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] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/uTdcmhuVRdiP9Lq |
{"_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]}
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] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/NVJjQe9wtWw58HK |
{"_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]}
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] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/uTdcmhuVRdiP9Lq |
{"_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\"?"]}
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] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/NVJjQe9wtWw58HK |
{"_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"]}