Riccardo Chiaradonna

This paper focuses on Plotinus’ account of the soul’s cognitive powers of sense perception and discursive thought, with particular reference to the treatises 3. 6 [26], 4. 4 [28] and 5. 3 [49] of the Enneads . Part 1 of the paper discusses Plotinus’ direct realism in perception. Parts 2 and 3 focus on Plotinus’ account of knowledge in Enneads 5. 3 [49] 2–3. Plotinus there argues that we make judgements regarding how the external world is by means of discursive reasoning. This latter claim, however, is in tension with what Plotinus argues elsewhere regarding our perceptual apprehension of the external world (3. 6 [26] 1; 4. 4 [28] 23). This puzzle is addressed in Part 3 of the paper, which investigates Plotinus’ view that there exist some sense perceptions of which we are unaware. Finally, Part 4 looks at Plotinus’ understanding of Plato’s famous wax block analogy, in 5. 3 (49). The overall conclusion of the paper is that Plotinus’ account of knowledge is radically different from that of the Cartesian tradition.

This article focuses on the reception of Aristotle’s Categories by the first three representatives of Greek Neoplatonism: Plotinus (204/205–270 CE), Porphyry (ca. 234–ca. 305 CE), Iamblichus (ca. 242–ca. 325 CE). The first section argues that Plotinus’ acquaintance with Aristotle’s treatises marked a fresh start vis-à-vis the previous Platonist tradition. Aristotle’s views, arguments and vocabulary are ubiquitous in Plotinus writings (the Enneads) and they must be considered an essential part of his philosophical project. Plotinus, however, does not share some of Aristotle’s key theories and is critical of them. The second section focuses on Plotinus’ discussion of Aristotle’s Categories in the tripartite treatise On the Genera of Being (6.1–3). There he rejects the Peripatetic division into ten categories as providing an incomplete account of the genera of being that unduly omits “those which are most authentically beings”, i.e. Plato’s separate Forms. While drawing on earlier Platonist objections to Aristotle, Plotinus’ approach is original insofar as he criticizes Aristotle and his followers not only for omitting intelligible beings in the division of categories, but also for being unable, for this very reason, to work out an adequate division of sensible beings themselves. The third section is devoted to Porphyry, a student of Plotinus’ and the editor of his works. Porphyry worked intensively on Aristotle’s Categories, which he regarded as an introduction not only to logic, but to philosophy as a whole. Unlike Plotinus, Porphyry aimed to integrate Aristotle into Platonism and his engagement with the Categories was a key part of his project after Plotinus’ in-depth criticism. Porphyry’s approach is connected to his view of the subject-matter of the Categories, which he sees as focusing on words insofar as they signify beings, and not on beings as such. The fourth section focuses on some parallels between Plotinus’ Genera of Beings and Porphyry’s works, which may reflect the debate within Plotinus’ school. The fifth section focuses on Iamblichus of Chalcis. Both in theology and in the interpretation of Aristotle’s Categories, Iamblichus aimed to both continue and supplant Porphyry’s work. While Plotinus criticizes Aristotle’s categories for omitting intelligible beings, and while Porphyry accepts Aristotle’s categories insofar as they focus on words signifying sensible things, Iamblichus incorporates his Neoplatonist and Pythagorizing metaphysics into the interpretation of the Categories.

The first part of this article focuses on Plotinus’ account of demiurgic causation in treatise VI, 7 [38]. Plotinus’ position is based on two assumptions : 1) the sensible cosmos is rationally ordered and its order depends on an intelligible prior cause ; 2) this order does not reflect any rational design on the part of the cause, since the cause has no reasoning or calculation in it. This view is spelled out against the background of Plotinus’ gradualist metaphysics and with respect to Plotinus’ philosophical sources. The second part of the article focuses on Porphyry, on the anonymous commentary on Plato’s Parmenides and on Iamblichus. Unlike Plotinus, Porphyry has no hesitation in employing concepts drawn from Aristotle’s logic as a resource for expressing his metaphysical theories. This approach can interestingly be set in parallel with that of the anonymous commentary to Plato’s Parmenides assigned to Porphyry by Pierre Hadot. A hitherto unnoticed parallel between these lines and Porphyry’s view on the divine hierarchy criticised in Iamblichus’ Response to Porphyry provides a new argument in support of Porphyry’s authorship of the Parmenides commentary.

This article focuses on ancient and contemporary accounts of selfhood and on their ontological background. Among ancient theories, the main focus are Plato’s and Plotinus’ accounts of soul and selfhood. Their ontological framework now appears outdated but, somewhat paradoxically, it also explains why Plato’s and Plotinus’ analyses are closer to a naturalised metaphysics of the self than those of the Cartesian tradition. Accordingly, human beings are not simple subjects essentially characterised by consciousness; consciousness and mental life are not co-extensive; our selfhood entails a striving towards the unity of various layers. These insights come up again in recent debates, but they are now re-shaped within a framework in which philosophy of mind and behavioural sciences are combined in an effort to develop a notion of the self which is realist, yet does not entail any metaphysically grounded dualism.

