| Title | Rational Assent and Self-Reversion: A Neoplatonist Response to the Stoics |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2016 |
| Journal | Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy |
| Volume | 50 |
| Pages | 237-288 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Coope, Ursula |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Humans are accountable for what they do and believe in a way that other animals are not. T h e Stoics held that this is because humans are rational, and in particular because they have the capacity for rational assent. But how exactly does the capacity for rational assent explain accountability? O ur Stoic sources do not explicitly answer this question, but I argue that they suggest the following view. Humans are responsible for assenting (and withholding as sent) just because o f the way in which the capacity for assent is reason-responsive: you can assent (or withhold assent) for reasons, and if you know whether or not you should be assenting, you can be guided by this knowledge in either assenting or withholding assent.This view, however, raises certain further questions. What is it about the nature o f our capacity for assent that enables it to be reason-responsive in a way that other psychic capacities are not? Why can one assent for a reason, but not have at* impression of something's being the case for a reason? I argue that a basis for answering these questions can be found in a perhaps surprising source: ps.-Simplicius' sixth-century commentary on Aristotle's De anima. Ps.-Simplicius draws on the Neoplatonist notion of self-reversion to explain what is distinctive about the rational capacity for assent. His account, I claim, provides a basis for explaining the distinctively reason-responsive nature of our capacity for assent. [Introduction, p. 287] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dvgVyUDHfWVEDyD |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1276","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1276,"authors_free":[{"id":1865,"entry_id":1276,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":53,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Coope, Ursula","free_first_name":"Ursula","free_last_name":"Coope","norm_person":{"id":53,"first_name":"Ursula","last_name":"Coope","full_name":"Coope, Ursula","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078072639","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Rational Assent and Self-Reversion: A Neoplatonist Response to the Stoics","main_title":{"title":"Rational Assent and Self-Reversion: A Neoplatonist Response to the Stoics"},"abstract":"Humans are accountable for what they do and believe in a way that other animals are not. T h e Stoics held that this is because hu\u00admans are rational, and in particular because they have the capacity for rational assent. But how exactly does the capacity for rational assent explain accountability? O ur Stoic sources do not explicitly answer this question, but I argue that they suggest the following view. Humans are responsible for assenting (and withholding as\u00ad\r\nsent) just because o f the way in which the capacity for assent is \r\nreason-responsive: you can assent (or withhold assent) for reasons, \r\nand if you know whether or not you should be assenting, you can be guided by this knowledge in either assenting or withholding assent.This view, however, raises certain further questions. What is it about the nature o f our capacity for assent that enables it to be reason-responsive in a way that other psychic capacities are not? Why can one assent for a reason, but not have at* impression of something's being the case for a reason? I argue that a basis for answering these questions can be found in a perhaps surprising source: ps.-Simplicius' sixth-century commentary on Aristotle's De anima. Ps.-Simplicius draws on the Neoplatonist notion of self-reversion to explain what is distinctive about the rational \r\ncapacity for assent. His account, I claim, provides a basis for explaining the distinctively reason-responsive nature of our capacity for assent. [Introduction, p. 287]","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dvgVyUDHfWVEDyD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":53,"full_name":"Coope, Ursula","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1276,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy ","volume":"50","issue":"","pages":"237-288"}},"sort":[2016]}
| Title | Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle’s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2015 |
| Journal | Revue d’histoire des textes, nouvelle série |
| Volume | 10 |
| Pages | 1-23 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/h4L23WDPkX8y93d |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1417","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1417,"authors_free":[{"id":2218,"entry_id":1417,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis ","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq","main_title":{"title":"Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/h4L23WDPkX8y93d","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1417,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue d\u2019histoire des textes, nouvelle s\u00e9rie","volume":"10","issue":"","pages":"1-23"}},"sort":[2015]}
| Title | Review of: Ph. Soulier, Simplicius et l'infini, préface par Ph. Hoffmann |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2015 |
| Journal | Revue de Philosophie Ancienne |
| Volume | 33 |
| Pages | 115-128 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gavray, Marc-Antoine |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3g3aGCg3qe681AY |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"406","_score":null,"_source":{"id":406,"authors_free":[{"id":2456,"entry_id":406,"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":"Review of: Ph. Soulier, Simplicius et l'infini, pr\u00e9face par Ph. Hoffmann","main_title":{"title":"Review of: Ph. Soulier, Simplicius et l'infini, pr\u00e9face par Ph. Hoffmann"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3g3aGCg3qe681AY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":406,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue de Philosophie Ancienne","volume":"33","issue":"","pages":"115-128"}},"sort":[2015]}
| Title | Le σκοπός du traité aristotélicien Du Ciel selon Simplicius. Exégèse, dialectique, théologie |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2015 |
| Journal | Studia graeco-arabica |
| Volume | 5 |
