Dominic J. O'Meara
- Published in print:
- 1990
- Published Online:
- April 2004
- ISBN:
- 9780198239130
- eISBN:
- 9780191600937
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198239130.001.0001
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Ancient Philosophy
The Pythagorean idea that number is the key to understanding reality inspired Neoplatonist philosophers in Late Antiquity to develop theories in physics and metaphysics based on mathematical models. ...
More
The Pythagorean idea that number is the key to understanding reality inspired Neoplatonist philosophers in Late Antiquity to develop theories in physics and metaphysics based on mathematical models. This book examines this theme, describing first the Pythagorean interests of Platonists in the second and third centuries and then Iamblichus's programme to Pythagoreanize Platonism in the fourth century in his work On Pythagoreanism (whose unity of conception is shown and parts of which are reconstructed for the first time). The impact of Iamblichus's programme is examined as regards Hierocles of Alexandria and Syrianus and Proclus in Athens: their conceptions of the figure of Pythagoras and of mathematics and its relation to physics and metaphysics are examined and compared with those of Iamblichus. This provides insight into Iamblichus's contribution to the evolution of Neoplatonism, to the revival of interest in mathematics, and to the development of a philosophy of mathematics and a mathematizing physics and metaphysics.Less
The Pythagorean idea that number is the key to understanding reality inspired Neoplatonist philosophers in Late Antiquity to develop theories in physics and metaphysics based on mathematical models. This book examines this theme, describing first the Pythagorean interests of Platonists in the second and third centuries and then Iamblichus's programme to Pythagoreanize Platonism in the fourth century in his work On Pythagoreanism (whose unity of conception is shown and parts of which are reconstructed for the first time). The impact of Iamblichus's programme is examined as regards Hierocles of Alexandria and Syrianus and Proclus in Athens: their conceptions of the figure of Pythagoras and of mathematics and its relation to physics and metaphysics are examined and compared with those of Iamblichus. This provides insight into Iamblichus's contribution to the evolution of Neoplatonism, to the revival of interest in mathematics, and to the development of a philosophy of mathematics and a mathematizing physics and metaphysics.
Peter Adamson
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- January 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780195181425
- eISBN:
- 9780199785087
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195181425.003.0003
- Subject:
- Religion, Philosophy of Religion
This chapter deals with al-Kindī’s metaphysics, which in this context means theology and the idea that being is an emanation or creation from God. Depending on the Neoplatonists, especially Proclus, ...
More
This chapter deals with al-Kindī’s metaphysics, which in this context means theology and the idea that being is an emanation or creation from God. Depending on the Neoplatonists, especially Proclus, al-Kindī proves God’s existence by arguing for the need for a “true One”, whose absolute simplicity rules out a multiplicity of divine attributes.Less
This chapter deals with al-Kindī’s metaphysics, which in this context means theology and the idea that being is an emanation or creation from God. Depending on the Neoplatonists, especially Proclus, al-Kindī proves God’s existence by arguing for the need for a “true One”, whose absolute simplicity rules out a multiplicity of divine attributes.
Peter Adamson
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- January 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780195181425
- eISBN:
- 9780199785087
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195181425.003.0004
- Subject:
- Religion, Philosophy of Religion
This chapter surveys the Greek background in Plato’s Timaeus, Aristotle’s Physics and De Caelo, and the dispute between late Greek thinkers, especially Proclus and Philoponus. Against this ...
More
This chapter surveys the Greek background in Plato’s Timaeus, Aristotle’s Physics and De Caelo, and the dispute between late Greek thinkers, especially Proclus and Philoponus. Against this background, al-Kindī’s arguments that only God can be eternal and that creation must be finite in time as well as space are explored. It is suggested that al-Kindī’s interest in this topic can be explained in terms of the contemporary ’Abbāsid dogma that the Koran is not eternal, but created.Less
This chapter surveys the Greek background in Plato’s Timaeus, Aristotle’s Physics and De Caelo, and the dispute between late Greek thinkers, especially Proclus and Philoponus. Against this background, al-Kindī’s arguments that only God can be eternal and that creation must be finite in time as well as space are explored. It is suggested that al-Kindī’s interest in this topic can be explained in terms of the contemporary ’Abbāsid dogma that the Koran is not eternal, but created.
