Simplicius Research Environment

Author

Free Search

BY DATE
BY TITLE

Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle, 2004
By: Karamanolis, George, Adamson, Peter (Ed.), Baltussen, Han (Ed.), Stone, Martin W. F. (Ed.)

Title	Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2004
Published in	Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1
Pages	97-120
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Karamanolis, George
Editor(s)	Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F.
Translator(s)

From the foregoing discussion, it emerges, I hope, that Porphyry was inspired by a certain ideology regarding Aristotle’s philosophy. This ideology, which I have tried to outline, is quite central to Porphyry’s overall philosophical profile. It stems from a set of interpretations of some of Aristotle’s central doctrines, which show Aristotle to be in agreement with Plato’s philosophy, despite some differences or even objections on Aristotle’s part. We can find these interpretations in his extant work, but probably they were fully spelled out in some of his lost works, such as in his On Plato and Aristotle belonging to the same school of thought (Suda s.v. Porphyry) or in his On the difference between Plato and Aristotle (Elias in Porphyrii Isag. 39.7-8). There is little reason to think that the titles of the two works represent two contradictory Porphyrian positions about the relation between Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, as has often been argued, and still less that they may stand for one work. For, as has been seen, Porphyry did not deny the existence of differences between Plato and Aristotle; rather, he appears to have argued that these were not as dramatic as had been thought by Platonists and Peripatetics alike. In Porphyry’s interpretation, as has been reconstructed above, Aristotle’s philosophy was close to and complementary with Plato’s doctrine: Aristotle’s logic, though not Platonic, is considered to be compatible and complementary with Platonic philosophy, while Aristotle’s ontology is deemed similar to that of Plato’s. Such an interpretation of Aristotle commands commitment to at least some parts of his philosophy. This feature distinguishes Porphyry from the entire previous Platonist tradition. It is this that motivates him to recommend Aristotle’s philosophy to fellow Platonists as a philosophically valuable one through the writing of detailed commentaries in the manner of Peripatetics like Andronicus, Aspasius, and Alexander. In fact, as has been suggested above, Porphyry was much influenced by their interpretations of Aristotle’s thought. But he also distanced himself from them, because he wrote for a different readership with different expectations and philosophical views. Porphyry’s commentaries were specifically written for Platonists, who were urged to understand that, given a certain interpretation of Aristotle, not only can Aristotle be studied along with Plato, but that this study is in fact so philosophically important as to become indispensable for a Platonist. If Platonists after Porphyry kept writing commentaries on Aristotle, often drawing extensively on Porphyry’s own work, they did this because they largely accepted Porphyry’s position on Aristotle’s philosophy. This does not mean that they always agreed with him. But it is surely Porphyry who set the agenda for the discussion of Aristotle’s philosophy by the later Platonists. [conclusion p. 118-119]

Online Resources

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

PAGE 1 OF 1

Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle, 2004
By: Karamanolis, George, Adamson, Peter (Ed.), Baltussen, Han (Ed.), Stone, Martin W. F. (Ed.)

Title	Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle
Type	Book Section
Language	English
Date	2004
Published in	Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1
Pages	97-120
Categories	no categories
Author(s)	Karamanolis, George
Editor(s)	Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F.
Translator(s)

There is little reason to think that the titles of the two works represent two contradictory Porphyrian positions about the relation between Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, as has often been argued, and still less that they may stand for one work. For, as has been seen, Porphyry did not deny the existence of differences between Plato and Aristotle; rather, he appears to have argued that these were not as dramatic as had been thought by Platonists and Peripatetics alike.

In Porphyry’s interpretation, as has been reconstructed above, Aristotle’s philosophy was close to and complementary with Plato’s doctrine: Aristotle’s logic, though not Platonic, is considered to be compatible and complementary with Platonic philosophy, while Aristotle’s ontology is deemed similar to that of Plato’s. Such an interpretation of Aristotle commands commitment to at least some parts of his philosophy. This feature distinguishes Porphyry from the entire previous Platonist tradition. It is this that motivates him to recommend Aristotle’s philosophy to fellow Platonists as a philosophically valuable one through the writing of detailed commentaries in the manner of Peripatetics like Andronicus, Aspasius, and Alexander.

In fact, as has been suggested above, Porphyry was much influenced by their interpretations of Aristotle’s thought. But he also distanced himself from them, because he wrote for a different readership with different expectations and philosophical views. Porphyry’s commentaries were specifically written for Platonists, who were urged to understand that, given a certain interpretation of Aristotle, not only can Aristotle be studied along with Plato, but that this study is in fact so philosophically important as to become indispensable for a Platonist.

If Platonists after Porphyry kept writing commentaries on Aristotle, often drawing extensively on Porphyry’s own work, they did this because they largely accepted Porphyry’s position on Aristotle’s philosophy. This does not mean that they always agreed with him. But it is surely Porphyry who set the agenda for the discussion of Aristotle’s philosophy by the later Platonists. [conclusion p. 118-119]

Online Resources

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

PAGE 1 OF 1