Alexander of Aphrodisias, Aristotle’s commentator par excellence, rarely engages with Plato. In the present paper, however, we see him at work as an exegete of a passage in the _Phaedrus_ (245c5-9), in which Plato argues for the immortality of the soul based on its self-motion. In this paper, I focus on two ways in which Alexander deals with the passage. In his commentary on Aristotle’s _Prior Analytics_ (CAG II 1), Alexander employs the same approach to the _Phaedrus_ that he uses (...) with Aristotle’s treatises: he puts an informal argument expressed in ordinary language into the more formal shape of a syllogism. This does not mean that Alexander gives his approval to Plato’s theory. In fact, in his commentary on Aristotle’s _Topics_ (CAG II 2), Alexander introduces a polemical discussion of the same Platonic argument. Commenting on Aristotle’s denial that the soul is a self-moving substance (_Top_. IV 1.120b21-29), Alexander spells out the implicit reference to the _Phaedrus_ and criticizes Plato’s argument for not taking into account the difference between an accidental property of the soul and the essential characteristics by which it is defined. Plato’s theory of self-motion is partly accepted by Alexander and partly criticized. This paves the way for how the theory will be applied in the Aristotelian tradition, not to the soul, as in Plato, but to the ensouled body, either of the living being or of the heavens. (shrink)

Il brano del "Fedro" (269el-270c5) in cui è menzionato Ippocrate e il suo metodo è uno dei più controversi dell'opera platonica. Alcuni studiosi si sono serviti degli scolî antichi al dialogo, tramandati sotto il nome del neoplatonico Ermia (V sec. d. C.), per sostenere che il metodo in questione non implica un'indagine preliminare dell'universo. È tuttavia utile (oltreché finora intentato) ripercorrere quanto l'esegeta neoplatonico dice a proposito dell'intero brano in questione per constatare come egli, al contrario, ne fornisca un'interpretazione cosmologica, (...) sulla base della significazione tecnica di ἡ ὅλη ψυχή come "anima dell'universo". In ogni caso l'esegesi di Ermia risulta essere non una semplice parafrasi grammaticale del testo platonico, ma anche una sua riformulazione filosofica nei termini della dottrina neoplatonica, la quale è estremamente complessa anche nel caso dell'anima umana. (shrink)

The studies of É. Évrard, recently published by M.-A. Gavray, are high quality works which allow to immerse oneself in the context of the Platonic-Aristotelian school of Alexandria in Egypt throughout the sixth century AD. They mostly focus on the figure and work of Joannes Philoponus, with specific attention to the compositional technique of his Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics and of On the Eternity of the World against Aristotle. Despite being strongly critical of the Stagirite on some points, also due (...) to his Christian faith, Philoponus deeply assimilated Aristotelian methods, lexicon and concepts. He therefore uses this legacy in his commentary on the first chapter of the biblical text of the book of Genesis on the creation of the universe, of living species and of the human being. This work by Philoponus provides a first example of Christian Aristotelianism before the well-known one of the medieval Scholasticism. (shrink)

Asclépius est un commentateur aristotélicien du VI e siècle après J.-C., qui – élève d’Ammonius – étudie à l’école néoplatonicienne d’Alexandrie en Égypte. Il réalise l’exégèse de divers passages de la Métaphysique dans lesquels Aristote attribue à Platon la doctrine de l’existence de substances mathématiques séparées (avec une position intermédiaire entre les substances intelligibles et les sensibles) et, en même temps, la critique fortement. Asclépius a une attitude de conciliation entre les perspectives platonicienne et aristotélicienne. D’une part, il défend la (...) doctrine de l’existence de substances mathématiques séparées du monde sensible et supérieures à lui, et ce faisant il s’aligne sur la défense de la doctrine platonicienne déjà opérée par les néoplatoniciens Syrianus et Proclus. Cependant, d’autre part, il adopte aussi la position aristotélicienne et celle d’Alexandre d’Aphrodise, si bien qu’il existe aussi des entités mathématiques qui ne sont pas des substances, mais des caractéristiques mathématiques formelles immanentes au sensible. Enfin, les entités mathématiques sont aussi de simples concepts mentaux obtenus par abstraction du sensible. En parlant d’entités mathématiques non substantielles, Asclépius s’aligne sur Aristote et son commentateur peripatéticien Alexandre. Asclépius, grâce à une vision hiérarchisée de la réalité, peut admettre trois types d’entités mathématiques, de sorte que chaque type inférieur est une copie atténuée de celui qui lui est supérieur. (shrink)

