Simplicius Research Environment

Author

BY DATE
BY TITLE

Conflicting Authorities? Hermias and Simplicius on the Self-Moving Soul, 2021
By: Aerts, Saskia, Erler, Michael (Ed.), Heßler, Jan Erik (Ed.), Petrucci, Federico Maria (Ed.)

Title	Conflicting Authorities? Hermias and Simplicius on the Self-Moving Soul
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2021
Published in	Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition
Pages	178-200
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Aerts, Saskia
Editor(s)	Erler, Michael , Heßler, Jan Erik , Petrucci, Federico Maria
Translator(s)

Aristotle plays a highly authoritative role in Neoplatonic philosophy, second only to the almost undisputed authority of Plato. However, as any reader of Plato’s and Aristotle’s works knows, the views of the two philosophers often diverge and generate conflicts. These conflicts provide the Neoplatonic commentators with a serious interpretative challenge: although, as Platonists, their main goal is to defend Plato and the Platonist position, they are also hesitant to openly criticize Aristotle, who is regarded as a true adherent of Plato’s philosophy. The commentators most prominently face such a challenge in the case of the self-moving soul, a core Platonic doctrine severely criticized by Aristotle, implicitly in Physics 8.5 and explicitly in De anima 1.3. The key to dealing with these conflicting authorities lies in the exegetical act of explicating the ‘harmony’ that exists between the views of both philosophers. This approach relies on the idea that the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle are fundamentally in agreement, which comes to the surface when their texts are interpreted in the right way. ‘Harmony’ translates the Greek symphōnia, a term most notably used in this technical meaning by Simplicius.¹ However, the term ‘harmony’ is problematic because it does not identify any absolute concept— instead, it can refer to any kind of agreement, ranging from mere compatibility to theoretical identity. What is more, the operative concept of harmony employed by modern scholars often bears the same ambiguity as its ancient counterpart.² Most studies do not reflect on the polysemy of the term, and the notion of harmony used is not always well defined, which may lead to pointless debates on terminological matters.³ Moreover, the danger of overemphasizing the unity of this ‘harmonizing tendency,’ as I. Hadot calls it, lies in failing to take proper account of the diversity of the commentators’ approaches.⁴ In this paper, I will present two parallel Neoplatonic discussions of the apparent disagreement between Plato and Aristotle about the self-moving soul, namely those of Hermias of Alexandria in his commentary on Plato’s Phaedrus and Simplicius of Cilicia in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics.⁵ Since both philosophers ultimately argue that there is agreement between Aristotle and Plato, I will elucidate (i) what specific kind of ‘harmony’ each of the commentators assumes, (ii) what reasons each provides for supposing such a harmony, and (iii) which exegetical methods they use to explicate this harmony. The harmonizing interpretations of Hermias and Simplicius on this issue have been discussed previously by S. Gertz, who claims that both commentators similarly argue that the disagreement between Plato and Aristotle is ‘merely verbal, motivated by respect for the common usage of names.’⁶ Although I agree that this is the kind of harmony that Simplicius assumes, my interpretation of Hermias’ discussion differs from the one proposed by Gertz. Despite some evident similarities in their approaches, I will suggest that Hermias defends a much less radical form of harmony than Simplicius: whereas Simplicius claims that the views of Plato and Aristotle are verbally different but philosophically identical, Hermias only intends to show that Aristotle would have to approve of the self-moving soul to remain faithful to and consistent with his own doctrines. In addition to showing the individuality of these commentators’ approaches in dealing with conflicting authorities, my analysis also aims at elucidating why it is so important for the commentators to defend the self-motion of the soul. As will become clear, the concept of self-motion is not only crucial in Neoplatonic psychology but also indispensable in their explanation of physical motion. [introduction p. 178-180]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/SGsawecaEHSN9gD

Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition, 2021
By: Erler, Michael (Ed.), Heßler, Jan Erik (Ed.), Petrucci, Federico Maria (Ed.)

