| Title | Parmenide neoplatonico: intorno a un nuovo studio sulla presenza di Parmenide nel commento alla Fisica di Simplicio (Book discussion of: Ivan A. Licciardi, Parmenide tràdito, Parmenide tradìto nel commentario di Simplicio alla Fisica di Aristotele (Symbolon 42), Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag, 2016) |
| Type | Article |
| Language | Italian |
| Date | 2017 |
| Journal | Méthexis |
| Volume | 29 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 188-198 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hoine, Pieter d’ |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In conclusione, mi permetto ancora alcune osservazioni sulla forma di quest’opera. Benché Simplicio apprezzi la laconicità (cioè la famosa brachylogia) degli antichi, credo che nessuno abbia mai pensato che il commentatore tenti di imitarla. Anzi, i suoi commentari sono caratterizzati da una certa prolissità e da ripetizioni che non sempre sono necessitate da bisogni esegetici. Per di più, il filo conduttore delle sue analisi è spesso interrotto da discussioni dossografiche o da digressioni che sono sì interessanti, ma non sempre pertinenti all’esegesi del testo in considerazione. Temo che anche il commentario di Ivan Licciardi non sia del tutto privo di queste imperfezioni. Inoltre, penso che alcune scelte formali – come quella di presentare il greco non a fronte della traduzione, ma piuttosto di seguito, e quella di non usare note nella parte del commentario – non abbiano contribuito a rendere più facile la navigazione attraverso le ricche informazioni che questo libro offre. Sotto questi aspetti, il libro ha l’impronta di un’opera prima, ma va detto che nella sua premessa l’autore stesso se ne mostra ben conscio (p. 19). Esprimendo queste riserve, non ho l’intenzione di ridurre i meriti di questo studio né di sollevare dubbi sul contributo dato da questo libro alla nostra comprensione dei temi discussi. Il merito di questo libro è soprattutto quello di aver consentito una migliore comprensione del contesto storico e filosofico in cui e delle ragioni per cui Simplicio ci ha trasmesso Parmenide. Anche se questo libro può aiutare gli studiosi dei presocratici a contestualizzare la loro stessa interpretazione del filosofo di Elea, è soprattutto agli studi neoplatonici che l’autore contribuisce. Infatti, il Parmenide di Simplicio è innanzitutto un Parmenide neoplatonico. Il senso storico e critico moderno fanno sì che noi non abbiamo più a nostra disposizione quella chiave ermeneutica neoplatonica che consiste nel riferire contraddizioni apparenti a diversi piani della realtà presenti solo implicitamente nel pensiero degli autori che studiamo. Il nostro obiettivo non è più quello di difendere la fondamentale unità del pensiero antico contro i cristiani né quello di mostrare la verità eternamente infallibile del platonismo. Diversamente, pensiamo che sia più sensato rintracciare non solo i punti di accordo, ma anche le discordanze e le discontinuità nella storia del pensiero, in cui lo stesso Simplicio merita una posizione di rilievo. L’interpretazione simpliciana di Parmenide ha sì ‘salvato’ parecchie linee del Poema dall’oblio, ma il prezzo che l’Eleate ha pagato è stato quello di essere stato forzato, nelle parole di Licciardi, in una ‘griglia concettuale totalmente estranea alla logica del Poema’ (p. 43). L’ironia di questa vicenda è che sia stato proprio l’intento di Simplicio di coltivare l’amicizia con tutti i filosofi pagani ad averlo spinto, in fin dei conti, a tradire tutti. [conclusion p. 197-198] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AZQTPKFglABgm9k |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1484","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1484,"authors_free":[{"id":2569,"entry_id":1484,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":104,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoine, Pieter d\u2019","free_first_name":"Pieter d\u2019","free_last_name":"Hoine","norm_person":{"id":104,"first_name":"Pieter d' ","last_name":"Hoine","full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051361575","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parmenide neoplatonico: intorno a un nuovo studio sulla presenza di Parmenide nel commento alla Fisica di Simplicio (Book discussion of: Ivan A. Licciardi, Parmenide tr\u00e0dito, Parmenide trad\u00ecto nel commentario di Simplicio alla Fisica di Aristotele (Symbolon 42), Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag, 2016)","main_title":{"title":"Parmenide neoplatonico: intorno a un nuovo studio sulla presenza di Parmenide nel commento alla Fisica di Simplicio (Book discussion of: Ivan A. Licciardi, Parmenide tr\u00e0dito, Parmenide trad\u00ecto nel commentario di Simplicio alla Fisica di Aristotele (Symbolon 42), Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag, 2016)"},"abstract":"In conclusione, mi permetto ancora alcune osservazioni sulla forma di quest\u2019opera. Bench\u00e9 Simplicio apprezzi la laconicit\u00e0 (cio\u00e8 la famosa brachylogia) degli antichi, credo che nessuno abbia mai pensato che il commentatore tenti di imitarla. Anzi, i suoi commentari sono caratterizzati da una certa prolissit\u00e0 e da ripetizioni che non sempre sono necessitate da bisogni esegetici. Per di pi\u00f9, il filo conduttore delle sue analisi \u00e8 spesso interrotto da discussioni dossografiche o da digressioni che sono s\u00ec interessanti, ma non sempre pertinenti all\u2019esegesi del testo in considerazione.\r\n\r\nTemo che anche il commentario di Ivan Licciardi non sia del tutto privo di queste imperfezioni. Inoltre, penso che alcune scelte formali \u2013 come quella di presentare il greco non a fronte della traduzione, ma piuttosto di seguito, e quella di non usare note nella parte del commentario \u2013 non abbiano contribuito a rendere pi\u00f9 facile la navigazione attraverso le ricche informazioni che questo libro offre. Sotto questi aspetti, il libro ha l\u2019impronta di un\u2019opera prima, ma va detto che nella sua premessa l\u2019autore stesso se ne mostra ben conscio (p. 19).\r\n\r\nEsprimendo queste riserve, non ho l\u2019intenzione di ridurre i meriti di questo studio n\u00e9 di sollevare dubbi sul contributo dato da questo libro alla nostra comprensione dei temi discussi. Il merito di questo libro \u00e8 soprattutto quello di aver consentito una migliore comprensione del contesto storico e filosofico in cui e delle ragioni per cui Simplicio ci ha trasmesso Parmenide. Anche se questo libro pu\u00f2 aiutare gli studiosi dei presocratici a contestualizzare la loro stessa interpretazione del filosofo di Elea, \u00e8 soprattutto agli studi neoplatonici che l\u2019autore contribuisce.\r\n\r\nInfatti, il Parmenide di Simplicio \u00e8 innanzitutto un Parmenide neoplatonico. Il senso storico e critico moderno fanno s\u00ec che noi non abbiamo pi\u00f9 a nostra disposizione quella chiave ermeneutica neoplatonica che consiste nel riferire contraddizioni apparenti a diversi piani della realt\u00e0 presenti solo implicitamente nel pensiero degli autori che studiamo. Il nostro obiettivo non \u00e8 pi\u00f9 quello di difendere la fondamentale unit\u00e0 del pensiero antico contro i cristiani n\u00e9 quello di mostrare la verit\u00e0 eternamente infallibile del platonismo.\r\n\r\nDiversamente, pensiamo che sia pi\u00f9 sensato rintracciare non solo i punti di accordo, ma anche le discordanze e le discontinuit\u00e0 nella storia del pensiero, in cui lo stesso Simplicio merita una posizione di rilievo. L\u2019interpretazione simpliciana di Parmenide ha s\u00ec \u2018salvato\u2019 parecchie linee del Poema dall\u2019oblio, ma il prezzo che l\u2019Eleate ha pagato \u00e8 stato quello di essere stato forzato, nelle parole di Licciardi, in una \u2018griglia concettuale totalmente estranea alla logica del Poema\u2019 (p. 43).\r\n\r\nL\u2019ironia di questa vicenda \u00e8 che sia stato proprio l\u2019intento di Simplicio di coltivare l\u2019amicizia con tutti i filosofi pagani ad averlo spinto, in fin dei conti, a tradire tutti.\r\n[conclusion p. 197-198]","btype":3,"date":"2017","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AZQTPKFglABgm9k","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":104,"full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1484,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"M\u00e9thexis","volume":"29","issue":"1","pages":"188-198"}},"sort":[2017]}
