DOCSLIB.ORG

JPT 6.2 235-240 Stock.Indd

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
JPT 6.2 235-240 Stock.Indd Book Reviews / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 6 (2012) 219-249 235 Plato’s Parmenides and Its Heritage. Volume 1. History and Interpretation from the Old Academy to Later Platonism and Gnosticism. Volume 2. Its Reception in Neopla- tonic, Jewish and Christian Texts/Reception in Patristic, Gnostic, and Christian Neo- platonic Texts. Edited by John D. Turner and Kevin Corrigan, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature 2010. The two volumes “Plato’s Parmenides and Its Heritage” collect the work of twenty- two scholars presented during the six meetings of the seminar ‘Rethinking Plato’s Parmenides and Its Platonic, Gnostic and Patristic Reception’ of the Society of Biblical Literature (2001-2006). As the title indicates, the topic of these two volumes is Plato’s Parmenides and its reception and interpretation up through late Antiquity, from the Old Academy until Dionysius the Areopagite. The topic is interesting, beyond doubt. How to understand and to interpret Plato’s Parmenides has always been a hotly disputed topic. While some readers considered it to be a logical exercise others defended the idea that it presents a metaphysical or theological doctrine (cf. the fijirst article by K. Corrigan which presents the wide range of interpretations). As it is impossible to summarise all the articles in detail in this review, I would like to refer to the table of contents (see below) and to the introduction by J. D. Turner and K. Corrigan which presents the topic of the volumes and of all the contributions in a detailed way. In the following I would like to give an overview of and to draw attention to some of the main topics in these two volumes. The articles included in the fijirst volume are concerned with the interpretation of the Parmenides from the Old Academy until the beginning of Neo platonism. This volume is intended to question the common interpretation based on Proclus that “there was no metaphysical interpretation of the Parmenides before Plotinus in the third century C.E.” (Introd., p. 1). The articles in the fijirst section (Plato, From the Old Academy to Middle Platonism) focus on Plato himself and the Middle Platonic Philosophers. The second section (Middle Platonic and Gnostic Texts) includes articles on Gnostic and Middle Platonic authors and gives particular attention to the Anonymous Commentary. The second volume is also divided into two sections. The fijirst section (Parmenides Interpretation from Plotinus to Damascius) is a continuation of the fijirst section of the fijirst volume. This section regroups articles on Plotinus and other Neoplatonists up through Damascius and Simplicius. The second section (The Hidden Influence of the Parmenides in Philo, Origen, and Later Patristic Thought) is concerned with impact that the Par- menides had on the writings of Philo of Alexandria and various Christian thinkers from Clemens of Alexandria and Origen to Dionysius the Areopagite. The articles in the fijirst section of the fijirst volume show that the reception of the Parmenides before Plotinus is not at all uniform. Some articles reflect on the © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012 DOI: 10.1163/18725473-12341244 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 06:25:55AM via free access 236 Book Reviews / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 6 (2012) 219-249 interpretation of Speusippus, Plato’s nephew, others on those of Sextus Empiri- cus, Ammonius, Plutarch and Moderatus. In his article on Moderatus, Hubler criticises Dodds’ thesis that Moderatus “had anticipated the celebrated emana- tion system of Plotinus” (Hubler, Vol. I, p. 115) by showing that the passage in Simplicius on which Dodds’ thesis is based does not present Moderatus’ theory but a Neoplatonic revision of it. Although it is clear that the Parmenides was considered to be primarily, but not only, a logical exercise before Plotinus, it is also clear that the dialogue gains importance in Neoplatonism. The fijirst section of the second volume deals with Neoplatonists from Plotinus to Damascius and Simplicius who consider this dialogue to be ontological and who present diffferent interpretations of its meaning. One of the most important topics addressed in the two volumes is the Anony- mous Commentary on the Parmenides. The authorship of this commentary is dis- puted. It was attributed to Porphyry by Pierre Hadot, but this attribution was questioned by other authors who suggested that the author was pre-Plotinian. The various articles in