| Title | Simplicius and Iamblichus on Shape (μορφή) |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2018 |
| Journal | Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale |
| Volume | 29 |
| Pages | 59 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Schwark, Marina |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The present article examines how Simplicius and Iamblichus conceive of the quality shape (μορφή) and its relation to other qualities. As Simplicius’ commentary on Categories 8 shows, Simplicius follows Iamblichus in almost all aspects of his analysis. In particular,Simplicius shares Iamblichus’ assumption that shape is ultimately caused by intelligibleprinciples. Yet, Simplicius departs from Iamblichus’ position by asserting that shape isconstituted by figure, color, and perhaps even other qualities. Iamblichus opposes thisview, presumably because he takes it to interfere with his own metaphysical explanationof shape. Simplicius, however, suggests that his claim is in accord with Iamblichus’assumptions. In his attempt to harmonize the ’constitution thesis with Iamblichus’theory of intelligible principles, Simplicius relies on the notion of σύλληψισς. He argues that shape as a common conjunction (κοινὴ σύλληψις) includes, the other qualities inquestion, albeit as its parts or elements different from itself. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/5tmWnuMYoq2efPf |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1144","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1144,"authors_free":[{"id":1717,"entry_id":1144,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":289,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Schwark, Marina","free_first_name":"Marina","free_last_name":"Schwark","norm_person":{"id":289,"first_name":"Marina","last_name":"Schwark","full_name":"Schwark, Marina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and Iamblichus on Shape (\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f75)","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and Iamblichus on Shape (\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f75)"},"abstract":"The present article examines how Simplicius and Iamblichus conceive of the quality shape (\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f75) and its relation to other qualities. As Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Categories 8 shows, Simplicius follows Iamblichus in almost all aspects of his analysis. In particular,Simplicius shares Iamblichus\u2019 assumption that shape is ultimately caused by intelligibleprinciples. Yet, Simplicius departs from Iamblichus\u2019 position by asserting that shape isconstituted by figure, color, and perhaps even other qualities. Iamblichus opposes thisview, presumably because he takes it to interfere with his own metaphysical explanationof shape. Simplicius, however, suggests that his claim is in accord with Iamblichus\u2019assumptions. In his attempt to harmonize the \u2019constitution thesis with Iamblichus\u2019theory of intelligible principles, Simplicius relies on the notion of \u03c3\u1f7b\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c3\u03c2. He argues that shape as a common conjunction (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03c3\u1f7b\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2) includes, the other qualities inquestion, albeit as its parts or elements different from itself. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5tmWnuMYoq2efPf","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":289,"full_name":"Schwark, Marina","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1144,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale","volume":"29","issue":"","pages":"59"}},"sort":[2018]}
| Title | Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2018 |
| Journal | Medioevo. Rivista di storia della filosofia medieval |
| Volume | 43 |
| Pages | 13-39 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Chiaradonna, Riccardo |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This paper focuses on Porphyry’s Isagoge against the wider background of debates about genera and the hierarchy of being in early Neoplatonism from Plotinus to Iamblichus. Three works are considered: Porphyry’s Isagoge, Plotinus tripartite treatise On The Genera of Being (VI, 1-3 [42-44]), Iamblichus’ Reply to Porphyry (the so-called De Mysteriis). In addition to this, the discussion focuses on some passages on genus and predication from Porphyry’s and Iamblichus’ lost commentaries on Aristotle’s Categories preserved in Simplicius. In his account of genus, Porphyry draws on Aristotle and apparently claims that an amended version of the genus/species relation is able to express the hierarchy of different levels of being. This view is different from that of Plotinus, who instead argues that intelligible and sensible beings are homonymous, as well as from that of Iamblichus, who rejects the existence of a common genus above intelligible and sensible beings, while emphasising the analogy subsisting between different levels in the hierarchy. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AcKiNK5NQbSf6nR |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1523","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1523,"authors_free":[{"id":2647,"entry_id":1523,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo","free_first_name":"Riccardo","free_last_name":"Chiaradonna","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism","main_title":{"title":"Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism"},"abstract":"This paper focuses on Porphyry\u2019s Isagoge against the wider background of debates about genera and the hierarchy of being in early Neoplatonism from Plotinus to Iamblichus. Three works are considered: Porphyry\u2019s Isagoge, Plotinus tripartite treatise On The Genera of Being (VI, 1-3 [42-44]), Iamblichus\u2019 Reply to Porphyry (the so-called De Mysteriis). In addition to this, the discussion focuses on some passages on genus and predication from Porphyry\u2019s and\r\nIamblichus\u2019 lost commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s Categories preserved in Simplicius. In his account of genus, Porphyry draws on Aristotle and apparently\r\nclaims that an amended version of the genus\/species relation is able to express the hierarchy of different levels of being. This view is different from that of Plotinus, who instead argues that intelligible and sensible beings are homonymous, as well as from that of Iamblichus, who rejects the existence of a common genus above intelligible and sensible beings, while emphasising the analogy subsisting between different levels in the hierarchy. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AcKiNK5NQbSf6nR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1523,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Medioevo. Rivista di storia della filosofia medieval","volume":"43","issue":"","pages":"13-39"}},"sort":[2018]}
| Title | Zum Problem der Gattung des Seienden bei Marius Victorinus und im antiken Neuplatonismus |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 2017 |
| Journal | Rheinisches Museum für Philologie (Neue Folge) |
| Volume | 160 |