| Title | Au terme d’une tradition: Simplicius, lecteur du Phédon |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2015 |
| Published in | Ancient Readings of Plato’s Phaedo |
| Pages | 293-310 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gavray, Marc-Antoine |
| Editor(s) | Delcomminette, Sylvain , Hoine, Pieter d’ , Gavray, Marc-Antoine |
| Translator(s) |
| Une qualité indéniable des Commentaires de Simplicius réside dans leur utilisation abondante de la tradition philosophique. Ils comportent de nombreuses citations des Présocratiques, des Platoniciens et des Péripatéticiens, mais surtout d’Aristote et de Platon. C’est notamment à travers cet usage des références que l’on peut mesurer l’originalité (ou la particularité) philosophique de Simplicius. Ses thèses s’élaborent au fil d’une exégèse qui croise les textes et tisse patiemment la synthèse de la culture païenne. Dès lors, c’est dans une certaine pratique de l’intertextualité que se joue sa contribution à l’histoire de la philosophie et que se dessine parfois une interprétation novatrice de certains classiques de la tradition. Or, pour autant que nous le sachions, Simplicius n’a pas écrit de commentaire sur le Phédon. En tant que membre de l’École d’Athènes, il a certes dû lire et interpréter ce dialogue, qui faisait partie du canon de lecture. Disciple de Damascius, il a peut-être même assisté à l’une (au moins) des deux séries de cours dispensées par son maître. À tout le moins, il devait en connaître l’existence et avoir pris position par rapport à une telle lecture. Aussi, pour retrouver son interprétation du Phédon, il faut emprunter un chemin détourné, en examinant les citations et allusions liées à ce dialogue à travers ses différents Commentaires. Comment surgissent ces renvois au Phédon et à quelle fin ? Dans cette étude, je souhaite poursuivre trois objectifs, tous relativement modestes. Tout d’abord, j’aimerais examiner l’apport personnel de Simplicius à l’interprétation du Phédon, par rapport à la tradition dans laquelle il s’inscrit. Ensuite, plus particulièrement, je voudrais évaluer la distance de Simplicius à l’égard des Commentaires de Damascius, afin de mesurer leur impact au sein de l’École platonicienne en exil. Enfin, et plus largement, j’espère contribuer à la compréhension de la méthode et de l’originalité de Simplicius, en tant que philosophe et commentateur. [introduction p. 1] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QqG0Y1xgt1bzrvI |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1412","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1412,"authors_free":[{"id":2206,"entry_id":1412,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","free_first_name":"Gavray","free_last_name":"Marc-Antoine","norm_person":{"id":125,"first_name":"Marc-Antoine","last_name":"Gavray","full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078511411","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2210,"entry_id":1412,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":391,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Delcomminette, Sylvain","free_first_name":"Sylvain","free_last_name":"Delcomminette","norm_person":{"id":391,"first_name":"Sylvain","last_name":"Delcomminette","full_name":"Delcomminette, Sylvain","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/142220701","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2211,"entry_id":1412,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":104,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hoine, Pieter d\u2019","free_first_name":"Pieter","free_last_name":"Hoine, d\u2019","norm_person":{"id":104,"first_name":"Pieter d' ","last_name":"Hoine","full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051361575","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2212,"entry_id":1412,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","free_first_name":"Marc-Antoine","free_last_name":"Gavray","norm_person":{"id":125,"first_name":"Marc-Antoine","last_name":"Gavray","full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078511411","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Au terme d\u2019une tradition: Simplicius, lecteur du Ph\u00e9don","main_title":{"title":"Au terme d\u2019une tradition: Simplicius, lecteur du Ph\u00e9don"},"abstract":"Une qualit\u00e9 ind\u00e9niable des Commentaires de Simplicius r\u00e9side dans leur utilisation abondante de la tradition philosophique. Ils comportent de nombreuses citations des Pr\u00e9socratiques, des Platoniciens et des P\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens, mais surtout d\u2019Aristote et de Platon. C\u2019est notamment \u00e0 travers cet usage des r\u00e9f\u00e9rences que l\u2019on peut mesurer l\u2019originalit\u00e9 (ou la particularit\u00e9) philosophique de Simplicius. Ses th\u00e8ses s\u2019\u00e9laborent au fil d\u2019une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se qui croise les textes et tisse patiemment la synth\u00e8se de la culture pa\u00efenne. D\u00e8s lors, c\u2019est dans une certaine pratique de l\u2019intertextualit\u00e9 que se joue sa contribution \u00e0 l\u2019histoire de la philosophie et que se dessine parfois une interpr\u00e9tation novatrice de certains classiques de la tradition.\r\n\r\nOr, pour autant que nous le sachions, Simplicius n\u2019a pas \u00e9crit de commentaire sur le Ph\u00e9don. En tant que membre de l\u2019\u00c9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes, il a certes d\u00fb lire et interpr\u00e9ter ce dialogue, qui faisait partie du canon de lecture. Disciple de Damascius, il a peut-\u00eatre m\u00eame assist\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019une (au moins) des deux s\u00e9ries de cours dispens\u00e9es par son ma\u00eetre. \u00c0 tout le moins, il devait en conna\u00eetre l\u2019existence et avoir pris position par rapport \u00e0 une telle lecture. Aussi, pour retrouver son interpr\u00e9tation du Ph\u00e9don, il faut emprunter un chemin d\u00e9tourn\u00e9, en examinant les citations et allusions li\u00e9es \u00e0 ce dialogue \u00e0 travers ses diff\u00e9rents Commentaires. Comment surgissent ces renvois au Ph\u00e9don et \u00e0 quelle fin ?