| Title | Simplicius on the "Theaetetus" ("In Physica" 17,38-18,23 Diels) |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2010 |
| Journal | Phronesis |
| Volume | 55 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 255-270 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Menn, Stephen |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Aristotle in Physics 1,1 says some strange-sounding things about how we come to know wholes and parts, universals and particulars. In explicating these, Simplicius distinguishes an initial rough cognition of a thing as a whole, an intermediate "cognition according to the definition and through the elements," and a final cognition of how the thing's many elements are united: only this last is ἐπιστήμη. Simplicius refers to the Theaetetus for the point about what is needed for ἐπιστήμη and the ways that cognition according to the definition and through the elements falls short. By unpacking this reference I try to recon struct Simplicius' reading of "Socrates' Dream," its place in the Theaetetus larger argument, and its harmony with other Platonic and Aristotelian texts. But this reconstruction depends on undoing some catastrophic emendations in Diels's text of Simplicius. Diels's emendations arise from his assumptions about definitions and elements, in Socrates' Dream and elsewhere, and rethinking the Simplicius passage may help us rethink those assumptions. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/hFUY0I2JzLFnSQG |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"977","_score":null,"_source":{"id":977,"authors_free":[{"id":1476,"entry_id":977,"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":"Simplicius on the \"Theaetetus\" (\"In Physica\" 17,38-18,23 Diels)","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on the \"Theaetetus\" (\"In Physica\" 17,38-18,23 Diels)"},"abstract":"Aristotle in Physics 1,1 says some strange-sounding things about how we come to know wholes and parts, universals and particulars. In explicating these, Simplicius distinguishes an initial rough cognition of a thing as a whole, an intermediate \"cognition according to the definition and through the elements,\" and a final cognition of how the thing's many elements are united: only this last is \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7. Simplicius refers to the Theaetetus for the point about what is needed for \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7 and the ways that cognition according to the definition and through the elements falls short. By unpacking this reference I try to recon struct Simplicius' reading of \"Socrates' Dream,\" its place in the Theaetetus larger argument, and its harmony with other Platonic and Aristotelian texts. But this reconstruction depends on undoing some catastrophic emendations in Diels's text of Simplicius. Diels's emendations arise from his assumptions about definitions and elements, in Socrates' Dream and elsewhere, and rethinking the Simplicius passage may help us rethink those assumptions. ","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hFUY0I2JzLFnSQG","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":255,"full_name":"Menn, Stephen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":977,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"55","issue":"3","pages":"255-270"}},"sort":[2010]}
| Title | Simplicius on the Reality of Relations and Relational Change |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2009 |
| Journal | Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy |
| Volume | 37 |
| Pages | 245-274 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Harari, Orna |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The ancient commentators’ approach to Aristotle’s account of relatives in Categories 7 is shaped by the conception that prevailed in later antiquity, in which relatives are composites of a substrate, i.e. an attribute that belongs to the other categories, and a relation. Simplicius shares this conception with the other commentators, but he formulates it in different terms. He calls the substrate on which relational attributes supervene a difference (διαφορά) or a character (χαρακτήρ) and the supervening relational attribute an inclination (ἀπόνευσις). In this study I attempt to clarify the significance of this terminology, arguing that through the notion of inclination Simplicius answers the question of the unity of Aristotle’s category of relatives, as formulated in Plotinus’ Ennead 6. 1. 6-9. To expound this contention, I outline Plotinus’ construal of Aristotle’s category of relatives. [Introduction, pp. 245 f.] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EIKXB0T5OT2ezjh |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1145","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1145,"authors_free":[{"id":1718,"entry_id":1145,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":169,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Harari, Orna","free_first_name":"Orna","free_last_name":"Harari","norm_person":{"id":169,"first_name":"Orna","last_name":"Harari","full_name":"Harari Orna","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on the Reality of Relations and Relational Change","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on the Reality of Relations and Relational Change"},"abstract":"The ancient commentators\u2019 approach to Aristotle\u2019s account of relatives in Categories 7 is shaped by the conception that prevailed in later antiquity, in which relatives are composites of a substrate, i.e. an attribute that belongs to the other categories, and a relation. Simplicius shares this conception with the other commentators, but he formulates it in different terms. He calls the substrate on which relational attributes supervene a difference (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1f71) or a character (\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u1f75\u03c1) and the supervening relational attribute an inclination (\u1f00\u03c0\u1f79\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2). In this study I attempt to clarify the significance of this terminology, arguing that through the notion of inclination Simplicius answers the question of the unity of Aristotle\u2019s category of relatives, as formulated in Plotinus\u2019 Ennead 6. 1. 6-9. To expound this contention, I outline Plotinus\u2019 construal of Aristotle\u2019s category of relatives. [Introduction, pp. 245 f.]","btype":3,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EIKXB0T5OT2ezjh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":169,"full_name":"Harari Orna","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1145,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","volume":"37","issue":"","pages":"245-274"}},"sort":[2009]}
| Title | The Stoic Ontology of Geometrical Limits |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2009 |
| Journal | Phronesis |
| Volume | 54 |
| Issue | 4/5 |
