DOCSLIB.ORG

Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's Last Interpreter

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's Last Interpreter chapter 31 Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato’s Last Interpreter Gary Gabor I Introduction Simplicius is well regarded today as an insightful, comprehensive, detailed, sometimes repetitive, but generally useful and reliable interpreter of Aristo­ tle.1 How he reads other authors though – with the possible exception of the Presocratics – is less well studied.2 In this chapter my aim is to examine Sim­ plicius’ interpretation of Plato. By this I mean not Simplicius’ views regarding Platonism (though these of course influenced his interpretation), but rather the ways in which Simplicius read the particular dialogues written by Plato, as well as the history that had accumulated by his time regarding Plato’s life and thought. While something of a picaresque task, given that Simplicius’ extant commentaries all center on texts of either Aristotle or the Stoic Epictetus – the 1 See for instance the favorable assessment of Simplicius by, eg., Baltussen (2010), 715, and McKirahan (2001), 1. There is some dissent, though, regarding the commentary on Aristo­ tle’s De Anima that comes down under Simplicius’ name – J.O. Urmson and Carlos Steel, for instance, both find it very untrustworthy as an interpretation of Aristotle’s intentions there. Its reliance upon and respect for the third century Pythagoranizing Platonist Iamblichus, they believe, along with its excessive “Platonizing” character in fact are reasons why they doubt the author of the commentary is actually Simplicius, a subject which has become one of the most contentious subjects of Simplicius scholarship. For their arguments against Sim­ plician authorship, cf. Urmson (1995), 2–4; Steel (1997b), 105–40 and 2012, vii–39. Against Urmson and Steel, it should be noted that Simplicius’ use and respect for Platonic authors, including Iamblichus but also Plotinus, Syrianus, Damascius, and other “orthodox” Platonists of late antiquity, remains constant throughout all his commentaries. In this then the De An- ima commentary is not unique, though the difference of degree with his other certain com­ mentaries remains unclear. For Ilsetraut Hadot’s recent forceful restatement of the argument for Simplicius’ authorship, see Hadot (2014). N.b., this essay is dedicated to Alice Behnegar, my first interpreter of Plato. 2 Assessments of the “faithfulness” of Simplicius’ reading of the Stoic philosopher Epictetus, for instance in his commentary on the Enchiridion, vary. Some find him to be a reasonably in­ formed, although occasionally incorrect, interpreter of Epictetus’ Stoicism. For one generally positive assessment, see, e.g., Wildberg (2014). For some examples of “Platonist” misreading of Epictetus, see Brennan and Britain (2002), 4–10; Gabor (2014); Schils­Reydams (2007), 113; and Coughlin (2011), 39. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/9789004355385_033 570 Gabor Physics, De Caelo, Categories, and, disputedly, the De Anima, as well as the En- chiridion – nevertheless, his frequent references, allusions, and discussions of Plato’s works in his writing provide ample evidence for gathering a good work­ ing picture of how Simplicius read him. II Simplicius’ General Approach to Reading Plato Despite the charge often leveled against the Neoplatonic commentators – that they generally approach Plato dogmatically, tone­deaf to the stylistic and dra­ matic aspects of Plato’s dialogues and lack of any sort of finesse or subtlety in distinguishing between Plato’s own views and those of the characters found in the dialogues – it is good to report that Simplicius makes no such basic mistakes. Indeed, one recent assessment, by Hans Baltussen, makes Simplicius out to be more pedestrian than anything else: “Simplicius was obviously familiar with Pla­ to’s works and expresses coherent views on them, albeit in passing.”3 And indeed, while there are many brief references and allusions to Plato’s work throughout Simplicius’ commentaries (indeed, it is striking how often a line or thought from Plato will both generate and end discussion for Simplicius), there are many ex­ tended passages where Simplicius embarks on a much more substantial engage­ ment with Plato. Simplicius separates the views of Plato from the Platonic Soc­ rates, as he does for instance at in Ench. 28.33–34, as well as between Plato and other characters such as Timaeus. He also holds the interesting theory that the Athenian Stranger of the Laws was none other than Plato himself, and that here