these two volumes present diffferent interpretations of authorship. Four articles by Luc Brisson comment on diffferent columns of the commentary. According to him its author is post-Plotinian. Alain Lernould dis- cusses the question of negative theology and purifijication; he agrees with Brisson in thinking that the author must be post-Plotinian. Bechtle presents some remarks on the relation between the commentary and Aristotle’s Categories. In his view, this commentary is middle Platonic. After presenting the state of the debate on the authorship of the Anonymous Commentary, following Hadot’s thesis Tuomas Rasimus argues for a Sethian Gnostic authorship. Mark Edwards analyses the use of the expression “arrêtos kai akatonomastos” suggesting a Christian background for the author (“not so much that the author was a Christian as that he occupied an intellectual hinterland [. .] in which free trade between pagan and Christian was the norm”, Vol. 2, p. 197). The editors themselves are clearly in favour of the thesis that the author is middle Platonic, either a Gnostic or a Christian (cf. Introd., p. 12s; 18). At the very least, then, we have to reassess Hadot’s theory and the role of the Sethian Gnostics in the development of Neoplatonism, since the evidence shows that it was the Sethian Gnostics rather than Porphyry who were the innovators. Is such a thesis really defensible? Certainly, the preponderance of evidence supports it. Furthermore, if it is possible for Victorinus or Plotinus to read Gnostic texts and not become Gnostics, then it is even more plausi- ble for a Gnostic of considerable sophistication, and perhaps with intimate knowledge of a school such as that of Plotinus, to write a commentary for a Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 06:25:55AM via free access Book Reviews / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 6 (2012) 219-249 237 diffferent ‘Platonic’ audience on a work of crucial importance to both groups. (Introd., p. 12s) The problem is that to demonstrate that someone was, from his intellectual back- ground, capable of writing such a treatise does not prove that he did write it. And—as Edwards says—the textual basis for the argument remains problematic as we cannot be sure that the Coptic version of the Zostrianus found in Nag Ham- madi is completely identical with the Greek text Plotinus criticised; it may be the translation of a revised version (cf. Edwards, Vol. II, p. 195). However, the editors are completely right in saying that further scholars working on this topic have to take into account what has been presented here. Though the question is by no means revolved, the interpretations, the parallels and similarities, the dependen- cies presented here advance our knowledge on this commentary. The articles in the second section of the second volume discuss the presence of the Parmenides in Philo of Alexandria and in Christian authors from Clemens of Alexandria to Dionysius the Areopagite. In most of the authors (except Diony- sius) there is no, or hardly any, evidence for a reception of the Parmenides, no interpretations, references or quotations. The ideas that might seem to be linked to the Parmenides are probably no more than references to the Platonic tradition in general, to common Platonic notions. Dionysius the Areopagite however devel- ops his own interpretation of the second part of the Parmenides, a negative theol- ogy that fijinally overrules the validity of the law of Non-Contradiction in theology. I would like to conclude with some remarks on the negative and positive aspects of the volume. The order of the articles is not always convincing. Perhaps the two rival sub- titles of the second volume are still a residue of the problems of ordering the articles. For instance, the second section of the fijirst volume regroups articles on Gnostic authors, the Chaldean Oracles and on the Anonymous Commentary. There are however many articles on this commentary included in other sections. Why are Luc Brisson’s articles (commentaries on diffferent columns) divided? And why is Tuomas Rasimus’ article included in the second volume and not in the fijirst? A volume presenting the reception of Plato’s Parmenides cannot be com- plete. But why is Proclus missing? He is mentioned in many articles, of course, but no article deals with him directly. Though our knowledge on middle Platonism has improved, and the work on the texts found in Nag Hammadi has enlarged our knowledge on Gnosticism, there is still much we do not know. Comparatively few texts are extant, and very often the dating of the texts is disputed. Therefore the authors and editors often speak of ‘suggestions,’ ‘speculations’ etc., there are hypotheses and probabilities, Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 06:25:55AM via free access 238 Book Reviews / The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 6 (2012) 219-249 but no defijinite proof. This might seem unsatisfactory at fijirst sight and sometimes dangerous as, for example, in the following sentence: If Mozart could write the Magic Flute, then a Sethian Gnostic could have writ- ten a lemmatic commentary on the Parmenides. (Intro., p. 12). However, there is no doubt that the speculations and suggestions increase our knowledge and that no one working on these topics should ignore them. One great advantage of the volumes is that they oppose a sharp separation of Philosophy from Religion, which represents a widespread opinion: Scholars have typically tried to separate Platonism from Gnosticism just as they have also tried to distinguish rational philosophy from irrational religion.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gical, and Ethical Doctrines Given in Chapters Two, T
    CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION Even the bare outlines of Speusippus' metaphysical, epistemolo­ gical, and ethical doctrines given in chapters two, three, and four of this work show that he was a philosopher of considerable original­ ity.473 In view of this and of the likelihood that Plato himself chose him to be his successor as head of the Academy,474 it is surely unwarranted and arbitrary to contend, as some scholars do, 476 that he was a poor philosopher. It is clear that Plato was the main influence upon Speusippus' thought. For his most important metaphysical and epistemological doctrines show not only that he adopted some of the basic tenets of Platonism but also that these doctrines are answers to the same problems Plato tried to solve. Thus, take for example Speusippus' doctrine that numbers and magnitudes are separate, eternal, and immutable objects of knowledge; that mathematical numbers are directly apprehended by the mind; that the propositions of mathematics cannot be true of the sensibles; that by the direct knowledge of number together with the data provided by an infallible faculty of perception which participates in reason the mind is able to derive all other knowledge; and that there is a relation of non-symmetrical similarity between the several kinds of substances which ultimately depends upon the separately existing numbers. All these interrelated doctrines are not only similar to some of Plato's own but are really answers to the same kinds of problems which Plato's philosophy tries to solve. For Plato's own main doctrines-the theory of ideas, the conception of the soul as a perpetual entity to which the apprehen­ sion of the ideas is so to say "innate," knowledge as recollection, etc.-were meant as an answer to the question whether there is such a thing as knowledge which is fundamentally different from perception and correct opinion.
    [Show full text]
  • Plato's Parmenides and Its Heritage. Volume 1
    PLATO’S PARMENIDES AND ITS HERITAGE VOLUME 1 PLATO’S PARMENIDES AND its heritage VOLUME 1: History and Interpretation from the Old Academy to Later Platonism and Gnosticism Writings from the Greco-Roman World Supplement Series Edited by John T. Fitzgerald Series Editor John D. Turner and Kevin Corrigan Number 2 Society of Biblical Literature PLATO’S PARMENIDES AND ITS HERITAGE, VOLUME 1 Atlanta PLATO’S PARMENIDES AND its heritage VOLUME 1: History and Interpretation from the Old Academy to Later Platonism and Gnosticism Edited by John D. Turner and Kevin Corrigan Society of Biblical Literature Atlanta Contents Abbreviations vii Introduction 1 Section 1: Plato, from the Old Academy to Middle Platonism 1. The Place of the Parmenides in Plato’s Thought and in the Subsequent Tradition 23 Kevin Corrigan 2. Speusippus’s Neutral Conception of the One and Plato’s Parmenides 37 Gerald Bechtle 3. The Fragment of Speusippus in Column I of the Anonymous Commentary on the Parmenides 59 Luc Brisson 4. Speusippus and the Ontological Interpretation of the Parmenides 67 John Dillon 5. The Indefinite Dyad in Sextus Empiricus’s Report (Adversus Mathathematicos 10.248–283) and Plato’s Parmenides 79 Thomas Szlezák 6. Plato and Parmenides in Agreement: Ammonius’s Praise of God as One-Being in Plutarch’s The E At Delphi 93 Zlatko Pleše 7. Moderatus, E. R. Dodds, and the Development of Neoplatonist Emanation 115 J. Noel Hubler Section 2: Middle Platonic and Gnostic Texts 8. The Platonizing Sethian Treatises, Marius Victorinus’s Philosophical Sources, and Pre-Plotinian Parmenides Commentaries 131 John D.
