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

Re: [neoplatonism] Re: Proclus on Plato's Parmenides (Steel)

Expand Messages
  • Bruce MacLennan
    Can the list admin please disable Geores Leroux? ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Message 1 of 15 , Oct 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Can the list admin please disable Geores Leroux?

      On Oct 1, 2009, at 9:24 AM, Georges Leroux wrote:

      > JE SUIS ACTUELLEMENT EN DÉPLACEMENT ET JE NE SUIS PAS EN MESURE DE
      > RÉPONDRE
      > RÉGULIÈREMENT À MON COURRIER, JE LE FERAI DÈS QUE POSSIBLE
      >
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • John Dillon
      ... Carlos ... I have since had a chance to speak with Carlos Steel, himself, and to see the the new Vol III, and what is included there is a new, improved
      Message 2 of 15 , Oct 4, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com> ,
        > John Dillon <jmdillon@...> wrote:
        >> >
        >>> > >
        >>> > >
        >>> > >
        >>> > >
        >>> > > --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
        >>> <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com>
        >>> <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com> ,
        >>> > > "gregshaw58" <gregshaw58@> wrote:
        >>>>> > >> >
        >>>>> > >> > received on September 28, 2009, from John Finamore
        >>>>> > >> >
        >>>>> > >> > Dear ISNS Colleagues,
        >>>>> > >> >
        >>>>> > >> > The final volume of Proclus' Parmenides Commentary, edited by
        Carlos
        >>>> > >> Steel, is now available from Oxford:
        >>>>> > >> >
        >>>>> > >> > http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199291823.do
        >>>>> > >> >
        >>>>> > >> > See Carlos' description below.
        >>>>> > >> >
        >>>>> > >> > John
        >>>>> > >> >
        >>> > >
        >>> > > I can't find it now, but somewhere in the links that Prof Finamore sent
        >>> to the
        >>> > > ISNS members, I though there was some mention that Book VII in this
        >>> edition
        >>> > > would also appear in a Greek version, I assume along with the Latin of
        >>> > > Moerbeke - ? If true, is this the work I wonder of the editors? No
        >>> ancient or
        >>> > > medieval Greek version of the book has been found, has it? Or did I miss
        >>> this
        >>> > > somewhere?
        >>> > >
        >>> > > I tried ordering it from Barnes and Noble, but they have at least over
        >>> here in
        >>> > > America an Oct. 15 date, so it's just a little in the future still to
        >>> answer
        >>> > > the above on my own.
        >>> > >
        >>> > > I guess this now means, adieu, Cousin. His edition certainly had a long
        >>> run.
        >>> > >
        >>> > > Dennis Clark
        >>> > >
        >>> > >
        >>> > >
        >>> > >
        >>> > >
        >> >
        >> > No, Dennis, the Greek version of Book VII is a rather clever
        >> > back-translation by Carlos Steel and a colleague ­ sounds *almost* like
        >> > Proclus (William being a bit of a machine-translator!). I don¹t have the
        >> > exact details of the edition to hand, but someone else may have. John
        >> Dillon
        >> >
        >> >
        >> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >> >
        >
        > Thanks, Prof Tarrant and Dillon - and we could call it "near Proclus" or
        > Pseudo-Proclus - ? :)
        >
        > I guess the next question is, do we quote now from this back-translation when
        > citing Book VII or stick with the Latin of Moerbeke? Perhaps it's too soon to
        > tell what the practice will be. I can see situations where both would be
        > relevant, if someone were for instance, discussing a specific term and its
        > meaning, as opposed to a simple straightfoward citation of a passage just to
        > bring it to the reader's general attention.
        >
        > Only an old beaten up maintenance programmer like myself worn down by years of
        > IT battles would even worry about such an issue...
        >
        > Dennis Clark
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >

        I have since had a chance to speak with Carlos Steel, himself, and to see
        the the new Vol III, and what is included there is a new, improved
        back-translation of Book VII, which I look forward to studying! John


