{"_index":"sire","_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"]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"470","_score":null,"_source":{"id":470,"authors_free":[{"id":633,"entry_id":470,"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}},{"id":634,"entry_id":470,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":339,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fuhrer, Therese","free_first_name":"Therese","free_last_name":"Fuhrer","norm_person":{"id":339,"first_name":"Therese","last_name":"Fuhrer","full_name":"Fuhrer, Therese","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117693804","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":635,"entry_id":470,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":164,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Erler, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Erler","norm_person":{"id":164,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Erler","full_name":"Erler, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122153847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Stoische Ethik und neuplatonische Tugendlehre. Zur Verortung der stoischen Ethik im neuplatonischen System in Simplikios' Kommentar zu Epiktets Enchiridion","main_title":{"title":"Stoische Ethik und neuplatonische Tugendlehre. Zur Verortung der stoischen Ethik im neuplatonischen System in Simplikios' Kommentar zu Epiktets Enchiridion"},"abstract":"The text presents an analysis of the Stoic ethics and its placement within the Neoplatonic system, particularly in Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' Enchiridion. It explores how the Neoplatonic tradition emerged as a unified philosophical school, leading to the disappearance of conflicting philosophical schools. Despite the Stoic teachings being present in Neoplatonic works, they are generally treated critically and dismissed as opposed to the Aristotelian position. The text then delves into the Neoplatonic system of virtues, starting with Plato's four cardinal virtues, which were further developed by Neoplatonists. It highlights Plotinus' view that the political virtues alone are not sufficient for the soul's ascent to divine perfection, as they are related to the material world. Instead, Plotinus introduces the concept of \"purifications\" as the virtues that enable the soul to detach from bodily passions and elevate itself towards the divine. The abstract concludes by emphasizing the relevance of Simplikios' application of this Neoplatonic virtue system to Epictetus' Enchiridion, positioning it as an essential tool for the soul's progress towards resemblance to the divine. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RKLOhPA3UpPbgKk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":333,"full_name":"Thiel, Rainer","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":339,"full_name":"Fuhrer, Therese","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":164,"full_name":"Erler, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":470,"section_of":324,"pages":"93-103","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":324,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Zur Rezeption der hellenistischen Philosophie in der Sp\u00e4tantike. Akten der 1. Tagung der Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 22.-25. September 1997 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fuhrer\/Erler1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"Review by T. Runia: As a generalization it is often remarked that the poor state of our knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy, based almost exclusively on reports and fragments, is due to the decline of interest in this philosophy during the period of late antiquity. After the schools had closed down by the beginning of the 3rd century C.E., Peripatetic, Stoic, and Epicurean writings ceased to circulate widely, and in the end disappeared completely. Of course the end result of this process cannot be disputed. These writings have simply disappeared and, short of a miracle, they will not resurface.\r\n\r\nBut the process certainly took longer and was less radical in its earlier stages than is often thought. Late ancient philosophers and theologians in many cases still had a considerable knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy and used that knowledge to good effect in their own writings.\r\n\r\nThe theme of the reception of Hellenistic philosophy in late antiquity is the subject of the book under review, which contains fifteen studies originally presented at a conference in Trier in 1997. The studies are in German, with two exceptions, a paper in Italian and one in English. They have been prepared by a group of young scholars, mainly in their 30's and 40's, who in most cases have taken up positions in German and Swiss universities during the past decade or so.\r\n\r\nReviewing the various studies, one cannot but help noticing a marked similarity of method. The subjects treated are on the whole fairly limited in scope, and often concentrate on a particular author and a particular text. The detailed treatment is usually prefaced by an introductory section, which places the subject in a wider context, for example by tracing its development from the end of the Hellenistic period to the time of the author being discussed.These introductory sections can sometimes be very entertaining and informative (as in the case of the article of Christoph Riedweg, who points out remarkable correspondences between the period of late antiquity and our own time), but can also be too much simply a catalogue of authors and texts (as in the case of the survey of Epicureanism from Hadrian to Lactantius in the article by Jochem Althoff). The end result is that we have fifteen small but well-featured islands standing out in the broader sea of the book's subject.\r\n\r\nThe brief introduction competently but very succinctly outlines three connecting themes:\r\n\r\n The role of the Stoa and Epicureanism in Platonist philosophy.\r\n Scepticism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism in Christian literature.\r\n Doctrines of the Hellenistic philosophical schools as general cultural knowledge (Bildungsgut).\r\n\r\nBut no real attempt is made to cover the subject in more general terms. This is increasingly the method of such selective conference volumes. In spite of the general title, it is primarily a book for specialists.