| Pages | 371-389 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Eunyoung Ju, Anna |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Scholars have long recognised the interest of the Stoics' thought on geometrical limits, both as a specific topic in their physics and within the context of the school's ontological taxonomy. Unfortunately, insufficient textual evidence remains for us to reconstruct their discussion fully. The sources we do have on Stoic geometrical themes are highly polemical, tending to reveal a disagreement as to whether limit is to be understood as a mere concept, as a body or as an incorporeal. In my view, this disagreement held among the historical Stoics, rather than simply reflecting a doxographical divergence in transmission. This apparently Stoic disagreement has generated extensive debate, in which there is still no consensus as to a standard Stoic doctrine of limit. The evidence is thin, and little of it refers in detail to specific texts, especially from the school's founders. But in its overall features the evidence suggests that Posidonius and Cleomedes differed from their Stoic precursors on this topic. There are also grounds for believing that some degree of disagreement obtained between the early Stoics over the metaphysical status of shape. Assuming the Stoics did so disagree, the principal question in the scholarship on Stoic ontology is whether there were actually positions that might be called "standard" within Stoicism on the topic of limit. In attempting to answer this question, my discussion initially sets out to illuminate certain features of early Stoic thinking about limit, and then takes stock of the views offered by late Stoics, notably Posidonius and Cleomedes. Attention to Stoic arguments suggests that the school's founders developed two accounts of shape: on the one hand, as a thought-construct, and, on the other, as a body. In an attempt to resolve the crux bequeathed to them, the school's successors suggested that limits are incorporeal. While the authorship of this last notion cannot be securely identified on account of the absence of direct evidence, it may be traced back to Posidonius, and it went on to have subsequent influence on Stoic thinking, namely in Cleomedes' astronomy. [Author’s abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ml8U3H9WZ6lcXpn |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"750","_score":null,"_source":{"id":750,"authors_free":[{"id":1115,"entry_id":750,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":83,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Eunyoung Ju, Anna","free_first_name":"Anna","free_last_name":"Eunyoung Ju","norm_person":{"id":83,"first_name":"Anna","last_name":"Eunyoung Ju","full_name":"Eunyoung Ju, Anna","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Stoic Ontology of Geometrical Limits","main_title":{"title":"The Stoic Ontology of Geometrical Limits"},"abstract":"Scholars have long recognised the interest of the Stoics' thought on geometrical limits, both \r\nas a specific topic in their physics and within the context of the school's ontological \r\ntaxonomy. Unfortunately, insufficient textual evidence remains for us to reconstruct their \r\ndiscussion fully. The sources we do have on Stoic geometrical themes are highly polemical, \r\ntending to reveal a disagreement as to whether limit is to be understood as a mere concept, \r\nas a body or as an incorporeal. In my view, this disagreement held among the historical \r\nStoics, rather than simply reflecting a doxographical divergence in transmission. This \r\napparently Stoic disagreement has generated extensive debate, in which there is still no \r\nconsensus as to a standard Stoic doctrine of limit. The evidence is thin, and little of it refers \r\nin detail to specific texts, especially from the school's founders. But in its overall features the \r\nevidence suggests that Posidonius and Cleomedes differed from their Stoic precursors on \r\nthis topic. There are also grounds for believing that some degree of disagreement obtained \r\nbetween the early Stoics over the metaphysical status of shape. Assuming the Stoics did so \r\ndisagree, the principal question in the scholarship on Stoic ontology is whether there were \r\nactually positions that might be called \"standard\" within Stoicism on the topic of limit. In \r\nattempting to answer this question, my discussion initially sets out to illuminate certain \r\nfeatures of early Stoic thinking about limit, and then takes stock of the views offered by late \r\nStoics, notably Posidonius and Cleomedes. Attention to Stoic arguments suggests that the \r\nschool's founders developed two accounts of shape: on the one hand, as a thought-construct, \r\nand, on the other, as a body. In an attempt to resolve the crux bequeathed to them, the \r\nschool's successors suggested that limits are incorporeal. While the authorship of this last \r\nnotion cannot be securely identified on account of the absence of direct evidence, it may be \r\ntraced back to Posidonius, and it went on to have subsequent influence on Stoic thinking, \r\nnamely in Cleomedes' astronomy. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ml8U3H9WZ6lcXpn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":83,"full_name":"Eunyoung Ju, Anna","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":750,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"54","issue":"4\/5","pages":"371-389"}},"sort":[2009]}
| Title | Review of Baltussen 2008: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2009 |
| Journal | The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition |
| Volume | 3 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 158 –160 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Dillon, John |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Review of Han Balthussen, Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Com mentator. London: Duckworth, 2008. Pp. xii + 292. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/58w8rSGOYSKRK4e |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"601","_score":null,"_source":{"id":601,"authors_free":[{"id":852,"entry_id":601,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":97,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dillon, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Dillon","norm_person":{"id":97,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Dillon","full_name":"Dillon, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123498058","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Baltussen 2008: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator","main_title":{"title":"Review of Baltussen 2008: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator"},"abstract":"Review of Han Balthussen, Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Com\u00ad\r\nmentator. London: Duckworth, 2008. Pp. xii + 292.","btype":3,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/58w8rSGOYSKRK4e","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":97,"full_name":"Dillon, John","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":601,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"3","issue":"2","pages":"158 \u2013160"}},"sort":[2009]}
| Title | Simplicius and James of Viterbo on Propensities |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2009 |
| Journal | Vivarium |
| Volume | 47 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 24-53 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Côté, Antoine |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The paper examines Simplicius's doctrine of propensities (epitedeioteis ) in his commen- tary on Aristotles Categories and follows its application by the late thirteenth century theologian and philosopher James of Viterbo to problems relating to the causes of volition, intellection and natural change. Although he uses Aristotelian terminology and means his doctrine to conflict minimally with those of Aristode, James s doctrine of propensities really constitutes an attempt to provide a technically rigorous dressing to his Augustinián and Boethian convictions. Central to Jamess procedure is his rejection, following Henry of Ghent, of the principle that "everything that is moved is moved by another". James uses Simplicius' doctrine of propensities as a means of extending the rejection of that principle, which Henry had limited to the case of the will, to cognitive operations and natural change. The result is a theory of cognition and volition that sees the soul as the principal cause of its own acts, and a theory of natural change that minimizes the causal impact of external agents. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3AhYdm0BGxI0RJo |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1282","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1282,"authors_free":[{"id":1871,"entry_id":1282,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":56,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"C\u00f4t\u00e9, Antoine","free_first_name":"Antoine","free_last_name":"C\u00f4t\u00e9","norm_person":{"id":56,"first_name":"Antoine","last_name":"C\u00f4t\u00e9","full_name":"C\u00f4t\u00e9, Antoine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137198221","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and James of Viterbo on Propensities","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and James of Viterbo on Propensities"},"abstract":"The paper examines Simplicius's doctrine of propensities (epitedeioteis ) in his commen- \r\ntary on Aristotles Categories and follows its application by the late thirteenth century theologian and philosopher James of Viterbo to problems relating to the causes of \r\nvolition, intellection and natural change. Although he uses Aristotelian terminology and means his doctrine to conflict minimally with those of Aristode, James s doctrine of propensities really constitutes an attempt to provide a technically rigorous dressing to his Augustini\u00e1n and Boethian convictions. Central to Jamess procedure is his rejection, following Henry of Ghent, of the principle that \"everything that is moved is moved by another\". James uses Simplicius' doctrine of propensities as a means of extending the rejection of that principle, which Henry had limited to the case of the will, to cognitive operations and natural change. The result is a theory of cognition and volition that sees the soul as the principal cause of its own acts, and a theory of natural change that minimizes the causal impact of external agents. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3AhYdm0BGxI0RJo","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":56,"full_name":"C\u00f4t\u00e9, Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1282,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Vivarium","volume":"47","issue":"1","pages":"24-53"}},"sort":[2009]}
| Title | Einige Corollarien des Simplicius in seinem Commentar zu Aristoteles’ Physik (ed. Diels). I. p. 1129–1152 (contra Philoponum) |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 2009 |
| Journal | Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie |
| Volume | 15 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 186–213 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Zahlfleisch, Johann |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Der vorliegende Text behandelt einige Corollarien von Simplicius in seinem Kommentar zu Aristoteles' Physik, wobei er sich insbesondere mit Philoponus' Einwänden auseinandersetzt. Die Diskussion dreht sich um die Definition der Bewegung bei Aristoteles und die Frage nach ewigen und begrenzten Bewegungen. Philoponus hinterfragt, wie begrenzte Bewegung als Folge einer ewigen Bewegung angesehen werden kann, da die Potenz immer bestehe und eine Bedingung für die Bewegung sei. Simplicius argumentiert, dass die Potenz und Bewegung untrennbar verbunden sind und dass es keine ewige Bewegung geben könne. Er erläutert Aristoteles' Position und verteidigt sie gegen Philoponus' Einwände. Die Diskussion umfasst Themen wie die Rolle der Potenz in der Bewegung, die Anwendung der Begriffsdefinition auf verschiedene Sachverhalte und die Frage nach einem obersten Beweger. Am Ende wird betont, dass selbst bei einer Ablehnung des Aristotelischen Axioms von der Bewegung die Annahme eines ewigen obersten Bewegers bestehen bleibt. [introduction] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/pDLxkreRioxOsZ4 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1548","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1548,"authors_free":[{"id":2705,"entry_id":1548,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Zahlfleisch, Johann","free_first_name":"Johann","free_last_name":"Zahlfleisch","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Einige Corollarien des Simplicius in seinem Commentar zu Aristoteles\u2019 Physik (ed. Diels). I. p. 1129\u20131152 (contra Philoponum)","main_title":{"title":"Einige Corollarien des Simplicius in seinem Commentar zu Aristoteles\u2019 Physik (ed. Diels). I. p. 1129\u20131152 (contra Philoponum)"},"abstract":"Der vorliegende Text behandelt einige Corollarien von Simplicius in seinem Kommentar zu Aristoteles' Physik, wobei er sich insbesondere mit Philoponus' Einw\u00e4nden auseinandersetzt. Die Diskussion dreht sich um die Definition der Bewegung bei Aristoteles und die Frage nach ewigen und begrenzten Bewegungen. Philoponus hinterfragt, wie begrenzte Bewegung als Folge einer ewigen Bewegung angesehen werden kann, da die Potenz immer bestehe und eine Bedingung f\u00fcr die Bewegung sei. Simplicius argumentiert, dass die Potenz und Bewegung untrennbar verbunden sind und dass es keine ewige Bewegung geben k\u00f6nne. Er erl\u00e4utert Aristoteles' Position und verteidigt sie gegen Philoponus' Einw\u00e4nde. Die Diskussion umfasst Themen wie die Rolle der Potenz in der Bewegung, die Anwendung der Begriffsdefinition auf verschiedene Sachverhalte und die Frage nach einem obersten Beweger. Am Ende wird betont, dass selbst bei einer Ablehnung des Aristotelischen Axioms von der Bewegung die Annahme eines ewigen obersten Bewegers bestehen bleibt. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"2009","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/pDLxkreRioxOsZ4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1548,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archiv f\u00fcr Geschichte der Philosophie","volume":"15","issue":"2","pages":"186\u2013213"}},"sort":[2009]}
| Title | Simplicius: Commentary, Harmony, and Authority |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2009 |
| Journal | Antiquorum Philosophia |
| Volume | 3 |
| Pages | 101-119 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Barney, Rachel |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| So to understand Neoplatonic harmonization we must look beyond their reconcilia tion of Plato and Aristotle, however crazy or compelling we may happen to find it. Two further questions also need to be addressed: first, how and why different Neoplatonists constructed their more comprehensive projects o f harmonization as they did, each with its distinctive scope and strategies; and second, what if anything we can say about the salient features of harmonization as such, as an interpretive and philosophical prac tice with rules and rewards of its own. In this paper, I will try to address these questions, albeit in a brief and preliminary way, with regard to die late commentator Simplicius.4 First, I will outline the norms and methods which govern Simplicius' argument for the essential harmony o f his tradition. Second, I will sketch, in admittedly rather abstract terms, some o f the intellectual attractions o f harmonizing projects in philosophy, and w ill attempt to locate Simplicius within this broad genre. [pp. 102 f.] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/A8TFmCyUiKsZjZ8 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"825","_score":null,"_source":{"id":825,"authors_free":[{"id":1226,"entry_id":825,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":418,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Barney, Rachel","free_first_name":"Rachel","free_last_name":"Barney","norm_person":{"id":418,"first_name":"Rachel","last_name":"Barney","full_name":"Barney, Rachel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/17355959X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius: Commentary, Harmony, and Authority","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius: Commentary, Harmony, and Authority"},"abstract":"So to understand Neoplatonic harmonization we must look beyond their reconcilia\u00ad\r\ntion of Plato and Aristotle, however crazy or compelling we may happen to find it. Two \r\nfurther questions also need to be addressed: first, how and why different Neoplatonists \r\nconstructed their more comprehensive projects o f harmonization as they did, each \r\nwith its distinctive scope and strategies; and second, what if anything we can say about \r\nthe salient features of harmonization as such, as an interpretive and philosophical prac\u00ad\r\ntice with rules and rewards of its own. In this paper, I will try to address these questions, \r\nalbeit in a brief and preliminary way, with regard to die late commentator Simplicius.4 \r\nFirst, I will outline the norms and methods which govern Simplicius' argument for the essential harmony o f his tradition. Second, I will sketch, in admittedly rather abstract \r\nterms, some o f the intellectual attractions o f harmonizing projects in philosophy, and \r\nw ill attempt to locate Simplicius within this broad genre. [pp. 102 f.]","btype":3,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/A8TFmCyUiKsZjZ8","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":418,"full_name":"Barney, Rachel","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":825,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Antiquorum Philosophia","volume":"3","issue":"","pages":"101-119"}},"sort":[2009]}