Title	Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2021
Publication Place	Cambridge – New York
Publisher	Cambridge University Press
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Erler, Michael , Heßler, Jan Erik , Petrucci, Federico Maria
Translator(s)

All disciplines can count on a noble founder, and the representation of this founder as an authority is key in order to construe a discipline's identity. This book sheds light on how Plato and other authorities were represented in one of the most long-lasting traditions of all time. It leads the reader through exegesis and polemics, recovery of the past and construction of a philosophical identity. From Xenocrates to Proclus, from the sceptical shift to the re-establishment of dogmatism, from the Mosaic of the Philosophers to the Neoplatonist Commentaries, the construction of authority emerges as a way of access to the core of the Platonist tradition. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/unoSzgVP7XRBEus

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1474","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1474,"authors_free":[{"id":2553,"entry_id":1474,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":164,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Erler, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Erler","norm_person":{"id":164,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Erler","full_name":"Erler, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122153847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2554,"entry_id":1474,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":478,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"He\u00dfler, Jan Erik","free_first_name":"Jan Erik","free_last_name":"He\u00dfler","norm_person":{"id":478,"first_name":"Jan Erik","last_name":"He\u00dfler","full_name":"He\u00dfler, Jan Erik","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1059760533","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2555,"entry_id":1474,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":544,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Petrucci, Federico Maria","free_first_name":"Federico Maria","free_last_name":"Petrucci","norm_person":{"id":544,"first_name":"Federico Maria","last_name":"Petrucci","full_name":"Petrucci, Federico Maria","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1027675344","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition","main_title":{"title":"Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition"},"abstract":"All disciplines can count on a noble founder, and the representation of this founder as an authority is key in order to construe a discipline's identity. This book sheds light on how Plato and other authorities were represented in one of the most long-lasting traditions of all time. It leads the reader through exegesis and polemics, recovery of the past and construction of a philosophical identity. From Xenocrates to Proclus, from the sceptical shift to the re-establishment of dogmatism, from the Mosaic of the Philosophers to the Neoplatonist Commentaries, the construction of authority emerges as a way of access to the core of the Platonist tradition. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/unoSzgVP7XRBEus","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":164,"full_name":"Erler, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":478,"full_name":"He\u00dfler, Jan Erik","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":544,"full_name":"Petrucci, Federico Maria","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1474,"pubplace":" Cambridge \u2013 New York","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2021]}

Surface Reading and Deeper Meaning. On Aristotle reading Plato and Platonists reading Aristotle, 2013
By: Steel, Carlos, Erler, Michael (Ed.), Heßler, Jan Erik (Ed.), Blumenfelder, Benedikt (Collaborator) (Ed.)

Title	Surface Reading and Deeper Meaning. On Aristotle reading Plato and Platonists reading Aristotle
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2013
Published in	Argument und literarische Form in antiker Philosophie. Akten des 3. Kongresses der Gesellschaft für antike Philosophie 2010
Pages	469-494
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Steel, Carlos
Editor(s)	Erler, Michael , Heßler, Jan Erik , Blumenfelder, Benedikt (Collaborator)
Translator(s)

