Title | Simplicius and Aristotle's Dialectic |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2023 |
Published in | Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception |
Pages | 441-456 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Muzala, Melina |
Translator(s) |
The focus of this chapter is one aspect of Aristotle’s dialectic which has been under-explored until recently and may throw some light on the approach of the late Platonist philosopher and scholar Simplicius (c. 480–c. 540 CE), in particular his Aristotelian tendencies when it comes to constructing his huge commentaries. I am referring to one of the possible applications of the dialectical method as sketched by Aristotle in his first and eighth books of the Topics. In my previous work I have been studying this aspect of Aristotle’s methodology, emphasizing the important distinction between propaedeutic and applied dialectic. At the core of those efforts was an attempt to show how one can take Aristotle’s claims for a scientific use of dialectic seriously, so long as we have a proper understanding of the status of propaedeutic dialectic as it is expounded in his Topics (school practice and exercises) against the applied form of (evolved) dialectic which goes far beyond this early form, debating skills which have become transformed into an internalized form of dialectic. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/qrKKk0yO57h5GCh |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1578","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1578,"authors_free":[{"id":2757,"entry_id":1578,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2758,"entry_id":1578,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":573,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Muzala, Melina","free_first_name":"Melina","free_last_name":"Muzala","norm_person":{"id":573,"first_name":"Melina","last_name":"Muzala","full_name":"Muzala, Melina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1229010815","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and Aristotle's Dialectic","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and Aristotle's Dialectic"},"abstract":"The focus of this chapter is one aspect of Aristotle\u2019s dialectic which has been\r\nunder-explored until recently and may throw some light on the approach of the\r\nlate Platonist philosopher and scholar Simplicius (c. 480\u2013c. 540 CE), in particular\r\nhis Aristotelian tendencies when it comes to constructing his huge commentaries.\r\nI am referring to one of the possible applications of the dialectical method as\r\nsketched by Aristotle in his first and eighth books of the Topics. In my previous\r\nwork I have been studying this aspect of Aristotle\u2019s methodology, emphasizing\r\nthe important distinction between propaedeutic and applied dialectic. At the core of those efforts was an attempt to show how one can take Aristotle\u2019s claims\r\nfor a scientific use of dialectic seriously, so long as we have a proper understanding of the status of propaedeutic dialectic as it is expounded in his Topics (school practice and exercises) against the applied form of (evolved) dialectic which goes far beyond this early form, debating skills which have become transformed into an internalized form of dialectic. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2023","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qrKKk0yO57h5GCh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":573,"full_name":"Muzala, Melina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1578,"section_of":1577,"pages":"441-456","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1577,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2023","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The volume focusses on ancient Greek dialectic and its impact on later philosophical thought, up to Byzantium. The contributions are written by distinguished scholars in their respective fields of study and shed light on the relation of ancient Greek dialectic to various aspects of human life and soul, to self-knowledge and self-consciousness, to science, rhetoric, and political theory. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MoGCt68R9BNx3zl","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1577,"pubplace":"Berlin\/Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Topics in Ancient Philosophy\/ Themen der antiken Philosophie","volume":"10","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2023]}
Title | Exegesis as Philosophy: Notes on Aristotelian Methods in Neoplatonic Commentary |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2023 |
Published in | Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception |
Pages | 371-396 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Griffin, Michael J. |
Editor(s) | Muzala, Melina |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nhzKYr8q8E565qL |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1579","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1579,"authors_free":[{"id":2759,"entry_id":1579,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}},{"id":2760,"entry_id":1579,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":573,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Muzala, Melina","free_first_name":"Melina","free_last_name":"Muzala","norm_person":{"id":573,"first_name":"Melina","last_name":"Muzala","full_name":"Muzala, Melina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1229010815","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Exegesis as Philosophy: Notes on Aristotelian Methods in Neoplatonic Commentary","main_title":{"title":"Exegesis as Philosophy: Notes on Aristotelian Methods in Neoplatonic Commentary"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2023","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nhzKYr8q8E565qL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":148,"full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":573,"full_name":"Muzala, Melina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1579,"section_of":1577,"pages":"371-396","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1577,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2023","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The volume focusses on ancient Greek dialectic and its impact on later philosophical thought, up to Byzantium. The contributions are written by distinguished scholars in their respective fields of study and shed light on the relation of ancient Greek dialectic to various aspects of human life and soul, to self-knowledge and self-consciousness, to science, rhetoric, and political theory. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MoGCt68R9BNx3zl","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1577,"pubplace":"Berlin\/Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Topics in Ancient Philosophy\/ Themen der antiken Philosophie","volume":"10","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2023]}
Title | Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World |
Type | Edited Book |
Language | English |
Date | 2022 |
Publication Place | Leiden – Boston |
Publisher | Brill |
Series | Philosophia Antiqua |
Volume | 160 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | |
Editor(s) | Lammer, Andreas , Jas, Mareike |
Translator(s) |
This volume—the proceedings of a 2018 conference at LMU Munich funded by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation—brings together, for the first time, experts on Greek, Syriac, and Arabic traditions of doxography. Fourteen contributions provide new insight into state-of-the-art contemporary research on the widespread phenomenon of doxography. Together, they demonstrate how Greek, Syriac, and Arabic forms of doxography share common features and raise related questions that benefit interdisciplinary exchange among colleagues from various disciplines, such as classics, Arabic studies, and the history of philosophy. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/XdQoRcGvPjnpUca |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1521","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1521,"authors_free":[{"id":2639,"entry_id":1521,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":565,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lammer, Andreas","free_first_name":"Andreas","free_last_name":"Lammer","norm_person":{"id":565,"first_name":"Andreas","last_name":"Lammer","full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031936807","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2640,"entry_id":1521,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":564,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jas, Mareike ","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Jas","norm_person":{"id":564,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Jas","full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116742073X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World","main_title":{"title":"Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World"},"abstract":"This volume\u2014the proceedings of a 2018 conference at LMU Munich funded by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation\u2014brings together, for the first time, experts on Greek, Syriac, and Arabic traditions of doxography. Fourteen contributions provide new insight into state-of-the-art contemporary research on the widespread phenomenon of doxography. Together, they demonstrate how Greek, Syriac, and Arabic forms of doxography share common features and raise related questions that benefit interdisciplinary exchange among colleagues from various disciplines, such as classics, Arabic studies, and the history of philosophy. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XdQoRcGvPjnpUca","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":565,"full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":564,"full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1521,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"160","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2022]}
Title | “Reputable Opinions” (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography? |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2022 |
Published in | Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World |
Pages | 151-174 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Lammer, Andreas , Jas, Mareike |
Translator(s) |