Plato presents his own final views “in his own person” (αὐτοπροσώπως: in Ench. 28.41). Simplicius thus demonstrates an admirable sensitivity to characteriza­ tion, and suggests provocative and intriguing theories as to Plato’s intentions and use of characters in his dialogues. His is not a monolithic Plato. One next wonders how much of Plato’s writings Simplicius read. Based on his frequent allusions to and explicit discussions of Platonic texts, it is safe to say that Simplicius could at least discuss the Apology, Crito, Euthydemus, Alicibiades I, Protagoras, Gorgias, Phaedo, Symposium, Phaedrus, Theaetetus, Republic, Timaeus, Statesman, Sophist, Philebus, and Laws with intelligence. He refers to the Socratic literature of some other authors, such as Xenophon,4 3 Baltussen (2010), 713. 4 Simplicius was familiar enough with Xenophon to even comment on his simpler style com­ pared to Plato, a feature still familiar to students of Greek today; cf. in Cat. 25.16–18. In addi­ tion, significant references and allusions to Xenophon’s writings, especially the Memorabilia and Anabasis, can be found in the Enchiridion commentary..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Proclus on the Elements and the Celestial Bodies
    PROCLUS ON THE ELEMENTS AND THE CELESTIAL BODIES PHYSICAL TH UGHT IN LATE NEOPLAT NISM Lucas Siorvanes A Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy to the Dept. of History and Philosophy of Science, Science Faculty, University College London. Deuember 1986 - 2 - ABSTRACT Until recently, the period of Late Antiquity had been largely regarded as a sterile age of irrationality and of decline in science. This pioneering work, supported by first-hand study of primary sources, argues that this opinion is profoundly mistaken. It focuses in particular on Proclus, the head of the Platonic School at Athens in the 5th c. AD, and the chief spokesman for the ideas of the dominant school of thought of that time, Neoplatonism. Part I, divided into two Sections, is an introductory guide to Proclus' philosophical and cosmological system, its general principles and its graded ordering of the states of existence. Part II concentrates on his physical theories on the Elements and the celestial bodies, in Sections A and B respectively, with chapters (or sub-sections) on topics including the structure, properties and motion of the Elements; light; space and matter; the composition and motion of the celestial bodies; and the order of planets. The picture that emerges from the study is that much of the Aristotelian physics, so prevalent in Classical Antiquity, was rejected. The concepts which were developed instead included the geometrization of matter, the four-Element composition of the universe, that of self-generated, free motion in space for the heavenly bodies, and that of immanent force or power.
    [Show full text]
  • PROCLUS and the ANCIENTS Steven K. Strange Emory
    PROCLUS AND THE ANCIENTS Steven K. Strange Emory University My title may be somewhat misleading. My subject will not be Pro- clus in general, but only his Parmenides Commentary, and I will only be concerned with those figures whom he calls in this commentary “the ancients” ( ? παλαι ), i.e., the older commentators on the dialogue, a group that certainly includes Porphyry, Amelius Gentilianus, and other early Neoplatonists, and perhaps Iamblichus, and some others whom we might suppose to be Middle Platonists, pre-Plotinian commentators. Who exactly is to be included in this category is, however, a some- what difficult and interesting question, which I wish to take up. I will examine the principal passages in which Proclus uses the expression ? παλαι in his commentary on the Parmenides,inorder,Ihope,topoint to some of the ways that they might be exploited to yield information about the earlier history of Parmenides-interpretation. I will be building throughout on the work of John Dillon in his notes and introductory material to his and Morrow’s translation of the Commentary,butIhope to be able to advance the discussion a little farther than he has done. There would be no difficulty, of course, if only Proclus had named the previous commentators whom he discusses, as he had done throughout his commentary on the Timaeus, which seems to have been among his earliest works. But the targets of his discussions in the Par- menides Commentary, in general, remain anonymous, their positions being introduced only by phrases like “some people say”, “others say”, and so forth: as Dillon argues in his Introduction,1 not naming names appears to have become Proclus’ standard practice in his later commentaries.