We are here together to discuss various forms of philosophy in antiquity. There is a surprising variety of literary genres of philosophy so different from the narrow academic format of proceedings, handbooks, and referred journal articles. Already among the works of Aristotle, as the commentators noticed, there is a great variety, and Aristotle always adapted his style to the genre: dialogues, letters, protreptics, documentation works, research discussions, treatises on ethics and politics aiming at a broader public. And if we take the whole literary production of ancient philosophy, the variety is even more impressive. Besides the treatises and commentaries, the summaries and paraphrases, refutations and replies, the handbooks, manuals, and doxographies, there are dialogues and diatribes and orations, letters and catechisms with sentences to be set in practice, epigraphical posters in public city galleries, philosophical poems and political pamphlets, revelations of Hermes Trismegistos, Chaldean oracles, and we must include the manifold Jewish and Christian interpretations of biblical texts, sermons, and theological polemics. They all require other ways of reading and interpreting. The title of this introductory lecture does not mean that I would recommend us to seek for deeper meaning hidden under the many literary forms. It was undoubtedly a very influential hermeneutical model, in particular when combined with the esoteric/exoteric distinction. But in my view, it remains primarily a model for interpreting mythical and sacred texts and, since the secularization of sacred hermeneutics, for reading “challenging literary texts.” It is not a method for the interpretation of philosophical texts, where analysis, insight into the structure of arguments, questioning, and criticism are required. To play with a well-known quote from Thoreau: “In this part of the world (i.e., in philosophy), it is considered a ground for complaint if a man’s writings admit of more than one interpretation.” This refusal of a search for deeper meaning in philosophy, however, does not mean that we should remain just superficial readers, surfing on the text. Let us use all the possibilities we have, including attention to the literary context, to better understand the argument of the author. To avoid the impression that I am finally agreeing with Aristotle against Plato, let me conclude with a remarkable statement of Plato in the Phaedo. It comes from the crucial section of the debate where Socrates starts his critique of Simmias’ argument that the soul is the harmony of the body and will disappear once the substrate is destroyed. All participants are deeply impressed by the harmony argument, and there is an uneasy silence, as they thought it was a fatal blow to Socrates’ belief in immortality, but Socrates is not impressed. He confronts Simmias with a difficult choice: If you stick to the harmony doctrine, you will have to give up the other doctrine you just accepted, because it is incompatible with the harmony thesis, namely that all knowledge is recollection. What will you keep then, Simmias, this new theory or the former you already accepted? Simmias answers without hesitation that he would stand by the anamnesis doctrine. For this other (sc. the doctrine that the soul is like a harmony) came to me without demonstration; it merely seemed probable and attractive, which is the reason why many people hold it. I am conscious that arguments which base their demonstrations on mere probability are deceptive, and if we are not on our guard against them, they deceive us greatly, in geometry and in all other things. When commenting on this passage, Damascius, the last head of the Platonic Academy in Athens, distinguishes between what he calls superficial (ἐπιπόλαιοι) and profound (βαθύτεροι) thinkers, but not in any esoteric sense. Superficial thinkers, he says, “find pleasure in plausible arguments,” based on analogies and comparisons, metaphors. That is why the analogy of the soul with the harmony of the lyre is so attractive. “The more profound thinkers, who scorn the world of senses and its ready-at-hand (πρόχειρον) beliefs, rise above plausibilities and love arguments that are connected by necessity.” In this sense, I would also like to be a ‘profound’ reader ... alas, there arises again a problem. The doctrine that, according to Socrates, is supposedly demonstrated by sound, almost geometrical arguments, and not by analogy, as the rejected harmony thesis, is itself based on analogy and metaphor. For, Aristotle, sitting in this hall, would stand up and say: “What do you mean, Socrates, by that anamnesis? Is it not a metaphor and poetical phrase?” [conclusion p. 490-492]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3r4OKQesOkyPwb0

PAGE 1 OF 1

Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition, 2021
By: Erler, Michael (Ed.), Heßler, Jan Erik (Ed.), Petrucci, Federico Maria (Ed.)

Title	Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition
Type	Edited Book
Language	English
Date	2021
Publication Place	Cambridge – New York
Publisher	Cambridge University Press
Categories	no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s)	Erler, Michael , Heßler, Jan Erik , Petrucci, Federico Maria
Translator(s)

All disciplines can count on a noble founder, and the representation of this founder as an authority is key in order to construe a discipline's identity. This book sheds light on how Plato and other authorities were represented in one of the most long-lasting traditions of all time. It leads the reader through exegesis and polemics, recovery of the past and construction of a philosophical identity. From Xenocrates to Proclus, from the sceptical shift to the re-establishment of dogmatism, from the Mosaic of the Philosophers to the Neoplatonist Commentaries, the construction of authority emerges as a way of access to the core of the Platonist tradition. [author's abstract]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/unoSzgVP7XRBEus

Conflicting Authorities? Hermias and Simplicius on the Self-Moving Soul, 2021
By: Aerts, Saskia, Erler, Michael (Ed.), Heßler, Jan Erik (Ed.), Petrucci, Federico Maria (Ed.)

