THE SCHOOL of AMMONIUS, SON of HERMIAS, on KNOWLEDGE of the DIVINE by ELIAS TEMPELIS
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE SCHOOL OF AMMONIUS, SON OF HERMIAS, ON KNOWLEDGE OF THE DIVINE by ELIAS TEMPELIS A Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy to the Department of Philosophy, Arts Faculty, University College London London 1994 ProQuest Number: 10045516 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQuest 10045516 Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 To my parents ABSTRACT The thesis undertakes a reconstruction and critical assessment of the theory of the Neoplatonic school of Ammonius, son of Hermias, on the presuppositions for the acquisition of knowledge of the divine and also on the contents and the purpose of this knowledge. The metaphysical position of the human soul between the intelligible and the sensible worlds allows it to know the intelligible world and the divine, in particular, provided that the cognitive reason- principles in the human intellect are activated. The purpose of such knowledge is the assimilation to the divine and is achieved by means of a personal struggle with the help of theoretical and practical philosophy. The school of Ammonius compared its philosophical attempt at knowledge of the divine to previous similar methods. Since the One is unknowable, the members of this school believed that man can know to some extent the Demiurge, who belongs to the second level of the intelligible world. The members of the school had different views on affirmative and negative theology. The intelligible ante rem universals, the most fundamental of which is Substance, constitute the cognitive and creative reason-principles of the demiurgic Intellect. The eternal activation of these principles result in the Demiurge's omniscience and the creation of the world, which is coetemal with the Demiurge. The Demiurge is incorporeal and exercises providence for what He has created, but He is not omnipotent. The theory of the school of Ammonius on knowledge of the divine is shown to be broadly consistent, though not necessarily convincing. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract.......................................................... 3 Acknowledgements.................................................. 5 Introduction...................................................... 7 a. Method......................................................... 7 b. Contents....................................................... 14 CHAPTER 1. PRESUPPOSITIONS AND PURPOSE OF OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE INTELLIGIBLE WORLD......................................... 16 1.1 The cognitive reason-principles in the human intellect........ 16 1.2 The role of philosophy in the knowledge of the intelligible world......................................................... 32 1.3 Assimilation to the divine.................................... 37 1.4 Neoplatonic evaluation of previous philosophical attempts at knowledge of the intelligible world........................ 41 CHAPTER 2. THE KNOWLEDGE OF UNIVERSALS............................ 53 2.1 The theory of universals...................................... 53 2.2 The ante rem universals in the demiurgic Intellect............ 60 2.3 The incorporeality of the ante rem universals................. 73 2.4 Substance as the most fundamental ante rem universal.......... 77 CHAPTER 3. THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DIVINE............................ 80 3.1 The knowabi 1 ity of the divine................................. 80 3.2 Affirmative or negative theology ?............................ 85 3.3 The metaphysical system of the school of Ammonius............. 90 3.4 God: Incorporeal or not ?..................................... 97 3.5 Is God omnipotent ?........................................... 100 3.6 Divine omniscience............................................ 108 3.7 The creation of the world..................................... 117 3.7.1 The coeternity of the world with the Demiurge............... 124 3.8 Divine providence............................................. 130 EPILOGUE.......................................................... 134 NOTES............................................................. 137 BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................... 189 a. Primary sources................................................ 189 b. Books and articles............................................. 197 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Robert Heinaman, of the department of Philosophy, UCL. I thank him for his comments as well as his patience and kindness. For the knowledge of ancient philosophy I shall be always indebted to my teachers at the University of Athens. I would like here to mention specifically Prof. Grigorios Kostaras, who is still a source of inspiration for me. I also feel fortunate to have consulted Prof. Gerard J.P. O'Daly and Dr. Robert Sharpies, thus having benefited from their knowledge of Greek philosophy. During my postgraduate studies, I had the privilege to attend the seminars in ancient philosophy organized by Prof. Richard Sorabji at the Institute of Classical Studies. As I had the opportunity to consult some of the best libraries in the world, I am indebted to the Librarians and Staff of the following: Library of the Societies for the Promotion of Hellenic and Roman Studies (Institute of Classical Studies), University College London, Senate House (UL), Warburg Institute and British Library. My studies in England would not have been possible without a three- and-a-half year scholarship which was awarded to me by the Greek State Scholarships Foundation (IKY). The very least I can do on this occasion is to thank the Administrative Board of the Foundation. To my parents, loannis and Erifyle Tempelis, I owe more than I can say for their encouragement and financial support. I am grateful to Christina Manolea for the useful discussions we have had on several philological matters. To Philip Pilkington, Margaret Gullan - Whur and Colin Annis goes credit for their appreciative comments and critiques. 6 Last but not least, I would like to thank my brother George for the proof-checking of my work. INTRODUCTION éauTÔv Y^O Tis tàiv yvÇ>» 6eôv efaexai Clement of Alexandria The present thesis undertakes a reconstruction and critical assessment of the doctrine of the Alexandrian school of Ammonius, son of Hermias, on the presuppositions for the acquisition of knowledge of the divine and also on the contents and the purpose of this knowledge. The study concerns their methodology for apprehending the intelligible world. By this I mean here not merely a statement of their method, but also a presentation of its theoretical foundation. The doctrines which are examined may seem antiquated and irrelevant to present concerns. I think, however, that if we devote a sympathetic but critical study to them, we may adjust our own arguments regarding the knowability of the ultimate principles of the universe. The factor which determined the choice of the subject-matter is the scant scholarship devoted to it and, more generally, to the final expressions of late antiquity. Much of the lack of interest may be due to the aversion caused by the untranslated volumes of this school's Greek commentaries. It is hoped that more recent scholarship may contribute to a drastic change of the persistent preconception about the decline and fall of classical thought by the time of Ammonius and his students. a) METHOD The question, then, arises: What is the theory of the school of Ammonius on knowledge of the divine? The problem is that the members of this school did not have the advantage of writing a systematic work in 8 which one could find a complete and coherent metaphysics or a full and complete presentation of such a theory. Their metaphysical beliefs are scattered amongst their commentaries on Plato, Aristotle, Porphyry, Nicomachus, Hippocrates and Paulus, which take the form of school treatises. As happens with similar cases in late Neoplatonism,^ the same author repeats his ideas in his different works, even in places where the context itself would not normally allow such speculations. Moreover, they tended to return to a topic on various occasions. Reference to knowledge of the divine can therefore be found in nearly all the lectures they gave to their listeners rather than in a particular book devoted to it. In reading the corpus of the commentaries of the school of Ammonius one cannot fail to notice the copious references to knowledge of the divine. Thus, we have more than sufficient evidence for the existence of this theory in their works. Consequently, such a theory must be a matter of reconstruction: in some cases one simply has to make explicit what is merely implicit in the writings of the members of this school. In order to speak of a theory of knowledge of the divine, it is necessary not only to give an account of the fundamental principles of such a theory, but also to explain the relation of these principles to the most general principles of their epistemology and metaphysics. I shall be arguing that Ammonius and his students had