\r\n\r\nDans cette \u00e9tude, je souhaite poursuivre trois objectifs, tous relativement modestes. Tout d\u2019abord, j\u2019aimerais examiner l\u2019apport personnel de Simplicius \u00e0 l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation du Ph\u00e9don, par rapport \u00e0 la tradition dans laquelle il s\u2019inscrit. Ensuite, plus particuli\u00e8rement, je voudrais \u00e9valuer la distance de Simplicius \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard des Commentaires de Damascius, afin de mesurer leur impact au sein de l\u2019\u00c9cole platonicienne en exil. Enfin, et plus largement, j\u2019esp\u00e8re contribuer \u00e0 la compr\u00e9hension de la m\u00e9thode et de l\u2019originalit\u00e9 de Simplicius, en tant que philosophe et commentateur. [introduction p. 1]","btype":2,"date":"2015","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QqG0Y1xgt1bzrvI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":391,"full_name":"Delcomminette, Sylvain","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":104,"full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1412,"section_of":1411,"pages":"293-310","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1411,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Readings of Plato\u2019s Phaedo","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Delcomminette_d'Hoine_Gavray2015","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2015","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Plato\u2019s Phaedo has never failed to attract the attention of philosophers and scholars. Yet the history of its reception in Antiquity has been little studied. The present volume therefore proposes to examine not only the Platonic exegetical tradition surrounding this dialogue, which culminates in the commentaries of Damascius and Olympiodorus, but also its place in the reflections of the rival Peripatetic, Stoic, and Sceptical schools.\r\nThis volume thus aims to shed light on the surviving commentaries and their sources, as well as on less familiar aspects of the history of the Phaedo\u2019s ancient reception. By doing so, it may help to clarify what ancient interpreters of Plato can and cannot offer their contemporary counterparts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/V5pyD4OzXUkorzM","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1411,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia antiqua","volume":"140","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2015]}
| Title | Ancient Readings of Plato’s Phaedo |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2015 |
| Publication Place | Leiden – Boston |
| Publisher | Brill |
| Series | Philosophia antiqua |
| Volume | 140 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Delcomminette, Sylvain , Hoine, Pieter d’ , Gavray, Marc-Antoine |
| Translator(s) |
| Plato’s Phaedo has never failed to attract the attention of philosophers and scholars. Yet the history of its reception in Antiquity has been little studied. The present volume therefore proposes to examine not only the Platonic exegetical tradition surrounding this dialogue, which culminates in the commentaries of Damascius and Olympiodorus, but also its place in the reflections of the rival Peripatetic, Stoic, and Sceptical schools. This volume thus aims to shed light on the surviving commentaries and their sources, as well as on less familiar aspects of the history of the Phaedo’s ancient reception. By doing so, it may help to clarify what ancient interpreters of Plato can and cannot offer their contemporary counterparts. [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/V5pyD4OzXUkorzM |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1411","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1411,"authors_free":[{"id":2207,"entry_id":1411,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":391,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Delcomminette, Sylvain","free_first_name":"Sylvain","free_last_name":"Delcomminette","norm_person":{"id":391,"first_name":"Sylvain","last_name":"Delcomminette","full_name":"Delcomminette, Sylvain","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/142220701","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2208,"entry_id":1411,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":104,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hoine, Pieter d\u2019","free_first_name":"Pieter","free_last_name":"Hoine, d\u2019","norm_person":{"id":104,"first_name":"Pieter d' ","last_name":"Hoine","full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051361575","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2209,"entry_id":1411,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine ","free_first_name":"Marc-Antoine ","free_last_name":"Gavray","norm_person":{"id":125,"first_name":"Marc-Antoine","last_name":"Gavray","full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078511411","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ancient Readings of Plato\u2019s Phaedo","main_title":{"title":"Ancient Readings of Plato\u2019s Phaedo"},"abstract":"Plato\u2019s Phaedo has never failed to attract the attention of philosophers and scholars. Yet the history of its reception in Antiquity has been little studied. The present volume therefore proposes to examine not only the Platonic exegetical tradition surrounding this dialogue, which culminates in the commentaries of Damascius and Olympiodorus, but also its place in the reflections of the rival Peripatetic, Stoic, and Sceptical schools.\r\nThis volume thus aims to shed light on the surviving commentaries and their sources, as well as on less familiar aspects of the history of the Phaedo\u2019s ancient reception. By doing so, it may help to clarify what ancient interpreters of Plato can and cannot offer their contemporary counterparts. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/V5pyD4OzXUkorzM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":391,"full_name":"Delcomminette, Sylvain","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":104,"full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1411,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia antiqua","volume":"140","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2015]}
| Title | Fate, providence and moral responsibility in ancient, medieval and early modern thought. Studies in honour of Carlos Steel |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2014 |
| Publication Place | Leuven |
| Publisher | Leuven University Press |
| Series | Ancient and Medieval Philosophy, Series 1 |
| Volume | 49 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Hoine, Pieter d' , Van Riel, Gerd |
| Translator(s) |
| This book forms a major contribution to the discussion on fate, providence and moral responsibility in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Early Modern times. Through 37 original papers, renowned scholars from many different countries, as well as a number of young and promising researchers, write the history of the philosophical problems of freedom and determinism since its origins in pre-socratic philosophy up to the seventeenth century. The main focus points are classic Antiquity (Plato and Aristotle), the Neoplatonic synthesis of late Antiquity (Plotinus, Proclus, Simplicius), and thirteenth-century scholasticism (Thomas Aquinas, Henry of Ghent). They do not only represent key moments in the intellectual history of the West, but are also the central figures and periods to which Carlos Steel, the dedicatary of this volume, has devoted his philosophical career. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ga4rzoji8r8swzw |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"258","_score":null,"_source":{"id":258,"authors_free":[{"id":328,"entry_id":258,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":104,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","free_first_name":"Pieter d' ","free_last_name":"Hoine","norm_person":{"id":104,"first_name":"Pieter d' ","last_name":"Hoine","full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051361575","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1943,"entry_id":258,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":105,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Van Riel, Gerd","free_first_name":"Gerd","free_last_name":"Van Riel","norm_person":{"id":105,"first_name":"Gerd ","last_name":"Van Riel","full_name":"Van Riel, Gerd ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140513264","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Fate, providence and moral responsibility in ancient, medieval and early modern thought. Studies in honour of Carlos Steel","main_title":{"title":"Fate, providence and moral responsibility in ancient, medieval and early modern thought. Studies in honour of Carlos Steel"},"abstract":"This book forms a major contribution to the discussion on fate, providence and moral responsibility in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Early Modern times. Through 37 original papers, renowned scholars from many different countries, as well as a number of young and promising researchers, write the history of the philosophical problems of freedom and determinism since its origins in pre-socratic philosophy up to the seventeenth century.