| Title | Plotin und Simplikios über die Kategorie des Wo |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 2009 |
| Journal | Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte |
| Volume | 51 |
| Pages | 7-33 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Strobel, Benedikt |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Spekulationen über historische Abhängigkeiten beiseitelassend, werde ich mich im Folgenden auf die Fragen konzentrieren: (i) Welche Ansätze zur semantischen Analyse von Lokativen sind in Plotins Argumenten gegen die Annahme der Kategorie des Wo enthalten? (ii) Welche Ansätze sind in Simplikios' Verteidigung der Annahme enthalten? Und (iii) wie sind diese Ansätze zu beurteilen? Um diese Fragen zu beantworten, werde ich die für die semantische Analyse von Lokativen relevanten Zeilen 1-18 des 14. Kapitels des ersten Teils von Plotins "Über die Gattungen des Seienden" (VI 1 [42]) zusammen mit Simplikios' Antworten im Kategorien-Kommentar (In Cat. 359.33-361.6) detailliert besprechen. [S. 10] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kvHyOG29qEMEWKA |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"844","_score":null,"_source":{"id":844,"authors_free":[{"id":1248,"entry_id":844,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":326,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Strobel","norm_person":{"id":326,"first_name":" Benedikt","last_name":"Strobel,","full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173882056","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plotin und Simplikios \u00fcber die Kategorie des Wo","main_title":{"title":"Plotin und Simplikios \u00fcber die Kategorie des Wo"},"abstract":"Spekulationen \u00fcber historische Abh\u00e4ngigkeiten beiseitelassend, werde ich mich im Folgenden auf die Fragen konzentrieren: (i) Welche Ans\u00e4tze zur semantischen Analyse von Lokativen sind in Plotins Argumenten gegen die Annahme der Kategorie des Wo enthalten? (ii) Welche Ans\u00e4tze sind in Simplikios' Verteidigung der Annahme enthalten? Und (iii) wie sind diese Ans\u00e4tze zu beurteilen? Um diese Fragen zu beantworten, werde ich die f\u00fcr die semantische Analyse von Lokativen relevanten Zeilen 1-18 des 14. Kapitels des ersten Teils von Plotins \"\u00dcber die Gattungen des Seienden\" (VI 1 [42]) zusammen mit Simplikios' Antworten im Kategorien-Kommentar (In Cat. 359.33-361.6) detailliert besprechen. [S. 10]","btype":3,"date":"2009","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kvHyOG29qEMEWKA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":326,"full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":844,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archiv f\u00fcr Begriffsgeschichte","volume":"51","issue":"","pages":"7-33"}},"sort":[2009]}
| Title | Habent sua fata libelli: Aristotle’s Categories in the First Century BC |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2008 |
| Journal | Acta Antiqua |
| Volume | 48 |
| Issue | 1-2 |
| Pages | 273-287 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Sharples, Robert W. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| A rc-cxaminalion of the question why, in the revival of interest, in the first century BC in Aristotle’s esoteric works, as opposed to his doctrines, the work Categories played so large a part. The answers suggested are that the work aroused interest just because it did not easily fit into the standard Hellenistic divisions of philosophy and their usual agendas, and that, inore than Aristotle's other works with the possible exception of the Metaphysics, it revealed aspects of Aristotle’s thought that had become unfamiliar during the Hellenistic period. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/4wH4nwIaSSiZXIi |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1023","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1023,"authors_free":[{"id":1542,"entry_id":1023,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Habent sua fata libelli: Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the First Century BC","main_title":{"title":"Habent sua fata libelli: Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the First Century BC"},"abstract":"A rc-cxaminalion of the question why, in the revival of interest, in the first century BC in Aristotle\u2019s esoteric works, as opposed to his doctrines, the work Categories played so large a part. The answers suggested are that the work aroused interest just because it did not easily fit into the standard Hellenistic divisions of philosophy and their usual agendas, and that, inore than Aristotle's other works with the possible exception of the Metaphysics, it revealed aspects of Aristotle\u2019s thought that had become unfamiliar during the Hellenistic period.","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4wH4nwIaSSiZXIi","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1023,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Acta Antiqua","volume":"48","issue":"1-2","pages":"273-287"}},"sort":[2008]}
| Title | Review of Baltussen, Han: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2008 |
| Journal | Aestimatio |
| Volume | 5 |
| Pages | 210–224 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Todd, Robert B. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/fBgyxPojDPcqVuR |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"461","_score":null,"_source":{"id":461,"authors_free":[{"id":618,"entry_id":461,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":340,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Todd, Robert B.","free_first_name":"Robert B.","free_last_name":"Todd","norm_person":{"id":340,"first_name":"Robert B.","last_name":"Todd","full_name":"Todd, Robert B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129460788","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Baltussen, Han: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commen\u00adtator","main_title":{"title":"Review of Baltussen, Han: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commen\u00adtator"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fBgyxPojDPcqVuR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":340,"full_name":"Todd, Robert B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":461,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Aestimatio","volume":"5","issue":"","pages":"210\u2013224"}},"sort":[2008]}
| Title | Did Theophrastus Reject Aristotle's Account of Place? |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2010 |
| Journal | Phronesis |
| Volume | 55 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 68-103 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Morison, Benjamin |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