Title	Conflicting Authorities? Hermias and Simplicius on the Self-Moving Soul
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2021
Published in	Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition
Pages	178-200
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Aerts, Saskia
Editor(s)	Erler, Michael , Heßler, Jan Erik , Petrucci, Federico Maria
Translator(s)

Aristotle plays a highly authoritative role in Neoplatonic philosophy, second only to the almost undisputed authority of Plato. However, as any reader of Plato’s and Aristotle’s works knows, the views of the two philosophers often diverge and generate conflicts. These conflicts provide the Neoplatonic commentators with a serious interpretative challenge: although, as Platonists, their main goal is to defend Plato and the Platonist position, they are also hesitant to openly criticize Aristotle, who is regarded as a true adherent of Plato’s philosophy. The commentators most prominently face such a challenge in the case of the self-moving soul, a core Platonic doctrine severely criticized by Aristotle, implicitly in Physics 8.5 and explicitly in De anima 1.3.

The key to dealing with these conflicting authorities lies in the exegetical act of explicating the ‘harmony’ that exists between the views of both philosophers. This approach relies on the idea that the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle are fundamentally in agreement, which comes to the surface when their texts are interpreted in the right way. ‘Harmony’ translates the Greek symphōnia, a term most notably used in this technical meaning by Simplicius.¹ However, the term ‘harmony’ is problematic because it does not identify any absolute concept— instead, it can refer to any kind of agreement, ranging from mere compatibility to theoretical identity. What is more, the operative concept of harmony employed by modern scholars often bears the same ambiguity as its ancient counterpart.² Most studies do not reflect on the polysemy of the term, and the notion of harmony used is not always well defined, which may lead to pointless debates on terminological matters.³ Moreover, the danger of overemphasizing the unity of this ‘harmonizing tendency,’ as I. Hadot calls it, lies in failing to take proper account of the diversity of the commentators’ approaches.⁴

In this paper, I will present two parallel Neoplatonic discussions of the apparent disagreement between Plato and Aristotle about the self-moving soul, namely those of Hermias of Alexandria in his commentary on Plato’s Phaedrus and Simplicius of Cilicia in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics.⁵ Since both philosophers ultimately argue that there is agreement between Aristotle and Plato, I will elucidate (i) what specific kind of ‘harmony’ each of the commentators assumes, (ii) what reasons each provides for supposing such a harmony, and (iii) which exegetical methods they use to explicate this harmony.

The harmonizing interpretations of Hermias and Simplicius on this issue have been discussed previously by S. Gertz, who claims that both commentators similarly argue that the disagreement between Plato and Aristotle is ‘merely verbal, motivated by respect for the common usage of names.’⁶ Although I agree that this is the kind of harmony that Simplicius assumes, my interpretation of Hermias’ discussion differs from the one proposed by Gertz. Despite some evident similarities in their approaches, I will suggest that Hermias defends a much less radical form of harmony than Simplicius: whereas Simplicius claims that the views of Plato and Aristotle are verbally different but philosophically identical, Hermias only intends to show that Aristotle would have to approve of the self-moving soul to remain faithful to and consistent with his own doctrines.

