Mathematik und Phänomene. Eine Polemik über naturwissenschaftliche Methode bei Simplikios, 2000
By: Haas, Frans A. J. de
Title Mathematik und Phänomene. Eine Polemik über naturwissenschaftliche Methode bei Simplikios
Type Article
Language German
Date 2000
Journal Antike Naturwissenschaft und ihre Rezeption
Volume 10
Pages 107–129
Categories no categories
Author(s) Haas, Frans A. J. de
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Im Hinblick auf die grundlegende Verschiedenheit zwischen der platoni­schen und aristotelischen Wertung der Mathematik und der Phänomene kann man erwarten, daß es genau im Kontext der platonischen Deutung der aristo­telischen Schriften zu einer interessanten Auseinandersetzung kommen mußte. Ein gutes Beispiel ist der Kommentar des Neuplatonikers Simplikios (tätig nach 530 n.Chr.) zur aristotelischen Schrift Über den Himmel. Wie bekannt, hat uns Simplikios in diesem Kommentar wichtige Informationen über die Astronomie und die einschlägige Wissenschaftstheorie bis auf seine Zeit, das 6. Jahrhundert nach Christus, überliefert. Hier werde ich mich mit zwei wichti­gen methodischen Fragen befassen, die von Simplikios erörtert werden. Er­stens: Was ist die Erklärungskraft der mathematischen Prinzipien im physi­schen Bereich? und zweitens: Was ist die erkenntnistheoretische Bedeutung der Phänomene? In einem letzten Abschnitt werde ich mich kurz dem Einfluß der neuplatonischen Aristotelesdeutung auf das moderne Verstehen der aristo­telischen Methodologie zuwenden. [from the introduction, p. 110]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"700","_score":null,"_source":{"id":700,"authors_free":[{"id":1040,"entry_id":700,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":153,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Haas, Frans A. J. de","free_first_name":"Frans A. J.","free_last_name":"Haas, de","norm_person":{"id":153,"first_name":"Frans A. J.","last_name":"de Haas","full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/128837020","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Mathematik und Ph\u00e4nomene. Eine Polemik \u00fcber naturwissenschaftliche Methode bei Simplikios","main_title":{"title":"Mathematik und Ph\u00e4nomene. Eine Polemik \u00fcber naturwissenschaftliche Methode bei Simplikios"},"abstract":"Im Hinblick auf die grundlegende Verschiedenheit zwischen der platoni\u00adschen und aristotelischen Wertung der Mathematik und der Ph\u00e4nomene kann man erwarten, da\u00df es genau im Kontext der platonischen Deutung der aristo\u00adtelischen Schriften zu einer interessanten Auseinandersetzung kommen mu\u00dfte. \r\nEin gutes Beispiel ist der Kommentar des Neuplatonikers Simplikios (t\u00e4tig nach 530 n.Chr.) zur aristotelischen Schrift \u00dcber den Himmel. Wie bekannt, hat uns Simplikios in diesem Kommentar wichtige Informationen \u00fcber die \r\nAstronomie und die einschl\u00e4gige Wissenschaftstheorie bis auf seine Zeit, das \r\n6. Jahrhundert nach Christus, \u00fcberliefert. Hier werde ich mich mit zwei wichti\u00adgen methodischen Fragen befassen, die von Simplikios er\u00f6rtert werden. Er\u00adstens: Was ist die Erkl\u00e4rungskraft der mathematischen Prinzipien im physi\u00adschen Bereich? und zweitens: Was ist die erkenntnistheoretische Bedeutung \r\nder Ph\u00e4nomene? In einem letzten Abschnitt werde ich mich kurz dem Einflu\u00df der neuplatonischen Aristotelesdeutung auf das moderne Verstehen der aristo\u00adtelischen Methodologie zuwenden. [from the introduction, p. 110]","btype":3,"date":"2000","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/omuK2yp1p7YceKI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":153,"full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":700,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Antike Naturwissenschaft und ihre Rezeption","volume":"10","issue":"","pages":"107\u2013129"}},"sort":[2000]}

Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature, 1998
By: Haas, Frans A. J. de, Raalte, Marlein van (Ed.), van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. (Ed.)
Title Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1998
Published in Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources
Pages 171-189
Categories no categories
Author(s) Haas, Frans A. J. de
Editor(s) Raalte, Marlein van , van Ophuijsen, Johannes M.