It is commonly held that Theophrastus criticized or rejected Aristotle's account of place. The evidence that scholars put forward for this view, from Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Physics, comes in two parts: (1) Simplicius reports some aporiai that Theophras tus found for Aristotle's account; (2) Simplicius cites a passage of Theophrastus which is said to 'bear witness' to the theory of place which Simplicius himself adopts (that of his teacher Damascius) - a theory which is utterly different from Aristotle's. But the aporiai have relatively straightforward solutions, and we have no reason to suppose that Theophras tus didn't avail himself of them (and some reason to think that he did). Moreover, the text which Simplicius cites as bearing witness to Damascius' view on closer inspection does not seem to be inconsistent with Aristotle's account of place or natural motion. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/XyN4FMax5gOu9BV |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"954","_score":null,"_source":{"id":954,"authors_free":[{"id":1433,"entry_id":954,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":265,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Morison, Benjamin","free_first_name":"Benjamin","free_last_name":"Morison","norm_person":{"id":265,"first_name":"Benjamin","last_name":"Morison","full_name":"Morison, Benjamin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1221826255","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Did Theophrastus Reject Aristotle's Account of Place?","main_title":{"title":"Did Theophrastus Reject Aristotle's Account of Place?"},"abstract":"It is commonly held that Theophrastus criticized or rejected Aristotle's account of place. The evidence that scholars put forward for this view, from Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Physics, comes in two parts: (1) Simplicius reports some aporiai that Theophras tus found for Aristotle's account; (2) Simplicius cites a passage of Theophrastus which is said to 'bear witness' to the theory of place which Simplicius himself adopts (that of his teacher Damascius) - a theory which is utterly different from Aristotle's. But the aporiai have relatively straightforward solutions, and we have no reason to suppose that Theophras tus didn't avail himself of them (and some reason to think that he did). Moreover, the text which Simplicius cites as bearing witness to Damascius' view on closer inspection does not seem to be inconsistent with Aristotle's account of place or natural motion. ","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XyN4FMax5gOu9BV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":265,"full_name":"Morison, Benjamin","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":954,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"55","issue":"1","pages":"68-103"}},"sort":["Did Theophrastus Reject Aristotle's Account of Place?"]}
| Title | Die Entstehung physikalischer Terminologie aus der neuplatonischen Metaphysik |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 1969 |
| Journal | Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte |
| Volume | 13 |
| Pages | 7-33 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Tsouyopoulos, Nelly |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/5pNxkufH3Ik3PjS |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"457","_score":null,"_source":{"id":457,"authors_free":[{"id":614,"entry_id":457,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":410,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tsouyopoulos, Nelly","free_first_name":"Nelly","free_last_name":"Tsouyopoulos","norm_person":{"id":410,"first_name":" Nelly ","last_name":"Tsouyopoulos","full_name":"Tsouyopoulos, Nelly ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die Entstehung physikalischer Terminologie aus der neuplatonischen Metaphysik","main_title":{"title":"Die Entstehung physikalischer Terminologie aus der neuplatonischen Metaphysik"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"1969","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5pNxkufH3Ik3PjS","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":410,"full_name":"Tsouyopoulos, Nelly ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":457,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archiv f\u00fcr Begriffsgeschichte","volume":"13","issue":"","pages":"7-33"}},"sort":["Die Entstehung physikalischer Terminologie aus der neuplatonischen Metaphysik"]}
| Title | Die Neuplatonischen Aristoteleskommentatoren über die Ursachen der Pseudepigraphie |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 1969 |
| Journal | Rheinisches Museum für Philologie |
| Volume | 112 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 120-126 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Müller, Carl Werner |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Das am häufigsten interpretierte Werk des Corpus Aristote- licum in der Antike ist die Kategorienschrift. Die den Kommen taren vorausgeschickte Einleitung kommt dabei meist einer all gemeinen Einführung in das Studium der aristotelischen Philo sophie gleich. Seit Ammonios, dem Sohn des Hermeias, wird in diesem Zusammenhang auch das Problem der vöfta ßißXLa be rührt (CAG IV4, 8, 2-6)x). Während aber Ammonios selbst nur kurz das Faktum, viele hätten ihre eigenen Werke unter dem Namen des Aristoteles herausgegeben, erwähnt zu haben scheint2), erfährt dieser Punkt bei seinen Schülern eine mehr oder weniger umfangreiche Ausgestaltung. [p. 120] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0XdjWLb1V5DzrX9 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"950","_score":null,"_source":{"id":950,"authors_free":[{"id":1426,"entry_id":950,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":273,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"M\u00fcller, Carl Werner","free_first_name":"Carl Werner","free_last_name":"M\u00fcller","norm_person":{"id":273,"first_name":"Carl Werner","last_name":"M\u00fcller","full_name":"M\u00fcller, Carl Werner","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11944027X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die Neuplatonischen Aristoteleskommentatoren \u00fcber die Ursachen der Pseudepigraphie","main_title":{"title":"Die Neuplatonischen Aristoteleskommentatoren \u00fcber die Ursachen der Pseudepigraphie"},"abstract":"Das am h\u00e4ufigsten interpretierte Werk des Corpus Aristote- \r\nlicum in der Antike ist die Kategorienschrift. Die den Kommen\u00ad\r\ntaren vorausgeschickte Einleitung kommt dabei meist einer all\u00ad\r\ngemeinen Einf\u00fchrung in das Studium der aristotelischen Philo\u00ad\r\nsophie gleich. Seit Ammonios, dem Sohn des Hermeias, wird in \r\ndiesem Zusammenhang auch das Problem der v\u00f6fta \u00dfi\u00dfXLa be\u00ad\r\nr\u00fchrt (CAG IV4, 8, 2-6)x). W\u00e4hrend aber Ammonios selbst nur \r\nkurz das Faktum, viele h\u00e4tten ihre eigenen Werke unter dem \r\nNamen des Aristoteles herausgegeben, erw\u00e4hnt zu haben \r\nscheint2), erf\u00e4hrt dieser Punkt bei seinen Sch\u00fclern eine mehr \r\noder weniger umfangreiche Ausgestaltung. [p. 120]","btype":3,"date":"1969","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0XdjWLb1V5DzrX9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":273,"full_name":"M\u00fcller, Carl Werner","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":950,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rheinisches Museum f\u00fcr Philologie","volume":"112","issue":"2","pages":"120-126"}},"sort":["Die Neuplatonischen Aristoteleskommentatoren \u00fcber die Ursachen der Pseudepigraphie"]}
| Title | Die Polemik des Simplicius gegen Alexander und Andere in dem Commentar des ersteren zu der aristotelischen Schrif de coelo |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 1897 |
| Journal | Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie |
| Volume | 10 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 191-227 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Zahlfleisch, Johann |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
