The Problem of Disembodiment: an Approach

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Problem of Disembodiment: an Approach THE PROBLEM OF DISEMBODIMENT: AN APPROACH FROM CONTINENTAL FEMINIST-REALIST PHILOSOPHY By Stanimir Panayotov Submitted to Central European University Department of Gender Studies In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Comparative Gender Studies Principal supervisor: Eszter Timár Associate Supervisor: István Perczel CEU eTD Collection Budapest, Hungary 2019 CEU eTD Collection i For my mother, the container of the uncontainable, who gave me birth twice. CEU eTD Collection ii CEU eTD Collection iii Copyright Statement I hereby declare that the dissertation contains no materials accepted for any other degrees in any other institutions, nor does it contain any materials previously written and/or published by another person, except where appropriate acknowledgment is made in the form of bibliographical reference. Stanimir Panayotov, July 16, 2019 CEU eTD Collection iv CEU eTD Collection v Acknowledgements To acknowledge is to cut. That is, to isolate and credit, to the best of your capabilities, those persons who have attended the articulation of one’s thoughts which would otherwise have some sense, but no real meaning. In the case of this dissertation, the individuals I am thankful to and who I list below have all contributed in multifarious ways to bound my often boundless and formless thinking around the problems of boundlessness and disembodiment. I am grateful to my principal supervisor Eszter Timár for the lasting stubbornness and critical stability with which she upended my thought notwithstanding the evolutionary digressions this project underwent. These qualities of hers helped me transform my writing from, at times, a turgid moral opera into a critical opus whose judgements and risks are now less of an intuitive pronouncement than a factual diagnosis. Her excellence in always providing surgically close readings contributed enormously to anatomizing both my own subject matter and my writing flaws. My associate supervisor István Perczel saved me from tendencies in inflationary analyses and conclusions: he taught me how to better work with and respect both primary and secondary sources in a manner that would support rather than subvert my discursive intuitions. His insightful curiosity embraced my analytical skepticism in a manner that would made any Platonist envious of intellectual comradery. Two more thinkers have been with me in pursuing this project. Most salient was the presence and importance of Katerina Kolozova, who has a special place in this dissertation, not the least because my interest in Platonic cosmology first originated from an encounter with her non-philosophical work on chōra. I would like to thank her for the consistent intellectual CEU eTD Collection exchange we have had throughout the years and for making it possible to work with her at the Institute of Social Sciences and Humanities - Skopje in Summer 2016. Her support and patience with my experimental approach is a model to follow. The influence of Marianne Sághy in the vi early stages of my work was enormous and indelible: she introduced me to the study of gender and sexuality in Late Antiquity, which was one of the most important aspects in the philosophical development of my problematic. “Thanks” is not a sufficient word to credit them both, so I would be content with “open ended gratitude.” A series of significant thinkers have provided help along the way. I would like to warmly thank Stella Sandford for agreeing to work with me and for hosting me as a visiting researcher at Kingston University in Winter 2017. She gave me the chance to benefit and learn from her balanced and engaged readings. Heartfelt gratitude is also due to Nina Lykke and Jamie Weinstein who have read and commented drafts while I was a visiting researcher at Linköping University in Winter 2016. Many thanks to my colleagues at the American Research Center in Sofia, where I was a fellow in Winter 2016/17, and especially to Agata Chmiel and John Gorczyk for helping me understand the importance of material culture for my research, and to Emil Nankov for organizing our seminars, where I learned a lot from historians and archeologists. I am also grateful to Rick Dolphjin for giving me the chance to learn from his lore during a related project on bridging new realism and new materialism in Winter 2018 at Utrecht University. In the early stages of its development, this dissertation has gained a better form thanks to the feedback I have received in the Third Year Writing Seminar at CEU, and I would like to thank Francisca de Haan, Petra Bakos, Heather Tucker, Edit Jeges and Elena Panican for reading and commenting the drafts I presented there. The same goes to Mariana Bodnaruk, Sana E. Karhu and Bogna M. Konior who provided feedback on different occasions. Very constructive criticism was provided during a Faculty Seminar by Jasmina Lukić and Hyaesin CEU eTD Collection Yoon, which had real consequences for my writing. Additionally, Andrea Kirchknopf skillfully guided me several times through the dungeons of thesis