| 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":[2011]}
| 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] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/NUEoM1d6g4gWxsi |
{"_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]}
| Title | Confronter les Idées. Un exemple de conciliation litigieuse chez Simplicius |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2011 |
| Journal | Études platoniciennes |
| Volume | 8 |
| Pages | 145-160 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gavray, Marc-Antoine |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| La conciliation des doctrines au cœur de l'exégèse d'Aristote suit un parcours précis. Dans un premier temps, Simplicius propose une lecture littérale de la Physique, expliquant chacun des arguments contenus dans le lemme. Toutefois, de façon surprenante pour nous, il souligne une tournure qui va lui permettre de retourner la position d'Aristote contre elle-même : en faire non plus un adversaire de la théorie des Idées séparées, mais l'auteur d'un critère de validité de la séparation. Dans un deuxième temps, notre exégète s'emploie à montrer la teneur authentiquement aristotélicienne de cette doctrine des Idées séparées. Il isole d'abord les caractères reconnus aux Idées, avant de démontrer qu'ils sont admis au sein même de la pensée d'Aristote. De plus, étant donné que l'enjeu de la tentative de conciliation consiste à trouver chez Aristote la double caractérisation des Idées que leur attribuent leurs partisans - être à la fois des causes et des modèles semblables pour les réalités naturelles -, il répertorie les passages du corpus aristotelicum qui abondent dans ce sens, les combine et insère des éléments provenant de la tradition néoplatonicienne. Enfin, il utilise la critique pour poser une limite claire au sein de la nature entre les réalités qui admettent des Formes séparées et celles qui n'en admettent pas. Comme souvent chez Simplicius, l'examen aboutit à l'énoncé d'un critère net et précis. Il doit permettre ici de démarquer l'homonymie vulgaire des Idées de l'éponymie légitime. La première résulte d'un dépouillement de la forme en dehors de la matière, mais qui continue à raisonner à partir d'ici-bas : elle cherche des Idées séparées pour des formes naturelles qui ne peuvent jamais être complètement abstraites de la matière à laquelle elles sont liées. La seconde reconnaît que certains noms sont propres aux composés ici-bas et, par conséquent, ne correspondent à aucune réalité là-bas. En revanche, elle pose des Idées, à la fois causes et modèles des composés ici-bas, qui possèdent une subsistance séparée. [conclusion, p. 160] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/b3rxLEWeKXAayJM |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1313","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1313,"authors_free":[{"id":1947,"entry_id":1313,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","free_first_name":"Marc-Antoine","free_last_name":"Gavray","norm_person":{"id":125,"first_name":"Marc-Antoine","last_name":"Gavray","full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078511411","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Confronter les Id\u00e9es. Un exemple de conciliation litigieuse chez Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Confronter les Id\u00e9es. Un exemple de conciliation litigieuse chez Simplicius"},"abstract":"La conciliation des doctrines au c\u0153ur de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se d'Aristote suit un parcours pr\u00e9cis. Dans un premier temps, Simplicius propose une lecture litt\u00e9rale de la Physique, expliquant chacun des arguments contenus dans le lemme. Toutefois, de fa\u00e7on surprenante pour nous, il souligne une tournure qui va lui permettre de retourner la position d'Aristote contre elle-m\u00eame : en faire non plus un adversaire de la th\u00e9orie des Id\u00e9es s\u00e9par\u00e9es, mais l'auteur d'un crit\u00e8re de validit\u00e9 de la s\u00e9paration.\r\nDans un deuxi\u00e8me temps, notre ex\u00e9g\u00e8te s'emploie \u00e0 montrer la teneur authentiquement aristot\u00e9licienne de cette doctrine des Id\u00e9es s\u00e9par\u00e9es. Il isole d'abord les caract\u00e8res reconnus aux Id\u00e9es, avant de d\u00e9montrer qu'ils sont admis au sein m\u00eame de la pens\u00e9e d'Aristote. De plus, \u00e9tant donn\u00e9 que l'enjeu de la tentative de conciliation consiste \u00e0 trouver chez Aristote la double caract\u00e9risation des Id\u00e9es que leur attribuent leurs partisans - \u00eatre \u00e0 la fois des causes et des mod\u00e8les semblables pour les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s naturelles -, il r\u00e9pertorie les passages du corpus aristotelicum qui abondent dans ce sens, les combine et ins\u00e8re des \u00e9l\u00e9ments provenant de la tradition n\u00e9oplatonicienne. Enfin, il utilise la critique pour poser une limite claire au sein de la nature entre les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s qui admettent des Formes s\u00e9par\u00e9es et celles qui n'en admettent pas.