Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Categories 5-6’, 2013
By: Haas, Frans A. J. de (Ed.), Fleet, Barrie (Ed.), Simplicius
Title Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Categories 5-6’
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 2013
Publication Place London
Publisher Bloomsbury
Series Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories no categories
Author(s) Simplicius
Editor(s) Haas, Frans A. J. de , Fleet, Barrie
Translator(s) Haas, Frans A. J. de(de Haas, Frans A. J.) , Fleet, Barrie(Fleet, Barrie) ,
Chapters 5 and 6 of Aristotle's Categories describe his first two categories, Substance and Quantity. It is usually taken that Plotinus attacked Aristotle's Categories, but that Porphyry and Iamblichus restored it to the curriculum once and for all. Nonetheless, the introduction to this text stresses how much of the defence of Aristotle Porphyry was able to draw out of Plotinus' critical discussion. Simplicius' commentary is our most comprehensive account of the debate on the validity of Aristotle's Categories. One subject discussed by Simplicius in these chapters is where the differentia of a species (eg the rationality of humans) fits into the scheme of categories. Another is why Aristotle elevates the category of Quantity to second place, above the category of Quality. Further, de Haas shows how Simplicius distinguishes different kinds of universal order to solve some of the problems.

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"109","_score":null,"_source":{"id":109,"authors_free":[{"id":129,"entry_id":109,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":153,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"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":130,"entry_id":109,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":117,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Fleet, Barrie","free_first_name":"Barrie","free_last_name":"Fleet","norm_person":{"id":117,"first_name":"Barrie","last_name":"Fleet","full_name":"Fleet, Barrie","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172866235","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2258,"entry_id":109,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":153,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":2259,"entry_id":109,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":117,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fleet, Barrie","free_first_name":"Barrie","free_last_name":"Fleet","norm_person":{"id":117,"first_name":"Barrie","last_name":"Fleet","full_name":"Fleet, Barrie","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172866235","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2260,"entry_id":109,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius ","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018Categories 5-6\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018Categories 5-6\u2019"},"abstract":"Chapters 5 and 6 of Aristotle's Categories describe his first two categories, Substance and Quantity. It is usually taken that Plotinus attacked Aristotle's Categories, but that Porphyry and Iamblichus restored it to the curriculum once and for all. Nonetheless, the introduction to this text stresses how much of the defence of Aristotle Porphyry was able to draw out of Plotinus' critical discussion. Simplicius' commentary is our most comprehensive account of the debate on the validity of Aristotle's Categories. One subject discussed by Simplicius in these chapters is where the differentia of a species (eg the rationality of humans) fits into the scheme of categories. Another is why Aristotle elevates the category of Quantity to second place, above the category of Quality. Further, de Haas shows how Simplicius distinguishes different kinds of universal order to solve some of the problems.","btype":1,"date":"2013","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eW6iLytuM3BoZAe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":153,"full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":117,"full_name":"Fleet, Barrie","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":153,"full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":117,"full_name":"Fleet, Barrie","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":109,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2013]}

Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle’s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition, 2002
By: Haas, Frans A. J. de, Leijenhorst, Cees (Ed.), Lüthy, Christoph (Ed.), Thijssen, J. M. M. H. (Ed.)
Title Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle’s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 2002
Published in The dynamics of Aristotelian natural philosophy from Antiquity to the seventeenth century
Pages 31-56
Categories no categories
Author(s) Haas, Frans A. J. de
Editor(s) Leijenhorst, Cees , Lüthy, Christoph , Thijssen, J. M. M. H.