Richard Sorabji
- Published in print:
- 2002
- Published Online:
- May 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199256600
- eISBN:
- 9780191712609
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199256600.003.0018
- Subject:
- Philosophy, General
The idea that the body's chemical blend is the soul is rejected by Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine, but held by Galen for the mortal soul. Among Aristotelians, Andronicus thinks soul is rather a ...
More
The idea that the body's chemical blend is the soul is rejected by Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine, but held by Galen for the mortal soul. Among Aristotelians, Andronicus thinks soul is rather a capacity that ‘follows’ the blend, Alexander a capacity that ‘supervenes on’ it. The idea that psychological capacities ‘follow’ the blend is favoured by Lucretius and Galen, who so interprets Plato and Posidonius. Galen concludes that diet must come first, and that this affects even rational capacities. Others too offer non-cognitive therapies, but Galen also accepts cognitive therapy. The Neoplatonist Proclus (5th century CE) denies that psychological capacities follow the bodily blend, though admitting that the body can disturb psychological activities. Philoponus, the Christian Neoplatonist (6th century CE), denies that psychological capacities follow or result from the blend, else philosophy could not counteract. But they do supervene on the blend and act in turn on the body.Less
The idea that the body's chemical blend is the soul is rejected by Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine, but held by Galen for the mortal soul. Among Aristotelians, Andronicus thinks soul is rather a capacity that ‘follows’ the blend, Alexander a capacity that ‘supervenes on’ it. The idea that psychological capacities ‘follow’ the blend is favoured by Lucretius and Galen, who so interprets Plato and Posidonius. Galen concludes that diet must come first, and that this affects even rational capacities. Others too offer non-cognitive therapies, but Galen also accepts cognitive therapy. The Neoplatonist Proclus (5th century CE) denies that psychological capacities follow the bodily blend, though admitting that the body can disturb psychological activities. Philoponus, the Christian Neoplatonist (6th century CE), denies that psychological capacities follow or result from the blend, else philosophy could not counteract. But they do supervene on the blend and act in turn on the body.
Richard Sorabji
- Published in print:
- 2002
- Published Online:
- May 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199256600
- eISBN:
- 9780191712609
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199256600.003.0020
- Subject:
- Philosophy, General
If Aristotle's catharsis gets rid of something by allowing it moderate exercise, by tragedy it will get rid of an excessive disposition to grief, as well as pity and fear; and in comedy of an ...
More
If Aristotle's catharsis gets rid of something by allowing it moderate exercise, by tragedy it will get rid of an excessive disposition to grief, as well as pity and fear; and in comedy of an excessive disposition to contempt. Dispositions to fear, grief, and contempt do tend to be excessive. Until the Neoplatonists Porphyry and Iamblichus, there are only brief references to Aristotle's catharsis in Pythagoras and Pythagoreans, Philodemus, Plutarch, less clearly in the Stoics Diogenes of Babylon and Seneca. But among later Neoplatonists, Proclus denies theatre can be cathartic while Simplicius allows over-indulgence to be cathartic. Both compare a healing emetic. Olympiodorus associates catharsis through moderate exercise of emotion with Pythagoras, whereas Aristotle's catharsis is associated with his advice in Rhetoric to drive out one emotion by its opposite, and there are three other kinds of catharsis.Less
If Aristotle's catharsis gets rid of something by allowing it moderate exercise, by tragedy it will get rid of an excessive disposition to grief, as well as pity and fear; and in comedy of an excessive disposition to contempt. Dispositions to fear, grief, and contempt do tend to be excessive. Until the Neoplatonists Porphyry and Iamblichus, there are only brief references to Aristotle's catharsis in Pythagoras and Pythagoreans, Philodemus, Plutarch, less clearly in the Stoics Diogenes of Babylon and Seneca. But among later Neoplatonists, Proclus denies theatre can be cathartic while Simplicius allows over-indulgence to be cathartic. Both compare a healing emetic. Olympiodorus associates catharsis through moderate exercise of emotion with Pythagoras, whereas Aristotle's catharsis is associated with his advice in Rhetoric to drive out one emotion by its opposite, and there are three other kinds of catharsis.