\r\nComme souvent chez Simplicius, l'examen aboutit \u00e0 l'\u00e9nonc\u00e9 d'un crit\u00e8re net et pr\u00e9cis. Il doit permettre ici de d\u00e9marquer l'homonymie vulgaire des Id\u00e9es de l'\u00e9ponymie l\u00e9gitime. La premi\u00e8re r\u00e9sulte d'un d\u00e9pouillement de la forme en dehors de la mati\u00e8re, mais qui continue \u00e0 raisonner \u00e0 partir d'ici-bas : elle cherche des Id\u00e9es s\u00e9par\u00e9es pour des formes naturelles qui ne peuvent jamais \u00eatre compl\u00e8tement abstraites de la mati\u00e8re \u00e0 laquelle elles sont li\u00e9es. La seconde reconna\u00eet que certains noms sont propres aux compos\u00e9s ici-bas et, par cons\u00e9quent, ne correspondent \u00e0 aucune r\u00e9alit\u00e9 l\u00e0-bas. En revanche, elle pose des Id\u00e9es, \u00e0 la fois causes et mod\u00e8les des compos\u00e9s ici-bas, qui poss\u00e8dent une subsistance s\u00e9par\u00e9e. [conclusion, p. 160]\r\n","btype":3,"date":"2011","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/b3rxLEWeKXAayJM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1313,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"\u00c9tudes platoniciennes","volume":"8","issue":"","pages":"145-160"}},"sort":[2011]}
| Title | Review of: Han Baltussen, Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius. The Methodology of a Commentator. London, Duckworth, 2008 |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2010 |
| Journal | Tijdschrift voor Filosofie |
| Volume | 72 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 193 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Janssens, Jules L. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Het lijdt geen twijfel dat Baltussen met zijn Studie baanbrekend werk heeft geleverd. Hij toont op overtuigende wijze aan dat Simplicius meer was dan een 'archivaris'. Hij was daadwerkelijk een 'filosoof met een project. De grote lijnen hiervan worden in dit boek meesterlijk uitgetekend. [conclusion, p. 193] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tcjT26g8SMZmJ0w |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1360","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1360,"authors_free":[{"id":2036,"entry_id":1360,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":205,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Janssens, Jules L.","free_first_name":"Jules L.","free_last_name":"Janssens","norm_person":{"id":205,"first_name":"Jules L.","last_name":"Janssens","full_name":"Janssens, Jules L.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139312471","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of: Han Baltussen, Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius. The Methodology of a Commentator. London, Duckworth, 2008","main_title":{"title":"Review of: Han Baltussen, Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius. The Methodology of a Commentator. London, Duckworth, 2008"},"abstract":"Het lijdt geen twijfel dat Baltussen met zijn Studie baanbrekend werk heeft geleverd. Hij toont op overtuigende wijze aan dat Simplicius meer was dan een 'archivaris'. Hij was daadwerkelijk een 'filosoof met een project. De grote lijnen hiervan \r\nworden in dit boek meesterlijk uitgetekend. [conclusion, p. 193]","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tcjT26g8SMZmJ0w","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":205,"full_name":"Janssens, Jules L.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1360,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Tijdschrift voor Filosofie","volume":"72","issue":"1","pages":"193"}},"sort":[2010]}
| Title | I "Cadaveri" di Eraclito (Fr. 96 D.-K.) e la Polemica Neoplatonica di Simplicio |
| Type | Article |
| Language | Italian |
| Date | 2010 |
| Journal | Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica |
| Volume | 96 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 127-137 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Saudelli, Lucia |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This article focuses on an unpublished allusion to Heraclitus' fragment 96 D.-K. After an analytic study of the ancient preserved testimonia, I have presented the evidence of the Neoplatonist Simplicius, who uses Heraclitus' dictum about corpses in his personal polemic against Christianity. Then I have tried to explain the probable original signification of Heraclitus' fragment in comparison with other Presocratic texts and according to the Ionian philosophical and religious background of the 5th century B.C. [Author’s abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/fGML586kM8C7Ufy |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"855","_score":null,"_source":{"id":855,"authors_free":[{"id":1259,"entry_id":855,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":311,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Saudelli, Lucia","free_first_name":"Lucia","free_last_name":"Saudelli","norm_person":{"id":311,"first_name":"Lucia","last_name":"Saudelli","full_name":"Saudelli, Lucia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1047619067","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"I \"Cadaveri\" di Eraclito (Fr. 96 D.-K.) e la Polemica Neoplatonica di Simplicio","main_title":{"title":"I \"Cadaveri\" di Eraclito (Fr. 96 D.-K.) e la Polemica Neoplatonica di Simplicio"},"abstract":"This article focuses on an unpublished allusion to Heraclitus' fragment 96 D.-K. After an analytic study of the ancient preserved testimonia, I have presented the evidence of the Neoplatonist Simplicius, who uses Heraclitus' dictum about corpses in his personal polemic against Christianity. Then I have tried to explain the probable original signification of Heraclitus' fragment in comparison with other Presocratic texts and according to the Ionian philosophical and religious background of the 5th century B.C. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fGML586kM8C7Ufy","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":311,"full_name":"Saudelli, Lucia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":855,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica","volume":"96","issue":"3","pages":"127-137"}},"sort":[2010]}