Translator(s)
In this essay, Frans A.J. de Haas explores the commentary tradition on Aristotle's Physics, focusing on the first chapter, which is considered pivotal for Aristotelian natural philosophy. The chapter sets the stage for Aristotle's principles of science and the method of scientific inquiry. However, the twenty-two lines of the chapter have not lived up to these high expectations, leading to a bewildering variety of interpretations in the commentary tradition. The essay aims to understand the development of the commentary tradition and the factors that influenced the various interpretations. De Haas presents a method of charting a commentator's philosophical environment to explain their modifications of Aristotle's doctrine. He examines the interpretation of Physics 1.1 by Themistius, an influential ancient commentator. De Haas identifies several factors that may explain Themistius' specific interpretation, such as the assumption of a deductive method in physics, the influence of Theophrastus' logical analysis, and Alexander's proposal of the coherence of all sciences. Themistius introduces the topic of universal concepts, which leads to discussions about the priority of universals in Aristotle's writings. The essay concludes that understanding the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition allows us to recognize the influence of earlier interpretations in later commentators. This realization highlights the importance of carefully considering the original context and intentions of Aristotle's work to avoid misinterpretations in subsequent commentaries. [introduction/conclusion]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"523","_score":null,"_source":{"id":523,"authors_free":[{"id":730,"entry_id":523,"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}},{"id":731,"entry_id":523,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":155,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Leijenhorst, Cees","free_first_name":"Cees","free_last_name":"Leijenhorst","norm_person":{"id":155,"first_name":"Leijenhorst","last_name":"Cees","full_name":"Leijenhorst, Cees","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173195253","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":732,"entry_id":523,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":156,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"L\u00fcthy, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"L\u00fcthy","norm_person":{"id":156,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"L\u00fcthy","full_name":"L\u00fcthy, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1057979945","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":733,"entry_id":523,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":157,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Thijssen, J. M. M. H.","free_first_name":"J. M. M. H.","free_last_name":"Thijssen","norm_person":{"id":157,"first_name":"Johannes M. M. H.","last_name":"Thijssen","full_name":"Thijssen, Johannes M. M. H.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1173828508","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle\u2019s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition","main_title":{"title":"Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle\u2019s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition"},"abstract":"In this essay, Frans A.J. de Haas explores the commentary tradition on Aristotle's Physics, focusing on the first chapter, which is considered pivotal for Aristotelian natural philosophy. The chapter sets the stage for Aristotle's principles of science and the method of scientific inquiry. However, the twenty-two lines of the chapter have not lived up to these high expectations, leading to a bewildering variety of interpretations in the commentary tradition. The essay aims to understand the development of the commentary tradition and the factors that influenced the various interpretations. De Haas presents a method of charting a commentator's philosophical environment to explain their modifications of Aristotle's doctrine. He examines the interpretation of Physics 1.1 by Themistius, an influential ancient commentator. De Haas identifies several factors that may explain Themistius' specific interpretation, such as the assumption of a deductive method in physics, the influence of Theophrastus' logical analysis, and Alexander's proposal of the coherence of all sciences. Themistius introduces the topic of universal concepts, which leads to discussions about the priority of universals in Aristotle's writings. The essay concludes that understanding the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition allows us to recognize the influence of earlier interpretations in later commentators. This realization highlights the importance of carefully considering the original context and intentions of Aristotle's work to avoid misinterpretations in subsequent commentaries. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ERKCCFGaH9YKQNL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":153,"full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":155,"full_name":"Leijenhorst, Cees","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":156,"full_name":"L\u00fcthy, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":157,"full_name":"Thijssen, Johannes M. M. H.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":523,"section_of":370,"pages":"31-56","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":370,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The dynamics of Aristotelian natural philosophy from Antiquity to the seventeenth century","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Leijenhorst_2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EZqjexic8BQf4du","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":370,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Medieval and early modern science","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}

Did Plotinus and Porphyry Disagree on Aristotle's "Categories"?, 2001
By: Haas, Frans A. J. de
Title Did Plotinus and Porphyry Disagree on Aristotle's "Categories"?