    [Show full text]
  • B Philosophy (General) B
    B PHILOSOPHY (GENERAL) B Philosophy (General) For general philosophical treatises and introductions to philosophy see BD10+ Periodicals. Serials 1.A1-.A3 Polyglot 1.A4-Z English and American 2 French and Belgian 3 German 4 Italian 5 Spanish and Portuguese 6 Russian and other Slavic 8.A-Z Other. By language, A-Z Societies 11 English and American 12 French and Belgian 13 German 14 Italian 15 Spanish and Portuguese 18.A-Z Other. By language, A-Z 20 Congresses Collected works (nonserial) 20.6 Several languages 20.8 Latin 21 English and American 22 French and Belgian 23 German 24 Italian 25 Spanish and Portuguese 26 Russian and other Slavic 28.A-Z Other. By language, A-Z 29 Addresses, essays, lectures Class here works by several authors or individual authors (31) Yearbooks see B1+ 35 Directories Dictionaries 40 International (Polyglot) 41 English and American 42 French and Belgian 43 German 44 Italian 45 Spanish and Portuguese 48.A-Z Other. By language, A-Z Terminology. Nomenclature 49 General works 50 Special topics, A-Z 51 Encyclopedias 1 B PHILOSOPHY (GENERAL) B Historiography 51.4 General works Biography of historians 51.6.A2 Collective 51.6.A3-Z Individual, A-Z 51.8 Pictorial works Study and teaching. Research Cf. BF77+ Psychology Cf. BJ66+ Ethics Cf. BJ66 Ethics 52 General works 52.3.A-Z By region or country, A-Z 52.5 Problems, exercises, examinations 52.65.A-Z By school, A-Z Communication of information 52.66 General works 52.67 Information services 52.68 Computer network resources Including the Internet 52.7 Authorship Philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Simplicius, Syrianus and the Harmony of Ancient Philosophers*
    Simplicius, Syrianus and the Harmony of Ancient Philosophers* Pantelis Golitsis Introduction Harmonizing philosophical discourse, that is, the discourse which sets out to prove the compatibility of philosophical texts considered to contain incom- patible ideas, was not generally or permanently accepted in the philosophical Schools of Late Antiquity – contrary to what is quite often assumed in schol- arly literature.1 In late sixth century Alexandria, for instance, Iamblichus is referred to by Elias as a bad example of a commentator who sympathized too much with Plato: ‘Iamblichus was so much devoted to Plato’, he says,2 ‘that he contended that Aristotle did not disagree with Plato on the doctrine of Forms’, a disagreement which was apparently too obvious to Elias. Elias was of course not the first to see a disagreement between the two philoso- phers. To illustrate this, let us first take a look at the closing paragraph of Aristotle’s Metaphysics: (1) These then are the results <of the account of Pythagoreans and Plato- nists> and perhaps yet more might be adduced. At any rate, the fact that these men experience many great difficulties in explaining the generation of numbers and can in no way make a system of them is like a proof that the mathematicals are not separable from the perceptibles, as some say, and that they are not the <first> principles.3 * I am grateful to Stephen Menn for helpful comments on a penultimate draft of this paper. 1 It is true that, to some extent and on some range of doctrines, all Neoplatonists harmonized Aristotle’s with Plato’s philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Simplicius and Avicenna on the Nature of Body
    Simplicius and Avicenna on the Nature of Body Abraham D. Stone August 18, 1999 1 Introduction Ibn S¯ına, known to the Latin West as Avicenna, was a medieval Aristotelian— one of the greatest of all medieval Aristotelians. He lived in Persia from 980 to 1037, and wrote mostly in Arabic. Simplicius of Cilicia was a sixth cen- tury Neoplatonist; he is known mostly for his commentaries on Aristotle. Both of these men were, broadly speaking, part of the same philosophical tradition: the tradition of Neoplatonic or Neoplatonizing Aristotelianism. There is probably no direct historical connection between them, however, and anyway I will not try to demonstrate one. In this paper I will examine their closely related, but ultimately quite different, accounts of corporeity— of what it is to be a body—and in particular of the essential relationship between corporeity and materiality.1 The problem that both Simplicius and Avicenna face in this respect is as follows. There is a certain genus of substances which forms the subject matter of the science of physics. I will refer to the members of this genus as the physical substances. On the one hand, all and only these physical substances 1A longer and more technical version of this paper will appear, under the title “Simpli- cius and Avicenna on the Essential Corporeity of Material Substance,” in R. Wisnovsky, ed., Aspects of Avicenna (= Princeton Papers: Interdisciplinary Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 9, no. 2) (Princeton: Markus Wiener, 2000). I want to emphasize at the outset that this paper is about Simplicius and Avicenna, not Aristotle.
