Author 294
Archytas lu par Simplicius. Un art de la conciliation, 2011
By: Gavray, Marc-Antoine
Title Archytas lu par Simplicius. Un art de la conciliation
Type Article
Language French
Date 2011
Journal The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition
Volume 5
Issue 1
Pages 85-158
Categories no categories
Author(s) Gavray, Marc-Antoine
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Intent upon harmonizing doctrines of their predecessors, some Neoplatonic com-mentators are faced with a problem of resolving doctrinal discrepancies so as to restore the συμφωνία in the history of philosophy. This article considers a parti-cular example of this attempt ats harmonization: how Simplicius reconciles Aris-totle’s Categories with the Neopythagorean doctrine of the Pseudo-Archytas. The chronological inversion introduced by the counterfeiter produces remarkable effects on the late Platonic doctrine about general terms, to the extent that a commentator such as Simplicius works to reduce the dissonance between Archytas’ and Aristotle’s words. This paper has three aims: to restore the general grid that Simplicius uses for reading and commenting on Archytas through Aristotle; to identify the exegeti-cal strategies aimed at a doctrinal reconciliation; to consider a specific case, pro-vided by the doctrine of weight, which engenders a new physical theory by Simplicius. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1312","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1312,"authors_free":[{"id":1946,"entry_id":1312,"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":"Archytas lu par Simplicius. Un art de la conciliation","main_title":{"title":"Archytas lu par Simplicius. Un art de la conciliation"},"abstract":"Intent upon harmonizing doctrines of their predecessors, some Neoplatonic com-mentators are faced with a problem of resolving doctrinal discrepancies so as to restore the \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 in the history of philosophy. This article considers a parti-cular example of this attempt ats harmonization: how Simplicius reconciles Aris-totle\u2019s Categories with the Neopythagorean doctrine of the Pseudo-Archytas. The chronological inversion introduced by the counterfeiter produces remarkable effects on the late Platonic doctrine about general terms, to the extent that a commentator such as Simplicius works to reduce the dissonance between Archytas\u2019 and Aristotle\u2019s words. This paper has three aims: to restore the general grid that Simplicius uses for reading and commenting on Archytas through Aristotle; to identify the exegeti-cal strategies aimed at a doctrinal reconciliation; to consider a specific case, pro-vided by the doctrine of weight, which engenders a new physical theory by Simplicius. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2011","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XYj9lPTpSk9x4NP","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1312,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"5","issue":"1","pages":"85-158"}},"sort":[2011]}

ΑΠΑΓΩΓΗ: The method of Hippocrates of Chios and Plato's hypothetical method in the Meno, 2011
By: Karasmanis, Vassilis, Longo, Angela (Ed.), Del Forno, Davide (Coll.) (Ed.)
Title ΑΠΑΓΩΓΗ: The method of Hippocrates of Chios and Plato's hypothetical method in the Meno
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 2011
Published in Argument from Hypothesis in Ancient Philosophy
Pages 21-41
Categories no categories
Author(s) Karasmanis, Vassilis
Editor(s) Longo, Angela , Del Forno, Davide (Coll.)
Translator(s)
In this essay, I am going to argue that the Greek geometer of the late fifth century B.C. Hippocrates of Chios1 was the first who systematically employed a method of indirect proof called apagoge (reduction). Apagoge is probably the early stage of the geo­metrical method of analysis and synthesis, and consists roughly in reducing one problem (or theorem) to another. Reductions can be continued until we arrive at something already known, or at something that is possible to be solved directly. Finally, I shall support the view that «the method of geometers» to which Plato refers in the Meno is the geometrical method of apagoge. [introduction, p. 21]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1363","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1363,"authors_free":[{"id":2050,"entry_id":1363,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":214,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Karasmanis, Vassilis","free_first_name":"Vassilis","free_last_name":"Karasmanis","norm_person":{"id":214,"first_name":"Vassilis","last_name":"Karasmanis","full_name":"Karasmanis, Vassilis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1190132680","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2403,"entry_id":1363,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":463,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Longo, Angela","free_first_name":"Angela","free_last_name":"Longo","norm_person":{"id":463,"first_name":"Angela","last_name":"Longo","full_name":"Longo, Angela","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1113305118","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2404,"entry_id":1363,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":464,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Del Forno, Davide (Coll.)","free_first_name":"Davide","free_last_name":"Del Forno","norm_person":{"id":464,"first_name":"Davide","last_name":"Del Forno","full_name":"Del Forno, Davide","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1070718955","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u0391\u03a0\u0391\u0393\u03a9\u0393\u0397: The method of Hippocrates of Chios and Plato's hypothetical method in the Meno","main_title":{"title":"\u0391\u03a0\u0391\u0393\u03a9\u0393\u0397: The method of Hippocrates of Chios and Plato's hypothetical method in the Meno"},"abstract":"In this essay, I am going to argue that the Greek geometer of the late fifth century B.C. Hippocrates of Chios1 was the first who systematically employed a method of indirect proof called apagoge (reduction). Apagoge is probably the early stage of the geo\u00admetrical method of analysis and synthesis, and consists roughly in reducing one problem (or theorem) to another. Reductions can \r\nbe continued until we arrive at something already known, or at something that is possible to be solved directly. Finally, I shall support the view that \u00abthe method of geometers\u00bb to which Plato \r\nrefers in the Meno is the geometrical method of apagoge. [introduction, p. 21]","btype":2,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0VGhhdXeEliWPq6","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":214,"full_name":"Karasmanis, Vassilis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":463,"full_name":"Longo, Angela","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":464,"full_name":"Del Forno, Davide","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1363,"section_of":355,"pages":"21-41","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":355,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Argument from Hypothesis in Ancient Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Longo2011","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2011","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2011","abstract":"2011","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6LdeHtq3FXVfiLu","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":355,"pubplace":"Napoli","publisher":"Bibliopolis","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1363,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"8","issue":"1","pages":"21-41"}},"sort":[2011]}