Type Article
Language English
Date 2001
Journal Phronesis
Volume 46
Issue 4
Pages 492-526
Categories no categories
Author(s) Haas, Frans A. J. de
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
In this paper I propose a reading of Plotinus Enneads VI.1-3 [41-43] On the genera of being which regards this treatise as a coherent whole in which Aristotle's Categories is explored in a way that turns it into a decisive contribution to Plotinus' Platonic ontology. In addition, I claim that Porphyry's Isagoge and commentaries on the Categories start by adopting Plotinus' point of view, including his notion of genus, and proceed by explaining its consequences for a more detailed reading of the Categories. After Plotinus' integration of the Categories into the Platonic frame of thought Porphyry saw the possibilities of exploiting the Peripatetic tradition both as a means to support the Platonic interpretation of the Categories and as a source for solutions to traditional questions. His allegiance to a division of being into ten, and his emphasis on semantics rather than ontology can be explained from this orientation. In the light of our investigation the alleged disagreement between Plotinus and Porphyry on the Categories changes its appearance completely. There are differences, but these can be best explained as confirmation and extension of Plotinus' perspective on the Categories and its role in Platonism. [Author’s abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"762","_score":null,"_source":{"id":762,"authors_free":[{"id":1127,"entry_id":762,"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":"Did Plotinus and Porphyry Disagree on Aristotle's \"Categories\"?","main_title":{"title":"Did Plotinus and Porphyry Disagree on Aristotle's \"Categories\"?"},"abstract":"In this paper I propose a reading of Plotinus Enneads VI.1-3 [41-43] On the genera of being which regards this treatise as a coherent whole in which Aristotle's Categories is explored in a way that turns it into a decisive contribution to Plotinus' Platonic ontology. In addition, I claim that Porphyry's Isagoge and commentaries on the Categories start by adopting Plotinus' point of view, including his notion of genus, and proceed by explaining its consequences for a more detailed reading of the Categories. After Plotinus' integration of the Categories into the Platonic frame of thought Porphyry saw the possibilities of exploiting the Peripatetic tradition both as a means to support the Platonic interpretation of the Categories and as a source for solutions to traditional questions. His allegiance to a division of being into ten, and his emphasis on semantics rather than ontology can be explained from this orientation. In the light of our investigation the alleged disagreement between Plotinus and Porphyry on the Categories changes its appearance completely. There are differences, but these can be best explained as confirmation and extension of Plotinus' perspective on the Categories and its role in Platonism. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2001","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/uTdcmhuVRdiP9Lq","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":762,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"46","issue":"4","pages":"492-526"}},"sort":[2001]}

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","_type":"_doc","_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\/NVJjQe9wtWw58HK","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 this text, the author analyzes the contents of Philoponus' commentary on Aristotle's Physics and investigates the extent to which it reflects Theophrastus' thought. Specifically, the author focuses on a passage in which Philoponus discusses the notion of composition involved in physical forms and powers. The author argues that the parallels in wording and doctrine between Philoponus' later discussions and the earlier commentary suggest that Philoponus was the intellectual author of the passage. Furthermore, the author proposes that Philoponus included this passage to provide an explanation for Theophrastus' claim that physical forms are composite, in light of the classification of substances in the Categories commentary. [introduction/conclusion]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1297","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_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 this text, the author analyzes the contents of Philoponus' commentary on Aristotle's Physics and investigates the extent to which it reflects Theophrastus' thought. Specifically, the author focuses on a passage in which Philoponus discusses the notion of composition involved in physical forms and powers. The author argues that the parallels in wording and doctrine between Philoponus' later discussions and the earlier commentary suggest that Philoponus was the intellectual author of the passage. Furthermore, the author proposes that Philoponus included this passage to provide an explanation for Theophrastus' claim that physical forms are composite, in light of the classification of substances in the Categories commentary. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VKlrNAA0ItIVGGV","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":"Ophuijsen1997","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\/BHjWf7YSg3OWWKi","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","_type":"_doc","_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
Did Plotinus and Porphyry Disagree on Aristotle's "Categories"?, 2001
By: Haas, Frans A. J. de
Title Did Plotinus and Porphyry Disagree on Aristotle's "Categories"?