In dem Artikel geht es um die Polemik des Simplicius gegen Alexander im Zusammenhang mit der aristotelischen Schrift De Caelo. Während Alexander behauptet, dass es in der Schrift um die physikalischen Verhältnisse der Himmelssphäre geht, argumentiert Simplicius, dass es Aristoteles vielmehr darum geht, die letzte Ursache in der Leitung der Welt anzugeben. [introduction] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/GZpZBHpuf8P4OMk |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1213","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1213,"authors_free":[{"id":1795,"entry_id":1213,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":367,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Zahlfleisch, Johann","free_first_name":"Johann","free_last_name":"Zahlfleisch","norm_person":{"id":367,"first_name":"Johann","last_name":"Zahlfleisch","full_name":"Zahlfleisch, Johann","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116948736","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die Polemik des Simplicius gegen Alexander und Andere in dem Commentar des ersteren zu der aristotelischen Schrif de coelo","main_title":{"title":"Die Polemik des Simplicius gegen Alexander und Andere in dem Commentar des ersteren zu der aristotelischen Schrif de coelo"},"abstract":"In dem Artikel geht es um die Polemik des Simplicius gegen Alexander im Zusammenhang mit der aristotelischen Schrift De Caelo. W\u00e4hrend Alexander behauptet, dass es in der Schrift um die physikalischen Verh\u00e4ltnisse der Himmelssph\u00e4re geht, argumentiert Simplicius, dass es Aristoteles vielmehr darum geht, die letzte Ursache in der Leitung der Welt anzugeben. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"1897","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GZpZBHpuf8P4OMk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":367,"full_name":"Zahlfleisch, Johann","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1213,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archiv f\u00fcr Geschichte der Philosophie","volume":"10","issue":"3","pages":"191-227"}},"sort":["Die Polemik des Simplicius gegen Alexander und Andere in dem Commentar des ersteren zu der aristotelischen Schrif de coelo"]}
| Title | Die Prinzipienlehre des Moderatos von Gades. Zu Simplikios in Ph. 230,34-231,24 Diels |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 2000 |
| Journal | Rheinisches Museum für Philologie |
| Volume | 143 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 197-220 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Tornau, Christian |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Dieser Text untersucht Simplicius' Kommentar zum Doxographen Moderatos von Gades in seinem Kommentar zu Porphyrios' Werk "Über die Materie". Der doxographische Bericht besteht aus zwei Teilen, wobei der erste eine hierarchische Systematik von drei Entitäten präsentiert - dem transzendenten Einen, der Welt der erkennbaren Formen und dem Bereich der Seele - und der zweite die Herkunft der Materie gemäß einem metaphysischen Modell erläutert. Die Analyse dieser Doxographie verdeutlicht ihre Bedeutung für das Verständnis platonischer Einflüsse auf spätere Denker. E.R. Dodds und Matthias Baltes haben das Verhältnis zwischen Moderatos' Hierarchie und Platons Parmenides aufgedeckt und die Rolle des Logos in der Schöpfung der Wesen sowie die Verbindung der ycopa mit der Seele als "seelischer Raum" (psychischer Raum) identifiziert, der es der Seele ermöglicht, den Weltkörper zu umfassen. Obwohl Baltes überzeugende Interpretationen liefert, bleiben einige Fragen und Herausforderungen hinsichtlich der Identifizierung der "Seienden", der Beziehung zwischen dem Logos und den drei Entitäten, um sinnliche Objekte zu beschreiben. Trotz offener Fragen trägt der Text zu den laufenden Diskussionen über die neupythagoreische Interpretation des Platonismus und ihren Einfluss auf spätere philosophische Gedanken bei. Er betont die Bedeutung einer detaillierten und historisch fundierten Untersuchung der Doxographie, um die Komplexität und Implikationen von Moderatos' philosophischem System und dessen Verbindungen zu platonischen Lehren vollständig zu erfassen. [introduction] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/fMOBxlvqiyPe7zE |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"460","_score":null,"_source":{"id":460,"authors_free":[{"id":617,"entry_id":460,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":341,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tornau, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Tornau","norm_person":{"id":341,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Tornau","full_name":"Tornau, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120176394","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die Prinzipienlehre des Moderatos von Gades. Zu Simplikios in Ph. 230,34-231,24 Diels","main_title":{"title":"Die Prinzipienlehre des Moderatos von Gades. Zu Simplikios in Ph. 230,34-231,24 Diels"},"abstract":"Dieser Text untersucht Simplicius' Kommentar zum Doxographen Moderatos von Gades in seinem Kommentar zu Porphyrios' Werk \"\u00dcber die Materie\". Der doxographische Bericht besteht aus zwei Teilen, wobei der erste eine hierarchische Systematik von drei Entit\u00e4ten pr\u00e4sentiert - dem transzendenten Einen, der Welt der erkennbaren Formen und dem Bereich der Seele - und der zweite die Herkunft der Materie gem\u00e4\u00df einem metaphysischen Modell erl\u00e4utert. Die Analyse dieser Doxographie verdeutlicht ihre Bedeutung f\u00fcr das Verst\u00e4ndnis platonischer Einfl\u00fcsse auf sp\u00e4tere Denker. E.R. Dodds und Matthias Baltes haben das Verh\u00e4ltnis zwischen Moderatos' Hierarchie und Platons Parmenides aufgedeckt und die Rolle des Logos in der Sch\u00f6pfung der Wesen sowie die Verbindung der ycopa mit der Seele als \"seelischer Raum\" (psychischer Raum) identifiziert, der es der Seele erm\u00f6glicht, den Weltk\u00f6rper zu umfassen. Obwohl Baltes \u00fcberzeugende Interpretationen liefert, bleiben einige Fragen und Herausforderungen hinsichtlich der Identifizierung der \"Seienden\", der Beziehung zwischen dem Logos und den drei Entit\u00e4ten, um sinnliche Objekte zu beschreiben. Trotz offener Fragen tr\u00e4gt der Text zu den laufenden Diskussionen \u00fcber die neupythagoreische Interpretation des Platonismus und ihren Einfluss auf sp\u00e4tere philosophische Gedanken bei. Er betont die Bedeutung einer detaillierten und historisch fundierten Untersuchung der Doxographie, um die Komplexit\u00e4t und Implikationen von Moderatos' philosophischem System und dessen Verbindungen zu platonischen Lehren vollst\u00e4ndig zu erfassen. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"2000","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fMOBxlvqiyPe7zE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":341,"full_name":"Tornau, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":460,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rheinisches Museum f\u00fcr Philologie","volume":"143","issue":"2","pages":"197-220"}},"sort":["Die Prinzipienlehre des Moderatos von Gades. Zu Simplikios in Ph. 230,34-231,24 Diels"]}
| Title | Die Welt, Ungeworden und Unvergänglch: Interpretation und Textkritik zu Aristoteles, De caelo A 11-12 |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 1969 |
| Journal | Hermes |
| Volume | 97 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 198-204 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Mau, Jürgen |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Das Thema für Kap. n — 12 ist am Schluß von Kap. 10 gegeben; 280a 28: »Einige vertreten die Ansicht, etwas dem Werden nicht Unterliegendes (aye- vy)tov) könne vergehen, und etwas Entstandenes könne unvergänglich bestehen bleiben, wie im Timaios. Dort nämlich sagt (Platon), der Himmel sei zwar ge worden, indessen werde er die übrige immerwährende Zeit existieren. Mit diesen haben wir uns bisher nur unter physikalischen Gesichtspunkten betreffs des Himmels auseinandergesetzt. Nachdem wir die Untersuchung aber allge mein über alles angestellt haben, wird auch hierüber Klarheit sein.«Wir dürfen also eine Argumentation erwarten, der Form: »Wenn für jedes Subjekt gilt: Es kann nicht geworden und unvergänglich sein, dann gilt es auch für den Himmel. Nun gilt es für jedes, also auch für den Himmel.