| Pages | 161-193 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Němec, Václav |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The article is concerned with the problem of the genus of being in the Neo-Platonism. Especially, it focuses on Pierre Hadot’s hypothesis according to which some Neo-Platonic authors, such as Porphyry, and under his influence Marius Victorinus and Dexippus, presupposed a common genus of being or substance in Aristotelian sense encompassing various ontological levels of Platonic universe, namely the intelligible, and sensible being or substance. A comprehensive analysis of relevant texts of Neo-Platonic in |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/NFcedkiydJjOCd4 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1403","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1403,"authors_free":[{"id":2188,"entry_id":1403,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":380,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"N\u011bmec, V\u00e1clav","free_first_name":"V\u00e1clav","free_last_name":"N\u011bmec","norm_person":{"id":380,"first_name":"V\u00e1clav","last_name":"N\u011bmec","full_name":"N\u011bmec, V\u00e1clav","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121953627X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Zum Problem der Gattung des Seienden bei Marius Victorinus und im antiken Neuplatonismus","main_title":{"title":"Zum Problem der Gattung des Seienden bei Marius Victorinus und im antiken Neuplatonismus"},"abstract":"The article is concerned with the problem of the genus of being in the Neo-Platonism. Especially, it focuses on Pierre Hadot\u2019s hypothesis according to which some Neo-Platonic authors, such as Porphyry, and under his influence Marius Victorinus and Dexippus, presupposed a common genus of being or substance in Aristotelian sense encompassing various ontological levels of Platonic universe, namely the intelligible, and sensible being or substance. A comprehensive analysis of relevant texts of Neo-Platonic in","btype":3,"date":"2017","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NFcedkiydJjOCd4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":380,"full_name":"N\u011bmec, V\u00e1clav","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1403,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rheinisches Museum f\u00fcr Philologie (Neue Folge)","volume":"160","issue":"","pages":"161-193"}},"sort":[2017]}
| Title | La critique aristotélicienne des Idées en Physique II 2 et l’interprétation de Simplicius |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2017 |
| Journal | Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques |
| Volume | 101 |
| Pages | 569-584 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This paper examines Aristotle's criticism of the Platonic Ideas in Physics II 2 and the interpretation of Simplicius. Aristotle's critique focuses on the separation of physical realities, performed unconsciously by proponents of Ideas, which he compares to the method of mathematicians. In Physics II 2, Aristotle aims to clarify the distinction between the tasks of mathematicians and physicists. While mathematicians separate accidents (such as figures and numbers) from natural bodies to study them independently, physicists, like geometers, consider figures as essential accidents inherent to natural substances. The paper argues that the Platonic philosophers inadvertently separate natural realities from matter to establish the existence of Ideas. Aristotle maintains that the definitions of mathematical entities do not include motion, whereas definitions of natural entities, like the "camus" nose, involve movement or refer to it. The proponents of Ideas, by separating realities from matter, establish metaphysical and immaterial Ideas, conceiving them erroneously in a material mode due to their participation in physical realities. Aristotle's criticism does not imply petitio principii because it targets the unawareness of Platonic philosophers. They mistakenly posit Ideas as existing independently, akin to mathematical objects separated in thought but not in reality. This leads them to an illusory metaphysics, as they consider Ideas as less separable from matter than mathematical entities are. Instead of grounding a physics that studies forms within matter, they engage in a misguided metaphysical endeavor. [introduction] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/1pNKYrIvZMIsMEt |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1509","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1509,"authors_free":[{"id":2622,"entry_id":1509,"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}}],"entry_title":"La critique aristot\u00e9licienne des Id\u00e9es en Physique II 2 et l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"La critique aristot\u00e9licienne des Id\u00e9es en Physique II 2 et l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Simplicius"},"abstract":"This paper examines Aristotle's criticism of the Platonic Ideas in Physics II 2 and the interpretation of Simplicius. Aristotle's critique focuses on the separation of physical realities, performed unconsciously by proponents of Ideas, which he compares to the method of mathematicians. In Physics II 2, Aristotle aims to clarify the distinction between the tasks of mathematicians and physicists. While mathematicians separate accidents (such as figures and numbers) from natural bodies to study them independently, physicists, like geometers, consider figures as essential accidents inherent to natural substances. The paper argues that the Platonic philosophers inadvertently separate natural realities from matter to establish the existence of Ideas. Aristotle maintains that the definitions of mathematical entities do not include motion, whereas definitions of natural entities, like the \"camus\" nose, involve movement or refer to it. The proponents of Ideas, by separating realities from matter, establish metaphysical and immaterial Ideas, conceiving them erroneously in a material mode due to their participation in physical realities. Aristotle's criticism does not imply petitio principii because it targets the unawareness of Platonic philosophers. They mistakenly posit Ideas as existing independently, akin to mathematical objects separated in thought but not in reality. This leads them to an illusory metaphysics, as they consider Ideas as less separable from matter than mathematical entities are. Instead of grounding a physics that studies forms within matter, they engage in a misguided metaphysical endeavor. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1pNKYrIvZMIsMEt","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1509,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Th\u00e9ologiques","volume":"101","issue":"","pages":"569-584"}},"sort":[2017]}
| Title | Parmenide neoplatonico: intorno a un nuovo studio sulla presenza di Parmenide nel commento alla Fisica di Simplicio (Book discussion of: Ivan A. Licciardi, Parmenide tràdito, Parmenide tradìto nel commentario di Simplicio alla Fisica di Aristotele (Symbolon 42), Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag, 2016) |
| Type | Article |
| Language | Italian |
| Date | 2017 |
| Journal | Méthexis |
| Volume | 29 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 188-198 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hoine, Pieter d’ |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The text discusses Simplicius' harmonizing approach towards the philosophical doctrines of Plato and Aristotle, particularly focusing on the famous thesis of the supposed 'symphony' or 'harmony' between the two ancient philosophers. Simplicius is seen as a staunch supporter of this thesis, urging readers not to be misled by apparent disagreements between Plato and Aristotle. Instead, Simplicius encourages readers to look beyond the surface level of their words and uncover the fundamental agreement that lies beneath. The book by Ivan Licciardi delves into Simplicius' approach and shows that his harmonizing attitude is not limited to just Plato and Aristotle but extends to almost the entire pre-Socratic philosophy. This broader perspective stems from Simplicius' desire to defend the profound unity of ancient pagan philosophical traditions, possibly in response to the rise of Christianity. One central focus of the book is Simplicius' extensive treatment of Parmenides in his commentary on Aristotle's Physics. Parmenides is considered a crucial figure in Greek thought, and Simplicius views him as a theoretical milestone in which Plato's philosophy, seeking ultimate truth, is exemplified. Thus, Simplicius interrupts his commentary on Aristotle to discuss Parmenides in detail. Simplicius is not merely a transmitter of Parmenidean thought; rather, he interprets Parmenides to showcase the fundamental unity of the pagan philosophical tradition under the influence of Neoplatonism. The book explores Simplicius as an independent philosopher, historian, and interpreter of Eleatic thought, rather than merely a conduit for transmitting Parmenides' ideas. This approach places Simplicius within the context of late antique Neoplatonism, acknowledging the pivotal role played by late Platonists in shaping the transformation of ancient thought, as it was received by medieval and early modern thinkers. The objective of the book is to comprehensively discuss how Simplicius, in his commentary on Aristotle's Physics, treated Parmenides, examining Simplicius' interpretation and rendering of Parmenides instrumental in demonstrating the fundamental unity of the pagan philosophical tradition, under the auspices of Neoplatonism. In summary, the book offers an in-depth exploration of Simplicius' approach to harmonizing ancient philosophical doctrines, focusing on his interpretation of Parmenides and his broader role in late antique Neoplatonism. By delving into Simplicius' philosophical agenda, the book contributes to the study of late ancient Platonism, shedding light on the transformative period in the history of Western thought. [introduction] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IkP88mCNlmfYiTe |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1484","_score":null,"_ignored":["main_title.title.