{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1580","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1580,"authors_free":[{"id":2761,"entry_id":1580,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Anna Afonasina","free_first_name":"Anna ","free_last_name":"Afonasina","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on Empedocles: A note on his Commentary in Phys. 157.25\u2013161.20","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on Empedocles: A note on his Commentary in Phys. 157.25\u2013161.20"},"abstract":"The present study attempts to show what influence a\r\ncommentary can have on the formation of ideas about a preceding\r\nphilosophical tradition. A case in point is Simplicius\u2019 commentary\r\non Aristotle\u2019s \u201cPhysics\u201d and on fragments of Empedocles\u2019 poem.\r\nThe selected passage, though small in size, is quite remarkable in\r\nterms of content and the way Simplicius deals with it. With regard\r\nto content, we are dealing here with one of the fundamental problematic\r\nplots of Empedocles\u2019 philosophy about the alternate rule of\r\nLove and Strife. But Simplicius adds to this his own view of Empedocles\u2019\r\nphilosophy, dictated by his desire to harmonize the views of\r\nall the pagan philosophers and place them within a single consistent\r\nscheme. Simplicius wanted to counterpose something to Christianity,\r\nwhich was gaining in strength, and to show that all Greek\r\nphilosophy developed along a certain path and contains no internal\r\ndisagreements. On the one hand, Simplicius has preserved for us\r\nvery valuable material \u2014 fairly lengthy sections of the text of Empedocles\u2019\r\npoem. On the other hand, wishing to implement his program,\r\nSimplicius chose those fragments of the poem that fit well\r\ninto it. Therefore, the question arises whether we should take into\r\naccount the context in which the fragments are quoted, or simply\r\nextract from the general body of the commentary those fragments\r\nof Empedocles\u2019 poem that we need and consider them independently? [author's abstrac]","btype":3,"date":"2024","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GQwsce7zWyeDLxe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1580,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Shagi\/Steps","volume":"10","issue":"2","pages":"183-196"}},"sort":[2024]}

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1464","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1464,"authors_free":[{"id":2537,"entry_id":1464,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Formal Argument and Olympiodorus\u2019 Development as a Plato-Commentator","main_title":{"title":"Formal Argument and Olympiodorus\u2019 Development as a Plato-Commentator"},"abstract":"Olympiodorus led the Platonist school of philosophy at Alexandria for several decades in the sixth century,\r\nand both Platonic and Aristotelian commentaries ascribed to him survive. During this time the school\u2019s\r\nattitude to the teaching of Aristotelian syllogistic, originally owing something to Ammonius,\r\nchanged markedly, with an early tendency to reinforce the teaching of syllogistic even in Platonist\r\nlectures giving way to a greater awareness of its limitations. The vocabulary for arguments and their\r\nconstruction becomes far commoner than the language of syllogistic and syllogistic figures, and also of\r\ndemonstration. I discuss the value of these changes for the dating of certain works, especially where the\r\ntext lectured on does not demand different emphases. The commitment to argument rather than to authority\r\ncontinues, but a greater emphasis eventually falls on the establishment of the premises than on formal\r\nvalidity.","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5sE7J9nmDwQKOuK","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1464,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis","volume":"24","issue":"1","pages":"210-241"}},"sort":[2021]}

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1466","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1466,"authors_free":[{"id":2539,"entry_id":1466,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":106,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gabor, Gary","free_first_name":"Gary","free_last_name":"Gabor","norm_person":{"id":106,"first_name":"Gary","last_name":"Gabor ","full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima","main_title":{"title":"The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima"},"abstract":"The traditional ascription of the Neoplatonic commentary on the De Anima to Sim\u00adplicius has prominently been disputed by Carlos Steel and Fernand Bossier, along with J.O. Urmson and Francesco Piccolomini, among others. Citing problems with terminology, diction, cross-references, doctrine, and other features, these authors have argued that the commentary cannot have been composed by Simplicius and that Priscian of Lydia is a favored alternative. In this paper, I present some new arguments for why the traditional attribution to Simplicius is, in fact, the correct one. In particular, while addressing some of the terminological facts that have also been discussed by Christina Luna, Peter Lautner, Patricia Huby, and Philippe Vallat, among others, I offer a more secure basis for identifying the author of the De Anima commentary with Simplicius than has so far been proposed. In place of the disputes regarding terminology, which the debate has largely centered upon, I argue that certain unique and characteristic interpretive procedures, which one only finds in the undisputed Simplician works, allow us to identify the authorship of the De Anima commentary with Simplicius securely. Further, comparison of these methodological features with the extant works of Priscian rules out the possibility of his authorship of the commentary. I also provide some suggestions for resolving a few remaining issues of cross-reference between the De Anima commentary and the rest of Simplicius\u2019s work. Finally, I conclude with some words on how that particular form of harmonization pursued by Simplicius\u2019s contemporaries differs from both that of the De Anima commentary as well as his other works. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/s9FnHJ01Q1rEt0h","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":106,"full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1466,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy ","volume":"35","issue":"1","pages":"1-22"}},"sort":[2020]}

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1377","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1377,"authors_free":[{"id":2121,"entry_id":1377,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":289,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Schwark, Marina","free_first_name":"Marina","free_last_name":"Schwark","norm_person":{"id":289,"first_name":"Marina","last_name":"Schwark","full_name":"Schwark, Marina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on the Individuation of Material Substances","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on the Individuation of Material Substances"},"abstract":"In his commentary on Physics I 9, Simplicius claims that individual forms individuate matter. Given that in the same text he calls the immanent form \u2018universal,\u2019it seems reasonable to conclude that the individual forms are individual instances of one universal species\u2013form. However, Simplicius also mentions accidental properties that are peculiar to form rather than to matter. On the basis of Simplicius\u2019 commentaries on the Categories and on the Physics, I argue that the individuating\r\naccidents are not part of the individual forms, but that each individual\u2019s form coordinates the individual\u2019s accidental features. By belonging to a certain species, the individual form sets limits as to which accidents a matter\u2013form compound can\r\nassume. This approach enables Simplicius to combine hylomorphism with a theory\r\nof individuation through properties. Furthermore, in his commentary on De Caelo I 9 Simplicius explains the uniqueness of each individual\u2019s conglomeration of properties in light of his Neoplatonic cosmology: each individual corresponds to an individual cosmic disposition that determines its characteristic features. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lyFogK56o18nE5W","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":289,"full_name":"Schwark, Marina","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1377,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Elenchos","volume":"40","issue":"2","pages":"401-429"}},"sort":[2019]}

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1554","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1554,"authors_free":[{"id":2717,"entry_id":1554,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","free_first_name":"Ivan Adriano","free_last_name":"Licciardi","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Sinfonia dei Presocratici. Su due \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03ba\u03b2\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 in Simplicio (in PHYS. 6.31\u20138.15 e 28.32\u201337.9)","main_title":{"title":"Sinfonia dei Presocratici. Su due \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03ba\u03b2\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 in Simplicio (in PHYS. 6.31\u20138.15 e 28.32\u201337.9)"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2019","language":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1554,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Epekeina. International Journal of Ontology History and Critics","volume":"10","issue":"1","pages":"1-32"}},"sort":[2019]}