[Introduction, p. 8-9: Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius are at the centre of Han Baltussen’s paper in this volume. Starting with Aristotle’s use of earlier opinions and the methodical framework provided by the Topics, Baltussen considers different kinds of collections of doxai (or perhaps of endoxa, which in Aristotle may turn some doxographies rather into “endoxographies”). He argues that a distinction between doxography and endoxography may clarify several aspects regarding the development of the long tradition of doxaidiscussions, inasmuch as it helps to gain insight into the origin of doxography itself and its relation to the early Peripatetic habit of evaluating earlier opinions, i.e. of “applied dialectics.” Seen in this light, Simplicius’ way of reading Aristotle can also be analysed within the framework of his commentaries to elucidate his philosophical agenda and his version of the endoxographical method]. |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/O7CkQ7ov1PzjUz2 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1522","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1522,"authors_free":[{"id":2643,"entry_id":1522,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2644,"entry_id":1522,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":565,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lammer, Andreas","free_first_name":"Andreas","free_last_name":"Lammer","norm_person":{"id":565,"first_name":"Andreas","last_name":"Lammer","full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031936807","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2645,"entry_id":1522,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":564,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jas, Mareike ","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Jas","norm_person":{"id":564,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Jas","full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116742073X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u201cReputable Opinions\u201d (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography?","main_title":{"title":"\u201cReputable Opinions\u201d (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography?"},"abstract":"[Introduction, p. 8-9: Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius are at the centre of Han Baltussen\u2019s paper in this volume. Starting with Aristotle\u2019s use of earlier opinions\r\nand the methodical framework provided by the Topics, Baltussen considers different kinds of collections of doxai (or perhaps of endoxa, which\r\nin Aristotle may turn some doxographies rather into \u201cendoxographies\u201d). He argues that a distinction between doxography and endoxography may clarify several aspects regarding the development of the long tradition of doxaidiscussions, inasmuch as it helps to gain insight into the origin of doxography\r\nitself and its relation to the early Peripatetic habit of evaluating earlier opinions, i.e. of \u201capplied dialectics.\u201d Seen in this light, Simplicius\u2019 way of reading Aristotle can also be analysed within the framework of his commentaries to elucidate his philosophical agenda and his version of the endoxographical method].","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/O7CkQ7ov1PzjUz2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":565,"full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":564,"full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1522,"section_of":1521,"pages":"151-174","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1521,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Lammer-Jas_2022","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume\u2014the proceedings of a 2018 conference at LMU Munich funded by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation\u2014brings together, for the first time, experts on Greek, Syriac, and Arabic traditions of doxography. Fourteen contributions provide new insight into state-of-the-art contemporary research on the widespread phenomenon of doxography. Together, they demonstrate how Greek, Syriac, and Arabic forms of doxography share common features and raise related questions that benefit interdisciplinary exchange among colleagues from various disciplines, such as classics, Arabic studies, and the history of philosophy. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XdQoRcGvPjnpUca","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1521,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"160","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2022]}
Title | Plato’s Parmenides: Selected Papers of the XIIth Symposium Platonicum |
Type | Edited Book |
Language | undefined |
Date | 2022 |
Publication Place | Baden-Baden |
Publisher | Academia |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | |
Editor(s) | Brisson, Luc , Macé, Arnaud , Renaut, Olivier |
Translator(s) |
This book contains proceedings of the Symposium Platonicum held in Paris in 2019. The format follows that of its predecessors, in which a selected dialogue (or two) is covered by scholars from diverse research traditions using various interpretative approaches. The published papers are usually shorter notes on specific passages, sometimes growing into longer articles on larger issues, but rarely into a discussion between themselves. The present collection is the largest of its kind (53 papers: 32 in English, 12 in Italian, 4 in German, 3 in French, 2 in Spanish). It examines a particularly difficult dialogue, the Parmenides, from six angles that make up this book’s six thematic sections: (I) the dramatic framework, (II) the influence of earlier philosophers on the Parmenides, (III) Plato’s conception of dialectics, (IV) the critique of the theory of forms, (V) the hypotheses and deductions, and (VI) the influence of the Parmenides on later authors. The Parmenides is a minefield of philosophical questions: how are we to take the dramatic presence of the Eleatics Parmenides and Zeno in terms of the dialogue’s aims and methods? Which of the arguments criticizing the theory of forms, if any, are valid? Do the deductions lead to a genuine impasse or is there some qualified sense in which some of them are productive? And what is the overall purpose of this dialogue: to ridicule the Eleatic monism, to expose the problems surrounding the theory of forms, to solve them, or perhaps to introduce the metaphysics of the One? The reader should not approach this volume in order to find a scholarly consensus on any of these questions, but for the clear formulation of a particular problem, or a promising outline of a solution, or an interesting historical connection to other philosophers offered by some of its contributions. A good case of the first is Amber D. Carpenter’s paper. Plato’s Socrates wants forms to be separated from sensibles and ontologically independent of them. Parmenides attacks this position by noticing that the separation of forms and sensibles implies a symmetrical relation since forms are separated from sensibles as much sensibles are separated from forms. But the paper explores a further problem: if being separated from sensibles means being independent of them, then sensibles are equally independent of forms. Even if one gives up separation in order to salvage independence, the problem persists in a weakness captured by Parmenides’ ‘master-slave’ example, which Carpenter explains as follows: ‘his being a master does depend on someone else’s being a slave – and so the master (as Hegel observed) depends on his slave’ (p. 249). Of course Plato, as another paper by Kezhou Liu claims, wants to maintain an asymmetrical relation, but none of the papers in Section IV provide compelling evidence from the Parmenides to counter Carpenter’s argument. Other contributions explore how certain mistakes in the Parmenides were solved in other dialogues. For instance, Notomi Noburu examines why the dialogues after the Parmenides abandoned the form of Similarity (homoion) in favor of the form of Sameness (tauton). The answer is that a relation of similarity between forms and sensibles ends up generating a regress. Francisco J. Gonzalez argues that the notion of the third (to triton), which is discussed at 155e–157b (sometimes called the third deduction, usually taken as an appendix to the first two), is pivotal in solving the antinomies of the Parmenides. According to this paper, this notion encompasses any two opposed things and transcends them, thus giving a conceptual basis for various ‘thirds’ in the Philebus, the Sophist, and the Timaeus. Béatrice Lienemann explores the predication of forms. This paper adopts Meinwald’s distinction between two types of predication and argues that predication in relation to the thing itself (pros heauto) expresses the essential property of such a thing (e.g. the form of human being is rationality). However, it should not be confused with the necessary properties, such as identity, that belong to all forms. Lienemann then explores the Phaedo and the Sophist to confirm that Plato indeed employs something close to the distinction between the essential and necessary properties. As for the historical part, two papers stand out. Mathilde Brémond gives good textual evidence to show that the second part of the Parmenides examines pairs of contradictory claims leading to impossibilities in the way the sophist Gorgias does. In addition, this paper argues that having Gorgias in mind can explain why the second part is neither constructive in its outcomes, nor openly called ‘dialectics’. The reason is that the argumentation here resembles antilogic. Lloyd P. Gerson’s paper is about the elephant in the room: the Neoplatonic reading of the Parmenides that is mostly ignored throughout the volume. Gerson shows that Plotinus’ interpretation of the first three hypotheses was not arbitrary, but rather based on a defendable understanding of the One and the need to find a philosophically sound answer to Aristotle’s question ‘what is ousia?’. The broader value of this volume is that it gives a good representation of the current status quaestionis and provides a number of useful discussions of shorter passages. However, most of its pieces do not formulate a self-standing argument and should be read in conjunction with Cornford’s Plato and Parmenides (1935), Allen’s Plato’s Parmenides (1983), Meinwald’s Plato’s Parmenides (1991), Sayre’s Parmenides’ Lesson (1996), Scolnicov’s Plato’s Parmenides (2003), Rickless’ Plato’s Forms in Transition (2006), and Gill’s Philosophos (2012): the papers assume close familiarity with them. Finally, this volume needed more careful editing: it contains different treatments of Greek (e.g. pp. 183-191 use transliterations, while pp. 193-200 do not); there are typos and missing characters in the text and titles (e.g. ‘Plato’ Parmenides’ on p. 10) and missing references in the bibliography (e.g. Helmig 2007 and Migliori 2000 from p. 63). |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/BAdPSglZoxI7r9D |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1550","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1550,"authors_free":[{"id":2710,"entry_id":1550,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brisson, Luc","free_first_name":"Luc","free_last_name":"Brisson","norm_person":null},{"id":2711,"entry_id":1550,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mac\u00e9, Arnaud","free_first_name":"Arnaud","free_last_name":"Mac\u00e9","norm_person":null},{"id":2712,"entry_id":1550,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Renaut, Olivier","free_first_name":"Olivier","free_last_name":"Renaut","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Plato\u2019s Parmenides: Selected Papers of the XIIth Symposium Platonicum","main_title":{"title":"Plato\u2019s Parmenides: Selected Papers of the XIIth Symposium Platonicum"},"abstract":"This book contains proceedings of the Symposium Platonicum held in Paris in 2019. The format follows that of its predecessors, in which a selected dialogue (or two) is covered by scholars from diverse research traditions using various interpretative approaches. The published papers are usually shorter notes on specific passages, sometimes growing into longer articles on larger issues, but rarely into a discussion between themselves. The present collection is the largest of its kind (53 papers: 32 in English, 12 in Italian, 4 in German, 3 in French, 2 in Spanish). It examines a particularly difficult dialogue, the Parmenides, from six angles that make up this book\u2019s six thematic sections: (I) the dramatic framework, (II) the influence of earlier philosophers on the Parmenides, (III) Plato\u2019s conception of dialectics, (IV) the critique of the theory of forms, (V) the hypotheses and deductions, and (VI) the influence of the Parmenides on later authors.