| Title | An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2016 |
| Published in | Brill’ Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity |
| Pages | 341-357 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Opsomer, Jan |
| Editor(s) | Falcon, Andrea |
| Translator(s) |
| Iamblichus (ccl 245-320) is sometimes called the second founder of Neoplatonism.1 His innovations were essential to late Neoplatonic philosophy as it developed in the schools of Athens in particular» but also Alexandria. These innovations do not just pertain to philosophical tenets» but also to philosophi cal method and style. Iamblichus defined stricter exegetical rules and new metaphysical laws. He also created an alliance between philosophy and theurgy and insisted on the philosophical value of various religious traditions and reli gious-philosophical texts like the Chaldaean oracles. Iamblichus was» more over, decisive in shaping the school curriculum and, more generally, the canon of texts that, whether philosophical or religious, carried authority for philo sophical research. He, for instance, systematically included texts belonging to a Pythagorean tradition— a tradition which to some extent was of his own construal. His selection of philosophically important texts was in line with cer tain earlier developments, but it was Iamblichus who established a real canon. Indeed, after Iamblichus the canon remained more or less stable.If we look at the importance assigned to Aristotle and the Peripatetic tra dition, it is clear that the difference between Iamblichus and his arch-rival Porphyry does not reside in which texts were held to be worthy of profound study. Hie difference is situated rather in the role and status attributed to them within the Platonic philosophical system. From the early Imperial era onward, Aristotle was seen by most Platonists as an ally, unlike the Stoics and Epicureans, who were regarded as opponents. Yet the extent to which Aristotelian ideas were incorporated varied greatly. Different parts of Aristotle's thought attracted different Platonists and the strategies used for integrating and assimilating them diverged. Here Iamblichus made his mark, as will become clear below. [Introduction, p. 341] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/aCdD22AdndA4ijA |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"935","_score":null,"_source":{"id":935,"authors_free":[{"id":1387,"entry_id":935,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":211,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Opsomer, Jan","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":{"id":211,"first_name":"Jan","last_name":"Opsomer","full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120966310","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1388,"entry_id":935,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":95,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Falcon, Andrea","free_first_name":"Andrea","free_last_name":"Falcon","norm_person":{"id":95,"first_name":"Andrea","last_name":"Falcon","full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1138844241","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine","main_title":{"title":"An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine"},"abstract":"Iamblichus (ccl 245-320) is sometimes called the second founder of \r\nNeoplatonism.1 His innovations were essential to late Neoplatonic philosophy \r\nas it developed in the schools of Athens in particular\u00bb but also Alexandria. These \r\ninnovations do not just pertain to philosophical tenets\u00bb but also to philosophi\u00ad\r\ncal method and style. Iamblichus defined stricter exegetical rules and new \r\nmetaphysical laws. He also created an alliance between philosophy and theurgy \r\nand insisted on the philosophical value of various religious traditions and reli\u00ad\r\ngious-philosophical texts like the Chaldaean oracles. Iamblichus was\u00bb more\u00ad\r\nover, decisive in shaping the school curriculum and, more generally, the canon \r\nof texts that, whether philosophical or religious, carried authority for philo\u00ad\r\nsophical research. He, for instance, systematically included texts belonging \r\nto a Pythagorean tradition\u2014 a tradition which to some extent was of his own \r\nconstrual. His selection of philosophically important texts was in line with cer\u00ad\r\ntain earlier developments, but it was Iamblichus who established a real canon. \r\nIndeed, after Iamblichus the canon remained more or less stable.If we look at the importance assigned to Aristotle and the Peripatetic tra\u00ad\r\ndition, it is clear that the difference between Iamblichus and his arch-rival \r\nPorphyry does not reside in which texts were held to be worthy of profound \r\nstudy. Hie difference is situated rather in the role and status attributed to them \r\nwithin the Platonic philosophical system. From the early Imperial era onward, \r\nAristotle was seen by most Platonists as an ally, unlike the Stoics and Epicureans, \r\nwho were regarded as opponents. Yet the extent to which Aristotelian ideas \r\nwere incorporated varied greatly. Different parts of Aristotle's thought attracted \r\ndifferent Platonists and the strategies used for integrating and assimilating \r\nthem diverged. Here Iamblichus made his mark, as will become clear below. [Introduction, p. 341]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/aCdD22AdndA4ijA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":211,"full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":95,"full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":935,"section_of":304,"pages":"341-357","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":304,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Brill\u2019 Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Falcon2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2016","abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle provides a systematic yet accessible account of the reception of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy in Antiquity. To date, there has been no comprehensive attempt to explain this complex phenomenon. This volume fills this lacuna by offering broad coverage of the subject from Hellenistic times to the sixth century AD. It is laid out chronologically and the 23 articles are divided into three sections: I. The Hellenistic Reception of Aristotle; II. The Post-Hellenistic Engagement with Aristotle; III. Aristotle in Late Antiquity. Topics include Aristotle and the Stoa, Andronicus of Rhodes and the construction of the Aristotelian corpus, the return to Aristotle in the first century BC, and the role of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Porphyry in the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TjdS065EwQq3iWS","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":304,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
| Title | In defence of geometric atomism: Explaining elemental properties |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2012 |