\r\nThe main focus points are classic Antiquity (Plato and Aristotle), the Neoplatonic synthesis of late Antiquity (Plotinus, Proclus, Simplicius), and thirteenth-century scholasticism (Thomas Aquinas, Henry of Ghent). They do not only represent key moments in the intellectual history of the West, but are also the central figures and periods to which Carlos Steel, the dedicatary of this volume, has devoted his philosophical career. ","btype":4,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ga4rzoji8r8swzw","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":104,"full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":105,"full_name":"Van Riel, Gerd ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":258,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"Ancient and Medieval Philosophy, Series 1","volume":"49","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2014]}
| Title | When should a philosopher consult divination? Epictetus and Simplicius on fate and what is up to us |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2012 |
| Published in | Fate, providence and moral responsibility in ancient, medieval and early modern thought. Studies in honour of Carlos Steel |
| Pages | 325-340 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gabor, Gary |
| Editor(s) | Hoine, Pieter d' , Van Riel, Gerd |
| Translator(s) |
| At Enchiridion § 32, Epictetus raises the question of whether, and under what conditions, one should consult the art of divination (μαντική). Epictetus’ answer, along with Simplicius’ commentary on the passage four centuries later, provides a glimpse into late antique conceptions of fate, providence, and human responsi-bility. While united in a general acceptance of divination as an authentic science, doctrinal differences between Epictetus’ Stoicism and Simplicius’ Neoplatonism lead them to interpret the philosophical significance of the practice in different ways. As determinists who believed in an all-embracing conception of fate, the Stoics believed divination could facilitate the task of the sage living in accordance with that fate.1 But how exactly it does so requires explication since the philoso-pher in Epictetus’ view does not seek the same thing from divination as most other people. What then does one gain from the art? [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/isb0txplRikCizk |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"591","_score":null,"_source":{"id":591,"authors_free":[{"id":840,"entry_id":591,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":106,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gabor, Gary","free_first_name":"Gary","free_last_name":"Gabor","norm_person":{"id":106,"first_name":"Gary","last_name":"Gabor ","full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2355,"entry_id":591,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":104,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","free_first_name":"Pieter d' ","free_last_name":"Hoine","norm_person":{"id":104,"first_name":"Pieter d' ","last_name":"Hoine","full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051361575","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2356,"entry_id":591,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":105,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Van Riel, Gerd","free_first_name":"Gerd","free_last_name":"Van Riel","norm_person":{"id":105,"first_name":"Gerd ","last_name":"Van Riel","full_name":"Van Riel, Gerd ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140513264","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"When should a philosopher consult divination? Epictetus and Simplicius on fate and what is up to us","main_title":{"title":"When should a philosopher consult divination? Epictetus and Simplicius on fate and what is up to us"},"abstract":"At Enchiridion \u00a7 32, Epictetus raises the question of whether, and under what conditions, one should consult the art of divination (\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae). Epictetus\u2019 answer, along with Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the passage four centuries later, provides a glimpse into late antique conceptions of fate, providence, and human responsi-bility. While united in a general acceptance of divination as an authentic science, doctrinal differences between Epictetus\u2019 Stoicism and Simplicius\u2019 Neoplatonism lead them to interpret the philosophical significance of the practice in different ways. As determinists who believed in an all-embracing conception of fate, the Stoics believed divination could facilitate the task of the sage living in accordance with that fate.1 But how exactly it does so requires explication since the philoso-pher in Epictetus\u2019 view does not seek the same thing from divination as most other people. What then does one gain from the art? [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/isb0txplRikCizk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":106,"full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":104,"full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":105,"full_name":"Van Riel, Gerd ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":591,"section_of":258,"pages":"325-340","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":258,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Fate, providence and moral responsibility in ancient, medieval and early modern thought. Studies in honour of Carlos Steel","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"d_hoine2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2012","abstract":"This book forms a major contribution to the discussion on fate, providence and moral responsibility in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Early Modern times. Through 37 original papers, renowned scholars from many different countries, as well as a number of young and promising researchers, write the history of the philosophical problems of freedom and determinism since its origins in pre-socratic philosophy up to the seventeenth century.\r\nThe main focus points are classic Antiquity (Plato and Aristotle), the Neoplatonic synthesis of late Antiquity (Plotinus, Proclus, Simplicius), and thirteenth-century scholasticism (Thomas Aquinas, Henry of Ghent). They do not only represent key moments in the intellectual history of the West, but are also the central figures and periods to which Carlos Steel, the dedicatary of this volume, has devoted his philosophical career. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ga4rzoji8r8swzw","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":258,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"Ancient and Medieval Philosophy, Series 1","volume":"49","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2012]}
| Title | Ancient Readings of Plato’s Phaedo |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2015 |
| Publication Place | Leiden – Boston |
| Publisher | Brill |
| Series | Philosophia antiqua |
| Volume | 140 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Delcomminette, Sylvain , Hoine, Pieter d’ , Gavray, Marc-Antoine |
