| Title | Rational Assent and Self-Reversion: A Neoplatonist Response to the Stoics |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2016 |
| Journal | Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy |
| Volume | 50 |
| Pages | 237-288 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Coope, Ursula |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Humans are accountable for what they do and believe in a way that other animals are not. T h e Stoics held that this is because humans are rational, and in particular because they have the capacity for rational assent. But how exactly does the capacity for rational assent explain accountability? O ur Stoic sources do not explicitly answer this question, but I argue that they suggest the following view. Humans are responsible for assenting (and withholding as sent) just because o f the way in which the capacity for assent is reason-responsive: you can assent (or withhold assent) for reasons, and if you know whether or not you should be assenting, you can be guided by this knowledge in either assenting or withholding assent.This view, however, raises certain further questions. What is it about the nature o f our capacity for assent that enables it to be reason-responsive in a way that other psychic capacities are not? Why can one assent for a reason, but not have at* impression of something's being the case for a reason? I argue that a basis for answering these questions can be found in a perhaps surprising source: ps.-Simplicius' sixth-century commentary on Aristotle's De anima. Ps.-Simplicius draws on the Neoplatonist notion of self-reversion to explain what is distinctive about the rational capacity for assent. His account, I claim, provides a basis for explaining the distinctively reason-responsive nature of our capacity for assent. [Introduction, p. 287] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dvgVyUDHfWVEDyD |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1276","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1276,"authors_free":[{"id":1865,"entry_id":1276,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":53,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Coope, Ursula","free_first_name":"Ursula","free_last_name":"Coope","norm_person":{"id":53,"first_name":"Ursula","last_name":"Coope","full_name":"Coope, Ursula","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078072639","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Rational Assent and Self-Reversion: A Neoplatonist Response to the Stoics","main_title":{"title":"Rational Assent and Self-Reversion: A Neoplatonist Response to the Stoics"},"abstract":"Humans are accountable for what they do and believe in a way that other animals are not. T h e Stoics held that this is because hu\u00admans are rational, and in particular because they have the capacity for rational assent. But how exactly does the capacity for rational assent explain accountability? O ur Stoic sources do not explicitly answer this question, but I argue that they suggest the following view. Humans are responsible for assenting (and withholding as\u00ad\r\nsent) just because o f the way in which the capacity for assent is \r\nreason-responsive: you can assent (or withhold assent) for reasons, \r\nand if you know whether or not you should be assenting, you can be guided by this knowledge in either assenting or withholding assent.This view, however, raises certain further questions. What is it about the nature o f our capacity for assent that enables it to be reason-responsive in a way that other psychic capacities are not? Why can one assent for a reason, but not have at* impression of something's being the case for a reason? I argue that a basis for answering these questions can be found in a perhaps surprising source: ps.-Simplicius' sixth-century commentary on Aristotle's De anima. Ps.-Simplicius draws on the Neoplatonist notion of self-reversion to explain what is distinctive about the rational \r\ncapacity for assent. His account, I claim, provides a basis for explaining the distinctively reason-responsive nature of our capacity for assent. [Introduction, p. 287]","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dvgVyUDHfWVEDyD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":53,"full_name":"Coope, Ursula","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1276,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy ","volume":"50","issue":"","pages":"237-288"}},"sort":[2016]}
| Title | Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle’s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2015 |
| Journal | Revue d’histoire des textes, nouvelle série |
| Volume | 10 |
| Pages | 1-23 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/h4L23WDPkX8y93d |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1417","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1417,"authors_free":[{"id":2218,"entry_id":1417,"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":"Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq","main_title":{"title":"Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/h4L23WDPkX8y93d","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1417,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue d\u2019histoire des textes, nouvelle s\u00e9rie","volume":"10","issue":"","pages":"1-23"}},"sort":[2015]}
| Title | Review of: Ph. Soulier, Simplicius et l'infini, préface par Ph. Hoffmann |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2015 |
| Journal | Revue de Philosophie Ancienne |
| Volume | 33 |
| Pages | 115-128 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gavray, Marc-Antoine |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3g3aGCg3qe681AY |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"406","_score":null,"_source":{"id":406,"authors_free":[{"id":2456,"entry_id":406,"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":"Review of: Ph. Soulier, Simplicius et l'infini, pr\u00e9face par Ph. Hoffmann","main_title":{"title":"Review of: Ph. Soulier, Simplicius et l'infini, pr\u00e9face par Ph. Hoffmann"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3g3aGCg3qe681AY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":406,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue de Philosophie Ancienne","volume":"33","issue":"","pages":"115-128"}},"sort":[2015]}
| Title | Le σκοπός du traité aristotélicien Du Ciel selon Simplicius. Exégèse, dialectique, théologie |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2015 |