Translator(s)
In the new edition of the fragments of Theophrastus, we find two testimonies (144A-B FHS&G) concerned with the first sentence of Aristotle’s Physics. There, Aristotle stated that, since knowledge is always knowledge of principles, the science of physics must look for the principles of physical things. Both Philoponus and Simplicius, in their commentaries on this passage (144A and 144B, respectively), report that Theophrastus supplied the minor premise of the syllogism, which was not mentioned by Aristotle—namely, “all physical things have principles.” Moreover, they state that Theophrastus argued for this premise based on the composition of all physical things. Unlike Simplicius, Philoponus inserts an account of the notion of composition involved here and devotes special attention to the various ways in which physical forms and powers can be considered composite. This elaboration (144A 9–28) had been put between parentheses in the Berlin edition of Philoponus’ commentary, thus suggesting a digression by Philoponus rather than a continuation of an originally Theophrastean argument. As Robert Sharples has informed me, in FHS&G the parentheses were omitted to avoid the impression that these lines had nothing to do with Theophrastus at all; nor was it deemed correct to use parentheses to indicate the flow of the argument. In any case, there is no need to challenge the inclusion of this passage in the source book that FHS&G is intended to be. This leaves us with the question: to what extent can we ascribe the contents of Philoponus’ insertion (144A 9–28) to Theophrastus? Professor Laks was the first to raise this question at the Leiden Theophrastus Conference, and he also provided an analysis of the argument. In this paper, I want to address the following questions: Is Philoponus reporting Theophrastean thought here or not? And what motive could Philoponus have had to include this passage at this point in his commentary? [introduction p. 171-172]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1297","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1297,"authors_free":[{"id":1890,"entry_id":1297,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":153,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Haas, Frans A. J. de","free_first_name":"Frans A. J.","free_last_name":"Haas, de","norm_person":{"id":153,"first_name":"Frans A. J.","last_name":"de Haas","full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/128837020","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1988,"entry_id":1297,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":154,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","free_first_name":"Marlein","free_last_name":"Raalte, van","norm_person":{"id":154,"first_name":"Marlein van","last_name":"Raalte","full_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172515270","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1989,"entry_id":1297,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":87,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M.","free_first_name":"Johannes M.","free_last_name":"van Ophuijsen","norm_person":{"id":87,"first_name":"Johannes M. ","last_name":"van Ophuijsen","full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120962365","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature","main_title":{"title":"Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature"},"abstract":"In the new edition of the fragments of Theophrastus, we find two testimonies (144A-B FHS&G) concerned with the first sentence of Aristotle\u2019s Physics. There, Aristotle stated that, since knowledge is always knowledge of principles, the science of physics must look for the principles of physical things.\r\n\r\nBoth Philoponus and Simplicius, in their commentaries on this passage (144A and 144B, respectively), report that Theophrastus supplied the minor premise of the syllogism, which was not mentioned by Aristotle\u2014namely, \u201call physical things have principles.\u201d Moreover, they state that Theophrastus argued for this premise based on the composition of all physical things.\r\n\r\nUnlike Simplicius, Philoponus inserts an account of the notion of composition involved here and devotes special attention to the various ways in which physical forms and powers can be considered composite. This elaboration (144A 9\u201328) had been put between parentheses in the Berlin edition of Philoponus\u2019 commentary, thus suggesting a digression by Philoponus rather than a continuation of an originally Theophrastean argument. As Robert Sharples has informed me, in FHS&G the parentheses were omitted to avoid the impression that these lines had nothing to do with Theophrastus at all; nor was it deemed correct to use parentheses to indicate the flow of the argument. In any case, there is no need to challenge the inclusion of this passage in the source book that FHS&G is intended to be.\r\n\r\nThis leaves us with the question: to what extent can we ascribe the contents of Philoponus\u2019 insertion (144A 9\u201328) to Theophrastus? Professor Laks was the first to raise this question at the Leiden Theophrastus Conference, and he also provided an analysis of the argument.\r\n\r\nIn this paper, I want to address the following questions: Is Philoponus reporting Theophrastean thought here or not? And what motive could Philoponus have had to include this passage at this point in his commentary? [introduction p. 171-172]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5LsO2XY3SoVzgrW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":153,"full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":154,"full_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":87,"full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1297,"section_of":1298,"pages":"171-189","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1298,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Ophuijsen_Raalte1997","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Theophrastus was Aristotle's pupil and second head of the Peripatetic School. Apart from two botanical works, a collection of character sketches, and several scientific opuscula, his works survive only through quotations and reports in secondary sources. Recently these quotations and reports have been collected and published, thereby making the thought of Theophrastus accessible to a wide audience. The present volume contains seventeen responses to this material.