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1484,"authors_free":[{"id":2569,"entry_id":1484,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":104,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoine, Pieter d\u2019","free_first_name":"Pieter d\u2019","free_last_name":"Hoine","norm_person":{"id":104,"first_name":"Pieter d' ","last_name":"Hoine","full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051361575","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parmenide neoplatonico: intorno a un nuovo studio sulla presenza di Parmenide nel commento alla Fisica di Simplicio (Book discussion of: Ivan A. Licciardi, Parmenide tr\u00e0dito, Parmenide trad\u00ecto nel commentario di Simplicio alla Fisica di Aristotele (Symbolon 42), Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag, 2016)","main_title":{"title":"Parmenide neoplatonico: intorno a un nuovo studio sulla presenza di Parmenide nel commento alla Fisica di Simplicio (Book discussion of: Ivan A. Licciardi, Parmenide tr\u00e0dito, Parmenide trad\u00ecto nel commentario di Simplicio alla Fisica di Aristotele (Symbolon 42), Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag, 2016)"},"abstract":"The text discusses Simplicius' harmonizing approach towards the philosophical doctrines of Plato and Aristotle, particularly focusing on the famous thesis of the supposed 'symphony' or 'harmony' between the two ancient philosophers. Simplicius is seen as a staunch supporter of this thesis, urging readers not to be misled by apparent disagreements between Plato and Aristotle. Instead, Simplicius encourages readers to look beyond the surface level of their words and uncover the fundamental agreement that lies beneath. The book by Ivan Licciardi delves into Simplicius' approach and shows that his harmonizing attitude is not limited to just Plato and Aristotle but extends to almost the entire pre-Socratic philosophy. This broader perspective stems from Simplicius' desire to defend the profound unity of ancient pagan philosophical traditions, possibly in response to the rise of Christianity. One central focus of the book is Simplicius' extensive treatment of Parmenides in his commentary on Aristotle's Physics. Parmenides is considered a crucial figure in Greek thought, and Simplicius views him as a theoretical milestone in which Plato's philosophy, seeking ultimate truth, is exemplified. Thus, Simplicius interrupts his commentary on Aristotle to discuss Parmenides in detail. Simplicius is not merely a transmitter of Parmenidean thought; rather, he interprets Parmenides to showcase the fundamental unity of the pagan philosophical tradition under the influence of Neoplatonism. The book explores Simplicius as an independent philosopher, historian, and interpreter of Eleatic thought, rather than merely a conduit for transmitting Parmenides' ideas. This approach places Simplicius within the context of late antique Neoplatonism, acknowledging the pivotal role played by late Platonists in shaping the transformation of ancient thought, as it was received by medieval and early modern thinkers. The objective of the book is to comprehensively discuss how Simplicius, in his commentary on Aristotle's Physics, treated Parmenides, examining Simplicius' interpretation and rendering of Parmenides instrumental in demonstrating the fundamental unity of the pagan philosophical tradition, under the auspices of Neoplatonism. In summary, the book offers an in-depth exploration of Simplicius' approach to harmonizing ancient philosophical doctrines, focusing on his interpretation of Parmenides and his broader role in late antique Neoplatonism. By delving into Simplicius' philosophical agenda, the book contributes to the study of late ancient Platonism, shedding light on the transformative period in the history of Western thought. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"2017","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IkP88mCNlmfYiTe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":104,"full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1484,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"M\u00e9thexis","volume":"29","issue":"1","pages":"188-198"}},"sort":[2017]}
| Title | Il male come "privazione". Simplicio e Filopono in difesa della materia |
| Type | Article |
| Language | Italian |
| Date | 2017 |
| Journal | PEITHO / EXAMINA ANTIQUA |
| Volume | 1 |
| Issue | 8 |
| Pages | 391-408 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Cardullo, R. Loredana |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The aim of this paper is to highlight the decisive contribution of Simplicius and Philoponus to the resolution of the problem of evil in Neoplatonism. A correct and faithful interpretation of the problem, which also had to agree with Plato’s texts, became particularly needed after Plotinus had identified evil with matter, threatening, thus, the dualistic position, which was absent in Plato. The first rectification was made by Proclus with the notion of parhypostasis, i.e., “parasitic” or “collateral” existence, which de-hypostasized evil, while at the same time challenging the Plotinian theory that turned evil into a principle that was ontologically opposed to good. In light of this, the last Neoplatonic exegetes, Simplicius and Philoponus, definitely clarified the “privative” role of kakon, finally relieving matter from the negative meaning given to it by Plotinus and restoring metaphysical monism. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/NA6ptk7HT3rj9i3 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1216","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1216,"authors_free":[{"id":1798,"entry_id":1216,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":24,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana","free_first_name":"R. Loredana","free_last_name":"Cardullo","norm_person":{"id":24,"first_name":"R. Loredana ","last_name":"Cardullo","full_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139800220","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Il male come \"privazione\". Simplicio e Filopono in difesa della materia","main_title":{"title":"Il male come \"privazione\". Simplicio e Filopono in difesa della materia"},"abstract":"The aim of this paper is to highlight the decisive contribution of Simplicius and Philoponus to the resolution of the problem of evil in Neoplatonism. A correct and faithful interpretation of the problem, which also had to agree with Plato\u2019s texts, became particularly needed after Plotinus had identified evil with matter, threatening, thus, the dualistic position, which was absent in Plato. The first rectification was made by Proclus with the notion of parhypostasis, i.e., \u201cparasitic\u201d or \u201ccollateral\u201d existence, which de-hypostasized evil, while at the same time challenging the Plotinian theory that turned evil into a principle that was ontologically opposed to good. In light of this, the last Neoplatonic exegetes, Simplicius and Philoponus, definitely clarified the \u201cprivative\u201d role of kakon, finally relieving matter from the negative meaning given to it by Plotinus and restoring metaphysical monism. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2017","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NA6ptk7HT3rj9i3","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":24,"full_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1216,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"PEITHO \/ EXAMINA ANTIQUA","volume":"1","issue":"8","pages":"391-408"}},"sort":[2017]}