Type Article
Language English
Date 2001
Journal Phronesis
Volume 46
Issue 4
Pages 492-526
Categories no categories
Author(s) Haas, Frans A. J. de
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
In this paper I propose a reading of Plotinus Enneads VI.1-3 [41-43] On the genera of being which regards this treatise as a coherent whole in which Aristotle's Categories is explored in a way that turns it into a decisive contribution to Plotinus' Platonic ontology. In addition, I claim that Porphyry's Isagoge and commentaries on the Categories start by adopting Plotinus' point of view, including his notion of genus, and proceed by explaining its consequences for a more detailed reading of the Categories. After Plotinus' integration of the Categories into the Platonic frame of thought Porphyry saw the possibilities of exploiting the Peripatetic tradition both as a means to support the Platonic interpretation of the Categories and as a source for solutions to traditional questions. His allegiance to a division of being into ten, and his emphasis on semantics rather than ontology can be explained from this orientation. In the light of our investigation the alleged disagreement between Plotinus and Porphyry on the Categories changes its appearance completely. There are differences, but these can be best explained as confirmation and extension of Plotinus' perspective on the Categories and its role in Platonism. [Author’s abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"762","_score":null,"_source":{"id":762,"authors_free":[{"id":1127,"entry_id":762,"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":"Did Plotinus and Porphyry Disagree on Aristotle's \"Categories\"?","main_title":{"title":"Did Plotinus and Porphyry Disagree on Aristotle's \"Categories\"?"},"abstract":"In this paper I propose a reading of Plotinus Enneads VI.1-3 [41-43] On the genera of being which regards this treatise as a coherent whole in which Aristotle's Categories is explored in a way that turns it into a decisive contribution to Plotinus' Platonic ontology. In addition, I claim that Porphyry's Isagoge and commentaries on the Categories start by adopting Plotinus' point of view, including his notion of genus, and proceed by explaining its consequences for a more detailed reading of the Categories. After Plotinus' integration of the Categories into the Platonic frame of thought Porphyry saw the possibilities of exploiting the Peripatetic tradition both as a means to support the Platonic interpretation of the Categories and as a source for solutions to traditional questions. His allegiance to a division of being into ten, and his emphasis on semantics rather than ontology can be explained from this orientation. In the light of our investigation the alleged disagreement between Plotinus and Porphyry on the Categories changes its appearance completely. There are differences, but these can be best explained as confirmation and extension of Plotinus' perspective on the Categories and its role in Platonism. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2001","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/uTdcmhuVRdiP9Lq","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":762,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"46","issue":"4","pages":"492-526"}},"sort":["Did Plotinus and Porphyry Disagree on Aristotle's \"Categories\"?"]}

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","_type":"_doc","_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","_type":"_doc","_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\/NVJjQe9wtWw58HK","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"]}

Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle’s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition, 2002
By: Haas, Frans A. J. de, Leijenhorst, Cees (Ed.), Lüthy, Christoph (Ed.), Thijssen, J. M. M. H. (Ed.)
Title Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle’s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 2002
Published in The dynamics of Aristotelian natural philosophy from Antiquity to the seventeenth century
Pages 31-56
Categories no categories
Author(s) Haas, Frans A. J. de
Editor(s) Leijenhorst, Cees , Lüthy, Christoph , Thijssen, J. M. M. H.