| Pages | 27-51 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| A six-page Prologue introduces the commentary on Aristotle’s De Caelo written by Simplicius after 529 AD. As usual in the exegeses typical of the Neoplatonic schools of late Antiquity, this Prologue addresses a series of preliminary questions that are meant to steer the interpretation in its entirety, as well as to frame the text to be commented upon within the reading canon of the Aristotelian works, which were intended to provide the propaedeutics to the reading canon of Plato’s dialogues. Simplicius addresses the question of the scope of De Caelo, discussing the interpretations advanced by Alexander of Aphrodisias, Iamblichus, and Syrianus. According to Alexander, this treatise deals with the universe as a whole, as well as with the five simple bodies contained in it. It was with Iamblichus, who advocated the idea that for each Platonic dialogue there was only one skopos, that the unity of a philosophical work was raised to the rank of a general rule. According to Iamblichus, the skopos of the De Caelo is the divine body of heaven. As a consequence, the primary elements that depend upon the heavens are included in the treatise. Syrianus deepens the theological tendency implied in Iamblichus’ interpretation: for him, the skopos of the De Caelo is primarily the divine body of heaven, and only secondarily the set of sublunar elements. Simplicius treasures the commentary by Alexander; nevertheless, he questions the skopos assigned by him: Alexander underestimated the importance of the unity of the treatise, even though his intention to account for each and every question raised by Aristotle was laudable. Contrarily, Syrianus was right in emphasizing the theological vein of the De Caelo, but focussed only on the section on the divine body of heaven, playing down books III and IV as if they were only ancillary, thus forgetting that the skopos must account for the whole of the treatise at hand. Between the two positions, Simplicius advocates the idea of a synthetical skopos, following in the footsteps of Iamblichus’ interpretation, but taking systematically into account the best of Alexander’s. The skopos of the De Caelo is the divine heaven, that “communicates” its perfections to the entire universe. Simplicius’ position is revealed to be very different with respect to that of other commentators like Ammonius and Philoponus, who both considered that the title was self-evident and required no special investigation. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/B70TifrHFuHw23y |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"581","_score":null,"_source":{"id":581,"authors_free":[{"id":824,"entry_id":581,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2 du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien Du Ciel selon Simplicius. Ex\u00e9g\u00e8se, dialectique, th\u00e9ologie","main_title":{"title":"Le \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2 du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien Du Ciel selon Simplicius. Ex\u00e9g\u00e8se, dialectique, th\u00e9ologie"},"abstract":"A six-page Prologue introduces the commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De Caelo written by Simplicius after 529 AD. As usual in the exegeses typical of the Neoplatonic schools of late Antiquity, this Prologue addresses a series of preliminary \r\nquestions that are meant to steer the interpretation in its entirety, as well as to frame the text to be commented upon within the reading canon of the Aristotelian works, which were intended to provide the propaedeutics to the reading canon of Plato\u2019s dialogues. Simplicius addresses the question of the scope of De Caelo, discussing the interpretations advanced by Alexander of Aphrodisias, Iamblichus, and Syrianus. According to Alexander, this treatise deals with the universe as a whole, as well as with the five simple bodies contained in it. It was with Iamblichus, who advocated the idea that for each Platonic dialogue there was only one skopos, that the unity of a philosophical work was raised \r\nto the rank of a general rule. According to Iamblichus, the skopos of the De Caelo is the divine body of heaven. As a consequence, the primary elements that depend upon the heavens are included in the treatise. Syrianus deepens \r\nthe theological tendency implied in Iamblichus\u2019 interpretation: for him, the skopos of the De Caelo is primarily the divine body of heaven, and only secondarily the set of sublunar elements. Simplicius treasures the commentary by \r\nAlexander; nevertheless, he questions the skopos assigned by him: Alexander underestimated the importance of the unity of the treatise, even though his intention to account for each and every question raised by Aristotle was laudable. Contrarily, Syrianus was right in emphasizing the theological vein of the De Caelo, but focussed only on the section on the divine body of heaven, playing down books III and IV as if they were only ancillary, thus forgetting that the skopos must account for the whole of the treatise at hand. Between the two positions, Simplicius advocates the idea of a synthetical skopos, following in the footsteps of Iamblichus\u2019 interpretation, but taking systematically into account the best of Alexander\u2019s. The skopos of the De Caelo is the divine heaven, that \u201ccommunicates\u201d its perfections to the \r\nentire universe. Simplicius\u2019 position is revealed to be very different with respect to that of other commentators like Ammonius and Philoponus, who both considered that the title was self-evident and required no special investigation. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/B70TifrHFuHw23y","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":581,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studia graeco-arabica","volume":"5","issue":"","pages":"27-51"}},"sort":[2015]}
| Title | Book review: Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 8.1-5, written by Istvan Bodnár, Michael Chase and Michael Share |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2015 |
| Journal | The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition |
| Volume | 9 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 124 –125 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hatzistavrou, Antony |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Review of Istvan Bodnár, Michael Chase and Michael Share (translated) Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 8.1-5, Bristol Classical Press, London, 2012 |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/CfWDbL6IKhroIDB |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1014","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1014,"authors_free":[{"id":1530,"entry_id":1014,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":173,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hatzistavrou, Antony","free_first_name":"Antony","free_last_name":"Hatzistavrou","norm_person":{"id":173,"first_name":"Antony","last_name":"Hatzistavrou","full_name":"Hatzistavrou, Antony","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Book review: Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 8.1-5, written by Istvan Bodn\u00e1r, Michael Chase and Michael Share","main_title":{"title":"Book review: Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 8.1-5, written by Istvan Bodn\u00e1r, Michael Chase and Michael Share"},"abstract":"Review of Istvan Bodn\u00e1r, Michael Chase and Michael Share (translated)\r\nSimplicius on Aristotle Physics 8.1-5, Bristol Classical Press, London, 2012","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CfWDbL6IKhroIDB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":173,"full_name":"Hatzistavrou, Antony","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1014,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"9","issue":"1","pages":"124 \u2013125"}},"sort":[2015]}