| Published in | Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature |
| Pages | 147-173 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Opsomer, Jan |
| Editor(s) | Wilberding, James , Horn, Christoph |
| Translator(s) |
| Plato introduces what is nowadays called geometric atomism in his Timaeus—more precisely, in the second part of the physical account where he examines the cosmos under the aspect of what he calls ‘necessity’. This resurfaces again in the final part, which is devoted to what comes about from the cooperation of reason and necessity, where he regularly invokes the triangles and polyhedra in order to explain various biochemical processes of the human body. The introduction of geometric atomism is preceded by the infamously obscure description of the receptacle. This mysterious entity is presented as that in which qualities and shapes appear but also appears to provide the stuff out of which things are made. I will not here enter into the debates about what the receptacle is supposed to be; it suffices to note that the text in some passages may suggest to readers familiar with the later conception of matter that matter is exactly what Plato means. Since this is certainly what Aristotle and, in his wake, all ancient commentators took it to be, we need not for our present purposes consider other readings. Prior to the intervention of the demiurge, the precosmic mass already contained traces of the elements (ichnê, 53b2): it was fiery here, watery there, and so on. Yet it did not have elements with a stable identity. The use of the definite demonstrative pronouns this or that would therefore be inaccurate. So what is fire in the precosmic state is not to be called a this, but rather a such, or that which is always such and such. In order to bring about some stability, the craftsman set out to impart a distinct configuration to the precosmic mass by means of shapes and numbers (dieschêmatisato eidesi te kai arithmois, 53b4-5). Timaeus constructs the elements out of primary triangles. Of all the possible kinds, he selects two basic types: the 30-60-90 scalene triangle—that is, a half-equilateral triangle (Type A)—and the right isosceles triangle—a half-square (Type B). These triangles are combined to form larger shapes, called ‘surfaces’ (epiphaneia) by the commentators. For the sake of convenience, I shall call ‘surfaces’ the composite shapes formed out of the basic triangles; the latter I shall just call ‘triangles’. (One of the surfaces happens to be a triangle too, and it is a matter of dispute among the commentators whether the surfaces are really just two-dimensional planes.) Six triangles of Type A can be put together in such a way that they make up an equilateral triangle; four Type B triangles form a square. These surfaces are then combined into stereometric figures (congruent convex regular polyhedra): from the equilateral triangular surfaces can be formed the tetrahedron (that is, a pyramid), the octahedron, and the icosahedron, consisting of four, eight, and twenty faces, respectively; six squares are combined into a hexahedron (that is, a cube). These polyhedra are then assigned to the traditional four elements (henceforth referred to as EWAFs): The tetrahedron provides the shape of fire. The octahedron that of air. The icosahedron that of water. The hexahedron that of earth. This model of Plato’s geometric atoms can be completed by adding two more levels—one at the bottom and the other at the top. At one end, we might add the mixtures into which EWAFs enter, and at the foundational level, we must add a level even prior to the basic triangles, since Plato acknowledges that there are ‘even higher principles’ that are known only to god and privileged humans (53d6-7). [introduction p. 147-148] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/q3J2ENiGHB1LmYR |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1095","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1095,"authors_free":[{"id":1653,"entry_id":1095,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":211,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Opsomer, Jan","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":{"id":211,"first_name":"Jan","last_name":"Opsomer","full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120966310","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1654,"entry_id":1095,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":257,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wilberding, James","free_first_name":"James","free_last_name":"Wilberding","norm_person":{"id":257,"first_name":"James","last_name":"Wilberding","full_name":"Wilberding, James","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143517465","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1655,"entry_id":1095,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":256,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Horn, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Horn","norm_person":{"id":256,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Horn","full_name":"Horn, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115589406","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"In defence of geometric atomism: Explaining elemental properties","main_title":{"title":"In defence of geometric atomism: Explaining elemental properties"},"abstract":"Plato introduces what is nowadays called geometric atomism in his Timaeus\u2014more precisely, in the second part of the physical account where he examines the cosmos under the aspect of what he calls \u2018necessity\u2019. This resurfaces again in the final part, which is devoted to what comes about from the cooperation of reason and necessity, where he regularly invokes the triangles and polyhedra in order to explain various biochemical processes of the human body.\r\n\r\nThe introduction of geometric atomism is preceded by the infamously obscure description of the receptacle. This mysterious entity is presented as that in which qualities and shapes appear but also appears to provide the stuff out of which things are made. I will not here enter into the debates about what the receptacle is supposed to be; it suffices to note that the text in some passages may suggest to readers familiar with the later conception of matter that matter is exactly what Plato means. Since this is certainly what Aristotle and, in his wake, all ancient commentators took it to be, we need not for our present purposes consider other readings.\r\n\r\nPrior to the intervention of the demiurge, the precosmic mass already contained traces of the elements (ichn\u00ea, 53b2): it was fiery here, watery there, and so on. Yet it did not have elements with a stable identity. The use of the definite demonstrative pronouns this or that would therefore be inaccurate. So what is fire in the precosmic state is not to be called a this, but rather a such, or that which is always such and such.