Terryl L. Givens
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- February 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780195313901
- eISBN:
- 9780199871933
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195313901.003.0005
- Subject:
- Religion, Religion and Society
Neoplatonism, under Plotinus, Proclus, Porphyry, and Iamblicus, developed and modified ideas about preexistence. Church Fathers were divided on the question of preexistence, but many were its ...
More
Neoplatonism, under Plotinus, Proclus, Porphyry, and Iamblicus, developed and modified ideas about preexistence. Church Fathers were divided on the question of preexistence, but many were its advocates. The case of Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria is equivocal. Tertullian was the principal foe and Origen the principal defender of the idea.Less
Neoplatonism, under Plotinus, Proclus, Porphyry, and Iamblicus, developed and modified ideas about preexistence. Church Fathers were divided on the question of preexistence, but many were its advocates. The case of Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria is equivocal. Tertullian was the principal foe and Origen the principal defender of the idea.
Martin Laird
- Published in print:
- 2004
- Published Online:
- November 2004
- ISBN:
- 9780199267996
- eISBN:
- 9780191601576
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199267995.003.0001
- Subject:
- Religion, Early Christian Studies
Sketches early Christian initiatives to present faith as a privileged means of contact with God. Discusses the fourth-century religious climate of late Neoplatonism and suggests a much less hostile ...
More
Sketches early Christian initiatives to present faith as a privileged means of contact with God. Discusses the fourth-century religious climate of late Neoplatonism and suggests a much less hostile attitude to faith and revelation. In both Christian and non-Christian Neoplatonic circles, the exaltation of faith was part of the spirit of the age.Less
Sketches early Christian initiatives to present faith as a privileged means of contact with God. Discusses the fourth-century religious climate of late Neoplatonism and suggests a much less hostile attitude to faith and revelation. In both Christian and non-Christian Neoplatonic circles, the exaltation of faith was part of the spirit of the age.
Andrea Rotstein
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- January 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199286270
- eISBN:
- 9780191713330
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199286270.003.0004
- Subject:
- Classical Studies, Poetry and Poets: Classical, Early, and Medieval
This chapter explores the various historical ‘ways of seeing’ the genre of iambos in ancient scholarship after Aristotle. It begins with an overview of the Hellenistic scholarship on iambos and the ...
More
This chapter explores the various historical ‘ways of seeing’ the genre of iambos in ancient scholarship after Aristotle. It begins with an overview of the Hellenistic scholarship on iambos and the views emerging from ancient etymologies, before turning to late antique definitions of the genre. Since generic concepts are explicit in works that belong to what the ancients considered the realm of grammar rather than philology, in order to find iambos within something akin to systematic treatments of genres, we will have to go backwards and forwards in time: from the grammarian Diomedes (4th cent. BCE), to Photius' (9th cent. CE) summary of a handbook by Proclus (5th cent. CE, or 2nd cent. CE), and back to the late Hellenistic period through the testimony of Philodemus of Gadara (1st cent. BCE). Three main historical ways of conceptualizing literary genres and the ensuing views of iambos are proposed.Less
This chapter explores the various historical ‘ways of seeing’ the genre of iambos in ancient scholarship after Aristotle. It begins with an overview of the Hellenistic scholarship on iambos and the views emerging from ancient etymologies, before turning to late antique definitions of the genre. Since generic concepts are explicit in works that belong to what the ancients considered the realm of grammar rather than philology, in order to find iambos within something akin to systematic treatments of genres, we will have to go backwards and forwards in time: from the grammarian Diomedes (4th cent. BCE), to Photius' (9th cent. CE) summary of a handbook by Proclus (5th cent. CE, or 2nd cent. CE), and back to the late Hellenistic period through the testimony of Philodemus of Gadara (1st cent. BCE). Three main historical ways of conceptualizing literary genres and the ensuing views of iambos are proposed.
Stephen Menn
- Published in print:
- 2012
- Published Online:
- May 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780199693719
- eISBN:
- 9780191739019
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199693719.003.0004
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Ancient Philosophy, History of Philosophy
The later Neoplatonists want to reconcile Aristotle and Plato on how far down immortality extends. They must therefore maintain that Aristotle’s poiêtikos nous is part of the soul, and that when ...