| Title | Review: Bowen, A.C., Simplicius on the Planets and Their Motions. In Defense of a Heresy |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2016 |
| Journal | Studia graeco-arabica |
| Volume | 6 |
| Pages | 294-301 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | D'Ancona Costa, Cristina |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/oNzrcy2efzDdXD4 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1410","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1410,"authors_free":[{"id":2205,"entry_id":1410,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":60,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","free_first_name":"D'Ancona Costa","free_last_name":"Cristina","norm_person":{"id":60,"first_name":"Cristina","last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138912297","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review: Bowen, A.C., Simplicius on the Planets and Their Motions. In Defense of a Heresy","main_title":{"title":"Review: Bowen, A.C., Simplicius on the Planets and Their Motions. In Defense of a Heresy"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/oNzrcy2efzDdXD4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":60,"full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1410,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studia graeco-arabica","volume":"6","issue":"","pages":"294-301"}},"sort":[2016]}
| Title | L'esperienza estetica fra logica e cosmologia nel Commentario alla Fisica di Simplicio |
| Type | Article |
| Language | Italian |
| Date | 2016 |
| Journal | Athenaeum |
| Volume | 104 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 186-200 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Licciardi, Ivan Adriano |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In this paper I will explain some passages of Simplicius, in Phys. 1, in which the Commentator discusses the Aristotelian expression pephyke de ek tôn gvorimoteron (Phys. 1.1, 184a. 16). Here Simplicius distinguishes ta gnorimotera from to autopiston, such as the definitions and the immediate premises, and from the dianoetic knowledge, which is syllogistic and demonstrative. Notwithstanding the topic o f these passages is epistemological, here the Commentator, through a syllogism in which there is an evident reminiscence o f Plato’s Timaeus, cites the beauty o f the universe as an initial step to raise to the goodness o f die Demiurge. After an articulated investigation (in which are involved, as well, Aristotle’s Rhetoric and above all P osteriorA nalytics), Simplicius concludes that to kalon has the same statute of gnorimoteron hemîn (Arise. Phys. 1.1.184a.l6). The purpose o f the Commentator seems that to conciliate Plato and Aristotle, and the result is an original and creative, but at the same rime exact and careful, way to do the exegesis of Aristotle’s Physics. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/BsvJUoX42v87hvG |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"405","_score":null,"_source":{"id":405,"authors_free":[{"id":544,"entry_id":405,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":246,"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":{"id":246,"first_name":"Ivan Adriano","last_name":"Licciardi","full_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"L'esperienza estetica fra logica e cosmologia nel Commentario alla Fisica di Simplicio","main_title":{"title":"L'esperienza estetica fra logica e cosmologia nel Commentario alla Fisica di Simplicio"},"abstract":"In this paper I will explain some passages of Simplicius, in Phys. 1, in which the Commentator discusses the Aristotelian expression pephyke de ek t\u00f4n gvorimoteron (Phys. 1.1, 184a. 16). Here Simplicius distinguishes ta gnorimotera from to autopiston, such as the def\u00adinitions and the immediate premises, and from the dianoetic knowledge, which is syllogistic and demonstrative. Notwithstanding the topic o f these passages is epistemological, here the Com\u00admentator, through a syllogism in which there is an evident reminiscence o f Plato\u2019s Timaeus, cites the beauty o f the universe as an initial step to raise to the goodness o f die Demiurge. After an articulated investigation (in which are involved, as well, Aristotle\u2019s Rhetoric and above all P osteriorA nalytics), Simplicius concludes that to kalon has the same statute of gnorimoteron hem\u00een (Arise. Phys. 1.1.184a.l6). The purpose o f the Commentator seems that to conciliate Plato and Aristotle, and the result is an original and creative, but at the same rime exact and careful, way to do the exegesis of Aristotle\u2019s Physics. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/BsvJUoX42v87hvG","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":246,"full_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":405,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Athenaeum","volume":"104","issue":"1","pages":"186-200"}},"sort":[2016]}
| Title | The notion of ἐπιτηδειότης in Simplicius' discussion of quality |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2016 |
| Journal | Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale |
| Volume | 27 |
| Pages | 65-83 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hauer, Mareike |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In this paper, I will focus on the meaning and function of epitêdeiotês in Simplicius and I will argue, based on an analysis of different passages of chapter 8 of Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, that epitêdeiotês is not a mere substitute for the Aristotelian notion of dynamis, in Simplicius either. However, it will become apparent that Simplicius does not make any effort to clearly distinguish epitêdeiotês from dynamis, an aspect that might have led Todd to assume that epitêdeiotês is a mere substitute for the Aristotelian notion of dynamis. The fact that Simplicius does not explicitly distinguish epitêdeiotês from dynamis does, however, not necessarily imply that he does not make anydistinctions between the two notions. [Introduction, p. 67] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/iAt7auDa0df2ob0 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1150","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1150,"authors_free":[{"id":1725,"entry_id":1150,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":174,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hauer, Mareike","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Hauer","norm_person":{"id":174,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Hauer","full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The notion of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 in Simplicius' discussion of quality","main_title":{"title":"The notion of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 in Simplicius' discussion of quality"},"abstract":"In this paper, I will focus on the meaning and function of epit\u00eadeiot\u00eas in Simplicius and I will argue, based on an analysis of different passages of chapter 8 of Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, that epit\u00eadeiot\u00eas is not a mere substitute for the Aristotelian notion of dynamis, in Simplicius either. \r\nHowever, it will become apparent that Simplicius does not make any effort to clearly distinguish epit\u00eadeiot\u00eas from dynamis, an aspect that might have led Todd to assume that epit\u00eadeiot\u00eas is a mere substitute for the Aristotelian notion of dynamis. The fact that Simplicius does not explicitly distinguish epit\u00eadeiot\u00eas from dynamis does, however, not necessarily imply that he does not make anydistinctions between the two notions. [Introduction, p. 67]","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iAt7auDa0df2ob0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":174,"full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1150,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale","volume":"27","issue":"","pages":"65-83"}},"sort":[2016]}
