| Title | Impetus Theory and the Hermeneutics of Science in Simplicius and Philoponus |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1999 |
| Journal | Hyperboreus |
| Volume | 5 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 107–124 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Wildberg, Christian |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Let me come to a conclusion: In the first part of this paper I claimed that historians o f science do and should inquire into the context o f origin of past philosophical theories, not only into the context of the validity (1). Three different attempts to explain the innovative character o f John Philoponus' philosophy were discussed; all were flawed by the fact that they sought an explanation by means o f external historiography: in religion, biography and economic circumstances (II). In the main part o f this paper attention was drawn to the striking difference between the presuppositions at work in Simplicius’ and Philoponus' respective hermeneutics o f science (111). I have argued that Philoponus was able to liberate his mind in an unprecedented way from the constraints of the Neoplatonists' commitment to harmony, authority and salvation through philosophy. Philoponus’ alternative heuristic method, termed constructive criticism, was then identified as perhaps the most im portant driving force behind his scientific innovations (IV). I should like to conclude with the general recommendation that anyone who is interested in elucidating the origin o f philosophical-scientific ideas and controversies, be it o f the sixth century or at any other time, might find it more fruitful to study carefully the methodological presuppositions involved, be they hermeneutic, empirical, or speculative, rather than to gesture all too readily to external parameters like religion, anecdotes, or the socio-economics of the market place. [conclusion p. 123-124] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/H1d8bA0zFyyKAUN |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"429","_score":null,"_source":{"id":429,"authors_free":[{"id":579,"entry_id":429,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":360,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wildberg, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Wildberg","norm_person":{"id":360,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Wildberg","full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139018964","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Impetus Theory and the Hermeneutics of Science in Simplicius and Philoponus","main_title":{"title":"Impetus Theory and the Hermeneutics of Science in Simplicius and Philoponus"},"abstract":"Let me come to a conclusion: In the first part of this paper I claimed that \r\nhistorians o f science do and should inquire into the context o f origin of past \r\nphilosophical theories, not only into the context of the validity (1). Three \r\ndifferent attempts to explain the innovative character o f John Philoponus' \r\nphilosophy were discussed; all were flawed by the fact that they sought an \r\nexplanation by means o f external historiography: in religion, biography and \r\neconomic circumstances (II). In the main part o f this paper attention was drawn to the striking difference between the presuppositions at work in \r\nSimplicius\u2019 and Philoponus' respective hermeneutics o f science (111). I have \r\nargued that Philoponus was able to liberate his mind in an unprecedented way \r\nfrom the constraints of the Neoplatonists' commitment to harmony, authority \r\nand salvation through philosophy. Philoponus\u2019 alternative heuristic method, \r\ntermed constructive criticism, was then identified as perhaps the most im\u00ad\r\nportant driving force behind his scientific innovations (IV). I should like to \r\nconclude with the general recommendation that anyone who is interested in \r\nelucidating the origin o f philosophical-scientific ideas and controversies, be \r\nit o f the sixth century or at any other time, might find it more fruitful to study \r\ncarefully the methodological presuppositions involved, be they hermeneutic, \r\nempirical, or speculative, rather than to gesture all too readily to external \r\nparameters like religion, anecdotes, or the socio-economics of the market \r\nplace. [conclusion p. 123-124]","btype":3,"date":"1999","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/H1d8bA0zFyyKAUN","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":429,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hyperboreus","volume":"5","issue":"1","pages":"107\u2013124"}},"sort":[1999]}
| Title | Impetus Theory and the Hermeneutics of Science in Simplicius and Philoponus |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1999 |
| Journal | Hyperboreus |
| Volume | 5 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 107–124 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Wildberg, Christian |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Let me come to a conclusion: In the first part of this paper I claimed that historians o f science do and should inquire into the context o f origin of past philosophical theories, not only into the context of the validity (1). Three different attempts to explain the innovative character o f John Philoponus' philosophy were discussed; all were flawed by the fact that they sought an explanation by means o f external historiography: in religion, biography and economic circumstances (II). In the main part o f this paper attention was drawn to the striking difference between the presuppositions at work in Simplicius’ and Philoponus' respective hermeneutics o f science (111). I have argued that Philoponus was able to liberate his mind in an unprecedented way from the constraints of the Neoplatonists' commitment to harmony, authority and salvation through philosophy. Philoponus’ alternative heuristic method, termed constructive criticism, was then identified as perhaps the most im portant driving force behind his scientific innovations (IV). I should like to conclude with the general recommendation that anyone who is interested in elucidating the origin o f philosophical-scientific ideas and controversies, be it o f the sixth century or at any other time, might find it more fruitful to study carefully the methodological presuppositions involved, be they hermeneutic, empirical, or speculative, rather than to gesture all too readily to external parameters like religion, anecdotes, or the socio-economics of the market place. [conclusion p. 123-124] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/H1d8bA0zFyyKAUN |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"429","_score":null,"_source":{"id":429,"authors_free":[{"id":579,"entry_id":429,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":360,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wildberg, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Wildberg","norm_person":{"id":360,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Wildberg","full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139018964","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Impetus Theory and the Hermeneutics of Science in Simplicius and Philoponus","main_title":{"title":"Impetus Theory and the Hermeneutics of Science in Simplicius and Philoponus"},"abstract":"Let me come to a conclusion: In the first part of this paper I claimed that \r\nhistorians o f science do and should inquire into the context o f origin of past \r\nphilosophical theories, not only into the context of the validity (1). Three \r\ndifferent attempts to explain the innovative character o f John Philoponus' \r\nphilosophy were discussed; all were flawed by the fact that they sought an \r\nexplanation by means o f external historiography: in religion, biography and \r\neconomic circumstances (II). In the main part o f this paper attention was drawn to the striking difference between the presuppositions at work in \r\nSimplicius\u2019 and Philoponus' respective hermeneutics o f science (111). I have \r\nargued that Philoponus was able to liberate his mind in an unprecedented way \r\nfrom the constraints of the Neoplatonists' commitment to harmony, authority \r\nand salvation through philosophy. Philoponus\u2019 alternative heuristic method, \r\ntermed constructive criticism, was then identified as perhaps the most im\u00ad\r\nportant driving force behind his scientific innovations (IV). I should like to \r\nconclude with the general recommendation that anyone who is interested in \r\nelucidating the origin o f philosophical-scientific ideas and controversies, be \r\nit o f the sixth century or at any other time, might find it more fruitful to study \r\ncarefully the methodological presuppositions involved, be they hermeneutic, \r\nempirical, or speculative, rather than to gesture all too readily to external \r\nparameters like religion, anecdotes, or the socio-economics of the market \r\nplace. [conclusion p. 123-124]","btype":3,"date":"1999","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/H1d8bA0zFyyKAUN","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":429,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hyperboreus","volume":"5","issue":"1","pages":"107\u2013124"}},"sort":["Impetus Theory and the Hermeneutics of Science in Simplicius and Philoponus"]}