    [Show full text]
  • The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism the Alexandrian
    This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 25 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism Pauliina Remes, Svetla Slaveva-Griffin The Alexandrian classrooms excavated and sixth-century philosophy teaching Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315744186.ch3 Richard Sorabji Published online on: 30 Apr 2014 How to cite :- Richard Sorabji. 30 Apr 2014, The Alexandrian classrooms excavated and sixth-century philosophy teaching from: The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism Routledge Accessed on: 25 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315744186.ch3 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. 3 The Alexandrian classrooms excavated and sixth-century philosophy teaching Richard Sorabji It was announced in 2004 that the Polish archaeological team under Grzegorz Majcherek had identifi ed the surprisingly well-preserved lecture rooms of the sixth-century Alexandrian school.1 Th is was a major archaeological discovery.2 Although the fi rst few rooms had been excavated twenty-fi ve years earlier, identifi cation has only now become possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Rhetoric and Platonism in Fifth-Century Athens
    Trinity University Digital Commons @ Trinity Philosophy Faculty Research Philosophy Department 2014 Rhetoric and Platonism in Fifth-Century Athens Damian Caluori Trinity University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.trinity.edu/phil_faculty Part of the Philosophy Commons Repository Citation Caluori, D. (2014). Rhetoric and Platonism in fifth-century Athens. In R. C. Fowler (Ed.), Plato in the third sophistic (pp. 57-72). De Gruyter. This Contribution to Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy Department at Digital Commons @ Trinity. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Faculty Research by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Trinity. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Damian Caluori (Trinity University) Rhetoric and Platonism in Fifth-Century Athens There are reasons to believe that relations between Platonism and rhetoric in Athens during the fifth century CE were rather close.Z Both were major pillars of pagan cul- ture, or paideia, and thus essential elements in the defense of paganism against in- creasingly powerful and repressive Christian opponents. It is easy to imagine that, under these circumstances, paganism was closing ranks and that philosophers and orators united in their efforts to save traditional ways and values. Although there is no doubt some truth to this view, a closer look reveals that the relations be- tween philosophy and rhetoric were rather more complicated. In what follows, I will discuss these relations with a view to the Platonist school of Athens. By “the Platon- ist school of Athens” I mean the Platonist school founded by Plutarch of Athens in the late fourth century CE, and reaching a famous end under the leadership of Dam- ascius in 529.X I will first survey the evidence for the attitudes towards rhetoric pre- vailing amongst the most important Athenian Platonists of the time.