writing. Elisabeth von Samsonow, Vera Mlechevska and Dimitrina Sevova trusted my work to an extent where they provided vii platform for me to present and popularize the problematic at hand and organized invited seminars and lectures. I am grateful for their time and creative engagement, as well as for the time spent and thoughts exchanged during meetings with Alexander R. Galloway, Emanuela Bianchi, Edward P. Butler, Svilen Tutekov, and Gregg Lambert. Mladen Alexiev and Marko Bratuš were strikingly patient with my theorizing during our collective artistic work in early 2016 at Glej Theater in Ljubljana. I cannot thank enough Jelena Petrović, who opened the world of Anica Savić-Rebac’s work for me, and Giuseppe Armogida, who was kind enough to share with me his very recent work on Plotinus and Laruelle. This dissertation would probably be altogether something else were it not also for inspiring conversations and meetings in various stages of the work with Alenka Zupančič, Ray Brassier, Boyan Manchev, Iris van der Tuin, Felicity Colman, Jeremy R. Smith, Joevenn Neo, Michael Saunders, Yvette Granata, Slavcho Dimitrov, Nikola Lazovski, Artan Sadiku, and Krassimir Terziev. A special thanks is due to my colleagues from the Medieval Studies Department at CEU with whom we co-organized in June 2019 the memorial conference “Dis/embodiment and Im/materiality: Uncovering the Body, Gender and Sexuality in Late Antiquity,” dedicated to our professor Marianne Sághy, who left us all too early: Andra Jugănaru, Anastasia Theologou, Dunja Milenković, and Mariana Bodnaruk. István Perczel, Gábor Kendeffy and Jasmina Lukić deserve the gratitude for trusting us to organize this very special intersectional event, and to all of them I in turn thank for trusting me to conceptualize a whole conference delving into issues around my subject matter. Finally, endless and ineffable gratitude to my mother and my brother and to my friend Svetlozar Anev who have supported me in surviving difficult moments and experiencing CEU eTD Collection survival as also a shared joy. Without their sacrifice I would not have had the strength and energy needed to realize this project. viii CEU eTD Collection ix Abstract The argument of this dissertation is that despite the intellectual gendered burden of the problem of disembodiment I define, it can be employed from within the limitations of a gendered account in feminist philosophy of the continental-realist type. I formulate the problem of disembodiment as rooted in the notion of the boundless (apeiron) associated with femininity. Both boundlessness and disembodiment are subject to radicalization in Plato (chōra) and Plotinus (to hen). Read as a dyad, they culminate in a tendency towards gendered disembodiment, mediated by Plato’s soul-body dualism. The dissertation seeks to compare the gendered dimension of disembodiment in the work of Plato and Plotinus and that of the non- philosophers François Laruelle and Katerina Kolozova. “Part I. The Problem of Boundlessness: Radicalizing Disembodiment” is divided in three chapters, which present an intellectual history of the problem of boundlessness as femininity. I survey the problem of boundlessness as drafting relations between elements and principles and femininity in Greek mythology (Chapter 1), Plato’s cosmology (Chapter 2), and Plotinus’ metaphysics (Chapter 3). I argue that the relation between death and the female was ambivalent by the time of the Anaximandrean apeiron and that it became a subject of radicalization via Plato’s chōra and Plotinus’ One, mediated by the notion of the Indefinite Dyad and the doctrine of divided matter. The problem of boundlessness was subject to conceptual radicalization that led to hierarchical metaphysics and deepened the division between body and soul via the association of femininity, reproductivity and matter. “Part II. The Problem of Disembodiment: Revising Boundlessness” is divided in two CEU eTD Collection chapters focusing on the contemporary relevance and importance of the problem of disembodiment as a way of revising boundlessness. I present and explain the legacy of the Platonic chōra and the Plotinian One and what they as a dyad entail for contemporary x continental philosophy. I offer (Chapter 4) a trajectory for a continental feminist philosophy interpretation of disembodiment by combining continental feminist philosophy, non- philosophy and new realism. With the aid of Laruelle’s non-philosophy, I explain how and why chōra and the One can be used for/from continental feminist philosophy, followed by a presentation of how chōra and the One are revised in continental philosophy from non- philosophical and new realist perspectives. I then develop (Chapter 5) a continental feminist philosophical interpretation of and approach to the problem of disembodiment from a realist perspective by problematizing continental and feminist philosophical anti-realism. The approach presented is itself an argument in defence of a feminist engagement with disembodiment and the dissertation’s contribution: a non-philosophical contribution to the problem of disembodiment via a continental feminist-realist philosophical approach.
