tried to tie up as best they could. Secondly, new problems had arisen in the course of philosophical debate in the period since Aristotle\u2019s death, which Aristotle had not discussed or only in a marginal way; the question of Fate and Providence is the most notable instance. Here there was a constant tension between the implications of the problem and the requirements of orthodoxy, and progress was limited. On the whole, orthodoxy prevailed, backed up by polemics against rival viewpoints.\r\n\r\nAt this point, we can observe a rigidity that inhibited the further development of Aristotelianism and may explain its failure to resist the encroachment of Platonism. We have already seen that many Aristotelian ideas, including the whole of his logic and a good part of his metaphysics, natural philosophy, and ethics, were taken over by Platonists from the first century onwards. In spite of some opposition, from Plotinus as well as lesser figures, this process continued until all Aristotelian doctrines that could be brought into conformity with Platonic principles were incorporated into the developed Neoplatonic systems. As this happened, Aristotelianism ceased to exist as an independent philosophy.\r\n\r\nThere is a Protean quality about Platonism that has allowed it at various times to absorb alien ideas without losing its essential character, perhaps precisely because its fundamental insights were not tied to a fixed system. Aristotelianism, in the systematic form it had acquired, lacked this flexibility. It was well suited to the enlightened atmosphere of the first two centuries AD but could no longer meet the needs, especially the religious aspirations, of the centuries that followed. But it could offer the Platonists something they lacked\u2014a ready-made set of components for building their own system. Many of the parts proved more durable than the whole; they constituted the Erkenntnisse, in N. Hartmann\u2019s sense of the word, of Aristotle\u2019s thinking. Within the new framework, Aristotle\u2019s leading ideas retained their vigor, and Aristotle became what, by and large, he has remained ever since: the philosopher\u2019s philosopher.\r\n[conclusion p. 1172-1174]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FPwm868kRTy5Ier","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":135,"full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":325,"full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":453,"full_name":"Temporini, Hildegard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1332,"section_of":335,"pages":"1079-1174","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":335,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aufstieg und Niedergang der r\u00f6mischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Haase1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"AUFSTIEG UND NIEDERGANG DER R\u00d6MISCHEN WELT (ANRW) ist ein internationales Gemeinschaftswerk historischer Wissenschaften. Seine Aufgabe besteht darin, alle wichtigen Aspekte der antiken r\u00f6mischen Welt sowie ihres Fortwirkens und Nachlebens in Mittelalter und Neuzeit nach dem gegenw\u00e4rtigen Stand der Forschung in Einzelbeitr\u00e4gen zu behandeln. Das Werk ist in 3 Teile gegliedert:\r\nI. Von den Anf\u00e4ngen Roms bis zum Ausgang der Republik\r\nII. Principat\r\nIII. Sp\u00e4tantike\r\nJeder der drei Teile umfa\u00dft sechs systematische Rubriken, zwischen denen es vielfache \u00dcberschneidungen gibt: 1. Politische Geschichte, 2. Recht, 3. Religion, 4. Sprache und Literatur, 5. Philosophie und Wissenschaften, 6. K\u00fcnste.\r\n\r\nANRW ist ein handbuchartiges \u00dcbersichtswerk zu den r\u00f6mischen Studien im weitesten Sinne, mit Einschlu\u00df der Rezeptions- und Wirkungsgeschichte bis in die Gegenwart. Bei den Beitr\u00e4gen handelt es sich entweder um zusammenfassende Darstellungen mit Bibliographie oder um Problem- und Forschungsberichte bzw. thematisch breit angelegte exemplarische Untersuchungen. Die Artikel erscheinen in deutscher, englischer, franz\u00f6sischer oder italienischer Sprache.\r\n\r\nZum Mitarbeiterstab geh\u00f6ren rund 1000 Gelehrte aus 35 L\u00e4ndern. Der Vielfalt der Themen entsprechend geh\u00f6ren die Autoren haupts\u00e4chlich folgenden Fachrichtungen an: Alte, Mittelalterliche und Neue Geschichte; Byzantinistik, Slavistik; Klassische, Mittellateinische, Romanische und Orientalische Philologie; Klassische, Orientalische und Christliche Arch\u00e4ologie und Kunstgeschichte; Rechtswissenschaft; Religionswissenschaft und Theologie, besonders Kirchengeschichte und Patristik.\r\n\r\nIn Vorbereitung sind:\r\nTeil II, Bd. 26,4: Religion - Vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Neues Testament - Sachthemen, Fortsetzung\r\nTeil II, Bd. 37,4: Wissenschaften: Medizin und Biologie, Fortsetzung. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vkva8h1vt1Po53c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":335,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD"]}
| Title | Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic Interpretation of the ‘Categories’ |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1987 |
| Published in | Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie |
| Pages | 955-974 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Strange, Steven, K. |
| Editor(s) | Haase, Wolfgang |
| Translator(s) |