| Title | Simplicius on Predication |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2015 |
| Journal | Revue de Philosophie Ancienne |
| Volume | 33 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 173-200 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hauer, Mareike |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This paper deals with Simplicius’ discussion of Aristotle’s account of predication in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories. Of particular interest is the relation between synonymous predication and essential predication. In Aristotle, as well as in Simplicius, both kinds of predication are closely connected. It has been argued in Aristotelian scholarship that, for Aristotle, synonymous predication yields essential predication. It has been equally argued that this assumption is compatible with Aristotle’s theoretical framework, but if applied to Plato, would pose a problem for Plato. Simplicius’ extensive discussion of both synonymous predication and essential predication suggests that he was aware of the deeper problem raised by the assumption that synonymous predication yields essential predication. In this paper, I will argue that Simplicius, by means of an original interpretation of the predicate, not only turns the assumption that synonymous predication yields essential predication into a supposition that is less problematic for Plato, but also creates a framework for a possible harmonization of Plato and Aristotle. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/8YoeRxX8j2IaSIZ |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"407","_score":null,"_source":{"id":407,"authors_free":[{"id":545,"entry_id":407,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":174,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hauer, Mareike","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Hauer","norm_person":{"id":174,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Hauer","full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on Predication","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on Predication"},"abstract":"This paper deals with Simplicius\u2019 discussion of Aristotle\u2019s account of predication in his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories. Of particular interest is the relation between synonymous predication and essential predication. In Aristotle, as well as in Simplicius, both kinds of predication are closely connected. It has been argued in Aristotelian scholarship that, for Aristotle, synonymous predication yields essential predication. It has been equally argued that this assumption is compatible with Aristotle\u2019s theoretical framework, but if applied to Plato, would pose a problem for Plato. Simplicius\u2019 extensive discussion of both synonymous predication and essential predication suggests that he was aware of the deeper problem raised by the assumption that synonymous predication yields essential predication. In this paper, I will argue that Simplicius, by means of an original interpretation of the predicate, not only turns the assumption that synonymous predication yields essential predication into a supposition that is less problematic for Plato, but also creates a framework for a possible harmonization of Plato and Aristotle. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8YoeRxX8j2IaSIZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":174,"full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":407,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue de Philosophie Ancienne","volume":"33","issue":"2","pages":"173-200"}},"sort":[2015]}
| Title | On Simplicius’ Life and Works: A Response to Hadot |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2015 |
| Journal | Aestimatio |
| Volume | 12 |
| Pages | 56-82 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This text is a response to Ilsetraut Hadot's book, "Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contem¬poraines. Un bilan critique," which provides a critical overview of scholarly research on the Neoplatonist Simplicius. The author critiques Hadot's approach, arguing that her use of the Neoplatonic curriculum and medieval testimonies is an unsafe guide for assessing Simplicius' life and works. The article concludes by thanking Hadot for her previous work on Simplicius and acknowledging the value of her contributions to the field. [introduction/conclusion] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/taxGjWx0J8xhRkr |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1322","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1322,"authors_free":[{"id":1956,"entry_id":1322,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"On Simplicius\u2019 Life and Works: A Response to Hadot","main_title":{"title":"On Simplicius\u2019 Life and Works: A Response to Hadot"},"abstract":"This text is a response to Ilsetraut Hadot's book, \"Le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des recherches contem\u00acporaines. Un bilan critique,\" which provides a critical overview of scholarly research on the Neoplatonist Simplicius. The author critiques Hadot's approach, arguing that her use of the Neoplatonic curriculum and medieval testimonies is an unsafe guide for assessing Simplicius' life and works. The article concludes by thanking Hadot for her previous work on Simplicius and acknowledging the value of her contributions to the field. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/taxGjWx0J8xhRkr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1322,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Aestimatio","volume":"12","issue":"","pages":"56-82"}},"sort":[2015]}
| Title | Review of: I. Hadot, Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contemporaines |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2015 |
| Journal | Studia graeco-arabica |
| Volume | 5 |
