One group of commentators takes book 10 as determinative and thus tortures the text in book 1 to say the same thing. This position is described as intellectualist or exclusivist and produces certain puzzles in reading Aristotle’s ethical theory. These puzzles are not benign since the privileged position given wisdom in book 10 seems at odds with the discussion of virtue in book 1 and its development in the Nicomachean Ethics as a whole. Indeed, Aristotle appears inconsistent or even contradictory, (...) recommending in these two brief chapters of book 10 a life devoted to contemplation that only grudgingly allows for the necessity of the practical life discussed in such detail in the rest of his ethical works. If this is the case, under what conditions are we expected to forgo contemplation to engage in the various activities of the moral virtues? Since no conditions are spelled out in the text, the range of speculation is confused and ways around the apparent inconsistencies complex. (shrink)

This volume includes an element that is a departure in this series, the lengthy Introduction by Carlos Steel, which puts, in revised form, his article with F. Bossier, “Priscianus Lydus en de In de Anima van Pseudo-Simplicius,” Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 34 : 761–822. The editor’s decision to include this discussion of the author of the commentary on the soul is to be commended. An English version gives wider access to the carefully constructed argument of Steel and Bossier, and its placement (...) in this volume gives the reader the immediate opportunity to test the hypothesis by comparing the two different works, translated by Huby and Steel respectively. Huby, moreover, in her brief introduction and notes, highlights in an evenhanded way the pros and cons of the argument. She points out the possibility that the similarity of both works may indicate a common reliance on Iamblichus rather than the common authorship forcefully argued by Steel. At a minimum, however, Steel demonstrates that the author of the commentary cannot be Simplicius, with the attribution to Priscian somewhat more circumstantial. Finally, it is also quite delightful to find the Greek of the introduction untransliterated. It is much more useful for scholarly purposes, especially since the grounding of Steel’s argument in terms of Greek style and vocabulary cannot be decided by comparing the two translations. The reader must go back to the Greek text itself. (shrink)

Plotinus’ account of matter in Ennead III 6[26] 11-15 serves two purposes. The terms, evil and ugly, present the negative side of matter’s causality, providing for the change characteristic of the sensible world and the possibility of ontological evil and privation as well as of moral evil among human beings. The receptacle and other images from Plato’s Timaeus present the positive side of this causality, matter as allowing for the presence of forms in the bodies of the sensible world. Plotinus (...) explicitly articulates the linguistic problem surrounding the nature of matter, since language is derived from the corporeal and thus needs constant correction when applied to matter as incorporeal. His use of language, thus, always has two phases, first, capturing the nature of matter as aptly as possible, and second, highlighting the difference between matter and the image, analogy, or metaphor used to help explain it. (shrink)

Volume 37 contains papers and commentaries presented to the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy during 2022. Works: _Phaedo_, _Statesman_, _De Caelo_, _Metaphysics N_, _Enneads_. Topics: immortality, Forms; dialectic, myth, law; elements, inclination, place; mathematics and explanation; mystical union.

An examination of Plotinus’s treatise on matter, II 4[12], reveals interesting paradoxes. He seems to use Aristotle’s matter to explain Plato’s receptacle. Attention to the text reveals that both matter and the receptacle are, in fact, recast in terms of the otherness of Plato’s Sophist. By this, Plotinus articulates how matter and the receptacle function as the condition of possibility for the sensible cosmos. His analysis of related terms further supports this rapprochement: privation and substrate exclude quality and quantity as (...) attributes of matter; and the indefinite, the unlimited, size and mass echo the paradoxical language of the Timaeus. (shrink)

This article examines happiness as an activity, modeled on pleasure in NE 10, 1-5. Aristotle is not proposing a choice, but defining the formal nature of happiness. Contemplation, as the activity of wisdom, constitutes happiness in the strict and formal sense. It has all the attributes of happiness, highest, most continuous, most pleasant, most self-sufficient, leisured, and an end in itself. Practical virtues are formally secondary, as including elements outside the activity of the best part and having leisure as their (...) end. Thus, amusements, practical activities and contemplation are integrated in the life of the sage, the contribution of each formally defined. (shrink)

The Comment gives corroborative support to Stróżyński’s thesis by using resources from I.6[1].7–9 and VI.5[23].1. The nature of the soul and its ascent to intellect and the One is clarified in I.6[1].7, as the soul’s ascent recaptures its own nature. It identifies not only with intellect, but directly with the One, needing only its own powers, making union with the One within one’s reach and common to all. A barrier to seeing this has been the 19th century description of mysticism (...) as rare and incommunicable. I.6[1].8–9 add both a method of reading texts and the cosmos in ancient mystical fashion and a redefinition of light for seeing the One. In VI.5[23].1, Plotinus provides a fundamental sense of self that captures an ancient wisdom that identifies the self internally with the One not as totally other but as intimately immanent to the soul. (shrink)