This volume investigates the reasons why Plotinus, a philosopher inspired by Plato, made critical use of Epicurean philosophy. Eminent scholars show that some fundamental Epicurean conceptions pertaining to ethics, physics, epistemology and theology are drawn upon in the Enneads to discuss crucial notions such as pleasure and happiness, providence and fate, matter and the role of sense perception, intuition and intellectual evidence in relation to the process of knowledge acquisition. By focusing on the meaning of these terms in Epicureanism, Plotinus (...) deploys sophisticated methods of comparative analysis and argumentative procedures that ultimately lead him to approach certain aspects of Epicurus' philosophy as a benchmark for his own theories and to accept, reject or discredit the positions of authors of his own day. At the same time, these discussions reveal what aspects of Epicurean philosophy were still perceived to be of vital relevance in the third century AD. (shrink)

The following work features elements to ponder and an in-depth explanation taken on the Anca Vasiliu’s study about the possibilities and ways of thinking of God by a rational entity, such as the human being. This is an ever relevant topic that, however, takes place in relation to Platonic authors and texts, especially in Late Antiquity. The common thread is that the human being is a God’s creature who resembles him and who is image of. Nevertheless, this also applies within (...) the Christian Trinity according to which, not without problems, the Son is the image of the Father. Lastly, also the relationship of the Spirit with the Father and the Son, always within the Trinity, can be considered as a relationship of similarity, but again not without critical issues between the similarity of attributes, on the one hand, and the identity of nature, on the other. (shrink)

In his commentary on Plato’sCratylus, Proclus interprets the dialogue not as a mere work on logic or linguistics, but as having a full psychological and theological import.Late ancient Platonists had already proposed a similar reading for another Platonic dialogue,i.e.theParmenides. In that case too they rejected the logical interpretation, and aimed to find in the text the description of the hierarchy of reality, particularly of the highest beings. As a result, theParmenideswas seen as the accomplished expression of Plato’s theology.Proclus too draws (...) a comparison between theCratylusand theParmenidesin order to stress their theological significance. He also contrasts Plato’s dialectic with Aristotle’s dialectic. Proclus’ interpretation of dialectic is best understood if it is compared to the doctrines of his master Syrianus and of one of his co-disciples,i.e.Hermeias, at the Platonic school of Athens in the 5th centuryad.Contrary to what is sometimes assumed, in this milieu Platonists were not always committed to the task of reconciling the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. As it happens, they could strongly disagree with and even attack Aristotle, and side with Plato. In particular, they greatly valued Plato’s dialectic, which they viewed as the correct form of reasoning and at the same time as a theory of the utmost theological significance. On the other hand, Aristotle’s dialectic was considered as “bare” logic,i.e.as a mere set of logical rules and arguments with no specific contents.On the basis of a problematicCratylus’passage Proclus defends a theory of truth according to which not only propositions, but also names can be true or false. This allows him to view names as substitutes of propositions. This is particularly the case in the application of the four dialectical methods of definition, division, demonstration and analysis. Proclus’ approach arguably provides a basis—to pagan as well as Christian tradition—for the study of divine names as a part of theology, for the name of a god is held to reveal its attributes. (shrink)

Les preuves de l’immortalité de l’âme, qui sont un des thèmes cen­traux de l’enseignement de Platon, ont fait l’objet d’une réflexion d’ordre logique et formel sur la manière dont elles sont (ou devraient être) exprimées. En particulier l’argument en faveur de l’immortalité de l’âme contenu dans le Phèdre (245c5-246a2), fondé sur la notion d’âme automotrice et principe de mouve­ment, a été assidûment analysé, pour ce qui est de sa formulation, par plusieurs représentants de la tradition platonicienne (Alcinoos, Hermias d’Alexandrie), ainsi (...) qu’à l’intérieur de la tradition péripatéticienne (Alexandre d’Aphrodise). Par conséquent, il représente, à l’avis de l’auteur, un point privilégié d’observation de la façon dont les platoniciens s’approprient la logique aristotélicienne et récri­vent, à partir de l’époque impériale, certains arguments platoniciens. En outre, il apparaît qu’Alexandre d’Aphrodise, bien qu’étant de tradition péripatéticienne, a grandement contribué à la reformulation des arguments de Platon selon les canons de la logique aristotélicienne par les platoniciens contemporains et posté­rieurs. Il semble aussi qu’Hermias, dans ses scholies sur le Phèdre, réagit juste­ment à certaines affirmations d’Alexandre. Dans cet article, on montre quels sont les points de contact ainsi que les différences dans la réécriture analytico-syllogistique de l’argument du Phèdre en faveur de l’immortalité de l’âme par Alcinoos et Hermias, sans négliger l’apport d’Alexandre. (shrink)