Recommended publications
  • Maieutic Psychagogy (MP)
    Maieutic Psychagogy (MP) MP is soul guidance that is using the wisdom of one’s soul in our day to day lived lives. For me this is and earthed guidance from the ground of our being and is profoundly different to ‘spiritual guidance’ which is guidance from without to higher causes and courses. The former is grounded incarnate and embodied the latter is ethereal, dis-incarnate and disembodied with the body considered pejoratively as needing to be sloughed off in order to reach the ‘higher’ chakras or levels of consciousness. MP is a psycho-therapeutic method of influencing behaviour by suggesting desirable life goals. In a more spiritual context, it can mean guidance from the soul. Psychagogy is considered to be the archaic predecessor of modern psychology. The role and exact expression of psychagogy has shifted throughout history, but its beginnings can be dated back to the time of Socrates and Plato. Psychagogic methods were implemented by such groups as the Stoics, Epicureans, and Cynics. The method was also eventually adopted by Paul the Apostle (also known as Saul of Tarsus), James, as well as other early Christian thinkers. Enduring well into the 20th century, psychagogy began to influence and be influenced by other psychological disciplines. Eventually the term psychagogy itself died out during the 1970s and 1980s. Ancient Greek Psychagogy The psychagogy of Ancient Greece, also known as maieutic psychagogy, involved Socrates (or another advanced teacher) helping a participant to give birth to realities from within the participant himself. Maieutic: from midwife, one who helps in the delivery of new life Psychagogy: from Greek, psûchê (soul) and agogê (transport) Within the ancient Greek tradition, psychagogy was viewed as the art of influencing the soul by the means of rhetoric.
    [Show full text]
  • King Lfred's Version Off the Consolations of Boethius
    King _lfred's Version off the Consolations of Boethius HENRY FROWDE, M A. PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OF_0RD LONDON, EDINBURGH_ AND NEW YORK Kring e__lfred's Version o_/"the Consolations of Boethius _ _ Z)one into c_gfodern English, with an Introduction _ _ _ _ u_aa Litt.D._ Editor _o_.,I_ing .... i .dlfred_ OM Englis.h..ffgerAon2.' !ilo of the ' De Con.d.¢_onz,o,e 2 Oxford : _4t the Claro_don:,.....: PrestO0000 M D CCCC _eee_ Ioee_ J_el eeoee le e_ZNeFED AT THE_.e_EN_N PI_.._S _ee • • oeoo eee • oeee eo6_o eoee • ooeo e_ooo ..:.. ..'.: oe°_ ° leeeo eeoe ee •QQ . :.:.. oOeeo QOO_e 6eeQ aee...._ e • eee TO THE REV. PROFESSOR W. W. SKEAT LITT.D._ D.C.L._ LL.D.:_ PH.D. THIS _800K IS GRATEFULLY DEDICATED PREFACE THE preparationsfor adequately commemoratingthe forthcoming millenary of King Alfred's death have set going a fresh wave of popularinterest in that hero. Lectares have been given, committees formed, sub- scriptions paid and promised, and an excellent book of essays by eminent specialists has been written about Alfred considered under quite a number of aspects. That great King has himself told us that he was not indifferent to the opinion of those that should come after him, and he earnestly desired that that opinion should be a high one. We have by no means for- gotten him, it is true, but yet to verymany intelligent people he is, to use a paradox, a distinctly nebulous character of history. His most undying attributes in the memory of the people are not unconnected with singed cakes and romantic visits in disguise to the Danish viii Preface Danish camp.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Aenesidemus Upon Fichte and Schopenhauer