\r\n\r\nThe Parmenides is a minefield of philosophical questions: how are we to take the dramatic presence of the Eleatics Parmenides and Zeno in terms of the dialogue\u2019s aims and methods? Which of the arguments criticizing the theory of forms, if any, are valid? Do the deductions lead to a genuine impasse or is there some qualified sense in which some of them are productive? And what is the overall purpose of this dialogue: to ridicule the Eleatic monism, to expose the problems surrounding the theory of forms, to solve them, or perhaps to introduce the metaphysics of the One? The reader should not approach this volume in order to find a scholarly consensus on any of these questions, but for the clear formulation of a particular problem, or a promising outline of a solution, or an interesting historical connection to other philosophers offered by some of its contributions.\r\n\r\nA good case of the first is Amber D. Carpenter\u2019s paper. Plato\u2019s Socrates wants forms to be separated from sensibles and ontologically independent of them. Parmenides attacks this position by noticing that the separation of forms and sensibles implies a symmetrical relation since forms are separated from sensibles as much sensibles are separated from forms. But the paper explores a further problem: if being separated from sensibles means being independent of them, then sensibles are equally independent of forms. Even if one gives up separation in order to salvage independence, the problem persists in a weakness captured by Parmenides\u2019 \u2018master-slave\u2019 example, which Carpenter explains as follows: \u2018his being a master does depend on someone else\u2019s being a slave \u2013 and so the master (as Hegel observed) depends on his slave\u2019 (p. 249). Of course Plato, as another paper by Kezhou Liu claims, wants to maintain an asymmetrical relation, but none of the papers in Section IV provide compelling evidence from the Parmenides to counter Carpenter\u2019s argument.\r\n\r\nOther contributions explore how certain mistakes in the Parmenides were solved in other dialogues. For instance, Notomi Noburu examines why the dialogues after the Parmenides abandoned the form of Similarity (homoion) in favor of the form of Sameness (tauton). The answer is that a relation of similarity between forms and sensibles ends up generating a regress. Francisco J. Gonzalez argues that the notion of the third (to triton), which is discussed at 155e\u2013157b (sometimes called the third deduction, usually taken as an appendix to the first two), is pivotal in solving the antinomies of the Parmenides. According to this paper, this notion encompasses any two opposed things and transcends them, thus giving a conceptual basis for various \u2018thirds\u2019 in the Philebus, the Sophist, and the Timaeus. B\u00e9atrice Lienemann explores the predication of forms. This paper adopts Meinwald\u2019s distinction between two types of predication and argues that predication in relation to the thing itself (pros heauto) expresses the essential property of such a thing (e.g. the form of human being is rationality). However, it should not be confused with the necessary properties, such as identity, that belong to all forms. Lienemann then explores the Phaedo and the Sophist to confirm that Plato indeed employs something close to the distinction between the essential and necessary properties.\r\n\r\nAs for the historical part, two papers stand out. Mathilde Br\u00e9mond gives good textual evidence to show that the second part of the Parmenides examines pairs of contradictory claims leading to impossibilities in the way the sophist Gorgias does. In addition, this paper argues that having Gorgias in mind can explain why the second part is neither constructive in its outcomes, nor openly called \u2018dialectics\u2019. The reason is that the argumentation here resembles antilogic. Lloyd P. Gerson\u2019s paper is about the elephant in the room: the Neoplatonic reading of the Parmenides that is mostly ignored throughout the volume. Gerson shows that Plotinus\u2019 interpretation of the first three hypotheses was not arbitrary, but rather based on a defendable understanding of the One and the need to find a philosophically sound answer to Aristotle\u2019s question \u2018what is ousia?\u2019.\r\n\r\nThe broader value of this volume is that it gives a good representation of the current status quaestionis and provides a number of useful discussions of shorter passages. However, most of its pieces do not formulate a self-standing argument and should be read in conjunction with Cornford\u2019s Plato and Parmenides (1935), Allen\u2019s Plato\u2019s Parmenides (1983), Meinwald\u2019s Plato\u2019s Parmenides (1991), Sayre\u2019s Parmenides\u2019 Lesson (1996), Scolnicov\u2019s Plato\u2019s Parmenides (2003), Rickless\u2019 Plato\u2019s Forms in Transition (2006), and Gill\u2019s Philosophos (2012): the papers assume close familiarity with them. Finally, this volume needed more careful editing: it contains different treatments of Greek (e.g. pp. 183-191 use transliterations, while pp. 193-200 do not); there are typos and missing characters in the text and titles (e.g. \u2018Plato\u2019 Parmenides\u2019 on p. 10) and missing references in the bibliography (e.g. Helmig 2007 and Migliori 2000 from p. 63).","btype":4,"date":"2022","language":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/BAdPSglZoxI7r9D","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":{"id":1550,"pubplace":"Baden-Baden","publisher":"Academia","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2022]}
Title | Simplicio, in Cael. 556, 3-560, 10, a margine di Platone, Prm. 135b8-c1. Prolegomeni a una genealogia del parallelism onto-epistemologico |
Type | Book Section |
Language | Italian |
Date | 2022 |
Published in | Plato’s Parmenides: Selected Papers of the XIIth Symposium Platonicum |
Pages | 517-526 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Licciardi, Ivan Adriano |
Editor(s) | Brisson, Luc , Macé, Arnaud , Renaut, Olivier |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius, in Cael. 556,3-560,10 interprets Cael. III 1, 298b14-24, in which Aristotle criticizes Parmenides and Melissus, who deny coming-to-be and consider it only an apparent phenomenon. On the one hand, Aristotle asserts that the Eleatics realized that the condition for a science of being can be that the latter refers to ungenerated and immobile, and therefore ontologically stable, objects; on the other hand, at the same time, they do not admit any other essence aside from sensible beings. Aristotle concludes by saying that the Eleatics came to believe that generation is only apparent, and that they proceeded on the assumption of the isomorphism between the stability of the object and the incontrovertibility of science itself. All in all, Aristotle has pointed out that the Eleatics mixed physics and metaphysics. Simplicius demonstrates that Aristotle’s criticism is not aimed to refute Parmenides, but to prevent superficial listeners from being misled by the outward aspects of his doctrines, because Parmenides’ investigation is metaphysical and regards the intelligible world. Simplicius quotes Prm. 135b8-c1, where Parmenides, turning towards Socrates, says that whoever denies the theory of ideas, that is the theory that admits eternal entities which exist separately, will be quite at a loss, since there can be no science of the things that always flow, that is of the sensible. This is the reason why Plato, before Simplicius, identifies a theorical continuity between Eleaticsm and his own philosophy, finding in Parmenides a supporter of the onto-epistemological parallelism. In Simplicius’ opinion the historical Parmenides and the platonic Parmenides coincide, so the platonic passage shows that Eleatics were the first philosophers that admitted the principle of the onto-epistemological parallelism. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-khttps://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/hKs84wMWfJoNNGjoeln.sciebo.de/s/hKs84wMWfJoNNGj |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1549","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1549,"authors_free":[{"id":2706,"entry_id":1549,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","free_first_name":"Ivan Adriano","free_last_name":"Licciardi","norm_person":null},{"id":2707,"entry_id":1549,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brisson, Luc","free_first_name":"Luc","free_last_name":"Brisson","norm_person":null},{"id":2708,"entry_id":1549,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mac\u00e9, Arnaud","free_first_name":"Arnaud","free_last_name":"Mac\u00e9","norm_person":null},{"id":2709,"entry_id":1549,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Renaut, Olivier","free_first_name":"Olivier","free_last_name":"Renaut","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Simplicio, in Cael. 556, 3-560, 10, a margine di Platone, Prm. 135b8-c1. Prolegomeni a una genealogia del parallelism onto-epistemologico","main_title":{"title":"Simplicio, in Cael. 556, 3-560, 10, a margine di Platone, Prm. 135b8-c1. Prolegomeni a una genealogia del parallelism onto-epistemologico"},"abstract":"Simplicius, in Cael. 556,3-560,10 interprets Cael. III 1, 298b14-24, in which Aristotle criti\u00adcizes Parmenides and Melissus, who deny coming-to-be and consider it only an apparent phenomenon. On the one hand, Aristotle asserts that the Eleatics realized that the condition for a science of being can be that the latter refers to ungenerated and immobile, and therefore ontologically stable, objects; on the other hand, at the same time, they do not admit any other essence aside from sensible beings. Aristotle concludes by saying that the Eleatics came to believe that generation is only apparent, and that they proceeded on the assumption of the isomorphism between the stability of the object and the incontrovertibil\u00adity of science itself. All in all, Aristotle has pointed out that the Eleatics mixed physics and metaphysics. Simplicius demonstrates that Aristotle\u2019s criticism is not aimed to refute Parmenides, but to prevent superficial listeners from being misled by the outward aspects of his doctrines, because Parmenides\u2019 investigation is metaphysical and regards the intelligible world. Simplicius quotes Prm. 135b8-c1, where Parmenides, turning towards Socrates, says that whoever denies the theory of ideas, that is the theory that admits eternal entities which exist separately, will be quite at a loss, since there can be no science of the things that always flow, that is of the sensible. This is the reason why Plato, before Simplicius, identifies a theorical continuity between Eleaticsm and his own philosophy, finding in Parmenides a supporter of the onto-epistemological parallelism. In Simplicius\u2019 opinion the historical Parmenides and the platonic Parmenides coincide, so the platonic passage shows that Eleatics were the first philosophers that admitted the principle of the onto-epistemological parallelism. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-khttps:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hKs84wMWfJoNNGjoeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hKs84wMWfJoNNGj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1549,"section_of":1550,"pages":"517-526","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1550,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Plato\u2019s Parmenides: Selected Papers of the XIIth Symposium Platonicum","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brisson2022","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This book contains proceedings of the Symposium Platonicum held in Paris in 2019. The format follows that of its predecessors, in which a selected dialogue (or two) is covered by scholars from diverse research traditions using various interpretative approaches. The published papers are usually shorter notes on specific passages, sometimes growing into longer articles on larger issues, but rarely into a discussion between themselves. The present collection is the largest of its kind (53 papers: 32 in English, 12 in Italian, 4 in German, 3 in French, 2 in Spanish). It examines a particularly difficult dialogue, the Parmenides, from six angles that make up this book\u2019s six thematic sections: (I) the dramatic framework, (II) the influence of earlier philosophers on the Parmenides, (III) Plato\u2019s conception of dialectics, (IV) the critique of the theory of forms, (V) the hypotheses and deductions, and (VI) the influence of the Parmenides on later authors.\r\n\r\nThe Parmenides is a minefield of philosophical questions: how are we to take the dramatic presence of the Eleatics Parmenides and Zeno in terms of the dialogue\u2019s aims and methods? Which of the arguments criticizing the theory of forms, if any, are valid? Do the deductions lead to a genuine impasse or is there some qualified sense in which some of them are productive? And what is the overall purpose of this dialogue: to ridicule the Eleatic monism, to expose the problems surrounding the theory of forms, to solve them, or perhaps to introduce the metaphysics of the One? The reader should not approach this volume in order to find a scholarly consensus on any of these questions, but for the clear formulation of a particular problem, or a promising outline of a solution, or an interesting historical connection to other philosophers offered by some of its contributions.\r\n\r\nA good case of the first is Amber D. Carpenter\u2019s paper. Plato\u2019s Socrates wants forms to be separated from sensibles and ontologically independent of them. Parmenides attacks this position by noticing that the separation of forms and sensibles implies a symmetrical relation since forms are separated from sensibles as much sensibles are separated from forms. But the paper explores a further problem: if being separated from sensibles means being independent of them, then sensibles are equally independent of forms. Even if one gives up separation in order to salvage independence, the problem persists in a weakness captured by Parmenides\u2019 \u2018master-slave\u2019 example, which Carpenter explains as follows: \u2018his being a master does depend on someone else\u2019s being a slave \u2013 and so the master (as Hegel observed) depends on his slave\u2019 (p. 249). Of course Plato, as another paper by Kezhou Liu claims, wants to maintain an asymmetrical relation, but none of the papers in Section IV provide compelling evidence from the Parmenides to counter Carpenter\u2019s argument.\r\n\r\nOther contributions explore how certain mistakes in the Parmenides were solved in other dialogues. For instance, Notomi Noburu examines why the dialogues after the Parmenides abandoned the form of Similarity (homoion) in favor of the form of Sameness (tauton). The answer is that a relation of similarity between forms and sensibles ends up generating a regress. Francisco J. Gonzalez argues that the notion of the third (to triton), which is discussed at 155e\u2013157b (sometimes called the third deduction, usually taken as an appendix to the first two), is pivotal in solving the antinomies of the Parmenides. According to this paper, this notion encompasses any two opposed things and transcends them, thus giving a conceptual basis for various \u2018thirds\u2019 in the Philebus, the Sophist, and the Timaeus. B\u00e9atrice Lienemann explores the predication of forms. This paper adopts Meinwald\u2019s distinction between two types of predication and argues that predication in relation to the thing itself (pros heauto) expresses the essential property of such a thing (e.g. the form of human being is rationality). However, it should not be confused with the necessary properties, such as identity, that belong to all forms. Lienemann then explores the Phaedo and the Sophist to confirm that Plato indeed employs something close to the distinction between the essential and necessary properties.\r\n\r\nAs for the historical part, two papers stand out. Mathilde Br\u00e9mond gives good textual evidence to show that the second part of the Parmenides examines pairs of contradictory claims leading to impossibilities in the way the sophist Gorgias does. In addition, this paper argues that having Gorgias in mind can explain why the second part is neither constructive in its outcomes, nor openly called \u2018dialectics\u2019. The reason is that the argumentation here resembles antilogic. Lloyd P. Gerson\u2019s paper is about the elephant in the room: the Neoplatonic reading of the Parmenides that is mostly ignored throughout the volume. Gerson shows that Plotinus\u2019 interpretation of the first three hypotheses was not arbitrary, but rather based on a defendable understanding of the One and the need to find a philosophically sound answer to Aristotle\u2019s question \u2018what is ousia?\u2019.\r\n\r\nThe broader value of this volume is that it gives a good representation of the current status quaestionis and provides a number of useful discussions of shorter passages. However, most of its pieces do not formulate a self-standing argument and should be read in conjunction with Cornford\u2019s Plato and Parmenides (1935), Allen\u2019s Plato\u2019s Parmenides (1983), Meinwald\u2019s Plato\u2019s Parmenides (1991), Sayre\u2019s Parmenides\u2019 Lesson (1996), Scolnicov\u2019s Plato\u2019s Parmenides (2003), Rickless\u2019 Plato\u2019s Forms in Transition (2006), and Gill\u2019s Philosophos (2012): the papers assume close familiarity with them. Finally, this volume needed more careful editing: it contains different treatments of Greek (e.g. pp. 183-191 use transliterations, while pp. 193-200 do not); there are typos and missing characters in the text and titles (e.g. \u2018Plato\u2019 Parmenides\u2019 on p. 10) and missing references in the bibliography (e.g. Helmig 2007 and Migliori 2000 from p. 63).","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/BAdPSglZoxI7r9D","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1550,"pubplace":"Baden-Baden","publisher":"Academia","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2022]}
Title | Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato’s Parmenides to Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2022 |
Published in | Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World |
Pages | 175-206 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Helmig, Christoph |
Editor(s) | Lammer, Andreas , Jas, Mareike |
Translator(s) |
[Introduction, p. 9: Likewise examining Simplicius and his “rather exceptional role in the doxographical tradition,” Christoph Helmig focuses on the reception of Parmenides’ poem. In this, Helmig’s aim is twofold: on the one hand, he assesses Simplicius’ position in the tradition as such, differentiating between a number of different ways of handling received materials. On the other hand, he addresses the question of how the doxographical reception of Parmenides’ philosophy in particular ought to be delineated (and of course, what role Simplicius played) by subsequently examining Plato’s approach towards Parmenides, then Aristotle’s (which can be interpreted variously), and then, via Middle Platonism, to Simplicius’. As is shown, Simplicius is guided by his ideology to search for a greater harmony among ancient philosophical knowledge, most particularly among Plato and Aristotle.] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/TCwQbIBdnCfPCGP |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1520","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1520,"authors_free":[{"id":2638,"entry_id":1520,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":146,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Helmig, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Helmig","norm_person":{"id":146,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Helmig","full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1107028760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2641,"entry_id":1520,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":565,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lammer, Andreas","free_first_name":"Andreas","free_last_name":"Lammer","norm_person":{"id":565,"first_name":"Andreas","last_name":"Lammer","full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031936807","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2642,"entry_id":1520,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":564,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jas, Mareike ","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Jas","norm_person":{"id":564,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Jas","full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116742073X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato\u2019s Parmenides to Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics","main_title":{"title":"Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato\u2019s Parmenides to Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics"},"abstract":"[Introduction, p. 9: Likewise examining Simplicius and his \u201crather exceptional role in the doxographical tradition,\u201d Christoph Helmig focuses on the reception of Parmenides\u2019 poem. In this, Helmig\u2019s aim is twofold: on the one hand, he assesses Simplicius\u2019 position in the tradition as such, differentiating between a number of\r\ndifferent ways of handling received materials. On the other hand, he addresses\r\nthe question of how the doxographical reception of Parmenides\u2019 philosophy in\r\nparticular ought to be delineated (and of course, what role Simplicius played)\r\nby subsequently examining Plato\u2019s approach towards Parmenides, then Aristotle\u2019s (which can be interpreted variously), and then, via Middle Platonism,\r\nto Simplicius\u2019. As is shown, Simplicius is guided by his ideology to search for\r\na greater harmony among ancient philosophical knowledge, most particularly\r\namong Plato and Aristotle.]","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TCwQbIBdnCfPCGP","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":146,"full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":565,"full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":564,"full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1520,"section_of":1521,"pages":"175-206","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1521,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Lammer-Jas_2022","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume\u2014the proceedings of a 2018 conference at LMU Munich funded by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation\u2014brings together, for the first time, experts on Greek, Syriac, and Arabic traditions of doxography. Fourteen contributions provide new insight into state-of-the-art contemporary research on the widespread phenomenon of doxography. Together, they demonstrate how Greek, Syriac, and Arabic forms of doxography share common features and raise related questions that benefit interdisciplinary exchange among colleagues from various disciplines, such as classics, Arabic studies, and the history of philosophy. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XdQoRcGvPjnpUca","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1521,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"160","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2022]}