\r\n\r\nThe fifteen papers can be more or less divided into the three thematic categories noted above. Four concentrate on Hellenistic themes in later Platonism: Dominic O'Meara on Epicurus Neoplatonicus, Rainer Thiel and Michael Erler on the preparatory role of Hellenistic (and especially Stoic) ethics, Jan Opsomer and Carlos Steel on Proclus' doctrine of the origin of evil and its Hellenistic antecedents. Christoph Riedweg, by investigating Julian's use of Stoic and Platonic argumentation in his anti-Christian polemic, bridges the gap with the eight contributions which concentrate on Patristic authors.\r\n\r\nThe intellectual dominance of Augustine is illustrated by the fact that no less than five contributions concentrate on his writings: Maria Bettetini on the background to De musica (very little Hellenistic philosophy here), Karin Schlapbach on Ciceronian and Neoplatonist elements in the proarmia of Contra Academicos I & II, Sabine Harwardt on Stoic argumentation in De beata vita, Christoph Horn on Augustine's moral philosophy in relation to Greek virtue ethics, Therese Fuhrer on the Hellenistic epistemological background of Augustine's concept of faith.\r\n\r\nThe other three specifically Patristic contributions are on Amobius (philosophical themes in his apologetic argumentation, by Sabine Follinger), Lactantius (his use of Epicurus, by Jochem Althoff), and Prudentius (virtue against vice in the Psychomachia, by Carolin Oser-Grote).\r\n\r\nThe volume ends with two more general treatments. Karla Pollman attempts to trace two differing conceptions of fictionality\u2014the Platonic mimesis-model focused on the author and the Stoic signification-model focused more on the reader\u2014from Hellenistic philosophy to their adaptation in late ancient texts. Ulrich Eigler, in an ambitious and stimulating contribution, investigates the cultural context of the kind of amateur use of philosophy that we find, for example, in Jerome's writings. Of these fifteen articles, three stand out on account of the lucidity of their treatment and the importance of their subject. Christoph Horn's method is perhaps somewhat unusual, in that he focuses his treatment of Augustine's virtue ethics almost entirely on a point-by-point rebuttal of the position of the Swedish scholar of a previous generation, Gosta Hok, whom he accuses of interpreting Augustine in such a way as to make him a fideistic opponent of ancient rationalism. In actual fact, Augustine unreservedly takes over the basic theses of ancient ethical rationalism, but in his later years reserves it for followers of the \"true religion,\" without coming to a real discussion with its original Neoplatonist proponents.\r\n\r\nMany of Horn's points are well taken, but one wonders whether in this interpretation the gulf between Augustine's professed method of selective spoliatio and his actual practice of largely uncritical appropriation (as proposed by Horn) does not become too great. What Augustine objects to in ancient rationalism is its intellectual arrogance, the refusal to submit to the yoke of faith. This position seems to me to have revisionary aspirations. The struggle between \"catholic\" and \"protestant\" readings of Augustine is likely to continue.\r\n\r\nIn her paper on the epistemological background to Augustine's conception of faith, Therese Fuhrer argues that it is to be found in the Stoic theory in which assent (adsensio, \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) precedes both knowledge (scientia, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7, based on comprehensio, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2) and belief (opinio, \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1). A priori, this seems not so likely, since the role assigned to volition in the two conceptions is quite different. Nevertheless, Fuhrer manages to show that both in terms of structure and terminology this background does have illuminating features.\r\n\r\nA difficulty remains that no texts indicating an explicit relation between the act of faith and epistemological assent can be found until two passages in very late writings. This article illustrates how difficult it is to pin Augustine down in relation to specific philosophical theories. It is his powerful transforming drive that makes his views so distinctive and so hard to categorize in \"doxographical\" terms.\r\n\r\nThe article of Jan Opsomer and Carlos Steel is recommended reading for anyone interested in how ancient philosophers working within the tradition of classical ontology wrestled with the problem of evil. Not only does it give an excellent overview of the dilemmas involved and the solutions attempted, but it also draws on the new translation of Proclus' De malorum substantia, which the authors are preparing.\r\n\r\nThey show how Proclus tries to find a way out of the classical dilemma in which one either has to detract from providence or not take evil seriously enough as a real aspect of the world. Proclus' solution is intriguing but very risky. Any attribution of evil to the first cause is unacceptable, but in the light of Neoplatonist ontological monism this means that one has to understand evil as an (ultimately) uncaused event.\r\n\r\nNot only is this very awkward in light of the Platonic principle nihil fit sine causa, which Proclus fully endorses, but it also seems to reduce evil to a kind of accidental epiphenomenon. Opsomer and Steel argue that Proclus may have found a third way between the Stoa and the Peripatos (which reserves providence for the divine realm only), but at a considerable cost. They tentatively conclude that the Stoa continues to hold the last word in this debate, and that theodicy may well be the worst legacy that this school has left to subsequent philosophy. This is perhaps a somewhat disappointing result, but no better illustration could be given of the importance of studying Hellenistic philosophy as a background for late ancient and patristic philosophy.\r\n\r\nIn furthering this study, the book under review makes a valuable contribution. The volume also shows, as the product of predominantly young scholars, that the future of scholarship in the area of later ancient and Patristic philosophy is in good hands.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Wi5qXtXGHesjYwT","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":324,"pubplace":"Stuttgart","publisher":"Franz Steiner Verlag","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Stoische Ethik und neuplatonische Tugendlehre. Zur Verortung der stoischen Ethik im neuplatonischen System in Simplikios' Kommentar zu Epiktets Enchiridion"]}