\r\n\r\nThere are chapters dealing with Theophrastus' views on logic, physics, biology, ethics, politics, rhetoric, and music, as well as the life of Theophrastus. Together these writings throw considerable light on fundamental questions concerning the development and importance of the Peripatos in the early Hellenistic period. The authors consider whether Theophrastus was a systematic thinker who imposed coherence and consistency on a growing body of knowledge, or a problem-oriented thinker who foreshadowed the dissolution of Peripatetic thought into various loosely connected disciplines. Of special interest are those essays which deal with Theophrastus' intellectual position in relation to the lively philosophic scene occupied by such contemporaries as Zeno, the founder of the Stoa, and Epicurus, the founder of the Garden, as well as Xenocrates and Polemon hi the Academy, and Theophrastus' fellow Peripatetics, Eudemus and Strato.\r\n\r\nThe contributors to the volume are Suzanne Amigues, Antonio Battegazzore, Tiziano Dorandi, Woldemar Gorier, John Glucker, Hans Gottschalk, Frans de Haas, Andre Laks, Anthony Long, Jorgen Mejer, Mario Mignucci, Trevor Saunders, Dirk Schenkeveld, David Sedley, Robert Sharpies, C. M. J. Sicking and Richard Sorabji. The Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities series is a forum for seminal thinking in the field of philosophy, and this volume is no exception. Theophrastus is a landmark achievement in intellectual thought. Philosophers, historians, and classicists will all find this work to be enlightening. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1SV1t3Xkh1BCyWm","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1298,"pubplace":"New Brunswick & London","publisher":"Transaction Publishers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"8","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1998]}

John Philoponus' new definition of prime matter : aspects of its background in Neoplatonism and the ancient commentary tradition, 1997
By: Haas, Frans A. J. de
Title John Philoponus' new definition of prime matter : aspects of its background in Neoplatonism and the ancient commentary tradition
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1997
Publication Place Leiden – New York - Köln
Publisher Brill
Series Philosophia Antiqua
Volume 69
Categories no categories
Author(s) Haas, Frans A. J. de
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This study provides the first full discussion of Philoponus' excursus on matter in contra Proclum XI. 1-8 which sets out the innovative definition of prime matter as three-dimensional extension. The author argues that Philoponus' definition was motivated primarily by philosophical problems in Neoplatonism. Philoponus employs the explanation of growth, the interpretation of Aristotle's category theory and the notions of formlessness and potentiality to substantiate his definition. To conclude, the book offers an assessment of the significance of Philoponus' innovation. It is demonstrated for the first time that Plotinus' view of matter exerted considerable influence on both Philoponus and Simplicius. Moreover, the structure of Syrianus' and Proclus' metaphysics prepared the way for Philoponus' account of prime matter. [Author’s abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"24","_score":null,"_source":{"id":24,"authors_free":[{"id":27,"entry_id":24,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":153,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Haas, Frans A. J. de","free_first_name":"Frans A. J. de","free_last_name":"Haas","norm_person":{"id":153,"first_name":"Frans A. J.","last_name":"de Haas","full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/128837020","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"John Philoponus' new definition of prime matter : aspects of its background in Neoplatonism and the ancient commentary tradition","main_title":{"title":"John Philoponus' new definition of prime matter : aspects of its background in Neoplatonism and the ancient commentary tradition"},"abstract":"This study provides the first full discussion of Philoponus' excursus on matter in contra Proclum XI. 1-8 which sets out the innovative definition of prime matter as three-dimensional extension.\r\nThe author argues that Philoponus' definition was motivated primarily by philosophical problems in Neoplatonism. Philoponus employs the explanation of growth, the interpretation of Aristotle's category theory and the notions of formlessness and potentiality to substantiate his definition. To conclude, the book offers an assessment of the significance of Philoponus' innovation.\r\nIt is demonstrated for the first time that Plotinus' view of matter exerted considerable influence on both Philoponus and Simplicius. Moreover, the structure of Syrianus' and Proclus' metaphysics prepared the way for Philoponus' account of prime matter. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":1,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/LYGupj7bzAhb6CC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":153,"full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":24,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 New York - K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"69","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1997]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1
John Philoponus' new definition of prime matter : aspects of its background in Neoplatonism and the ancient commentary tradition, 1997
By: Haas, Frans A. J. de
Title John Philoponus' new definition of prime matter : aspects of its background in Neoplatonism and the ancient commentary tradition
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 1997
Publication Place Leiden – New York - Köln
Publisher Brill
Series Philosophia Antiqua
Volume 69
Categories no categories
Author(s) Haas, Frans A. J. de
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This study provides the first full discussion of Philoponus' excursus on matter in contra Proclum XI. 1-8 which sets out the innovative definition of prime matter as three-dimensional extension.