Title | Simplicius. On Aristotle Physics 1.1-2 (Ancient commentators on Aristotle) |
Type | Monograph |
Language | English |
Date | 2022 |
Publication Place | London |
Publisher | Bloomsbury Publishing |
Series | Ancient commentators on Aristotle |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Menn, Stephen Philip |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
With this translation, all 12 volumes of translation of Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics have been published (full list below). In Physics 1.1–2, Aristotle raises the question of the number and character of the first principles of nature and feels the need to oppose the challenge of the paradoxical Eleatic philosophers who had denied that there could be more than one unchanging thing. This volume, part of the groundbreaking Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, translates into English for the first time Simplicius' commentary on this selected text, and includes a brief introduction, extensive explanatory notes, indexes and a bibliography. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/bb8xmKaYaOkUHZ6 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1557","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1557,"authors_free":[{"id":2720,"entry_id":1557,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Menn, Stephen Philip","free_first_name":"Stephen Philip","free_last_name":"Menn","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Simplicius. On Aristotle Physics 1.1-2 (Ancient commentators on Aristotle)","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius. On Aristotle Physics 1.1-2 (Ancient commentators on Aristotle)"},"abstract":"With this translation, all 12 volumes of translation of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics have been published (full list below). In Physics 1.1\u20132, Aristotle raises the question of the number and character of the first principles of nature and feels the need to oppose the challenge of the paradoxical Eleatic philosophers who had denied that there could be more than one unchanging thing.\r\n\r\nThis volume, part of the groundbreaking Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, translates into English for the first time Simplicius' commentary on this selected text, and includes a brief introduction, extensive explanatory notes, indexes and a bibliography. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/bb8xmKaYaOkUHZ6","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":{"id":1557,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury Publishing","series":"Ancient commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2022]}
Title | Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 1-8: General Introduction to the 12 Volumes of Translations |
Type | Monograph |
Language | English |
Date | 2022 |
Publication Place | London; New York |
Publisher | Bloomsbury Publishing |
Series | Ancient Commentators on Aristotle |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Menn, Stephen Philip |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AsiiyMXGjqvuO42 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1558","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1558,"authors_free":[{"id":2721,"entry_id":1558,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Menn, Stephen Philip","free_first_name":"Stephen Philip","free_last_name":"Menn","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 1-8: General Introduction to the 12 Volumes of Translations","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 1-8: General Introduction to the 12 Volumes of Translations"},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AsiiyMXGjqvuO42","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":{"id":1558,"pubplace":"London; New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Publishing","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2022]}
Title | Wenn der Steuermann ruft..." (Epiktet, Encheiridion 7) |
Type | Article |
Language | German |
Date | 2022 |
Journal | Hyperboreus |
Volume | 28 |
Issue | 1 |
Pages | 111-122 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Krämer, Benedikt |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/CjtWoBp8Z2FqtLn |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1555","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1555,"authors_free":[{"id":2718,"entry_id":1555,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kr\u00e4mer, Benedikt","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Kr\u00e4mer","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Wenn der Steuermann ruft...\" (Epiktet, Encheiridion 7)","main_title":{"title":"Wenn der Steuermann ruft...\" (Epiktet, Encheiridion 7)"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2022","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CjtWoBp8Z2FqtLn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1555,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hyperboreus","volume":"28","issue":"1","pages":"111-122"}},"sort":[2022]}
Title | Addendum: Simplicius, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (CAG 8), V, P. 109, 5-110, 25 (Kalbfleish) |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2009 |
Published in | Gnose et Philosophie. Études en hommage à Pierre Hadot |
Pages | 97-100 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Narbonne, Jean-Marc |
Editor(s) | Narbonne, Jean-Marc , Poirier, Paul-Hubert |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/KkAR8HbRTQQWWuB |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1106","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1106,"authors_free":[{"id":1671,"entry_id":1106,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":275,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","free_first_name":"Jean-Marc","free_last_name":"Narbonne","norm_person":{"id":275,"first_name":"Jean-Marc","last_name":"Narbonne","full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124470408","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1672,"entry_id":1106,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":275,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","free_first_name":"Jean-Marc","free_last_name":"Narbonne","norm_person":{"id":275,"first_name":"Jean-Marc","last_name":"Narbonne","full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124470408","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1673,"entry_id":1106,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":276,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Poirier, Paul-Hubert","free_first_name":"Paul-Hubert","free_last_name":"Poirier","norm_person":{"id":276,"first_name":"Paul-Hubert","last_name":"Poirier","full_name":"Poirier, Paul-Hubert","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/103382867X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Addendum: Simplicius, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (CAG 8), V, P. 109, 5-110, 25 (Kalbfleish)","main_title":{"title":"Addendum: Simplicius, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (CAG 8), V, P. 109, 5-110, 25 (Kalbfleish)"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2009","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KkAR8HbRTQQWWuB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":275,"full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":275,"full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":276,"full_name":"Poirier, Paul-Hubert","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1106,"section_of":301,"pages":"97-100","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":301,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Gnose et Philosophie. \u00c9tudes en hommage \u00e0 Pierre Hadot","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Narbonne2009c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2009","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2009","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/bEHqNthtO2PASS6","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":301,"pubplace":"Paris - Qu\u00e9bec","publisher":"Vrin - Les Presses de l'Universit\u00e9 Laval","series":"Collection Z\u00eat\u00easis: S\u00e9rie \u00abTextes et essais\u00bb","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Addendum: Simplicius, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (CAG 8), V, P. 109, 5-110, 25 (Kalbfleish)"]}
Title | Akrasia and Enkrateia in Simplicius’s Commentary on Epictetus’s Emcheiridion |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2014 |
Published in | The Neoplatonic Socrates |
Pages | 127-142 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Lawrence, Marilynn |
Editor(s) | Layne, Danielle A. , Tarrant, Harold |
Translator(s) |