| Title | Simplicius on the Relation between Quality and Qualified |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2016 |
| Journal | Méthexis |
| Volume | 28 |
| Pages | 111-140 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hauer, Mareike |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Simplicius claims in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categoriesthat quality is prior to the qualified according to nature. However, in an interesting passage in the same commentary, Simplicius describes the relation between quality and qualified in such a way that it strongly suggests an ontological simultaneity. The aim of this paper is to clarify Simplicius' notion of natural priority and to investigate the extent to which the assumption of a natural priority of the quality over the qualified is compatible with the assumption of a co-existence of quality and qualified. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MaVlDWOYkfo0ZCx |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"387","_score":null,"_source":{"id":387,"authors_free":[{"id":506,"entry_id":387,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":174,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hauer, Mareike","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Hauer","norm_person":{"id":174,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Hauer","full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on the Relation between Quality and Qualified","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on the Relation between Quality and Qualified"},"abstract":"Simplicius claims in his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categoriesthat quality is prior to the qualified according to nature. However, in an interesting passage in the same com\u00admentary, Simplicius describes the relation between quality and qualified in such a way that it strongly suggests an ontological simultaneity. The aim of this paper is to clarify Simplicius' notion of natural priority and to investigate the extent to which the as\u00adsumption of a natural priority of the quality over the qualified is compatible with the assumption of a co-existence of quality and qualified. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MaVlDWOYkfo0ZCx","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":174,"full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":387,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"M\u00e9thexis","volume":"28","issue":"","pages":"111-140"}},"sort":[2016]}
| Title | Aristotle on Space, Form, and Matter ("Physics" IV:2, 209 B 17–32) |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2006 |
| Journal | Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte |
| Volume | 48 |
| Pages | 45-63 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Fritsche, Johannes |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
In Physics IV.2, Aristotle argues for private Space of a body as its form (209 b 1-6) and as its matter (209 b 6-11) to conclude that Plato maintains that χώρα, matter, and space are the same (209 b 11-17). Subsequently, he réfutés both possibilities of conceiving Space (209 b 17-28). In a paper on 209 b 6-17,1 have tried to show that his view of Plato is right.1 In this paper, I would like to show that in his réfutation of both possibilities Aristotle argues dialectically in the proper sense; that is, he does not use any assumption that is peculiar to his own theory and not shared by his Opponent. For this purpose I présent (I.) Aristotle's différent usages of (ού) χωρίζεται/χωριστός (»[not] separated/separable«) and (II.) the three différent interprétations of 209 b 22-28 in Philoponus, Simplicius, and Sorabji, and I rule out Sorabji's interprétation. Thereafter, I will give three reasons for Simplicius's interprétation. The first relates to (III.) the issue of prin ciples as the main topic of the Physics in général. Secondly, (IV.) Philoponus's interprétation of 209 b 22-28 contradicts Aristotle's own définition of Space. Thirdly, (V.) only in Simplicius's interprétation is the argument dialectically va lid. Thereafter, I will show (VI.) that the argument in Simplicius's interprétation is conclusive against Plato's reasoning in the Timaeus to finish with (VII.) some général remarks on this paper and the paper on 209 b 1-17. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nDk2A18WGuyUJrT |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"592","_score":null,"_source":{"id":592,"authors_free":[{"id":843,"entry_id":592,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":102,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fritsche, Johannes ","free_first_name":"Johannes","free_last_name":"Fritsche","norm_person":{"id":102,"first_name":"Johannes ","last_name":"Fritsche","full_name":"Fritsche, Johannes ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1204083266","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle on Space, Form, and Matter (\"Physics\" IV:2, 209 B 17\u201332)","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle on Space, Form, and Matter (\"Physics\" IV:2, 209 B 17\u201332)"},"abstract":"In Physics IV.2, Aristotle argues for private Space of a body as its form (209 b 1-6) and as its matter (209 b 6-11) to conclude that Plato maintains that \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1, matter, and space are the same (209 b 11-17). Subsequently, he r\u00e9fut\u00e9s both possibilities of conceiving Space (209 b 17-28). In a paper on 209 b 6-17,1 have tried to show that his view of Plato is right.1 In this paper, I would like to show that in his r\u00e9futation of both possibilities Aristotle argues dialectically in the proper sense; that is, he does not use any assumption that is peculiar to his own theory and not shared by his Opponent. For this purpose I pr\u00e9sent (I.) Aristotle's diff\u00e9rent usages of (\u03bf\u03cd) \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\/\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 (\u00bb[not] separated\/separable\u00ab) and (II.) the three diff\u00e9rent interpr\u00e9tations of 209 b 22-28 in Philoponus, Simplicius, and Sorabji, and I rule out Sorabji's interpr\u00e9tation. Thereafter, I will give three reasons for Simplicius's interpr\u00e9tation. The first relates to (III.) the issue of prin ciples as the main topic of the Physics in g\u00e9n\u00e9ral. Secondly, (IV.) Philoponus's interpr\u00e9tation of 209 b 22-28 contradicts Aristotle's own d\u00e9finition of Space. Thirdly, (V.) only in Simplicius's interpr\u00e9tation is the argument dialectically va lid. Thereafter, I will show (VI.) that the argument in Simplicius's interpr\u00e9tation is conclusive against Plato's reasoning in the Timaeus to finish with (VII.) some g\u00e9n\u00e9ral remarks on this paper and the paper on 209 b 1-17. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nDk2A18WGuyUJrT","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":102,"full_name":"Fritsche, Johannes ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":592,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archiv f\u00fcr Begriffsgeschichte","volume":"48","issue":"","pages":"45-63"}},"sort":["Aristotle on Space, Form, and Matter (\"Physics\" IV:2, 209 B 17\u201332)"]}
| Title | Aristotle, Plotinus, and Simplicius on the Relation of the Changer to the Changed |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2005 |
| Journal | The Classical Quarterly |