    Richard Fincham 97 Pli 10 (2000), 96-126. subject from both object and subject and is referred to both".4 Fichte shows that although this may suffice as the first principle of theoretical knowledge, it cannot be the first principle of all philosophy.s Therefore, for Fichte, principles of theoretical knowledge can only be satisfactorily grounded upon the self qua reflective consciousness of Kantian and Reinholdian transcendental idealism once the existence of such reflective The Impact of Aenesidemus upon Fichte and consciousness is itself grounded upon an absolute foundation. It is of Schopenhauer course in response to this perceived requirement that Fichte constructs a system of transcendental idealism which asserts that the self itself ­ conceived of as primordially an absolute self-reverting activity - should RICHARD FINCHAM be the absolute foundation of all philosophy. This article will show why it is that for Fichte, 'reflective consciousness', which for Kant was the ground of all explanation, becomes conceived of as itself requiring explanation. It will be argued Fichte's reconfiguration of Kantian transcendental idealism is motivated that this is due to an engagement with a sceptical attack upon the by an engagement with two specific 'commentaries' upon it. Firstly, transcendental idealism of Kant and Reinhold named after (and Fichte was clearly convinced by Reinhold's complaint that the Critique's supposedly expounded by) the neo-Pyrrhonean sceptic Aenesidemus, principles can only "become universally binding"l by being grounded [I which was published anonymously in 1792, but was later revealed to be upon a universally valid and indubitable "self-explanatory,,2 foundation, the work of G.
    [Show full text]
  • Infinite Thought Truth and the Return to Philosophy
    Infinite Thought Truth and the Return to Philosophy ALAIN BADIOU Translated and edited by Oliver Feltham and Justin Clemens Continuum The Tower Building 15 East 26th Street II York Road New York London, SE I 7~X ;\IY 10010 www.continuumbooks.com Editorial material and selection © Oliver Feltharn and Justin Clemens Philosophy and Desire, Philosophy and Film, Philosophy and"the war against terrorism" © Alain Badiou Contents Philosophy andArt, and The Definition of Philosophy © Seuil (from Conditions, 1992) Philosophy and the Death of Communism © Editions de l'Aube (from D'un desastre obscur, 1998) An introduction to Alain Badiou's philosophy English language translations: 'Philosophy and Truth' © Pli; 'Philosophy and Politices' © Radical Philosophy; 'Philosophy and Psychoanalysis' (!:') Ana{ysis; all other English language translations © Continuum I Philosophy and desire 39 2 Philosophy and truth 58 Reprinted 2003 3 Philosophy and politics 69 This paperback edition published 2004 by Continuum 4- Philosophy and psychoanalysis 79 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or 5 Philosophy and art 91 transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical 6 Philosophy and cinema 109 including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. 7 Philosophy and the 'death of communism' 126 8 Philosophy and the 'war against British Library Oatalcgufng-dn-Publicarlon Data terrorism' 141 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library 9 The definition of philosophy 165 ISB:\" 0-8264-6724-5 (Hardback) 10 Ontology and politics: an interview with 0-8264-7320-2 (Paperback) Alain Badiou 169 Index of names 195 Typeset by BookEns Ltd, Royston, Herts.