\r\n\r\nIn order to bring about some stability, the craftsman set out to impart a distinct configuration to the precosmic mass by means of shapes and numbers (diesch\u00eamatisato eidesi te kai arithmois, 53b4-5). Timaeus constructs the elements out of primary triangles. Of all the possible kinds, he selects two basic types: the 30-60-90 scalene triangle\u2014that is, a half-equilateral triangle (Type A)\u2014and the right isosceles triangle\u2014a half-square (Type B). These triangles are combined to form larger shapes, called \u2018surfaces\u2019 (epiphaneia) by the commentators.\r\n\r\nFor the sake of convenience, I shall call \u2018surfaces\u2019 the composite shapes formed out of the basic triangles; the latter I shall just call \u2018triangles\u2019. (One of the surfaces happens to be a triangle too, and it is a matter of dispute among the commentators whether the surfaces are really just two-dimensional planes.)\r\n\r\nSix triangles of Type A can be put together in such a way that they make up an equilateral triangle; four Type B triangles form a square. These surfaces are then combined into stereometric figures (congruent convex regular polyhedra): from the equilateral triangular surfaces can be formed the tetrahedron (that is, a pyramid), the octahedron, and the icosahedron, consisting of four, eight, and twenty faces, respectively; six squares are combined into a hexahedron (that is, a cube).\r\n\r\nThese polyhedra are then assigned to the traditional four elements (henceforth referred to as EWAFs):\r\n\r\n The tetrahedron provides the shape of fire.\r\n The octahedron that of air.\r\n The icosahedron that of water.\r\n The hexahedron that of earth.\r\n\r\nThis model of Plato\u2019s geometric atoms can be completed by adding two more levels\u2014one at the bottom and the other at the top. At one end, we might add the mixtures into which EWAFs enter, and at the foundational level, we must add a level even prior to the basic triangles, since Plato acknowledges that there are \u2018even higher principles\u2019 that are known only to god and privileged humans (53d6-7). [introduction p. 147-148]","btype":2,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/q3J2ENiGHB1LmYR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":211,"full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":257,"full_name":"Wilberding, James","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":256,"full_name":"Horn, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1095,"section_of":299,"pages":"147-173","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":299,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Horn\/Wilberding2012","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2012","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2012","abstract":"Despite Platonism\u2019s unquestioned claim to being one of the most influential movements in the history of philosophy, for a long time the conventional wisdom was that Platonists of late antiquity\u2014or Neoplatonists\u2014were so focused on other-worldly metaphysics that they simply neglected any serious study of the sensible world, which after all is \u2018merely\u2019 an image of the intelligible world, and only recently has this conventional wisdom begun to be dispelled. In fact, precisely because these thinkers did see the sensible world as an image of the intelligible world, they devoted much time and energy to understanding its inner workings. Thus we find Neoplatonists writing on embryology, physiology, meteorology, astronomy, and much else. This volume collects essays by leading international scholars in the field that shed new light on how these thinkers sought to understand and explain nature and natural phenomena. It is thematically divided into two parts, with the first part\u2014\u2018The general metaphysics of Nature\u2019\u2014directed at the explication of central Neoplatonic metaphysical doctrines and their relation to the natural world, and the second part\u2014\u2019Platonic approaches to individual sciences\u2019\u2014showing how these same doctrines play out in individual natural sciences such as elemental physics, geography, and biology. Together these essays show that a serious examination of Neoplatonic natural philosophy has far-reaching consequences for our general understanding of the metaphysics of Platonism, as well as for our evaluation of their place in the history of science. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eoRoURIG3JhMB6J","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":299,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2012]}
| Title | Autour d'Eudore. Les débuts de l'exégèse des Catégories dans les Moyen Platonisme |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2009 |
| Published in | The Origins of the Platonic System: Platonisms of the early empire and their philosophical contexts |
| Pages | 89-111 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Chiaradonna, Riccardo |
| Editor(s) | Bonazzi, Mauro , Opsomer, Jan |
| Translator(s) |
| Si l’on se borne à souligner qu’Eudore a critiqué tel ou tel passage des Catégories, on oublie une donnée fondamentale : ses critiques portent sur des détails, mais ne remettent jamais en question la doctrine des catégories comme telle. Son ouvrage (quoi qu’il en soit de ses caractères formels) visait probablement à rattacher les catégories au platonisme pythagorisant, en en corrigeant des éléments ponctuels. C’est pourquoi, me semble-t-il, il n’est pas absurde de supposer qu’Eudore a été à l’origine des différentes tentatives médio-platoniciennes pour incorporer les catégories dans le platonisme : on trouve plusieurs exemples d’une telle attitude, ce qui n’exclut pas la présence de variations importantes, notamment chez le commentateur anonyme du Théétète, chez Alcinous (Did. 159, 43-44) et chez Plutarque. Cette position est manifestement différente de celle d’Atticus, qui ne visait nullement à annexer les catégories au platonisme. L’interprétation d’Eudore n’est pas non plus identique à celle du mystérieux Lucius et de Nicostrate qui, au dire de Simplicius, adressaient toute sorte d’objections extrêmement polémiques aux catégories d’Aristote. Et l’exégèse d’Eudore n’a rien à voir avec la discussion critique des catégories développée par Plotin, qui utilise les apories internes à la doctrine d’Aristote comme une sorte de démonstration dialectique des principes ontologiques « platoniciens ». Il y a une analogie superficielle entre le projet philosophique et idéologique d’Eudore et celui qui, après Plotin, sera développé par Porphyre : Eudore et Porphyre visent à construire, de manière très différente, une tradition philosophique unitaire en subordonnant les doctrines revues et corrigées d’Aristote à leur platonisme. Mais les quelques fragments d’Eudore que nous avons ne suffisent pas à développer ce parallèle ; qui plus est, l’intégration très complexe de l’aristotélisme et du platonisme chez Porphyre se fonde sur l’œuvre des grands auteurs du IIe et du IIIe siècle, notamment Alexandre d’Aphrodise et Plotin ; elle a très peu en commun avec Eudore et son arrière-plan conceptuel. Bref, si nous ne nous sommes pas égarés, il faut conclure que la première réception des catégories d’Aristote dans le platonisme autour d’Eudore est entièrement redevable au contexte précis de la période qui s’étend entre le Ier siècle avant et le Ier siècle après J.