| Pages | 385-388 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Chemi, Germana |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The book reviewed in this text is I. Hadot's "Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contemporaines. Un bilan critique", which presents a comprehensive evaluation of contemporary research on the life and work of the Neoplatonist philosopher Simplicius, as well as his reception in the Arab world. The book consists of three sections that respectively cover Simplicius's biography, his preserved works, and his lost works. The volume offers a rich panorama of Simplicius's studies and analyzes them to provide a complete status quaestionis on the author. The book, however, does not consider two crucial works of Simplicius: the commentaries on Physics and De Caelo, which limits its usefulness. The presentation of Simplicius's intellectual biography centers on the hypothesis that he settled in the city of Ḥarrān after leaving the court of the king Chosroes I, which the author supports with some evidence but does not provide any new conclusive arguments. [introduction/conclusion] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dB50Tmjq5TVAe1v |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1310","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1310,"authors_free":[{"id":1936,"entry_id":1310,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":99,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chemi, Germana","free_first_name":"Germana","free_last_name":"Chemi","norm_person":{"id":99,"first_name":"Germana","last_name":"Chemi","full_name":"Chemi, Germana","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of: I. Hadot, Le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des recherches contemporaines","main_title":{"title":"Review of: I. Hadot, Le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des recherches contemporaines"},"abstract":"The book reviewed in this text is I. Hadot's \"Le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des recherches contemporaines. Un bilan critique\", which presents a comprehensive evaluation of contemporary research on the life and work of the Neoplatonist philosopher Simplicius, as well as his reception in the Arab world. The book consists of three sections that respectively cover Simplicius's biography, his preserved works, and his lost works. The volume offers a rich panorama of Simplicius's studies and analyzes them to provide a complete status quaestionis on the author. The book, however, does not consider two crucial works of Simplicius: the commentaries on Physics and De Caelo, which limits its usefulness. The presentation of Simplicius's intellectual biography centers on the hypothesis that he settled in the city of \u1e24arr\u0101n after leaving the court of the king Chosroes I, which the author supports with some evidence but does not provide any new conclusive arguments. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dB50Tmjq5TVAe1v","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":99,"full_name":"Chemi, Germana","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1310,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studia graeco-arabica","volume":"5","issue":"","pages":"385-388"}},"sort":[2015]}
| Title | Review of Steel 2013: 'Simplicius’: On Aristotle On the Soul 3.6–13 |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2014 |
| Journal | The Classical Review |
| Volume | 64 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 436-437 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Van Dusen, David |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/OyKRZAvTUAa6dAC |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1504","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1504,"authors_free":[{"id":2614,"entry_id":1504,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":74,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Van Dusen, David","free_first_name":"David","free_last_name":"Van Dusen","norm_person":{"id":74,"first_name":"David ","last_name":"Van Dusen","full_name":"Van Dusen, David ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1066385637","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Steel 2013: 'Simplicius\u2019: On Aristotle On the Soul 3.6\u201313","main_title":{"title":"Review of Steel 2013: 'Simplicius\u2019: On Aristotle On the Soul 3.6\u201313"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OyKRZAvTUAa6dAC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":74,"full_name":"Van Dusen, David ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1504,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Review","volume":"64","issue":"2","pages":"436-437"}},"sort":[2014]}
| Title | Categories and Subcategories |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2014 |
| Journal | Anuario Filosófico |
| Volume | 47 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 395-411 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Tegtmeier, Erwin |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Starting from the traditional distinction between the minimal and the maximal division, the role of subcategories in Aristotle, as well as that of the highest categories, is discussed. The need for categorial properties which determine categories is pointed out. It is argued that an existent cannot have two such essential properties and that only the lowest subcategories have simple categorial properties. Furthermore, it is emphasised that categories and subcategories must form a tree because they belong to a theory of categories which requires unity. By contrast, it is held that the hierarchy of all concepts need not form a tree. The difficulties Porphyrius and Simplicius find in Aristotle’s minimal and maximal division are analysed. Finally, Aristotle’s way of avoiding categorial properties by referring to an abstraction is criticised. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vWZgrRFbI06woKZ |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"471","_score":null,"_source":{"id":471,"authors_free":[{"id":636,"entry_id":471,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":332,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tegtmeier, Erwin","free_first_name":"Erwin","free_last_name":"Tegtmeier","norm_person":{"id":332,"first_name":"Erwin","last_name":"Tegtmeier","full_name":"Tegtmeier, Erwin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172413745","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Categories and Subcategories","main_title":{"title":"Categories and Subcategories"},"abstract":"Starting from the traditional distinction between the minimal and the maximal division, the role of subcategories in Aristotle, as well as that of the highest categories, is discussed. The need for categorial properties which determine categories is pointed out. It is argued that an existent cannot have two such essential properties and that only the lowest subcategories have simple categorial properties. Furthermore, it is emphasised that categories and subcategories must form a tree because they belong to a theory of categories which requires unity. By contrast, it is held that the hierarchy of all concepts need not form a tree. The difficulties Porphyrius and Simplicius find in Aristotle\u2019s minimal and maximal division are analysed. Finally, Aristotle\u2019s way of avoiding categorial properties by referring to an abstraction is criticised. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vWZgrRFbI06woKZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":332,"full_name":"Tegtmeier, Erwin","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":471,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Anuario Filos\u00f3fico","volume":"47","issue":"2","pages":"395-411"}},"sort":[2014]}