    [Show full text]
  • Žižek and Lacanian Henology—With a “Silent Partner”
    ISSN 1751-8229 Volume Twelve, Number Two Žižek and Lacanian Henology—With a “Silent Partner” Kenji Nobutomo, Kagoshima University, Japan Abstract This article aims to clarify the meaning of henology for Lacan and Žižek. Žižek apparently rejects Neoplatonic way of thinking, but by considering Lacanian Henology through its origin, Etienne Gilson, Lacanian henology and Žižek’s Hegelian reading of the One become converged. Both of them think the movement of the One from one principle and its two aspects. The principle is that the One gives something that it does not have, and it corresponds to Lacanian definition of love. Regarding its two aspects, the first one is the logical necessity that generates necessarily the One, and the second is the logical contingency that generates contingently the surplus element. By this, we can clarify the theoretical development of each period of Lacan. In early Lacan, henology was a logic that ties his “the Symbolic” and Freudian Death drive. In middle Lacan, his main concern was the mathematical logic as the logic of the Id, and henology became the generative logic of the subject of enunciation or the subject of the jouissance. But at the same time, this movement produces as a co-product a inassimilable remainder, “object a” with the subject of signifiant. In late Lacan, by virtue of the “necessary” movement of the One and its “contingent” co-product, the universe of the discourse became indeterminate, undecidable, “not-all,” which means for Lacan “the contingent.” This characteristic became the logic of Lacanian “sexuation.” 1. Introduction: What is Henology? In a session in 1971, Jacques Lacan used the term hénologie to describe his “analytic discourse” and its relation to the classical philosophical notion of “the One.” The annoying thing, is that when you proceed, as I have just said in this writing, that it is a matter of proceeding, namely, to envisage from a discourse what plays the function of the One in it, what do I do from time to time? If you will allow me this neologism what I do is “Henology”.
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotle's Methods
    3 History and Dialectic Metaphysics A 3, 983a24-4b8 Rachel Barney In Metaphysics A 3, Aristotle undertakes to confirm his system of the four causes as a framework for inquiry into first principles, the knowledge of which will constitute wisdom. His strategy will be to survey his philosophical predecessors, in order to establish that none has supplied a cause which cannot be subsumed under his own canonical four. Thus A 3 inaugurates a project not completed until the end of A 6—or, taken more inclusively, A 10, since A 7 summarizes its results, chapters 8 and 9 develop criticisms of some of the views discussed, and chapter 10 reads as a summation of the whole.1 (Much of Metaphysics α also reads, appropriately enough, like a series of reflections on this project: I will note its relevance on occasion below.) Our concern here is with the opening phase of this project. Here Aris- totle discusses the steps taken by the earliest philosophers and their successors towards determining the material cause, which led in turn to recognizing its inadequacy as sole first principle [archê]. I divide the text of A 3, 983a24-4b8 into five moves: (1) the introduction of the project (983a24-3b6); (2) the account of the reasoning of the first philosophers (983b6-20); (3) a discussion of Thales, with an excursus on his putative predecessors among the poets (983b20-4a5); (4) * I would like to thank all the participants in the Symposium Aristotelicum meeting for discussion of this paper, as well as Victor Caston, Nathan Gilbert, Phillip Horky, Brad Inwood, Stephen Menn, and Robin Smith for their comments.
    [Show full text]
  • 15 Famous Greek Mathematicians and Their Contributions 1. Euclid
    15 Famous Greek Mathematicians and Their Contributions 1. Euclid He was also known as Euclid of Alexandria and referred as the father of geometry deduced the Euclidean geometry. The name has it all, which in Greek means “renowned, glorious”. He worked his entire life in the field of mathematics and made revolutionary contributions to geometry. 2. Pythagoras The famous ‘Pythagoras theorem’, yes the same one we have struggled through in our childhood during our challenging math classes. This genius achieved in his contributions in mathematics and become the father of the theorem of Pythagoras. Born is Samos, Greece and fled off to Egypt and maybe India. This great mathematician is most prominently known for, what else but, for his Pythagoras theorem. 3. Archimedes Archimedes is yet another great talent from the land of the Greek. He thrived for gaining knowledge in mathematical education and made various contributions. He is best known for antiquity and the invention of compound pulleys and screw pump. 4. Thales of Miletus He was the first individual to whom a mathematical discovery was attributed. He’s best known for his work in calculating the heights of pyramids and the distance of the ships from the shore using geometry. 5. Aristotle Aristotle had a diverse knowledge over various areas including mathematics, geology, physics, metaphysics, biology, medicine and psychology. He was a pupil of Plato therefore it’s not a surprise that he had a vast knowledge and made contributions towards Platonism. Tutored Alexander the Great and established a library which aided in the production of hundreds of books.
