| Title | Aristotle, Plotinus, and Simplicius on the Relation of the Changer to the Changed |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2005 |
| Journal | The Classical Quarterly |
| Volume | 55 (New Series) |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 447–454 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Wilberding, James |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| As we have seen above, Plotinus' hesitation with respect to (1) probably derived from his theory of double activity, and so Simplicius' willingness to agree to (1) suggests that he did not adopt this theory. Indeed, I suspect this was the case. It is true that the structure of Neoplatonic metaphysics that one encounters in Simplicius bears many similarities to that of Plotinus, including much of the language of procession. Both, for example, speak of lower substances "proceeding (προιέναι)" from and "enjoying" (ἀπολαμβάνειν) "radiation" (ἀπαύγασις or περιλάμπσις) from their priors. But nowhere, I claim, does Simplicius explain procession by means of Plotinus' theory of double activity. There is, of course, no great proof stone for such negative claims. Nevertheless, this claim can be partially verified by checking to see what Simplicius has to say about Plotinus' favourite examples of double activity—light, heat, and the images in mirrors—as well as by searching the Simplician corpus to see if he uses the designations for internal and external activity that Plotinus uses. Investigation shows that Simplicius does not make use of Plotinus' designations. The closest we get is a passage in his commentary on the Physics where he provides a long quotation of Damascius in which the theory seems to appear. Otherwise, we find only some discussion of the Aristotelian distinction between first and second actuality. But Simplicius does not distinguish the activity τῆς οὐσίας from that ἐκ (or ἀπὸ) τῆς οὐσίας, nor that πρὸς τὸ ἄνω from that πρὸς τὸ κάτω, nor that ἐν αὐτῇ (or αὐτῇ) from that ἐξ (or παρ’) αὐτῆς. Moreover, we can see that none of Plotinus' three examples is employed by Simplicius to explain double activity. Regarding the nature of light, Simplicius is even rather non-committal at times. As for heat, even when Simplicius discusses the distinction between the heat that is proper to fire (that is, the internal activity) and the heat that fire produces in another thing (that is, the external activity), he does so without using the language of the double activity theory. And Simplicius simply does not make much use of mirrors. All of this, I believe, points to the conclusion that Simplicius does not employ Plotinus' distinction between internal and external activity. If this is right, it perhaps does not imply that Simplicius' views on the metaphysics of procession are all that different from Plotinus', but at the very least, it would show that there is sometimes a considerable difference in the way he goes about describing those views. [conclusion p. 453-454] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2vgk7grGxbqIV3p |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"431","_score":null,"_source":{"id":431,"authors_free":[{"id":582,"entry_id":431,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":257,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"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}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle, Plotinus, and Simplicius on the Relation of the Changer to the Changed","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle, Plotinus, and Simplicius on the Relation of the Changer to the Changed"},"abstract":"As we have seen above, Plotinus' hesitation with respect to (1) probably derived from his theory of double activity, and so Simplicius' willingness to agree to (1) suggests that he did not adopt this theory. Indeed, I suspect this was the case. It is true that the structure of Neoplatonic metaphysics that one encounters in Simplicius bears many similarities to that of Plotinus, including much of the language of procession. Both, for example, speak of lower substances \"proceeding (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9)\" from and \"enjoying\" (\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd) \"radiation\" (\u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 or \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u03c0\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) from their priors. But nowhere, I claim, does Simplicius explain procession by means of Plotinus' theory of double activity.\r\n\r\nThere is, of course, no great proof stone for such negative claims. Nevertheless, this claim can be partially verified by checking to see what Simplicius has to say about Plotinus' favourite examples of double activity\u2014light, heat, and the images in mirrors\u2014as well as by searching the Simplician corpus to see if he uses the designations for internal and external activity that Plotinus uses. Investigation shows that Simplicius does not make use of Plotinus' designations. The closest we get is a passage in his commentary on the Physics where he provides a long quotation of Damascius in which the theory seems to appear. Otherwise, we find only some discussion of the Aristotelian distinction between first and second actuality. But Simplicius does not distinguish the activity \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 from that \u1f10\u03ba (or \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78) \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, nor that \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 from that \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9, nor that \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 (or \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7) from that \u1f10\u03be (or \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019) \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2.\r\n\r\nMoreover, we can see that none of Plotinus' three examples is employed by Simplicius to explain double activity. Regarding the nature of light, Simplicius is even rather non-committal at times. As for heat, even when Simplicius discusses the distinction between the heat that is proper to fire (that is, the internal activity) and the heat that fire produces in another thing (that is, the external activity), he does so without using the language of the double activity theory. And Simplicius simply does not make much use of mirrors. All of this, I believe, points to the conclusion that Simplicius does not employ Plotinus' distinction between internal and external activity.\r\n\r\nIf this is right, it perhaps does not imply that Simplicius' views on the metaphysics of procession are all that different from Plotinus', but at the very least, it would show that there is sometimes a considerable difference in the way he goes about describing those views. [conclusion p. 453-454]","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2vgk7grGxbqIV3p","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":257,"full_name":"Wilberding, James","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":431,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":"55 (New Series)","issue":"2","pages":"447\u2013454"}},"sort":[2005]}