Discussions on the Eternity of the world in Late Antiquity, 2011
By: Chase, Michael
Title Discussions on the Eternity of the world in Late Antiquity
Type Article
Language English
Date 2011
Journal ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition
Volume 5
Issue 2
Pages 111-173
Categories no categories
Author(s) Chase, Michael
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This article studies the debate between the Neoplatonist philosophers Simplicius and John Philoponus on the question of the eternity of the world. The first part consists in a historical introduction situating their debate within the context of the conflict between Christians and Pa- gan in the Byzantine Empire of the first half of the sixth century. Particular attention is paid to the attitudes of these two thinkers to Aristotle's attempted proofs of the eternity of motion and time in Physics 8.1. The second part traces the origins, structure and function of a particular argument used by Philoponus to argue for the world's creation within time. Philoponus takes advantage of a tension inherent in Aristotle's theory of motion, between his standard view that all motion and change is continuous and takes place in time, and his occasional admission that at least some kinds of motion and change are instantaneous. For Philoponus, God's creation of the world is precisely such an instantaneous change: it is not a motion on the part of the Creator, but is analo- gous to the activation of a state (hexis), which is timeless and implies no change on the part of the agent. The various transformations of this doctrine at the hands of Peripatetic, Neoplatonic, and Islamic commentators are studied (Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius, al-Kindi, al-Farabi), as is Philoponus' use of it in his debate against Proclus. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1511","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1511,"authors_free":[{"id":2624,"entry_id":1511,"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":"Discussions on the Eternity of the world in Late Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Discussions on the Eternity of the world in Late Antiquity"},"abstract":"This article studies the debate between the Neoplatonist philosophers Simplicius and John Philoponus on the question of the eternity of the world. The first part consists in a historical introduction situating their debate within the context of the conflict between Christians and Pa- gan in the Byzantine Empire of the first half of the sixth century. Particular attention is paid to the attitudes of these two thinkers to Aristotle's attempted proofs of the eternity of motion and time in Physics 8.1. The second part traces the origins, structure and function of a particular argument used by Philoponus to argue for the world's creation within time. Philoponus takes advantage of a tension inherent in Aristotle's theory of motion, between his standard view that all motion and change is continuous and takes place in time, and his occasional admission that at least some kinds of motion and change are instantaneous. For Philoponus, God's creation of the world is precisely such an instantaneous change: it is not a motion on the part of the Creator, but is analo- gous to the activation of a state (hexis), which is timeless and implies no change on the part of the agent. The various transformations of this doctrine at the hands of Peripatetic, Neoplatonic, and Islamic commentators are studied (Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius, al-Kindi, al-Farabi), as is Philoponus' use of it in his debate against Proclus. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AiYh4J18MnRsxtC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":25,"full_name":"Chase, Michael ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1511,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"\u03a3\u03a7\u039f\u039b\u0397. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition","volume":"5","issue":"2","pages":"111-173"}},"sort":[2011]}

Neo-Platonic Modes of Concordism versus Definitions of Difference: Simplicius, Augustinus Steuco and Ralph Cudworth versus Marco Antonio Zimara and Benedictus Pererius, 2011
By: Blackwell, Constance, Clucas, Stephen (Ed.), Forshaw, Peter J. (Ed.), Rees, Valery (Ed.)
Title Neo-Platonic Modes of Concordism versus Definitions of Difference: Simplicius, Augustinus Steuco and Ralph Cudworth versus Marco Antonio Zimara and Benedictus Pererius
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 2011
Published in Laus Platonici Philosophi. Marsilio Ficino and his Influence
Pages 317–342
Categories no categories
Author(s) Blackwell, Constance
Editor(s) Clucas, Stephen , Forshaw, Peter J. , Rees, Valery
Translator(s)
A few years before her death, Frances Yates began her lecture to a meeting of the Society for Renaissance Studies with the emotional announcement that knowledge of the Neo-Platonic and Hermetic tra­ ditions had been suppressed. While some took her seriously, I was sceptical. Yet there is textual evidence that she was not wrong after all. The suppression began almost immediately among those opposed to the concordism1 of Ficino or Pico, but in this essay I will focus on reactions to this tradition in the second half of the sixteenth century. [p.317]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"614","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":614,"authors_free":[{"id":869,"entry_id":614,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":78,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blackwell, Constance","free_first_name":"Constance","free_last_name":"Blackwell","norm_person":{"id":78,"first_name":"Constance","last_name":"Blackwell","full_name":"Blackwell, Constance","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":870,"entry_id":614,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":400,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Clucas, Stephen","free_first_name":"Stephen","free_last_name":"Clucas","norm_person":{"id":400,"first_name":"Stephen","last_name":"Clucas","full_name":"Clucas, Stephen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139992146","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2226,"entry_id":614,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":401,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Forshaw, Peter J.","free_first_name":"Peter J.","free_last_name":"Forshaw","norm_person":{"id":401,"first_name":"Peter J.","last_name":"Forshaw","full_name":"Forshaw, Peter J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137513941","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2227,"entry_id":614,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":402,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rees, Valery","free_first_name":"Valery","free_last_name":"Rees","norm_person":{"id":402,"first_name":"Valery","last_name":"Rees","full_name":"Rees, Valery","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1033238872","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Neo-Platonic Modes of Concordism versus Definitions of Difference: Simplicius, Augustinus Steuco and Ralph Cudworth versus Marco Antonio Zimara and Benedictus Pererius","main_title":{"title":"Neo-Platonic Modes of Concordism versus Definitions of Difference: Simplicius, Augustinus Steuco and Ralph Cudworth versus Marco Antonio Zimara and Benedictus Pererius"},"abstract":"A few years before her death, Frances Yates began her lecture to a \r\nmeeting of the Society for Renaissance Studies with the emotional \r\nannouncement that knowledge of the Neo-Platonic and Hermetic tra\u00ad\r\nditions had been suppressed. While some took her seriously, I was \r\nsceptical. Yet there is textual evidence that she was not wrong after \r\nall. The suppression began almost immediately among those opposed \r\nto the concordism1 of Ficino or Pico, but in this essay I will focus on \r\nreactions to this tradition in the second half of the sixteenth century. [p.317]","btype":2,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xVNl98DGDop96LN","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":78,"full_name":"Blackwell, Constance","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":400,"full_name":"Clucas, Stephen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":401,"full_name":"Forshaw, Peter J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":402,"full_name":"Rees, Valery","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":614,"section_of":613,"pages":"317\u2013342","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":613,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Laus Platonici Philosophi. Marsilio Ficino and his Influence","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Clucas2011","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2011","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2011","abstract":"This collection of essays honours Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499) as a Platonic philosopher. Ficino was not the first translator of Plato in the Renaissance, but he was the first to translate the entire corpus of Platonic works, and to emphasise their relevance for contemporary readers. The present work is divided into two sections: the first explores aspects of Ficino\u2019s own thought and the sources which he used. The second section follows aspects of his influence in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The papers presented here deepen and enrich our understanding of Ficino, and of the philosophical tradition in which he was working, and they offer a new platform for future studies on Ficino and his legacy in Renaissance philosophy. [Author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CfamRWvXxf8MSqg","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":613,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"Brill's Studies in Intellectual History","volume":"198","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2011]}

Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 1.3–4, 2011
By: Simplicius Cilicius, Huby, Pamela M. (Ed.), Taylor, Christopher C. W. (Ed.)
Title Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 1.3–4
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 2011
Publication Place London
Publisher Bloomsbury
Series Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories no categories
Author(s) Simplicius Cilicius
Editor(s) Huby, Pamela M. , Taylor, Christopher C. W.
Translator(s) Huby, Pamela M.(Huby, Pamela M.) , Taylor, Christopher C. W.(Taylor, Christopher C. W.) ,
In this volume Simplicius deals with Aristotle's account of the Presocratics, and for many of them he is our chief or even sole authority. He quotes at length from Melissus, Parmenides and Zeno, sometimes from their original works but also from later writers from Plato onwards, drawing particularly on Alexander's lost commentary on Aristotle's Physics and on Porphyry. Much of his approach is just scholarly, but in places he reveals his Neoplatonist affiliation and attempts to show the basic agreement among his predecessors in spite of their apparent differences. This volume, part of the groundbreaking Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, translates into English for the first time Simplicius' commentary, and includes a detailed introduction, extensive explanatory notes and a bibliography. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1356","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1356,"authors_free":[{"id":2030,"entry_id":1356,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","free_first_name":"Simplicius","free_last_name":"Cilicius","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2031,"entry_id":1356,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":200,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Huby, Pamela M.","free_first_name":"Pamela M.","free_last_name":"Huby","norm_person":{"id":200,"first_name":"Pamela M.","last_name":"Huby","full_name":"Huby, Pamela M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120868962","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2032,"entry_id":1356,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":201,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Taylor, Christopher C. W.","free_first_name":"Christopher C. W.","free_last_name":"Taylor","norm_person":{"id":201,"first_name":"Christopher C. W.","last_name":"Taylor","full_name":"Taylor, Christopher C. W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123352126","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2397,"entry_id":1356,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":200,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Huby, Pamela M. ","free_first_name":"Pamela M.","free_last_name":"Huby","norm_person":{"id":200,"first_name":"Pamela M.","last_name":"Huby","full_name":"Huby, Pamela M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120868962","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2398,"entry_id":1356,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":201,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Taylor, Christopher C. W.","free_first_name":"Christopher C. W.","free_last_name":"Taylor","norm_person":{"id":201,"first_name":"Christopher C. W.","last_name":"Taylor","full_name":"Taylor, Christopher C. W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123352126","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 1.3\u20134","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 1.3\u20134"},"abstract":" In this volume Simplicius deals with Aristotle's account of the Presocratics, and for many of them he is our chief or even sole authority. He quotes at length from Melissus, Parmenides and Zeno, sometimes from their original works but also from later writers from Plato onwards, drawing particularly on Alexander's lost commentary on Aristotle's Physics and on Porphyry. Much of his approach is just scholarly, but in places he reveals his Neoplatonist affiliation and attempts to show the basic agreement among his predecessors in spite of their apparent differences.\r\n\r\nThis volume, part of the groundbreaking Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, translates into English for the first time Simplicius' commentary, and includes a detailed introduction, extensive explanatory notes and a bibliography. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/a0LbiKzgZYicNE2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":200,"full_name":"Huby, Pamela M.","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":201,"full_name":"Taylor, Christopher C. W.","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":200,"full_name":"Huby, Pamela M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":201,"full_name":"Taylor, Christopher C. W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1356,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2011]}

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 1.3–4’, 2011
By: Mueller, Ian (Ed.), Simplicius
Title Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 1.3–4’
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 2011
Publication Place London
Publisher Bloomsbury
Series Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories no categories
Author(s) Simplicius
Editor(s) Mueller, Ian
Translator(s) Mueller, Ian(Mueller, Ian) ,
This is the first English translation of Simplicius' responses to Philoponus' Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World. The commentary is published in two volumes: Ian Mueller's previous book in the series, Simplicius: On Aristotle On the Heavens 1.2-3, and this book on 1.3-4. Philoponus, the Christian, had argued that Aristotle's arguments do not succeed. For all they show to the contrary, Christianity may be right that the heavens were brought into existence by the only divine being and one moment in time, and will cease to exist at some future moment. Simplicius upholds the pagan view that the heavens are eternal and divine, and argues that their eternity is shown by their astronomical movements coupled with certain principles of Aristotle. The English translation in this volume is accompanied by a detailed introduction, extensive commentary notes and a bibliography. [offical abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"96","_score":null,"_source":{"id":96,"authors_free":[{"id":113,"entry_id":96,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2274,"entry_id":96,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2275,"entry_id":96,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius ","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018On the Heavens 1.3\u20134\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018On the Heavens 1.3\u20134\u2019"},"abstract":"This is the first English translation of Simplicius' responses to Philoponus' Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World. The commentary is published in two volumes: Ian Mueller's previous book in the series, Simplicius: On Aristotle On the Heavens 1.2-3, and this book on 1.3-4.\r\n\r\nPhiloponus, the Christian, had argued that Aristotle's arguments do not succeed. For all they show to the contrary, Christianity may be right that the heavens were brought into existence by the only divine being and one moment in time, and will cease to exist at some future moment. Simplicius upholds the pagan view that the heavens are eternal and divine, and argues that their eternity is shown by their astronomical movements coupled with certain principles of Aristotle.\r\n\r\nThe English translation in this volume is accompanied by a detailed introduction, extensive commentary notes and a bibliography. [offical abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4ZoI4eGVxZNSvwF","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":96,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2011]}

Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 1.2–3’, 2011
By: Mueller, Ian (Ed.), Simplicius
Title Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘On the Heavens 1.2–3’
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 2011
Publication Place London
Publisher Bloomsbury
Series Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
Categories no categories
Author(s) Simplicius
Editor(s) Mueller, Ian
Translator(s) Mueller, Ian(Mueller, Ian) ,
One of the arguments in Aristotle's On the Heavens propounds that the world neither came to be nor will perish. This volume contains the pagan Neoplatonist Simplicius of Cilicia's commentary on the first part of this this important work. The commentary is notable and unusual because Simplicius includes in his discussion lengthy representations of the Christian John Philoponus' criticisms of Aristotle along with his own, frequently sarcastic, responses. This is the first complete translation into a modern language of Simplicius' commentary, and is accompanied by a detailed introduction, extensive explanatory notes and a bibliography. [offical abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"97","_score":null,"_source":{"id":97,"authors_free":[{"id":114,"entry_id":97,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2273,"entry_id":97,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2276,"entry_id":97,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius ","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018On the Heavens 1.2\u20133\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018On the Heavens 1.2\u20133\u2019"},"abstract":"One of the arguments in Aristotle's On the Heavens propounds that the world neither came to be nor will perish. This volume contains the pagan Neoplatonist Simplicius of Cilicia's commentary on the first part of this this important work. The commentary is notable and unusual because Simplicius includes in his discussion lengthy representations of the Christian John Philoponus' criticisms of Aristotle along with his own, frequently sarcastic, responses.\r\n\r\nThis is the first complete translation into a modern language of Simplicius' commentary, and is accompanied by a detailed introduction, extensive explanatory notes and a bibliography. [offical abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/7tJQQxPsjADRkKW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":97,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2011]}

OMOΣE XΩΡEIN: Simplicius, Corollarium de loco 601.26–8 (Diels), 2011
By: Gregoric, Pavel, Helmig, Christoph
Title OMOΣE XΩΡEIN: Simplicius, Corollarium de loco 601.26–8 (Diels)
Type Article
Language English
Date 2011
Journal Classical Quarterly
Volume 61
Issue 2
Pages 722-730
Categories no categories
Author(s) Gregoric, Pavel , Helmig, Christoph
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The upshot of this article is that the treatment of the phrase ὁμόσε χωρεῖν in LSJ can be supplemented as far as later (Neoplatonic) authors are concerned. We have seen that the translation ‘to come to issue’ for the metaphorical meaning of the phrase is ambiguous and needs to be qualified according to the context. While the expression usually betrays an adversative connotation – to counter or refute an argument – later (Neoplatonic) authors also used it in a more neutral sense (‘to come to grips with an argument’). More to the point, the phrase can also have a concessive connotation, implying a concession or acceptance. It is precisely this latter connotation that we find in Simplicius’ Corollary on Place 601.26–8. [conclusion, p. 730]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"585","_score":null,"_source":{"id":585,"authors_free":[{"id":829,"entry_id":585,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":145,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gregoric, Pavel","free_first_name":"Pavel","free_last_name":"Gregoric","norm_person":{"id":145,"first_name":"Pavel","last_name":"Gregoric","full_name":"Gregoric, Pavel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":830,"entry_id":585,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":146,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Helmig, Christoph","free_first_name":"Chistoph","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}}],"entry_title":"OMO\u03a3E X\u03a9\u03a1EIN: Simplicius, Corollarium de loco 601.26\u20138 (Diels)","main_title":{"title":"OMO\u03a3E X\u03a9\u03a1EIN: Simplicius, Corollarium de loco 601.26\u20138 (Diels)"},"abstract":"The upshot of this article is that the treatment of the phrase \u1f41\u03bc\u03cc\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd in LSJ can be supplemented as far as later (Neoplatonic) authors are concerned. We have seen that the translation \u2018to come to issue\u2019 for the metaphorical meaning of the phrase is ambiguous and needs to be qualified according to the context. While the expression usually betrays an adversative connotation \u2013 to counter or refute an argument \u2013 later (Neoplatonic) authors also used it in a more neutral sense (\u2018to come to grips with an argument\u2019). More to the point, the phrase can also have a \r\nconcessive connotation, implying a concession or acceptance. It is precisely this \r\nlatter connotation that we find in Simplicius\u2019 Corollary on Place 601.26\u20138. [conclusion, p. 730]","btype":3,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NUEoM1d6g4gWxsi","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":145,"full_name":"Gregoric, Pavel","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":146,"full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":585,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Classical Quarterly","volume":"61","issue":"2","pages":"722-730"}},"sort":[2011]}

The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II, 2011
By: Gerson, Lloyd P. (Ed.)
Title The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 2011
Publication Place Cambridge
Publisher Cambridge University Press
Volume 2
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Gerson, Lloyd P.
Translator(s)
The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity comprises over forty specially commissioned essays by experts on the philosophy of the period 200–800 CE. Designed as a successor to The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (edited by A. H. Armstrong), it takes into account some forty years of scholarship since the publication of that volume. The contributors examine philosophy as it entered literature, science and religion, and offer new and extensive assessments of philosophers who until recently have been mostly ignored. The volume also includes a complete digest of all philosophical works known to have been written during this period. It will be an invaluable resource for all those interested in this rich and still emerging field. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"964","_score":null,"_source":{"id":964,"authors_free":[{"id":1448,"entry_id":964,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":46,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","free_first_name":"Lloyd P.","free_last_name":"Gerson","norm_person":{"id":46,"first_name":"Lloyd P.","last_name":"Gerson","full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131525573","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II","main_title":{"title":"The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II"},"abstract":"The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity comprises over forty specially commissioned essays by experts on the philosophy of the period 200\u2013800 CE. Designed as a successor to The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (edited by A. H. Armstrong), it takes into account some forty years of scholarship since the publication of that volume. The contributors examine philosophy as it entered literature, science and religion, and offer new and extensive assessments of philosophers who until recently have been mostly ignored. The volume also includes a complete digest of all philosophical works known to have been written during this period. It will be an invaluable resource for all those interested in this rich and still emerging field. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/m4jubd6IQgEk4Bo","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":46,"full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":964,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2011]}

Confronter les Idées. Un exemple de conciliation litigieuse chez Simplicius, 2011
By: Gavray, Marc-Antoine
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]

