Peitho. Examina Antiqua
Not a member yet
232 research outputs found
Sort by
La scienza, il vortice, il metodo analogico nei Milesi
Full text linkGuido Calenda, I cieli alla luce della ragione. Talete, Anassimandro e Anassimene, Roma 2015
Symbolic Poetry, Inspired Myths and Salvific Function of Allegoresis in Proclus’ Commentary on the Republic
Full text linkThe present article is concerned with Proclus’ highly original and profoundly influential account of the symbolic function of poetry, the pedagogic as well as the hieratic value of myths and the soteriological power of allegorical interpretation. Thus, the paper begins with a brief discussion of Plato’s dismissal of poetry as μέγιστον ψεῦδος. Subsequently, Proclus’ theory of three kinds of poetry is examined, upon which attention is paid to his revolutionary idea that σύμβολα rather than μιμήματα are the tools of the highest kind of poetry. Then, Proclus’ views on the difference between Plato’s and Homer’s μυθοποιΐα are considered. While the article concludes with an analysis of Proclus’ conviction about the functional similarity of symbols in myths and those in magic rites, allegoresis is shown to have the same salvational role that Proclus ascribes to theurgy
Plato – The Motto of Delphi of the Alcibiades I: Between Emphases and Retractions of the Socratics?
No full textThe present article aims to examine whether this Platonic dialogue can be regarded as polemical and competing with the similar educational proposals put forward by Xenophon and Antisthenes for the young Alcibiades aspiring to power in the city of Athens. The present article has been divided into two major parts. In the first one, I propose to unify the two opposing points of view that are reflected in the interpretations of the motto: the one that takes it to be a solitary dialogue of a soul talking to itself (Platonic origin) and the one that takes it to be an intersubjective dialogue (Socratic origin). In the second part, I try to highlight a few points of contact and conflict between Plato, Xenophon and Antisthenes, arguing that it is the latter two that may be alluded to in the dialogue, albeit indirectly, as competing and polemical targets.The present article aims to examine whether this Platonic dialogue can be regarded as polemical and competing with the similar educational proposals put forward by Xenophon and Antisthenes for the young Alcibiades aspiring to power in the city of Athens. The present article has been divided into two major parts. In the first one, I propose to unify the two opposing points of view that are reflected in the interpretations of the motto: the one that takes it to be a solitary dialogue of a soul talking to itself (Platonic origin) and the one that takes it to be an intersubjective dialogue (Socratic origin). In the second part, I try to highlight a few points of contact and conflict between Plato, Xenophon and Antisthenes, arguing that it is the latter two that may be alluded to in the dialogue, albeit indirectly, as competing and polemical targets
Hegel on Byzantium and the Question of Hegelian Neoplatonism
No full textThe article examines how Hegel’s negative view of Byzantium is different from the Enlightenment’s critique and especially from Voltaire’s criticism of medieval history. In order to account for the Hegelian specificity of interpretation an effort is made to translate the chapter on Byzantium from the Philosophy of History in terms of the analysis of the Phenomenology of the Spirit and, more precisely, on the basis of the chapters on sensible certitude and on the domination and servitude. Considering that for Hegel every philosophical school possesses an autonomous value, one has to wonder why the Byzantine moment of the Spirit is destined to stagnation. The question about Hegel’s Neoplatonism, especially his affiliation with Proclus’s system, shows how the distance separating the Hegelian system from the Proclusian one explains the inadequacy of the latter as to drawing the consequences from the Byzantine spiritual stagnation.The article examines how Hegel’s negative view of Byzantium is different from the Enlightenment’s critique and especially from Voltaire’s criticism of medieval history. In order to account for the Hegelian specificity of interpretation an effort is made to translate the chapter on Byzantium from the Philosophy of History in terms of the analysis of the Phenomenology of the Spirit and, more precisely, on the basis of the chapters on sensible certitude and on the domination and servitude. Considering that for Hegel every philosophical school possesses an autonomous value, one has to wonder why the Byzantine moment of the Spirit is destined to stagnation. The question about Hegel’s Neoplatonism, especially his affiliation with Proclus’s system, shows how the distance separating the Hegelian system from the Proclusian one explains the inadequacy of the latter as to drawing the consequences from the Byzantine spiritual stagnation
