{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1124","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1124,"authors_free":[{"id":1700,"entry_id":1124,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":399,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bicknell, Peter J.","free_first_name":"Peter J.","free_last_name":"Bicknell","norm_person":{"id":399,"first_name":"Peter J.","last_name":"Bicknell","full_name":"Bicknell, Peter J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1162157143","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parmenides, Fragment 10","main_title":{"title":"Parmenides, Fragment 10"},"abstract":"This text is a critical analysis of the location of two fragments of the work of the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides. The author of the text suggests that the two fragments, VS 28 B 10 (Clement, Strom. 5, I38) and VS 28 B 11 (Simplicius, de Caelo 559, 20), are incorrectly placed together in Parmenides' Way of Seeming. The author argues that there is no evidence to suggest that the two fragments were meant to be together, and that they do not fit into the context of Parmenides' work. The author also suggests that VS 28 B 10 may not be Parmenidean at all, and discusses its possible attribution to Empedocles. The text concludes by considering the language and style of the two fragments, and their relationship to Parmenides' other works. [summary of the whole text]","btype":3,"date":"1968","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2uPg3j4nE0Tu1v1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":399,"full_name":"Bicknell, Peter J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1124,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"96","issue":"4","pages":"629-631"}},"sort":["Parmenides, Fragment 10"]}

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1051","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1051,"authors_free":[{"id":1596,"entry_id":1051,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":308,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Samb\u00fbrsq\u00ee, \u0160em\u00fb\u02be\u0113l","free_first_name":"\u0160em\u00fb\u02be\u0113l","free_last_name":"Samb\u00fbrsq\u00ee, \u0160em\u00fb\u02be\u0113l","norm_person":{"id":308,"first_name":"\u0160em\u00fb\u02be\u0113l","last_name":"Samb\u00fbrsq\u00ee","full_name":"Samb\u00fbrsq\u00ee, \u0160em\u00fb\u02be\u0113l","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120109794","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Place and Space in Late Neoplatonism","main_title":{"title":"Place and Space in Late Neoplatonism"},"abstract":"Three basic notions characterize the physical world, namely space, time and \r\nmatter, the first of which is usually held by scientists to be simpler than the \r\nother two. The history of physics and philosophy has shown, however, that \r\neven the concept of space abounds with difficulties, to which the doctrines of \r\nthe later Neoplatonic philosophers form an impressive witness. It is proposed \r\nto give here a brief survey of the theories of topos, meaning variously \u201cplace\u201d \r\nor \u201cspace\u201d, from Iamblichus at the beginning of the fourth century to \r\nSimplicius in the middle of the sixth. Although most of their treatises were \r\nclad in the modest garb of commentaries on works by Plato or Aristotle, the \r\nideas of these thinkers undoubtedly represent one of the peaks of sophistication \r\nand metaphysical acumen in the whole history of philosophy. The deliberations and inquiries of these philosophers on the concept of \r\ntopos took place against a long historical background, spanning nearly a \r\nthousand years from the Presocratics to Plotinus. A short synopsis, however \r\ncondensed, of the earlier developments of the concept will serve as a useful \r\nintroduction, leading up to the period in which Iamblichus and his successors \r\nstarted to elaborate their ideas on topos. This summary will be concerned with \r\nmerely the conceptual aspects of the subject and thus will not adhere to a \r\nstrict chronological order. [p. 173]","btype":3,"date":"1977","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XojOQqYJNOQXpHg","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":308,"full_name":"Samb\u00fbrsq\u00ee, \u0160em\u00fb\u02be\u0113l","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1051,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","volume":"8","issue":"3","pages":"173\u2013187"}},"sort":["Place and Space in Late Neoplatonism"]}

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"418","_score":null,"_source":{"id":418,"authors_free":[{"id":558,"entry_id":418,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":144,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"O'Brien, Denis","free_first_name":"Denis","free_last_name":"O'Brien","norm_person":{"id":144,"first_name":"Denis","last_name":"O'Brien","full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134134079","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Platon et Plotin sur la doctrine des parties de l'autre","main_title":{"title":"Platon et Plotin sur la doctrine des parties de l'autre"},"abstract":"La mati\u00e8re est-elle identique \u00e0 V alterile ? \u00bb Plotin se pose cette question au commencement du dernier chapitre de son trait\u00e9 Sur la mati\u00e8re (Enn., II 4 [12] 16). \u00ab Plut\u00f4t non \u00bb, r\u00e9pond-il. \u00ab Elle est en revanche identique \u00e0 cette partie de Valt\u00e9rit\u00e9 qui s'oppose aux \u00eatres proprement dits. \u00bb En s'exprimant de la sorte, Plotin fait allusion \u00e0 un passage du Sophiste (258 E 2-3). Son allusion suppose pourtant l'existence d'un texte qui n'est pas attest\u00e9 dans les manuscrits. Cette diff\u00e9rence textuelle implique un changement fonda- mental de doctrine, dont les \u00e9diteurs modernes ne se sont pas avis\u00e9s. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1991","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/L2UyM6cduHAfZX3","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":144,"full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":418,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue Philosophique de la France et de l'\u00c9tranger","volume":"181","issue":"4","pages":"501-512"}},"sort":["Platon et Plotin sur la doctrine des parties de l'autre"]}

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"596","_score":null,"_source":{"id":596,"authors_free":[{"id":847,"entry_id":596,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":113,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Finkelberg, Aryeh","free_first_name":"Aryeh","free_last_name":"Finkelberg","norm_person":{"id":113,"first_name":"Aryeh","last_name":"Finkelberg","full_name":"Finkelberg, Aryeh","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1124815007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plural Worlds in Anaximander","main_title":{"title":"Plural Worlds in Anaximander"},"abstract":"The ancients ascribed to Anaximander a belief in plural worlds, but the state of the evidence does not make it immediately clear whether these worlds are coexistent or successive. Zeller argued that they could not be coexistent, but his view was challenged by Burnet; yet Cornford, as Kirk puts it, \"demonstrated that Burnet's argument . . . rested on a false assessment of the doxographic evidence on this point, as well as on the misinterpretation of several later Presocratics.\" So far so good, but Kirk goes further and contends not only that coexis- tent worlds have been wrongly assigned to Anaximander, as Zeller and Cornford have shown, but that successive worlds are also a doxo- graphic error; a similar view is argued by Kahn. In this essay I propose to scrutinize our evidence on Anaximander's plural worlds and to exam- ine, systematically and exhaustively, Kirk's and Kahn's criticism of this evidence-both as against the doxographic testimony and on its own merits. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1994","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mcqsVGIwcLUKvP2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":113,"full_name":"Finkelberg, Aryeh","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":596,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The American Journal of Philology","volume":"115","issue":"4","pages":"485-506"}},"sort":["Plural Worlds in Anaximander"]}

{"_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"]}