| Translator(s) |
Plato’s Phaedo has never failed to attract the attention of philosophers and scholars. Yet the history of its reception in Antiquity has been little studied. The present volume therefore proposes to examine not only the Platonic exegetical tradition surrounding this dialogue, which culminates in the commentaries of Damascius and Olympiodorus, but also its place in the reflections of the rival Peripatetic, Stoic, and Sceptical schools. This volume thus aims to shed light on the surviving commentaries and their sources, as well as on less familiar aspects of the history of the Phaedo’s ancient reception. By doing so, it may help to clarify what ancient interpreters of Plato can and cannot offer their contemporary counterparts. [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/V5pyD4OzXUkorzM |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1411","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1411,"authors_free":[{"id":2207,"entry_id":1411,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":391,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Delcomminette, Sylvain","free_first_name":"Sylvain","free_last_name":"Delcomminette","norm_person":{"id":391,"first_name":"Sylvain","last_name":"Delcomminette","full_name":"Delcomminette, Sylvain","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/142220701","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2208,"entry_id":1411,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":104,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hoine, Pieter d\u2019","free_first_name":"Pieter","free_last_name":"Hoine, d\u2019","norm_person":{"id":104,"first_name":"Pieter d' ","last_name":"Hoine","full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051361575","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2209,"entry_id":1411,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine ","free_first_name":"Marc-Antoine ","free_last_name":"Gavray","norm_person":{"id":125,"first_name":"Marc-Antoine","last_name":"Gavray","full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078511411","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ancient Readings of Plato\u2019s Phaedo","main_title":{"title":"Ancient Readings of Plato\u2019s Phaedo"},"abstract":"Plato\u2019s Phaedo has never failed to attract the attention of philosophers and scholars. Yet the history of its reception in Antiquity has been little studied. The present volume therefore proposes to examine not only the Platonic exegetical tradition surrounding this dialogue, which culminates in the commentaries of Damascius and Olympiodorus, but also its place in the reflections of the rival Peripatetic, Stoic, and Sceptical schools.\r\nThis volume thus aims to shed light on the surviving commentaries and their sources, as well as on less familiar aspects of the history of the Phaedo\u2019s ancient reception. By doing so, it may help to clarify what ancient interpreters of Plato can and cannot offer their contemporary counterparts. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/V5pyD4OzXUkorzM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":391,"full_name":"Delcomminette, Sylvain","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":104,"full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1411,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia antiqua","volume":"140","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Ancient Readings of Plato\u2019s Phaedo"]}
| Title | Au terme d’une tradition: Simplicius, lecteur du Phédon |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2015 |
| Published in | Ancient Readings of Plato’s Phaedo |
| Pages | 293-310 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gavray, Marc-Antoine |
| Editor(s) | Delcomminette, Sylvain , Hoine, Pieter d’ , Gavray, Marc-Antoine |
| Translator(s) |
Une qualité indéniable des Commentaires de Simplicius réside dans leur utilisation abondante de la tradition philosophique. Ils comportent de nombreuses citations des Présocratiques, des Platoniciens et des Péripatéticiens, mais surtout d’Aristote et de Platon. C’est notamment à travers cet usage des références que l’on peut mesurer l’originalité (ou la particularité) philosophique de Simplicius. Ses thèses s’élaborent au fil d’une exégèse qui croise les textes et tisse patiemment la synthèse de la culture païenne. Dès lors, c’est dans une certaine pratique de l’intertextualité que se joue sa contribution à l’histoire de la philosophie et que se dessine parfois une interprétation novatrice de certains classiques de la tradition. Or, pour autant que nous le sachions, Simplicius n’a pas écrit de commentaire sur le Phédon. En tant que membre de l’École d’Athènes, il a certes dû lire et interpréter ce dialogue, qui faisait partie du canon de lecture. Disciple de Damascius, il a peut-être même assisté à l’une (au moins) des deux séries de cours dispensées par son maître. À tout le moins, il devait en connaître l’existence et avoir pris position par rapport à une telle lecture. Aussi, pour retrouver son interprétation du Phédon, il faut emprunter un chemin détourné, en examinant les citations et allusions liées à ce dialogue à travers ses différents Commentaires. Comment surgissent ces renvois au Phédon et à quelle fin ? Dans cette étude, je souhaite poursuivre trois objectifs, tous relativement modestes. Tout d’abord, j’aimerais examiner l’apport personnel de Simplicius à l’interprétation du Phédon, par rapport à la tradition dans laquelle il s’inscrit. Ensuite, plus particulièrement, je voudrais évaluer la distance de Simplicius à l’égard des Commentaires de Damascius, afin de mesurer leur impact au sein de l’École platonicienne en exil. Enfin, et plus largement, j’espère contribuer à la compréhension de la méthode et de l’originalité de Simplicius, en tant que philosophe et commentateur. [introduction p. 1] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QqG0Y1xgt1bzrvI |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1412","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1412,"authors_free":[{"id":2206,"entry_id":1412,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","free_first_name":"Gavray","free_last_name":"Marc-Antoine","norm_person":{"id":125,"first_name":"Marc-Antoine","last_name":"Gavray","full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078511411","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2210,"entry_id":1412,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":391,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Delcomminette, Sylvain","free_first_name":"Sylvain","free_last_name":"Delcomminette","norm_person":{"id":391,"first_name":"Sylvain","last_name":"Delcomminette","full_name":"Delcomminette, Sylvain","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/142220701","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2211,"entry_id":1412,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":104,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hoine, Pieter d\u2019","free_first_name":"Pieter","free_last_name":"Hoine, d\u2019","norm_person":{"id":104,"first_name":"Pieter d' ","last_name":"Hoine","full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051361575","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2212,"entry_id":1412,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","free_first_name":"Marc-Antoine","free_last_name":"Gavray","norm_person":{"id":125,"first_name":"Marc-Antoine","last_name":"Gavray","full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078511411","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Au terme d\u2019une tradition: Simplicius, lecteur du Ph\u00e9don","main_title":{"title":"Au terme d\u2019une tradition: Simplicius, lecteur du Ph\u00e9don"},"abstract":"Une qualit\u00e9 ind\u00e9niable des Commentaires de Simplicius r\u00e9side dans leur utilisation abondante de la tradition philosophique. Ils comportent de nombreuses citations des Pr\u00e9socratiques, des Platoniciens et des P\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens, mais surtout d\u2019Aristote et de Platon. C\u2019est notamment \u00e0 travers cet usage des r\u00e9f\u00e9rences que l\u2019on peut mesurer l\u2019originalit\u00e9 (ou la particularit\u00e9) philosophique de Simplicius. Ses th\u00e8ses s\u2019\u00e9laborent au fil d\u2019une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se qui croise les textes et tisse patiemment la synth\u00e8se de la culture pa\u00efenne. D\u00e8s lors, c\u2019est dans une certaine pratique de l\u2019intertextualit\u00e9 que se joue sa contribution \u00e0 l\u2019histoire de la philosophie et que se dessine parfois une interpr\u00e9tation novatrice de certains classiques de la tradition.