    [Show full text]
  • Neoplatonic Asclepius: Science and Religion at the Crossroads of Aristotelian Biology, Hippocratic Medicine and Platonic Theurgy
    Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica 23(2): 333–349 Neoplatonic Asclepius: Science and religion at the crossroads of Aristotelian biology, Hippocratic medicine and Platonic theurgy Eugene AFONASIN1 Abstract. In the first part of the paper, I will briefly discuss certain peculiarities of the medical profession in antiquity. In his Philosophical History (fr. 80–84 Athanassiadi) Damascius narrates about a philosopher, named Asclepiodotus, whose interests ranged from Platonic philosophy to Aristotelian natural sciences. Asclepiodotus’ instructor in medical matters, a son of a doctor from the island of Rhodos, Iacobus, is pictured by Damascius as an exemplary figure (fr. 84), who, unlike many of his contemporaries, always tested the opinions of others and gained a reputation of an extremely successful physician, although the methods of treatment, ascribed to him by Damascius, are highly reminiscent of those presented as the Pythagorean by Iamblichus (On the Pythagorean way of life 244). In this respect both Iacobus and Asclepiodotus are conformed to the best standards of medical ethics, and pass the test set by Galen in his “On examination by which the best physicians are recognized”, except perhaps by the fact that they preferred to base their activities on such authorities as Aristotle and the Methodist Soranus rather than on a list of the “dogmatists” proposed by Galen. In the second part of the paper, dedicated to the cult of Asclepius in Late Antiquity, I will look at various kinds of evidence taken from the Neoplatonic philosophers. Having discussed first the principal philosophical interpretations of Asclepius found in Apuleius, Aelianus, Macrobius, Julian, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Proclus, Damascius, etc., we turn to Proclus’ attitude to Athena and Asclepius as reflected in Marinus’ Vita Procli and finally discuss the cult of Eshmun as found in Damascius.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fragments of the Poem of Parmenides
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by D-Scholarship@Pitt RESTORING PARMENIDES’ POEM: ESSAYS TOWARD A NEW ARRANGEMENT OF THE FRAGMENTS BASED ON A REASSESSMENT OF THE ORIGINAL SOURCES by Christopher John Kurfess B.A., St. John’s College, 1995 M.A., St. John’s College, 1996 M.A., University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, 2000 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2012 UNVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH The Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences This dissertation was presented by Christopher J. Kurfess It was defended on November 8, 2012 and approved by Dr. Andrew M. Miller, Professor, Department of Classics Dr. John Poulakos, Associate Professor, Department of Communication Dr. Mae J. Smethurst, Professor, Department of Classics Dissertation Supervisor: Dr. Edwin D. Floyd, Professor, Department of Classics ii Copyright © by Christopher J. Kurfess 2012 iii RESTORING PARMENIDES’ POEM Christopher J. Kurfess, Ph.D. University of Pittsburgh, 2012 The history of philosophy proper, claimed Hegel, began with the poem of the Presocratic Greek philosopher Parmenides. Today, that poem is extant only in fragmentary form, the various fragments surviving as quotations, translations or paraphrases in the works of better-preserved authors of antiquity. These range from Plato, writing within a century after Parmenides’ death, to the sixth-century C.E. commentator Simplicius of Cilicia, the latest figure known to have had access to the complete poem. Since the Renaissance, students of Parmenides have relied on collections of fragments compiled by classical scholars, and since the turn of the twentieth century, Hermann Diels’ Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, through a number of editions, has remained the standard collection for Presocratic material generally and for the arrangement of Parmenides’ fragments in particular.
    [Show full text]
  • Persecution and Response in Late Paganism The
    Persecution and Response in Late Paganism: The Evidence of Damascius Author(s): Polymnia Athanassiadi Source: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 113 (1993), pp. 1-29 Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/632395 . Accessed: 01/12/2013 12:02 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Hellenic Studies. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 198.105.44.150 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 12:02:11 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Journal of Hellenic Studies cxiii (1993) pp 1-29 PERSECUTIONAND RESPONSE IN LATE PAGANISM: THE EVIDENCE OF DAMASCIUS* THE theme of this paper is intolerance: its manifestation in late antiquity towards the pagans of the Eastern Mediterranean,and the immediate reactions and long-term attitudes that it provoked in them. The reasons why, in spite of copious evidence, the persecution of the traditional cults and of their adepts in the Roman empire has never been viewed as such are obvious: on the one hand no pagan church emerged out of the turmoil to canonise its dead and expound a theology of martyrdom, and on the other, whatever their conscious religious beliefs, late antique scholars in their overwhelming majority were formed in societies whose ethical foundations and logic are irreversibly Christian.