| Volume | 55 (New Series) |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 447–454 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Wilberding, James |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/5oyjVkiNRcsn7CM |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"431","_score":null,"_source":{"id":431,"authors_free":[{"id":582,"entry_id":431,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":257,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wilberding, James","free_first_name":"James","free_last_name":"Wilberding","norm_person":{"id":257,"first_name":"James","last_name":"Wilberding","full_name":"Wilberding, James","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143517465","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle, Plotinus, and Simplicius on the Relation of the Changer to the Changed","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle, Plotinus, and Simplicius on the Relation of the Changer to the Changed"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5oyjVkiNRcsn7CM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":257,"full_name":"Wilberding, James","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":431,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":"55 (New Series)","issue":"2","pages":"447\u2013454"}},"sort":["Aristotle, Plotinus, and Simplicius on the Relation of the Changer to the Changed"]}
| Title | Aristotle’s Topics in the Greek Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2014 |
| Journal | PEITHO / EXAMINA ANTIQUA |
| Volume | 1 |
| Issue | 5 |
| Pages | 91-117 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Militello, Chiara |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
This paper lists and examines the explicit references to Aristotle’s Topics in the Greek Neoplatonic commentaries on the Categories. The references to the Topics by Porphyry, Dexippus, Ammonius, Simplicius, Olympiodorus, Philoponus and David (Elias) are listed according the usual prolegomena to Aristotle’s works. In particular, the paper reconstructs David (Elias)’s original thesis about the proponents of the title Pre-Topics for the Categories and compares Ammonius’, Simplicius’ and Olympiodorus’ doxographies about the postpraedicamenta. Moreover, the study identifies two general trends. The first one is that all the commentators after Proclus share the same general view about: the authenticity of the Topics, Aristotle’s writing style in them, the part of philosophy to which they belong, their purpose, their usefulness and their place in the reading order. The second one is that whereas Porphyry, Dexippus and Simplicius use the Topics as an aid to understanding the Categories, Ammonius, Olympiodorus and David (Elias) do not. [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/hTYSsDkZELV4RZP |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1485","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1485,"authors_free":[{"id":2570,"entry_id":1485,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":2,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Militello, Chiara","free_first_name":"Chiara","free_last_name":"Militello","norm_person":{"id":2,"first_name":"Chiara ","last_name":"Militello ","full_name":"Militello, Chiara ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13666461X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle\u2019s Topics in the Greek Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle\u2019s Topics in the Greek Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories"},"abstract":"This paper lists and examines the explicit references to Aristotle\u2019s Topics in the Greek Neoplatonic commentaries on the Categories. The references to the Topics by Porphyry, Dexippus, Ammonius, Simplicius, Olympiodorus, Philoponus and David (Elias) are listed according the usual prolegomena to Aristotle\u2019s works. In particular, the paper reconstructs David (Elias)\u2019s original thesis about the proponents of the title Pre-Topics for the Categories and compares Ammonius\u2019, Simplicius\u2019 and Olympiodorus\u2019 doxographies about the postpraedicamenta. Moreover, the study identifies two general trends. The first one is that all the commentators after Proclus share the same general view about: the authenticity of the Topics, Aristotle\u2019s writing style in them, the part of philosophy to which they belong, their purpose, their usefulness and their place in the reading order. The second one is that whereas Porphyry, Dexippus and Simplicius use the Topics as an aid to understanding the Categories, Ammonius, Olympiodorus and David (Elias) do not. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hTYSsDkZELV4RZP","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":2,"full_name":"Militello, Chiara ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1485,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"PEITHO \/ EXAMINA ANTIQUA","volume":"1","issue":"5","pages":"91-117"}},"sort":["Aristotle\u2019s Topics in the Greek Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories"]}
| Title | Augustin, «Confessions» 4, 16, 28-29, «Soliloques» 2, 20, 34-36 et les «Commentaires des catégories» |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2001 |
| Journal | Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica |
| Volume | 93 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 372-392 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Doucet, Dominique |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/uWOfy6SJgoiB0Og |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"600","_score":null,"_source":{"id":600,"authors_free":[{"id":851,"entry_id":600,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":70,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Doucet, Dominique ","free_first_name":"Dominique","free_last_name":"Doucet","norm_person":{"id":70,"first_name":"Dominique ","last_name":"Doucet","full_name":"Doucet, Dominique ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/105244430X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Augustin, \u00abConfessions\u00bb 4, 16, 28-29, \u00abSoliloques\u00bb 2, 20, 34-36 et les \u00abCommentaires des cat\u00e9gories\u00bb","main_title":{"title":"Augustin, \u00abConfessions\u00bb 4, 16, 28-29, \u00abSoliloques\u00bb 2, 20, 34-36 et les \u00abCommentaires des cat\u00e9gories\u00bb"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2001","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/uWOfy6SJgoiB0Og","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":70,"full_name":"Doucet, Dominique ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":600,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica","volume":"93","issue":"3","pages":"372-392"}},"sort":["Augustin, \u00abConfessions\u00bb 4, 16, 28-29, \u00abSoliloques\u00bb 2, 20, 34-36 et les \u00abCommentaires des cat\u00e9gories\u00bb"]}
| Title | Book review: Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 8.1-5, written by Istvan Bodnár, Michael Chase and Michael Share |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2015 |
| Journal | The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition |
| Volume | 9 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 124 –125 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hatzistavrou, Antony |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Review of Istvan Bodnár, Michael Chase and Michael Share (translated) Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 8.1-5, Bristol Classical Press, London, 2012 |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/CfWDbL6IKhroIDB |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1014","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1014,"authors_free":[{"id":1530,"entry_id":1014,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":173,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hatzistavrou, Antony","free_first_name":"Antony","free_last_name":"Hatzistavrou","norm_person":{"id":173,"first_name":"Antony","last_name":"Hatzistavrou","full_name":"Hatzistavrou, Antony","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Book review: Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 8.1-5, written by Istvan Bodn\u00e1r, Michael Chase and Michael Share","main_title":{"title":"Book review: Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 8.1-5, written by Istvan Bodn\u00e1r, Michael Chase and Michael Share"},"abstract":"Review of Istvan Bodn\u00e1r, Michael Chase and Michael Share (translated)\r\nSimplicius on Aristotle Physics 8.1-5, Bristol Classical Press, London, 2012","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CfWDbL6IKhroIDB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":173,"full_name":"Hatzistavrou, Antony","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1014,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"9","issue":"1","pages":"124 \u2013125"}},"sort":["Book review: Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 8.1-5, written by Istvan Bodn\u00e1r, Michael Chase and Michael Share"]}