    [Show full text]
  • MINEOLA BIBLE INSTITUTE and SEMINARY Philosophy II Radically
    MINEOLA BIBLE INSTITUTE AND SEMINARY Page | 1 Philosophy II Radically, Biblical, Apostolic, Christianity Bishop D.R. Vestal, PhD Larry L Yates, ThD, DMin “Excellence in Apostolic Education since 1991” 1 Copyright © 2019 Mineola Bible Institute Page | 2 All Rights Reserved This lesson material may not be used in any manner for reproduction in any language or use without the written permission of Mineola Bible Institute. 2 Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 7 Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.) ........................................................................................... 8 Philip II of Macedonia (382-336 B.C.) ....................................................................................... 12 Page | 3 “Olympias the mother of Alexander was an evil woman. .......................................... 13 Philip II (of Macedonia) (382-336 BC) .............................................................................. 13 Aristotle (384-322 BC) ............................................................................................................... 15 Works .................................................................................................................................... 16 Methods ............................................................................................................................... 17 Doctrines ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • DOCUMENTING MIRACLES in the AGE of BEDE by THOMAS EDWARD ROCHESTER
    SANCTITY AND AUTHORITY: DOCUMENTING MIRACLES IN THE AGE OF BEDE by THOMAS EDWARD ROCHESTER A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of History School of History and Cultures College of Arts and Law University of Birmingham July 2017 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Abstract This doctoral dissertation investigates the writings of the Venerable Bede (673-735) in the context of miracles and the miraculous. It begins by exploring the patristic tradition through which he developed his own historical and hagiographical work, particularly the thought of Gregory the Great in the context of doubt and Augustine of Hippo regarding history and truth. It then suggests that Bede had a particular affinity for the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles as models for the writing of specifically ecclesiastical history. The use of sources to attest miracle narratives in six hagiographies known to Bede from Late Antiquity are explored before applying this knowledge to Bede and five of his early Insular contemporaries. The research is rounded off by a discussion of Bede’s use of miracles in the context of reform, particularly his desire to provide adequate pastoral care through his understanding of the ideal bishop best exemplified by Cuthbert and John of Beverley.
    [Show full text]
  • Conditions for Proclus's Allegorical Reading of Plato's Parmenides
    "Ciarifications" of Obscurity: Conditions for Proclus's Allegorical Reading of Plato's Parmenides Florin George Cäl ian Exegetical work on philosophical systems requires not only that one give an account of the structure of a system's assumptions and arguments, but also of its forms, such as the form of expression (or genre: dialogue, poem, aphorisms, and so on), or its form of argumentation (clear cut dis­ cursive exposition, logical forma lization, metaphorical, allegorical dis­ course, and so forth). These formal considerations may seem to be sec­ ondary, merely ornamental issues, but they can raise unexpected ques­ tions. The literal reading of a text has its counter-part in allegorical interpretation. This way of reading, which must have Started with the first readers of Homer and found a fertile ground in Philo's allegorical commentaries on the Bible, was amazingly natural for Proclus (c. 411- 485), whose writings and commentaries represent the last phases of late antique philosophy, and particularly of the relation between philosophy and rhetoric. Proclus was a major systemic philosopher of late Neoplatonism. Be­ side his fame as one of the last notable heads of the Platonic Academy, he was also known in his youth as a rhetorician with a profound curiosity about divination and theurgy. He was a practitioner of magic and it is said that he knew how to bring rain and that, through a particular rite, he saved Attica from a dreadful drought.1 Proclus was devoted to the Greek gods, especially Athena, whom he invokes at the beginning of his com­ mentary on the Parmenides: I pray to all the gods and goddesses to guide my mind ...to kindie in me a shining light of truth ..