Cet article porte sur Métaphysique, Z, 11. On examine en particulier la lecture par Frede et Patzig de la première partie de ce chapitre. Selon ces derniers, Aristote affirme : (1) que les définitions des substances naturelles sont exprimées à partir de leur forme et que toute référence à la matière doit être exclue de la définition ; (2) que les formes naturelles sont néanmoins liées de manière nécessaire et interne à un certain type de matière, car elles ne peuvent exister sans certaines parties matérielles. En réalité, une lecture attentive du chapitre ne permet de soutenir ni (1) ni (2). Un être humain ne diffère pas d’un cercle de bronze en raison de son instantiation nécessaire dans un certain type de matière. La différence consiste plutôt dans l’existence de parties fonctionnelles. Les parties fonctionnelles peuvent être mentionnées, en tant qu’elles sont fonctionnelles, dans la définition formelle des substances naturelles.

This paper focuses on the reception of Aristotle’s writings from 100 BC to early Neoplatonism. The 1stcentury BC is marked by a renaissance of interest in Aristotle’s acroamatic treatises, in connection to Andronicus’ editorial work. This is a well known fact, but it is worth noting that interpreters of Aristotle between the 1st century BC and the 1st century AD were only familiar with a limited set of treatises. The Academic Eudorus of Alexandria was a partial exception, since he was probably acquainted with parts of Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Aristotle’s exoteric dialogues remained a majour source for those interested in Aristotle well into the 2ndcentury AD. Finally, late-hellenistic compendia and handbooks provided second-hand information on Aristotle’s philosophy. It is only between the 2ndand the 3rdcenturies that the Peripatetic commentators developed a systematic reading of the whole corpus of Aristotle’s acroamatic treatises. Their work culminated with Alexander of Aphrodisias, whose exegesis laid the basis for the subsequent incorporation of Aristotle within Neoplatonism accomplished by Plotinus and Porphyry

Résumé — En Enn., VI, 3 [44], 5, Plotin fait usage de doctrines péripatéticiennes concernant la substance, l’inhérence et la prédication. Ces doctrines correspondent de manière frappante à l’interprétation anti-extensionaliste de la substance physique développée par Alexandre d’Aphrodise contre les thèses des commentateurs plus anciens . Le parallèle entre Plotin et Alexandre ne doit cependant pas conduire à penser que Plotin se borne à suivre les thèses du commentateur, et que leurs doctrines soient donc identiques. Plotin vise plutôt à transposer les principes de l’hylémorphisme d’Alexandre dans un contexte philosophique différent, fondé sur des prémisses métaphysiques qui portent sur la causalité des substances intelligibles. Comme Plotin le montre en VI, 3 [44], la forme hylémorphique n’est en effet pas substance : elle s’identifie à un amas de qualités accidentelles qui dépendent d’une essence véritable et extra-physique, le logos. On parvient à des conclusions analogues si l’on aborde la discussion de la causalité démiurgique chez Alexandre et Plotin. Les deux auteurs adressent des critiques approfondies au modèle artisanal de la causalité . Il n’est pas invraisemblable que les thèses d’Alexandre d’Aphrodise aient joué un rôle dans la genèse de la doctrine plotinienne de la causalité. Il faut cependant remarquer, encore une fois, que le cadre conceptuel dans lequel s’inscrivent les critiques de la causalité démiurgique chez Alexandre et chez Plotin est très différent. Pour Alexandre, la causalité démiurgique est rejetée en faveur d’une doctrine cosmologique de la finalité, qui rattache les récurrences naturelles aux mouvements cycliques des astres. Pour Plotin, en revanche, l’ordre naturel s’explique par l’action de principes extra-physiques et sa critique de la causalité démiurgique ne se comprend qu’à l’intérieur de la doctrine de la causalité des êtres intelligibles.Hylémorphisme et causalité des intelligibles.— In Enn., VI, 3 [44], 5 Plotinus outlines some doctrines regarding substance, inherence and predication. Such doctrines are similar to the anti-extensionalist reading of Aristotle’s physical substance that was developed by Alexander of Aphrodisias against previous Aristotelian commentators . The parallel between Plotinus and Alexander is striking : it can safely be inferred that Plotinus’ discussion is based on that of the commentator. This, however, should not lead to assume that Plotinus simply follows Alexander, so that their theories of physical substance are identical. Instead, Plotinus aims to transpose the philosophical principles of Alexander’s Peripatetic hylomorphism into a different doctrinal framework, where metaphysical premises involving the intelligible substances and their causality play a prominent role. As Plotinus shows in VI, 3 [44], the hylomorphic form is not a substance, but a bundle of accidental properties depending on an extra-physical substantial principle, i.e. the logos. The analysis of Alexander’s and Plotinus’ discussions of demiurgic causality lead to the same conclusions. Both philosophers criticize the demiurgic scheme of causality . It can reasonably be assumed that Alexander of Aphrodisias’ treatment played a role in the genesis of Plotinus’ view of causality. However, it is worth noting that the criticism of demiurgic causality has a quite different position within the systems of the two philosophers. Alexander rejects the presence of a demiurgic cause in favour of a cosmological conception of finalism, where natural recurrences are regarded as depending on the cyclical motions of the stars. According to Plotinus, instead, the order of nature is completely caused by extra-physical principles ; his criticism of demiurgic causality points to his doctrine of intelligible causes