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • vaeringjar
        ... I am especially curious to read that famous passage quoting Speusippus that has been the subject of much study in the Greek, though I understand William -
        Message 3 of 15 , Oct 5, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          > I have since had a chance to speak with Carlos Steel, himself, and to see
          > the the new Vol III, and what is included there is a new, improved
          > back-translation of Book VII, which I look forward to studying! John
          >
          >

          I am especially curious to read that famous passage quoting Speusippus that has been the subject of much study in the Greek, though I understand William - fortunately - was rather mechanical, thus I would think in general making such a back-translation simpler than it might have been otherwise and, as far as I know, he was consistent in his use of Latin terms for the original Neoplatonic terms, such as "unitas" for "henas", just to name one I have looked into myself. I think the publish date is a little later over here, middle of October, but I should be getting a little package today of the second volume of the admirable new translation of Proclus' Timaeus Commentary - there's a huge effort - as well as volume II of the new Parmenides Commentary.

          Has anyone had a chance to delve into the new edition of Damascius' on the Philebus, the Bude by van Riel? I can't find any review or other mention online.

          Oh, look what I just found has shown up now on the Cambridge U Press site. Available in July:

          http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521876427#

          That's truly an impressive lineup of contributors. I can't quite make out what the image is on the cover - looks like something to do with the sun.

          Dennis Clark
        • John Uebersax
          ... Thanks for posting this, Dennis. My reaction from looking at the contents is simply: Wow! ... Could that be a cratered moon on the right? While we re at
          Message 4 of 15 , Oct 7, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Dennis Clark wrote:

            > Oh, look what I just found has shown up now on the Cambridge U
            > Press site. Available in July:
            >
            > http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521876427#

            Thanks for posting this, Dennis. My reaction from looking at the contents is simply: Wow!

            > I can't quite make out what the image is on the cover - looks
            > like something to do with the sun.

            Could that be a cratered moon on the right?

            While we're at it, members might be interested to learn about this coming volume also:

            The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy (due January 2010)
            http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521866729

            John Uebersax
          • Thomas Mether
            ...or anyone who wants to comment, Bob, after having it sit on my to read pile for a couple of years, I m finally getting around to reading Magee s Hegel and
            Message 5 of 15 , Oct 8, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              ...or anyone who wants to comment, Bob, after having it sit on my "to read" pile for a couple of years, I'm finally getting around to reading Magee's Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition. Do you know that book? Comments? Thanks, Thomas





















              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • vaeringjar
              ... I think you are right - half sun, half moon. ... I just wish, obviously, these books now were not so horribly expensive. It s really nice to see the
              Message 6 of 15 , Oct 8, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, John Uebersax <john.uebersax@...> wrote:
                >
                > Dennis Clark wrote:
                >
                > > Oh, look what I just found has shown up now on the Cambridge U
                > > Press site. Available in July:
                > >
                > > http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521876427#
                >
                > Thanks for posting this, Dennis. My reaction from looking at the contents is simply: Wow!
                >
                > > I can't quite make out what the image is on the cover - looks
                > > like something to do with the sun.
                >
                > Could that be a cratered moon on the right?

                I think you are right - half sun, half moon.

                >
                > While we're at it, members might be interested to learn about this coming volume also:
                >
                > The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy (due January 2010)
                > http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521866729
                >
                > John Uebersax
                >

                I just wish, obviously, these books now were not so horribly expensive.

                It's really nice to see the breadth of the coverage in the Later Antiquity volume, including separate chapters on Simplicius, Priscian, Olympiodorus et al, and that it goes all the way up to Eriugena. So often in earlier works like this, the later writers jsut get lumped in together, but not here. To say nothing of the experts matched to their particular strong suits, most of which speak for themselves.

                Simplicius is one I have been curious about to know more on his own views rather than as a commentator - but is there enough of that nature in his commentaries to be read between the lines or otherwise to represent his own views?

