New Findings on Philoponus Part 2 — Recent Studies

Sorabji, Richard

doi:10.1111/j.2041-5370.2013.tb02535.x

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Philoponus, in turn, seems to have accepted the traditional analysis of matter as unqualified receptivity for the most part of his philosophical career (De Haas 1997: 31). Yet he left this analysis behind and developed a notion of matter as three‐dimensional extension (Philoponus Against Proclus on the Eternity of the World 405.23–27; De Haas 1997: chapter 4; see also Sorabji 2010d: 60 and 1988, chapter 2). He also argues that even though no specific extension belongs to matter as such, the general condition of three‐dimensionality applies to all matter.…”

Section: Philosophical Development In the Commentaries: Examplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…His pupil Ammonius became the head of the Alexandrian school of philosophy and was an important teacher there. Neither of Ammonius’ two brilliant students, Philoponus and Simplicius, followed their teacher as the head of the school: Philoponus turned to Christian theology increasingly after 529, and Simplicius moved to Athens, which he had to leave together with other pagan philosophers 20 as a consequence of the Justinian edicts in 529 and 531 (see Watts 2006: 130–142; for the latest dating of Philoponus, see Sorabji 2010a,b,c: 81). Olympiodorus, the successor of Ammonius and a pagan, commented both on Plato and on Aristotle, whereas the last schools heads before the closure in 610 were Christian and concentrated on Aristotle’s logic 21…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…28 28 De Haas also argues that Philoponus at first accepted a more traditional analysis of matter. For a chronology of Philoponus’ thought, see also Verrycken 1990 that has recently been challenged; for references, see Sorabji 2010c: 14–18. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Philosophy of the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle

Tuominen

2012

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From the first century BCE onwards, philosophers started to write commentaries on those Aristotle’s treatises that were meant for the internal use of his school. Plato’s works had been commented on already earlier, the first reported commentary originates in the 300s BCE. Commentaries are treatises that follow an object text in a more or less linear fashion. The format was not unknown before the first century BCE but new in extensive philosophical use. This review essay focuses on authors who commented on Aristotle’s works. The commentaries emerged when Platonists and Aristotelians observed the need to teach the philosophy of these ancient masters to their students and to systematise their philosophy to respond to rival schools. In the late ancient schools, Plato and Aristotle were considered great thinkers, whose views needed to be studied carefully when considering any matter at hand. Many also argued that, despite the initial appearance to the contrary, there is no deep disagreement between Plato and Aristotle but, rather, a division of labour; Aristotle is dominant in natural philosophy and Plato in theology. However, this harmony thesis was not universally accepted. Despite their respect for Plato and Aristotle, the commentators were not mere followers of these authors. They developed, criticised and transformed the doctrines in significant ways, not only by suggesting different answers to the same questions but also by transforming the questions themselves.

show abstract

Section: Philosophical Development In the Commentaries: Examplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%