5354Re: Neoplatonism & Religion
- Apr 6, 2012
> >Argh, Mike - I was afraid you would ask just that before I had time to review Theiler. To be honest, I spent the last three months BURIED in studying Aristotle's Protrepticus, for another review of the new edition of the fragments, right after studying Ammonius. I need to look at Theiler again beyond what I needed to do for the review I did of Charrue's essays. I will try to take a look this weekend.
> > Been trying to find the time to respond to this point, Mike. The review I
> > did of a collection of Charrue's essays touches on a couple of ones
> > included there that concern themselves in part with just this subject is
> > in the latest IJPT. For now I would say there is little hope in my opinion
> > of extracting much of Ammonios' at all, despite Theiler's effort, beyond
> > two main points, the importance to him of the agreement of Plato and
> > Aristotle (which comes from Hierocles actually), and one point on the
> > nature of the soul.
> M.C. Why is that?
> >Oh, any chance there is an electronic copy of that could float my way? :)
> > But interestingly enough, the subject of that latter point has come up
> > again for me personally just last week, reading Andrew Smith's most useful
> > chapter on Porphyry in the new Cambridge History, regarding Nemesius' use
> > of Porphry perhaps on the substance of the soul, which may in fact go back
> > to Ammonius, and which Charrue discusses in that same essay. I just need
> > to review the details on all of this, and look at Theiler again, before I
> > say anything else!
> M.C. Yes, I've discussed these matters as well in my article on Nemesius
> for the DPhA.
>I do recall there was not much of possible relevance in Hierocles beyond the view of agreement between Plato and Aristotle, and that Ammonius was likely the first to take this approach - but I suspect you are thinking of something else in particular, right, Mike?
> The problem with Theiler's hypothesis - apart from the fact that it's
> unverifiable, like much in the history of philosophy, is that it's awfully
> hard to sort out all the Ammonii (there seem to have been two, a Christian
> and and pagan) and and all the Origenes (likewise, there was a Christian
> and a pagan). Schroeder in the ANRW argues that the Christian Origen
> wasn't in Alexandria long enough, or at the right time, to have been
> Plotinus's fellow-student. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine that
> Porphyry (who had studied under two students of Ammonius) was confused
> when he said Origen was born a pagan and converted to Christianity ad
> switched to Paganism, while Ammonius did the reverse.
> Whether or not Origen the Christian actually was a student of Ammonius, I
> do think there are parallels between Origen, Hierocles and Porphyry that
> need to be explained, and none of Theiler's many detractors seems to me to
> have accomplished this.
> Best, Mike
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>