-C. S’il y a des éléments de continuité qui rattachent le platonisme de cette époque au platonisme des siècles postérieurs (notamment au platonisme de Plotin et de Porphyre), ce n’est décidément pas dans l’usage des catégories d’Aristote qu’il faut les rechercher. [conclusion p. 107-108] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RwMqNOyFpPRLD09 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1269","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1269,"authors_free":[{"id":1860,"entry_id":1269,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","free_first_name":"Riccardo ","free_last_name":"Chiaradonna","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2041,"entry_id":1269,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":210,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Bonazzi, Mauro","free_first_name":"Mauro","free_last_name":"Bonazzi","norm_person":{"id":210,"first_name":"Mauro","last_name":"Bonazzi","full_name":"Bonazzi, Mauro","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139388737","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2042,"entry_id":1269,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":211,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Opsomer, Jan","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":{"id":211,"first_name":"Jan","last_name":"Opsomer","full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120966310","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Autour d'Eudore. Les d\u00e9buts de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se des Cat\u00e9gories dans les Moyen Platonisme","main_title":{"title":"Autour d'Eudore. Les d\u00e9buts de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se des Cat\u00e9gories dans les Moyen Platonisme"},"abstract":"Si l\u2019on se borne \u00e0 souligner qu\u2019Eudore a critiqu\u00e9 tel ou tel passage des Cat\u00e9gories, on oublie une donn\u00e9e fondamentale : ses critiques portent sur des d\u00e9tails, mais ne remettent jamais en question la doctrine des cat\u00e9gories comme telle. Son ouvrage (quoi qu\u2019il en soit de ses caract\u00e8res formels) visait probablement \u00e0 rattacher les cat\u00e9gories au platonisme pythagorisant, en en corrigeant des \u00e9l\u00e9ments ponctuels.\r\n\r\nC\u2019est pourquoi, me semble-t-il, il n\u2019est pas absurde de supposer qu\u2019Eudore a \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019origine des diff\u00e9rentes tentatives m\u00e9dio-platoniciennes pour incorporer les cat\u00e9gories dans le platonisme : on trouve plusieurs exemples d\u2019une telle attitude, ce qui n\u2019exclut pas la pr\u00e9sence de variations importantes, notamment chez le commentateur anonyme du Th\u00e9\u00e9t\u00e8te, chez Alcinous (Did. 159, 43-44) et chez Plutarque.\r\n\r\nCette position est manifestement diff\u00e9rente de celle d\u2019Atticus, qui ne visait nullement \u00e0 annexer les cat\u00e9gories au platonisme. L\u2019interpr\u00e9tation d\u2019Eudore n\u2019est pas non plus identique \u00e0 celle du myst\u00e9rieux Lucius et de Nicostrate qui, au dire de Simplicius, adressaient toute sorte d\u2019objections extr\u00eamement pol\u00e9miques aux cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nEt l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se d\u2019Eudore n\u2019a rien \u00e0 voir avec la discussion critique des cat\u00e9gories d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e par Plotin, qui utilise les apories internes \u00e0 la doctrine d\u2019Aristote comme une sorte de d\u00e9monstration dialectique des principes ontologiques \u00ab platoniciens \u00bb.\r\n\r\nIl y a une analogie superficielle entre le projet philosophique et id\u00e9ologique d\u2019Eudore et celui qui, apr\u00e8s Plotin, sera d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 par Porphyre : Eudore et Porphyre visent \u00e0 construire, de mani\u00e8re tr\u00e8s diff\u00e9rente, une tradition philosophique unitaire en subordonnant les doctrines revues et corrig\u00e9es d\u2019Aristote \u00e0 leur platonisme.\r\n\r\nMais les quelques fragments d\u2019Eudore que nous avons ne suffisent pas \u00e0 d\u00e9velopper ce parall\u00e8le ; qui plus est, l\u2019int\u00e9gration tr\u00e8s complexe de l\u2019aristot\u00e9lisme et du platonisme chez Porphyre se fonde sur l\u2019\u0153uvre des grands auteurs du IIe et du IIIe si\u00e8cle, notamment Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise et Plotin ; elle a tr\u00e8s peu en commun avec Eudore et son arri\u00e8re-plan conceptuel.\r\n\r\nBref, si nous ne nous sommes pas \u00e9gar\u00e9s, il faut conclure que la premi\u00e8re r\u00e9ception des cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote dans le platonisme autour d\u2019Eudore est enti\u00e8rement redevable au contexte pr\u00e9cis de la p\u00e9riode qui s\u2019\u00e9tend entre le Ier si\u00e8cle avant et le Ier si\u00e8cle apr\u00e8s J.-C.\r\n\r\nS\u2019il y a des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de continuit\u00e9 qui rattachent le platonisme de cette \u00e9poque au platonisme des si\u00e8cles post\u00e9rieurs (notamment au platonisme de Plotin et de Porphyre), ce n\u2019est d\u00e9cid\u00e9ment pas dans l\u2019usage des cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote qu\u2019il faut les rechercher.\r\n[conclusion p. 107-108]","btype":2,"date":"2009","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RwMqNOyFpPRLD09","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":210,"full_name":"Bonazzi, Mauro","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":211,"full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1269,"section_of":274,"pages":"89-111","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":274,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"The Origins of the Platonic System: Platonisms of the early empire and their philosophical contexts","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Bonazzi\/Opsomer2009","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2009","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2009","abstract":"From the 1st century BC onwards followers of Plato began to systematize Plato's thought. These attempts went in various directions and were subjected to all kinds of philosophical influences, especially Aristotelian, Stoic, and Pythagorean. The result was a broad variety of Platonisms without orthodoxy. That would only change with Plotinus. This volume, being the fruit of the collaboration among leading scholars in the field, addresses a number of aspects of this period of system building with substantial contributions on Antiochus and Alcinous and their relation to Stoicism; on Pythagoreanising tendencies in Platonism; on Eudorus and the tradition of commentaries on Aristotle's Categories; on the creationism of the Jewish Platonist Philo of Alexandria; on Ammonius, the Egyptian teacher of Plutarch; on Plutarch's discussion of Socrates' guardian spirit. The contributions are in English, French, Italian and German.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DYApTa5lTYcdYSX","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":274,"pubplace":"Louvain \u2013 Namur \u2013 Paris \u2013 Walpole, MA","publisher":"\u00c9ditions Peeters. Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 des \u00e9tudes classique","series":"Collection d'\u00c9tudes Classiques","volume":"23","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2009]}
