{"_index":"sire","_id":"1473","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1473,"authors_free":[{"id":2549,"entry_id":1473,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":543,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Aerts, Saskia","free_first_name":"Saskia","free_last_name":"Aerts","norm_person":{"id":543,"first_name":"Saskia","last_name":"Aerts","full_name":"Aerts, Saskia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2550,"entry_id":1473,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":164,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Erler, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Erler","norm_person":{"id":164,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Erler","full_name":"Erler, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122153847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2551,"entry_id":1473,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":478,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"He\u00dfler, Jan Erik","free_first_name":"Jan Erik","free_last_name":"He\u00dfler","norm_person":{"id":478,"first_name":"Jan Erik","last_name":"He\u00dfler","full_name":"He\u00dfler, Jan Erik","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1059760533","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2552,"entry_id":1473,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":544,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Petrucci, Federico Maria","free_first_name":"Federico Maria","free_last_name":"Petrucci","norm_person":{"id":544,"first_name":"Federico Maria","last_name":"Petrucci","full_name":"Petrucci, Federico Maria","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1027675344","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Conflicting Authorities? Hermias and Simplicius on the Self-Moving Soul","main_title":{"title":"Conflicting Authorities? Hermias and Simplicius on the Self-Moving Soul"},"abstract":"Aristotle plays a highly authoritative role in Neoplatonic philosophy, second only to the almost undisputed authority of Plato. However, as any reader of Plato\u2019s and Aristotle\u2019s works knows, the views of the two philosophers often diverge and generate conflicts. These conflicts provide the Neoplatonic commentators with a serious interpretative challenge: although, as Platonists, their main goal is to defend Plato and the Platonist position, they are also hesitant to openly criticize Aristotle, who is regarded as a true adherent of Plato\u2019s philosophy. The commentators most prominently face such a challenge in the case of the self-moving soul, a core Platonic doctrine severely criticized by Aristotle, implicitly in Physics 8.5 and explicitly in De anima 1.3.\r\n\r\nThe key to dealing with these conflicting authorities lies in the exegetical act of explicating the \u2018harmony\u2019 that exists between the views of both philosophers. This approach relies on the idea that the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle are fundamentally in agreement, which comes to the surface when their texts are interpreted in the right way. \u2018Harmony\u2019 translates the Greek symph\u014dnia, a term most notably used in this technical meaning by Simplicius.\u00b9 However, the term \u2018harmony\u2019 is problematic because it does not identify any absolute concept\u2014 instead, it can refer to any kind of agreement, ranging from mere compatibility to theoretical identity. What is more, the operative concept of harmony employed by modern scholars often bears the same ambiguity as its ancient counterpart.\u00b2 Most studies do not reflect on the polysemy of the term, and the notion of harmony used is not always well defined, which may lead to pointless debates on terminological matters.\u00b3 Moreover, the danger of overemphasizing the unity of this \u2018harmonizing tendency,\u2019 as I. Hadot calls it, lies in failing to take proper account of the diversity of the commentators\u2019 approaches.\u2074\r\n\r\nIn this paper, I will present two parallel Neoplatonic discussions of the apparent disagreement between Plato and Aristotle about the self-moving soul, namely those of Hermias of Alexandria in his commentary on Plato\u2019s Phaedrus and Simplicius of Cilicia in his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics.\u2075 Since both philosophers ultimately argue that there is agreement between Aristotle and Plato, I will elucidate (i) what specific kind of \u2018harmony\u2019 each of the commentators assumes, (ii) what reasons each provides for supposing such a harmony, and (iii) which exegetical methods they use to explicate this harmony.\r\n\r\nThe harmonizing interpretations of Hermias and Simplicius on this issue have been discussed previously by S. Gertz, who claims that both commentators similarly argue that the disagreement between Plato and Aristotle is \u2018merely verbal, motivated by respect for the common usage of names.\u2019\u2076 Although I agree that this is the kind of harmony that Simplicius assumes, my interpretation of Hermias\u2019 discussion differs from the one proposed by Gertz. Despite some evident similarities in their approaches, I will suggest that Hermias defends a much less radical form of harmony than Simplicius: whereas Simplicius claims that the views of Plato and Aristotle are verbally different but philosophically identical, Hermias only intends to show that Aristotle would have to approve of the self-moving soul to remain faithful to and consistent with his own doctrines.