Peitho. Examina Antiqua
Not a member yet
232 research outputs found
Sort by
Aristotle’s Topics in the Greek Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories
Full text linkThis paper lists and examines the explicit references to Aristotle’s Topics in the Greek Neoplatonic commentaries on the Categories. The references to the Topics by Porphyry, Dexippus, Ammonius, Simplicius, Olympiodorus, Philoponus and David (Elias) are listed according the usual prolegomena to Aristotle’s works. In particular, the paper reconstructs David (Elias)’s original thesis about the proponents of the title Pre-Topics for the Categories and compares Ammonius’, Simplicius’ and Olympiodorus’ doxographies about the postpraedicamenta. Moreover, the study identifies two general trends. The first one is that all the commentators after Proclus share the same general view about: the authenticity of the Topics, Aristotle’s writing style in them, the part of philosophy to which they belong, their purpose, their usefulness and their place in the reading order. The second one is that whereas Porphyry, Dexippus and Simplicius use the Topics as an aid to understanding the Categories, Ammonius, Olympiodorus and David (Elias) do not
Theodore Metochites On Philosophers’ Irony
No full textThe present article offers the first Polish translation of Theodore Metochites’ important essay on the philosophers’ use and abuse of irony. The translation is preceded by an introduction which briefly presents the author of the Miscellanea philosophica et historica, upon which it reconstructs the argument of essay 8 and provides an assessment of Metochites’ account of irony. The present article offers the first Polish translation of Theodore Metochites’ important essay on the philosophers’ use and abuse of irony. The translation is preceded by an introduction which briefly presents the author of the Miscellanea philosophica et historica, upon which it reconstructs the argument of essay 8 and provides an assessment of Metochites’ account of irony
Plethon’s Nómōn syngraphḗ
No full textAfter a very brief presentation of the most important facts concerning the life and writings of Georgius Gemistus Plethon, we shortly summarize the challenging content of his greatest and posthumously published opus entitled Nómōn syngraphḗ (commonly referred to as the Laws). While this paper offers the first Polish translation of this amazing work, the purpose of present article is to familiarize and promote Plethon’s fascinating treatise.After a very brief presentation of the most important facts concerning the life and writings of Georgius Gemistus Plethon, we shortly summarize the challenging content of his greatest and posthumously published opus entitled Nómōn syngraphḗ (commonly referred to as the Laws). While this paper offers the first Polish translation of this amazing work, the purpose of present article is to familiarize and promote Plethon’s fascinating treatise
«Apocryphal Nightmares». Observations on the Reference to Damascius in The Nameless City by Howard Phillips Lovecraf
No full textIn his tale entitled The Nameless City, Howard Phillips Lovecraft includes unspecified «paragraphs from the apocryphal nightmares of Damascius» among the «fragments» of the «cherished treasury of daemoniac lore» of the protagonist In the present essay, I suggest that there is a connection between this unusual reference and a note in the writer’s Commonplace Book, which refers to the notice by Photius (Bibl. cod. 130) on a lost work by Damascius that nowdays is generally referred to as Paradoxa and assumed to consist of a variegated collection of extraordinary stories and facts. I, therefore, delineate a general presentation of the testimony by the Byzantine Patriarch (very probably only indirectly known to Lovecraft), upon which I attempt to bring into focus the motivations that led the Providence to make the writer insert the name of Damascius in the fantastic plot of his story.In his tale entitled The Nameless City, Howard Phillips Lovecraft includes unspecified «paragraphs from the apocryphal nightmares of Damascius» among the «fragments» of the «cherished treasury of daemoniac lore» of the protagonist In the present essay, I suggest that there is a connection between this unusual reference and a note in the writer’s Commonplace Book, which refers to the notice by Photius (Bibl. cod. 130) on a lost work by Damascius that nowdays is generally referred to as Paradoxa and assumed to consist of a variegated collection of extraordinary stories and facts. I, therefore, delineate a general presentation of the testimony by the Byzantine Patriarch (very probably only indirectly known to Lovecraft), upon which I attempt to bring into focus the motivations that led the Providence to make the writer insert the name of Damascius in the fantastic plot of his story
Ancient Greek and Byzantine Political Ethics
No full textThe political morality that Plato and Aristotle supported was governed by various anthropological and social determinants, which means that they focused on man understood as a citizen and interpreted through the dialectic as well as through the prospects of the city’s happiness, since for both of them man was a social animal. The political ethics of Plato and Aristotle does not endanger the political community with political bankruptcy. This political morality does not start from intransigent principles to reach a compromise that has already been surpassed by the previous negative dynamics. The Byzantine political morality oscillates between the individual and the totality. It is not governed by individualism but rather by communitarianism, which entails that it confirms the dynamics of unity within the city. The Byzantine political morals is imbued with an anticipation of the political crisis, it seeks to identify any negative developments and strives to avoid the political marginalization of the citizens who are likely to rebel against any autocratic government. The Byzantine political morality is, thus, not an idle and selfish political introversion, concerned merely with political crises, conflict scenarios and conspiracy theories, as it strives to come up with various solutions that should guarantee political balance.The political morality that Plato and Aristotle supported was governed by various anthropological and social determinants, which means that they focused on man understood as a citizen and interpreted through the dialectic as well as through the prospects of the city’s happiness, since for both of them man was a social animal. The political ethics of Plato and Aristotle does not endanger the political community with political bankruptcy. This political morality does not start from intransigent principles to reach a compromise that has already been surpassed by the previous negative dynamics. The Byzantine political morality oscillates between the individual and the totality. It is not governed by individualism but rather by communitarianism, which entails that it confirms the dynamics of unity within the city. The Byzantine political morals is imbued with an anticipation of the political crisis, it seeks to identify any negative developments and strives to avoid the political marginalization of the citizens who are likely to rebel against any autocratic government. The Byzantine political morality is, thus, not an idle and selfish political introversion, concerned merely with political crises, conflict scenarios and conspiracy theories, as it strives to come up with various solutions that should guarantee political balance