    [Show full text]
  • Metaphysics Today and Tomorrow*
    1 Metaphysics Today and Tomorrow* Raphaël Millière École normale supérieure, Paris – October 2011 Translated by Mark Ohm with the assistance of Leah Orth, Jon Cogburn, and Emily Beck Cogburn “By metaphysics, I do not mean those abstract considerations of certain imaginary properties, the principal use of which is to furnish the wherewithal for endless dispute to those who want to dispute. By this science I mean the general truths which can serve as principles for the particular sciences.” Malebranche Dialogues on Metaphysics and Religion 1. The interminable agony of metaphysics Throughout the twentieth century, numerous philosophers sounded the death knell of metaphysics. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Rudolf Carnap, Martin Heidegger, Gilbert Ryle, J. L. Austin, Jacques Derrida, Jürgen Habermas, Richard Rorty, and, henceforth, Hilary Putnam: a great many tutelary figures have extolled the rejection, the exceeding, the elimination, or the deconstruction of first philosophy. All these necrological chronicles do not have the same radiance, the same seriousness, nor the same motivations, but they all agree to dismiss the discipline, which in the past was considered “the queen of the sciences”, with a violence at times comparable to the prestige it commanded at the time of its impunity. Even today, certain philosophers hastily spread the tragic news with contempt for philosophical inquiry, as if its grave solemnity bestowed upon it some obviousness. Thus, Franco Volpi writes: ‘Grand metaphysics is dead!’ is the slogan which applies to the majority of contemporary philosophers, whether continentals or of analytic profession. They all treat metaphysics as a dead dog.1 In this way, the “path of modern thought” would declare itself vociferously “anti- metaphysical and finally post-metaphysical”.
    [Show full text]
  • Plotinus and the Artistic Imagination John S
    Roger Williams University DOCS@RWU School of Architecture, Art, and Historic School of Architecture, Art, and Historic Preservation Faculty Publications Preservation 2015 Plotinus and the Artistic Imagination John S. Hendrix Roger Williams University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://docs.rwu.edu/saahp_fp Part of the Architecture Commons Recommended Citation Hendrix, John S., "Plotinus and the Artistic Imagination" (2015). School of Architecture, Art, and Historic Preservation Faculty Publications. Paper 31. http://docs.rwu.edu/saahp_fp/31 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Architecture, Art, and Historic Preservation at DOCS@RWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in School of Architecture, Art, and Historic Preservation Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DOCS@RWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Plotinus and the Artistic Imagination John Hendrix In the thought of Plotinus, the imagination is responsible for the apprehen- sion of the activity of Intellect. If creativity in the arts involves an exercise of the imagination, the image-making power that links sense perception to noet- ic thought and the nous poietikos , the poetic or creative intellect, then the arts exercise the apprehension of intellectual activity and unconscious thought. According to John Dillon in “Plotinus and the Transcendental Imag- ination,” 1 Plotinus’ conception of the imagination led to the formulation of the imagination as a basis of artistic creativity. In Plotinus, imagination operates on several different levels: it produces images in sense perception, it synthesizes images in dianoetic thought, and it produces images in correspondence with the articulation through logos of noetic thought.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Two Democritus and the Different Limits to Divisibility
    CHAPTER TWO DEMOCRITUS AND THE DIFFERENT LIMITS TO DIVISIBILITY § 0. Introduction In the previous chapter I tried to give an extensive analysis of the reasoning in and behind the first arguments in the history of philosophy in which problems of continuity and infinite divisibility emerged. The impact of these arguments must have been enormous. Designed to show that rationally speaking one was better off with an Eleatic universe without plurality and without motion, Zeno’s paradoxes were a challenge to everyone who wanted to salvage at least those two basic features of the world of common sense. On the other hand, sceptics, for whatever reason weary of common sense, could employ Zeno-style arguments to keep up the pressure. The most notable representative of the latter group is Gorgias, who in his book On not-being or On nature referred to ‘Zeno’s argument’, presumably in a demonstration that what is without body and does not have parts, is not. It is possible that this followed an earlier argument of his that whatever is one, must be without body.1 We recognize here what Aristotle calls Zeno’s principle, that what does not have bulk or size, is not. Also in the following we meet familiar Zenonian themes: Further, if it moves and shifts [as] one, what is, is divided, not being continuous, and there [it is] not something. Hence, if it moves everywhere, it is divided everywhere. But if that is the case, then everywhere it is not. For it is there deprived of being, he says, where it is divided, instead of ‘void’ using ‘being divided’.2 Gorgias is talking here about the situation that there is motion within what is.