The claim is often made that the most extensive of Plotinus’ treatises, On the Genera of Being (Περὶ τῶν γενῶν τοῦ ὄντος, Enn. VI.1-3), contains a polemical attack on Aristotle’s theory of categories. This claim would seem to be well-grounded, given that in the first part of the work (VI.1.1–24), Plotinus proceeds through the list of categories given by Aristotle and systematically raises a series of powerful objections to claims Aristotle makes about them in the text of the Categories. At the same time, Plotinus’ student Porphyry is rightly given credit for establishing Aristotle's Categories, along with the rest of the Aristotelian logical treatises usually referred to as the Organon, as the fundamental texts for logical doctrines in the Neoplatonic scholastic tradition, and through this tradition later for medieval philosophy, by means of his Isagoge or introduction to the Categories and his commentaries on that work. Taken together, these two propositions tend to give the impression that there was deep and substantive disagreement between master and pupil about the value of the theory found in the Categories. This impression is reinforced by the implication in the introduction to the extant commentaries on the Categories of Dexippus (5.1–12) and Simplicius (2.3–8) that Porphyry, in the massive commentary on the Categories which he dedicated to Gedalius, probably one of his students, replied in detail to Plotinus’ objections against the Categories. Indeed, in Porphyry’s extant catechism-commentary and throughout Dexippus’ and Simplicius’ commentaries, both of which seem to be following closely either Porphyry’s lost To Gedalius or Iamblichus’ lost commentary, itself based on To Gedalius, we can see Porphyry doing precisely this. Moreover, it is clear from the text of Simplicius that many of the objections Plotinus raises against the Categories in On the Genera of Being he got from a work or works of Lucius and Nicostratus, who were certainly hostile to Aristotle. Nevertheless, I am convinced that this simple way of putting the matter is more than a little misleading: it both misrepresents the nature and originality of Porphyry’s contribution to the history of logic and metaphysics and distorts our view of the fundamental Neoplatonic problem of the relationship between Plato and Aristotle. My purpose in the following essay will be to try to sharpen the statement of the historical situation by examining some of the connections between Porphyry’s interpretation of the Categories and Plotinus’ discussion of the problem of the nature of the categories, especially the category of substance, in On the Genera of Being. I will be suggesting that Plotinus’ and Porphyry’s attitudes toward the Categories are much closer to one another than has previously been supposed, and that in particular Porphyry’s position on the nature of categories has been deeply influenced by Plotinus’ arguments. The consequence of this is that Plotinus ought to be accorded a much more prominent place than he standardly has been in the history of the Neoplatonic interpretation of Aristotle, in which the problem of the proper interpretation of the Categories plays an important role. My discussion will fall into four parts. In the next section, I will look at some of the more important features of Porphyry’s interpretation of the Categories that enabled him to downplay the evidently anti-Platonic metaphysical elements that the work contains and to turn it into a basic textbook of logic for his revived school-Platonism. Here, I will be relying heavily upon an important and seminal paper by A. C. Lloyd. Then I will turn to the main arguments that Plotinus employs against what was in his day the standard interpretation of Aristotle’s Categories, and their implications for his view of the nature of that work and its relation to Platonism. In the final section of the paper, we will be able to see some important connections between Plotinus’ position and Porphyry’s which throw light on the metaphysical issues connected with the important Neoplatonic thesis of the fundamental harmony of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. [introduction p. 955-957] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AVNTI4tBsipTJL7 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1151","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1151,"authors_free":[{"id":1726,"entry_id":1151,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":324,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Strange, Steven, K.","free_first_name":"Steven, K.","free_last_name":"Strange","norm_person":{"id":324,"first_name":"Steven K.","last_name":"Strange","full_name":"Strange, Steven K.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/111772655X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2412,"entry_id":1151,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":325,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","free_first_name":"Wolfgang","free_last_name":"Haase","norm_person":{"id":325,"first_name":"Wolfgang","last_name":"Haase","full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117757527","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic Interpretation of the \u2018Categories\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic Interpretation of the \u2018Categories\u2019"},"abstract":"The claim is often made that the most extensive of Plotinus\u2019 treatises, On the Genera of Being (\u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, Enn. VI.1-3), contains a polemical attack on Aristotle\u2019s theory of categories. This claim would seem to be well-grounded, given that in the first part of the work (VI.1.1\u201324), Plotinus proceeds through the list of categories given by Aristotle and systematically raises a series of powerful objections to claims Aristotle makes about them in the text of the Categories.\r\n\r\nAt the same time, Plotinus\u2019 student Porphyry is rightly given credit for establishing Aristotle's Categories, along with the rest of the Aristotelian logical treatises usually referred to as the Organon, as the fundamental texts for logical doctrines in the Neoplatonic scholastic tradition, and through this tradition later for medieval philosophy, by means of his Isagoge or introduction to the Categories and his commentaries on that work. Taken together, these two propositions tend to give the impression that there was deep and substantive disagreement between master and pupil about the value of the theory found in the Categories.