| 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":[2010]}
| 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":[2010]}
| Title | Simplicius and the Subversion of Authority |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2010 |
| Journal | Antiquorum Philosophial |
| Volume | 3 |
| Pages | 121-136 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Simplicius’ elaborate commentaries, written after 532 c.e., have always stood apart in the post-Plotinian tradition of late Platonism.1 Unlike many philosophical com- mentaries from 300-500 ad (Porphyry, Syrianus, Iamblichus, Proclus, Damascius), they are not notes taken in class ‘from the voice of the teacher’ (apo phônês), they are not short on clear source references, nor are they, on the whole, cavalier in representing oth- er people’s views. Instead, they are very scholarly due to lavish source materials, full of actual quotations, and make use of source referencing. These features illustrate how he aims to be well-documented, responsible and comprehensive in his clarification of Aris- totle’s text. One other peculiarity which has been noted by students of late Platonism (also clarified in my recent study of his methodology),2 is his attempt to counteract the intellectual influence of Christianity and their accusations of disunity among pagans, against which they placed the unified theology of the Trinity: he aims to present the Greek philosophical tradition as unified. [p. 121] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/9To60zNZe4T1kFt |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"966","_score":null,"_source":{"id":966,"authors_free":[{"id":1451,"entry_id":966,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and the Subversion of Authority","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and the Subversion of Authority"},"abstract":"Simplicius\u2019 elaborate commentaries, written after 532 c.e., have always stood apart\r\nin the post-Plotinian tradition of late Platonism.1 Unlike many philosophical com-\r\nmentaries from 300-500 ad (Porphyry, Syrianus, Iamblichus, Proclus, Damascius), they\r\nare not notes taken in class \u2018from the voice of the teacher\u2019 (apo ph\u00f4n\u00eas), they are not\r\nshort on clear source references, nor are they, on the whole, cavalier in representing oth-\r\ner people\u2019s views. Instead, they are very scholarly due to lavish source materials, full of\r\nactual quotations, and make use of source referencing. These features illustrate how he\r\naims to be well-documented, responsible and comprehensive in his clarification of Aris-\r\ntotle\u2019s text. One other peculiarity which has been noted by students of late Platonism\r\n(also clarified in my recent study of his methodology),2 is his attempt to counteract the\r\nintellectual influence of Christianity and their accusations of disunity among pagans,\r\nagainst which they placed the unified theology of the Trinity: he aims to present the\r\nGreek philosophical tradition as unified. [p. 121]","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9To60zNZe4T1kFt","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":966,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Antiquorum Philosophial","volume":"3","issue":"","pages":"121-136"}},"sort":[2010]}
| Title | Review of: Baltussen: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius. The Methodology of a Commentator |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2010 |
| Journal | The Classical World |
| Volume | 104 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 117-118 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Menn, Stephen |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Review of: an Baltussen. Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator. London: Duckworth, 2008. Pp. xii, 292. $80.00. ISBN 978-0-7156-350 |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kyq7dKtLUkqGVRs |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"978","_score":null,"_source":{"id":978,"authors_free":[{"id":1477,"entry_id":978,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":255,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Menn, Stephen","free_first_name":"Stephen","free_last_name":"Menn","norm_person":{"id":255,"first_name":"Stephen","last_name":"Menn","full_name":"Menn, Stephen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/174092768","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of: Baltussen: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius. The Methodology of a Commentator","main_title":{"title":"Review of: Baltussen: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius. The Methodology of a Commentator"},"abstract":"Review of: an Baltussen. Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology \r\nof a Commentator. London: Duckworth, 2008. Pp. xii, 292. $80.00. ISBN \r\n978-0-7156-350","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kyq7dKtLUkqGVRs","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":255,"full_name":"Menn, Stephen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":978,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical World","volume":"104","issue":"1","pages":"117-118"}},"sort":[2010]}