Pionierska Philosophie Byzantine Bazylego Tatakisa w edycji polskiej
Full text linkBazyli Tatakis, Filozofia bizantyńska, przełożył Sergiusz Tokariew, przekład skorygował i opatrzył posłowiem Marian Andrzej Wesoły, Kraków 2012, ss. 334
The Byzantine Culture Model of the 12th Century in Hugo Etherianus\u27 view
No full textThe question concerning the view of Hugo Etherianus (Eteriano) is placed here in a broader context of the processes that shaped and reshaped the Byzantine culture model between the 11th and the 12th century. The newly formed culture determined the cultural situation after the fall of Constantinople in 1204 and remained valid until the end of the Byzantine period. Characterizing the Byzantines relation to the West was the key component of this model. During various theological and philosophical debates between Latin and Romaic thinkers in the 12th century in Byzantium, the nearly 20-year career of Hugo Etherianus occupied a prominent position in Constantinople. Hugo was the best Latin expert on Hellenic and Byzantine philosophy and theology in the 12th century, particularly associated with the new dialecticians. His writings and letters as well as his debates with various Byzantine philosophers and theologians are an important testimony on the parting of the Byzantine and the Latin intellectual traditions during the last quarter of the 12th century.The question concerning the view of Hugo Etherianus (Eteriano) is placed here in a broader context of the processes that shaped and reshaped the Byzantine culture model between the 11th and the 12th century. The newly formed culture determined the cultural situation after the fall of Constantinople in 1204 and remained valid until the end of the Byzantine period. Characterizing the Byzantines relation to the West was the key component of this model. During various theological and philosophical debates between Latin and Romaic thinkers in the 12th century in Byzantium, the nearly 20-year career of Hugo Etherianus occupied a prominent position in Constantinople. Hugo was the best Latin expert on Hellenic and Byzantine philosophy and theology in the 12th century, particularly associated with the new dialecticians. His writings and letters as well as his debates with various Byzantine philosophers and theologians are an important testimony on the parting of the Byzantine and the Latin intellectual traditions during the last quarter of the 12th century
The Historical Antecedents of Platonism: The Role of the Presocratics According to the Neoplatonists
No full textOne of the aims of the Neoplatonists is to demonstrate that ancient Presocratic thought is, in fact, a Preplatonic thought. According to the Neoplatonists, Presocratics, who were not far from the truth, employed an inaccurate and ambiguous language, whereas Plato spoke about the truth in a more appropriate and clear way. That is why the Presocratics are not necessarily erroneous and their theoretical originality and their terminology can be incorporated into the Neoplatonic philosophy. I would like to show how some Presocratic theories are embedded in the Neoplatonic metaphysical system of the three Hypostases. Regarding the One and the Intellect, Plotinus, Proclus and the Anonymous Author of the Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy read and employ some Presocratic texts in order to harmonize the Platonic and the Presocratic accounts. Although the Neoplatonists see themselves as continuing the Greek philosophical tradition started by the Presocratics, their interpretation of Presocratic thought illustrates the birth of exegetic philosophy which is able to apply ancient concepts and predicates to its own metaphysical theory. One of the aims of the Neoplatonists is to demonstrate that ancient Presocratic thought is, in fact, a Preplatonic thought. According to the Neoplatonists, Presocratics, who were not far from the truth, employed an inaccurate and ambiguous language, whereas Plato spoke about the truth in a more appropriate and clear way. That is why the Presocratics are not necessarily erroneous and their theoretical originality and their terminology can be incorporated into the Neoplatonic philosophy. I would like to show how some Presocratic theories are embedded in the Neoplatonic metaphysical system of the three Hypostases. Regarding the One and the Intellect, Plotinus, Proclus and the Anonymous Author of the Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy read and employ some Presocratic texts in order to harmonize the Platonic and the Presocratic accounts. Although the Neoplatonists see themselves as continuing the Greek philosophical tradition started by the Presocratics, their interpretation of Presocratic thought illustrates the birth of exegetic philosophy which is able to apply ancient concepts and predicates to its own metaphysical theory