\r\n\r\nOr, pour autant que nous le sachions, Simplicius n\u2019a pas \u00e9crit de commentaire sur le Ph\u00e9don. En tant que membre de l\u2019\u00c9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes, il a certes d\u00fb lire et interpr\u00e9ter ce dialogue, qui faisait partie du canon de lecture. Disciple de Damascius, il a peut-\u00eatre m\u00eame assist\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019une (au moins) des deux s\u00e9ries de cours dispens\u00e9es par son ma\u00eetre. \u00c0 tout le moins, il devait en conna\u00eetre l\u2019existence et avoir pris position par rapport \u00e0 une telle lecture. Aussi, pour retrouver son interpr\u00e9tation du Ph\u00e9don, il faut emprunter un chemin d\u00e9tourn\u00e9, en examinant les citations et allusions li\u00e9es \u00e0 ce dialogue \u00e0 travers ses diff\u00e9rents Commentaires. Comment surgissent ces renvois au Ph\u00e9don et \u00e0 quelle fin ?\r\n\r\nDans cette \u00e9tude, je souhaite poursuivre trois objectifs, tous relativement modestes. Tout d\u2019abord, j\u2019aimerais examiner l\u2019apport personnel de Simplicius \u00e0 l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation du Ph\u00e9don, par rapport \u00e0 la tradition dans laquelle il s\u2019inscrit. Ensuite, plus particuli\u00e8rement, je voudrais \u00e9valuer la distance de Simplicius \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard des Commentaires de Damascius, afin de mesurer leur impact au sein de l\u2019\u00c9cole platonicienne en exil. Enfin, et plus largement, j\u2019esp\u00e8re contribuer \u00e0 la compr\u00e9hension de la m\u00e9thode et de l\u2019originalit\u00e9 de Simplicius, en tant que philosophe et commentateur. [introduction p. 1]","btype":2,"date":"2015","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QqG0Y1xgt1bzrvI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":391,"full_name":"Delcomminette, Sylvain","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":104,"full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1412,"section_of":1411,"pages":"293-310","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1411,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Readings of Plato\u2019s Phaedo","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Delcomminette_d'Hoine_Gavray2015","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2015","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Plato\u2019s Phaedo has never failed to attract the attention of philosophers and scholars. Yet the history of its reception in Antiquity has been little studied. The present volume therefore proposes to examine not only the Platonic exegetical tradition surrounding this dialogue, which culminates in the commentaries of Damascius and Olympiodorus, but also its place in the reflections of the rival Peripatetic, Stoic, and Sceptical schools.\r\nThis volume thus aims to shed light on the surviving commentaries and their sources, as well as on less familiar aspects of the history of the Phaedo\u2019s ancient reception. By doing so, it may help to clarify what ancient interpreters of Plato can and cannot offer their contemporary counterparts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/V5pyD4OzXUkorzM","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1411,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia antiqua","volume":"140","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Au terme d\u2019une tradition: Simplicius, lecteur du Ph\u00e9don"]}
| Title | Fate, providence and moral responsibility in ancient, medieval and early modern thought. Studies in honour of Carlos Steel |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2014 |
| Publication Place | Leuven |
| Publisher | Leuven University Press |
| Series | Ancient and Medieval Philosophy, Series 1 |
| Volume | 49 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Hoine, Pieter d' , Van Riel, Gerd |
| Translator(s) |
This book forms a major contribution to the discussion on fate, providence and moral responsibility in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Early Modern times. Through 37 original papers, renowned scholars from many different countries, as well as a number of young and promising researchers, write the history of the philosophical problems of freedom and determinism since its origins in pre-socratic philosophy up to the seventeenth century. The main focus points are classic Antiquity (Plato and Aristotle), the Neoplatonic synthesis of late Antiquity (Plotinus, Proclus, Simplicius), and thirteenth-century scholasticism (Thomas Aquinas, Henry of Ghent). They do not only represent key moments in the intellectual history of the West, but are also the central figures and periods to which Carlos Steel, the dedicatary of this volume, has devoted his philosophical career. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ga4rzoji8r8swzw |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"258","_score":null,"_source":{"id":258,"authors_free":[{"id":328,"entry_id":258,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":104,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","free_first_name":"Pieter d' ","free_last_name":"Hoine","norm_person":{"id":104,"first_name":"Pieter d' ","last_name":"Hoine","full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051361575","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1943,"entry_id":258,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":105,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Van Riel, Gerd","free_first_name":"Gerd","free_last_name":"Van Riel","norm_person":{"id":105,"first_name":"Gerd ","last_name":"Van Riel","full_name":"Van Riel, Gerd ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140513264","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Fate, providence and moral responsibility in ancient, medieval and early modern thought. Studies in honour of Carlos Steel","main_title":{"title":"Fate, providence and moral responsibility in ancient, medieval and early modern thought. Studies in honour of Carlos Steel"},"abstract":"This book forms a major contribution to the discussion on fate, providence and moral responsibility in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Early Modern times. Through 37 original papers, renowned scholars from many different countries, as well as a number of young and promising researchers, write the history of the philosophical problems of freedom and determinism since its origins in pre-socratic philosophy up to the seventeenth century.\r\nThe main focus points are classic Antiquity (Plato and Aristotle), the Neoplatonic synthesis of late Antiquity (Plotinus, Proclus, Simplicius), and thirteenth-century scholasticism (Thomas Aquinas, Henry of Ghent). They do not only represent key moments in the intellectual history of the West, but are also the central figures and periods to which Carlos Steel, the dedicatary of this volume, has devoted his philosophical career. ","btype":4,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ga4rzoji8r8swzw","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":104,"full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":105,"full_name":"Van Riel, Gerd ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":258,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"Ancient and Medieval Philosophy, Series 1","volume":"49","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Fate, providence and moral responsibility in ancient, medieval and early modern thought. Studies in honour of Carlos Steel"]}