Translator(s)
In this essay, Frans A.J. de Haas explores the commentary tradition on Aristotle's Physics, focusing on the first chapter, which is considered pivotal for Aristotelian natural philosophy. The chapter sets the stage for Aristotle's principles of science and the method of scientific inquiry. However, the twenty-two lines of the chapter have not lived up to these high expectations, leading to a bewildering variety of interpretations in the commentary tradition. The essay aims to understand the development of the commentary tradition and the factors that influenced the various interpretations. De Haas presents a method of charting a commentator's philosophical environment to explain their modifications of Aristotle's doctrine. He examines the interpretation of Physics 1.1 by Themistius, an influential ancient commentator. De Haas identifies several factors that may explain Themistius' specific interpretation, such as the assumption of a deductive method in physics, the influence of Theophrastus' logical analysis, and Alexander's proposal of the coherence of all sciences. Themistius introduces the topic of universal concepts, which leads to discussions about the priority of universals in Aristotle's writings. The essay concludes that understanding the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition allows us to recognize the influence of earlier interpretations in later commentators. This realization highlights the importance of carefully considering the original context and intentions of Aristotle's work to avoid misinterpretations in subsequent commentaries. [introduction/conclusion]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"523","_score":null,"_source":{"id":523,"authors_free":[{"id":730,"entry_id":523,"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}},{"id":731,"entry_id":523,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":155,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Leijenhorst, Cees","free_first_name":"Cees","free_last_name":"Leijenhorst","norm_person":{"id":155,"first_name":"Leijenhorst","last_name":"Cees","full_name":"Leijenhorst, Cees","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173195253","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":732,"entry_id":523,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":156,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"L\u00fcthy, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"L\u00fcthy","norm_person":{"id":156,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"L\u00fcthy","full_name":"L\u00fcthy, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1057979945","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":733,"entry_id":523,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":157,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Thijssen, J. M. M. H.","free_first_name":"J. M. M. H.","free_last_name":"Thijssen","norm_person":{"id":157,"first_name":"Johannes M. M. H.","last_name":"Thijssen","full_name":"Thijssen, Johannes M. M. H.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1173828508","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle\u2019s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition","main_title":{"title":"Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle\u2019s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition"},"abstract":"In this essay, Frans A.J. de Haas explores the commentary tradition on Aristotle's Physics, focusing on the first chapter, which is considered pivotal for Aristotelian natural philosophy. The chapter sets the stage for Aristotle's principles of science and the method of scientific inquiry. However, the twenty-two lines of the chapter have not lived up to these high expectations, leading to a bewildering variety of interpretations in the commentary tradition. The essay aims to understand the development of the commentary tradition and the factors that influenced the various interpretations. De Haas presents a method of charting a commentator's philosophical environment to explain their modifications of Aristotle's doctrine. He examines the interpretation of Physics 1.1 by Themistius, an influential ancient commentator. De Haas identifies several factors that may explain Themistius' specific interpretation, such as the assumption of a deductive method in physics, the influence of Theophrastus' logical analysis, and Alexander's proposal of the coherence of all sciences. Themistius introduces the topic of universal concepts, which leads to discussions about the priority of universals in Aristotle's writings. The essay concludes that understanding the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition allows us to recognize the influence of earlier interpretations in later commentators. This realization highlights the importance of carefully considering the original context and intentions of Aristotle's work to avoid misinterpretations in subsequent commentaries. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ERKCCFGaH9YKQNL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":153,"full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":155,"full_name":"Leijenhorst, Cees","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":156,"full_name":"L\u00fcthy, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":157,"full_name":"Thijssen, Johannes M. M. H.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":523,"section_of":370,"pages":"31-56","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":370,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The dynamics of Aristotelian natural philosophy from Antiquity to the seventeenth century","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Leijenhorst_2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EZqjexic8BQf4du","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":370,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Medieval and early modern science","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle\u2019s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition"]}