| Title | An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2016 |
| Published in | Brill’ Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity |
| Pages | 341-357 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Opsomer, Jan |
| Editor(s) | Falcon, Andrea |
| Translator(s) |
Iamblichus (ccl 245-320) is sometimes called the second founder of Neoplatonism.1 His innovations were essential to late Neoplatonic philosophy as it developed in the schools of Athens in particular» but also Alexandria. These innovations do not just pertain to philosophical tenets» but also to philosophi cal method and style. Iamblichus defined stricter exegetical rules and new metaphysical laws. He also created an alliance between philosophy and theurgy and insisted on the philosophical value of various religious traditions and reli gious-philosophical texts like the Chaldaean oracles. Iamblichus was» more over, decisive in shaping the school curriculum and, more generally, the canon of texts that, whether philosophical or religious, carried authority for philo sophical research. He, for instance, systematically included texts belonging to a Pythagorean tradition— a tradition which to some extent was of his own construal. His selection of philosophically important texts was in line with cer tain earlier developments, but it was Iamblichus who established a real canon. Indeed, after Iamblichus the canon remained more or less stable.If we look at the importance assigned to Aristotle and the Peripatetic tra dition, it is clear that the difference between Iamblichus and his arch-rival Porphyry does not reside in which texts were held to be worthy of profound study. Hie difference is situated rather in the role and status attributed to them within the Platonic philosophical system. From the early Imperial era onward, Aristotle was seen by most Platonists as an ally, unlike the Stoics and Epicureans, who were regarded as opponents. Yet the extent to which Aristotelian ideas were incorporated varied greatly. Different parts of Aristotle's thought attracted different Platonists and the strategies used for integrating and assimilating them diverged. Here Iamblichus made his mark, as will become clear below. [Introduction, p. 341] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/aCdD22AdndA4ijA |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"935","_score":null,"_source":{"id":935,"authors_free":[{"id":1387,"entry_id":935,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":211,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Opsomer, Jan","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":{"id":211,"first_name":"Jan","last_name":"Opsomer","full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120966310","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1388,"entry_id":935,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":95,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Falcon, Andrea","free_first_name":"Andrea","free_last_name":"Falcon","norm_person":{"id":95,"first_name":"Andrea","last_name":"Falcon","full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1138844241","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine","main_title":{"title":"An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine"},"abstract":"Iamblichus (ccl 245-320) is sometimes called the second founder of \r\nNeoplatonism.1 His innovations were essential to late Neoplatonic philosophy \r\nas it developed in the schools of Athens in particular\u00bb but also Alexandria. These \r\ninnovations do not just pertain to philosophical tenets\u00bb but also to philosophi\u00ad\r\ncal method and style. Iamblichus defined stricter exegetical rules and new \r\nmetaphysical laws. He also created an alliance between philosophy and theurgy \r\nand insisted on the philosophical value of various religious traditions and reli\u00ad\r\ngious-philosophical texts like the Chaldaean oracles. Iamblichus was\u00bb more\u00ad\r\nover, decisive in shaping the school curriculum and, more generally, the canon \r\nof texts that, whether philosophical or religious, carried authority for philo\u00ad\r\nsophical research. He, for instance, systematically included texts belonging \r\nto a Pythagorean tradition\u2014 a tradition which to some extent was of his own \r\nconstrual. His selection of philosophically important texts was in line with cer\u00ad\r\ntain earlier developments, but it was Iamblichus who established a real canon. \r\nIndeed, after Iamblichus the canon remained more or less stable.If we look at the importance assigned to Aristotle and the Peripatetic tra\u00ad\r\ndition, it is clear that the difference between Iamblichus and his arch-rival \r\nPorphyry does not reside in which texts were held to be worthy of profound \r\nstudy. Hie difference is situated rather in the role and status attributed to them \r\nwithin the Platonic philosophical system. From the early Imperial era onward, \r\nAristotle was seen by most Platonists as an ally, unlike the Stoics and Epicureans, \r\nwho were regarded as opponents. Yet the extent to which Aristotelian ideas \r\nwere incorporated varied greatly. Different parts of Aristotle's thought attracted \r\ndifferent Platonists and the strategies used for integrating and assimilating \r\nthem diverged. Here Iamblichus made his mark, as will become clear below. [Introduction, p. 341]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/aCdD22AdndA4ijA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":211,"full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":95,"full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":935,"section_of":304,"pages":"341-357","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":304,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Brill\u2019 Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Falcon2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2016","abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle provides a systematic yet accessible account of the reception of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy in Antiquity. To date, there has been no comprehensive attempt to explain this complex phenomenon. This volume fills this lacuna by offering broad coverage of the subject from Hellenistic times to the sixth century AD. It is laid out chronologically and the 23 articles are divided into three sections: I. The Hellenistic Reception of Aristotle; II. The Post-Hellenistic Engagement with Aristotle; III. Aristotle in Late Antiquity. Topics include Aristotle and the Stoa, Andronicus of Rhodes and the construction of the Aristotelian corpus, the return to Aristotle in the first century BC, and the role of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Porphyry in the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TjdS065EwQq3iWS","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":304,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine"]}