This text explores the problem of akrasia, or the phenomenon of knowingly erring, within Socratic philosophy, and its relationship to Socratic intellectualism. The denial of akrasia by Socrates and Aristotle's response to it have been discussed by scholars, with interpretations and critiques of the argument that no one willingly chooses to do what they know is wrong. Simplicius attempted to reconcile these differing views and harmonize the phenomenon of akrasia while preserving Socrates' intellectualist position through his commentary on Epictetus's Encheiridion. The text concludes with Simplicius's reflections on the antiphilosophical culture of his time and the importance of philosophical education. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/OqSxOrXo1qIxtmA |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1157","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1157,"authors_free":[{"id":1730,"entry_id":1157,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":86,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lawrence, Marilynn","free_first_name":"Marilynn","free_last_name":"Lawrence","norm_person":{"id":86,"first_name":"Marilynn ","last_name":"Lawrence","full_name":"Lawrence, Marilynn ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1152956507","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2074,"entry_id":1157,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":202,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","free_first_name":"Danielle A.","free_last_name":"Layne","norm_person":{"id":202,"first_name":"Danielle A.","last_name":"Layne","full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068033177","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2075,"entry_id":1157,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Akrasia and Enkrateia in Simplicius\u2019s Commentary on Epictetus\u2019s Emcheiridion","main_title":{"title":"Akrasia and Enkrateia in Simplicius\u2019s Commentary on Epictetus\u2019s Emcheiridion"},"abstract":"This text explores the problem of akrasia, or the phenomenon of knowingly erring, within Socratic philosophy, and its relationship to Socratic intellectualism. The denial of akrasia by Socrates and Aristotle's response to it have been discussed by scholars, with interpretations and critiques of the argument that no one willingly chooses to do what they know is wrong. Simplicius attempted to reconcile these differing views and harmonize the phenomenon of akrasia while preserving Socrates' intellectualist position through his commentary on Epictetus's Encheiridion. The text concludes with Simplicius's reflections on the antiphilosophical culture of his time and the importance of philosophical education. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OqSxOrXo1qIxtmA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":86,"full_name":"Lawrence, Marilynn ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":202,"full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1157,"section_of":344,"pages":"127-142","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":344,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Neoplatonic Socrates","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Tarrant_Layne_2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8jJu0dLBrHl9uLt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":344,"pubplace":"Philadelphia","publisher":"University of Pennsylvania Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Akrasia and Enkrateia in Simplicius\u2019s Commentary on Epictetus\u2019s Emcheiridion"]}
Title | Albert le Grand sur la dérivation des formes géométriques: Un témoignage de l'influence de Simplicius par le biais des Arabes? (forthcoming) |
Type | Article |
Language | French |
Date | 2008 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Chase, Michael |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
The text discusses Albert the Great's arguments in his commentary on Porphyry's Isagoge, focusing on the second of the three questions Porphyry posed about universals: whether they are corporeal or incorporeal. Albert attributes the idea of the separate existence of lines and surfaces in mathematical bodies to Plato. This attribution is problematic, but it is not absurd to suggest that Plato taught such doctrines, according to the Tübingen School's work on Plato's unwritten teachings. The text suggests that Albert's presentation of Plato's philosophy reflects his reliance on difficult translations of Aristotle and his commentators, rather than direct engagement with Plato's dialogues. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xQTHT9jCvKbdAcS |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1259","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1259,"authors_free":[{"id":1838,"entry_id":1259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":25,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chase, Michael ","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Chase","norm_person":{"id":25,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Chase","full_name":"Chase, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031917152","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Albert le Grand sur la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques: Un t\u00e9moignage de l'influence de Simplicius par le biais des Arabes? (forthcoming)","main_title":{"title":"Albert le Grand sur la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques: Un t\u00e9moignage de l'influence de Simplicius par le biais des Arabes? (forthcoming)"},"abstract":"The text discusses Albert the Great's arguments in his commentary on Porphyry's Isagoge, focusing on the second of the three questions Porphyry posed about universals: whether they are corporeal or incorporeal. Albert attributes the idea of the separate existence of lines and surfaces in mathematical bodies to Plato. This attribution is problematic, but it is not absurd to suggest that Plato taught such doctrines, according to the T\u00fcbingen School's work on Plato's unwritten teachings. The text suggests that Albert's presentation of Plato's philosophy reflects his reliance on difficult translations of Aristotle and his commentators, rather than direct engagement with Plato's dialogues. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xQTHT9jCvKbdAcS","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":25,"full_name":"Chase, Michael ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Albert le Grand sur la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques: Un t\u00e9moignage de l'influence de Simplicius par le biais des Arabes? (forthcoming)"]}
Title | Alessandro di Afrodisia, Commentario al De caelo di Aristotele. Frammenti del primo libro |
Type | Monograph |
Language | Italian |
Date | 2004 |
Publication Place | Amsterdam |
Publisher | Hakkert |
Series | Supplementi di Lexis |
Volume | 26 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | , Alexander Aphrodisiensis |
Editor(s) | Rescigno, Andrea |
Translator(s) | Rescigno, Andrea(Rescigno, Andrea) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tu72sBCDmGrvNf3 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"59","_score":null,"_source":{"id":59,"authors_free":[{"id":67,"entry_id":59,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":500,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rescigno, Andrea","free_first_name":"Andrea","free_last_name":"Rescigno","norm_person":{"id":500,"first_name":"Andrea","last_name":"Rescigno","full_name":"Rescigno, Andrea","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2480,"entry_id":59,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":501,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Alexander Aphrodisiensis","free_first_name":"Alexander","free_last_name":"Aphrodisiensis","norm_person":{"id":501,"first_name":"Alexander","last_name":"Aphrodisiensis","full_name":"Alexander, Aphrodisiensis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118501887","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2481,"entry_id":59,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":500,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Rescigno, Andrea","free_first_name":"Andrea","free_last_name":"Rescigno, Andrea","norm_person":{"id":500,"first_name":"Andrea","last_name":"Rescigno","full_name":"Rescigno, Andrea","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alessandro di Afrodisia, Commentario al De caelo di Aristotele. Frammenti del primo libro","main_title":{"title":"Alessandro di Afrodisia, Commentario al De caelo di Aristotele. Frammenti del primo libro"},"abstract":"","btype":1,"date":"2004","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tu72sBCDmGrvNf3","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":500,"full_name":"Rescigno, Andrea","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":501,"full_name":"Alexander, Aphrodisiensis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":500,"full_name":"Rescigno, Andrea","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}}],"book":{"id":59,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"Hakkert","series":"Supplementi di Lexis","volume":"26","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Alessandro di Afrodisia, Commentario al De caelo di Aristotele. Frammenti del primo libro"]}
Title | Alexander on Physics 2.9 |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 2012 |
Journal | Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies |
Volume | 55 |
Issue | 1 |
Pages | 19-30 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sharples, Robert W. |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
I want to draw your attention today to a report of Alexander in Simplicius’s Physics commentary which, as far as I can tell, has escaped the notice of everyone, myself included - and I have rather less excuse than most, for, as we shall see, the report connects directly with issues about which I have written in other contexts. That was concerned with On coming-to-be and passing-away [hereafter GC] 2.11, with Philoponus’s commentary thereon, and with Alexander’s discussion in some of the Quaestiones\ the present paper, with Simplicius’s help, extends the discussion to Physics 2.9; Alexander’s GC commentary, and the relevant part of his Physics commentary, are lost. [Introduction, p. 19] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Uk1uUvOIUNKK2lk |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1172","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1172,"authors_free":[{"id":1747,"entry_id":1172,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alexander on Physics 2.9","main_title":{"title":"Alexander on Physics 2.9"},"abstract":"I want to draw your attention today to a report of Alexander in Simplicius\u2019s Physics commentary which, as far as I can tell, has escaped the notice of everyone, myself included - and I have rather less excuse than most, for, as we shall see, the report connects directly with issues about which I have written in other contexts. That was concerned with On coming-to-be and passing-away [hereafter GC] 2.11, with Philoponus\u2019s commentary thereon, and with Alexander\u2019s discussion in some of the Quaestiones\\ the present paper, with Simplicius\u2019s help, extends the discussion to Physics 2.9; Alexander\u2019s GC commentary, \r\nand the relevant part of his Physics commentary, are lost. [Introduction, p. 19]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Uk1uUvOIUNKK2lk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1172,"section_of":1171,"pages":"19-30","is_catalog":null,"book":null},"article":{"id":1172,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"55","issue":"1","pages":"19-30"}},"sort":["Alexander on Physics 2.9"]}
Title | Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la métaphysique aristotéliecienne |
Type | Edited Book |
Language | French |
Date | 2017 |
Publication Place | Leuven – Paris – Bristol, CT |
Publisher | Peeters |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | |
Editor(s) | Balansard, Anne , Jaulin, Annick |
Translator(s) |