                Dennis Clark
              • Robert Wallace
                Hi Thomas, Yes, it s a provocative book. I wrote a fairly detailed critique of it in section 3.18 (chapter 3) of my book. It s great, of course, that Magee
                Message 7 of 15 , Oct 10, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Thomas,

                  Yes, it's a provocative book. I wrote a fairly detailed critique of it
                  in section 3.18 (chapter 3) of my book. It's great, of course, that
                  Magee explores Hegel's interest in Jakob Böhme and so forth, which
                  most historians of philosophy regard as pretty much off limits. Why
                  does Hegel write as much about Böhme in the history of philosophy
                  lectures as he writes (probably) about Aristotle? However, Magee makes
                  assumptions that drastically limit what he can accomplish. He assumes
                  that the goal of the hermetic tradition, which he identifies as
                  "power," is completely different from the goal of "philosophy" or of
                  "rationalism." So that if Hegel has an affinity for hermetic thinkers,
                  this shows that he isn't really a philosopher at all (pp. 8, 120).
                  Magee assumes that a theology for which "God requires creation in
                  order to be God," or "God is in some sense completed or has a need
                  fulfilled through man's contemplation of Him" (p. 13), can't be called
                  "rationalist"--thus ignoring Hegel's whole (I would say, highly
                  "rational") argument against spuriously-infinite theologies.

                  What's more, Magee doesn't consider ways in which Hegel's project is
                  anticipated by Plato and the Neoplatonists (who presumably would
                  qualify as "philosophers"). His focus on the "Hermetic tradition"
                  doesn't allow him to explore the overlap between "occultism" and
                  philosophy in the ancient and late-antique worlds. Why does Plato say
                  in the Phaedrus that the best things come through "madness"? How could
                  the original so-called "rationalist" say such a thing? Could it be
                  that our contemporary conception of "rationality" is anemic, in
                  comparison to Plato's?

                  I hope that there will be more discussion of the issues that Magee
                  raises. Similar issues arise, of course, in considering Iamblichus and
                  so forth. Maybe the ISNS has dealt with them, to some extent. A
                  conference devoted to "madness, magic, transcendence and reason" from
                  Plato through Hegel might be very rewarding.

                  Best, Bob

                  On Oct 8, 2009, at 11:09 AM, Thomas Mether wrote:

                  > ...or anyone who wants to comment, Bob, after having it sit on my
                  > "to read" pile for a couple of years, I'm finally getting around to
                  > reading Magee's Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition. Do you know that
                  > book? Comments? Thanks, Thomas
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  >

                  Robert Wallace
                  website: www.robertmwallace.com (Philosophical Mysticism; The God of
                  Freedom)
                  email: bob@...
                  phone: 414-617-3914









                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • mianelk
                  Hello to all here as we say in Ireland. I ve been enjoying the posts in silence, but thought I would pipe up re conference remark below. It s not a conference
                  Message 8 of 15 , Oct 14, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hello to all here as we say in Ireland.
                    I've been enjoying the posts in silence, but thought I would pipe up re conference remark below.
                    It's not a conference exactly but a bit of fun - might turn into that - www.mythicimagination.info Everyone on this list welcome to come along free.
                    Merrily

                    --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, Robert Wallace <bob@...> wrote:
                    > I hope that there will be more discussion of the issues that Magee
                    > raises. Similar issues arise, of course, in considering Iamblichus and
                    > so forth. Maybe the ISNS has dealt with them, to some extent. A
                    > conference devoted to "madness, magic, transcendence and reason" from
                    > Plato through Hegel might be very rewarding.
                    >
                  • Thomas Mether
                    Hello Bob, I m halfway through the book. I agree with you that there is a mistaken notion that hermeticism has to do with power. He may be getting that from
                    Message 9 of 15 , Oct 23, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hello Bob,
                      I'm halfway through the book. I agree with you that there is a mistaken notion that hermeticism has to do with power. He may be getting that from Voegelin. I'd say Hermeticism has more to do with illumination  -- power is a secondary expression of that and its "first" form would be self-mastery (power over oneself).
                       