| Title | Copernicus's Doctrine of Gravity and the Natural Circular Motion of the Elements |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2005 |
| Journal | Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes |
| Volume | 68 |
| Pages | 157-211 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Knox, Dilwyn |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
[Conclusion, pp. 210 f.]: The greatest debt [...] that Copernicus the cosmologist owed was not to Renaissance Platonism or a revamped Aristotelianism. It was rather to the variety of ancient learning promoted by Renaissance humanists during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. To them he owed., that is, not just the wherewithal and encouragement to consult a much wider library of classical authors than his scholastic predecessors were wont to do but also the intellectual flexibility to regard his sources as no more than that - sources for ideas rather than authorities. In this Copernicus was typical of many sixteenth- and seventeenth-century 'scientific' thinkers, Galileo included.282 But Renaissance humanism left its mark in another important respect. Copernicus set himself the task of learning Greek, and this provided him, if the evidence above is to be trusted, with one of his most important cosmological doctrines. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/m7VrHz0WRSJ9NtK |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"736","_score":null,"_source":{"id":736,"authors_free":[{"id":1099,"entry_id":736,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":217,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Knox, Dilwyn","free_first_name":"Dilwyn","free_last_name":"Knox","norm_person":{"id":217,"first_name":"Dilwyn","last_name":"Knox","full_name":"Knox, Dilwyn","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1048420108","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Copernicus's Doctrine of Gravity and the Natural Circular Motion of the Elements","main_title":{"title":"Copernicus's Doctrine of Gravity and the Natural Circular Motion of the Elements"},"abstract":"[Conclusion, pp. 210 f.]: The greatest debt [...] that Copernicus the cosmologist owed was not to Renaissance Platonism or a \r\nrevamped Aristotelianism. It was rather to the variety of ancient learning \r\npromoted by Renaissance humanists during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. \r\nTo them he owed., that is, not just the wherewithal and encouragement to consult \r\na much wider library of classical authors than his scholastic predecessors were \r\nwont to do but also the intellectual flexibility to regard his sources as no more \r\nthan that - sources for ideas rather than authorities. In this Copernicus was \r\ntypical of many sixteenth- and seventeenth-century 'scientific' thinkers, Galileo \r\nincluded.282 But Renaissance humanism left its mark in another important \r\nrespect. Copernicus set himself the task of learning Greek, and this provided \r\nhim, if the evidence above is to be trusted, with one of his most important \r\ncosmological doctrines.","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/m7VrHz0WRSJ9NtK","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":217,"full_name":"Knox, Dilwyn","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":736,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes","volume":"68","issue":"","pages":"157-211"}},"sort":["Copernicus's Doctrine of Gravity and the Natural Circular Motion of the Elements"]}
| Title | Cosmología, cosmogonía y teogonía en el poema de Parménides |
| Type | Article |
| Language | Spanish |
| Date | 2010 |
| Journal | Emerita: Revista de Lingüística y Filología Clasíca |
| Volume | 78 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 275-297 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Bredlow, Luis-Andrés |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
The aim of this paper is to offer a fresh reconstruction of Parmenides’ system of the physical world, duly distinguishing the cosmological, cosmogonic and theogonic moments of the theory, whose confusion has been a main source of misunderstanding in earlier interpretations. In particular, the system of wreaths or bands of B 12 and A 37 does not represent the present order of the universe, but the general structure of matter, as well as the initial stage of the cosmogony (section 1), as can be substantiated also from Simplicius’ reading of the fragments (section 2). This distinction will allow a tentative reconstruction of Parmenides’ cosmogony (section 3) and cosmology, whose most striking feature is the position of the fixed stars below the sun and the moon, paralleled in Anaximander and – as I will try to show – in the cosmology of the orphic Derveni Papyrus (section 4). |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/J4r7agyESQzvlQk |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1071","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1071,"authors_free":[{"id":1625,"entry_id":1071,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":17,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bredlow, Luis-Andr\u00e9s ","free_first_name":"Luis-Andr\u00e9s ","free_last_name":"Bredlow","norm_person":{"id":17,"first_name":"Luis-Andr\u00e9s ","last_name":"Bredlow","full_name":"Bredlow, Luis-Andr\u00e9s ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129940305","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Cosmolog\u00eda, cosmogon\u00eda y teogon\u00eda en el poema de Parm\u00e9nides","main_title":{"title":"Cosmolog\u00eda, cosmogon\u00eda y teogon\u00eda en el poema de Parm\u00e9nides"},"abstract":"The aim of this paper is to offer a fresh reconstruction of Parmenides\u2019 system of the physical world, duly distinguishing the cosmological, cosmogonic and theogonic moments of the theory, whose confusion has been a main source of misunderstanding in earlier interpretations. In particular, the system of wreaths or bands of B 12 and A 37 does not represent the present order of the universe, but the general structure of matter, as well as the initial stage of the cosmogony (section 1), as can be substantiated also from Simplicius\u2019 reading of the fragments (section 2). This distinction will allow a tentative reconstruction of Parmenides\u2019 cosmogony (section 3) and cosmology, whose most striking feature is the position of the fixed stars below the sun and the moon, paralleled in Anaximander and \u2013 as I will try to show \u2013 in the cosmology of the orphic Derveni Papyrus (section 4).","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"Spanish","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/J4r7agyESQzvlQk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":17,"full_name":"Bredlow, Luis-Andr\u00e9s ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1071,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Emerita: Revista de Ling\u00fc\u00edstica y Filolog\u00eda Clas\u00edca","volume":"78","issue":"2","pages":"275-297"}},"sort":["Cosmolog\u00eda, cosmogon\u00eda y teogon\u00eda en el poema de Parm\u00e9nides"]}