| Title | Autour d'Eudore. Les débuts de l'exégèse des Catégories dans les Moyen Platonisme |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2009 |
| Published in | The Origins of the Platonic System: Platonisms of the early empire and their philosophical contexts |
| Pages | 89-111 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Chiaradonna, Riccardo |
| Editor(s) | Bonazzi, Mauro , Opsomer, Jan |
| Translator(s) |
Si l’on se borne à souligner qu’Eudore a critiqué tel ou tel passage des Catégories, on oublie une donnée fondamentale : ses critiques portent sur des détails, mais ne remettent jamais en question la doctrine des catégories comme telle. Son ouvrage (quoi qu’il en soit de ses caractères formels) visait probablement à rattacher les catégories au platonisme pythagorisant, en en corrigeant des éléments ponctuels. C’est pourquoi, me semble-t-il, il n’est pas absurde de supposer qu’Eudore a été à l’origine des différentes tentatives médio-platoniciennes pour incorporer les catégories dans le platonisme : on trouve plusieurs exemples d’une telle attitude, ce qui n’exclut pas la présence de variations importantes, notamment chez le commentateur anonyme du Théétète, chez Alcinous (Did. 159, 43-44) et chez Plutarque. Cette position est manifestement différente de celle d’Atticus, qui ne visait nullement à annexer les catégories au platonisme. L’interprétation d’Eudore n’est pas non plus identique à celle du mystérieux Lucius et de Nicostrate qui, au dire de Simplicius, adressaient toute sorte d’objections extrêmement polémiques aux catégories d’Aristote. Et l’exégèse d’Eudore n’a rien à voir avec la discussion critique des catégories développée par Plotin, qui utilise les apories internes à la doctrine d’Aristote comme une sorte de démonstration dialectique des principes ontologiques « platoniciens ». Il y a une analogie superficielle entre le projet philosophique et idéologique d’Eudore et celui qui, après Plotin, sera développé par Porphyre : Eudore et Porphyre visent à construire, de manière très différente, une tradition philosophique unitaire en subordonnant les doctrines revues et corrigées d’Aristote à leur platonisme. Mais les quelques fragments d’Eudore que nous avons ne suffisent pas à développer ce parallèle ; qui plus est, l’intégration très complexe de l’aristotélisme et du platonisme chez Porphyre se fonde sur l’œuvre des grands auteurs du IIe et du IIIe siècle, notamment Alexandre d’Aphrodise et Plotin ; elle a très peu en commun avec Eudore et son arrière-plan conceptuel. Bref, si nous ne nous sommes pas égarés, il faut conclure que la première réception des catégories d’Aristote dans le platonisme autour d’Eudore est entièrement redevable au contexte précis de la période qui s’étend entre le Ier siècle avant et le Ier siècle après J.-C. S’il y a des éléments de continuité qui rattachent le platonisme de cette époque au platonisme des siècles postérieurs (notamment au platonisme de Plotin et de Porphyre), ce n’est décidément pas dans l’usage des catégories d’Aristote qu’il faut les rechercher. [conclusion p. 107-108] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RwMqNOyFpPRLD09 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1269","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1269,"authors_free":[{"id":1860,"entry_id":1269,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","free_first_name":"Riccardo ","free_last_name":"Chiaradonna","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2041,"entry_id":1269,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":210,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Bonazzi, Mauro","free_first_name":"Mauro","free_last_name":"Bonazzi","norm_person":{"id":210,"first_name":"Mauro","last_name":"Bonazzi","full_name":"Bonazzi, Mauro","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139388737","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2042,"entry_id":1269,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":211,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Opsomer, Jan","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":{"id":211,"first_name":"Jan","last_name":"Opsomer","full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120966310","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Autour d'Eudore. Les d\u00e9buts de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se des Cat\u00e9gories dans les Moyen Platonisme","main_title":{"title":"Autour d'Eudore. Les d\u00e9buts de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se des Cat\u00e9gories dans les Moyen Platonisme"},"abstract":"Si l\u2019on se borne \u00e0 souligner qu\u2019Eudore a critiqu\u00e9 tel ou tel passage des Cat\u00e9gories, on oublie une donn\u00e9e fondamentale : ses critiques portent sur des d\u00e9tails, mais ne remettent jamais en question la doctrine des cat\u00e9gories comme telle. Son ouvrage (quoi qu\u2019il en soit de ses caract\u00e8res formels) visait probablement \u00e0 rattacher les cat\u00e9gories au platonisme pythagorisant, en en corrigeant des \u00e9l\u00e9ments ponctuels.\r\n\r\nC\u2019est pourquoi, me semble-t-il, il n\u2019est pas absurde de supposer qu\u2019Eudore a \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019origine des diff\u00e9rentes tentatives m\u00e9dio-platoniciennes pour incorporer les cat\u00e9gories dans le platonisme : on trouve plusieurs exemples d\u2019une telle attitude, ce qui n\u2019exclut pas la pr\u00e9sence de variations importantes, notamment chez le commentateur anonyme du Th\u00e9\u00e9t\u00e8te, chez Alcinous (Did. 159, 43-44) et chez Plutarque.\r\n\r\nCette position est manifestement diff\u00e9rente de celle d\u2019Atticus, qui ne visait nullement \u00e0 annexer les cat\u00e9gories au platonisme. L\u2019interpr\u00e9tation d\u2019Eudore n\u2019est pas non plus identique \u00e0 celle du myst\u00e9rieux Lucius et de Nicostrate qui, au dire de Simplicius, adressaient toute sorte d\u2019objections extr\u00eamement pol\u00e9miques aux cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nEt l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se d\u2019Eudore n\u2019a rien \u00e0 voir avec la discussion critique des cat\u00e9gories d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e par Plotin, qui utilise les apories internes \u00e0 la doctrine d\u2019Aristote comme une sorte de d\u00e9monstration dialectique des principes ontologiques \u00ab platoniciens \u00bb.\r\n\r\nIl y a une analogie superficielle entre le projet philosophique et id\u00e9ologique d\u2019Eudore et celui qui, apr\u00e8s Plotin, sera d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 par Porphyre : Eudore et Porphyre visent \u00e0 construire, de mani\u00e8re tr\u00e8s diff\u00e9rente, une tradition philosophique unitaire en subordonnant les doctrines revues et corrig\u00e9es d\u2019Aristote \u00e0 leur platonisme.