\r\n\r\nThis impression is reinforced by the implication in the introduction to the extant commentaries on the Categories of Dexippus (5.1\u201312) and Simplicius (2.3\u20138) that Porphyry, in the massive commentary on the Categories which he dedicated to Gedalius, probably one of his students, replied in detail to Plotinus\u2019 objections against the Categories. Indeed, in Porphyry\u2019s extant catechism-commentary and throughout Dexippus\u2019 and Simplicius\u2019 commentaries, both of which seem to be following closely either Porphyry\u2019s lost To Gedalius or Iamblichus\u2019 lost commentary, itself based on To Gedalius, we can see Porphyry doing precisely this.\r\n\r\nMoreover, it is clear from the text of Simplicius that many of the objections Plotinus raises against the Categories in On the Genera of Being he got from a work or works of Lucius and Nicostratus, who were certainly hostile to Aristotle. Nevertheless, I am convinced that this simple way of putting the matter is more than a little misleading: it both misrepresents the nature and originality of Porphyry\u2019s contribution to the history of logic and metaphysics and distorts our view of the fundamental Neoplatonic problem of the relationship between Plato and Aristotle.\r\n\r\nMy purpose in the following essay will be to try to sharpen the statement of the historical situation by examining some of the connections between Porphyry\u2019s interpretation of the Categories and Plotinus\u2019 discussion of the problem of the nature of the categories, especially the category of substance, in On the Genera of Being. I will be suggesting that Plotinus\u2019 and Porphyry\u2019s attitudes toward the Categories are much closer to one another than has previously been supposed, and that in particular Porphyry\u2019s position on the nature of categories has been deeply influenced by Plotinus\u2019 arguments.\r\n\r\nThe consequence of this is that Plotinus ought to be accorded a much more prominent place than he standardly has been in the history of the Neoplatonic interpretation of Aristotle, in which the problem of the proper interpretation of the Categories plays an important role.\r\n\r\nMy discussion will fall into four parts. In the next section, I will look at some of the more important features of Porphyry\u2019s interpretation of the Categories that enabled him to downplay the evidently anti-Platonic metaphysical elements that the work contains and to turn it into a basic textbook of logic for his revived school-Platonism. Here, I will be relying heavily upon an important and seminal paper by A. C. Lloyd.\r\n\r\nThen I will turn to the main arguments that Plotinus employs against what was in his day the standard interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories, and their implications for his view of the nature of that work and its relation to Platonism.\r\n\r\nIn the final section of the paper, we will be able to see some important connections between Plotinus\u2019 position and Porphyry\u2019s which throw light on the metaphysical issues connected with the important Neoplatonic thesis of the fundamental harmony of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. [introduction p. 955-957]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AVNTI4tBsipTJL7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":324,"full_name":"Strange, Steven K.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":325,"full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1151,"section_of":335,"pages":"955-974","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":335,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aufstieg und Niedergang der r\u00f6mischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Haase1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"AUFSTIEG UND NIEDERGANG DER R\u00d6MISCHEN WELT (ANRW) ist ein internationales Gemeinschaftswerk historischer Wissenschaften. Seine Aufgabe besteht darin, alle wichtigen Aspekte der antiken r\u00f6mischen Welt sowie ihres Fortwirkens und Nachlebens in Mittelalter und Neuzeit nach dem gegenw\u00e4rtigen Stand der Forschung in Einzelbeitr\u00e4gen zu behandeln. Das Werk ist in 3 Teile gegliedert:\r\nI. Von den Anf\u00e4ngen Roms bis zum Ausgang der Republik\r\nII. Principat\r\nIII. Sp\u00e4tantike\r\nJeder der drei Teile umfa\u00dft sechs systematische Rubriken, zwischen denen es vielfache \u00dcberschneidungen gibt: 1. Politische Geschichte, 2. Recht, 3. Religion, 4. Sprache und Literatur, 5. Philosophie und Wissenschaften, 6. K\u00fcnste.\r\n\r\nANRW ist ein handbuchartiges \u00dcbersichtswerk zu den r\u00f6mischen Studien im weitesten Sinne, mit Einschlu\u00df der Rezeptions- und Wirkungsgeschichte bis in die Gegenwart. Bei den Beitr\u00e4gen handelt es sich entweder um zusammenfassende Darstellungen mit Bibliographie oder um Problem- und Forschungsberichte bzw. thematisch breit angelegte exemplarische Untersuchungen. Die Artikel erscheinen in deutscher, englischer, franz\u00f6sischer oder italienischer Sprache.\r\n\r\nZum Mitarbeiterstab geh\u00f6ren rund 1000 Gelehrte aus 35 L\u00e4ndern. Der Vielfalt der Themen entsprechend geh\u00f6ren die Autoren haupts\u00e4chlich folgenden Fachrichtungen an: Alte, Mittelalterliche und Neue Geschichte; Byzantinistik, Slavistik; Klassische, Mittellateinische, Romanische und Orientalische Philologie; Klassische, Orientalische und Christliche Arch\u00e4ologie und Kunstgeschichte; Rechtswissenschaft; Religionswissenschaft und Theologie, besonders Kirchengeschichte und Patristik.\r\n\r\nIn Vorbereitung sind:\r\nTeil II, Bd. 26,4: Religion - Vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Neues Testament - Sachthemen, Fortsetzung\r\nTeil II, Bd. 37,4: Wissenschaften: Medizin und Biologie, Fortsetzung. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vkva8h1vt1Po53c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":335,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic Interpretation of the \u2018Categories\u2019"]}