| Title | Der philosophische Unterrichtsbetrieb in der römischen Kaiserzeit |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 2003 |
| Journal | Rhein. Museum |
| Volume | 146 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 49–71 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Der Text beschreibt den Zustand des philosophischen Unterrichts während der römischen Kaiserzeit. Obwohl die bekannten Philosophenschulen in Athen nicht mehr existierten, hatten die vier philosophischen Richtungen des Hellenismus dennoch Verbreitung gefunden und wurden in privaten Schulen unterrichtet. Diese Schulen waren jedoch meist kurzlebig und hingen vom Erfolg des Lehrers ab. Philosophie wurde an den griechischen Gymnasien nicht gelehrt, stattdessen konzentrierte man sich auf Grammatik und Rhetorik. Im lateinischen Bereich führten enge Beziehungen führender Römer zu stoischen Philosophen zur Verbreitung der Lehren. Der Philosophieunterricht begann meist erst nach der Pubertät, und das Alter spielte eine wichtige Rolle bei der Seelenleitung. Das Greisenalter wurde als optimal angesehen, da der körperliche Verfall der freien Betätigung des Geistes entgegenkomme. Das Bild des philosophischen Unterrichtsbetriebes in der Kaiserzeit war somit sehr komplex. [introduction/conclusion] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RLCCEw58cd74kRF |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1334","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1334,"authors_free":[{"id":1967,"entry_id":1334,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Der philosophische Unterrichtsbetrieb in der r\u00f6mischen Kaiserzeit","main_title":{"title":"Der philosophische Unterrichtsbetrieb in der r\u00f6mischen Kaiserzeit"},"abstract":"Der Text beschreibt den Zustand des philosophischen Unterrichts w\u00e4hrend der r\u00f6mischen Kaiserzeit. Obwohl die bekannten Philosophenschulen in Athen nicht mehr existierten, hatten die vier philosophischen Richtungen des Hellenismus dennoch Verbreitung gefunden und wurden in privaten Schulen unterrichtet. Diese Schulen waren jedoch meist kurzlebig und hingen vom Erfolg des Lehrers ab. Philosophie wurde an den griechischen Gymnasien nicht gelehrt, stattdessen konzentrierte man sich auf Grammatik und Rhetorik. Im lateinischen Bereich f\u00fchrten enge Beziehungen f\u00fchrender R\u00f6mer zu stoischen Philosophen zur Verbreitung der Lehren. Der Philosophieunterricht begann meist erst nach der Pubert\u00e4t, und das Alter spielte eine wichtige Rolle bei der Seelenleitung. Das Greisenalter wurde als optimal angesehen, da der k\u00f6rperliche Verfall der freien Bet\u00e4tigung des Geistes entgegenkomme. Das Bild des philosophischen Unterrichtsbetriebes in der Kaiserzeit war somit sehr komplex. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"2003","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RLCCEw58cd74kRF","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1334,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rhein. Museum","volume":"146","issue":"1","pages":"49\u201371"}},"sort":["Der philosophische Unterrichtsbetrieb in der r\u00f6mischen Kaiserzeit"]}
| Title | Did Plotinus and Porphyry Disagree on Aristotle's "Categories"? |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2001 |
| Journal | Phronesis |
| Volume | 46 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 492-526 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Haas, Frans A. J. de |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
In this paper I propose a reading of Plotinus Enneads VI.1-3 [41-43] On the genera of being which regards this treatise as a coherent whole in which Aristotle's Categories is explored in a way that turns it into a decisive contribution to Plotinus' Platonic ontology. In addition, I claim that Porphyry's Isagoge and commentaries on the Categories start by adopting Plotinus' point of view, including his notion of genus, and proceed by explaining its consequences for a more detailed reading of the Categories. After Plotinus' integration of the Categories into the Platonic frame of thought Porphyry saw the possibilities of exploiting the Peripatetic tradition both as a means to support the Platonic interpretation of the Categories and as a source for solutions to traditional questions. His allegiance to a division of being into ten, and his emphasis on semantics rather than ontology can be explained from this orientation. In the light of our investigation the alleged disagreement between Plotinus and Porphyry on the Categories changes its appearance completely. There are differences, but these can be best explained as confirmation and extension of Plotinus' perspective on the Categories and its role in Platonism. [Author’s abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/uTdcmhuVRdiP9Lq |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"762","_score":null,"_source":{"id":762,"authors_free":[{"id":1127,"entry_id":762,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":153,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Haas, Frans A. J. de","free_first_name":"Frans A. J.","free_last_name":"Haas, de","norm_person":{"id":153,"first_name":"Frans A. J.","last_name":"de Haas","full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/128837020","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Did Plotinus and Porphyry Disagree on Aristotle's \"Categories\"?","main_title":{"title":"Did Plotinus and Porphyry Disagree on Aristotle's \"Categories\"?"},"abstract":"In this paper I propose a reading of Plotinus Enneads VI.1-3 [41-43] On the genera of being which regards this treatise as a coherent whole in which Aristotle's Categories is explored in a way that turns it into a decisive contribution to Plotinus' Platonic ontology. In addition, I claim that Porphyry's Isagoge and commentaries on the Categories start by adopting Plotinus' point of view, including his notion of genus, and proceed by explaining its consequences for a more detailed reading of the Categories. After Plotinus' integration of the Categories into the Platonic frame of thought Porphyry saw the possibilities of exploiting the Peripatetic tradition both as a means to support the Platonic interpretation of the Categories and as a source for solutions to traditional questions. His allegiance to a division of being into ten, and his emphasis on semantics rather than ontology can be explained from this orientation. In the light of our investigation the alleged disagreement between Plotinus and Porphyry on the Categories changes its appearance completely. There are differences, but these can be best explained as confirmation and extension of Plotinus' perspective on the Categories and its role in Platonism. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2001","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/uTdcmhuVRdiP9Lq","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":153,"full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":762,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"46","issue":"4","pages":"492-526"}},"sort":["Did Plotinus and Porphyry Disagree on Aristotle's \"Categories\"?"]}