{"_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":[2011]}

  • PAGE 24 OF 46
Platonic Pathways: Selected Papers from the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies, 2018
By: Finamore, John F. (Ed.), Layne, Danielle, A. (Ed.)
Title Platonic Pathways: Selected Papers from the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 2018
Publication Place Gloucestershire
Publisher Prometheus Trust
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Finamore, John F. , Layne, Danielle, A.
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1489","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1489,"authors_free":[{"id":2579,"entry_id":1489,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":120,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Finamore, John F.","free_first_name":"John F.","free_last_name":"Finamore","norm_person":{"id":120,"first_name":"John F.","last_name":"Finamore","full_name":"Finamore, John F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055775080","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2580,"entry_id":1489,"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}}],"entry_title":"Platonic Pathways: Selected Papers from the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies","main_title":{"title":"Platonic Pathways: Selected Papers from the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0kL235IRMmorwaZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":120,"full_name":"Finamore, John F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":202,"full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1489,"pubplace":"Gloucestershire","publisher":"Prometheus Trust","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Platonic Pathways: Selected Papers from the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies"]}

Platonism and Its Legacy: Selected Papers from the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies, 2019
By: Finamore, John F. (Ed.), Nejeschleba, Tomáš (Ed.)
Title Platonism and Its Legacy: Selected Papers from the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 2019
Publication Place London
Publisher Prometheus Trust
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Finamore, John F. , Nejeschleba, Tomáš
Translator(s)

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1493","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1493,"authors_free":[{"id":2588,"entry_id":1493,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":120,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Finamore, John F.","free_first_name":"John F.","free_last_name":"Finamore","norm_person":{"id":120,"first_name":"John F.","last_name":"Finamore","full_name":"Finamore, John F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055775080","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2589,"entry_id":1493,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":555,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Nejeschleba, Tom\u00e1\u0161","free_first_name":"Tom\u00e1\u0161","free_last_name":"Nejeschleba","norm_person":{"id":555,"first_name":"Tom\u00e1\u0161","last_name":"Nejeschleba,","full_name":"Nejeschleba, Tom\u00e1\u0161","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1103057413","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Platonism and Its Legacy: Selected Papers from the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies","main_title":{"title":"Platonism and Its Legacy: Selected Papers from the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3oPlmdyJ3ZKj82v","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":120,"full_name":"Finamore, John F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":555,"full_name":"Nejeschleba, Tom\u00e1\u0161","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1493,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Prometheus Trust","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Platonism and Its Legacy: Selected Papers from the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies"]}

Platonopolis. Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity, 2005
By: O'Meara, Dominic J.
Title Platonopolis. Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity
Type Monograph
Language English
Date 2005
Publication Place Oxford
Publisher Oxford University Press
Categories no categories
Author(s) O'Meara, Dominic J.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Conventional wisdom suggests that the Platonist philosophers of Late Antiquity — from Plotinus in the 3rd century to the 6th-century schools in Athens and Alexandria — neglected the political dimension of their Platonic heritage in their concentration on an otherworldly life. This book presents a reappraisal of these thinkers, arguing that their otherworldliness involved, rather than excluded, political ideas. A reconstruction of the political philosophy of these thinkers is proposed for the first time, including discussion of these Platonists’ conceptions of the function, structure, and contents of political science (including questions concerning political reform, law, justice, penology, religion, and political action), its relation to political virtue and to the divinization of soul and state. This book also traces the influence of these ideas on selected Christian and Islamic writers: Eusebius, Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius, and al-Farabi. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1517","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1517,"authors_free":[{"id":2634,"entry_id":1517,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":279,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","free_first_name":"Dominic J.","free_last_name":"O'Meara","norm_person":{"id":279,"first_name":"Dominic J.","last_name":"O'Meara","full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11180664X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Platonopolis. Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Platonopolis. Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity"},"abstract":"Conventional wisdom suggests that the Platonist philosophers of Late Antiquity \u2014 from Plotinus in the 3rd century to the 6th-century schools in Athens and Alexandria \u2014 neglected the political dimension of their Platonic heritage in their concentration on an otherworldly life. This book presents a reappraisal of these thinkers, arguing that their otherworldliness involved, rather than excluded, political ideas. A reconstruction of the political philosophy of these thinkers is proposed for the first time, including discussion of these Platonists\u2019 conceptions of the function, structure, and contents of political science (including questions concerning political reform, law, justice, penology, religion, and political action), its relation to political virtue and to the divinization of soul and state. This book also traces the influence of these ideas on selected Christian and Islamic writers: Eusebius, Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius, and al-Farabi. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XdU0h35redPduwd","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":279,"full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1517,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Platonopolis. Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity"]}

Platons Timaios als Grundtext der Kosmologie in Spätantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance - Plato's Timaeus and the Foundations of Cosmology in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Renaissance, 2005
By: Leinkauf, Thomas (Ed.), Steel, Carlos (Ed.)
Title Platons Timaios als Grundtext der Kosmologie in Spätantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance - Plato's Timaeus and the Foundations of Cosmology in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Renaissance
Type Edited Book
Language undefined
Date 2005
Publication Place Leuven
Publisher Leuven University Press
Series Ancient and Medieval Philosophy de Wulf-Mansion Centre, Series 1
Volume 29
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Leinkauf, Thomas , Steel, Carlos
Translator(s)
The particular focus of this volume is a study of the influence of Timaeus on the development of Western cosmology in three axial periods of European culture: Late Antiquity, Middle Ages and Renaissance. In each period, the Timaeus was read in a different context and from different perspectives. During the Middle Ages, scholars were mostly interested in reconciling the rational cosmology of the Timaeus with the Christian understanding of creation. In Late Antiquity, the concordance of Plato with Aristotle was considered the most important issue, whereas in early modern times, the confrontation with the new mathematical physics offered possibilities for a fresh assessment of Plato's explanation of the cosmos. The present volume has three sections corresponding to these three periods of interpreting the Timaeus, each sectionis introduced by a synthesis of the main issues at discussion. This 'epochal' approach gives this volume its particular character. [author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"321","_score":null,"_source":{"id":321,"authors_free":[{"id":406,"entry_id":321,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":152,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Leinkauf, Thomas","free_first_name":"Thomas","free_last_name":"Leinkauf","norm_person":{"id":152,"first_name":"Thomas","last_name":"Leinkauf","full_name":"Leinkauf, Thomas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122040309","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":407,"entry_id":321,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Platons Timaios als Grundtext der Kosmologie in Sp\u00e4tantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance - Plato's Timaeus and the Foundations of Cosmology in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Renaissance","main_title":{"title":"Platons Timaios als Grundtext der Kosmologie in Sp\u00e4tantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance - Plato's Timaeus and the Foundations of Cosmology in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Renaissance"},"abstract":"The particular focus of this volume is a study of the influence of Timaeus on the development of Western cosmology in three axial periods of European culture: Late Antiquity, Middle Ages and Renaissance. In each period, the Timaeus was read in a different context and from different perspectives. During the Middle Ages, scholars were mostly interested in reconciling the rational cosmology of the Timaeus with the Christian understanding of creation. In Late Antiquity, the concordance of Plato with Aristotle was considered the most important issue, whereas in early modern times, the confrontation with the new mathematical physics offered possibilities for a fresh assessment of Plato's explanation of the cosmos. The present volume has three sections corresponding to these three periods of interpreting the Timaeus, each sectionis introduced by a synthesis of the main issues at discussion. This 'epochal' approach gives this volume its particular character. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2005","language":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/M7ZnsKVSv9vvgH5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":152,"full_name":"Leinkauf, Thomas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":321,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"Ancient and Medieval Philosophy de Wulf-Mansion Centre, Series 1","volume":"29","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Platons Timaios als Grundtext der Kosmologie in Sp\u00e4tantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance - Plato's Timaeus and the Foundations of Cosmology in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Renaissance"]}