\r\n\r\nMais les quelques fragments d\u2019Eudore que nous avons ne suffisent pas \u00e0 d\u00e9velopper ce parall\u00e8le ; qui plus est, l\u2019int\u00e9gration tr\u00e8s complexe de l\u2019aristot\u00e9lisme et du platonisme chez Porphyre se fonde sur l\u2019\u0153uvre des grands auteurs du IIe et du IIIe si\u00e8cle, notamment Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise et Plotin ; elle a tr\u00e8s peu en commun avec Eudore et son arri\u00e8re-plan conceptuel.\r\n\r\nBref, si nous ne nous sommes pas \u00e9gar\u00e9s, il faut conclure que la premi\u00e8re r\u00e9ception des cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote dans le platonisme autour d\u2019Eudore est enti\u00e8rement redevable au contexte pr\u00e9cis de la p\u00e9riode qui s\u2019\u00e9tend entre le Ier si\u00e8cle avant et le Ier si\u00e8cle apr\u00e8s J.-C.\r\n\r\nS\u2019il y a des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de continuit\u00e9 qui rattachent le platonisme de cette \u00e9poque au platonisme des si\u00e8cles post\u00e9rieurs (notamment au platonisme de Plotin et de Porphyre), ce n\u2019est d\u00e9cid\u00e9ment pas dans l\u2019usage des cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote qu\u2019il faut les rechercher.\r\n[conclusion p. 107-108]","btype":2,"date":"2009","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RwMqNOyFpPRLD09","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":210,"full_name":"Bonazzi, Mauro","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":211,"full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1269,"section_of":274,"pages":"89-111","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":274,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"The Origins of the Platonic System: Platonisms of the early empire and their philosophical contexts","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Bonazzi\/Opsomer2009","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2009","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2009","abstract":"From the 1st century BC onwards followers of Plato began to systematize Plato's thought. These attempts went in various directions and were subjected to all kinds of philosophical influences, especially Aristotelian, Stoic, and Pythagorean. The result was a broad variety of Platonisms without orthodoxy. That would only change with Plotinus. This volume, being the fruit of the collaboration among leading scholars in the field, addresses a number of aspects of this period of system building with substantial contributions on Antiochus and Alcinous and their relation to Stoicism; on Pythagoreanising tendencies in Platonism; on Eudorus and the tradition of commentaries on Aristotle's Categories; on the creationism of the Jewish Platonist Philo of Alexandria; on Ammonius, the Egyptian teacher of Plutarch; on Plutarch's discussion of Socrates' guardian spirit. The contributions are in English, French, Italian and German.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DYApTa5lTYcdYSX","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":274,"pubplace":"Louvain \u2013 Namur \u2013 Paris \u2013 Walpole, MA","publisher":"\u00c9ditions Peeters. Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 des \u00e9tudes classique","series":"Collection d'\u00c9tudes Classiques","volume":"23","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Autour d'Eudore. Les d\u00e9buts de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se des Cat\u00e9gories dans les Moyen Platonisme"]}
| Title | In defence of geometric atomism: Explaining elemental properties |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2012 |
| Published in | Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature |
| Pages | 147-173 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Opsomer, Jan |
| Editor(s) | Wilberding, James , Horn, Christoph |
| Translator(s) |
Plato introduces what is nowadays called geometric atomism in his Timaeus—more precisely, in the second part of the physical account where he examines the cosmos under the aspect of what he calls ‘necessity’. This resurfaces again in the final part, which is devoted to what comes about from the cooperation of reason and necessity, where he regularly invokes the triangles and polyhedra in order to explain various biochemical processes of the human body.
The introduction of geometric atomism is preceded by the infamously obscure description of the receptacle. This mysterious entity is presented as that in which qualities and shapes appear but also appears to provide the stuff out of which things are made. I will not here enter into the debates about what the receptacle is supposed to be; it suffices to note that the text in some passages may suggest to readers familiar with the later conception of matter that matter is exactly what Plato means. Since this is certainly what Aristotle and, in his wake, all ancient commentators took it to be, we need not for our present purposes consider other readings.
Prior to the intervention of the demiurge, the precosmic mass already contained traces of the elements (ichnê, 53b2): it was fiery here, watery there, and so on. Yet it did not have elements with a stable identity. The use of the definite demonstrative pronouns this or that would therefore be inaccurate. So what is fire in the precosmic state is not to be called a this, but rather a such, or that which is always such and such.
In order to bring about some stability, the craftsman set out to impart a distinct configuration to the precosmic mass by means of shapes and numbers (dieschêmatisato eidesi te kai arithmois, 53b4-5). Timaeus constructs the elements out of primary triangles. Of all the possible kinds, he selects two basic types: the 30-60-90 scalene triangle—that is, a half-equilateral triangle (Type A)—and the right isosceles triangle—a half-square (Type B). These triangles are combined to form larger shapes, called ‘surfaces’ (epiphaneia) by the commentators.
For the sake of convenience, I shall call ‘surfaces’ the composite shapes formed out of the basic triangles; the latter I shall just call ‘triangles’. (One of the surfaces happens to be a triangle too, and it is a matter of dispute among the commentators whether the surfaces are really just two-dimensional planes.)
Six triangles of Type A can be put together in such a way that they make up an equilateral triangle; four Type B triangles form a square. These surfaces are then combined into stereometric figures (congruent convex regular polyhedra): from the equilateral triangular surfaces can be formed the tetrahedron (that is, a pyramid), the octahedron, and the icosahedron, consisting of four, eight, and twenty faces, respectively; six squares are combined into a hexahedron (that is, a cube).
These polyhedra are then assigned to the traditional four elements (henceforth referred to as EWAFs):
The tetrahedron provides the shape of fire.
The octahedron that of air.
The icosahedron that of water.
The hexahedron that of earth.