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 this text, the author analyzes the contents of Philoponus' commentary on Aristotle's Physics and investigates the extent to which it reflects Theophrastus' thought. Specifically, the author focuses on a passage in which Philoponus discusses the notion of composition involved in physical forms and powers. The author argues that the parallels in wording and doctrine between Philoponus' later discussions and the earlier commentary suggest that Philoponus was the intellectual author of the passage. Furthermore, the author proposes that Philoponus included this passage to provide an explanation for Theophrastus' claim that physical forms are composite, in light of the classification of substances in the Categories commentary. [introduction/conclusion]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1297","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_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 this text, the author analyzes the contents of Philoponus' commentary on Aristotle's Physics and investigates the extent to which it reflects Theophrastus' thought. Specifically, the author focuses on a passage in which Philoponus discusses the notion of composition involved in physical forms and powers. The author argues that the parallels in wording and doctrine between Philoponus' later discussions and the earlier commentary suggest that Philoponus was the intellectual author of the passage. Furthermore, the author proposes that Philoponus included this passage to provide an explanation for Theophrastus' claim that physical forms are composite, in light of the classification of substances in the Categories commentary. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VKlrNAA0ItIVGGV","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":"Ophuijsen1997","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\/BHjWf7YSg3OWWKi","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"]}

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Categories 5-6’, 2013
By: Haas, Frans A. J. de (Ed.), Fleet, Barrie (Ed.), Simplicius
Title Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Categories 5-6’
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 2013
Publication Place London
Publisher Bloomsbury
Series Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories no categories
Author(s) , Simplicius
Editor(s) Haas, Frans A. J. de , Fleet, Barrie
Translator(s) Haas, Frans A. J. de(de Haas, Frans A. J.) , Fleet, Barrie(Fleet, Barrie) ,
Chapters 5 and 6 of Aristotle's Categories describe his first two categories, Substance and Quantity. It is usually taken that Plotinus attacked Aristotle's Categories, but that Porphyry and Iamblichus restored it to the curriculum once and for all. Nonetheless, the introduction to this text stresses how much of the defence of Aristotle Porphyry was able to draw out of Plotinus' critical discussion. Simplicius' commentary is our most comprehensive account of the debate on the validity of Aristotle's Categories. One subject discussed by Simplicius in these chapters is where the differentia of a species (eg the rationality of humans) fits into the scheme of categories. Another is why Aristotle elevates the category of Quantity to second place, above the category of Quality. Further, de Haas shows how Simplicius distinguishes different kinds of universal order to solve some of the problems.

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"109","_score":null,"_source":{"id":109,"authors_free":[{"id":129,"entry_id":109,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":153,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"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":130,"entry_id":109,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":117,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Fleet, Barrie","free_first_name":"Barrie","free_last_name":"Fleet","norm_person":{"id":117,"first_name":"Barrie","last_name":"Fleet","full_name":"Fleet, Barrie","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172866235","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2258,"entry_id":109,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":153,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":2259,"entry_id":109,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":117,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fleet, Barrie","free_first_name":"Barrie","free_last_name":"Fleet","norm_person":{"id":117,"first_name":"Barrie","last_name":"Fleet","full_name":"Fleet, Barrie","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172866235","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2260,"entry_id":109,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius ","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018Categories 5-6\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018Categories 5-6\u2019"},"abstract":"Chapters 5 and 6 of Aristotle's Categories describe his first two categories, Substance and Quantity. It is usually taken that Plotinus attacked Aristotle's Categories, but that Porphyry and Iamblichus restored it to the curriculum once and for all. Nonetheless, the introduction to this text stresses how much of the defence of Aristotle Porphyry was able to draw out of Plotinus' critical discussion. Simplicius' commentary is our most comprehensive account of the debate on the validity of Aristotle's Categories. One subject discussed by Simplicius in these chapters is where the differentia of a species (eg the rationality of humans) fits into the scheme of categories. Another is why Aristotle elevates the category of Quantity to second place, above the category of Quality. Further, de Haas shows how Simplicius distinguishes different kinds of universal order to solve some of the problems.","btype":1,"date":"2013","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eW6iLytuM3BoZAe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":153,"full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":117,"full_name":"Fleet, Barrie","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":153,"full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":117,"full_name":"Fleet, Barrie","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":109,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018Categories 5-6\u2019"]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1