| Title | Parmenides B8.38 and Cornford’s Fragment |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2010 |
| Journal | Ancient Philosophy |
| Volume | 30 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 1-14 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | McKirahan, Richard D. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Notes on Parmenides B8.38 |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/cHUSTdkDuHSltbC |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"989","_score":null,"_source":{"id":989,"authors_free":[{"id":1490,"entry_id":989,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":253,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"McKirahan, Richard D.","free_first_name":"Richard D.","free_last_name":"McKirahan","norm_person":{"id":253,"first_name":"Richard D.","last_name":"McKirahan","full_name":"McKirahan, Richard D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131702254","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parmenides B8.38 and Cornford\u2019s Fragment","main_title":{"title":"Parmenides B8.38 and Cornford\u2019s Fragment"},"abstract":"Notes on Parmenides B8.38","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/cHUSTdkDuHSltbC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":253,"full_name":"McKirahan, Richard D.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":989,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Ancient Philosophy","volume":"30","issue":"1","pages":"1-14"}},"sort":[2010]}
| 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] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/NUEoM1d6g4gWxsi |
{"_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":["OMO\u03a3E X\u03a9\u03a1EIN: Simplicius, Corollarium de loco 601.26\u20138 (Diels)"]}
| 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":["On Simplicius\u2019 Life and Works: A Response to Hadot"]}
| Title | Parmenide neoplatonico: intorno a un nuovo studio sulla presenza di Parmenide nel commento alla Fisica di Simplicio (Book discussion of: Ivan A. Licciardi, Parmenide tràdito, Parmenide tradìto nel commentario di Simplicio alla Fisica di Aristotele (Symbolon 42), Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag, 2016) |
| Type | Article |
| Language | Italian |
| Date | 2017 |
| Journal | Méthexis |
| Volume | 29 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 188-198 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hoine, Pieter d’ |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
The text discusses Simplicius' harmonizing approach towards the philosophical doctrines of Plato and Aristotle, particularly focusing on the famous thesis of the supposed 'symphony' or 'harmony' between the two ancient philosophers. Simplicius is seen as a staunch supporter of this thesis, urging readers not to be misled by apparent disagreements between Plato and Aristotle. Instead, Simplicius encourages readers to look beyond the surface level of their words and uncover the fundamental agreement that lies beneath. The book by Ivan Licciardi delves into Simplicius' approach and shows that his harmonizing attitude is not limited to just Plato and Aristotle but extends to almost the entire pre-Socratic philosophy. This broader perspective stems from Simplicius' desire to defend the profound unity of ancient pagan philosophical traditions, possibly in response to the rise of Christianity. One central focus of the book is Simplicius' extensive treatment of Parmenides in his commentary on Aristotle's Physics. Parmenides is considered a crucial figure in Greek thought, and Simplicius views him as a theoretical milestone in which Plato's philosophy, seeking ultimate truth, is exemplified. Thus, Simplicius interrupts his commentary on Aristotle to discuss Parmenides in detail. Simplicius is not merely a transmitter of Parmenidean thought; rather, he interprets Parmenides to showcase the fundamental unity of the pagan philosophical tradition under the influence of Neoplatonism. The book explores Simplicius as an independent philosopher, historian, and interpreter of Eleatic thought, rather than merely a conduit for transmitting Parmenides' ideas. This approach places Simplicius within the context of late antique Neoplatonism, acknowledging the pivotal role played by late Platonists in shaping the transformation of ancient thought, as it was received by medieval and early modern thinkers. The objective of the book is to comprehensively discuss how Simplicius, in his commentary on Aristotle's Physics, treated Parmenides, examining Simplicius' interpretation and rendering of Parmenides instrumental in demonstrating the fundamental unity of the pagan philosophical tradition, under the auspices of Neoplatonism. In summary, the book offers an in-depth exploration of Simplicius' approach to harmonizing ancient philosophical doctrines, focusing on his interpretation of Parmenides and his broader role in late antique Neoplatonism. By delving into Simplicius' philosophical agenda, the book contributes to the study of late ancient Platonism, shedding light on the transformative period in the history of Western thought. [introduction] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IkP88mCNlmfYiTe |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1484","_score":null,"_ignored":["main_title.title.