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings Ofthe Danish Institute at Athens IV
    Proceedings ofthe Danish Institute at Athens IV Edited by Jonas Eiring and Jorgen Mejer © Copyright The Danish Institute at Athens, Athens 2004 The publication was sponsored by: The Danish Research Council for the Humanities Generalkonsul Gosta Enboms Fond. Proceedings of the Danish Institute at Athens General Editors: Jonas Eiring and Jorgen Mejer. Graphic design and production: George Geroulias, Press Line. Printed in Greece on permanent paper. ISBN: 87 7288 724 9 Distributed by: AARHUS UNIVERSITY PRESS Langelandsgade 177 DK-8200 Arhus N Fax (+45) 8942 5380 73 Lime Walk Headington, Oxford 0X3 7AD Fax (+44) 865 750 079 Box 511 Oakvill, Conn. 06779 Fax (+1)203 945 94 9468 Cover illustration: Finds from the Hellenistic grave at Chalkis, Aetolia. Photograph by Henrik Frost. The Platonic Corpus in Antiquity Jorgen Mejer Plato is the one and only philosopher particular edition which has determined from Antiquity whose writings have not only the Medieval tradition but also been preserved in their entirety. And our modern knowledge of Platonic dia not only have they been preserved, they logues, goes back to the Roman have been transmitted as a single col Emperor Tiberius' court-astrologer, lection of texts. Our Medieval manu Thrasyllus.2 Tarrant demonstrates rather scripts seem to go back to one particu convincingly that there is little basis for lar edition, an archetypus in two vol assuming that the tetralogical arrange umes, as appears from the subscript to ment existed before Thrasyllus, that it is the dialogue Menexenus, which is the possible to identify a philosophical posi last dialogue in the seventh tetralogy: tion which explains the tetralogies, that T8>iog toD JtQcbxou 6i6)dou.
    [Show full text]
  • Plotinus and the Platonic Metaphysical Hierarchy
    PLOTINUS AND THE PLATONIC METAPHYSICAL HIERARCHY G.S. BOWE Global Scholarly Publications New York, New York 2003 Published by Global Scholarly Publications Copyright © 2004 by G5. Bowe All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be dupli­ cated in any way without the expressed written consent of the publisher, except in the form of brief excerpts or quotations for review purposes. Typeface: Garamond. Greek Typeface: Athenian Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data G.S. Bowe, 1969- Plotinus and the Platonic Metaphysical Hierarchy / G.S. Bowe. p.cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-9724918-4-8 1. Plotinus - Metaphysics. 2. Aristotle -- Metaphysics. 3. Plato - Metaphysics. 4. Greek Philosophy. I. Title Distributed by Global Scholarly Publications 220 Madison Avenue, Suite llG New York, New York 10016 www.gsp-online.org [email protected] Phone: (212) 679-6410 Fax: (212) 679-6424 For my buddy jlknur CONTENTS ACKl'lOWLEDGEMENTS INTRODUCTION iii CHAPTER I - THE PLATONIC METAPHYSICAL HIERARCHY CHAPTER II - iVIElliEXlS !li'lD THE PRINCIPLES OF EMj\NATION 33 t Positive Production 37 2. Non Convertibility 44 3. Indexed Unity 47 4. The Priority of the Simple 49 CHAPTER HI - PLOTINUS' RESPONSE TO ARISTOTLE'S UNMOVED MOVER 57 1. The Unmoved Mover as Substance 58 2. The Unmoved Mover as NolIS 69 CHAPTER IV - THE DIDASKAlJKOS AND NUMENIUS 87 1. The Didaskalikos 88 2. Numenius of Apamea 96 CHAPTER V - THE ONE OF PLOTINUS 105 CHAPTER VI - ErvlANATION AND THE SOUL 131 BIBLIOGRAPHY 155 INDEX 163 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I should thank a number of people who helped me do this.