\r\n\r\nIn addition to showing the individuality of these commentators\u2019 approaches in dealing with conflicting authorities, my analysis also aims at elucidating why it is so important for the commentators to defend the self-motion of the soul. As will become clear, the concept of self-motion is not only crucial in Neoplatonic psychology but also indispensable in their explanation of physical motion. [introduction p. 178-180]","btype":2,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/SGsawecaEHSN9gD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":543,"full_name":"Aerts, Saskia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":164,"full_name":"Erler, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":478,"full_name":"He\u00dfler, Jan Erik","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":544,"full_name":"Petrucci, Federico Maria","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1473,"section_of":1474,"pages":"178-200","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1474,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Erler-He\u00dfler-Petrucci_2021","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2021","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"All disciplines can count on a noble founder, and the representation of this founder as an authority is key in order to construe a discipline's identity. This book sheds light on how Plato and other authorities were represented in one of the most long-lasting traditions of all time. It leads the reader through exegesis and polemics, recovery of the past and construction of a philosophical identity. From Xenocrates to Proclus, from the sceptical shift to the re-establishment of dogmatism, from the Mosaic of the Philosophers to the Neoplatonist Commentaries, the construction of authority emerges as a way of access to the core of the Platonist tradition. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ZaiPIkzZzpNqhmG","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1474,"pubplace":" Cambridge \u2013 New York","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2021]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1605","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1605,"authors_free":[{"id":2810,"entry_id":1605,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Christian Tornau","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Tornau","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Kath\u0113gem\u014dn: The Importance of the Personal Teacher in Proclus and Later Neoplatonism","main_title":{"title":"Kath\u0113gem\u014dn: The Importance of the Personal Teacher in Proclus and Later Neoplatonism"},"abstract":"After Proclus, the formula ho h\u0113meteros kath\u0113gem\u014dn remains common among the Neoplatonists, especially in the Athenian school, but it rarely seems to carry the full metaphysical weight it has in Proclus. Ammonius and Damascius mention their teachers (Proclus and Isidorus, respectively) with respect and gratitude,\u2078\u00b9 and the hymnic diction of the opening lines of Ammonius\u2019 commentary on the De Interpretatione is reminiscent of Proclus\u2019 praise for Syrianus,\u2078\u00b2 but neither of them links this to any discernible ethical or metaphysical ideas. In the commentaries by Damascius that were taken down by his pupils at his lectures (\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2), ho h\u0113meteros kath\u0113gem\u014dn is nothing but a polite formula for the professor who is holding the course, i.e., Damascius himself.\u2078\u00b3 In Simplicius, however, there are some passages concerning the issues of authority and orality that are easier to understand if the Proclan model is, at least to some extent, presupposed.\r\n\r\nSo far, we have only investigated the ideal relationship between a kath\u0113gem\u014dn and his pupil(s), as embodied, for example, by Parmenides and Zeno (and Socrates) or by Proclus and Syrianus (and Plato). But obviously, there are also cases in which philosophical, even Platonic, teaching fails. This does not come as a surprise in the case of Epicurus and Democritus, neither of whom has the philosophical standing that is necessary for a successful return to true being.\u2078\u2074 The case of Aristotle is more complex. As is well known, Proclus does believe in the general harmony of Plato and Aristotle but is very critical, especially of the latter\u2019s natural philosophy, which he rejects as Aristotle\u2019s deviation from his kath\u0113gem\u014dn Plato.\u2078\u2075 The way in which he formulates this criticism is telling. Proclus enlists Aristotle as an \u2018emulator\u2019 of Plato (\u03b6\u03b7\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, a phrase elsewhere applied to Syrianus),\u2078\u2076 but, he adds, the fact that in explaining nature, Aristotle usually does not go beyond matter and immanent form betrays \u2018how much he lags behind the guidance (\u1f51\u03c6\u03ae\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) of his kath\u0113gem\u014dn.\u2019\u2078\u2077 Aristotle is blamed for his lack of philosophical allegiance, not because he sometimes contradicts Plato, but because he was unable or unwilling to submit to the quasi-divine guidance of his kath\u0113gem\u014dn, which resulted in his failure to return to the intelligible and in his developing a metaphysics that falls short of the ontological level that Plato had reached. Conversely, as long as he philosophizes on Plato\u2019s ontological level, a thinker qualifies as a true Platonist even if on some points he deviates from him: according to Proclus, Plotinus was \u2018endowed with a nature similar to that of his own kath\u0113gem\u014dn [sc. Plato]\u2019 and was himself able to offer theological guidance (\u1f51\u03c6\u03ae\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) to others, even though Proclus rejects his theory of the undescended soul.\u2078\u2078 Neoplatonic orthodoxy, if we may call it thus, seems to admit a certain pluralism.