{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"52","_score":null,"_source":{"id":52,"authors_free":[{"id":60,"entry_id":52,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":333,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Thiel, Rainer","free_first_name":"Rainer","free_last_name":"Thiel","norm_person":{"id":333,"first_name":"Rainer","last_name":"Thiel","full_name":"Thiel, Rainer","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12885054X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristoteles' Kategorienschrift in ihrer antiken Kommentierung","main_title":{"title":"Aristoteles' Kategorienschrift in ihrer antiken Kommentierung"},"abstract":"Aristotle's Categories are still widely seen as being incompatible with both Aristotle's later analysis of ousia (in Metaphysics Z) and Plato's ontology. Porphyry's attempt to make sense of this work within a Neoplatonic context is considered, in turn, both as failing to do justice to Aristotle and as directed against Plotinus' purported criticism of Aristotle's Categories . Rainer Thiel shows that the Neoplatonic commentaries on the Categories that go back to Prophyry's reading can be viewed as a valid interpretation of Aristotle which does not contradict Plotinus' view, but in fact can be traced back to him. Plotinus himself does not criticize Aristotle; he does however criticize certain middle-Platonic readings of the Categories. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2004","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XddENwtj5FJ59XC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":333,"full_name":"Thiel, Rainer","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":52,"pubplace":"T\u00fcbingen","publisher":"Mohr Siebeck","series":"Philosophische Untersuchungen","volume":"11","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Aristoteles' Kategorienschrift in ihrer antiken Kommentierung"]}