| Title | Aristotle, Plotinus, and Simplicius on the Relation of the Changer to the Changed |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2005 |
| Journal | The Classical Quarterly |
| Volume | 55 (New Series) |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 447–454 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Wilberding, James |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
As we have seen above, Plotinus' hesitation with respect to (1) probably derived from his theory of double activity, and so Simplicius' willingness to agree to (1) suggests that he did not adopt this theory. Indeed, I suspect this was the case. It is true that the structure of Neoplatonic metaphysics that one encounters in Simplicius bears many similarities to that of Plotinus, including much of the language of procession. Both, for example, speak of lower substances "proceeding (προιέναι)" from and "enjoying" (ἀπολαμβάνειν) "radiation" (ἀπαύγασις or περιλάμπσις) from their priors. But nowhere, I claim, does Simplicius explain procession by means of Plotinus' theory of double activity. There is, of course, no great proof stone for such negative claims. Nevertheless, this claim can be partially verified by checking to see what Simplicius has to say about Plotinus' favourite examples of double activity—light, heat, and the images in mirrors—as well as by searching the Simplician corpus to see if he uses the designations for internal and external activity that Plotinus uses. Investigation shows that Simplicius does not make use of Plotinus' designations. The closest we get is a passage in his commentary on the Physics where he provides a long quotation of Damascius in which the theory seems to appear. Otherwise, we find only some discussion of the Aristotelian distinction between first and second actuality. But Simplicius does not distinguish the activity τῆς οὐσίας from that ἐκ (or ἀπὸ) τῆς οὐσίας, nor that πρὸς τὸ ἄνω from that πρὸς τὸ κάτω, nor that ἐν αὐτῇ (or αὐτῇ) from that ἐξ (or παρ’) αὐτῆς. Moreover, we can see that none of Plotinus' three examples is employed by Simplicius to explain double activity. Regarding the nature of light, Simplicius is even rather non-committal at times. As for heat, even when Simplicius discusses the distinction between the heat that is proper to fire (that is, the internal activity) and the heat that fire produces in another thing (that is, the external activity), he does so without using the language of the double activity theory. And Simplicius simply does not make much use of mirrors. All of this, I believe, points to the conclusion that Simplicius does not employ Plotinus' distinction between internal and external activity. If this is right, it perhaps does not imply that Simplicius' views on the metaphysics of procession are all that different from Plotinus', but at the very least, it would show that there is sometimes a considerable difference in the way he goes about describing those views. [conclusion p. 453-454] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2vgk7grGxbqIV3p |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"431","_score":null,"_source":{"id":431,"authors_free":[{"id":582,"entry_id":431,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":257,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"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}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle, Plotinus, and Simplicius on the Relation of the Changer to the Changed","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle, Plotinus, and Simplicius on the Relation of the Changer to the Changed"},"abstract":"As we have seen above, Plotinus' hesitation with respect to (1) probably derived from his theory of double activity, and so Simplicius' willingness to agree to (1) suggests that he did not adopt this theory. Indeed, I suspect this was the case. It is true that the structure of Neoplatonic metaphysics that one encounters in Simplicius bears many similarities to that of Plotinus, including much of the language of procession. Both, for example, speak of lower substances \"proceeding (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9)\" from and \"enjoying\" (\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd) \"radiation\" (\u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 or \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u03c0\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) from their priors. But nowhere, I claim, does Simplicius explain procession by means of Plotinus' theory of double activity.\r\n\r\nThere is, of course, no great proof stone for such negative claims. Nevertheless, this claim can be partially verified by checking to see what Simplicius has to say about Plotinus' favourite examples of double activity\u2014light, heat, and the images in mirrors\u2014as well as by searching the Simplician corpus to see if he uses the designations for internal and external activity that Plotinus uses. Investigation shows that Simplicius does not make use of Plotinus' designations. The closest we get is a passage in his commentary on the Physics where he provides a long quotation of Damascius in which the theory seems to appear. Otherwise, we find only some discussion of the Aristotelian distinction between first and second actuality. But Simplicius does not distinguish the activity \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 from that \u1f10\u03ba (or \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78) \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, nor that \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 from that \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9, nor that \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 (or \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7) from that \u1f10\u03be (or \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019) \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2.\r\n\r\nMoreover, we can see that none of Plotinus' three examples is employed by Simplicius to explain double activity. Regarding the nature of light, Simplicius is even rather non-committal at times. As for heat, even when Simplicius discusses the distinction between the heat that is proper to fire (that is, the internal activity) and the heat that fire produces in another thing (that is, the external activity), he does so without using the language of the double activity theory. And Simplicius simply does not make much use of mirrors. All of this, I believe, points to the conclusion that Simplicius does not employ Plotinus' distinction between internal and external activity.\r\n\r\nIf this is right, it perhaps does not imply that Simplicius' views on the metaphysics of procession are all that different from Plotinus', but at the very least, it would show that there is sometimes a considerable difference in the way he goes about describing those views. [conclusion p. 453-454]","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2vgk7grGxbqIV3p","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":257,"full_name":"Wilberding, James","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":431,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":"55 (New Series)","issue":"2","pages":"447\u2013454"}},"sort":["Aristotle, Plotinus, and Simplicius on the Relation of the Changer to the Changed"]}