                      As an aside, I'm reminded of a line of reflection vis a vis Boehme and Hegel that I dropped and never really came back to. I think Hegel misunderstands the status and function of imagery. Boehme, I would argue, would argue that sensuous imagery is itself intelligible and rational -- but it is multi-media, sort of the full aesthetics of being and/or sensuous dimension of the "absolute". If it needs creation and manifestation to realize itself, then concrete imagery is not as secondary as Hegel seems to regard it. Corbin's work on the imaginal realm in Muslim theosophical-thought and the theory of imagery in Tantric Buddhism also come to mind here. Another aspect of this is that for Boehme, imagery is also something like an alchemical ferment, an arcanum, that has, even if mometary in duration, a transformative psychological impact. It changes how the "energies" of the psyche flow. It is not just an imagistic representation of a nonimagistic idea.
                       
                      You mention the interaction and mutual involvement of philosophy and magic in the ancient world but there was a lot of that in the modern era also. Magee's chapter on Swabia (that is where my family is from and they were Boehmists -- so that chapter reminds me of the intellectual atmosphere of our family)  points that out. Leibnitz comes to mind as does, well, Royce, James, and Peirce with their interests in magic and the occult. Then there is Newton and alchemy. Anyway, it always seemed natural that Hegel was working with Boehmist themes as well as Schelling (although he, rather than either Hegel as Magee avers or Boehme as I would claim, would be the "irrationalist" in my book like Schopenhauer).
                       
                      I'll probably have some more thoughts on Magee later.
                      Thomas
                       
                      --- On Sat, 10/10/09, Robert Wallace <bob@...> wrote:


                      From: Robert Wallace <bob@...>
                      Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Hermetic Hegel Question for Bob
                      To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Saturday, October 10, 2009, 2:48 PM


                       



                      Hi Thomas,

                      Yes, it's a provocative book. I wrote a fairly detailed critique of it
                      in section 3.18 (chapter 3) of my book. It's great, of course, that
                      Magee explores Hegel's interest in Jakob Böhme and so forth, which
                      most historians of philosophy regard as pretty much off limits. Why
                      does Hegel write as much about Böhme in the history of philosophy
                      lectures as he writes (probably) about Aristotle? However, Magee makes
                      assumptions that drastically limit what he can accomplish. He assumes
                      that the goal of the hermetic tradition, which he identifies as
                      "power," is completely different from the goal of "philosophy" or of
                      "rationalism. " So that if Hegel has an affinity for hermetic thinkers,
                      this shows that he isn't really a philosopher at all (pp. 8, 120).
                      Magee assumes that a theology for which "God requires creation in
                      order to be God," or "God is in some sense completed or has a need
                      fulfilled through man's contemplation of Him" (p. 13), can't be called
                      "rationalist" --thus ignoring Hegel's whole (I would say, highly
                      "rational") argument against spuriously-infinite theologies.

                      What's more, Magee doesn't consider ways in which Hegel's project is
                      anticipated by Plato and the Neoplatonists (who presumably would
                      qualify as "philosophers" ). His focus on the "Hermetic tradition"
                      doesn't allow him to explore the overlap between "occultism" and
                      philosophy in the ancient and late-antique worlds. Why does Plato say
                      in the Phaedrus that the best things come through "madness"? How could
                      the original so-called "rationalist" say such a thing? Could it be
                      that our contemporary conception of "rationality" is anemic, in
                      comparison to Plato's?

                      I hope that there will be more discussion of the issues that Magee
                      raises. Similar issues arise, of course, in considering Iamblichus and
                      so forth. Maybe the ISNS has dealt with them, to some extent. A
                      conference devoted to "madness, magic, transcendence and reason" from
                      Plato through Hegel might be very rewarding.

                      Best, Bob

                      On Oct 8, 2009, at 11:09 AM, Thomas Mether wrote:

                      > ...or anyone who wants to comment, Bob, after having it sit on my
                      > "to read" pile for a couple of years, I'm finally getting around to
                      > reading Magee's Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition. Do you know that
                      > book? Comments? Thanks, Thomas
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >
                      >

                      Robert Wallace
                      website: www.robertmwallace. com (Philosophical Mysticism; The God of
                      Freedom)
                      email: bob@robertmwallace. com
                      phone: 414-617-3914

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



















                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.