{"_index":"sire","_id":"1597","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1597,"authors_free":[{"id":2798,"entry_id":1597,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Panayiotis Tzamalikos","free_first_name":"Panayiotis","free_last_name":"Tzamalikos","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Chapter 7. Simplicius\u2019 reply to Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Chapter 7. Simplicius\u2019 reply to Aristotle"},"abstract":"The figment that Aristotle represented as the philosophy of Anaxagoras, without quoting any passage from it, was not an account of it; it was only a caricature contrived to serve the exposition of Aristotle\u2019s own views while either obscuring or berating critical points on which Anaxagoras had preceded Aristotle himself. This misrepresentation was based on two fundamental presumptions: one, that incorporeal principles were treated as corporeal elements; and two, that the number of these principles was infinite. Once this became the basis of consideration, Anaxagoras\u2019 propositions were bound to appear absurd and sometimes preposterous.\r\n\r\nIn this chapter, I will discuss Simplicius\u2019 reply to this. It is important to note from the outset that Simplicius was always gentle with Aristotle, which is one of the reasons that determined his methodology: he considered the arguments themselves, as well as their premises and context, but he took them to their ultimate consequences. This resulted in illogical theses that, of necessity, were attributed to Anaxagoras; yet those inferences were so self-defeating that not only this philosopher, but even the most unlearned writer, could never have presumed to posit them. This methodology is extended also to Aristotle\u2019s commentators, showing that the reproduction of their master\u2019s arguments (sometimes qualified but sometimes taken to their extreme consequences) only added to the absurdity of considering Anaxagoras on the basis of Aristotle\u2019s allegations.\r\n\r\nWe have seen so far that Simplicius explained that Anaxagoras\u2019 principles and his relevant considerations could make sense only if these principles are incorporeal. Scholars have always been all too quick to dismiss Simplicius\u2019 explanation, branding it as \u201cNeoplatonic.\u201d It never occurred to them that the case might have been that Neoplatonists (starting with Plotinus) found insightful notions in Anaxagoras, which they employed and built upon.\u00b9\r\n\r\nIn this section, we shall see that the incorporeality and non-infinity of the principles are the only way for this philosophy to make sense and to be interpreted consistently. Since Simplicius is virtually the sole source supplying us with Anaxagoras\u2019 own words, it should be observed that nowhere does Anaxagoras use the term \u201cincorporeal,\u201d even though his considerations can make sense only on that major postulate. So what? Is this a good reason to brush the idea aside? Were the term \u201cincorporeal\u201d a sine qua non condition for allowing the notion of incorporeality, I see no reason why God in Judaism, Christianity, or even Islam should not be described as corporeal (which indeed certain Christians, such as Melito of Sardis and Tertullian, did). Neither the Old nor the New Testament ever describes God with any term meaning \u201cincorporeal.\u201d God is depicted (and indeed described directly only in the Old Testament) as being unlike any of His created beings, from which Philo and later Origen derived their doctrine of the incorporeality of God.\u00b2 In the scriptures, God is only described as elevated above any likeness to creatures. Little wonder, then, that Tertullian (c. 180\u2013125 AD) boldly asserted that \u201cGod is a body even though He is a spirit, since spirit is also a sui generis body\u201d;\u00b3 for \u201cnothing is, unless it is a body; whatever is, it is a body of sorts; nothing is incorporeal, unless that which is not.\u201d\u2074 So did the apologist Melito of Sardis (died c. 180 AD, a Millenarist following Irenaeus), who was rebuked by Origen, even though the wise inquisitors of Christian doctrine canonized him as a saint while anathematizing Origen as a heretic.\r\n\r\nWhat is important, therefore, is not seeking whether the term \u201cincorporeal\u201d (or indeed the term \u201cprinciple\u201d) is explicitly stated or not. What is really needed is a perusal of what all aspects of a certain philosophy conspire to express, and this is what a brilliant intellect such as Simplicius offered. He explained Anaxagoras\u2019 principles as being incorporeal not because he aimed anachronistically to make him a Neoplatonist, but because all the aspects of that philosophy conduce to incorporeality, which was the sole way for any reader of Simplicius, and indeed of Anaxagoras himself, to be \u201clogical to the bitter end.\u201d\u2075\r\n\r\nIt is now time for us to see Simplicius\u2019 reply to Aristotle and his commentators. Following his statements confirming the notion of incorporeal principles, he will also rebut the idea of these principles being infinite in number, arguing that not only did Anaxagoras not hold this notion, but also that he did not need it at all. [introduction p. 421-422]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jKf4u1rcI40bQSE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1597,"section_of":1598,"pages":"421-487","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1598,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":1,"language":"en","title":"Anaxagoras, Origen, and Neoplatonism: The Legacy of Anaxagoras to Classical and Late Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Tzamalikos2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Origen has been always studied as a theologian and too much credit has been given to Eusebius\u2019 implausible hagiography of him. This book explores who Origen really was, by pondering into his philosophical background, which determines his theological exposition implicitly, yet decisively. For this background to come to light, it took a ground-breaking exposition of Anaxagoras\u2019 philosophy and its legacy to Classical and Late Antiquity, assessing critically Aristotle\u2019s distorted representation of Anaxagoras. Origen, formerly a Greek philosopher of note, whom Proclus styled an anti-Platonist, is placed in the history of philosophy for the first time. By drawing on his Anaxagorean background, and being the first to revive the Anaxagorean Theory of Logoi, he paved the way to Nicaea. He was an anti-Platonist because he was an Anaxagorean philosopher with far-reaching influence, also on Neoplatonists such as Porphyry. His theology made an impact not only on the Cappadocians, but also on later Christian authors. His theory of the soul, now expounded in the light of his philosophical background, turns out more orthodox than that of some Christian stars of the Byzantine imperial orthodoxy. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jKf4u1rcI40bQSE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1598,"pubplace":"Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Arbeiten Zur Kirchengeschichte","volume":"128","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Chapter 7. Simplicius\u2019 reply to Aristotle"]}