\r\n\r\nSimplicius, who, of course, went further than Proclus and most other Platonists in claiming the agreement of Plato and Aristotle,\u2078\u2079 takes up this basic view while at the same time opposing Proclus\u2019 verdict (just paraphrased). In his commentary on the Physics, he repeatedly says that Aristotle \u2018is not in disharmony with his kath\u0113gem\u014dn,\u2019\u2079\u2070 implying\u2014and sometimes stating\u2014that philosophical allegiance is not a matter of verbal agreement. This occurs especially in discussions of points on which Aristotle was notoriously critical of Plato, e.g., whether movement (\u03ba\u1f77\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) and change (\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1f75) were to be distinguished or were one and the same thing (which has some bearing on the difficult issue of the movement of the soul, on which Aristotle explicitly contradicted Plato).\u2079\u00b9 Naturally, Simplicius does not deny the difference in terminology, but he does deny that it shows Aristotle\u2019s inability or unwillingness to reach the more sublime regions of Plato\u2019s thought:\r\n\r\n It is important to note that here again Aristotle has expressed the same ideas (\u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2) as his teacher with different words. (Simp. in Phys. 1336.25\u201326 Diels, introducing a long comparison of the accounts of the First Principle in Physics 8 and the Timaeus.)\u2079\u00b2\r\n\r\nWhen he reports especially impressive cases of the agreement of the two philosophers, Simplicius likes to employ the vocabulary of \u2018willing\u2019 or \u2018striving\u2019 in order to highlight the ethical aspect of the issue:\r\n\r\n In the Categories, Aristotle emulated even this terminology of his teacher, that he calls all natural changes movements. (Simp. in Phys. 824.20\u201322 Diels.)\u2079\u00b3\r\n On this, too, Aristotle wants (\u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9) to be in harmony with his teacher. (Simp. in Phys. 1267.19 Diels.)\u2079\u2074\r\n\r\nSimplicius agrees with Proclus that Aristotle was an emulator of Plato; against Proclus, he insists that this emulation was successful, and he seems to do so based on Proclus\u2019 own assumption that philosophical allegiance is primarily a moral decision. Simplicius\u2019 use of kath\u0113gem\u014dn may not have the philosophical depth of Proclus\u2019, but it is, as it were, metaphysically pregnant and strengthens Aristotle\u2019s authority as a Platonist while helping to ward off the charge of anti-Platonism.\r\n\r\nConcerning orality, we have seen that for Proclus, the inspired texts of Plato and others have their full impact on the philosophical learner only if they are unfolded to them personally by an experienced exegete. For this reason, in the prologue of the Parmenides commentary, Syrianus, not Plato, is the savior of humankind, and in the commentary on the Republic, Proclus himself re-transfers a written text by Syrianus into orality. Later Neoplatonists remain aware of the importance of personal instruction; several of them record oral discussions with their kath\u0113gemones. Simplicius is no exception, though he more often cites Ammonius\u2019 lectures or written treatises.\u2079\u2075 However, there seems to be an important difference. Commenting on the problem of squaring the circle, Simplicius recalls a scene between himself and Ammonius in Alexandria:\r\n\r\n My teacher Ammonius used to say that it was perhaps not necessary that, if this [sc. a square of the same size as a circle] had been found in the case of numbers, it should also be found in the case of magnitudes. For the line and the circumference were magnitudes of a different kind. \u2018It is,\u2019 he said, \u2018no wonder that a circle of the same size as a polygon has not been found, seeing that we find this in the case of angles too. . . .\u2019 I replied to my teacher that if the lune over the side of a square could be squared (and this was proven beyond doubt) and if the lune, which consisted of circumferences, was of the same kind as the circle, there was, on this assumption, no reason why the circle could not be squared. (Simp. in Phys. 59.23\u201360.1 Diels.)\u2079\u2076\r\n\r\nSimplicius surely tells this story not just to voice his disagreement with Ammonius but also to commemorate him honorifically, as he usually does.\u2079\u2077 We should therefore read the passage as an example of successful philosophical didactics. As an experienced teacher and versed dialectician, Ammonius challenges his promising pupil with an agnostic argument on a thorny mathematical problem, and Simplicius meets the challenge and succeeds in developing a convincing counterargument.\r\n\r\nUltimately, Simplicius presents philosophy as having become much more bookish in his time than it had ever been in Proclus\u2019 era. [conclusion p. 222-226]","btype":2,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/unoSzgVP7XRBEus","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1605,"section_of":1474,"pages":"201-226","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1474,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Erler-He\u00dfler-Petrucci_2021","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2021","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"All disciplines can count on a noble founder, and the representation of this founder as an authority is key in order to construe a discipline's identity. This book sheds light on how Plato and other authorities were represented in one of the most long-lasting traditions of all time. It leads the reader through exegesis and polemics, recovery of the past and construction of a philosophical identity. From Xenocrates to Proclus, from the sceptical shift to the re-establishment of dogmatism, from the Mosaic of the Philosophers to the Neoplatonist Commentaries, the construction of authority emerges as a way of access to the core of the Platonist tradition. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/unoSzgVP7XRBEus","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1474,"pubplace":" Cambridge \u2013 New York","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2021]}