Les neuf études de ce volume portent sur le Commentaire à la Métaphysique d'Aristote par Alexandre d'Aphrodise, écrit au tournant des IIe et IIIe siècles. Elles ont été suscitées par le colloque international "Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la métaphysique aristotélicienne", tenu à l'Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne du 22 au 24 juin 2015. La question de la réception est au cœur de ces études : réception de la Métaphysique par Alexandre, réception de son exégèse par la tradition ultérieure. En effet, le commentaire d'Alexandre établit la compréhension du texte d'Aristote à partir du IIIe siècle ; il servira de référence à toutes les interprétations ultérieures, qu'elles soient néoplatoniciennes, arabes ou latines. Ces études mettent en évidence les rapports complexes entre logique, physique, philosophie première et même éthique, établis par le commentaire d'Alexandre. La question la plus disputée est celle de l'usage des Catégories dans le commentaire à la Métaphysique. Les neuf études ont pour auteurs : Cristina Cerami, Riccardo Chiaradonna, Michel Crubellier, Silvia Fazzo, Pantelis Golitsis, Gweltaz Guyomarc'h, Annick Jaulin, Claire Louguet, Marwan Rashed. |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6qWkzhvSbAtdjg7 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"273","_score":null,"_source":{"id":273,"authors_free":[{"id":2344,"entry_id":273,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":447,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Balansard, Anne","free_first_name":"Anne","free_last_name":"Balansard","norm_person":{"id":447,"first_name":"Anne","last_name":"Balansard","full_name":"Balansard, Anne","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107922548X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2345,"entry_id":273,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":448,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jaulin, Annick","free_first_name":"Annick","free_last_name":"Jaulin","norm_person":{"id":448,"first_name":"Annick","last_name":"Jaulin","full_name":"Jaulin, Annick","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1203571127","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la m\u00e9taphysique aristot\u00e9liecienne","main_title":{"title":"Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la m\u00e9taphysique aristot\u00e9liecienne"},"abstract":"Les neuf \u00e9tudes de ce volume portent sur le Commentaire \u00e0 la M\u00e9taphysique d'Aristote par Alexandre d'Aphrodise, \u00e9crit au tournant des IIe et IIIe si\u00e8cles. Elles ont \u00e9t\u00e9 suscit\u00e9es par le colloque international \"Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la m\u00e9taphysique aristot\u00e9licienne\", tenu \u00e0 l'Universit\u00e9 Paris 1 Panth\u00e9on-Sorbonne du 22 au 24 juin 2015. La question de la r\u00e9ception est au c\u0153ur de ces \u00e9tudes : r\u00e9ception de la M\u00e9taphysique par Alexandre, r\u00e9ception de son ex\u00e9g\u00e8se par la tradition ult\u00e9rieure. En effet, le commentaire d'Alexandre \u00e9tablit la compr\u00e9hension du texte d'Aristote \u00e0 partir du IIIe si\u00e8cle ; il servira de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 toutes les interpr\u00e9tations ult\u00e9rieures, qu'elles soient n\u00e9oplatoniciennes, arabes ou latines. Ces \u00e9tudes mettent en \u00e9vidence les rapports complexes entre logique, physique, philosophie premi\u00e8re et m\u00eame \u00e9thique, \u00e9tablis par le commentaire d'Alexandre. La question la plus disput\u00e9e est celle de l'usage des Cat\u00e9gories dans le commentaire \u00e0 la M\u00e9taphysique. Les neuf \u00e9tudes ont pour auteurs : Cristina Cerami, Riccardo Chiaradonna, Michel Crubellier, Silvia Fazzo, Pantelis Golitsis, Gweltaz Guyomarc'h, Annick Jaulin, Claire Louguet, Marwan Rashed.","btype":4,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6qWkzhvSbAtdjg7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":447,"full_name":"Balansard, Anne","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":448,"full_name":"Jaulin, Annick","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":273,"pubplace":"Leuven \u2013 Paris \u2013 Bristol, CT","publisher":"Peeters","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la m\u00e9taphysique aristot\u00e9liecienne"]}
Title | Alexandre d’Aphrodise, Simplicius, et la cause efficiente de l’univers |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2017 |
Published in | Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la métaphysique aristotéliecienne |
Pages | 217-235 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Balansard, Anne , Jaulin, Annick |
Translator(s) |
The Aristotelian commentaries of Simplicius on the works "On the Heavens" and "Physics" would have been significantly different without the access to the commentaries of Alexander of Aphrodisias. Simplicius heavily relied on Alexander's explanations to resolve several difficulties in Aristotle's text, except in cases where Aristotle criticizes Plato. Simplicius suggests that Alexander, being a member of the Peripatetic school, may have hidden the true purpose of Aristotle's criticisms of Plato. Simplicius argues that Aristotle's critiques of Plato were made for pedagogical reasons, to protect students from misinterpreting difficult philosophical doctrines. Simplicius also criticizes Alexander's literal interpretation of Aristotle, particularly concerning the question of whether the universe has an efficient cause. The neo-Platonic system of thought, shared by Simplicius and Ammonius, aimed to preserve the Greek belief in the eternity of the universe but did so by different means than the pure Peripatetic philosophy of Alexander. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/1yzfQV1CqjJCR3j |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1324","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1324,"authors_free":[{"id":1958,"entry_id":1324,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2379,"entry_id":1324,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":447,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Balansard, Anne","free_first_name":"Anne","free_last_name":"Balansard","norm_person":{"id":447,"first_name":"Anne","last_name":"Balansard","full_name":"Balansard, Anne","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107922548X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2384,"entry_id":1324,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":448,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jaulin, Annick","free_first_name":"Annick","free_last_name":"Jaulin","norm_person":{"id":448,"first_name":"Annick","last_name":"Jaulin","full_name":"Jaulin, Annick","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1203571127","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, Simplicius, et la cause efficiente de l\u2019univers","main_title":{"title":"Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, Simplicius, et la cause efficiente de l\u2019univers"},"abstract":"The Aristotelian commentaries of Simplicius on the works \"On the Heavens\" and \"Physics\" would have been significantly different without the access to the commentaries of Alexander of Aphrodisias. Simplicius heavily relied on Alexander's explanations to resolve several difficulties in Aristotle's text, except in cases where Aristotle criticizes Plato. Simplicius suggests that Alexander, being a member of the Peripatetic school, may have hidden the true purpose of Aristotle's criticisms of Plato. Simplicius argues that Aristotle's critiques of Plato were made for pedagogical reasons, to protect students from misinterpreting difficult philosophical doctrines. Simplicius also criticizes Alexander's literal interpretation of Aristotle, particularly concerning the question of whether the universe has an efficient cause. The neo-Platonic system of thought, shared by Simplicius and Ammonius, aimed to preserve the Greek belief in the eternity of the universe but did so by different means than the pure Peripatetic philosophy of Alexander. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1yzfQV1CqjJCR3j","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":447,"full_name":"Balansard, Anne","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":448,"full_name":"Jaulin, Annick","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1324,"section_of":273,"pages":"217-235","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":273,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la m\u00e9taphysique aristot\u00e9liecienne","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Balansard-Jaulin_2017","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2017","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2017","abstract":"Les neuf \u00e9tudes de ce volume portent sur le Commentaire \u00e0 la M\u00e9taphysique d'Aristote par Alexandre d'Aphrodise, \u00e9crit au tournant des IIe et IIIe si\u00e8cles. Elles ont \u00e9t\u00e9 suscit\u00e9es par le colloque international \"Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la m\u00e9taphysique aristot\u00e9licienne\", tenu \u00e0 l'Universit\u00e9 Paris 1 Panth\u00e9on-Sorbonne du 22 au 24 juin 2015. La question de la r\u00e9ception est au c\u0153ur de ces \u00e9tudes : r\u00e9ception de la M\u00e9taphysique par Alexandre, r\u00e9ception de son ex\u00e9g\u00e8se par la tradition ult\u00e9rieure. En effet, le commentaire d'Alexandre \u00e9tablit la compr\u00e9hension du texte d'Aristote \u00e0 partir du IIIe si\u00e8cle ; il servira de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 toutes les interpr\u00e9tations ult\u00e9rieures, qu'elles soient n\u00e9oplatoniciennes, arabes ou latines. Ces \u00e9tudes mettent en \u00e9vidence les rapports complexes entre logique, physique, philosophie premi\u00e8re et m\u00eame \u00e9thique, \u00e9tablis par le commentaire d'Alexandre. La question la plus disput\u00e9e est celle de l'usage des Cat\u00e9gories dans le commentaire \u00e0 la M\u00e9taphysique. Les neuf \u00e9tudes ont pour auteurs : Cristina Cerami, Riccardo Chiaradonna, Michel Crubellier, Silvia Fazzo, Pantelis Golitsis, Gweltaz Guyomarc'h, Annick Jaulin, Claire Louguet, Marwan Rashed.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6qWkzhvSbAtdjg7","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":273,"pubplace":"Leuven \u2013 Paris \u2013 Bristol, CT","publisher":"Peeters","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, Simplicius, et la cause efficiente de l\u2019univers"]}
Title | Alexandre d’Aphrodise, commentaire perdu à la « Physique » d’Aristote (livres IV−VIII) : les scholies byzantines. Édition, traduction et commentaire |
Type | Monograph |
Language | French |
Date | 2011 |
Publication Place | Berlin – Boston |
Publisher | de Gruyter |
Series | Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina |
Volume | 1 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Rashed, Marwan , Alexander Aphrodisiensis |
Editor(s) | Rashed, Marwan |
Translator(s) |