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1484,"authors_free":[{"id":2569,"entry_id":1484,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":104,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoine, Pieter d\u2019","free_first_name":"Pieter d\u2019","free_last_name":"Hoine","norm_person":{"id":104,"first_name":"Pieter d' ","last_name":"Hoine","full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051361575","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parmenide neoplatonico: intorno a un nuovo studio sulla presenza di Parmenide nel commento alla Fisica di Simplicio (Book discussion of: Ivan A. Licciardi, Parmenide tr\u00e0dito, Parmenide trad\u00ecto nel commentario di Simplicio alla Fisica di Aristotele (Symbolon 42), Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag, 2016)","main_title":{"title":"Parmenide neoplatonico: intorno a un nuovo studio sulla presenza di Parmenide nel commento alla Fisica di Simplicio (Book discussion of: Ivan A. Licciardi, Parmenide tr\u00e0dito, Parmenide trad\u00ecto nel commentario di Simplicio alla Fisica di Aristotele (Symbolon 42), Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag, 2016)"},"abstract":"The text discusses Simplicius' harmonizing approach towards the philosophical doctrines of Plato and Aristotle, particularly focusing on the famous thesis of the supposed 'symphony' or 'harmony' between the two ancient philosophers. Simplicius is seen as a staunch supporter of this thesis, urging readers not to be misled by apparent disagreements between Plato and Aristotle. Instead, Simplicius encourages readers to look beyond the surface level of their words and uncover the fundamental agreement that lies beneath. The book by Ivan Licciardi delves into Simplicius' approach and shows that his harmonizing attitude is not limited to just Plato and Aristotle but extends to almost the entire pre-Socratic philosophy. This broader perspective stems from Simplicius' desire to defend the profound unity of ancient pagan philosophical traditions, possibly in response to the rise of Christianity. One central focus of the book is Simplicius' extensive treatment of Parmenides in his commentary on Aristotle's Physics. Parmenides is considered a crucial figure in Greek thought, and Simplicius views him as a theoretical milestone in which Plato's philosophy, seeking ultimate truth, is exemplified. Thus, Simplicius interrupts his commentary on Aristotle to discuss Parmenides in detail. Simplicius is not merely a transmitter of Parmenidean thought; rather, he interprets Parmenides to showcase the fundamental unity of the pagan philosophical tradition under the influence of Neoplatonism. The book explores Simplicius as an independent philosopher, historian, and interpreter of Eleatic thought, rather than merely a conduit for transmitting Parmenides' ideas. This approach places Simplicius within the context of late antique Neoplatonism, acknowledging the pivotal role played by late Platonists in shaping the transformation of ancient thought, as it was received by medieval and early modern thinkers. The objective of the book is to comprehensively discuss how Simplicius, in his commentary on Aristotle's Physics, treated Parmenides, examining Simplicius' interpretation and rendering of Parmenides instrumental in demonstrating the fundamental unity of the pagan philosophical tradition, under the auspices of Neoplatonism. In summary, the book offers an in-depth exploration of Simplicius' approach to harmonizing ancient philosophical doctrines, focusing on his interpretation of Parmenides and his broader role in late antique Neoplatonism. By delving into Simplicius' philosophical agenda, the book contributes to the study of late ancient Platonism, shedding light on the transformative period in the history of Western thought. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"2017","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IkP88mCNlmfYiTe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":104,"full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1484,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"M\u00e9thexis","volume":"29","issue":"1","pages":"188-198"}},"sort":["Parmenide neoplatonico: intorno a un nuovo studio sulla presenza di Parmenide nel commento alla Fisica di Simplicio (Book discussion of: Ivan A. Licciardi, Parmenide tr\u00e0dito, Parmenide trad\u00ecto nel commentario di Simplicio alla Fisica di Aristotele (Symbolon 42), Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag, 2016)"]}
| Title | Parmenides B8.38 and Cornford’s Fragment |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2010 |
| Journal | Ancient Philosophy |