    [Show full text]
  • Speusippus and Xenocrates on the Pursuit and Ends of Philosophy
    chapter 1 Speusippus and Xenocrates on the Pursuit and Ends of Philosophy Phillip Sidney Horky I Introduction The educational and institutional structure of the Academy after Plato’s death is one of the great unknowns in the history of ancient philosophy.1 Harold Cherniss, who thought the answer might lie in the educational curriculum out- lined in Republic VII, dubbed it the great “riddle of the early Academy”;2 con- trariwise, in considering the external evidence provided by Plato’s students and contemporaries, John Dillon speaks of a “fairly distinctive, though still quite open-ended, intellectual tradition.”3 One would think, especially given the extent of Plato’s discussion of the problem of educational and institution- al structures (not to mention the pedagogic journey of the individual teacher and student) that those figures who took over supervision of the Academy after Plato’s death – notably his polymath nephew Speusippus of Athens and his pop- ular and brilliant student Xenocrates of Chalcedon4 – would have devoted some attention to this issue of educational theory and practice in their writings. Af- ter all, several pseudepigraphical texts that are usually considered to have been written in the Academy and were ascribed to Plato – Theages, Alcibiades I (if inau- thentic), Alcibiades II, Epinomis, Rival Lovers, On Virtue, the Seventh Letter – do, indeed, devote significant space to elaborating pedagogical methods, practices, 1 Special thanks are owed to Mauro Bonazzi, Giulia De Cesaris, and David Sedley, each of whom read this piece with care and attention. I cannot promise to have responded suffi- ciently to their challenges in all circumstances, but I can say with confidence that this paper is much improved owing to their critical acumen.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Porphyry's Reaction to Plotinus's Doctrine of The
    HeyJ LII (2011), pp. 1–10 DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2265.2011.00686.x PORPHYRY THE APOSTATE: ASSESSING PORPHYRY’S REACTION TO PLOTINUS’S DOCTRINE OF THE ONE SEAMUS O’NEILL Memorial University of Newfoundland St. John’s, Canada In an article in the first volume of Harris’s Studies in Neoplatonism, Patrick Atherton described what he saw as a radical difference between the trinitarian and Neoplatonic first principles. The distinction he draws is seminal: because the first principle, or , produces all things, all that follows from it is determined by its nature. Whereas the unity of what Atherton describes as the ‘Neoplatonic One’ transcends all relation and difference, The trinitarian , by contrast, appears as an attempt to reconcile the requirement of unity with that of difference within the principle itself: is now recognised as a moment within the unity, as belonging to the principle as unity. Such a position requires a very different interpretation of the relation between the principle and its derivatives than that found in Neoplatonism.1 Recent scholarship on Porphyry, however, suggests that the important distinction Atherton adverts to is not resolvable into distinctly Neoplatonic and trinitarian camps. What Atherton describes as ‘Neoplatonism’ is more diverse, as scholars debate the subtle differences between the doctrines of Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Augustine, and Proclus, among others. For example, John Dillon and Steven Strange have recently argued that Porphyry’s doctrine of the first principle is in fact – as Atherton describes the two positions – ‘trinitarian’ rather than ‘Neoplatonic’. Atherton’s characterization of the Neoplatonic describes more narrowly the Plotinian One, for Plotinus is the only Neoplatonist who maintains the absolute transcendence of the first principle beyond all relation and difference.