| Journal | Studia graeco-arabica |
| Volume | 5 |
| Pages | 27-51 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| A six-page Prologue introduces the commentary on Aristotle’s De Caelo written by Simplicius after 529 AD. As usual in the exegeses typical of the Neoplatonic schools of late Antiquity, this Prologue addresses a series of preliminary questions that are meant to steer the interpretation in its entirety, as well as to frame the text to be commented upon within the reading canon of the Aristotelian works, which were intended to provide the propaedeutics to the reading canon of Plato’s dialogues. Simplicius addresses the question of the scope of De Caelo, discussing the interpretations advanced by Alexander of Aphrodisias, Iamblichus, and Syrianus. According to Alexander, this treatise deals with the universe as a whole, as well as with the five simple bodies contained in it. It was with Iamblichus, who advocated the idea that for each Platonic dialogue there was only one skopos, that the unity of a philosophical work was raised to the rank of a general rule. According to Iamblichus, the skopos of the De Caelo is the divine body of heaven. As a consequence, the primary elements that depend upon the heavens are included in the treatise. Syrianus deepens the theological tendency implied in Iamblichus’ interpretation: for him, the skopos of the De Caelo is primarily the divine body of heaven, and only secondarily the set of sublunar elements. Simplicius treasures the commentary by Alexander; nevertheless, he questions the skopos assigned by him: Alexander underestimated the importance of the unity of the treatise, even though his intention to account for each and every question raised by Aristotle was laudable. Contrarily, Syrianus was right in emphasizing the theological vein of the De Caelo, but focussed only on the section on the divine body of heaven, playing down books III and IV as if they were only ancillary, thus forgetting that the skopos must account for the whole of the treatise at hand. Between the two positions, Simplicius advocates the idea of a synthetical skopos, following in the footsteps of Iamblichus’ interpretation, but taking systematically into account the best of Alexander’s. The skopos of the De Caelo is the divine heaven, that “communicates” its perfections to the entire universe. Simplicius’ position is revealed to be very different with respect to that of other commentators like Ammonius and Philoponus, who both considered that the title was self-evident and required no special investigation. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/B70TifrHFuHw23y |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"581","_score":null,"_source":{"id":581,"authors_free":[{"id":824,"entry_id":581,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2 du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien Du Ciel selon Simplicius. Ex\u00e9g\u00e8se, dialectique, th\u00e9ologie","main_title":{"title":"Le \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2 du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien Du Ciel selon Simplicius. Ex\u00e9g\u00e8se, dialectique, th\u00e9ologie"},"abstract":"A six-page Prologue introduces the commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De Caelo written by Simplicius after 529 AD. As usual in the exegeses typical of the Neoplatonic schools of late Antiquity, this Prologue addresses a series of preliminary \r\nquestions that are meant to steer the interpretation in its entirety, as well as to frame the text to be commented upon within the reading canon of the Aristotelian works, which were intended to provide the propaedeutics to the reading canon of Plato\u2019s dialogues. Simplicius addresses the question of the scope of De Caelo, discussing the interpretations advanced by Alexander of Aphrodisias, Iamblichus, and Syrianus. According to Alexander, this treatise deals with the universe as a whole, as well as with the five simple bodies contained in it. It was with Iamblichus, who advocated the idea that for each Platonic dialogue there was only one skopos, that the unity of a philosophical work was raised \r\nto the rank of a general rule. According to Iamblichus, the skopos of the De Caelo is the divine body of heaven. As a consequence, the primary elements that depend upon the heavens are included in the treatise. Syrianus deepens \r\nthe theological tendency implied in Iamblichus\u2019 interpretation: for him, the skopos of the De Caelo is primarily the divine body of heaven, and only secondarily the set of sublunar elements. Simplicius treasures the commentary by \r\nAlexander; nevertheless, he questions the skopos assigned by him: Alexander underestimated the importance of the unity of the treatise, even though his intention to account for each and every question raised by Aristotle was laudable. Contrarily, Syrianus was right in emphasizing the theological vein of the De Caelo, but focussed only on the section on the divine body of heaven, playing down books III and IV as if they were only ancillary, thus forgetting that the skopos must account for the whole of the treatise at hand. Between the two positions, Simplicius advocates the idea of a synthetical skopos, following in the footsteps of Iamblichus\u2019 interpretation, but taking systematically into account the best of Alexander\u2019s. The skopos of the De Caelo is the divine heaven, that \u201ccommunicates\u201d its perfections to the \r\nentire universe. Simplicius\u2019 position is revealed to be very different with respect to that of other commentators like Ammonius and Philoponus, who both considered that the title was self-evident and required no special investigation. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/B70TifrHFuHw23y","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":581,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studia graeco-arabica","volume":"5","issue":"","pages":"27-51"}},"sort":[2015]}
| Title | Book review: Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 8.1-5, written by Istvan Bodnár, Michael Chase and Michael Share |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2015 |
| Journal | The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition |
| Volume | 9 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 124 –125 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hatzistavrou, Antony |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Review of Istvan Bodnár, Michael Chase and Michael Share (translated) Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 8.1-5, Bristol Classical Press, London, 2012 |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/CfWDbL6IKhroIDB |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1014","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1014,"authors_free":[{"id":1530,"entry_id":1014,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":173,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hatzistavrou, Antony","free_first_name":"Antony","free_last_name":"Hatzistavrou","norm_person":{"id":173,"first_name":"Antony","last_name":"Hatzistavrou","full_name":"Hatzistavrou, Antony","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Book review: Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 8.1-5, written by Istvan Bodn\u00e1r, Michael Chase and Michael Share","main_title":{"title":"Book review: Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 8.1-5, written by Istvan Bodn\u00e1r, Michael Chase and Michael Share"},"abstract":"Review of Istvan Bodn\u00e1r, Michael Chase and Michael Share (translated)\r\nSimplicius on Aristotle Physics 8.1-5, Bristol Classical Press, London, 2012","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CfWDbL6IKhroIDB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":173,"full_name":"Hatzistavrou, Antony","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1014,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"9","issue":"1","pages":"124 \u2013125"}},"sort":[2015]}
| Title | Simplicius on Predication |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2015 |
| Journal | Revue de Philosophie Ancienne |
| Volume | 33 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 173-200 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hauer, Mareike |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This paper deals with Simplicius’ discussion of Aristotle’s account of predication in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories. Of particular interest is the relation between synonymous predication and essential predication. In Aristotle, as well as in Simplicius, both kinds of predication are closely connected. It has been argued in Aristotelian scholarship that, for Aristotle, synonymous predication yields essential predication. It has been equally argued that this assumption is compatible with Aristotle’s theoretical framework, but if applied to Plato, would pose a problem for Plato. Simplicius’ extensive discussion of both synonymous predication and essential predication suggests that he was aware of the deeper problem raised by the assumption that synonymous predication yields essential predication. In this paper, I will argue that Simplicius, by means of an original interpretation of the predicate, not only turns the assumption that synonymous predication yields essential predication into a supposition that is less problematic for Plato, but also creates a framework for a possible harmonization of Plato and Aristotle. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/8YoeRxX8j2IaSIZ |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"407","_score":null,"_source":{"id":407,"authors_free":[{"id":545,"entry_id":407,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":174,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hauer, Mareike","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Hauer","norm_person":{"id":174,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Hauer","full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on Predication","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on Predication"},"abstract":"This paper deals with Simplicius\u2019 discussion of Aristotle\u2019s account of predication in his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories. Of particular interest is the relation between synonymous predication and essential predication. In Aristotle, as well as in Simplicius, both kinds of predication are closely connected. It has been argued in Aristotelian scholarship that, for Aristotle, synonymous predication yields essential predication. It has been equally argued that this assumption is compatible with Aristotle\u2019s theoretical framework, but if applied to Plato, would pose a problem for Plato. Simplicius\u2019 extensive discussion of both synonymous predication and essential predication suggests that he was aware of the deeper problem raised by the assumption that synonymous predication yields essential predication. In this paper, I will argue that Simplicius, by means of an original interpretation of the predicate, not only turns the assumption that synonymous predication yields essential predication into a supposition that is less problematic for Plato, but also creates a framework for a possible harmonization of Plato and Aristotle. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8YoeRxX8j2IaSIZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":174,"full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":407,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue de Philosophie Ancienne","volume":"33","issue":"2","pages":"173-200"}},"sort":[2015]}
| 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":[2015]}
| Title | Review of: I. Hadot, Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contemporaines |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2015 |
| Journal | Studia graeco-arabica |
| Volume | 5 |
| Pages | 385-388 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Chemi, Germana |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The book reviewed in this text is I. Hadot's "Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contemporaines. Un bilan critique", which presents a comprehensive evaluation of contemporary research on the life and work of the Neoplatonist philosopher Simplicius, as well as his reception in the Arab world. The book consists of three sections that respectively cover Simplicius's biography, his preserved works, and his lost works. The volume offers a rich panorama of Simplicius's studies and analyzes them to provide a complete status quaestionis on the author. The book, however, does not consider two crucial works of Simplicius: the commentaries on Physics and De Caelo, which limits its usefulness. The presentation of Simplicius's intellectual biography centers on the hypothesis that he settled in the city of Ḥarrān after leaving the court of the king Chosroes I, which the author supports with