    [Show full text]
  • Sylvain Delcomminette, Pieter D'hoine, Marc-Antoine Gavray (Eds
    Reviews 245 Sylvain Delcomminette, Pieter d’Hoine, Marc-Antoine Gavray (eds.), Ancient Readings of Plato’s Phaedo. Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2015, viii+364 p.; ISBN 978-90-0428217-9, € 126. Reviewed by Peter Lautner, Department of Philosophy, Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Piliscsaba-Budapest, H-2087 Piliscsaba, Egyetem utca 1, Hungary. Email: [email protected] https://doi.org/10.1515/rhiz-2018-0013 This volume grew out of a conference held in Brussels on the reception of the Phaedo in antiquity, concentrating on the period before Damascius and Olympi- odorus. Its subject-matter fits neatly with the recent trend of following the after- math of some of Plato’s dialogues in antiquity. Aristotle’s approach to the themes exposed in Plato’s dialogue focuses on not only the theory of the soul (in De anima and in the lost dialogue Eudemus), but also physics. Sylvain Delcomminette draws attention to the fact that Aristotle puts the emphasis elsewhere, on the account of the causes. He argues that Aris- totle had the Phaedo in mind when he discussed the material in Phys I, Met. A, and Gen. et Corr. The Aristotelian causal theory was developed with a view to Plato’s account. Furthermore, the description of the earlier philosophers’ views in Met. A much resembles Socrates’ account of the earlier views he encountered in his youth. The important difference is that Aristotle’s description is impersonal and fully anti-Platonic in claiming that “all men by nature desire to know”. Of course, he also rejects the causal efficiency of the Ideas. However, Aristotle seems to admit the principle of the “second sail”, which involves attaining knowledge through λόγοι.
    [Show full text]
  • The School of Ammonius, Son of Hermias, on Knowledge of the Divine
    ELIAS TEMPELIS THE SCHOOL OF AMMONIUS, SON OF HERMIAS, ON KNOWLEDGE OF THE DIVINE ΕΚΔΟΣΕΙΣ ΦΙΛΟΛΟΓΙΚΟΥ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΥ ΠΑΡΝΑΣΣΟΣ ΑΘΗΝΑΙ 1998 THE SCHOOL OF AMMONIUS, SON OF HERMIAS, ON KNOWLEDGE OF THE DIVINE ELIAS TEMPELIS THE SCHOOL OF AMMONIUS, SON OF HERMIAS, ON KNOWLEDGE OF THE DIVINE ΕΚΔΟΣΕΙΣ ΦΙΛΟΛΟΓΙΚΟΥ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΥ ΠΑΡΝΑΣΣΟΣ ΑΘΗΝΑΙ 1998 ISBN 960­85212­5­4 1998 © Ηλίας Τεμπέλης, 'Ογδόη οδός 3,152 36 Π. Πεντέλη ΕΚΔΟΣΕΙΣ ΦΙΛΟΛΟΓΙΚΟΥ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΥ ΠΑΡΝΑΣΣΟΣ Πλατεία Αγ. Γεωργίου Καρύτση 8,105 61 'Αθήναι Υπεύθυνος Τυπογραφείου: ΕΥΑΓΓ. ΜΠΟΥΛΟΥΚΟΣ Όδός Μίλωνος 26,117 45 Αθήναι Τηλ.: 93.45.204 - Fax: 93.17.188 To my wife Christina PREFACE This book is a slightly revised version of my Ph.D. thesis, on which I ' began work in 1990 and which I defended at the University of London in 1994. My study undertakes a reconstruction and critical assessment of the theory of the Neoplatonic school of Ammonius, son of Hermias, on the presuppositions of 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 as• similation to the divine and is achieved by means of a personal struggle with the help of theoretical and practical philosophy. The school of Am• monius compared its own philosophical attempt at knowledge of the di• vine to previous similar methods.
    [Show full text]