The no longer extant commentary by Alexander of Aphrodisias (approx. 200 AD) on Aristotle’s Physics is one of the most important works of antiquity ‑, as a source text having influenced both the Greek commentators on Aristotle and ‒ through the mediation of Arab scholars ‑ Western medieval philosophy. This volume presents the first edition and study of nearly 700 recently discovered Byzantine scholia, which allow a more exact reconstruction of Alexander’s teachings on physics, and at the same time contribute to a better understanding of Aristotelianism and preclassical physics. [Author’s abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/7D2ncBfgdXVfziU |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"8","_score":null,"_source":{"id":8,"authors_free":[{"id":8,"entry_id":8,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2486,"entry_id":8,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":501,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Alexander Aphrodisiensis","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":501,"first_name":"Alexander","last_name":"Aphrodisiensis","full_name":"Alexander, Aphrodisiensis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118501887","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2488,"entry_id":8,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, commentaire perdu \u00e0 la \u00ab Physique \u00bb d\u2019Aristote (livres IV\u2212VIII) : les scholies byzantines. \u00c9dition, traduction et commentaire","main_title":{"title":"Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, commentaire perdu \u00e0 la \u00ab Physique \u00bb d\u2019Aristote (livres IV\u2212VIII) : les scholies byzantines. \u00c9dition, traduction et commentaire"},"abstract":"The no longer extant commentary by Alexander of Aphrodisias (approx. 200 AD) on Aristotle\u2019s Physics is one of the most important works of antiquity \u2011, as a source text having influenced both the Greek commentators on Aristotle and \u2012 through the mediation of Arab scholars \u2011 Western medieval philosophy. This volume presents the first edition and study of nearly 700 recently discovered Byzantine scholia, which allow a more exact reconstruction of Alexander\u2019s teachings on physics, and at the same time contribute to a better understanding of Aristotelianism and preclassical physics. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2011","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/7D2ncBfgdXVfziU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":501,"full_name":"Alexander, Aphrodisiensis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":8,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina","volume":"1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, commentaire perdu \u00e0 la \u00ab Physique \u00bb d\u2019Aristote (livres IV\u2212VIII) : les scholies byzantines. \u00c9dition, traduction et commentaire"]}
Title | Alternatives to Alternatives: Approaches to Aristotle's Arguments per impossibile |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 2002 |
Journal | Vivarium |
Volume | 40 |
Issue | 2 |
Pages | 137-173 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Kukkonen, Taneli |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
When arguing from impossible premises, what was Aristotle's ratio- nale? Is there a way to salvage all of these purported arguments "through the impossible"? In this article, I wish to examine some of the answers offered by commentators on Aristotle ranging from Alexander to Buridan. We shall see that within the discussion, a more systematic picture of Aristotle's intentions slowly emerges. [p. 141] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/VugBKbHjOyRL2pO |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"734","_score":null,"_source":{"id":734,"authors_free":[{"id":1097,"entry_id":734,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":224,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kukkonen, Taneli","free_first_name":"Taneli","free_last_name":"Kukkonen","norm_person":{"id":224,"first_name":"Taneli","last_name":"Kukkonen","full_name":"Kukkonen, Taneli","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1064756859","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alternatives to Alternatives: Approaches to Aristotle's Arguments per impossibile","main_title":{"title":"Alternatives to Alternatives: Approaches to Aristotle's Arguments per impossibile"},"abstract":"When arguing from impossible premises, what was Aristotle's ratio- \r\nnale? Is there a way to salvage all of these purported arguments \"through the impossible\"? In this article, I wish to examine some of the answers \r\noffered by commentators on Aristotle ranging from Alexander to Buridan. \r\nWe shall see that within the discussion, a more systematic picture of \r\nAristotle's intentions slowly emerges. [p. 141]","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VugBKbHjOyRL2pO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":224,"full_name":"Kukkonen, Taneli","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":734,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Vivarium","volume":"40","issue":"2","pages":"137-173"}},"sort":["Alternatives to Alternatives: Approaches to Aristotle's Arguments per impossibile"]}
Title | An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Brill’ Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity |
Pages | 341-357 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Opsomer, Jan |
Editor(s) | Falcon, Andrea |
Translator(s) |
Iamblichus (ccl 245-320) is sometimes called the second founder of Neoplatonism.1 His innovations were essential to late Neoplatonic philosophy as it developed in the schools of Athens in particular» but also Alexandria. These innovations do not just pertain to philosophical tenets» but also to philosophi cal method and style. Iamblichus defined stricter exegetical rules and new metaphysical laws. He also created an alliance between philosophy and theurgy and insisted on the philosophical value of various religious traditions and reli gious-philosophical texts like the Chaldaean oracles. Iamblichus was» more over, decisive in shaping the school curriculum and, more generally, the canon of texts that, whether philosophical or religious, carried authority for philo sophical research. He, for instance, systematically included texts belonging to a Pythagorean tradition— a tradition which to some extent was of his own construal. His selection of philosophically important texts was in line with cer tain earlier developments, but it was Iamblichus who established a real canon. Indeed, after Iamblichus the canon remained more or less stable.If we look at the importance assigned to Aristotle and the Peripatetic tra dition, it is clear that the difference between Iamblichus and his arch-rival Porphyry does not reside in which texts were held to be worthy of profound study. Hie difference is situated rather in the role and status attributed to them within the Platonic philosophical system. From the early Imperial era onward, Aristotle was seen by most Platonists as an ally, unlike the Stoics and Epicureans, who were regarded as opponents. Yet the extent to which Aristotelian ideas were incorporated varied greatly. Different parts of Aristotle's thought attracted different Platonists and the strategies used for integrating and assimilating them diverged. Here Iamblichus made his mark, as will become clear below. [Introduction, p. 341] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/9PbBFU6HhLHSXvY |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"935","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":935,"authors_free":[{"id":1387,"entry_id":935,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":211,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Opsomer, Jan","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":{"id":211,"first_name":"Jan","last_name":"Opsomer","full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120966310","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1388,"entry_id":935,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":95,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Falcon, Andrea","free_first_name":"Andrea","free_last_name":"Falcon","norm_person":{"id":95,"first_name":"Andrea","last_name":"Falcon","full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1138844241","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine","main_title":{"title":"An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine"},"abstract":"Iamblichus (ccl 245-320) is sometimes called the second founder of \r\nNeoplatonism.1 His innovations were essential to late Neoplatonic philosophy \r\nas it developed in the schools of Athens in particular\u00bb but also Alexandria. These \r\ninnovations do not just pertain to philosophical tenets\u00bb but also to philosophi\u00ad\r\ncal method and style. Iamblichus defined stricter exegetical rules and new \r\nmetaphysical laws. He also created an alliance between philosophy and theurgy \r\nand insisted on the philosophical value of various religious traditions and reli\u00ad\r\ngious-philosophical texts like the Chaldaean oracles. Iamblichus was\u00bb more\u00ad\r\nover, decisive in shaping the school curriculum and, more generally, the canon \r\nof texts that, whether philosophical or religious, carried authority for philo\u00ad\r\nsophical research. He, for instance, systematically included texts belonging \r\nto a Pythagorean tradition\u2014 a tradition which to some extent was of his own \r\nconstrual. His selection of philosophically important texts was in line with cer\u00ad\r\ntain earlier developments, but it was Iamblichus who established a real canon. \r\nIndeed, after Iamblichus the canon remained more or less stable.If we look at the importance assigned to Aristotle and the Peripatetic tra\u00ad\r\ndition, it is clear that the difference between Iamblichus and his arch-rival \r\nPorphyry does not reside in which texts were held to be worthy of profound \r\nstudy. Hie difference is situated rather in the role and status attributed to them \r\nwithin the Platonic philosophical system. From the early Imperial era onward, \r\nAristotle was seen by most Platonists as an ally, unlike the Stoics and Epicureans, \r\nwho were regarded as opponents. Yet the extent to which Aristotelian ideas \r\nwere incorporated varied greatly. Different parts of Aristotle's thought attracted \r\ndifferent Platonists and the strategies used for integrating and assimilating \r\nthem diverged. Here Iamblichus made his mark, as will become clear below. [Introduction, p. 341]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9PbBFU6HhLHSXvY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":211,"full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":95,"full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":935,"section_of":304,"pages":"341-357","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":304,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Brill\u2019 Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Falcon2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2016","abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle provides a systematic yet accessible account of the reception of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy in Antiquity. To date, there has been no comprehensive attempt to explain this complex phenomenon. This volume fills this lacuna by offering broad coverage of the subject from Hellenistic times to the sixth century AD. It is laid out chronologically and the 23 articles are divided into three sections: I. The Hellenistic Reception of Aristotle; II. The Post-Hellenistic Engagement with Aristotle; III. Aristotle in Late Antiquity. Topics include Aristotle and the Stoa, Andronicus of Rhodes and the construction of the Aristotelian corpus, the return to Aristotle in the first century BC, and the role of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Porphyry in the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vuBWRUwZL9cVKBh","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":304,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine"]}