some evidence but does not provide any new conclusive arguments. [introduction/conclusion] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dB50Tmjq5TVAe1v |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1310","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1310,"authors_free":[{"id":1936,"entry_id":1310,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":99,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chemi, Germana","free_first_name":"Germana","free_last_name":"Chemi","norm_person":{"id":99,"first_name":"Germana","last_name":"Chemi","full_name":"Chemi, Germana","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of: I. Hadot, Le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des recherches contemporaines","main_title":{"title":"Review of: I. Hadot, Le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des recherches contemporaines"},"abstract":"The book reviewed in this text is I. Hadot's \"Le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des recherches contemporaines. Un bilan critique\", which presents a comprehensive evaluation of contemporary research on the life and work of the Neoplatonist philosopher Simplicius, as well as his reception in the Arab world. The book consists of three sections that respectively cover Simplicius's biography, his preserved works, and his lost works. The volume offers a rich panorama of Simplicius's studies and analyzes them to provide a complete status quaestionis on the author. The book, however, does not consider two crucial works of Simplicius: the commentaries on Physics and De Caelo, which limits its usefulness. The presentation of Simplicius's intellectual biography centers on the hypothesis that he settled in the city of \u1e24arr\u0101n after leaving the court of the king Chosroes I, which the author supports with some evidence but does not provide any new conclusive arguments. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dB50Tmjq5TVAe1v","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":99,"full_name":"Chemi, Germana","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1310,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studia graeco-arabica","volume":"5","issue":"","pages":"385-388"}},"sort":[2015]}
| Title | Review of Steel 2013: 'Simplicius’: On Aristotle On the Soul 3.6–13 |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2014 |
| Journal | The Classical Review |
| Volume | 64 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 436-437 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Van Dusen, David |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/OyKRZAvTUAa6dAC |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1504","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1504,"authors_free":[{"id":2614,"entry_id":1504,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":74,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Van Dusen, David","free_first_name":"David","free_last_name":"Van Dusen","norm_person":{"id":74,"first_name":"David ","last_name":"Van Dusen","full_name":"Van Dusen, David ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1066385637","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Steel 2013: 'Simplicius\u2019: On Aristotle On the Soul 3.6\u201313","main_title":{"title":"Review of Steel 2013: 'Simplicius\u2019: On Aristotle On the Soul 3.6\u201313"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OyKRZAvTUAa6dAC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":74,"full_name":"Van Dusen, David ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1504,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Review","volume":"64","issue":"2","pages":"436-437"}},"sort":[2014]}
| Title | Categories and Subcategories |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2014 |
| Journal | Anuario Filosófico |
| Volume | 47 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 395-411 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Tegtmeier, Erwin |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Starting from the traditional distinction between the minimal and the maximal division, the role of subcategories in Aristotle, as well as that of the highest categories, is discussed. The need for categorial properties which determine categories is pointed out. It is argued that an existent cannot have two such essential properties and that only the lowest subcategories have simple categorial properties. Furthermore, it is emphasised that categories and subcategories must form a tree because they belong to a theory of categories which requires unity. By contrast, it is held that the hierarchy of all concepts need not form a tree. The difficulties Porphyrius and Simplicius find in Aristotle’s minimal and maximal division are analysed. Finally, Aristotle’s way of avoiding categorial properties by referring to an abstraction is criticised. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vWZgrRFbI06woKZ |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"471","_score":null,"_source":{"id":471,"authors_free":[{"id":636,"entry_id":471,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":332,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tegtmeier, Erwin","free_first_name":"Erwin","free_last_name":"Tegtmeier","norm_person":{"id":332,"first_name":"Erwin","last_name":"Tegtmeier","full_name":"Tegtmeier, Erwin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172413745","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Categories and Subcategories","main_title":{"title":"Categories and Subcategories"},"abstract":"Starting from the traditional distinction between the minimal and the maximal division, the role of subcategories in Aristotle, as well as that of the highest categories, is discussed. The need for categorial properties which determine categories is pointed out. It is argued that an existent cannot have two such essential properties and that only the lowest subcategories have simple categorial properties. Furthermore, it is emphasised that categories and subcategories must form a tree because they belong to a theory of categories which requires unity. By contrast, it is held that the hierarchy of all concepts need not form a tree. The difficulties Porphyrius and Simplicius find in Aristotle\u2019s minimal and maximal division are analysed. Finally, Aristotle\u2019s way of avoiding categorial properties by referring to an abstraction is criticised. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vWZgrRFbI06woKZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":332,"full_name":"Tegtmeier, Erwin","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":471,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Anuario Filos\u00f3fico","volume":"47","issue":"2","pages":"395-411"}},"sort":[2014]}