    [Show full text]
  • Marie-Luise Lakmann, Platonici Minores: 1
    MARIE-LUISE LAKMANN, Platonici minores: 1. Jh.v.Chr. - 2. Jh.n.Chr. Prosopographie. Fragmente und Testimonien mit deutscher Überset- zung. Philosophia antiqua, 145, Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2017, xi+824 pp., $236.00, ISBN 978-90-04-31533-4. This is indeed a mighty work, an offshoot of a yet mightier one, the great project ‘Der Platonismus in der Antike’, initiated many years ago by Heinrich Dórrie, and continued, first by Matthias Baltes, and, most recently, by Christian Pietsch, who is currently bringing it at last to its conclusion with the eighth volume. What Professor Lakmann, who has been closely connected with this project, has set herself to do here is to make the fullest possible collection of minor figures involved in Platonist philosophizing over the period conventionally regarded as ‘Middle Platonic’, in order to give some attention to the persons behind the doctrines. To this end, she has assembled data on some 88 individuals, including four Anonymi, and some very obscure figures indeed. The work is divided into two main sections: ‘Prosopographie’, in which she sets out and discusses what is known about the lives and doctrines of the figures concerned, and ‘Texte und Ubersetzungen’, in which the relevant fragments and testimonia are presented and translated (the translations being undertaken by Erhard Pahnke and Henner Thoss). The only inadequacy I find with this arrangemnt is that there is no provision for discussing the contexts of the individual passages quoted, and the details of doctrine involved, as would sometimes be desirable – but one hesitates to suggest anything that would make a book of 835 pages even longer! She has, quite reasonably, chosen to exclude major figures, such as Antiochus of Ascalon, Eudorus, Plutarch, Atticus, Apuleius, Albinus, or Numenius, who either have major works surviving (as in the case of Plutarch, Apuleius or Albinus), or who have had their fragments adequately collected (though she does include here L.
    [Show full text]
  • Ois Laruelle
    Frans;ois Laruelle --- and collaborators --- Dictio nary of Non-Philosophy -- translated by Taylor Adkins I Univocal -- Fran\:ois Laruelle ------ and collaborators -----­ To ny Brachet. Gilbert Kieffer, Laurent Leroy, Da niel Nicolet, Anne-Fran�oise Schmid, Serge Valdinoci Dictio nary of Non-Philosophy translated by Taylor Adkins I Univocal ---- DJCT!ONNAIREDE LA NON-PHILOSOPH!Eby Fran�ois Laruelle ©Editions Kime, 1998 Translated by Taylor Adkins as Dictionary ofNon-Philosophy First Edition Minneapolis©2013, Univocal Publishing Published by Univocal 123 North 3rd Street, #202 Minneapolis, MN 55401 No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including phorocopying, recording or any other information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. Thanks to John David Ebert and Ben Woodard Designed & Printed by Jason Wagner Distributed by the University of Minnesota Press ISBN 9781937561130 Library of Congress Control Number 2013939530 TA BLE OF CONTENTS Translator's Introduction .......................................... .....................9 Preface to the English Language Edition...................... ................. 15 Preface .........................................................................................19 Theory of the Non-Philosophical Dictionary....................... .......23 Auto-position .......................... .....................................................39 Being-in-One (Being-according-to-the-One)...............................
    [Show full text]