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

Categories followup

Expand Messages
  • vaeringjar
    It was Michael Frede who suggested the beginning of the Categories might be missing in the text, I just noted reading the beginning of Steve Strange s article
    Message 1 of 7 , Dec 17, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      It was Michael Frede who suggested the beginning of the Categories might be missing in the text, I just noted reading the beginning of Steve Strange's article on this subject. I am curious now to see how Porphyry deals with the conflict between Aristotle and Plato on the ontological priority of the particular over the universal expressed in the Categories, a point raised as essential in his article.

      Dennis Clark
    • Harold Tarrant
      Dear Dennis, It seems not to have been too difficult for Porphyry, who mainly needed to apply the general principle that A had only the physical world in mind,
      Message 2 of 7 , Dec 17, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Dennis,

        It seems not to have been too difficult for Porphyry, who mainly needed to apply the general principle that A had only the physical world in mind, while P sought for the categories of the intelligible world. But don't take my word for granted!

        Have a good Xmas,

        Harold

        Prof. Harold Tarrant,
        School of Humanities and Social Science,
        University of Newcastle,
        NSW 2308 Australia
        Ph: (+61) 2 49215230
        Fax: (+61) 2 49216933
        *Eu Prattein*
        >>> vaeringjar <vaeringjar@...> 18/12/09 7:32 AM >>>
        It was Michael Frede who suggested the beginning of the Categories might be missing in the text, I just noted reading the beginning of Steve Strange's article on this subject. I am curious now to see how Porphyry deals with the conflict between Aristotle and Plato on the ontological priority of the particular over the universal expressed in the Categories, a point raised as essential in his article.

        Dennis Clark
      • vaeringjar
        ... OK, thanks, I will keep that in mind - I just need to go off and do a lot of reading and comprehending the relevant selections in the commentaries on the
        Message 3 of 7 , Dec 17, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, Harold Tarrant <Harold.Tarrant@...> wrote:
          >
          > Dear Dennis,
          >
          > It seems not to have been too difficult for Porphyry, who mainly needed to apply the general principle that A had only the physical world in mind, while P sought for the categories of the intelligible world. But don't take my word for granted!
          >
          > Have a good Xmas,
          >
          > Harold
          >
          > Prof. Harold Tarrant,
          > School of Humanities and Social Science,
          > University of Newcastle,
          > NSW 2308 Australia
          > Ph: (+61) 2 49215230
          > Fax: (+61) 2 49216933
          > *Eu Prattein*
          > >>> vaeringjar <vaeringjar@...> 18/12/09 7:32 AM >>>


          OK, thanks, I will keep that in mind - I just need to go off and do a lot of reading and comprehending the relevant selections in the commentaries on the Categ of Porphyry, Dexippus, Simplicius - fortunately all very nicely translated and annotated for us now in the Ancient Comm. series - plus review Plotinus' three treatises on genera and the secondary literature, before I dig myself into any deeper holes here than I already have.

          Dennis Clark
        • Goya
          ... M.C. Warning : you may find Plotinus on the Categories extremely confusing, not least because contemporary scholarship is divided right down the middle.
          Message 4 of 7 , Dec 18, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            >
            >
            > OK, thanks, I will keep that in mind - I just need to go off and do a lot
            > of reading and comprehending the relevant selections in the commentaries
            > on the Categ of Porphyry, Dexippus, Simplicius - fortunately all very
            > nicely translated and annotated for us now in the Ancient Comm. series -
            > plus review Plotinus' three treatises on genera and the secondary
            > literature, before I dig myself into any deeper holes here than I already
            > have.
            >
            > Dennis Clark

            M.C. Warning : you may find Plotinus on the Categories extremely
            confusing, not least because contemporary scholarship is divided right
            down the middle. There are (1) those (Strange, De Haas, Horn) who think
            that Plotinus did not reject Aristotle's doctrine, but adapted it
            creatively, and (2) those (Chiaradonna) who think Plotinus did indeed
            completely reject Aristotle's doctrine. I side with Chiaradonna on this
            one.

            When reading the commentaries on the Categories, bear in mind that in
            response to Plotinus' critiques of the Categories, Porphyry set out in his
            lost comentary to Gedalios to respond to those critiques, thus justifying
            Aristotle. Unfortunately, all this is filtered through Iamblichus, whose
            goal was in part to refute Porphyry! Are you dizzy yet? You will be...

            Good luck, Mike
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >


            Michael Chase
            CNRS UPR 76
            Paris-Villejuif
            France
          • John Dillon
            ... Yes, and further to that ­ Iamblichus¹ solution was not so much to reject A.¹s categories as a tool for structuring the intelligible world, as to
            Message 5 of 7 , Dec 18, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >> >
              >> >
              >> > OK, thanks, I will keep that in mind - I just need to go off and do a lot
              >> > of reading and comprehending the relevant selections in the commentaries
              >> > on the Categ of Porphyry, Dexippus, Simplicius - fortunately all very
              >> > nicely translated and annotated for us now in the Ancient Comm. series -
              >> > plus review Plotinus' three treatises on genera and the secondary
              >> > literature, before I dig myself into any deeper holes here than I already
              >> > have.
              >> >
              >> > Dennis Clark
              >
              > M.C. Warning : you may find Plotinus on the Categories extremely
              > confusing, not least because contemporary scholarship is divided right
              > down the middle. There are (1) those (Strange, De Haas, Horn) who think
              > that Plotinus did not reject Aristotle's doctrine, but adapted it
              > creatively, and (2) those (Chiaradonna) who think Plotinus did indeed
              > completely reject Aristotle's doctrine. I side with Chiaradonna on this
              > one.
              >
              > When reading the commentaries on the Categories, bear in mind that in
              > response to Plotinus' critiques of the Categories, Porphyry set out in his
              > lost comentary to Gedalios to respond to those critiques, thus justifying
              > Aristotle. Unfortunately, all this is filtered through Iamblichus, whose
              > goal was in part to refute Porphyry! Are you dizzy yet? You will be...
              >
              > Good luck, Mike
              >> >
              >> >
              >> >
              >> >
              >> >
              >
              > Michael Chase
              > CNRS UPR 76
              > Paris-Villejuif
              > France
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >

              Yes, and further to that ­ Iamblichus¹ solution was not so much to reject
              A.¹s categories as a tool for structuring the intelligible world, as to
              postulate Œhigher¹ correlates of all of them which would relate to that
              realm! See my ŒIamblichus¹ noera theoria of the Categories¹ in Syllecta
              Classica 8, 1997. JMD


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • vaeringjar
              ... Thanks, sounds as if I will need it! ... Forewarned is forarmed. Or maybe the better cliche would be, where angels fear to tread...I found an older article
              Message 6 of 7 , Dec 18, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                > >
                > > M.C. Warning : you may find Plotinus on the Categories extremely
                > > confusing, not least because contemporary scholarship is divided right
                > > down the middle. There are (1) those (Strange, De Haas, Horn) who think
                > > that Plotinus did not reject Aristotle's doctrine, but adapted it
                > > creatively, and (2) those (Chiaradonna) who think Plotinus did indeed
                > > completely reject Aristotle's doctrine. I side with Chiaradonna on this
                > > one.
                > >
                > > When reading the commentaries on the Categories, bear in mind that in
                > > response to Plotinus' critiques of the Categories, Porphyry set out in his
                > > lost comentary to Gedalios to respond to those critiques, thus justifying
                > > Aristotle. Unfortunately, all this is filtered through Iamblichus, whose
                > > goal was in part to refute Porphyry! Are you dizzy yet? You will be...
                > >
                > > Good luck, Mike
                > >> >
                > >> >

                Thanks, sounds as if I will need it!

                > >
                > > Michael Chase
                > > CNRS UPR 76
                > > Paris-Villejuif
                > > France
                > >
                >
                > Yes, and further to that ­ Iamblichus¹ solution was not so much to reject
                > A.¹s categories as a tool for structuring the intelligible world, as to
                > postulate Œhigher¹ correlates of all of them which would relate to that
                > realm! See my ŒIamblichus¹ noera theoria of the Categories¹ in Syllecta
                > Classica 8, 1997. JMD
                >
                >

                Forewarned is forarmed. Or maybe the better cliche would be, where angels fear to tread...I found an older article (1976) by John Anton on Plotinus and the Categories in the "Signficance of Neoplatonism" collection, as well as another by Evangeliou in "Neoplatonism and Nature". Anton only refers to Merlan's comments in the old Cambridge History, so it seems this issue has become a more popular topic fairly recently, and thank you both for the later references. I actually like to dig into complicated messy situations like this - I like that sort of challenge.

                As to Porphyry in general on the agreement of Aristotle and Plato, just one point - he apparently wrote two works devoted to the subject, of which we have unfortunately only the titles. I haven't read much of any modern opinions on this yet, but what do we make, if anything, of the fact that we wrote two (I assume there really were two and it's not the same work reported twice, since the titles are contrary to each other - ?), one on the similiarities, and one on the differences? It's clear he came down ultimately on the side of agreement, so I guess it would make sense to speculate that he was really undecided and just rehearsed arguments formally pro and con, but still I think it's interesting he didn't do just one work emphasizing the commonalities as he saw them and assumably arguing against the differences. He must have gone through some process looking at both sides separately in some detail - ? Obviously it's very tricky to know anything when you have only two titles and not even fragments of the lost works to give at least some clue as to the content. I imagine Karamanolis deals with this in his book - ?

                Dennis Clark
              • vaeringjar
                ... Correction to the above - so I guess it would make sense to speculate that he was really undecided was supposed to be so I guess it would NOT make
                Message 7 of 7 , Dec 18, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  >
                  > As to Porphyry in general on the agreement of Aristotle and Plato, just one point - he apparently wrote two works devoted to the subject, of which we have unfortunately only the titles. I haven't read much of any modern opinions on this yet, but what do we make, if anything, of the fact that we wrote two (I assume there really were two and it's not the same work reported twice, since the titles are contrary to each other - ?), one on the similiarities, and one on the differences? It's clear he came down ultimately on the side of agreement, so I guess it would make sense to speculate that he was really undecided and just rehearsed arguments formally pro and con, but still I think it's interesting he didn't do just one work emphasizing the commonalities as he saw them and assumably arguing against the differences. He must have gone through some process looking at both sides separately in some detail - ? Obviously it's very tricky to know anything when you have only two titles and not even fragments of the lost works to give at least some clue as to the content. I imagine Karamanolis deals with this in his book - ?
                  >
                  > Dennis Clark
                  >


                  Correction to the above - "so I guess it would make sense to speculate that he was really undecided" was supposed to be "so I guess it would NOT make sense...". Good grief. More dangerous then usual at a keyboard, and the Christmas party here at work hasn't even started yet, eggnog or not...

                  Dennis Clark
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.