Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

5354Re: Neoplatonism & Religion

Expand Messages
  • vaeringjar
    Apr 6, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      > >
      > >
      > > 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?

      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.

      > >
      > > 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.

      Oh, any chance there is an electronic copy of that could float my way? :)

      > 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
      > e
      > >

      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?

    • Show all 21 messages in this topic