The author argues that Philoponus' definition was motivated primarily by philosophical problems in Neoplatonism. Philoponus employs the explanation of growth, the interpretation of Aristotle's category theory and the notions of formlessness and potentiality to substantiate his definition. To conclude, the book offers an assessment of the significance of Philoponus' innovation.
It is demonstrated for the first time that Plotinus' view of matter exerted considerable influence on both Philoponus and Simplicius. Moreover, the structure of Syrianus' and Proclus' metaphysics prepared the way for Philoponus' account of prime matter. [Author’s abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"24","_score":null,"_source":{"id":24,"authors_free":[{"id":27,"entry_id":24,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":153,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Haas, Frans A. J. de","free_first_name":"Frans A. J. de","free_last_name":"Haas","norm_person":{"id":153,"first_name":"Frans A. J.","last_name":"de Haas","full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/128837020","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"John Philoponus' new definition of prime matter : aspects of its background in Neoplatonism and the ancient commentary tradition","main_title":{"title":"John Philoponus' new definition of prime matter : aspects of its background in Neoplatonism and the ancient commentary tradition"},"abstract":"This study provides the first full discussion of Philoponus' excursus on matter in contra Proclum XI. 1-8 which sets out the innovative definition of prime matter as three-dimensional extension.\r\nThe author argues that Philoponus' definition was motivated primarily by philosophical problems in Neoplatonism. Philoponus employs the explanation of growth, the interpretation of Aristotle's category theory and the notions of formlessness and potentiality to substantiate his definition. To conclude, the book offers an assessment of the significance of Philoponus' innovation.\r\nIt is demonstrated for the first time that Plotinus' view of matter exerted considerable influence on both Philoponus and Simplicius. Moreover, the structure of Syrianus' and Proclus' metaphysics prepared the way for Philoponus' account of prime matter. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":1,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/LYGupj7bzAhb6CC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":153,"full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":24,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 New York - K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"69","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["John Philoponus' new definition of prime matter : aspects of its background in Neoplatonism and the ancient commentary tradition"]}

Mathematik und Phänomene. Eine Polemik über naturwissenschaftliche Methode bei Simplikios, 2000
By: Haas, Frans A. J. de
Title Mathematik und Phänomene. Eine Polemik über naturwissenschaftliche Methode bei Simplikios
Type Article
Language German
Date 2000
Journal Antike Naturwissenschaft und ihre Rezeption
Volume 10
Pages 107–129
Categories no categories
Author(s) Haas, Frans A. J. de
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Im  Hinblick  auf die  grundlegende  Verschiedenheit  zwischen  der platoni­schen und aristotelischen Wertung der Mathematik und der Phänomene kann man erwarten, daß es genau im Kontext der platonischen Deutung der aristo­telischen Schriften zu einer interessanten Auseinandersetzung kommen mußte. 