This model of Plato’s geometric atoms can be completed by adding two more levels—one at the bottom and the other at the top. At one end, we might add the mixtures into which EWAFs enter, and at the foundational level, we must add a level even prior to the basic triangles, since Plato acknowledges that there are ‘even higher principles’ that are known only to god and privileged humans (53d6-7). [introduction p. 147-148] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/q3J2ENiGHB1LmYR |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1095","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1095,"authors_free":[{"id":1653,"entry_id":1095,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":211,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Opsomer, Jan","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":{"id":211,"first_name":"Jan","last_name":"Opsomer","full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120966310","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1654,"entry_id":1095,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":257,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wilberding, James","free_first_name":"James","free_last_name":"Wilberding","norm_person":{"id":257,"first_name":"James","last_name":"Wilberding","full_name":"Wilberding, James","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143517465","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1655,"entry_id":1095,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":256,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Horn, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Horn","norm_person":{"id":256,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Horn","full_name":"Horn, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115589406","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"In defence of geometric atomism: Explaining elemental properties","main_title":{"title":"In defence of geometric atomism: Explaining elemental properties"},"abstract":"Plato introduces what is nowadays called geometric atomism in his Timaeus\u2014more precisely, in the second part of the physical account where he examines the cosmos under the aspect of what he calls \u2018necessity\u2019. This resurfaces again in the final part, which is devoted to what comes about from the cooperation of reason and necessity, where he regularly invokes the triangles and polyhedra in order to explain various biochemical processes of the human body.\r\n\r\nThe introduction of geometric atomism is preceded by the infamously obscure description of the receptacle. This mysterious entity is presented as that in which qualities and shapes appear but also appears to provide the stuff out of which things are made. I will not here enter into the debates about what the receptacle is supposed to be; it suffices to note that the text in some passages may suggest to readers familiar with the later conception of matter that matter is exactly what Plato means. Since this is certainly what Aristotle and, in his wake, all ancient commentators took it to be, we need not for our present purposes consider other readings.\r\n\r\nPrior to the intervention of the demiurge, the precosmic mass already contained traces of the elements (ichn\u00ea, 53b2): it was fiery here, watery there, and so on. Yet it did not have elements with a stable identity. The use of the definite demonstrative pronouns this or that would therefore be inaccurate. So what is fire in the precosmic state is not to be called a this, but rather a such, or that which is always such and such.\r\n\r\nIn order to bring about some stability, the craftsman set out to impart a distinct configuration to the precosmic mass by means of shapes and numbers (diesch\u00eamatisato eidesi te kai arithmois, 53b4-5). Timaeus constructs the elements out of primary triangles. Of all the possible kinds, he selects two basic types: the 30-60-90 scalene triangle\u2014that is, a half-equilateral triangle (Type A)\u2014and the right isosceles triangle\u2014a half-square (Type B). These triangles are combined to form larger shapes, called \u2018surfaces\u2019 (epiphaneia) by the commentators.\r\n\r\nFor the sake of convenience, I shall call \u2018surfaces\u2019 the composite shapes formed out of the basic triangles; the latter I shall just call \u2018triangles\u2019. (One of the surfaces happens to be a triangle too, and it is a matter of dispute among the commentators whether the surfaces are really just two-dimensional planes.)\r\n\r\nSix triangles of Type A can be put together in such a way that they make up an equilateral triangle; four Type B triangles form a square. These surfaces are then combined into stereometric figures (congruent convex regular polyhedra): from the equilateral triangular surfaces can be formed the tetrahedron (that is, a pyramid), the octahedron, and the icosahedron, consisting of four, eight, and twenty faces, respectively; six squares are combined into a hexahedron (that is, a cube).\r\n\r\nThese polyhedra are then assigned to the traditional four elements (henceforth referred to as EWAFs):\r\n\r\n The tetrahedron provides the shape of fire.\r\n The octahedron that of air.\r\n The icosahedron that of water.\r\n The hexahedron that of earth.\r\n\r\nThis model of Plato\u2019s geometric atoms can be completed by adding two more levels\u2014one at the bottom and the other at the top. At one end, we might add the mixtures into which EWAFs enter, and at the foundational level, we must add a level even prior to the basic triangles, since Plato acknowledges that there are \u2018even higher principles\u2019 that are known only to god and privileged humans (53d6-7). [introduction p. 147-148]","btype":2,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/q3J2ENiGHB1LmYR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":211,"full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":257,"full_name":"Wilberding, James","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":256,"full_name":"Horn, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1095,"section_of":299,"pages":"147-173","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":299,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Horn\/Wilberding2012","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2012","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2012","abstract":"Despite Platonism\u2019s unquestioned claim to being one of the most influential movements in the history of philosophy, for a long time the conventional wisdom was that Platonists of late antiquity\u2014or Neoplatonists\u2014were so focused on other-worldly metaphysics that they simply neglected any serious study of the sensible world, which after all is \u2018merely\u2019 an image of the intelligible world, and only recently has this conventional wisdom begun to be dispelled. In fact, precisely because these thinkers did see the sensible world as an image of the intelligible world, they devoted much time and energy to understanding its inner workings. Thus we find Neoplatonists writing on embryology, physiology, meteorology, astronomy, and much else. This volume collects essays by leading international scholars in the field that shed new light on how these thinkers sought to understand and explain nature and natural phenomena. It is thematically divided into two parts, with the first part\u2014\u2018The general metaphysics of Nature\u2019\u2014directed at the explication of central Neoplatonic metaphysical doctrines and their relation to the natural world, and the second part\u2014\u2019Platonic approaches to individual sciences\u2019\u2014showing how these same doctrines play out in individual natural sciences such as elemental physics, geography, and biology. Together these essays show that a serious examination of Neoplatonic natural philosophy has far-reaching consequences for our general understanding of the metaphysics of Platonism, as well as for our evaluation of their place in the history of science. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eoRoURIG3JhMB6J","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":299,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["In defence of geometric atomism: Explaining elemental properties"]}