Hedonistic Motif in Plato’s Phaedo – Olympiodorus’ Simplification
No full textWhile the aim of the present paper is to analyze Olympiodorus’ commentary to Plato’s Phaedo, particular attention will be paid here to the role of hēdonē. The first part of the text presents the four conceptions of the pleasure that can be found in Plato’s dialogue. Although pleasure does not play the most prominent role either in the Plato’s dialogue or in the Neoplatonic commentary, Olympiodorus’ attitude to this issue reveals an important change and difference between the philosophical views of Plato and those of Olympiodorus. The latter does not seem to discern the possibility that pleasure can have its spiritual dimension (which Plato regards as possible). Thus, the experience of hēdonē is reduced solely to the sphere of the senses and even in this area its role needs to be minimized: in this form it has to be carefully measured and controled. Furthermore, Olympiodorus does not see that so-called hedonistic calculus: whilst it is not strictly speaking connected with virtuous actions, it still can have some significance for the the philosopher’s life.While the aim of the present paper is to analyze Olympiodorus’ commentary to Plato’s Phaedo, particular attention will be paid here to the role of hēdonē. The first part of the text presents the four conceptions of the pleasure that can be found in Plato’s dialogue. Although pleasure does not play the most prominent role either in the Plato’s dialogue or in the Neoplatonic commentary, Olympiodorus’ attitude to this issue reveals an important change and difference between the philosophical views of Plato and those of Olympiodorus. The latter does not seem to discern the possibility that pleasure can have its spiritual dimension (which Plato regards as possible). Thus, the experience of hēdonē is reduced solely to the sphere of the senses and even in this area its role needs to be minimized: in this form it has to be carefully measured and controled. Furthermore, Olympiodorus does not see that so-called hedonistic calculus: whilst it is not strictly speaking connected with virtuous actions, it still can have some significance for the the philosopher’s life
John Italos Seen by Anna Komnene
Full text linkThe historical work of Anna Komnene is one of the main sources which provides crucial information about John Italos. It is worth noting though that princess Komnene sketches in the Alexiad a portrait of this eminent Byzantine thinker that is anything but flattering. Despite the wide range of perspectives and diverse representations of the philosopher, it is actually quite difficult to find in her opus any comments or opinions of decisively positive nature. As a matter of fact, the final opinion regarding the famous “Consul Philosophorum” is formed solely on the basis of downright hostile statements. John Italos is not regarded as an outstanding figure, but rather as a controversial thinker that hardly deserves any recognition. While the present paper investigates the figure of Italos as shown in the Alexiad by Anna Komnene, its aim is to unravel those elements in the work that caused Komnene to express such an opinion about the philosopher
The Spirit and Its Thinking. On the Recepcion of Plato’s megista gēnē Doctrine in Plotinus and Proclus
No full textThis article is primarily concerned with Platoʼs later dialogue, the Sophist, and the reception of the megista-gēnē-dialectic in Neoplatonism (especially Plotinus and Proclus). The present paper offers a historical comparative study that consists of three parts. The first one gives a short summary concerning Platoʼs request regarding the concept of inverse and complex Ideas. The second one examines Plotinus’ conception of the νοῦς (Enn. VI 2, 7–8), in which the megista gēnē στάσις, κίνησις, ὄν, ταὐτόν and ἕτερον constitute the realm of the intellect. While the third and final part of the article investigates Proclusʼ extrapolation of the Platonic dialectic, it focuses on selected passages from the Commentary on the Parmenides. The paper concludes with a summary of the results.This article is primarily concerned with Platoʼs later dialogue, the Sophist, and the reception of the megista-gēnē-dialectic in Neoplatonism (especially Plotinus and Proclus). The present paper offers a historical comparative study that consists of three parts. The first one gives a short summary concerning Platoʼs request regarding the concept of inverse and complex Ideas. The second one examines Plotinus’ conception of the νοῦς (Enn. VI 2, 7–8), in which the megista gēnē στάσις, κίνησις, ὄν, ταὐτόν and ἕτερον constitute the realm of the intellect. While the third and final part of the article investigates Proclusʼ extrapolation of the Platonic dialectic, it focuses on selected passages from the Commentary on the Parmenides. The paper concludes with a summary of the results