Ein  gutes  Beispiel  ist  der  Kommentar  des  Neuplatonikers  Simplikios  (tätig nach 530 n.Chr.) zur aristotelischen Schrift Über den Himmel. Wie bekannt, hat  uns  Simplikios  in  diesem  Kommentar  wichtige  Informationen  über  die 
Astronomie und die einschlägige Wissenschaftstheorie bis auf seine Zeit, das 
6. Jahrhundert nach Christus, überliefert. Hier werde ich mich mit zwei wichti­gen methodischen Fragen  befassen,  die von  Simplikios  erörtert werden.  Er­stens:  Was  ist  die Erklärungskraft  der mathematischen  Prinzipien  im  physi­schen  Bereich?  und zweitens:  Was  ist  die erkenntnistheoretische Bedeutung 
der Phänomene? In einem letzten Abschnitt werde ich mich kurz dem Einfluß der neuplatonischen Aristotelesdeutung auf das moderne Verstehen der aristo­telischen Methodologie zuwenden. [from the introduction, p. 110]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"700","_score":null,"_source":{"id":700,"authors_free":[{"id":1040,"entry_id":700,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":153,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Haas, Frans A. J. de","free_first_name":"Frans A. J.","free_last_name":"Haas, de","norm_person":{"id":153,"first_name":"Frans A. J.","last_name":"de Haas","full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/128837020","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Mathematik und Ph\u00e4nomene. Eine Polemik \u00fcber naturwissenschaftliche Methode bei Simplikios","main_title":{"title":"Mathematik und Ph\u00e4nomene. Eine Polemik \u00fcber naturwissenschaftliche Methode bei Simplikios"},"abstract":"Im Hinblick auf die grundlegende Verschiedenheit zwischen der platoni\u00adschen und aristotelischen Wertung der Mathematik und der Ph\u00e4nomene kann man erwarten, da\u00df es genau im Kontext der platonischen Deutung der aristo\u00adtelischen Schriften zu einer interessanten Auseinandersetzung kommen mu\u00dfte. \r\nEin gutes Beispiel ist der Kommentar des Neuplatonikers Simplikios (t\u00e4tig nach 530 n.Chr.) zur aristotelischen Schrift \u00dcber den Himmel. Wie bekannt, hat uns Simplikios in diesem Kommentar wichtige Informationen \u00fcber die \r\nAstronomie und die einschl\u00e4gige Wissenschaftstheorie bis auf seine Zeit, das \r\n6. Jahrhundert nach Christus, \u00fcberliefert. Hier werde ich mich mit zwei wichti\u00adgen methodischen Fragen befassen, die von Simplikios er\u00f6rtert werden. Er\u00adstens: Was ist die Erkl\u00e4rungskraft der mathematischen Prinzipien im physi\u00adschen Bereich? und zweitens: Was ist die erkenntnistheoretische Bedeutung \r\nder Ph\u00e4nomene? In einem letzten Abschnitt werde ich mich kurz dem Einflu\u00df der neuplatonischen Aristotelesdeutung auf das moderne Verstehen der aristo\u00adtelischen Methodologie zuwenden. [from the introduction, p. 110]","btype":3,"date":"2000","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/omuK2yp1p7YceKI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":153,"full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":700,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Antike Naturwissenschaft und ihre Rezeption","volume":"10","issue":"","pages":"107\u2013129"}},"sort":["Mathematik und Ph\u00e4nomene. Eine Polemik \u00fcber naturwissenschaftliche Methode bei Simplikios"]}

Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature, 1998
By: Haas, Frans A. J. de, Raalte, Marlein van (Ed.), van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. (Ed.)
Title Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 1998
Published in Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources
Pages 171-189
Categories no categories
Author(s) Haas, Frans A. J. de
Editor(s) Raalte, Marlein van , van Ophuijsen, Johannes M.
Translator(s)
In the new edition of the fragments of Theophrastus, we find two testimonies (144A-B FHS&G) concerned with the first sentence of Aristotle’s Physics. There, Aristotle stated that, since knowledge is always knowledge of principles, the science of physics must look for the principles of physical things.

Both Philoponus and Simplicius, in their commentaries on this passage (144A and 144B, respectively), report that Theophrastus supplied the minor premise of the syllogism, which was not mentioned by Aristotle—namely, “all physical things have principles.” Moreover, they state that Theophrastus argued for this premise based on the composition of all physical things.

Unlike Simplicius, Philoponus inserts an account of the notion of composition involved here and devotes special attention to the various ways in which physical forms and powers can be considered composite. This elaboration (144A 9–28) had been put between parentheses in the Berlin edition of Philoponus’ commentary, thus suggesting a digression by Philoponus rather than a continuation of an originally Theophrastean argument. As Robert Sharples has informed me, in FHS&G the parentheses were omitted to avoid the impression that these lines had nothing to do with Theophrastus at all; nor was it deemed correct to use parentheses to indicate the flow of the argument. In any case, there is no need to challenge the inclusion of this passage in the source book that FHS&G is intended to be.

This leaves us with the question: to what extent can we ascribe the contents of Philoponus’ insertion (144A 9–28) to Theophrastus? Professor Laks was the first to raise this question at the Leiden Theophrastus Conference, and he also provided an analysis of the argument.

