{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1148","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1148,"authors_free":[{"id":1723,"entry_id":1148,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":148,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","free_first_name":"Michael J.","free_last_name":"Griffin","norm_person":{"id":148,"first_name":"Michael J.","last_name":"Griffin","full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1065676603","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"What does Aristotle categorize? Semantics and the early peripatetic reading of the \"Categories\"","main_title":{"title":"What does Aristotle categorize? Semantics and the early peripatetic reading of the \"Categories\""},"abstract":"One of the more provocative mysteries of later ancient philosophy is how Porphyiy came \r\nto situate the Categories of Aristotle at the outset of the nascent Neoplatonic curriculum.\r\nAfter all, the Categories tends to strike modem readers as a temperamentally counter-Platonic work, in which Aristotle grants ontological priority to perceptible subjects over intelligible genera and species, and we are led to wonder how a Platonist would be \r\nmotivated to encourage its use as a general introduction to philosophy. The commentary \r\ntradition has left us with several layers of evidence for Porphyry's reasoning. First, in answer to the general question \"Why should a philosopher study the Categories?\" we have \r\nPorphyry's assertion that the ten Aristotelian schemata of predication carve the genera of \r\nbeing accurately at the joints (in Cat. 58,5-59,33), that this isomorphism between kind of simple referring terms and kinds of beings facilitates human knowledge, and that the \r\nphilosopher's path therefore begins from the correct inteipretation of the Categories (see for example T9-11, discussed below). Second, in response to the question 'Why is the Categories compatible with Platonism?\u2019, we have Porphyry\u2019s account that the Categories introduces the student to the study of referring terms, which refer primarily to perceptible beings; after we have grasped the correct application of language to perceptibles, \r\nhowever, we are prepared to 'ascend by analogy\u2019 to the study of intelligibles, which is \r\nPlato\u2019s ambit. But this pedagogical solution, while it jibes elegantly with Porphyry!s \r\ndecision to bracket metaphysical questions from introductory logic {cf. Isagoge 4,10-15, with Barnes 2003 ad loc.), also suggests a tension between two layers of Porphyry\u2019s thought about die Categories. On the one hand, we are motivated to read the treatise \r\nbecause its divisions ofmeaningful language exhaustively and accurately picture being; on the other hand, we acknowledge that the text has nothing to say about die most important kind of being, namely intelligible being. In other words, Porphyry\u2019s leading \r\nargument in favour of studying the Categories (its comprehensiveness) seems like a strange bedfellow for his leading argument in favour of its compatibility with Platonism \r\n(its restrictedness); and the source of this general tension is the first puzzle that I would like to explore in this essay. [Introduction, pp. 69 f.]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/E7XiS12GrRNsPr9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":148,"full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1148,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"55","issue":"1","pages":"69-108"}},"sort":["What does Aristotle categorize? Semantics and the early peripatetic reading of the \"Categories\""]}

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1317","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1317,"authors_free":[{"id":1951,"entry_id":1317,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":46,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","free_first_name":"Lloyd P.","free_last_name":"Gerson","norm_person":{"id":46,"first_name":"Lloyd P.","last_name":"Gerson","full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131525573","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"What is Platonism?","main_title":{"title":"What is Platonism?"},"abstract":"My main conclusion is that we should understand Platonism historically as consisting in fidelity to the principles of \u201ctop-downism.\u201d So understanding it, we havea relatively sharp critical tool for deciding who was and who was not a Platonist despite their silence or protestations to the contrary. Unquestionably, the most important figure in this regard is Aristotle. I would not like to end this historical inquiry, however, without suggesting a philosophical moral. The moral is that there\r\nare at least some reasons for claiming that a truly anti-Platonic Aristotelianism is not philosophically in the cards, so to speak. Thus, if one rigorously and honestly seeks to remove the principles of Platonism from a putatively Aristotelian position, what would remain would be incoherent and probably indefensible. Thus, an Aristotelian ontology of the sensible world that excluded the ontological priority of the supersensible is probably unsustainable. And an Aristotelian psychology that did not recognize the priority and irreducibility of intellect to soul would be\r\nsimilarly beyond repair.89 What contemporary exponents of versions of Platonism or Aristotelianism should perhaps conclude from a study of the history is that, rather than standing in opposition to each other, merger, or at least synergy, ought to be the order of the day.[conclusion, p. 276]","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Goxyyq1Id3kdZDT","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":46,"full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1317,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Journal of the History of Philosophy","volume":"43","issue":"3","pages":"253-276"}},"sort":["What is Platonism?"]}