| Title | Did Theophrastus Reject Aristotle's Account of Place? |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2010 |
| Journal | Phronesis |
| Volume | 55 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 68-103 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Morison, Benjamin |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
It is commonly held that Theophrastus criticized or rejected Aristotle's account of place. The evidence that scholars put forward for this view, from Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Physics, comes in two parts: (1) Simplicius reports some aporiai that Theophras tus found for Aristotle's account; (2) Simplicius cites a passage of Theophrastus which is said to 'bear witness' to the theory of place which Simplicius himself adopts (that of his teacher Damascius) - a theory which is utterly different from Aristotle's. But the aporiai have relatively straightforward solutions, and we have no reason to suppose that Theophras tus didn't avail himself of them (and some reason to think that he did). Moreover, the text which Simplicius cites as bearing witness to Damascius' view on closer inspection does not seem to be inconsistent with Aristotle's account of place or natural motion. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/XyN4FMax5gOu9BV |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"954","_score":null,"_source":{"id":954,"authors_free":[{"id":1433,"entry_id":954,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":265,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Morison, Benjamin","free_first_name":"Benjamin","free_last_name":"Morison","norm_person":{"id":265,"first_name":"Benjamin","last_name":"Morison","full_name":"Morison, Benjamin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1221826255","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Did Theophrastus Reject Aristotle's Account of Place?","main_title":{"title":"Did Theophrastus Reject Aristotle's Account of Place?"},"abstract":"It is commonly held that Theophrastus criticized or rejected Aristotle's account of place. The evidence that scholars put forward for this view, from Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Physics, comes in two parts: (1) Simplicius reports some aporiai that Theophras tus found for Aristotle's account; (2) Simplicius cites a passage of Theophrastus which is said to 'bear witness' to the theory of place which Simplicius himself adopts (that of his teacher Damascius) - a theory which is utterly different from Aristotle's. But the aporiai have relatively straightforward solutions, and we have no reason to suppose that Theophras tus didn't avail himself of them (and some reason to think that he did). Moreover, the text which Simplicius cites as bearing witness to Damascius' view on closer inspection does not seem to be inconsistent with Aristotle's account of place or natural motion. ","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XyN4FMax5gOu9BV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":265,"full_name":"Morison, Benjamin","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":954,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"55","issue":"1","pages":"68-103"}},"sort":["Did Theophrastus Reject Aristotle's Account of Place?"]}
| Title | Die philosophischen Kommentare aus der Antike. Ein Überblick mit ausgewählten Literaturangaben |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 2007 |
| Journal | Allgemeine Zeitschrift für Philosophie |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 51-79 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Perkams, Matthias |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Überblick mit Bibliographie |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rfYBn6zAGQkEsZ9 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1085","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1085,"authors_free":[{"id":1641,"entry_id":1085,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":283,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Perkams, Matthias","free_first_name":"Matthias","free_last_name":"Perkams","norm_person":{"id":283,"first_name":"Matthias","last_name":"Perkams","full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123439760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die philosophischen Kommentare aus der Antike. Ein \u00dcberblick mit ausgew\u00e4hlten Literaturangaben","main_title":{"title":"Die philosophischen Kommentare aus der Antike. Ein \u00dcberblick mit ausgew\u00e4hlten Literaturangaben"},"abstract":"\u00dcberblick mit Bibliographie","btype":3,"date":"2007","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rfYBn6zAGQkEsZ9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1085,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Allgemeine Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Philosophie","volume":"32","issue":"1","pages":"51-79"}},"sort":["Die philosophischen Kommentare aus der Antike. Ein \u00dcberblick mit ausgew\u00e4hlten Literaturangaben"]}
| 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] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AiYh4J18MnRsxtC |
{"_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":["Discussions on the Eternity of the world in Late Antiquity"]}
| Title | Doctrine, Anecdote, and Action: Reconsidering the Social History of the Last Platonists (c. 430–c. 550 C.E.) |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2011 |
| Journal | Classical Philology |
| Volume | 106 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 226-244 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Watts, Edward Jay |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/sBhIJYzPfVSw7Bu |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"443","_score":null,"_source":{"id":443,"authors_free":[{"id":595,"entry_id":443,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":357,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Watts, Edward Jay","free_first_name":"Edward Jay","free_last_name":"Watts","norm_person":{"id":357,"first_name":"Edward Jay","last_name":"Watts","full_name":"Watts, Edward Jay","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131826530","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Doctrine, Anecdote, and Action: Reconsidering the Social History of the Last Platonists (c. 430\u2013c. 550 C.E.)","main_title":{"title":"Doctrine, Anecdote, and Action: Reconsidering the Social History of the Last Platonists (c. 430\u2013c. 550 C.E.)"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/sBhIJYzPfVSw7Bu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":357,"full_name":"Watts, Edward Jay","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":443,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Classical Philology","volume":"106","issue":"3","pages":"226-244"}},"sort":["Doctrine, Anecdote, and Action: Reconsidering the Social History of the Last Platonists (c. 430\u2013c. 550 C.E.)"]}