« Dieser Beweis — besser: diese Beweise, denn es handelt sich nicht um eine elemen- tatio, wie Aristoteles sie für die Geometrie kannte und wie, aus Aristoteles schöpfend, 700 Jahre später Proklos sie für Physik und Theologie schrieb, — finden sich in Kap. 12... [p. 198] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/fufmk0R2fa91Fgd |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"994","_score":null,"_source":{"id":994,"authors_free":[{"id":1498,"entry_id":994,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":241,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mau, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Mau","norm_person":{"id":241,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Mau","full_name":"Mau,J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117747351","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die Welt, Ungeworden und Unverg\u00e4nglch: Interpretation und Textkritik zu Aristoteles, De caelo A 11-12","main_title":{"title":"Die Welt, Ungeworden und Unverg\u00e4nglch: Interpretation und Textkritik zu Aristoteles, De caelo A 11-12"},"abstract":"Das Thema f\u00fcr Kap. n \u2014 12 ist am Schlu\u00df von Kap. 10 gegeben; 280a 28: \r\n\u00bbEinige vertreten die Ansicht, etwas dem Werden nicht Unterliegendes (aye- \r\nvy)tov) k\u00f6nne vergehen, und etwas Entstandenes k\u00f6nne unverg\u00e4nglich bestehen \r\nbleiben, wie im Timaios. Dort n\u00e4mlich sagt (Platon), der Himmel sei zwar ge\u00ad\r\nworden, indessen werde er die \u00fcbrige immerw\u00e4hrende Zeit existieren. Mit \r\ndiesen haben wir uns bisher nur unter physikalischen Gesichtspunkten betreffs \r\ndes Himmels auseinandergesetzt. Nachdem wir die Untersuchung aber allge\u00ad\r\nmein \u00fcber alles angestellt haben, wird auch hier\u00fcber Klarheit sein.\u00abWir d\u00fcrfen also eine Argumentation erwarten, der Form: \u00bbWenn f\u00fcr jedes \r\nSubjekt gilt: Es kann nicht geworden und unverg\u00e4nglich sein, dann gilt es \r\nauch f\u00fcr den Himmel. Nun gilt es f\u00fcr jedes, also auch f\u00fcr den Himmel.\u00ab Dieser \r\nBeweis \u2014 besser: diese Beweise, denn es handelt sich nicht um eine elemen- \r\ntatio, wie Aristoteles sie f\u00fcr die Geometrie kannte und wie, aus Aristoteles \r\nsch\u00f6pfend, 700 Jahre sp\u00e4ter Proklos sie f\u00fcr Physik und Theologie schrieb, \r\n\u2014 finden sich in Kap. 12... [p. 198]","btype":3,"date":"1969","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fufmk0R2fa91Fgd","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":241,"full_name":"Mau,J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":994,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"97","issue":"2","pages":"198-204"}},"sort":["Die Welt, Ungeworden und Unverg\u00e4nglch: Interpretation und Textkritik zu Aristoteles, De caelo A 11-12"]}
| Title | Die Widerlegung des Manichäismus im Epiktetkommentar des Simplikios |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 1969 |
| Journal | Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie |
| Volume | 51 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 31-57 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Die Widerlegung des Manichäismus im Kommentar des Simplikios zu Epiktet von Ilsetraut Hadot ist eine Studie über die Existenz und den Ursprung des Bösen, ein Thema, das im Encheiridion des Epiktet seinen Platz findet. Hadot zeigt, dass Simplikios mit Epiktet in der Ablehnung des ontologischen Charakters des Bösen übereinstimmt, da die Natur des Bösen keinen Platz in der Welt hat, und er verwendet auch stoische Argumente, die auch im Neuplatonismus und im Christentum verwendet werden, um das Thema zu behandeln. Simplikios argumentiert gegen das manichäische System mit einem polemischen Ton, der den polemischen Werken anderer Autoren gegen die Manichäer ähnelt. Simplikios hält die gründliche Widerlegung des manichäischen Systems für notwendig, insbesondere seit dem Wiederaufleben der Manichäer im byzantinischen Reich. Simplikios' Kommentar soll als Anleitung zur Selbstvervollkommnung dienen, und aus diesem Grund bietet er nicht nur eine umfassende Diskussion über den Ursprung des Bösen, sondern widmet auch einen beträchtlichen Teil seines Werks der gründlichen Widerlegung des manichäischen Systems. Simplikios stützt sich bei seiner Argumentation auf das philosophische System von Proklos und erwähnt die Manichäer nur im zweiten Teil seiner Erörterung, in dem er die Hypothese widerlegt, dass das Böse als Prinzip neben dem Guten angesehen werden kann. [introduction/conclusion] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/HFw9upuC8f3LCzo |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1131","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1131,"authors_free":[{"id":1706,"entry_id":1131,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die Widerlegung des Manich\u00e4ismus im Epiktetkommentar des Simplikios","main_title":{"title":"Die Widerlegung des Manich\u00e4ismus im Epiktetkommentar des Simplikios"},"abstract":"Die Widerlegung des Manich\u00e4ismus im Kommentar des Simplikios zu Epiktet von Ilsetraut Hadot ist eine Studie \u00fcber die Existenz und den Ursprung des B\u00f6sen, ein Thema, das im Encheiridion des Epiktet seinen Platz findet. Hadot zeigt, dass Simplikios mit Epiktet in der Ablehnung des ontologischen Charakters des B\u00f6sen \u00fcbereinstimmt, da die Natur des B\u00f6sen keinen Platz in der Welt hat, und er verwendet auch stoische Argumente, die auch im Neuplatonismus und im Christentum verwendet werden, um das Thema zu behandeln. Simplikios argumentiert gegen das manich\u00e4ische System mit einem polemischen Ton, der den polemischen Werken anderer Autoren gegen die Manich\u00e4er \u00e4hnelt. Simplikios h\u00e4lt die gr\u00fcndliche Widerlegung des manich\u00e4ischen Systems f\u00fcr notwendig, insbesondere seit dem Wiederaufleben der Manich\u00e4er im byzantinischen Reich. Simplikios' Kommentar soll als Anleitung zur Selbstvervollkommnung dienen, und aus diesem Grund bietet er nicht nur eine umfassende Diskussion \u00fcber den Ursprung des B\u00f6sen, sondern widmet auch einen betr\u00e4chtlichen Teil seines Werks der gr\u00fcndlichen Widerlegung des manich\u00e4ischen Systems. Simplikios st\u00fctzt sich bei seiner Argumentation auf das philosophische System von Proklos und erw\u00e4hnt die Manich\u00e4er nur im zweiten Teil seiner Er\u00f6rterung, in dem er die Hypothese widerlegt, dass das B\u00f6se als Prinzip neben dem Guten angesehen werden kann. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"1969","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HFw9upuC8f3LCzo","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1131,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie","volume":"51","issue":"1","pages":"31-57"}},"sort":["Die Widerlegung des Manich\u00e4ismus im Epiktetkommentar des Simplikios"]}
| Title | Die philosophischen Kommentare aus der Antike. Ein Überblick mit ausgewählten Literaturangaben |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 2007 |
| Journal | Allgemeine Zeitschrift für Philosophie |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 51-79 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Perkams, Matthias |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Überblick mit Bibliographie |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rfYBn6zAGQkEsZ9 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1085","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1085,"authors_free":[{"id":1641,"entry_id":1085,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":283,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Perkams, Matthias","free_first_name":"Matthias","free_last_name":"Perkams","norm_person":{"id":283,"first_name":"Matthias","last_name":"Perkams","full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123439760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die philosophischen Kommentare aus der Antike. Ein \u00dcberblick mit ausgew\u00e4hlten Literaturangaben","main_title":{"title":"Die philosophischen Kommentare aus der Antike. Ein \u00dcberblick mit ausgew\u00e4hlten Literaturangaben"},"abstract":"\u00dcberblick mit Bibliographie","btype":3,"date":"2007","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rfYBn6zAGQkEsZ9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1085,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Allgemeine Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Philosophie","volume":"32","issue":"1","pages":"51-79"}},"sort":["Die philosophischen Kommentare aus der Antike. Ein \u00dcberblick mit ausgew\u00e4hlten Literaturangaben"]}