In addition to showing the individuality of these commentators’ approaches in dealing with conflicting authorities, my analysis also aims at elucidating why it is so important for the commentators to defend the self-motion of the soul. As will become clear, the concept of self-motion is not only crucial in Neoplatonic psychology but also indispensable in their explanation of physical motion. [introduction p. 178-180]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/SGsawecaEHSN9gD

Title	Surface Reading and Deeper Meaning. On Aristotle reading Plato and Platonists reading Aristotle
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2013
Published in	Argument und literarische Form in antiker Philosophie. Akten des 3. Kongresses der Gesellschaft für antike Philosophie 2010
Pages	469-494
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Steel, Carlos
Editor(s)	Erler, Michael , Heßler, Jan Erik , Blumenfelder, Benedikt (Collaborator)
Translator(s)

And if we take the whole literary production of ancient philosophy, the variety is even more impressive. Besides the treatises and commentaries, the summaries and paraphrases, refutations and replies, the handbooks, manuals, and doxographies, there are dialogues and diatribes and orations, letters and catechisms with sentences to be set in practice, epigraphical posters in public city galleries, philosophical poems and political pamphlets, revelations of Hermes Trismegistos, Chaldean oracles, and we must include the manifold Jewish and Christian interpretations of biblical texts, sermons, and theological polemics. They all require other ways of reading and interpreting.

The title of this introductory lecture does not mean that I would recommend us to seek for deeper meaning hidden under the many literary forms. It was undoubtedly a very influential hermeneutical model, in particular when combined with the esoteric/exoteric distinction. But in my view, it remains primarily a model for interpreting mythical and sacred texts and, since the secularization of sacred hermeneutics, for reading “challenging literary texts.” It is not a method for the interpretation of philosophical texts, where analysis, insight into the structure of arguments, questioning, and criticism are required.

To play with a well-known quote from Thoreau: “In this part of the world (i.e., in philosophy), it is considered a ground for complaint if a man’s writings admit of more than one interpretation.” This refusal of a search for deeper meaning in philosophy, however, does not mean that we should remain just superficial readers, surfing on the text. Let us use all the possibilities we have, including attention to the literary context, to better understand the argument of the author.

To avoid the impression that I am finally agreeing with Aristotle against Plato, let me conclude with a remarkable statement of Plato in the Phaedo. It comes from the crucial section of the debate where Socrates starts his critique of Simmias’ argument that the soul is the harmony of the body and will disappear once the substrate is destroyed.

All participants are deeply impressed by the harmony argument, and there is an uneasy silence, as they thought it was a fatal blow to Socrates’ belief in immortality, but Socrates is not impressed. He confronts Simmias with a difficult choice: If you stick to the harmony doctrine, you will have to give up the other doctrine you just accepted, because it is incompatible with the harmony thesis, namely that all knowledge is recollection. What will you keep then, Simmias, this new theory or the former you already accepted? Simmias answers without hesitation that he would stand by the anamnesis doctrine.

For this other (sc. the doctrine that the soul is like a harmony) came to me without demonstration; it merely seemed probable and attractive, which is the reason why many people hold it. I am conscious that arguments which base their demonstrations on mere probability are deceptive, and if we are not on our guard against them, they deceive us greatly, in geometry and in all other things.

When commenting on this passage, Damascius, the last head of the Platonic Academy in Athens, distinguishes between what he calls superficial (ἐπιπόλαιοι) and profound (βαθύτεροι) thinkers, but not in any esoteric sense. Superficial thinkers, he says, “find pleasure in plausible arguments,” based on analogies and comparisons, metaphors. That is why the analogy of the soul with the harmony of the lyre is so attractive. “The more profound thinkers, who scorn the world of senses and its ready-at-hand (πρόχειρον) beliefs, rise above plausibilities and love arguments that are connected by necessity.”

In this sense, I would also like to be a ‘profound’ reader ... alas, there arises again a problem. The doctrine that, according to Socrates, is supposedly demonstrated by sound, almost geometrical arguments, and not by analogy, as the rejected harmony thesis, is itself based on analogy and metaphor.

For, Aristotle, sitting in this hall, would stand up and say: “What do you mean, Socrates, by that anamnesis? Is it not a metaphor and poetical phrase?” [conclusion p. 490-492]

Online Resources

https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3r4OKQesOkyPwb0

PAGE 1 OF 1