The limitation of act by potency, central in the metaphysics of Thom as Aquinas, has its origins in Plotinus. He transforms Aristotle ’s horizontal causality of change into a vertical causality of participation. Potency and infinity are not just un intelligible lack of limit, but productive power. Form determines matter but is limited by recepti on into matter. The experience of unity begins with sensible things, which always have parts, so what is really one is incorporeal, without division and separation. (...) Unity is like the esse of Thomas, since it is the act that makes a thing what it is and has its fullness in God. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Plotinus by Lloyd P. GersonGary M. Gurtler S.J.Lloyd P. Gerson. Plotinus. The Arguments of the Philosophers. London: Routledge, 1994. Pp. xviii + 338. Cloth, $59.95.This challenging account of Plotinus’ philosophy is appropriately published in a series called The Arguments of the Philosophers. Professor Gerson confronts Plotinus’ position on some major issues in the history of philosophy with an array of counterarguments, ancient, medieval, and modern. More often (...) than not, Plotinus’ position is presented cogently and sympathetically, refuting the notion that Plotinus is merely a philosophical lightweight. The book is rigorous, demanding more than passing knowledge of the history of philosophy and its current trends, especially the Anglo-American. It will thus serve to establish Plotinus as a reputable philosopher among analytic philosophers. Students of Plotinus will find it controversial. Both results will enhance the scholarly work on Plotinus that has flourished recently, indicated in Gerson’s extensive bibliography, although less apparently utilized in establishing his account of Plotinus’ philosophy.The author himself admits that the book is difficult and he indicates where he thinks Plotinus is to blame (225). It thus falls to the reviewer to indicate difficulties traceable to the author. The symptoms are easily seen in the portrait of Plotinus that emerges from these pages. It is a strange one indeed: a Plotinus who is scholastic in organization, Thomist in holding the real distinction and post-Cartesian in epistemology. The Platonic character of Plotinus’ Neoplatonism is not merely absent, but positively excluded by Gerson’s insistence on fitting Plotinus to the Procrustean bed of modern logic, eliminating experience as of dubious philosophical worth. This is most noticeable in his treatment of mysticism, but occurs also when he considers the social or intersubjective dimension of human life and, more crucially, the methodological starting point of Plotinus’ philosophy. Gerson’s method proceeds, in scholastic fashion, from the First Principle to those ontological and logical principles that are deduced from it, coming finally to consider the soul and its capacities. This inversion of Plotinus’ [End Page 128] position entails constant difficulties as Gerson drives his logical engine to make deductions where none are necessary.Attention to Plotinus’ Platonism entails two interlocking assumptions excluded in the above portrait. One concerns the nature and limits of language itself. Language and discursive thought in general are essentially images of what in some way is and they are thus subordinate to the more direct contact of experience, whether sensible or intelligible. The other concerns the nature of experience itself as the starting point of Plotinus’ reflection, moving from the immediate awareness of the empirical self (Gerson’s “endowed self”) to those conditions that make such awareness possible in the dependence both of the soul and the sensible world on the intelligible world, and ultimately on the One. That Plotinus begins with the human situation can be seen in V 3[49] 6,1–11, where he contrasts precisely the necessity of Intellect with the persuasion possible for the soul. He recognizes that whatever the allure of logical thought it is not sufficient to convince the soul. It does not take into account the status of language as an image and the experience of the soul as essentially embodied. It is characteristic of post-Cartesian philosophy, on the contrary, to read necessity into the soul and to assume that propositional thought is identical with the real and brings certitude with it. This denies the analogous character that human knowledge has for someone like Plotinus. Similar problems arise about the nature of intellect.Within the logical parameters that Gerson has set for his interpretation, the influence of Plotinus on and the claims made about him with regard to religion (203–12) and mysticism (218–24) fall by the way. This may please those who would otherwise ignore Plotinus’ philosophy, but it will not persuade people on either side of the religious divide. The issue, however, is less about a specific kind of experience than about any kind of experience that cannot be reduced to logical categories. Ultimately, the claim being made is that what cannot be captured in logical categories is no more than an empty surd. Gerson, in fact, reverses... (shrink)

If it were permitted by the editors, my comment could be titled, Plotinus: Thinker of Radical Matter. I will attempt to present Plotinus’s complex view of matter in II 4[12], which examines the nature of matter as the substrate in relation to the corporeal, with the different relation of qualitative and quantitative qualities to bodies and matter, and the consequent difference in the application of privation, ugly and evil to matter. An examination of comments about matter as the principle of (...) evil contrary to the Good and as the cause of the weakness of the soul in I.8[51].6 & 14 do not introduce any radical change in Plotinus’s understanding of matter. Radical matter remains so precisely as formless. (shrink)

A scholarly study of the Neoplatonic philosopher Plotinus (204/5-270) and his understanding of the soul; its chapters include: beauty and the good, forgetting the self, matter as indefinite and incorporeal, omnipresence and incorporeality, and omnipresence and transcendence. The work confirms much recent scholarly consensus on Plotinus, but many of the author's interpretations and general conclusions also give constructive challenges to some existing modes of understanding Plotinus's thought. The arguments and their textual evidence, with the accompanying Greek, provide the reader with (...) direct evidence for testing these conclusions as well as appreciating the nature of Plotinus' philosophizing. (shrink)

Volume XXIX contains papers and commentaries presented to the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy during academic year 2012-13. The papers feature Plato's Republic and Timaeus, examine Aristotle on generation, analogy and method, and analyze Proclus on first principles.