In this paper, I want to address the following questions: Is Philoponus reporting Theophrastean thought here or not? And what motive could Philoponus have had to include this passage at this point in his commentary? [introduction p. 171-172]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1297","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1297,"authors_free":[{"id":1890,"entry_id":1297,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":153,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Haas, Frans A. J. de","free_first_name":"Frans A. J.","free_last_name":"Haas, de","norm_person":{"id":153,"first_name":"Frans A. J.","last_name":"de Haas","full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/128837020","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1988,"entry_id":1297,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":154,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","free_first_name":"Marlein","free_last_name":"Raalte, van","norm_person":{"id":154,"first_name":"Marlein van","last_name":"Raalte","full_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172515270","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1989,"entry_id":1297,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":87,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M.","free_first_name":"Johannes M.","free_last_name":"van Ophuijsen","norm_person":{"id":87,"first_name":"Johannes M. ","last_name":"van Ophuijsen","full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120962365","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature","main_title":{"title":"Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature"},"abstract":"In the new edition of the fragments of Theophrastus, we find two testimonies (144A-B FHS&G) concerned with the first sentence of Aristotle\u2019s Physics. There, Aristotle stated that, since knowledge is always knowledge of principles, the science of physics must look for the principles of physical things.\r\n\r\nBoth Philoponus and Simplicius, in their commentaries on this passage (144A and 144B, respectively), report that Theophrastus supplied the minor premise of the syllogism, which was not mentioned by Aristotle\u2014namely, \u201call physical things have principles.\u201d Moreover, they state that Theophrastus argued for this premise based on the composition of all physical things.\r\n\r\nUnlike Simplicius, Philoponus inserts an account of the notion of composition involved here and devotes special attention to the various ways in which physical forms and powers can be considered composite. This elaboration (144A 9\u201328) had been put between parentheses in the Berlin edition of Philoponus\u2019 commentary, thus suggesting a digression by Philoponus rather than a continuation of an originally Theophrastean argument. As Robert Sharples has informed me, in FHS&G the parentheses were omitted to avoid the impression that these lines had nothing to do with Theophrastus at all; nor was it deemed correct to use parentheses to indicate the flow of the argument. In any case, there is no need to challenge the inclusion of this passage in the source book that FHS&G is intended to be.\r\n\r\nThis leaves us with the question: to what extent can we ascribe the contents of Philoponus\u2019 insertion (144A 9\u201328) to Theophrastus? Professor Laks was the first to raise this question at the Leiden Theophrastus Conference, and he also provided an analysis of the argument.\r\n\r\nIn this paper, I want to address the following questions: Is Philoponus reporting Theophrastean thought here or not? And what motive could Philoponus have had to include this passage at this point in his commentary? [introduction p. 171-172]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5LsO2XY3SoVzgrW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":153,"full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":154,"full_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":87,"full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1297,"section_of":1298,"pages":"171-189","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1298,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Ophuijsen_Raalte1997","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Theophrastus was Aristotle's pupil and second head of the Peripatetic School. Apart from two botanical works, a collection of character sketches, and several scientific opuscula, his works survive only through quotations and reports in secondary sources. Recently these quotations and reports have been collected and published, thereby making the thought of Theophrastus accessible to a wide audience. The present volume contains seventeen responses to this material.\r\n\r\nThere are chapters dealing with Theophrastus' views on logic, physics, biology, ethics, politics, rhetoric, and music, as well as the life of Theophrastus. Together these writings throw considerable light on fundamental questions concerning the development and importance of the Peripatos in the early Hellenistic period. The authors consider whether Theophrastus was a systematic thinker who imposed coherence and consistency on a growing body of knowledge, or a problem-oriented thinker who foreshadowed the dissolution of Peripatetic thought into various loosely connected disciplines. Of special interest are those essays which deal with Theophrastus' intellectual position in relation to the lively philosophic scene occupied by such contemporaries as Zeno, the founder of the Stoa, and Epicurus, the founder of the Garden, as well as Xenocrates and Polemon hi the Academy, and Theophrastus' fellow Peripatetics, Eudemus and Strato.\r\n\r\nThe contributors to the volume are Suzanne Amigues, Antonio Battegazzore, Tiziano Dorandi, Woldemar Gorier, John Glucker, Hans Gottschalk, Frans de Haas, Andre Laks, Anthony Long, Jorgen Mejer, Mario Mignucci, Trevor Saunders, Dirk Schenkeveld, David Sedley, Robert Sharpies, C. M. J. Sicking and Richard Sorabji. The Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities series is a forum for seminal thinking in the field of philosophy, and this volume is no exception. Theophrastus is a landmark achievement in intellectual thought. Philosophers, historians, and classicists will all find this work to be enlightening. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1SV1t3Xkh1BCyWm","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1298,"pubplace":"New Brunswick & London","publisher":"Transaction Publishers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"8","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature"]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1