| Title | Boéthos de Sidon sur les relatifs |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2013 |
| Journal | Studia greaco-arabica |
| Volume | 3 |
| Pages | 1-35 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Luna, Concetta |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
The Peripatetic philosopher Boethus of Sidon (mid-first century BC), a pupil of Andronicus of Rhodes, is well-known for his commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, whose fragments are transmitted by later commentators together with testimonia about it. In his exegesis of the Categories, Boethus especially focused on the category of relation (Cat. 7), on which he wrote a speci!c treatise, arguing against the Stoics for the unity of the category of relation. The present paper o"ers a translation and analysis of Boethus’ fragments on relation, all of which are preserved in Simplicius’ commentary on the Categories. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RIZ3nJAhRf4WLks |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1114","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1114,"authors_free":[{"id":1683,"entry_id":1114,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":458,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Luna, Concetta","free_first_name":"Concetta","free_last_name":"Luna","norm_person":{"id":458,"first_name":"Concetta","last_name":"Luna","full_name":"Luna, Concetta","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1153489031","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Bo\u00e9thos de Sidon sur les relatifs","main_title":{"title":"Bo\u00e9thos de Sidon sur les relatifs"},"abstract":"The Peripatetic philosopher Boethus of Sidon (mid-first century BC), a pupil of Andronicus of Rhodes, is well-known for his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, whose fragments are transmitted by later commentators together with testimonia about it. In his exegesis of the Categories, Boethus especially focused on the category of relation (Cat. 7), on which he wrote a speci!c treatise, arguing against the Stoics for the unity of the category of relation. The present paper o\"ers a translation and analysis of Boethus\u2019 fragments on relation, all of which are preserved in Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the Categories. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2013","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RIZ3nJAhRf4WLks","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":458,"full_name":"Luna, Concetta","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1114,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studia greaco-arabica","volume":"3","issue":"","pages":"1-35"}},"sort":["Bo\u00e9thos de Sidon sur les relatifs"]}
| Title | Categories and Subcategories |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2014 |
| Journal | Anuario Filosófico |
| Volume | 47 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 395-411 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Tegtmeier, Erwin |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Starting from the traditional distinction between the minimal and the maximal division, the role of subcategories in Aristotle, as well as that of the highest categories, is discussed. The need for categorial properties which determine categories is pointed out. It is argued that an existent cannot have two such essential properties and that only the lowest subcategories have simple categorial properties. Furthermore, it is emphasised that categories and subcategories must form a tree because they belong to a theory of categories which requires unity. By contrast, it is held that the hierarchy of all concepts need not form a tree. The difficulties Porphyrius and Simplicius find in Aristotle’s minimal and maximal division are analysed. Finally, Aristotle’s way of avoiding categorial properties by referring to an abstraction is criticised. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vWZgrRFbI06woKZ |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"471","_score":null,"_source":{"id":471,"authors_free":[{"id":636,"entry_id":471,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":332,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tegtmeier, Erwin","free_first_name":"Erwin","free_last_name":"Tegtmeier","norm_person":{"id":332,"first_name":"Erwin","last_name":"Tegtmeier","full_name":"Tegtmeier, Erwin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172413745","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Categories and Subcategories","main_title":{"title":"Categories and Subcategories"},"abstract":"Starting from the traditional distinction between the minimal and the maximal division, the role of subcategories in Aristotle, as well as that of the highest categories, is discussed. The need for categorial properties which determine categories is pointed out. It is argued that an existent cannot have two such essential properties and that only the lowest subcategories have simple categorial properties. Furthermore, it is emphasised that categories and subcategories must form a tree because they belong to a theory of categories which requires unity. By contrast, it is held that the hierarchy of all concepts need not form a tree. The difficulties Porphyrius and Simplicius find in Aristotle\u2019s minimal and maximal division are analysed. Finally, Aristotle\u2019s way of avoiding categorial properties by referring to an abstraction is criticised. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vWZgrRFbI06woKZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":332,"full_name":"Tegtmeier, Erwin","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":471,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Anuario Filos\u00f3fico","volume":"47","issue":"2","pages":"395-411"}},"sort":["Categories and Subcategories"]}
| Title | Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle’s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2015 |
| Journal | Revue d’histoire des textes, nouvelle série |
| Volume | 10 |
| Pages | 1-23 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/h4L23WDPkX8y93d |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1417","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1417,"authors_free":[{"id":2218,"entry_id":1417,"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}}],"entry_title":"Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq","main_title":{"title":"Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/h4L23WDPkX8y93d","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1417,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue d\u2019histoire des textes, nouvelle s\u00e9rie","volume":"10","issue":"","pages":"1-23"}},"sort":["Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq"]}
| Title | Commentary on Gabor: The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2020 |
| Journal | Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy |
| Volume | 35 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 23-27 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Miller, Dana R. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