Plato’s Parmenides: Selected Papers of the XIIth Symposium Platonicum, 2022
By: Brisson, Luc (Ed.), Macé, Arnaud (Ed.), Renaut, Olivier (Ed.)
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).

{"_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":["Plato\u2019s Parmenides: Selected Papers of the XIIth Symposium Platonicum"]}

Plotin und Simplikios über die Kategorie des Wo, 2009
By: Strobel, Benedikt
Title Plotin und Simplikios über die Kategorie des Wo
Type Article
Language German
Date 2009
Journal Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte
Volume 51
Pages 7-33
Categories no categories
Author(s) Strobel, Benedikt
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Spekulationen über historische Abhängigkeiten beiseitelassend, werde ich mich im Folgenden auf die Fragen konzentrieren: (i) Welche Ansätze zur semantischen Analyse von Lokativen sind in Plotins Argumenten gegen die Annahme der Kategorie des Wo enthalten? (ii) Welche Ansätze sind in Simplikios' Verteidigung der Annahme enthalten? Und (iii) wie sind diese Ansätze zu beurteilen? Um diese Fragen zu beantworten, werde ich die für die semantische Analyse von Lokativen relevanten Zeilen 1-18 des 14. Kapitels des ersten Teils von Plotins "Über die Gattungen des Seienden" (VI 1 [42]) zusammen mit Simplikios' Antworten im Kategorien-Kommentar (In Cat. 359.33-361.6) detailliert besprechen. [S. 10]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"844","_score":null,"_source":{"id":844,"authors_free":[{"id":1248,"entry_id":844,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":326,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Strobel","norm_person":{"id":326,"first_name":" Benedikt","last_name":"Strobel,","full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173882056","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plotin und Simplikios \u00fcber die Kategorie des Wo","main_title":{"title":"Plotin und Simplikios \u00fcber die Kategorie des Wo"},"abstract":"Spekulationen \u00fcber historische Abh\u00e4ngigkeiten beiseitelassend, werde ich mich im Folgenden auf die Fragen konzentrieren: (i) Welche Ans\u00e4tze zur semantischen Analyse von Lokativen sind in Plotins Argumenten gegen die Annahme der Kategorie des Wo enthalten? (ii) Welche Ans\u00e4tze sind in Simplikios' Verteidigung der Annahme enthalten? Und (iii) wie sind diese Ans\u00e4tze zu beurteilen? Um diese Fragen zu beantworten, werde ich die f\u00fcr die semantische Analyse von Lokativen relevanten Zeilen 1-18 des 14. Kapitels des ersten Teils von Plotins \"\u00dcber die Gattungen des Seienden\" (VI 1 [42]) zusammen mit Simplikios' Antworten im Kategorien-Kommentar (In Cat. 359.33-361.6) detailliert besprechen. [S. 10]","btype":3,"date":"2009","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kvHyOG29qEMEWKA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":326,"full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":844,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archiv f\u00fcr Begriffsgeschichte","volume":"51","issue":"","pages":"7-33"}},"sort":["Plotin und Simplikios \u00fcber die Kategorie des Wo"]}