| Volume | 30 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 1-14 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | McKirahan, Richard D. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Notes on Parmenides B8.38 |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/cHUSTdkDuHSltbC |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"989","_score":null,"_source":{"id":989,"authors_free":[{"id":1490,"entry_id":989,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":253,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"McKirahan, Richard D.","free_first_name":"Richard D.","free_last_name":"McKirahan","norm_person":{"id":253,"first_name":"Richard D.","last_name":"McKirahan","full_name":"McKirahan, Richard D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131702254","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parmenides B8.38 and Cornford\u2019s Fragment","main_title":{"title":"Parmenides B8.38 and Cornford\u2019s Fragment"},"abstract":"Notes on Parmenides B8.38","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/cHUSTdkDuHSltbC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":253,"full_name":"McKirahan, Richard D.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":989,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Ancient Philosophy","volume":"30","issue":"1","pages":"1-14"}},"sort":["Parmenides B8.38 and Cornford\u2019s Fragment"]}
| 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] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kvHyOG29qEMEWKA |
{"_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"]}
| 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] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/TBXrtLsK3iJmR4Z |
{"_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"]}
| Title | Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2018 |
| Journal | Medioevo. Rivista di storia della filosofia medieval |
| Volume | 43 |
| Pages | 13-39 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Chiaradonna, Riccardo |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
This paper focuses on Porphyry’s Isagoge against the wider background of debates about genera and the hierarchy of being in early Neoplatonism from Plotinus to Iamblichus. Three works are considered: Porphyry’s Isagoge, Plotinus tripartite treatise On The Genera of Being (VI, 1-3 [42-44]), Iamblichus’ Reply to Porphyry (the so-called De Mysteriis). In addition to this, the discussion focuses on some passages on genus and predication from Porphyry’s and Iamblichus’ lost commentaries on Aristotle’s Categories preserved in Simplicius. In his account of genus, Porphyry draws on Aristotle and apparently claims that an amended version of the genus/species relation is able to express the hierarchy of different levels of being. This view is different from that of Plotinus, who instead argues that intelligible and sensible beings are homonymous, as well as from that of Iamblichus, who rejects the existence of a common genus above intelligible and sensible beings, while emphasising the analogy subsisting between different levels in the hierarchy. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AcKiNK5NQbSf6nR |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1523","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1523,"authors_free":[{"id":2647,"entry_id":1523,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo","free_first_name":"Riccardo","free_last_name":"Chiaradonna","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism","main_title":{"title":"Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism"},"abstract":"This paper focuses on Porphyry\u2019s Isagoge against the wider background of debates about genera and the hierarchy of being in early Neoplatonism from Plotinus to Iamblichus. Three works are considered: Porphyry\u2019s Isagoge, Plotinus tripartite treatise On The Genera of Being (VI, 1-3 [42-44]), Iamblichus\u2019 Reply to Porphyry (the so-called De Mysteriis). In addition to this, the discussion focuses on some passages on genus and predication from Porphyry\u2019s and\r\nIamblichus\u2019 lost commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s Categories preserved in Simplicius. In his account of genus, Porphyry draws on Aristotle and apparently\r\nclaims that an amended version of the genus\/species relation is able to express the hierarchy of different levels of being. This view is different from that of Plotinus, who instead argues that intelligible and sensible beings are homonymous, as well as from that of Iamblichus, who rejects the existence of a common genus above intelligible and sensible beings, while emphasising the analogy subsisting between different levels in the hierarchy. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AcKiNK5NQbSf6nR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1523,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Medioevo. Rivista di storia della filosofia medieval","volume":"43","issue":"","pages":"13-39"}},"sort":["Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism"]}
| Title | Positioning Heaven: The Infidelity of a Faithful Aristotelian |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2006 |
| Journal | Phronesis |