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotle's Journey to Europe: a Synthetic History of the Role Played
    Aristotle’s Journey to Europe: A Synthetic History of the Role Played by the Islamic Empire in the Transmission of Western Educational Philosophy Sources from the Fall of Rome through the Medieval Period By Randall R. Cloud B.A., Point Loma Nazarene University, 1977 M.A., Point Loma University, 1979 M. Div., Nazarene Theological Seminary, 1982 Submitted to the: School of Education Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Program: Educational Policy and Leadership Concentration: Foundations of Education and the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation Committee: _______________________________________ Suzanne Rice, Chairperson _______________________________________ Ray Hiner _______________________________________ Jim Hillesheim _______________________________________ Marc Mahlios _______________________________________ Sally Roberts Dissertation Defended: November 6, 2007 The Dissertation Committee for Randall R. Cloud certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Aristotle’s Journey to Europe: A Synthetic History of the Role Played by the Islamic Empire in the Transmission of Western Educational Philosophy Sources from the Fall of Rome through the Medieval Period Dissertation Committee: _______________________________________ Suzanne Rice, Chairperson _______________________________________ Ray Hiner _______________________________________ Jim Hillesheim _______________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • St. Augustine As a Historian of Philosophy
    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Master's Theses Theses and Dissertations 1934 St. Augustine as a Historian of Philosophy James Patrick Brogan Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Brogan, James Patrick, "St. Augustine as a Historian of Philosophy" (1934). Master's Theses. 73. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/73 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1934 James Patrick Brogan 37 A. M. D. G. ST. AUGUSTINE AS A HISTORIAN OF EHILOSO?HY. A Thesis submitted to the Graduate .l!'aculty of ~oyola University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of AI"ts, Loyola University Chicago, Ill. 1934. JAMES ?ATRIC£ BROGAN. Vita. I was born July 2, 1911, in' the CLty of Toledo, Ohio. I attended the Immacul~te Conception grammox school. Upon completion of the eig'ht year course I enrolled at St. John's High School, from which I w~s gr~duated in 1~29. I Received the degree of Bachelor of Arts fro~n St. John's Uni­ versity in June, 1933. TaB1E OF CONTENTS. ?age. Vita. Introduction 1. Thales 7. Anwcimunder 8 A.naximenes 9 Pythagoras 11 Heraclitus 12 AO.axagorus 1;, Archelaus 15 Diogenes 16 Democritus 16 Sophists 19 Socrb.tes 20 A.ntisthenes 22 A.ristippus 23 Plato 24 Successors of Elatp 34 Aristotle 35 Stoics 37 Epicureans 42 Plotiuus 45 Porp.b.ry 47 Conclusion 50.
    [Show full text]
  • In His from Platonism to Neoplatonism, First Published in 1954
    CHAPTER FIVE SPEUSIPPUS, ARISTOTLE, AND IAMBLICHUS In his From Platonism to Neoplatonism, first published in 1954, Merlan singled out a passage of Iamblichus' De Communi Mathe­ matica Scientia as a fragment of Speusippus, and in the second edition of this work he defended his interpretation against the objections raised by some scholars.407 He argues that within chapter IV of Iamblichus' work the section dealing with the prin­ ciples of mathematical numbers and magnitudes (De Communi Mathematica Scientia IV, pp. 15, 6-18, 12; hereafter= DCMS IV) is so essentially at variance with Iamblichus' doctrine and style that it cannot be his work at all. Merlan believes that only the introduction to the passage in question (i.e. pp. 14, 18-15, 5) and what he considers to be its concluding summary (p. 18, 13-23) are by Iamblichus, that the rest of chapter IV comes directly or indirectly from Speusippus, and that, even if the latter is the case, there is no essential misrepresentation of Speusippus' thought. 408 The reasons for the ascription to Speusippus are two: (a) DCMS IV is so similar to what Aristotle describes as typical of Speusippus that the passage must refer to the latter's doctrine; (b) DCMS IV is sufficiently different from Aristotle's testimony to justify the inference that it does not come from him. Merlan's theory about the ultimately Speusippean origin of DCMS IV has been accepted by many critics who, like him, make use of this text in their reconstructions of Speusippus' doctrine. 409 To be sure, they 407 My references to Merlan are always to From Platonism•.
    [Show full text]