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

5957Re: Agent intellect

Expand Messages
  • Mark
    Mar 2, 2013
      Maybe 'Aristotelian rendering of Plotinus' sounds too stong - what I meant was that the Arabic Plotinus seems to be concerned with certain Aristotelian questions and is adding commentary on the Plotinian perspective based on a familiarity with Aristotle's works, adding Aristotelian terminology not found in the Plotinian passage, although the interesting example below, while being expanded discussion on an Aristotelian question, admittedly seems more like a standard Platonic argument to the Aristotelian problem, not much in the way of extra Aristotelian elements.

      Cheers,

      Mark

      > M.C. I'm afraid I don't believe either of these claims is accurate. The
      > only discussion in the Theology of the soul as the form of the body, as
      > far as I can tell occurs at p. 55 Badawi, and closely follows Plotinus's
      > discussion at Ennead IV 7 8.5. Like Plotinus (and Porphyry, for that
      > matter, who wrote a treatise against Aristotle on the subject), the author
      > rejects the concept, or at least severely qualifies it. Cf. Theology II,
      > 71, p. 211 Lewis: "If the soul is a form, adhering and not
      > separating...then how does she withdraw in sleep, and separate from the
      > body ..if the soul were a perfection of the body qua body, she would not
      > separate from it and would not know the remote...and that is not so."
      > Plotinus' other main discussion of the notion of the soul as entelechy
      > (Enn. 4, 2, 1) has no parallel in the Theology.
      >
      > Since the Theology passes itself off as being written by Aristotle, it has
      > to contain some echoes of Aristotle to make the forgery credible. But its
      > most characteristic elements - creation of the world ex nihilo and outside
      > of time, separability of the soul, doctrine of the First principle as pure
      > being, doctrine of emanation - have nothing to do with Aristotle and are
      > purely Neoplatonic. Neoplatonism had, of course, integrated a number of
      > Aristotelian doctrines, so it's not surprising if the Neoplatonica Arabica
      > contain some traces of them. But they are far from being the dominant
      > aspect, These writings were, in fact, invented to supplement Aristotle by
      > providing a Neoplatonic-style theology that was absent in his theory.
      >
      > Peter Adamson will, I hope, correct me if I'm wrong.
      >
      > Best, Mike
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Michael Chase
      > CNRS UPR 76
      > Paris-Villejuif
      > France
      >
    • Show all 17 messages in this topic