Zubiri presents a critique of modernism and return to phenomena in primordial apprehension. Only 'notes' are apprehended; as real they need to be repossessed by logos or reason, related to other notes in the field or unified as the world. Zubiri seeks to overcome the dualism of sensing and knowing and introducing transcendent objects. His target extends to ancient and medieval philosophy, charged with introducing the problem. So he reads Plato's Sophist as positing being, known independent of the senses, and (...) the genera, derived deductively from being. This misreads Plato, reducing him to Parmenides. Rereading Plato, using Zubiri's scheme, reveals 'primordial apprehension' in the Theaetetus, with logos and reason in the Sophist. Like Zubiri, Plato's goal is to reconnect language and reality as apprehended. Unlike Zubiri, Plato sees communication as human dialogue, not just a feature of apprehended 'notes.' /// A apreensão primordial de Zubiri constitui uma crítica posmoderna e um retorno ao fenómeno. Segundo ele, o que se apreende são apenas 'notas'; estas, porém, exigem ser reassumidas pelo logos ou pela razão, encontrando-se sempre em relação com outras no campo que lhes é próprio ou unificadas enquanto mundo. Zubiri pretende sobretudo superar o dualismo entre sentimento e inteligência associado com a introdução de objectos transcendentais. A sua crítica extende-se à filosofia antiga e medieval, pois que, segundo ele, aqui se iniciou esta problemática da transcendentali-dade. Zubiri lê o Sofista precisamente como se Platão procedesse aqui a uma afirmação do ser, conhecido independentemente dos sentidos, e dos géneros, dedutivamente derivados do ser. O artigo pretende mostrar ser esta uma falsa interpretação de Platão, reduzindo-o a Parménides e, por isso, sugere uma releitura de Platão, baseada num esquema zubiriano, de modo a se poder discernir seja a noção de "apreensão primordial" no Teeteto ou de logos e razão no Sofista. Finalmente, mostra ainda como, tal como Zubiri, a meta de Platão está no estabelecimento de uma conexão entre a linguagem e a realidade apreendida. Ao mesmo tempo, porém, mostra como, ao contrário de Zubiri, a comunicação em Platão é vista como um verdadeiro diálogo humano e não apenas como aspecto de uma simples 'nota.'. (shrink)

The papers in this volume were originally presented to the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy during 2007-8. Four colloquia deal directly with major works of Aristotle, while another discusses Aristotle's influence on the Stoics. Three colloquia deal with Plato, discussing the _Philebus_, _Phaedrus_ and _Republic_.

This volume of BACAP Proceedings contains recent research by international scholars on Empedocles, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus and some Hellenistic philosophers. It covers such topics as Epicurean methods of managing mental pain, moral nostalgia in Plato' s Republic, and empty terms in Aristotelian logic._ This publication has also been published in paperback, please click here_ for details.

Ennead IV.4.30-45 and IV.5 retrieves the unity in this last section of Plotinus' treatise on Problems concerning the Soul. Combining translation with commentary, Gurtler enhances both the accuracy of the translation and the recovery of Plotinus' often unsuspected originality. This is especially true for IV.5, where previous translations fail to convey the concise nature of his argument against both the Aristotelian and Platonic theories of vision. Plato and Aristotle each claim that vision depends on the light between the eye (...) and the object, but Plotinus presents evidence that this is not the case and develops a novel theory of light as a second activity that moves from source to object directly, even arguing that color is in the light itself rather than merely a quality of the object. This theory of vision, in turn, depends on the nature of sympathy developed especially in IV.4.30-45, where Plotinus shows how action at a distance is both possible and necessary for the proper unity in diversity of the sensible cosmos. (shrink)

_Charts the stages of the history of friendship as a philosophical concept in the Western world._.

Ennead IV 5[29] has been poorly served by translators and commentators, misreporting what Plotinus wrote and, with these mangled results, asserting that this part of his treatise on the “Problems about the Soul” is merely a disjointed series of doxographical fragments with little compelling contribution to make. More careful translation and analysis reveal something strikingly different and original. First, he gives a cogent critique of the theories of Plato and Aristotle concerning the body between and the role of daylight. Second, (...) he substitutes his own account in terms of both sympathy and the principle of two acts, explaining vision both during the day as well as at night, notably deficient in previous accounts. Third, he derives some surprisingly original corollaries about the nature of light and the source of color. (shrink)

This volume, the twenty-seventh year of published proceedings, contains papers and commentaries presented to the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy during academic year 2010-11. The papers treat thinkers ranging from Philolaus, Plato and Aristotle, to Plotinus.

This volume, the twenty-eighth year of published proceedings, contains papers and commentaries presented to the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy during academic year 2011-12. The papers treat thinkers ranging from early Greek cosmology, to several on Plato and one each on Aristotle and Plotinus.

Volume 35 contains papers and commentaries presented to the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy during academic year 2018-19. Works: Commentary on _De Anima_, Nicomachean Ethics. Topics: Humean motivation, memory-oblivion & myth, final causality and ontology of life.