| Volume | 51 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 140-161 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | McGinnis, Jon |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Aristotle's account of place in terms of an innermost limit of a containing body was to generate serious discussion and controversy among Aristotle's later commentators, especially when it was applied to the cosmos as a whole. The problem was that since there is nothing outside of the cosmos that could contain it, the cosmos apparently could not have a place according to Aristotle's definition; however, if the cosmos does not have a place, then it is not clear that it could move, but it was thought to move, namely, in its daily revolution, which was viewed as a kind of natural locomotion and so required the cosmos to have a place. The study briefly outlines Aristotle's account of place and then considers its fate, particularly with respect to the cosmos and its motion, at the hands of later commentators. To this end, it begins with Theophrastus' puzzles concerning Aristotle's account of place, and how later Greek commentators, such as Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius and others, attempted to address these problems in what can only be described as ad hoc ways. It then considers Philoponus' exploitation of these problems as a means to replace Aristotle's account of place with his own account of place understood in terms of extension. The study concludes with the Arabic Neoplatonizing Aristotelian Avicenna and his novel intro- duction of a new category of motion, namely, motion in the category of position. Briefly, Avicenna denies that the cosmos has a place, and so claims that it moves not with respect to place, but with respect to position. [Author’s abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3eYjGVkKe2HRkaK |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"729","_score":null,"_source":{"id":729,"authors_free":[{"id":1092,"entry_id":729,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":252,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"McGinnis, Jon","free_first_name":"Jon","free_last_name":"McGinnis","norm_person":{"id":252,"first_name":"Jon","last_name":"McGinnis","full_name":"McGinnis, Jon","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/141369248","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Positioning Heaven: The Infidelity of a Faithful Aristotelian","main_title":{"title":"Positioning Heaven: The Infidelity of a Faithful Aristotelian"},"abstract":"Aristotle's account of place in terms of an innermost limit of a containing body was to generate serious discussion and controversy among Aristotle's later commentators, especially when it was applied to the cosmos as a whole. The problem was that since there is nothing outside of the cosmos that could contain it, the cosmos apparently could not have a place according to Aristotle's definition; however, if the cosmos does not have a place, then it is not clear that it could move, but it was thought to move, namely, in its daily revolution, which was viewed as a kind of natural locomotion and so required the cosmos to have a place. The study briefly outlines Aristotle's account of place and then considers its fate, particularly with respect to the cosmos and its motion, at the hands of later commentators. To this end, it begins with Theophrastus' puzzles concerning Aristotle's account of place, and how later Greek commentators, such as Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius and others, attempted to address these problems in what can only be described as ad hoc ways. It then considers Philoponus' exploitation of these problems as a means to replace Aristotle's account of place with his own account of place understood in terms of extension. The study concludes with the Arabic Neoplatonizing Aristotelian Avicenna and his novel intro- duction of a new category of motion, namely, motion in the category of position. Briefly, Avicenna denies that the cosmos has a place, and so claims that it moves not with respect to place, but with respect to position. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3eYjGVkKe2HRkaK","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":252,"full_name":"McGinnis, Jon","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":729,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"51","issue":"2","pages":"140-161"}},"sort":["Positioning Heaven: The Infidelity of a Faithful Aristotelian"]}
| Title | Priscian of Lydia, Commentator on the "de Anima" in the Tradition of Iamblichus |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2005 |
| Journal | Mnemosyne, Fourth Series |
| Volume | 58 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 510-530 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Perkams, Matthias |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
It has been argued that Priscian of Lydia (around 530), to whom the manuscripts ascribe only two short treatises, is the author of an extended com- mentary on the De anima, which is transmitted under the name of Simplicius. Our analysis confirms this: Priscian's Metaphrase of Theophrastus' Physics is the text which the commentator mentions as his own work. Consequently, its author, Priscian, also wrote the De anima commentary. The parallels between both texts show that the commentator sometimes does not quote Iamblichus directly, but borrowed Iamblichean formulations from the Metaphrase. As for the dating of his works, a comparison with Damascius' writings makes it probable that his On principks is a terminus post quem for the De anima commentary and a terminus ante quern for the Metaphrase. It is likely that both works were composed before 529. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/V0QkTnShQo0nyvB |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1086","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1086,"authors_free":[{"id":1642,"entry_id":1086,"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":"Priscian of Lydia, Commentator on the \"de Anima\" in the Tradition of Iamblichus","main_title":{"title":"Priscian of Lydia, Commentator on the \"de Anima\" in the Tradition of Iamblichus"},"abstract":"It has been argued that Priscian of Lydia (around 530), to whom the manuscripts ascribe only two short treatises, is the author of an extended com- \r\nmentary on the De anima, which is transmitted under the name of Simplicius. Our analysis confirms this: Priscian's Metaphrase of Theophrastus' Physics is the text which the commentator mentions as his own work. Consequently, its author, Priscian, also wrote the De anima commentary. The parallels between both texts show that the commentator sometimes does not quote Iamblichus directly, but borrowed Iamblichean formulations from the Metaphrase. As for the dating of his works, a comparison with Damascius' writings makes it probable that his On principks is a terminus post quem for the De anima commentary and a terminus ante quern for the Metaphrase. It is likely that both works were composed before 529. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/V0QkTnShQo0nyvB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1086,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Mnemosyne, Fourth Series","volume":"58","issue":"4","pages":"510-530"}},"sort":["Priscian of Lydia, Commentator on the \"de Anima\" in the Tradition of Iamblichus"]}
| Title | Proclus vs Plotinus on Matter ("De mal. subs." 30-7) |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2001 |
| Journal | Phronesis |
| Volume | 46 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 154-188 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Opsomer, Jan |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
In De malorum subsistentia chs 30-7, Proclus criticizes the view that evil is to be identified with matter. His main target is Plotinus' account in Enn. 1,8 [51]. Proclus denies that matter is the cause of evil in the soul, and that it is evil or a principle of evil. According to Proclus, matter is good, because it is produced by the One. Plotinus' doctrine of matter-evil is the result of a different conception of emanation, according to which matter does not revert to its principle. Proclus claims that to posit a principle of evil either amounts to a coarse dualism, or makes the Good ultimately responsible for evil. Plotinus does not seem to be able to escape the latter consequence, if he is to remain committed to the Neoplatonic conception of causation. Plotinus equated matter with privation and said it is a kind of non-being that is the contrary of substance, thus violating fundamental Aristotelian tenets. Proclus reinstates Aristotelian orthodoxy, as does Simplicius in his Commentary on the Categories. It is possible that Iamblichus was the source of both Proclus and Simplicius, and that he was the originator of the parhypostasis theory and the inventor of the anti-Plotinian arguments. [Author’s abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/gqfBrMY4Rb14VQA |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"864","_score":null,"_source":{"id":864,"authors_free":[{"id":1268,"entry_id":864,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":211,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Opsomer, Jan","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":{"id":211,"first_name":"Jan","last_name":"Opsomer","full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120966310","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Proclus vs Plotinus on Matter (\"De mal. subs.\" 30-7)","main_title":{"title":"Proclus vs Plotinus on Matter (\"De mal. subs.\" 30-7)"},"abstract":"In De malorum subsistentia chs 30-7, Proclus criticizes the view that evil is to be identified with matter. His main target is Plotinus' account in Enn. 1,8 [51]. Proclus denies that matter is the cause of evil in the soul, and that it is evil or a principle of evil. According to Proclus, matter is good, because it is produced \r\nby the One. Plotinus' doctrine of matter-evil is the result of a different conception of emanation, according to which matter does not revert to its principle. Proclus claims that to posit a principle of evil either amounts to a coarse dualism, or makes the Good ultimately responsible for evil. Plotinus does not seem to be able to escape the latter consequence, if he is to remain committed to the Neoplatonic conception of causation. Plotinus equated matter with privation and said it is a kind of non-being that is the contrary of substance, thus violating fundamental Aristotelian tenets. Proclus reinstates Aristotelian orthodoxy, as does Simplicius in his Commentary on the Categories. It is possible that Iamblichus was the source of both Proclus and Simplicius, and that he was the originator of the parhypostasis theory and the inventor of the anti-Plotinian arguments. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2001","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gqfBrMY4Rb14VQA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":211,"full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":864,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"46","issue":"2","pages":"154-188"}},"sort":["Proclus vs Plotinus on Matter (\"De mal. subs.\" 30-7)"]}