| Title | Anaxagoras B 14 DK |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1976 |
| Journal | Hermes |
| Volume | 104 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 240-241 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Marcovich, Miroslav |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Notes about Anaxagoras B 14 DK |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/gNkGl0b57tMtg3l |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"987","_score":null,"_source":{"id":987,"authors_free":[{"id":1488,"entry_id":987,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":239,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Marcovich, Miroslav","free_first_name":"Miroslav","free_last_name":"Marcovich","norm_person":{"id":239,"first_name":"Miroslav","last_name":"Marcovich","full_name":"Marcovich, Miroslav","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107592630","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Anaxagoras B 14 DK","main_title":{"title":"Anaxagoras B 14 DK"},"abstract":"Notes about Anaxagoras B 14 DK","btype":3,"date":"1976","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gNkGl0b57tMtg3l","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":239,"full_name":"Marcovich, Miroslav","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":987,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"104","issue":"2","pages":"240-241"}},"sort":["Anaxagoras B 14 DK"]}
| Title | Anaxagoras Fr. 14 DK |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1974 |
| Journal | Hermes |
| Volume | 102 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 365-367 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Sider, David |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Note on Anaxagoras Fr. 14 DK |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6y3qYNUivIzXyg5 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"851","_score":null,"_source":{"id":851,"authors_free":[{"id":1255,"entry_id":851,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":320,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sider, David","free_first_name":"David","free_last_name":"Sider","norm_person":{"id":320,"first_name":"David","last_name":"Sider","full_name":"Sider, David","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1129478610","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Anaxagoras Fr. 14 DK","main_title":{"title":"Anaxagoras Fr. 14 DK"},"abstract":"Note on Anaxagoras Fr. 14 DK","btype":3,"date":"1974","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6y3qYNUivIzXyg5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":320,"full_name":"Sider, David","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":851,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"102","issue":"2","pages":"365-367"}},"sort":["Anaxagoras Fr. 14 DK"]}
| Title | Anaximander and Dr Dicks |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1970 |
| Journal | The Journal of Hellenic Studies |
| Volume | 90 |
| Pages | 198-199 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | O'Brien, Denis |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nVEgVIWZoLZ793l |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1102","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1102,"authors_free":[{"id":1665,"entry_id":1102,"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":"Anaximander and Dr Dicks","main_title":{"title":"Anaximander and Dr Dicks"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"1970","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nVEgVIWZoLZ793l","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":144,"full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1102,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Journal of Hellenic Studies","volume":"90","issue":"","pages":"198-199"}},"sort":["Anaximander and Dr Dicks"]}
| Title | Anaximander und die Anfänge der Philosophie |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 1953 |
| Journal | Hermes |
| Volume | 81 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 257-277 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hölscher, Uvo |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Der Satz HERMANN FRANKELS, daß alle doxographischen Berichte solange unbestimmt sind, als nicht originaler Wortlaut hinzukommt, gilt in gewissem Sinne auch umgekehrt. Denn obwohl jener Satz gerade auch mit Rücksicht auf Anaximander gesagt worden ist, hat doch die Diskussion des Anaximanderfragments gezeigt, wie vieldeutig ein Satzbruchstück bleibt, wenn man es für sich betrachtet, aber auch, wieviel Hilfe aus der Analyse der Überlieferung kommen kann. Aus dieser wird noch einiges herangezogen, ohne daß hinlänglich gefragt würde, wo es herrührt. Sofern es sich im folgenden noch einmal um die Lehre von den Gegensatzen handelt, kommt es mir weniger darauf an, dem einzelnen Placitum sein Recht zu bestreiten, als etwas von der Weise dieses schwer zugänglichen Denkens zu erkennen. Es wird dabei zunächst in einer Untersuchung fortgefahren werden, die sich schon ausgewiesen hat: der Kritik der aristotelischen Berichte. Im zweiten Teil soll dagegen versucht werden, jene Denkform von den Voraussetzungen her zu bestimmen, aus denen Anaximander seine Konzeption des Ursprungs entwickelt hat. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Zpxp2NKd2Uv79s7 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1398","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1398,"authors_free":[{"id":2177,"entry_id":1398,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":198,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"H\u00f6lscher, Uvo","free_first_name":"Uvo","free_last_name":"H\u00f6lscher","norm_person":{"id":198,"first_name":"Uvo","last_name":"H\u00f6lscher","full_name":"H\u00f6lscher, Uvo","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118705571","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Anaximander und die Anf\u00e4nge der Philosophie","main_title":{"title":"Anaximander und die Anf\u00e4nge der Philosophie"},"abstract":"Der Satz HERMANN FRANKELS, da\u00df alle doxographischen Berichte solange unbestimmt sind, als nicht originaler Wortlaut hinzukommt, gilt in gewissem Sinne auch umgekehrt. Denn obwohl jener Satz gerade auch mit R\u00fccksicht auf Anaximander gesagt worden ist, hat doch die Diskussion des Anaximanderfragments gezeigt, wie vieldeutig ein Satzbruchst\u00fcck bleibt, wenn man es f\u00fcr sich betrachtet, aber auch, wieviel Hilfe aus der Analyse der \u00dcberlieferung kommen kann. Aus dieser wird noch einiges herangezogen, ohne da\u00df hinl\u00e4nglich gefragt w\u00fcrde, wo es herr\u00fchrt. Sofern es sich im folgenden noch einmal um die Lehre von den Gegensatzen handelt, kommt es mir weniger darauf an, dem einzelnen Placitum sein Recht zu bestreiten, als etwas von der Weise dieses schwer zug\u00e4nglichen Denkens zu erkennen. Es wird dabei zun\u00e4chst in einer Untersuchung fortgefahren werden, die sich schon ausgewiesen hat: der Kritik der aristotelischen Berichte. Im zweiten Teil soll dagegen versucht werden, jene Denkform von den Voraussetzungen her zu bestimmen, aus denen Anaximander seine Konzeption des Ursprungs entwickelt hat.","btype":3,"date":"1953","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Zpxp2NKd2Uv79s7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":198,"full_name":"H\u00f6lscher, Uvo","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1398,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"81","issue":"3","pages":"257-277"}},"sort":["Anaximander und die Anf\u00e4nge der Philosophie"]}
| Title | Anaximander's Conception of the "Apeiron" |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1993 |
| Journal | Phronesis |
| Volume | 38 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 229-256 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Finkelberg, Aryeh |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Anaximander's Apeiron is perhaps the most obscure notion in Greek philos- ophy. Aristotle was puzzled by it, suggesting various and greatly differing interpretations of the concept. But while Aristotle's construals were in a sense predominantly ad hoc and exempli gratia, Theophrastus committed himself, at least in the expository sections of his Physical Opinions, to a concise presentation - with attention to their authentic setting and idiom - of the teachings of the earlier thinkers... [p. 229] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JF4CzPpwZEekdai |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"749","_score":null,"_source":{"id":749,"authors_free":[{"id":1114,"entry_id":749,"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":"Anaximander's Conception of the \"Apeiron\"","main_title":{"title":"Anaximander's Conception of the \"Apeiron\""},"abstract":"Anaximander's Apeiron is perhaps the most obscure notion in Greek philos- \r\nophy. Aristotle was puzzled by it, suggesting various and greatly differing \r\ninterpretations of the concept. But while Aristotle's construals were in a \r\nsense predominantly ad hoc and exempli gratia, Theophrastus committed \r\nhimself, at least in the expository sections of his Physical Opinions, to a \r\nconcise presentation - with attention to their authentic setting and idiom - \r\nof the teachings of the earlier thinkers... [p. 229]","btype":3,"date":"1993","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JF4CzPpwZEekdai","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":113,"full_name":"Finkelberg, Aryeh","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":749,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"38","issue":"3","pages":"229-256"}},"sort":["Anaximander's Conception of the \"Apeiron\""]}
| Title | Anaximander: Zu den Quellen und seiner Einordnung im Vorsokratischen Denken |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 1964 |
| Journal | Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte |
| Volume | 9 |
| Pages | 59-72 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Schwabl, Hans |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
ANAXIMANDERZU DEN QUELLEN UND SEINER EINORDNUNG IM VORS OKRATISCHEN DENKEN. Hans Schwabl Die alten Milesier können erst nach einiger kritischer Vorarbeit Ge genstand begriffsgeschichtlicher Forschung sein. Der Anfang der grie chischen Philosophie ist uns ja nur durch die Berichte Späterer überliefert und aus dem Blickwinkel einer Problemstellung, die nicht mehr die der ersten Philosophen ist. So scheint der Versuch, die Eigenart der milesischen Philosophie zu bestimmen, zunächst so gut wie aussichtslos, insbesondere wenn man bedenkt, daß nicht einmal die eigentliche Quelle unserer Nach richten, das Werk Theophrasts, uns als solche überkommen ist, sondern daß wir auch hier erst rekonstruieren müssen.Der Anfang muß also sein, zu erforschen, was Theophrast gesagt und gemeint hat. Erst dann stellt sich die Aufgabe einer Rückübersetzung sei ner Berichte ins Archaische. Diese Rückübersetzung ist nur möglich inner halb einer entwicklungsgeschichtlichen Linie, die von den Früheren zu den Milesiern1) und von diesen wieder zu den späteren Vorsokratikern2) zu ziehen ist. In unserer kurzen Skizze kann das dafür schon Geleistete bzw. noch zu Leistende nur angedeutet werden. Wir beschränken uns außerdem auf Anaximander, einmal wegen der besonderen Stellung, die ihm zukommt, dann aber auch wegen der Quellenlage, die, wenn man sie nur recht einzuschätzen weiß, doch einigermaßen tragfähige Schlüsse auf den Ansatzpunkt und die Eigenart dieses frühen Denkers gestattet. [pp. 59 f.] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/TtvN2KY9lnbgZdC |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1031","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1031,"authors_free":[{"id":1561,"entry_id":1031,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":288,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Schwabl, Hans","free_first_name":"Hans","free_last_name":"Schwabl","norm_person":{"id":288,"first_name":"Hans","last_name":"Schwabl","full_name":"Schwabl, Hans","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107871211","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Anaximander: Zu den Quellen und seiner Einordnung im Vorsokratischen Denken","main_title":{"title":"Anaximander: Zu den Quellen und seiner Einordnung im Vorsokratischen Denken"},"abstract":"ANAXIMANDERZU DEN QUELLEN UND SEINER EINORDNUNG \r\nIM VORS OKRATISCHEN DENKEN.