{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1416","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1416,"authors_free":[{"id":2217,"entry_id":1416,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":395,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gleede, Benjamin","free_first_name":"Benjamin","free_last_name":"Gleede","norm_person":{"id":395,"first_name":"Benjamin","last_name":"Gleede","full_name":"Gleede, Benjamin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138770468","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":" \u201cCreatio ex nihilo\u201d: A genuinely philosophical insight derived from Plato and Aristotle? Some notes on the treatise on the Harmony between the two sages","main_title":{"title":" \u201cCreatio ex nihilo\u201d: A genuinely philosophical insight derived from Plato and Aristotle? Some notes on the treatise on the Harmony between the two sages"},"abstract":"The article aims at demonstrating that in attributing the creatio ex nihilo to both Plato and Aristotle as their unanimous philosophical conviction the Treatise on the Harmony between the Two Sages deeply depends upon the Neoplatonic reading of those two philosophers. The main obstacles for such a view in the works of the two sages are Plato\u2019s assumption of a precosmic chaos in the Timaeus and Aristotle\u2019s denial of any efficient causality to the unmoved mover in the Metaphysics. Both of these points had been, however, done away with by the Neoplatonist commentators already, especially by Ammonius in his lost treatise on efficient and final causality in Aristotle the use of which in the Harmony is shown by a comparison with Simplicius. Christian and Muslim readers just had to transfer those arguments and hermeneutical techniques into an anti-eternalist context in order to make the two philosophers agree with one of the basic tenents of their face, a hermeneutical technique considerably different from the one employed by al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b in his exposition of Plato\u2019s and Aristotle\u2019s philosophy which is compared to the Harmony in a briefly sketched concluding section.","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/643p7NfjbSkgI3O","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":395,"full_name":"Gleede, Benjamin","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1416,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Arabic Sciences and Philosophy","volume":"22","issue":"","pages":"91-117"}},"sort":[" \u201cCreatio ex nihilo\u201d: A genuinely philosophical insight derived from Plato and Aristotle? Some notes on the treatise on the Harmony between the two sages"]}

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1119","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1119,"authors_free":[{"id":1692,"entry_id":1119,"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":"Addenda Eudemea","main_title":{"title":"Addenda Eudemea"},"abstract":"This paper presents 16 fragments of the Peripatetic philosopher Eudemus (c. 350-290 BC), which were not printed in the (still) standard edition of Wehrli (1955; revised 1969), but which had been signalled in passing by De Lacy (1957) and Gottschalk (1973). The aim is to provide a text with translation and brief annotation, to be included in a future edition, and to argue that context can add to our understanding of these passages. Their importance lies in bringing greater comprehensiveness to the collection, offering at least five additional (near) quotations, and illustrating the new trend in fragment studies to contextualize fragments on several levels in order to gain further insight into their value and reception. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eI5Vl8PkHDDBXGU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1119,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Leeds International Classical Studies","volume":"5","issue":"1","pages":"1-28"}},"sort":["Addenda Eudemea"]}

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1172","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1172,"authors_free":[{"id":1747,"entry_id":1172,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alexander on Physics 2.9","main_title":{"title":"Alexander on Physics 2.9"},"abstract":"I want to draw your attention today to a report of Alexander in Simplicius\u2019s Physics commentary which, as far as I can tell, has escaped the notice of everyone, myself included - and I have rather less excuse than most, for, as we shall see, the report connects directly with issues about which I have written in other contexts. That was concerned with On coming-to-be and passing-away [hereafter GC] 2.11, with Philoponus\u2019s commentary thereon, and with Alexander\u2019s discussion in some of the Quaestiones\\ the present paper, with Simplicius\u2019s help, extends the discussion to Physics 2.9; Alexander\u2019s GC commentary, \r\nand the relevant part of his Physics commentary, are lost. [Introduction, p. 19]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Uk1uUvOIUNKK2lk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1172,"section_of":1171,"pages":"19-30","is_catalog":null,"book":null},"article":{"id":1172,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"55","issue":"1","pages":"19-30"}},"sort":["Alexander on Physics 2.9"]}