| Title | Parmenide neoplatonico: intorno a un nuovo studio sulla presenza di Parmenide nel commento alla Fisica di Simplicio (Book discussion of: Ivan A. Licciardi, Parmenide tràdito, Parmenide tradìto nel commentario di Simplicio alla Fisica di Aristotele (Symbolon 42), Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag, 2016) |
| Type | Article |
| Language | Italian |
| Date | 2017 |
| Journal | Méthexis |
| Volume | 29 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 188-198 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hoine, Pieter d’ |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
In conclusione, mi permetto ancora alcune osservazioni sulla forma di quest’opera. Benché Simplicio apprezzi la laconicità (cioè la famosa brachylogia) degli antichi, credo che nessuno abbia mai pensato che il commentatore tenti di imitarla. Anzi, i suoi commentari sono caratterizzati da una certa prolissità e da ripetizioni che non sempre sono necessitate da bisogni esegetici. Per di più, il filo conduttore delle sue analisi è spesso interrotto da discussioni dossografiche o da digressioni che sono sì interessanti, ma non sempre pertinenti all’esegesi del testo in considerazione. Temo che anche il commentario di Ivan Licciardi non sia del tutto privo di queste imperfezioni. Inoltre, penso che alcune scelte formali – come quella di presentare il greco non a fronte della traduzione, ma piuttosto di seguito, e quella di non usare note nella parte del commentario – non abbiano contribuito a rendere più facile la navigazione attraverso le ricche informazioni che questo libro offre. Sotto questi aspetti, il libro ha l’impronta di un’opera prima, ma va detto che nella sua premessa l’autore stesso se ne mostra ben conscio (p. 19). Esprimendo queste riserve, non ho l’intenzione di ridurre i meriti di questo studio né di sollevare dubbi sul contributo dato da questo libro alla nostra comprensione dei temi discussi. Il merito di questo libro è soprattutto quello di aver consentito una migliore comprensione del contesto storico e filosofico in cui e delle ragioni per cui Simplicio ci ha trasmesso Parmenide. Anche se questo libro può aiutare gli studiosi dei presocratici a contestualizzare la loro stessa interpretazione del filosofo di Elea, è soprattutto agli studi neoplatonici che l’autore contribuisce. Infatti, il Parmenide di Simplicio è innanzitutto un Parmenide neoplatonico. Il senso storico e critico moderno fanno sì che noi non abbiamo più a nostra disposizione quella chiave ermeneutica neoplatonica che consiste nel riferire contraddizioni apparenti a diversi piani della realtà presenti solo implicitamente nel pensiero degli autori che studiamo. Il nostro obiettivo non è più quello di difendere la fondamentale unità del pensiero antico contro i cristiani né quello di mostrare la verità eternamente infallibile del platonismo. Diversamente, pensiamo che sia più sensato rintracciare non solo i punti di accordo, ma anche le discordanze e le discontinuità nella storia del pensiero, in cui lo stesso Simplicio merita una posizione di rilievo. L’interpretazione simpliciana di Parmenide ha sì ‘salvato’ parecchie linee del Poema dall’oblio, ma il prezzo che l’Eleate ha pagato è stato quello di essere stato forzato, nelle parole di Licciardi, in una ‘griglia concettuale totalmente estranea alla logica del Poema’ (p. 43). L’ironia di questa vicenda è che sia stato proprio l’intento di Simplicio di coltivare l’amicizia con tutti i filosofi pagani ad averlo spinto, in fin dei conti, a tradire tutti. [conclusion p. 197-198] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AZQTPKFglABgm9k |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1484","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1484,"authors_free":[{"id":2569,"entry_id":1484,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":104,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoine, Pieter d\u2019","free_first_name":"Pieter d\u2019","free_last_name":"Hoine","norm_person":{"id":104,"first_name":"Pieter d' ","last_name":"Hoine","full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051361575","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parmenide neoplatonico: intorno a un nuovo studio sulla presenza di Parmenide nel commento alla Fisica di Simplicio (Book discussion of: Ivan A. Licciardi, Parmenide tr\u00e0dito, Parmenide trad\u00ecto nel commentario di Simplicio alla Fisica di Aristotele (Symbolon 42), Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag, 2016)","main_title":{"title":"Parmenide neoplatonico: intorno a un nuovo studio sulla presenza di Parmenide nel commento alla Fisica di Simplicio (Book discussion of: Ivan A. Licciardi, Parmenide tr\u00e0dito, Parmenide trad\u00ecto nel commentario di Simplicio alla Fisica di Aristotele (Symbolon 42), Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag, 2016)"},"abstract":"In conclusione, mi permetto ancora alcune osservazioni sulla forma di quest\u2019opera. Bench\u00e9 Simplicio apprezzi la laconicit\u00e0 (cio\u00e8 la famosa brachylogia) degli antichi, credo che nessuno abbia mai pensato che il commentatore tenti di imitarla. Anzi, i suoi commentari sono caratterizzati da una certa prolissit\u00e0 e da ripetizioni che non sempre sono necessitate da bisogni esegetici. Per di pi\u00f9, il filo conduttore delle sue analisi \u00e8 spesso interrotto da discussioni dossografiche o da digressioni che sono s\u00ec interessanti, ma non sempre pertinenti all\u2019esegesi del testo in considerazione.\r\n\r\nTemo che anche il commentario di Ivan Licciardi non sia del tutto privo di queste imperfezioni. Inoltre, penso che alcune scelte formali \u2013 come quella di presentare il greco non a fronte della traduzione, ma piuttosto di seguito, e quella di non usare note nella parte del commentario \u2013 non abbiano contribuito a rendere pi\u00f9 facile la navigazione attraverso le ricche informazioni che questo libro offre. Sotto questi aspetti, il libro ha l\u2019impronta di un\u2019opera prima, ma va detto che nella sua premessa l\u2019autore stesso se ne mostra ben conscio (p. 19).\r\n\r\nEsprimendo queste riserve, non ho l\u2019intenzione di ridurre i meriti di questo studio n\u00e9 di sollevare dubbi sul contributo dato da questo libro alla nostra comprensione dei temi discussi. Il merito di questo libro \u00e8 soprattutto quello di aver consentito una migliore comprensione del contesto storico e filosofico in cui e delle ragioni per cui Simplicio ci ha trasmesso Parmenide. Anche se questo libro pu\u00f2 aiutare gli studiosi dei presocratici a contestualizzare la loro stessa interpretazione del filosofo di Elea, \u00e8 soprattutto agli studi neoplatonici che l\u2019autore contribuisce.\r\n\r\nInfatti, il Parmenide di Simplicio \u00e8 innanzitutto un Parmenide neoplatonico. Il senso storico e critico moderno fanno s\u00ec che noi non abbiamo pi\u00f9 a nostra disposizione quella chiave ermeneutica neoplatonica che consiste nel riferire contraddizioni apparenti a diversi piani della realt\u00e0 presenti solo implicitamente nel pensiero degli autori che studiamo. Il nostro obiettivo non \u00e8 pi\u00f9 quello di difendere la fondamentale unit\u00e0 del pensiero antico contro i cristiani n\u00e9 quello di mostrare la verit\u00e0 eternamente infallibile del platonismo.