Plutarch and the Neoplatonists: Porphyry, Proklos, Simplikios, 2019
By: Simonetti, Elsa Giovanna, Xenophontos, Sophia (Ed.), Oikonomopoulou, Aikaterini (Ed.)
Title Plutarch and the Neoplatonists: Porphyry, Proklos, Simplikios
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 2019
Published in Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plutarch
Pages 136-153
Categories no categories
Author(s) Simonetti, Elsa Giovanna
Editor(s) Xenophontos, Sophia , Oikonomopoulou, Aikaterini
Translator(s)
The present chapter, by focusing on a selection of passages from Porphyry, Proclus, and Simplicius, aims to explore Plutarch's influence within the Neoplatonists' reconsideration of Platonic philosophy, its aims, roots, and historical development. As we will see, Porphyry, Proclus, and Simplicius integrate Plutarch’s heritage into their own agendas by adapting it to their own specific historical context, which ranges from the third to the sixth century AD, a time when the fundamental reassessment of Platonism also responds to the urgency of supplying new ways to happiness and salvation that could compete with those provided by Christianity. Recalling Simplicius' invitation to taking advantage of different situations, we can conclude that all the Neoplatonists here considered judiciously took advantage of Plutarch's works to justify their own philosophical reflection and to redefine their relationship with the Platonic tradition. Despite discarding some of Plutarch's metaphysical theories, they exploited his legacy according to their own ideological and historical context. Exploring the reception of Plutarch of Chaeronea in Porphyry, Proclus, and Simplicius has helped us discern some continuous strands of thought within Imperial Platonism, notwithstanding the considerable originality and theoretical innovations that have inevitably emerged in a time span of four centuries. In this regard, it might be useful to recall that Plutarch himself was an advocate of the unity of Platonism under the aegis of its illustrious founder, as proven by the existence of his treatise "On the Unity of the Academy" from Plato (no. 63 of the Lamprias catalogue), which is unfortunately lost. The Neoplatonists also share Plutarch's fundamental conviction that Plato's works enclose a coherent system of doctrines that await to be recovered and, motivated by this, engage in an impressive activity of synthesis, exegesis, and teaching of his dialogues, perceived as an extraordinary source of knowledge. In their constant and passionate re-reading of the past and of their own tradition, Plutarch emerges as an animate figure and a dynamic interlocutor. He is not simply a motionless icon. Rather, he is kept in life through the Platonists' strenuous effort of re-thinking and re-discovering their own history and heritage. [Introduction / Conclusion]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1421","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1421,"authors_free":[{"id":2230,"entry_id":1421,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":405,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simonetti, Elsa Giovanna","free_first_name":"Elsa Giovanna","free_last_name":"Simonetti","norm_person":{"id":405,"first_name":"Elsa Giovanna","last_name":"Simonetti","full_name":"Simonetti, Elsa Giovanna","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1144280753","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2434,"entry_id":1421,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":480,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Xenophontos, Sophia","free_first_name":"Sophia","free_last_name":"Xenophontos","norm_person":{"id":480,"first_name":"Sophia","last_name":"Xenophontos","full_name":"Xenophontos, Sophia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1112475400","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2435,"entry_id":1421,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":481,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Oikonomopoulou, Aikaterini","free_first_name":"Aikaterini","free_last_name":"Oikonomopoulou","norm_person":{"id":481,"first_name":"Aikaterini","last_name":"Oikonomopoulou","full_name":"Oikonomopoulou, Aikaterini","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1036691888","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plutarch and the Neoplatonists: Porphyry, Proklos, Simplikios","main_title":{"title":"Plutarch and the Neoplatonists: Porphyry, Proklos, Simplikios"},"abstract":"The present chapter, by focusing on a selection of passages from Porphyry, Proclus, and Simplicius, aims to explore Plutarch's influence within the Neoplatonists' reconsideration of Platonic philosophy, its aims, roots, and historical development. As we will see, Porphyry, Proclus, and Simplicius integrate Plutarch\u2019s heritage into their own agendas by adapting it to their own specific historical context, which ranges from the third to the sixth century AD, a time when the fundamental reassessment of Platonism also responds to the urgency of supplying new ways to happiness and salvation that could compete with those provided by Christianity. Recalling Simplicius' invitation to taking advantage of different situations, we can conclude that all the Neoplatonists here considered judiciously took advantage of Plutarch's works to justify their own philosophical reflection and to redefine their relationship with the Platonic tradition. Despite discarding some of Plutarch's metaphysical theories, they exploited his legacy according to their own ideological and historical context. Exploring the reception of Plutarch of Chaeronea in Porphyry, Proclus, and Simplicius has helped us discern some continuous strands of thought within Imperial Platonism, notwithstanding the considerable originality and theoretical innovations that have inevitably emerged in a time span of four centuries. In this regard, it might be useful to recall that Plutarch himself was an advocate of the unity of Platonism under the aegis of its illustrious founder, as proven by the existence of his treatise \"On the Unity of the Academy\" from Plato (no. 63 of the Lamprias catalogue), which is unfortunately lost. The Neoplatonists also share Plutarch's fundamental conviction that Plato's works enclose a coherent system of doctrines that await to be recovered and, motivated by this, engage in an impressive activity of synthesis, exegesis, and teaching of his dialogues, perceived as an extraordinary source of knowledge. In their constant and passionate re-reading of the past and of their own tradition, Plutarch emerges as an animate figure and a dynamic interlocutor. He is not simply a motionless icon. Rather, he is kept in life through the Platonists' strenuous effort of re-thinking and re-discovering their own history and heritage. [Introduction \/ Conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eFGSx67DOW6HbCr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":405,"full_name":"Simonetti, Elsa Giovanna","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":480,"full_name":"Xenophontos, Sophia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":481,"full_name":"Oikonomopoulou, Aikaterini","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1421,"section_of":1422,"pages":"136-153","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1422,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":1,"language":"en","title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plutarch","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2019","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The Greek biographer and philosopher Plutarch of Chaeronea (c. 45-125 AD) makes a fascinating case-study for reception studies not least because of his uniquely extensive and diverse afterlife. Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Plutarch offers the first comprehensive analysis of Plutarch\u2019s rich reception history from the Roman Imperial period through Late Antiquity and Byzantium to the Renaissance, Enlightenment and the modern era. The thirty-seven chapters that make up this volume, written by a remarkable line-up of experts, explore the appreciation, contestation and creative appropriation of Plutarch himself, his thought and work in the history of literature across various cultures and intellectual traditions in Europe, America, North Africa, and the Middle East. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/E0eFuPTTIEjNhZC","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1422,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"Brill's Companions to Classical Reception","volume":"20","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Plutarch and the Neoplatonists: Porphyry, Proklos, Simplikios"]}

Porphyry and Iamblichus on Universals and Synonymous Predication, 2007
By: Chiaradonna, Riccardo
Title Porphyry and Iamblichus on Universals and Synonymous Predication
Type Article
Language English
Date 2007
Journal Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale
Volume 18
Pages 123-140
Categories no categories
Author(s) Chiaradonna, Riccardo
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The article discusses Porphyry and Iamblichus' views on universals and synonymous predication, with a focus on Porphyry's interpretation of Aristotle's theory of genus and substantial predication. Porphyry presents the genus/species relation as a kind of genealogy, which is based on the Platonic theory of the hierarchy of beings. This conception of the genus/species relation is un-Aristotelian, and Porphyry's treatment of genus in the Isagoge does not refer to transcendent ante rem principles. Porphyry's views on universals and predication are based on physical entities such as bodiless immanent forms, which provide real correlates for his universal predicates. In contrast, Iamblichus offers a Platonising reading of the Aristotelian theory of substantial predication, which refers to ante rem genera and the metaphysical relation of participation. Neither Porphyry nor Iamblichus believe that an ante rem form can be predicated synonymously of corporeal individuals. [introduction/conclusion]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1289","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1289,"authors_free":[{"id":1878,"entry_id":1289,"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 and Iamblichus on Universals and Synonymous Predication","main_title":{"title":"Porphyry and Iamblichus on Universals and Synonymous Predication"},"abstract":"The article discusses Porphyry and Iamblichus' views on universals and synonymous predication, with a focus on Porphyry's interpretation of Aristotle's theory of genus and substantial predication. Porphyry presents the genus\/species relation as a kind of genealogy, which is based on the Platonic theory of the hierarchy of beings. This conception of the genus\/species relation is un-Aristotelian, and Porphyry's treatment of genus in the Isagoge does not refer to transcendent ante rem principles. Porphyry's views on universals and predication are based on physical entities such as bodiless immanent forms, which provide real correlates for his universal predicates. In contrast, Iamblichus offers a Platonising reading of the Aristotelian theory of substantial predication, which refers to ante rem genera and the metaphysical relation of participation. Neither Porphyry nor Iamblichus believe that an ante rem form can be predicated synonymously of corporeal individuals. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"2007","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TBXrtLsK3iJmR4Z","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1289,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale","volume":"18","issue":"","pages":"123-140"}},"sort":["Porphyry and Iamblichus on Universals and Synonymous Predication"]}

Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism, 2018
By: Chiaradonna, Riccardo
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]

{"_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":["Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism"]}

Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle, 2004
By: Karamanolis, George, Adamson, Peter (Ed.), Baltussen, Han (Ed.), Stone, Martin W. F. (Ed.)
Title Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 2004
Published in Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1
Pages 97-120
Categories no categories
Author(s) Karamanolis, George
Editor(s) Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F.
Translator(s)
In  this  paper  I  shall  argue  that  Porphyry  was  the  first  Platonist  philosopher  to  write commentaries on Aristotle’s  works.  Previous  scholars  have  come  close  to  maintaining 
such a view,  but to my knowledge,  this  has never been  expressly  argued.  They  usually hold that Porphyry was the first of the  Neoplatonists  (ie.  the Platonists  after Plotinus)  to write commentaries on Aristotle,  but  not the first of the entire  Platonist  tradition.  One reason  for  this  is  that  Porphyry’s  estimation  of  Aristotle’s  philosophy  has  not  been sufficiently  appreciated.  In  addition,  I  think,  the  particular  nature  of  philosophical commentary, composed systematically in late antiquity by philosophers  such  as  Alexander of Aphrodisias,  Porphyry,  or  Iamblichus  remains  in  need  of  clarification,  as  does  its philosophical  motivation.  As  a  result,  scholars  have tended to  credit several  Platonists 
before Porphyry with the writing of commentaries  on  Aristotelian  works,  simply  because they appear to have made various sorts of comments  on  one or  more of his  works.  I  will argue  that  these  Platonists  did  not,  however,  produce commentaries  of  the  sort  that Porphyry did, which I consider to be ‘commentaries’ in the proper sense of the  term.  Their failure to do so, I will argue, owes to their particular shared philosophical  background, one which, as I will argue, changes with Porphyry. In the first part of my paper (I) I will outline the difference between the various forms of commentary and the  specific form  of commentary  written  by  Porphyry.  I  will  claim  that in  the  latter  case  the  author  sets  out  to  write  a  commentary  in  order  to  facilitate  and 
encourage  its  study and assist in  its  teaching. This presupposes acceptance  of  the  views 
expressed by the source text and implies an  assertion of its  authority.  The examination of 
the evidence concerning the Platonists  before  Porphyry shows that none of them  can  be 
credited with a commentary  on  Aristotle  of the  sort  written  by  Porphyry  (II).  I  will  then 
try  to  explain  why  Porphyry  wrote commentaries  on  Aristotle  in  the  first  place  (III), which leads  me  to  conjecture  that  he  considered Aristotle’s  views  in  the  Categories (IV), the  Physics  (V),  and  on  first  principles  (VI)  compatible  with  those  of  Plato  and  also sufficiently  philosophically  valuable  as  to  deserve  serious  study.  I  will  conclude  that Porphyry wrote commentaries on Aristotle because, given his interpretations of Aristotle’s views, he accepted him as an authority  next  to  Plato,  and this  represented something  new in the Platonic tradition (VII). [introduction, p. 97]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1362","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1362,"authors_free":[{"id":2038,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":207,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Karamanolis, George","free_first_name":"George","free_last_name":"Karamanolis","norm_person":{"id":207,"first_name":"George","last_name":"Karamanolis","full_name":"Karamanolis, George","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129979007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2399,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2400,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":2401,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle"},"abstract":"In this paper I shall argue that Porphyry was the first Platonist philosopher to write commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s works. Previous scholars have come close to maintaining \r\nsuch a view, but to my knowledge, this has never been expressly argued. They usually hold that Porphyry was the first of the Neoplatonists (ie. the Platonists after Plotinus) to write commentaries on Aristotle, but not the first of the entire Platonist tradition. One reason for this is that Porphyry\u2019s estimation of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy has not been sufficiently appreciated. In addition, I think, the particular nature of philosophical commentary, composed systematically in late antiquity by philosophers such as Alexander of Aphrodisias, Porphyry, or Iamblichus remains in need of clarification, as does its philosophical motivation. As a result, scholars have tended to credit several Platonists \r\nbefore Porphyry with the writing of commentaries on Aristotelian works, simply because they appear to have made various sorts of comments on one or more of his works. I will argue that these Platonists did not, however, produce commentaries of the sort that Porphyry did, which I consider to be \u2018commentaries\u2019 in the proper sense of the term. Their failure to do so, I will argue, owes to their particular shared philosophical background, one which, as I will argue, changes with Porphyry. In the first part of my paper (I) I will outline the difference between the various forms of commentary and the specific form of commentary written by Porphyry. I will claim that in the latter case the author sets out to write a commentary in order to facilitate and \r\nencourage its study and assist in its teaching. This presupposes acceptance of the views \r\nexpressed by the source text and implies an assertion of its authority. The examination of \r\nthe evidence concerning the Platonists before Porphyry shows that none of them can be \r\ncredited with a commentary on Aristotle of the sort written by Porphyry (II). I will then \r\ntry to explain why Porphyry wrote commentaries on Aristotle in the first place (III), which leads me to conjecture that he considered Aristotle\u2019s views in the Categories (IV), the Physics (V), and on first principles (VI) compatible with those of Plato and also sufficiently philosophically valuable as to deserve serious study. I will conclude that Porphyry wrote commentaries on Aristotle because, given his interpretations of Aristotle\u2019s views, he accepted him as an authority next to Plato, and this represented something new in the Platonic tradition (VII). [introduction, p. 97]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/N41MQStD4wulva1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":207,"full_name":"Karamanolis, George","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1362,"section_of":233,"pages":"97-120","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AV77iy4WOXfGTHR","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle"]}

  • PAGE 24 OF 46