| Title | Doppelte Entelecheia: Das Menschenbild in “Simplikios”’ Kommentar zu Aristoteles’ De anima |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 2003 |
| Journal | Elenchos |
| Volume | 24 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 57-91 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Perkams, Matthias |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Einen Versuch zur systematischen Fruchtbarmachung des aristotelischen Konzeptes der entelecheia in einer neuplatomschen Seelenlehre liefert der Kommentar zu De anima, der uns unter dem Namen des Simplikios überliefert ist. Ich möchte im Folgenden zeigen, dass der Kommentator bemüht ist, den entelecheia- Begriff in seiner systematischen Tragweite aufzunehmen und ihn auf eine Weise fruchtbar zu machen, die über eine einfache Zurückweisung des Konzeptes von Alexander von Aphrodisias, wie man sie beim zweifelsohne echten Simplikios findet, hinaus geht. [Introduction, p. 61] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/umN6jre03GJLtAJ |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1087","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1087,"authors_free":[{"id":1643,"entry_id":1087,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":283,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Perkams, Matthias","free_first_name":"Matthias","free_last_name":"Perkams","norm_person":{"id":283,"first_name":"Matthias","last_name":"Perkams","full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123439760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Doppelte Entelecheia: Das Menschen\u00adbild in \u201cSimplikios\u201d\u2019 Kommentar zu Aristoteles\u2019 De anima","main_title":{"title":"Doppelte Entelecheia: Das Menschen\u00adbild in \u201cSimplikios\u201d\u2019 Kommentar zu Aristoteles\u2019 De anima"},"abstract":"Einen Versuch zur systematischen Fruchtbarmachung des aristotelischen Konzeptes der entelecheia in einer neuplatomschen Seelenlehre liefert der Kommentar zu De anima, der uns unter dem Namen des Simplikios \u00fcberliefert ist. Ich m\u00f6chte im Fol\u00adgenden zeigen, dass der Kommentator bem\u00fcht ist, den entelecheia- \r\nBegriff in seiner systematischen Tragweite aufzunehmen und ihn auf eine Weise fruchtbar zu machen, die \u00fcber eine einfache Zur\u00fcckwei\u00adsung des Konzeptes von Alexander von Aphrodisias, wie man sie beim zweifelsohne echten Simplikios findet, hinaus geht. [Introduction, p. 61]","btype":3,"date":"2003","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/umN6jre03GJLtAJ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1087,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Elenchos","volume":"24","issue":"1","pages":"57-91"}},"sort":["Doppelte Entelecheia: Das Menschen\u00adbild in \u201cSimplikios\u201d\u2019 Kommentar zu Aristoteles\u2019 De anima"]}
| Title | Einige Corollarien des Simplicius in seinem Commentar zu Aristoteles’ Physik (ed. Diels). I. p. 1129–1152 (contra Philoponum) |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 2009 |
| Journal | Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie |
| Volume | 15 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 186–213 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Zahlfleisch, Johann |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Der vorliegende Text behandelt einige Corollarien von Simplicius in seinem Kommentar zu Aristoteles' Physik, wobei er sich insbesondere mit Philoponus' Einwänden auseinandersetzt. Die Diskussion dreht sich um die Definition der Bewegung bei Aristoteles und die Frage nach ewigen und begrenzten Bewegungen. Philoponus hinterfragt, wie begrenzte Bewegung als Folge einer ewigen Bewegung angesehen werden kann, da die Potenz immer bestehe und eine Bedingung für die Bewegung sei. Simplicius argumentiert, dass die Potenz und Bewegung untrennbar verbunden sind und dass es keine ewige Bewegung geben könne. Er erläutert Aristoteles' Position und verteidigt sie gegen Philoponus' Einwände. Die Diskussion umfasst Themen wie die Rolle der Potenz in der Bewegung, die Anwendung der Begriffsdefinition auf verschiedene Sachverhalte und die Frage nach einem obersten Beweger. Am Ende wird betont, dass selbst bei einer Ablehnung des Aristotelischen Axioms von der Bewegung die Annahme eines ewigen obersten Bewegers bestehen bleibt. [introduction] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/pDLxkreRioxOsZ4 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1548","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1548,"authors_free":[{"id":2705,"entry_id":1548,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Zahlfleisch, Johann","free_first_name":"Johann","free_last_name":"Zahlfleisch","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Einige Corollarien des Simplicius in seinem Commentar zu Aristoteles\u2019 Physik (ed. Diels). I. p. 1129\u20131152 (contra Philoponum)","main_title":{"title":"Einige Corollarien des Simplicius in seinem Commentar zu Aristoteles\u2019 Physik (ed. Diels). I. p. 1129\u20131152 (contra Philoponum)"},"abstract":"Der vorliegende Text behandelt einige Corollarien von Simplicius in seinem Kommentar zu Aristoteles' Physik, wobei er sich insbesondere mit Philoponus' Einw\u00e4nden auseinandersetzt. Die Diskussion dreht sich um die Definition der Bewegung bei Aristoteles und die Frage nach ewigen und begrenzten Bewegungen. Philoponus hinterfragt, wie begrenzte Bewegung als Folge einer ewigen Bewegung angesehen werden kann, da die Potenz immer bestehe und eine Bedingung f\u00fcr die Bewegung sei. Simplicius argumentiert, dass die Potenz und Bewegung untrennbar verbunden sind und dass es keine ewige Bewegung geben k\u00f6nne. Er erl\u00e4utert Aristoteles' Position und verteidigt sie gegen Philoponus' Einw\u00e4nde. Die Diskussion umfasst Themen wie die Rolle der Potenz in der Bewegung, die Anwendung der Begriffsdefinition auf verschiedene Sachverhalte und die Frage nach einem obersten Beweger. Am Ende wird betont, dass selbst bei einer Ablehnung des Aristotelischen Axioms von der Bewegung die Annahme eines ewigen obersten Bewegers bestehen bleibt. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"2009","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/pDLxkreRioxOsZ4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1548,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archiv f\u00fcr Geschichte der Philosophie","volume":"15","issue":"2","pages":"186\u2013213"}},"sort":["Einige Corollarien des Simplicius in seinem Commentar zu Aristoteles\u2019 Physik (ed. Diels). I. p. 1129\u20131152 (contra Philoponum)"]}