\r\n\r\nDiversamente, pensiamo che sia pi\u00f9 sensato rintracciare non solo i punti di accordo, ma anche le discordanze e le discontinuit\u00e0 nella storia del pensiero, in cui lo stesso Simplicio merita una posizione di rilievo. L\u2019interpretazione simpliciana di Parmenide ha s\u00ec \u2018salvato\u2019 parecchie linee del Poema dall\u2019oblio, ma il prezzo che l\u2019Eleate ha pagato \u00e8 stato quello di essere stato forzato, nelle parole di Licciardi, in una \u2018griglia concettuale totalmente estranea alla logica del Poema\u2019 (p. 43).\r\n\r\nL\u2019ironia di questa vicenda \u00e8 che sia stato proprio l\u2019intento di Simplicio di coltivare l\u2019amicizia con tutti i filosofi pagani ad averlo spinto, in fin dei conti, a tradire tutti.\r\n[conclusion p. 197-198]","btype":3,"date":"2017","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AZQTPKFglABgm9k","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":104,"full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1484,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"M\u00e9thexis","volume":"29","issue":"1","pages":"188-198"}},"sort":["Parmenide neoplatonico: intorno a un nuovo studio sulla presenza di Parmenide nel commento alla Fisica di Simplicio (Book discussion of: Ivan A. Licciardi, Parmenide tr\u00e0dito, Parmenide trad\u00ecto nel commentario di Simplicio alla Fisica di Aristotele (Symbolon 42), Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag, 2016)"]}
| Title | When should a philosopher consult divination? Epictetus and Simplicius on fate and what is up to us |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2012 |
| Published in | Fate, providence and moral responsibility in ancient, medieval and early modern thought. Studies in honour of Carlos Steel |
| Pages | 325-340 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gabor, Gary |
| Editor(s) | Hoine, Pieter d' , Van Riel, Gerd |
| Translator(s) |
At Enchiridion § 32, Epictetus raises the question of whether, and under what conditions, one should consult the art of divination (μαντική). Epictetus’ answer, along with Simplicius’ commentary on the passage four centuries later, provides a glimpse into late antique conceptions of fate, providence, and human responsi-bility. While united in a general acceptance of divination as an authentic science, doctrinal differences between Epictetus’ Stoicism and Simplicius’ Neoplatonism lead them to interpret the philosophical significance of the practice in different ways. As determinists who believed in an all-embracing conception of fate, the Stoics believed divination could facilitate the task of the sage living in accordance with that fate.1 But how exactly it does so requires explication since the philoso-pher in Epictetus’ view does not seek the same thing from divination as most other people. What then does one gain from the art? [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/isb0txplRikCizk |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"591","_score":null,"_source":{"id":591,"authors_free":[{"id":840,"entry_id":591,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":106,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gabor, Gary","free_first_name":"Gary","free_last_name":"Gabor","norm_person":{"id":106,"first_name":"Gary","last_name":"Gabor ","full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2355,"entry_id":591,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":104,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","free_first_name":"Pieter d' ","free_last_name":"Hoine","norm_person":{"id":104,"first_name":"Pieter d' ","last_name":"Hoine","full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051361575","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2356,"entry_id":591,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":105,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Van Riel, Gerd","free_first_name":"Gerd","free_last_name":"Van Riel","norm_person":{"id":105,"first_name":"Gerd ","last_name":"Van Riel","full_name":"Van Riel, Gerd ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140513264","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"When should a philosopher consult divination? Epictetus and Simplicius on fate and what is up to us","main_title":{"title":"When should a philosopher consult divination? Epictetus and Simplicius on fate and what is up to us"},"abstract":"At Enchiridion \u00a7 32, Epictetus raises the question of whether, and under what conditions, one should consult the art of divination (\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae). Epictetus\u2019 answer, along with Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the passage four centuries later, provides a glimpse into late antique conceptions of fate, providence, and human responsi-bility. While united in a general acceptance of divination as an authentic science, doctrinal differences between Epictetus\u2019 Stoicism and Simplicius\u2019 Neoplatonism lead them to interpret the philosophical significance of the practice in different ways. As determinists who believed in an all-embracing conception of fate, the Stoics believed divination could facilitate the task of the sage living in accordance with that fate.1 But how exactly it does so requires explication since the philoso-pher in Epictetus\u2019 view does not seek the same thing from divination as most other people. What then does one gain from the art? [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/isb0txplRikCizk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":106,"full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":104,"full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":105,"full_name":"Van Riel, Gerd ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":591,"section_of":258,"pages":"325-340","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":258,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Fate, providence and moral responsibility in ancient, medieval and early modern thought. Studies in honour of Carlos Steel","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"d_hoine2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2012","abstract":"This book forms a major contribution to the discussion on fate, providence and moral responsibility in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Early Modern times. Through 37 original papers, renowned scholars from many different countries, as well as a number of young and promising researchers, write the history of the philosophical problems of freedom and determinism since its origins in pre-socratic philosophy up to the seventeenth century.\r\nThe main focus points are classic Antiquity (Plato and Aristotle), the Neoplatonic synthesis of late Antiquity (Plotinus, Proclus, Simplicius), and thirteenth-century scholasticism (Thomas Aquinas, Henry of Ghent). They do not only represent key moments in the intellectual history of the West, but are also the central figures and periods to which Carlos Steel, the dedicatary of this volume, has devoted his philosophical career. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ga4rzoji8r8swzw","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":258,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"Ancient and Medieval Philosophy, Series 1","volume":"49","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["When should a philosopher consult divination? Epictetus and Simplicius on fate and what is up to us"]}