\r\nHans Schwabl\r\nDie alten Milesier k\u00f6nnen erst nach einiger kritischer Vorarbeit Ge\u00ad\r\ngenstand begriffsgeschichtlicher Forschung sein. Der Anfang der grie\u00ad\r\nchischen Philosophie ist uns ja nur durch die Berichte Sp\u00e4terer \u00fcberliefert \r\nund aus dem Blickwinkel einer Problemstellung, die nicht mehr die der \r\nersten Philosophen ist. So scheint der Versuch, die Eigenart der milesischen \r\nPhilosophie zu bestimmen, zun\u00e4chst so gut wie aussichtslos, insbesondere \r\nwenn man bedenkt, da\u00df nicht einmal die eigentliche Quelle unserer Nach\u00ad\r\nrichten, das Werk Theophrasts, uns als solche \u00fcberkommen ist, sondern \r\nda\u00df wir auch hier erst rekonstruieren m\u00fcssen.Der Anfang mu\u00df also sein, zu erforschen, was Theophrast gesagt und \r\ngemeint hat. Erst dann stellt sich die Aufgabe einer R\u00fcck\u00fcbersetzung sei\u00ad\r\nner Berichte ins Archaische. Diese R\u00fcck\u00fcbersetzung ist nur m\u00f6glich inner\u00ad\r\nhalb einer entwicklungsgeschichtlichen Linie, die von den Fr\u00fcheren zu \r\nden Milesiern1) und von diesen wieder zu den sp\u00e4teren Vorsokratikern2) \r\nzu ziehen ist. In unserer kurzen Skizze kann das daf\u00fcr schon Geleistete \r\nbzw. noch zu Leistende nur angedeutet werden. Wir beschr\u00e4nken uns \r\nau\u00dferdem auf Anaximander, einmal wegen der besonderen Stellung, die \r\nihm zukommt, dann aber auch wegen der Quellenlage, die, wenn man sie nur recht einzusch\u00e4tzen wei\u00df, doch einigerma\u00dfen tragf\u00e4hige Schl\u00fcsse auf \r\nden Ansatzpunkt und die Eigenart dieses fr\u00fchen Denkers gestattet. [pp. 59 f.]","btype":3,"date":"1964","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TtvN2KY9lnbgZdC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":288,"full_name":"Schwabl, Hans","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1031,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archiv f\u00fcr Begriffsgeschichte","volume":"9","issue":"","pages":"59-72"}},"sort":["Anaximander: Zu den Quellen und seiner Einordnung im Vorsokratischen Denken"]}
| Title | Ancient Interpretations of Aristotle's Doctrine of Homonyma |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1969 |
| Journal | Journal of the History of Philosophy |
| Volume | 7 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 1–18 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Anton, John Peter |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
The main pourpose of this paper is to offer an exposition and a critical examina- tion of the ancient interpretations of Aristotle's doctrine of h o m o n y m . A circum- locution of what Aristotle means by h o m o n y m things is given in Categories, Ch. I I a. The ancient interpretations with which we are concerned in this paper are to be found in the extant commentaries on this treatise. Evidently, more com- mentaries had been written on the Categories than the vicissitudes of time allowed to survive, but we have only those of the following writers: Porphyrius (c: 233-303), Dexippus (ft. c. 350), Ammonius (ft. C. 485), Philoponus (c. 490-530), Olympiodorus (ft. c. 535), $implicius (ft. c. 533), Elias (ft. c. 550). One might add here the relevant writings of John Damascene (675-749), Photius (820-891), and Michael Psellus (1018-1079), which are useful paraphrases rather than full commentaries; for that reason the interpretations they support are not discussed in this paper. [Introduction, p. 1] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/gl38sMRyj06PcEg |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1003","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1003,"authors_free":[{"id":1508,"entry_id":1003,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":34,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Anton, John Peter","free_first_name":"John Peter","free_last_name":"Anton","norm_person":{"id":34,"first_name":"John Peter","last_name":"Anton","full_name":"Anton, John Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/171952154","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ancient Interpretations of Aristotle's Doctrine of Homonyma","main_title":{"title":"Ancient Interpretations of Aristotle's Doctrine of Homonyma"},"abstract":"The main pourpose of this paper is to offer an exposition and a critical examina- \r\ntion of the ancient interpretations of Aristotle's doctrine of h o m o n y m . A circum- \r\nlocution of what Aristotle means by h o m o n y m things is given in Categories, \r\nCh. I I a. The ancient interpretations with which we are concerned in this paper are \r\nto be found in the extant commentaries on this treatise. Evidently, more com- \r\nmentaries had been written on the Categories than the vicissitudes of time allowed \r\nto survive, but we have only those of the following writers: Porphyrius (c: 233-303), \r\nDexippus (ft. c. 350), Ammonius (ft. C. 485), Philoponus (c. 490-530), Olympiodorus \r\n(ft. c. 535), $implicius (ft. c. 533), Elias (ft. c. 550). One might add here the relevant \r\nwritings of John Damascene (675-749), Photius (820-891), and Michael Psellus \r\n(1018-1079), which are useful paraphrases rather than full commentaries; for that \r\nreason the interpretations they support are not discussed in this paper. [Introduction, p. 1]","btype":3,"date":"1969","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gl38sMRyj06PcEg","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":34,"full_name":"Anton, John Peter","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1003,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Journal of the History of Philosophy","volume":"7","issue":"1","pages":"1\u201318"}},"sort":["Ancient Interpretations of Aristotle's Doctrine of Homonyma"]}
| Title | Ancora su Simplicio e le Categorie |
| Type | Article |
| Language | Italian |
| Date | 1990 |
| Journal | Rivista di Storia della Filosofia |
| Volume | 45 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 723-732 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Isnardi Parente, Margherita |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/4km8SLiyTkbWueS |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"620","_score":null,"_source":{"id":620,"authors_free":[{"id":876,"entry_id":620,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":282,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Isnardi Parente, Margherita","free_first_name":"Margherita","free_last_name":"Parente","norm_person":{"id":282,"first_name":"Margherita","last_name":"Isnardi Parente","full_name":"Isnardi Parente, Margherita","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1023256045","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ancora su Simplicio e le Categorie","main_title":{"title":"Ancora su Simplicio e le Categorie"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"1990","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4km8SLiyTkbWueS","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":282,"full_name":"Isnardi Parente, Margherita","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":620,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rivista di Storia della Filosofia","volume":"45","issue":"4","pages":"723-732"}},"sort":["Ancora su Simplicio e le Categorie"]}