This paper gives a brief discussion of the problem of ascribing authorship to ancient philosophical texts when there is evidence both for and against traditional ascription. The case in point is tradition’s claim that Simplicius is the author of the De Anima commentary. It is argued here that, while Gabor provides new and important methodological evidence for Simplicius’s authorship, we should not expect certainty. It is suggested that, in cases where historical fact may never be ascertained, we will be better served by the notion of credences. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/KRndYATfooFjPy6 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1467","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1467,"authors_free":[{"id":2540,"entry_id":1467,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":539,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Miller, Dana R.","free_first_name":"Dana R.","free_last_name":"Miller","norm_person":{"id":539,"first_name":"Dana R.","last_name":"Miller","full_name":"Miller, Dana R.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/128406704","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Commentary on Gabor: The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima","main_title":{"title":"Commentary on Gabor: The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima"},"abstract":"This paper gives a brief discussion of the problem of ascribing authorship to ancient philosophical texts when there is evidence both for and against traditional ascription. The case in point is tradition\u2019s claim that Simplicius is the author of the De Anima commentary. It is argued here that, while Gabor provides new and important methodological evidence for Simplicius\u2019s authorship, we should not expect certainty. It is suggested that, in cases where historical fact may never be ascertained, we will be better served by the notion of credences. ","btype":3,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KRndYATfooFjPy6","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":539,"full_name":"Miller, Dana R.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1467,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy","volume":"35","issue":"2","pages":"23-27"}},"sort":["Commentary on Gabor: The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima"]}
| Title | Confronter les Idées. Un exemple de conciliation litigieuse chez Simplicius |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2011 |
| Journal | Études platoniciennes |
| Volume | 8 |
| Pages | 145-160 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gavray, Marc-Antoine |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
La conciliation des doctrines au cœur de l'exégèse d'Aristote suit un parcours précis. Dans un premier temps, Simplicius propose une lecture littérale de la Physique, expliquant chacun des arguments contenus dans le lemme. Toutefois, de façon surprenante pour nous, il souligne une tournure qui va lui permettre de retourner la position d'Aristote contre elle-même : en faire non plus un adversaire de la théorie des Idées séparées, mais l'auteur d'un critère de validité de la séparation. Dans un deuxième temps, notre exégète s'emploie à montrer la teneur authentiquement aristotélicienne de cette doctrine des Idées séparées. Il isole d'abord les caractères reconnus aux Idées, avant de démontrer qu'ils sont admis au sein même de la pensée d'Aristote. De plus, étant donné que l'enjeu de la tentative de conciliation consiste à trouver chez Aristote la double caractérisation des Idées que leur attribuent leurs partisans - être à la fois des causes et des modèles semblables pour les réalités naturelles -, il répertorie les passages du corpus aristotelicum qui abondent dans ce sens, les combine et insère des éléments provenant de la tradition néoplatonicienne. Enfin, il utilise la critique pour poser une limite claire au sein de la nature entre les réalités qui admettent des Formes séparées et celles qui n'en admettent pas. Comme souvent chez Simplicius, l'examen aboutit à l'énoncé d'un critère net et précis. Il doit permettre ici de démarquer l'homonymie vulgaire des Idées de l'éponymie légitime. La première résulte d'un dépouillement de la forme en dehors de la matière, mais qui continue à raisonner à partir d'ici-bas : elle cherche des Idées séparées pour des formes naturelles qui ne peuvent jamais être complètement abstraites de la matière à laquelle elles sont liées. La seconde reconnaît que certains noms sont propres aux composés ici-bas et, par conséquent, ne correspondent à aucune réalité là-bas. En revanche, elle pose des Idées, à la fois causes et modèles des composés ici-bas, qui possèdent une subsistance séparée. [conclusion, p. 160] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/b3rxLEWeKXAayJM |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1313","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1313,"authors_free":[{"id":1947,"entry_id":1313,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","free_first_name":"Marc-Antoine","free_last_name":"Gavray","norm_person":{"id":125,"first_name":"Marc-Antoine","last_name":"Gavray","full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078511411","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Confronter les Id\u00e9es. Un exemple de conciliation litigieuse chez Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Confronter les Id\u00e9es. Un exemple de conciliation litigieuse chez Simplicius"},"abstract":"La conciliation des doctrines au c\u0153ur de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se d'Aristote suit un parcours pr\u00e9cis. Dans un premier temps, Simplicius propose une lecture litt\u00e9rale de la Physique, expliquant chacun des arguments contenus dans le lemme. Toutefois, de fa\u00e7on surprenante pour nous, il souligne une tournure qui va lui permettre de retourner la position d'Aristote contre elle-m\u00eame : en faire non plus un adversaire de la th\u00e9orie des Id\u00e9es s\u00e9par\u00e9es, mais l'auteur d'un crit\u00e8re de validit\u00e9 de la s\u00e9paration.\r\nDans un deuxi\u00e8me temps, notre ex\u00e9g\u00e8te s'emploie \u00e0 montrer la teneur authentiquement aristot\u00e9licienne de cette doctrine des Id\u00e9es s\u00e9par\u00e9es. Il isole d'abord les caract\u00e8res reconnus aux Id\u00e9es, avant de d\u00e9montrer qu'ils sont admis au sein m\u00eame de la pens\u00e9e d'Aristote. De plus, \u00e9tant donn\u00e9 que l'enjeu de la tentative de conciliation consiste \u00e0 trouver chez Aristote la double caract\u00e9risation des Id\u00e9es que leur attribuent leurs partisans - \u00eatre \u00e0 la fois des causes et des mod\u00e8les semblables pour les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s naturelles -, il r\u00e9pertorie les passages du corpus aristotelicum qui abondent dans ce sens, les combine et ins\u00e8re des \u00e9l\u00e9ments provenant de la tradition n\u00e9oplatonicienne. Enfin, il utilise la critique pour poser une limite claire au sein de la nature entre les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s qui admettent des Formes s\u00e9par\u00e9es et celles qui n'en admettent pas.\r\nComme souvent chez Simplicius, l'examen aboutit \u00e0 l'\u00e9nonc\u00e9 d'un crit\u00e8re net et pr\u00e9cis. Il doit permettre ici de d\u00e9marquer l'homonymie vulgaire des Id\u00e9es de l'\u00e9ponymie l\u00e9gitime. La premi\u00e8re r\u00e9sulte d'un d\u00e9pouillement de la forme en dehors de la mati\u00e8re, mais qui continue \u00e0 raisonner \u00e0 partir d'ici-bas : elle cherche des Id\u00e9es s\u00e9par\u00e9es pour des formes naturelles qui ne peuvent jamais \u00eatre compl\u00e8tement abstraites de la mati\u00e8re \u00e0 laquelle elles sont li\u00e9es. La seconde reconna\u00eet que certains noms sont propres aux compos\u00e9s ici-bas et, par cons\u00e9quent, ne correspondent \u00e0 aucune r\u00e9alit\u00e9 l\u00e0-bas. En revanche, elle pose des Id\u00e9es, \u00e0 la fois causes et mod\u00e8les des compos\u00e9s ici-bas, qui poss\u00e8dent une subsistance s\u00e9par\u00e9e. [conclusion, p. 160]\r\n","btype":3,"date":"2011","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/b3rxLEWeKXAayJM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1313,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"\u00c9tudes platoniciennes","volume":"8","issue":"","pages":"145-160"}},"sort":["Confronter les Id\u00e9es. Un exemple de conciliation litigieuse chez Simplicius"]}