| Title | Digging up a Paradox: A Philological Note on Zeno's Stadium |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1982 |
| Journal | Rheinisches Museum für Philologie |
| Volume | 125 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 1-24 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Of Zeno's four arguments against the reality of motion transmitted by Aristotle, the fourth, the so-called Stadium (Vors. 29 A 28), is perhaps the most difficult. The difficulties in- volved are of two sorts: philological problems on the one hand, questions of a philosophical nature on the other. In the present paper, I am concerned with the first sort, not the second, al- though I shall perhaps not be successful in keeping the latter out altogether. A study of the philosophical discussions to be found in the learned literature, however, has convinced me that the first problem to be solved is that of the interpretation of Ari- stotle's text. There is a general feeling that Aristotle, in reporting and arguing against Zeno's argument, somehow failed. I believe his report is sufficiently clear; although Aristotle's argument contra Zeno is not, perhaps, satisfactory in every respect, Zeno's original paradox can be found in his text. I shall attempt to show that, in order to find it, we must begin by taking both the topo- graphy of the stadium and the position of the bodies in it into account, which several recent reconstructions, however satis- factory they may appear to be in other respects, fail to do. [Introduction, p. 1] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EF1mJnrpjw148o7 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1108","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1108,"authors_free":[{"id":2070,"entry_id":1108,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Digging up a Paradox: A Philological Note on Zeno's Stadium","main_title":{"title":"Digging up a Paradox: A Philological Note on Zeno's Stadium"},"abstract":"Of Zeno's four arguments against the reality of motion transmitted by Aristotle, the fourth, the so-called Stadium (Vors. 29 A 28), is perhaps the most difficult. The difficulties in- volved are of two sorts: philological problems on the one hand, questions of a philosophical nature on the other. In the present paper, I am concerned with the first sort, not the second, al- though I shall perhaps not be successful in keeping the latter out altogether. A study of the philosophical discussions to be found in the learned literature, however, has convinced me that the first problem to be solved is that of the interpretation of Ari- stotle's text. There is a general feeling that Aristotle, in reporting and arguing against Zeno's argument, somehow failed. I believe his report is sufficiently clear; although Aristotle's argument contra Zeno is not, perhaps, satisfactory in every respect, Zeno's original paradox can be found in his text. I shall attempt to show that, in order to find it, we must begin by taking both the topo- graphy of the stadium and the position of the bodies in it into account, which several recent reconstructions, however satis- factory they may appear to be in other respects, fail to do. [Introduction, p. 1]","btype":3,"date":"1982","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EF1mJnrpjw148o7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1108,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rheinisches Museum f\u00fcr Philologie","volume":"125","issue":"1","pages":"1-24"}},"sort":["Digging up a Paradox: A Philological Note on Zeno's Stadium"]}
| Title | Discussions on the Eternity of the world in Late Antiquity |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2011 |
| Journal | ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition |
| Volume | 5 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 111-173 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Chase, Michael |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
This article studies the debate between the Neoplatonist philosophers Simplicius and John Philoponus on the question of the eternity of the world. The first part consists in a historical introduction situating their debate within the context of the conflict between Christians and Pa- gan in the Byzantine Empire of the first half of the sixth century. Particular attention is paid to the attitudes of these two thinkers to Aristotle's attempted proofs of the eternity of motion and time in Physics 8.1. The second part traces the origins, structure and function of a particular argument used by Philoponus to argue for the world's creation within time. Philoponus takes advantage of a tension inherent in Aristotle's theory of motion, between his standard view that all motion and change is continuous and takes place in time, and his occasional admission that at least some kinds of motion and change are instantaneous. For Philoponus, God's creation of the world is precisely such an instantaneous change: it is not a motion on the part of the Creator, but is analo- gous to the activation of a state (hexis), which is timeless and implies no change on the part of the agent. The various transformations of this doctrine at the hands of Peripatetic, Neoplatonic, and Islamic commentators are studied (Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius, al-Kindi, al-Farabi), as is Philoponus' use of it in his debate against Proclus. [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AiYh4J18MnRsxtC |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1511","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1511,"authors_free":[{"id":2624,"entry_id":1511,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":25,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chase, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Chase","norm_person":{"id":25,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Chase","full_name":"Chase, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031917152","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Discussions on the Eternity of the world in Late Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Discussions on the Eternity of the world in Late Antiquity"},"abstract":"This article studies the debate between the Neoplatonist philosophers Simplicius and John Philoponus on the question of the eternity of the world. The first part consists in a historical introduction situating their debate within the context of the conflict between Christians and Pa- gan in the Byzantine Empire of the first half of the sixth century. Particular attention is paid to the attitudes of these two thinkers to Aristotle's attempted proofs of the eternity of motion and time in Physics 8.1. The second part traces the origins, structure and function of a particular argument used by Philoponus to argue for the world's creation within time. Philoponus takes advantage of a tension inherent in Aristotle's theory of motion, between his standard view that all motion and change is continuous and takes place in time, and his occasional admission that at least some kinds of motion and change are instantaneous. For Philoponus, God's creation of the world is precisely such an instantaneous change: it is not a motion on the part of the Creator, but is analo- gous to the activation of a state (hexis), which is timeless and implies no change on the part of the agent. The various transformations of this doctrine at the hands of Peripatetic, Neoplatonic, and Islamic commentators are studied (Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius, al-Kindi, al-Farabi), as is Philoponus' use of it in his debate against Proclus. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AiYh4J18MnRsxtC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":25,"full_name":"Chase, Michael ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1511,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"\u03a3\u03a7\u039f\u039b\u0397. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition","volume":"5","issue":"2","pages":"111-173"}},"sort":["Discussions on the Eternity of the world in Late Antiquity"]}