More
The later Neoplatonists want to reconcile Aristotle and Plato on how far down immortality extends. They must therefore maintain that Aristotle’s poiêtikos nous is part of the soul, and that when Plato says the soul is immortal he means only the rational soul. They face a difficulty in the Phaedrus, where Plato uses the premise that soul is self-moving to argue that ‘all soul is immortal’: it seems that if this argument works, it will prove too much. Furthermore, Aristotle criticizes this argument: soul is the source of self-motion to the animal composite, but it may be an unmoved, rather than self-moved, mover of the body. Aristotle thinks only an uncritical assimilation of souls to bodies would lead us to think that souls must be moved in order to cause motion in bodies. Hermias and Proclus respond that the only self-motion that cannot be reduced to one part moving another is the rational soul’s self-thinking: the Phaedrus proof of immortality works only for a self-thinking soul, and since only this is properly self-moved and self-motion is the definition of soul, only the rational soul is properly a soul. The Neoplatonists’ attempt, in defending Plato against Aristotle, to ‘purify’ him of improper assimilation of divine things to bodies, leads not only to improved arguments but to conceptual innovations. Notably, the concept of ‘reflection’ emerges from a reinterpretation of the Timaeus’ construction of the World-Soul, with its straight lines ‘bent back’ into circles, that will apply only to a self-thinking rational soul.Less
The later Neoplatonists want to reconcile Aristotle and Plato on how far down immortality extends. They must therefore maintain that Aristotle’s poiêtikos nous is part of the soul, and that when Plato says the soul is immortal he means only the rational soul. They face a difficulty in the Phaedrus, where Plato uses the premise that soul is self-moving to argue that ‘all soul is immortal’: it seems that if this argument works, it will prove too much. Furthermore, Aristotle criticizes this argument: soul is the source of self-motion to the animal composite, but it may be an unmoved, rather than self-moved, mover of the body. Aristotle thinks only an uncritical assimilation of souls to bodies would lead us to think that souls must be moved in order to cause motion in bodies. Hermias and Proclus respond that the only self-motion that cannot be reduced to one part moving another is the rational soul’s self-thinking: the Phaedrus proof of immortality works only for a self-thinking soul, and since only this is properly self-moved and self-motion is the definition of soul, only the rational soul is properly a soul. The Neoplatonists’ attempt, in defending Plato against Aristotle, to ‘purify’ him of improper assimilation of divine things to bodies, leads not only to improved arguments but to conceptual innovations. Notably, the concept of ‘reflection’ emerges from a reinterpretation of the Timaeus’ construction of the World-Soul, with its straight lines ‘bent back’ into circles, that will apply only to a self-thinking rational soul.
Ian Mueller
- Published in print:
- 2012
- Published Online:
- May 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780199693719
- eISBN:
- 9780191739019
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199693719.003.0007
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Ancient Philosophy, History of Philosophy
Aristotle and Plato advanced very different theories of the traditional four elements. Whereas Plato in his Timaeus proposes a geometrical theory of these elements, Aristotle in his On the Heavens ...
More
Aristotle and Plato advanced very different theories of the traditional four elements. Whereas Plato in his Timaeus proposes a geometrical theory of these elements, Aristotle in his On the Heavens (and On Generation and Corruption) offers a qualitative analysis and offers a series of objections to Plato’s theory. These objections provided later Platonists with the opportunity to defend Plato against and possibly harmonize him with Aristotle. This paper explores Simplicius’ responses to Aristotle one by one, paying particular attention to the brand of scientific discourse that he engages in with Proclus, and to how different commitments to harmonization affect their responses to these objections.Less
Aristotle and Plato advanced very different theories of the traditional four elements. Whereas Plato in his Timaeus proposes a geometrical theory of these elements, Aristotle in his On the Heavens (and On Generation and Corruption) offers a qualitative analysis and offers a series of objections to Plato’s theory. These objections provided later Platonists with the opportunity to defend Plato against and possibly harmonize him with Aristotle. This paper explores Simplicius’ responses to Aristotle one by one, paying particular attention to the brand of scientific discourse that he engages in with Proclus, and to how different commitments to harmonization affect their responses to these objections.