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1141","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1141,"authors_free":[{"id":1715,"entry_id":1141,"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":"Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin\u2019s Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Early Roman Empire","main_title":{"title":"Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin\u2019s Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Early Roman Empire"},"abstract":"Griffin, Rashed, and Chiaradonna have shown how we can use Simplicius\u2019 Categories commentary to reconstruct much of Porphyry\u2019s greater Categories commentary (also witnessed by the Archimedes Palimpsest), and then use this to reconstruct much of the work of Boethus, and to a lesser extent Andronicus, on the Categories. In some cases \r\nbuilding on Griffin, in other cases disagreeing with him, I bring out some ways in which Andronicus and Boethus differ from most later interpreters; this can help us understand Alexander\u2019s and Porphyry\u2019s responses. I reconstruct (i) Andronicus\u2019 interpretation of \u2018in\u2019 and \u2018said of, which is based on Aristotle\u2019s distinction between abstract nouns and paronymous concrete nouns, and avoids the metaphysical freight that later interpreters load onto the notion of \u2018said o f; (ii) Boethus\u2019 use of De Interpretation 1 to explain how \r\na universal term can be synonymous without positing either universals in re or Stoic \r\nXeKid, and the consequences he draws for the different aims of the Categories and De Interpretation; and (iii) Boethus\u2019 solution to the tension between Aristotle\u2019s hylomorphism and the Categories\u2019 account of substance. Boethus, unlike later interpreters, thinks the \r\nform is in the matter, and is therefore not a substance but (typically) a quality, but that it \r\nis nonetheless able to constitute the composite as a substance distinct from the matter. I bring out the Aristotelian basis for Boethus\u2019 reading, connect it with Boethus\u2019 accounts of differentiae and of the soul, and show how Boethus\u2019 views help motivate Porphyry\u2019s responses. In some cases Porphyry constructs his views by triangulating between Boethus and Alexander. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/f40u6koKhn1exfj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":255,"full_name":"Menn, Stephen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1141,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale","volume":"29","issue":"","pages":"13-43"}},"sort":["Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin\u2019s Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Early Roman Empire"]}

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1081","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1081,"authors_free":[{"id":1636,"entry_id":1081,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":9,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Boland, Vivian","free_first_name":"Vivian","free_last_name":"Boland","norm_person":{"id":9,"first_name":"Vivian","last_name":"Boland","full_name":"Boland, Vivian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/94637645X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aquinas and Simplicius on Dispositions \u2013 A Question in Fundamental Moral Theory","main_title":{"title":"Aquinas and Simplicius on Dispositions \u2013 A Question in Fundamental Moral Theory"},"abstract":"A crucial building block in Aquinas's moral theory is the notion of habitus or disposition since for him, following \r\nAristotle, a virtue is a kind of disposition. But this more philosophical part of his account of virtue has received little enough direct attention in recent times for reasons that may become clearer as we proceed. What I want to do \r\nin this paper is to look again at those questions in the Summa where Aquinas explains this notion of ' habitus' or disposition. It is important for his understanding of the human being as a moral agent as well as for his account of grace, and in particular of those gifts of faith, hope and charity which\r\nChristian tradition calls 'theological virtues'. It is a text whose examination will lead us into a number of central and current questions about the nature of Aquinas's theological synthesis and about whether or not we may consider any of his work as purely philosophical, i.e. philosophical as distinct from theological. [Introduction, pp. 467 f.]","btype":3,"date":"2001","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YsbXUYxTy1D2KJ0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":9,"full_name":"Boland, Vivian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1081,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"New Blackfriars","volume":"82","issue":"968","pages":"467-478"}},"sort":["Aquinas and Simplicius on Dispositions \u2013 A Question in Fundamental Moral Theory"]}