Byzantine Philosophy B’
Full text linkLinos G. Benakis, Byzantine Philosophy Β’, Athens 2013, pp. 544
On Aristotelian Category of Substance. Exegetic Variations from Plotinus to Ammonius
No full textOne of the main difficulties that Neoplatonic commentators of Aristotle face is the different treatment that the Categories and the Metaphysics offer to the question of the substance. After describing briefly the status quaestionis ousiae in Aristotle, and after tracing the main Neoplatonic interpretations of this doctrine (from Plotinus’ negative one to Porphyry’s positive and “conciliatory” one), this article attempts to demonstrate that the Neoplatonists of Athens and Alexandria, Syrianus and Ammonius, inaugurate a new interpretation of the Aristotelian doctrine. With regard to the category of substance in general and to the question of substantiality of “immanent form” in particular, this new interpretation goes beyond the positions of Plotinus and Porphyry and returns the ontological value to the Aristotelian substances. Unlike Plotinus, who recognized as ousia only that one intelligible, that is five genres of the Platonic Sophist, and unlike Porphyry, who defused the anti–Platonic fuse of the Categories, giving to this treaty a mainly semantic skopos, these philosophers, through their original study of the theory of the three states of katholou, already shed in the Porphyrian Eisagôgê, fit the immanent forms of Aristotle, recognized as substances and as a reflection of the transcendental universal, into the late antique Neoplatonic metaphysical triadic structure.One of the main difficulties that Neoplatonic commentators of Aristotle face is the different treatment that the Categories and the Metaphysics offer to the question of the substance. After describing briefly the status quaestionis ousiae in Aristotle, and after tracing the main Neoplatonic interpretations of this doctrine (from Plotinus’ negative one to Porphyry’s positive and “conciliatory” one), this article attempts to demonstrate that the Neoplatonists of Athens and Alexandria, Syrianus and Ammonius, inaugurate a new interpretation of the Aristotelian doctrine. With regard to the category of substance in general and to the question of substantiality of “immanent form” in particular, this new interpretation goes beyond the positions of Plotinus and Porphyry and returns the ontological value to the Aristotelian substances. Unlike Plotinus, who recognized as ousia only that one intelligible, that is five genres of the Platonic Sophist, and unlike Porphyry, who defused the anti–Platonic fuse of the Categories, giving to this treaty a mainly semantic skopos, these philosophers, through their original study of the theory of the three states of katholou, already shed in the Porphyrian Eisagôgê, fit the immanent forms of Aristotle, recognized as substances and as a reflection of the transcendental universal, into the late antique Neoplatonic metaphysical triadic structure
Sociocultural Byzantine Influence on Thought Formation in Medieval Russia
Full text linkThe Byzantine influence was at the very origins of the formation of various philosophic ideas in the medieval Russia. A major factor responsible for this influence was the Orthodox Church. Thus, it was owing to Byzantium that the foundations of Russian philosophy were laid and all its subsequent developments cannot be properly understood without considering the Byzantine influence.
Divine Eros and Divine Providence in Proclus’ Educational System
Full text linkThis study examines the way in which the Neoplatonic philosopher Proclus treats an episode of the dialectic communication between Socrates and Alcibiades in the Platonic dialogue Alcibiades I. More specifically, it refers to how the characteristics and the choices of two different types of lovers – the divinely inspired one and the vulgar one – are displayed in the aforementioned text. The characterization ‘divinely inspired lover’ befits a person who communicates in a pure way with his beloved one and attempts to teach the latter the objective values of the intellect. By contrast, the characterization of the ‘vulgar lover’ befits that individual that approaches another individual exclusively on the basis of his external beauty. The first type of lover is presented within the realms of the permanently qualitative, while the second as someone who satisfies solemnly his subjectivity and his instincts. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that Proclus argues that Socrates, whom he considers to represent the very definition of a divinely inspired lover, is inspired by divine powers and attempts to act towards to his fellows – in this instance to Alcibiades – in the way through which the divine providence is revealed
Olympiodorus and Damascius on the Philosopher’s Practice of Dying in Plato’s Phaedo
Full text linkThis paper presents Olympiodorus’ and Damascius’ explanations of the philosopher’s practice of dying in Plato’s Phaedo. It also includes a presentation of Ammonius’ exegesis of the practice of death (meletē thanatou). The Neoplatonic commentators discern two kinds of death, the bodily or physical death and the voluntary death. Olympiodorus suggests that bodily death is only an image of voluntary death and cannot be recognized as an original death, because original death presupposes the preparation for death and the constant effort for the purification of the soul during the philosopher’s life-time. Only preparation for death and purification can ensure the complete separation of the soul from the body. Relative to this distinction is that between apothnēskein and tethnanai; these infinitives denote the dual meaning of death: death as an event or a process and death as a state. Our study examines thoroughly the subtle distinctions made by Olympiodorus and Damascius and offers a comparative analysis of the two definitions of death as well as that of purification. It reaches the conclusion that apothnēskein is a necessary condition of tethnanai, i.e. of a definitive release and parting of the soul from the body. On the other hand, the process of eventual purification, a notion which betrays the religious character of purification, can be identified with apothnēskein, which is the practice of dying by the true philosopher. Finally, our study also emphasizes and explains the difference between the voluntary philosophical death and the voluntary unphilosophical suicide; the latter guaranteeing only bodily or physical death