On Aristotle Physics 2 (Ancient Commentators on Aristotle)
Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online On Aristotle Physics 2 (Ancient Commentators on Aristotle) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with On Aristotle Physics 2 (Ancient Commentators on Aristotle) book. Happy reading On Aristotle Physics 2 (Ancient Commentators on Aristotle) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF On Aristotle Physics 2 (Ancient Commentators on Aristotle) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF On Aristotle Physics 2 (Ancient Commentators on Aristotle) Pocket Guide.
Contents:
The commentaries on the Categories based on the lectures offered by Olympiodorus c. Philoponus c. However, the most influential of these later commentaries was the one that Simplicius wrote after CE. Simplicius was a man of vast learning and extraordinary synthetic powers. He was also acutely aware of writing at the end of a long and venerable exegetical tradition.
Bottom panel for Description
He consciously tried to assimilate and blend together the various strands of this tradition. By so doing he left us the most comprehensive and informative survey of the reception of the Categories in antiquity. At first sight Simplicius may look like a modern scholar. His commentary shows the great care and precision of a thoughtful and dedicated interpreter who is explicating the Categories through a close reading of the text. Yet there is one important difference that must not be overlooked.
Simplicius was a Platonist and his exegetical activity was intended to show that Plato and Aristotle were in substantial agreement.
The Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity
Simplicius is adamantly clear on his own exegetical ideal:. The commentary tradition that found its culmination in Simplicius consisted in a sincere attempt to arrive at a better understanding of the Categories. But one also gets the impression that this tradition had no privileged access to this text.
Quite the contrary: from the beginning of the revival of interest in the philosophy of Aristotle and into Late Antiquity, the Categories remained a tantalizing puzzle. Not only its title, but also its unity, structure and place in the Aristotelian corpus were intensely discussed. Each of these titles reflected a certain interpretation of what the treatise is about. Andronicus is the first interpreter who is known to have preferred the title Categories.
He rejected the title Introduction to the Topics and considered the final chapters of the Categories —the so-called Postpraedicamenta —a later addition contrary to the purpose of the book.
He held that the people who added those chapters also inscribed the book with the title Introduction to the Topics Simplicius, In Cat. The title Categories eventually prevailed, and along with the title a certain interpretation of the treatise. The impression that, from very early on, the interpreters were struggling to understand Aristotle is confirmed by the commentary tradition on the De anima.
Consider, for example, De anima 3. There, Aristotle famously argues for the existence of an intellect that is separate, unaffected, and unmixed De anima a 17— Discussion on how exactly this intellect is to be understood started very early. There is evidence that already Theophrastus puzzled over it Themistius, In De anima Among other things, it is not obvious what sort of thing the active intellect is supposed to be.
Table of contents
More directly, it is not clear whether it is a human or a divine intellect. What Aristotle says outside of the De anima is equally perplexing. But it is not at all clear how the comment that Aristotle makes in this context is to be understood.
What exactly is the status of this enigmatic intellect? How does it fit with the discussion offered in the De anima? Alexander of Aphrodisias developed a line of interpretation that made the active intellect a non-human intellect and identified it with God. His commentary on the De anima is lost.
Instead we have the De anima that he wrote following the principles that Aristotle had established in his own De anima.
The intellect so understood is not only the cause of human thought; it is also the cause of the existence of everything that there is in the universe. This intellect can also be an object of thought. Alexander makes it abundantly clear that this intellect alone is imperishable and as such it is also divine. A similar but not identical attempt to expand on the elliptical remarks that Aristotle has left on the active intellect can be found in the On Intellect , a short essay attributed to Alexander of Aphrodisias and preserved in the collection of brief exegetical writings known to us as Mantissa.
There, Themistius argues that the active intellect is the most accurate specification of the human form In De anima Put differently, our essence as human beings is the active intellect In De anima Although Themistius does not name names, he is clearly reacting against the reading advanced by Alexander of Aphrodisias. For Themistius the active intellect is not God or the supreme principle upon which everything depends for its existence.
Although the active intellect so understood is a human intellect, it is emphatically not conceived of as a personal intellect. Themistius is adamantly clear that there is only one separate, unmixed and unaffected active intellect. Likewise, there is only one separate, unmixed and unaffected potential intellect, nous dunamei. According to Themistius, both the active and the potential intellects are not subject to generation and perishing.
This third intellect is mixed with the body and its fate is to perish along with the body In De anima Like the Greek tradition, the Latin tradition employed a great variety of exegetical tools in the teaching of Aristotle: paraphrases, elementary as well as more advanced commentaries. In addition, the Latin tradition was confronted with the specific problem of providing the students with adequate translations of the relevant texts. II, 3, The same tradition credits him with a commentary in eight books on the Categories.