| Title | Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin’s Aristotle’s Categories in the Early Roman Empire |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2018 |
| Journal | Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale |
| Volume | 29 |
| Pages | 13-43 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Menn, Stephen |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Griffin, Rashed, and Chiaradonna have shown how we can use Simplicius’ Categories commentary to reconstruct much of Porphyry’s 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 building 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’s and Porphyry’s responses. I reconstruct (i) Andronicus’ interpretation of ‘in’ and ‘said of, which is based on Aristotle’s distinction between abstract nouns and paronymous concrete nouns, and avoids the metaphysical freight that later interpreters load onto the notion of ‘said o f; (ii) Boethus’ use of De Interpretation 1 to explain how a universal term can be synonymous without positing either universals in re or Stoic XeKid, and the consequences he draws for the different aims of the Categories and De Interpretation; and (iii) Boethus’ solution to the tension between Aristotle’s hylomorphism and the Categories’ account of substance. Boethus, unlike later interpreters, thinks the form is in the matter, and is therefore not a substance but (typically) a quality, but that it is nonetheless able to constitute the composite as a substance distinct from the matter. I bring out the Aristotelian basis for Boethus’ reading, connect it with Boethus’ accounts of differentiae and of the soul, and show how Boethus’ views help motivate Porphyry’s responses. In some cases Porphyry constructs his views by triangulating between Boethus and Alexander. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/f40u6koKhn1exfj |
{"_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"]}
| Title | Andronikos von Rhodos und die Postprädikamente bei Boethius |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 1953 |
| Journal | Vigiliae Christianae |
| Volume | 7 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 98-115 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Pfligersdorffer, Georg |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
In der Erläuterungsschrift des Boethius zu den Kategorien des Aristoteles ist nach Absolvierung der einzelnen Kategorien das vierte Buch der Besprechung der sogenannten Postprädikamente 1 eingeräumt (Migne PL 64, 263-294), wozu freilich gleich auch gesagt werden musz, dasz die handschriftliche Überlieferung vielfach die Abtrennung eines vierten Buches nicht aufweist, sondern die uns geläufigen Bücher III und IV zu einem zusammenfaszt2, worauf hier jedoch nicht weiter eingegangen werden soll. Mit diesem Sachverhalt scheint zusammenzuhängen, dasz — soweit ich bis jetzt sagen kann — die Handschriften C(odex) l(atinus) m(ona- censis) 6403 und 14516, Bern. 265, Paris. B. N. lat. 11129 sowie die Sangallenses 817 und 821 gegenüber der Ausgabe von Migne das Aristoteles-Lemma de oppositis (Kateg. 10, 11b 16 ff.) vor die Kommentar-Partie 263 B-264 B Migne (Expeditis . . . ) treten lassen. [...] Die Zweifel, die sich an die Stelle 263 B M. knüpfen, möchte ich im folgenden, um einschlägige Arbeiten anderer nicht indirekt zu hemmen, schon vor meiner Ausgabe möglichst einschränken und vielleicht auch beheben. [pp. 98 f.] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mCsRFrGz5HP1MnJ |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"776","_score":null,"_source":{"id":776,"authors_free":[{"id":1140,"entry_id":776,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":290,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Pfligersdorffer, Georg","free_first_name":"Georg","free_last_name":"Pfligersdorffer","norm_person":{"id":290,"first_name":"Georg","last_name":"Pfligersdorffer","full_name":"Pfligersdorffer, Georg","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118911864","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Andronikos von Rhodos und die Postpr\u00e4dikamente bei Boethius","main_title":{"title":"Andronikos von Rhodos und die Postpr\u00e4dikamente bei Boethius"},"abstract":"In der Erl\u00e4uterungsschrift des Boethius zu den Kategorien des \r\nAristoteles ist nach Absolvierung der einzelnen Kategorien das \r\nvierte Buch der Besprechung der sogenannten Postpr\u00e4dikamente 1 \r\neinger\u00e4umt (Migne PL 64, 263-294), wozu freilich gleich auch \r\ngesagt werden musz, dasz die handschriftliche \u00dcberlieferung vielfach \r\ndie Abtrennung eines vierten Buches nicht aufweist, sondern die \r\nuns gel\u00e4ufigen B\u00fccher III und IV zu einem zusammenfaszt2, \r\nworauf hier jedoch nicht weiter eingegangen werden soll. Mit \r\ndiesem Sachverhalt scheint zusammenzuh\u00e4ngen, dasz \u2014 soweit ich \r\nbis jetzt sagen kann \u2014 die Handschriften C(odex) l(atinus) m(ona- \r\ncensis) 6403 und 14516, Bern. 265, Paris. B. N. lat. 11129 sowie \r\ndie Sangallenses 817 und 821 gegen\u00fcber der Ausgabe von Migne \r\ndas Aristoteles-Lemma de oppositis (Kateg. 10, 11b 16 ff.) vor die \r\nKommentar-Partie 263 B-264 B Migne (Expeditis . . . ) treten \r\nlassen. [...] Die Zweifel, die sich an die Stelle 263 B M. kn\u00fcpfen, m\u00f6chte ich \r\nim folgenden, um einschl\u00e4gige Arbeiten anderer nicht indirekt zu hemmen, schon vor meiner Ausgabe m\u00f6glichst einschr\u00e4nken und \r\nvielleicht auch beheben. [pp. 98 f.]","btype":3,"date":"1953","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mCsRFrGz5HP1MnJ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":290,"full_name":"Pfligersdorffer, Georg","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":776,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Vigiliae Christianae","volume":"7","issue":"2","pages":"98-115"}},"sort":["Andronikos von Rhodos und die Postpr\u00e4dikamente bei Boethius"]}