The article focuses on debates concerning ontology and predication in early Neoplatonism (Porphyry and Iamblichus). Evidence coming from Simplicius’ Commentary on the Categories and from the Categories Commentary in the Archimedes Palimpsest suggests that Porphyry and Iamblichus interpreted Aristotle’s theory of synonymous predication (dici de subiecto) and specific differentia within the framework of their ontology (doctrine of the hierarchy of being). While Porphyry possibly suggested that a slightly emended version of Aristotle’s predication could express the relation between ante rem and in re items (akatatakton, katatetagmenon), Iamblichus argued that different metaphysical levels cannot in any way be conceived of as species ranked under the same genus (hence Iamblichus’ emphasis on paronymous predication). Further evidence coming from Iamblichus’ Reply to Porphyry and from the Anonymous Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides attributed to Porphyry confirms these conclusions.

The series Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina: Series academica is published by the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences, and functions as a complement to the series Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina: Sources and Studies. The editions and source collections of the Series academica provide a basis for research on Byzantine philosophy and education and on the lasting impact of peripatetic philosophy in the Greek middle ages. The series succeeds to the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca directed by Hermann Diels and published by the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences. The publication schedule of the series includes editions of commentaries by Alexander of Aphrodisias, Simplicius, John Philoponus, Michael of Ephesus, Nicephorus Blemmydes, George Pachymeres, Theodore Metochites, George Scholarius, and Bessarion. The series is also open for preliminary studies and companion volumes. https://www.degruyter.com/view/serial/CAGB-B.

Neoplatonists from Plotinus onward incorporate Aristotle's logic and ontology into their philosophies: this process is of both intrinsic and historical interest and paves the way for subsequent philosophical debates in the Middle Ages and in the Modern Era. The fifteen essays collected in this book focus on the readings of Aristotle by Plotinus, Porphyry, and Iamblichus in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Their discussions cover key issues in the history of logic and metaphysics such as substance, hylomorphism, causation, existence, and predication. Among the topics tackled in this volume are Plotinus' criticism of Aristotle's physical essentialism, which is a major chapter in the history of metaphysics, and the interpretation of Porphyry's Isagoge, one of the most influential and enigmatic works in the history of philosophy. Further essays focus on the readings of Aristotle's categories developed by Porphyry and Iamblichus, which raise interesting questions at the intersection of logic and ontology, and on the integration of Aristotle's ontology into Neoplatonist accounts of being and existence.

This paper focuses on Plotinus’ account of life and being in treatises VI, 2 [43] On the genera of being and III, 7 [45] On eternity and time. Life and being play a key role in Plotinus’ ontology since they characterise incorporeal realities as such. Therefore, focusing on these items makes it possible to attain an account of intelligible reality according to the principles appropriate to it. Three issues are considered: the cognitive process through which the soul grasps being and life when it turns its cognitive activity away from the bodies and reverts to itself ; the status of being and life as genera of the intelligible reality ; Plotinus’ account of life as the way of being typical of intelligible realities ; his gradualist account of the hierarchy of life.

This paper focuses on Galen’s views about the formal cause against the wider background of his account of causation. In his works on the pulse, Galen provides an in-depth discussion of issues such as the theory of causes and the problem of definition. While Galen is inclined to incorporate Peripatetic doctrines and vocabulary, he neglects Aristotle’s formal cause both in his account of causes and in that of definition. Further parallels outside the corpus on the pulse confirm Galen’s reserved attitude towards the (Peripatetic) formal cause. In his work That the Faculties of the Soul Follow the Mixtures of the Body, however, Galen refers favourably to the Peripatetic theory of hylomorphic form. More precisely, Galen equates the Peripatetic en-mattered form with the mixture of homoeomerous bodies (the ratio or proportion of the elementary qualities in them). Here I will attempt to provide an explanation of Galen’s mixed attitude towards the formal cause and I will argue that his general position is consistent after all. In addition to this, I will try to set Galen’s position against the background of the Peripatetic debates on the status of form.

It is doubtful whether the famous adagium that Western philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato counts among Alfred North Whitehead’s most profound ideas. This sentence, however, captures a flourishing trend in recent scholarship. During the last two decades, studies on ancient Platonism and its posterity have been impressive for both their number and their quality. I would recall Matthias Baltes’s collection of sources Der Platonismus in der Antike, which aims to reconstruct the basic tenets of ancient Platonism by providing a translated edition with commentary on its fundamental texts (the...