An anonymous paraphrase of the Categories falsely attributed to Augustine and traditionally known as Categoriae Decem has survived only because it was widely read and used in the early Middle Ages.
- On Aristotle Physics 2.
- W.H.A.M..
- State Secrets.
Even these few remarks suffice to document a sustained effort to provide the students with a Latin Organon that reflected the teaching needs of the time. The key figure for the reception of Aristotle in the Latin world was Boethius.
- Download E-books On Aristotle Physics 2 (Ancient Commentators on Aristotle) PDF.
- Shakespeare, Race, and Colonialism (Oxford Shakespeare Topics).
- Philoponus: on Aristotle Physics with Simplicius (Ancient Commentators on… | eBay.
- Publikationen.
Best known for his Consolation of Philosophy , Boethius c. His attitude to the text of Aristotle and Plato was not different from that of the other commentators of Late Antiquity. He regarded Plato and Aristotle as philosophical authorities and was persuaded that the best way to do philosophy was to read and comment on their works.
Urmson, who translated the text , a list of textual emendations, extensive notes , in fact, compensating for the shortness of the introduction , an English-Greek glossary, a Greek-English index, and indices of names and of subjects. Dillon, Themistius, On Aristotle Physics , tr. Due to the almost complete loss of the relevant literature, we know very little about the first generation of interpreters of Aristotle. One consequence of this approach was that, at least at the beginning, the return to Aristotle did not involve the acceptance of any definite set of doctrines. Urmson with L. Sharples ed.
In this frame of mind, Boethius planned to translate all the works of Aristotle that he could find along with all the dialogues of Plato, and to comment on all of them in order to show that Plato and Aristotle agreed on the most significant philosophical points Boethius De Int. Boethius was able to execute this plan only in part. Boethius produced two commentaries on the Isagoge.
Along with these commentaries , he wrote two commentaries on the De Interpretatione. The practice of writing double commentaries is to be understood in the light of the concern for pedagogy that motivates the entire commentary tradition. Here is how Boethius explains why he wrote two commentaries or rather two versions of the same commentary on the De Interpretatione :. Boethius also wrote a commentary on the Categories. This commentary was intended to be an elementary exposition of the treatise.
Boethius planned to write a second exposition, addressed to more advanced students Boethius In Cat. It is just unclear whether he was able to produce this more advanced commentary.
- An Orchard Invisible: A Natural History of Seeds.
- Ancient Commentators on Aristotle.
- Prof. Dr. Dr. Stephen Menn — Philosophie der Antike und Gegenwart.
- Philoponus: On Aristotle Physics 2.
- Aids.
- Simplicius: On Aristotle Physics 2.
- Introductory classical mechanics.
For further information on Boethius as a commentator, see Section 2 of the entry on Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius. The exegetical labor on the Isagoge , the Categories and the De Intepretatione continued after Boethius. This labor took often the form of glosses, that is, annotations written in margin of copies of the Isagoge , the Categories and the De Interpretatione. A survey of the exegetical results reached in the early Latin Medieval tradition goes beyond the scope of this entry. I refer the reader to the Bibliography for further reading on the commentary tradition in the early Middle Ages.
There is no philosophy of the commentators in the sense of a definite set of doctrines that all the ancient commentators on Aristotle shared. What they shared was the practice of reading and commenting on the texts of Aristotle on the crucial assumption that Aristotle was a philosophical authority and his works deserved to be studied with great care. Due to the almost complete loss of the relevant literature, we know very little about the first generation of interpreters of Aristotle.
On Aristotle Physics 4.10-14 (Ancient Commentators on Aristotle)
No picture of unity emerges from the little that has reached us. The notion that all these interpreters wrote commentaries is not supported by the information in our possession. The commentary eventually became the standard form of exegesis. But even within the commentary tradition there was room for a plurality of exegetical positions. Different commentators developed different lines of interpretations in the light of the different concerns that motivated their exegesis. The exegetical tradition that finds its culmination in Alexander of Aphrodisias was primarily but not exclusively motivated by an attempt to defend the philosophy of Aristotle in the context of the ancient debate between philosophical schools.
While the Platonists of Late Antiquity put themselves in continuity with this tradition, their exegesis was largely an attempt to develop a philosophy that insisted on the continuity between Plato and Aristotle. They wrote their commentaries on the assumption that Aristotle and Plato were in substantial agreement. The surviving ancient Greek commentaries on Aristotle are published in the series Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca , H.