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"821","_score":null,"_source":{"id":821,"authors_free":[{"id":1222,"entry_id":821,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":148,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","free_first_name":"Michael J.","free_last_name":"Griffin","norm_person":{"id":148,"first_name":"Michael J.","last_name":"Griffin","full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1065676603","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Which \u2018Athenodorus\u2019 commented on Aristotle's \"Categories\"?","main_title":{"title":"Which \u2018Athenodorus\u2019 commented on Aristotle's \"Categories\"?"},"abstract":"In this note I would like to revisit the identity of one of the Categories\u2019earliest\r\ncritics, a Stoic identified only as \u2018Athenodorus\u2019in the pages of Dexippus, Porphyry\r\nand Simplicius. There is a strong consensus identifying this \u2018Athenodorus\u2019with\r\nAthenodorus Calvus, a tutor of Octavian and correspondent of Cicero, roughly contem-\r\nporary with Andronicus of Rhodes.5 I want to suggest several reasons for reconsidering\r\nthis identification. In particular, I want to argue that a certain Athenodorus mentioned by\r\nDiogenes Laertius (7.68) is on philosophical grounds a compelling candidate for identi-\r\nfication with the critic of the Categories, and that Diogenes\u2019Athenodorus is relatively\r\nunlikely to be Calvus. As an alternative to Calvus, I tentatively advance the possibility\r\nthat our Athenodorus may belong to a generation of Stoic philosophers who conducted\r\nwork on the Categories in the Hellenistic period, prior to the activity of Andronicus in\r\nthe first century, and under the title Before the Topics (see Simpl. in Cat. 379.9, who\r\nobserves that Andronicus of Rhodes was aware of this title and rejected it). [p. 200]","btype":3,"date":"2013","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KQ20eDoKvhJNwR4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":148,"full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":821,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":"63","issue":"1","pages":"199-208"}},"sort":["Which \u2018Athenodorus\u2019 commented on Aristotle's \"Categories\"?"]}

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"576","_score":null,"_source":{"id":576,"authors_free":[{"id":818,"entry_id":576,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":168,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hankinson, Robert J.","free_first_name":"Robert J.","free_last_name":"Hankinson","norm_person":{"id":168,"first_name":"Robert J.","last_name":"Hankinson","full_name":"Hankinson, Robert J.","short_ident":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129477370","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Xenarchus, Alexander, and Simplicius on Simple Motions, Bodies and Magnitudes","main_title":{"title":"Xenarchus, Alexander, and Simplicius on Simple Motions, Bodies and Magnitudes"},"abstract":"Aristotle accounted for the fundamental dynamics of the cosmos in terms of the tendencies of the various elements to distinct types of natural motions, and (in the case of the sublunary elements) to rest in their natural places. In so doing, he introduced a fifth element, the ether, with a natural and unceasing tendency to revolve, as the matter for the heavenly bodies. This paper deals with some of the objections raised to this model, and to its conceptual underpinnings, raised by Xenarchus of Seleuceia, an unorthodox Peripatetic of the 1 st century BC, and of the attempts of later philosophers to rebut them. In so doing it casts light on a little-known, but historically important and interesting, episode in the development of physical dynamics. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RSvLdEVU9fp7UMM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":168,"full_name":"Hankinson, Robert J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":576,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46","issue":"","pages":"19-42"}},"sort":["Xenarchus, Alexander, and Simplicius on Simple Motions, Bodies and Magnitudes"]}

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1481","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1481,"authors_free":[{"id":2563,"entry_id":1481,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":548,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Marcinkowska-Ros\u00f3\u0142, Maria","free_first_name":"Maria","free_last_name":"Marcinkowska-Ros\u00f3\u0142,","norm_person":{"id":548,"first_name":"Maria","last_name":"Marcinkowska-Ros\u00f3\u0142","full_name":"Marcinkowska-Ros\u00f3\u0142, Maria","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/141413786","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Zu Aristoteles\u2019 Rezeption der vorsokratischen Prinzipienlehren (Ph. I 4, 187 a 12-26). Teil 2 (Themistios, Philoponos, Simplikios)","main_title":{"title":"Zu Aristoteles\u2019 Rezeption der vorsokratischen Prinzipienlehren (Ph. I 4, 187 a 12-26). Teil 2 (Themistios, Philoponos, Simplikios)"},"abstract":"The paper presents an examination of the Aristotelian classification of the natural philosophers in Ph. I 4, 187 a 12-26. It focuses on the exgesis of this passage found in the commentarys on the Physics by Themsitios (In Ph. 5,2. 13. 9-28), Philoponus (In Ph. 86. 19-94. 16) and Simplicius (In Ph. 148. 25-161. 20). The ancient interpretations are discussed, evaluated and compared with the modern readings of the Aristotelian text.","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Az3OzalsCeZlYNO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":548,"full_name":"Marcinkowska-Ros\u00f3\u0142, Maria","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1481,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"EOS","volume":"99","issue":"","pages":"67-89"}},"sort":["Zu Aristoteles\u2019 Rezeption der vorsokratischen Prinzipienlehren (Ph. I 4, 187 a 12-26). Teil 2 (Themistios, Philoponos, Simplikios)"]}