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

Neoplatonists and the Unwritten Doctrines addition

Expand Messages
  • vaeringjar
    I just wanted to add two points to my previous posting. The fact that Iamblichus was able to reproduce sections of the Protepticus of Aristotle in his own
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 1 9:26 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      I just wanted to add two points to my previous posting.

      The fact that Iamblichus was able to reproduce sections of the
      Protepticus of Aristotle in his own Protepticus shows that at least
      that exoteric work of Aristotle was still extant, or at least parts
      of it were, in the late third century. While this isn't proof for On
      the Good, it is at least worth mentioning in this context.

      Also I wanted to mention the quotation of Speusippus made by Proclus
      in Book 7 of the Parmenides Commentary (in Moerbeke's translation).
      While neither proclus nor Speusippus refers to the Unwritten
      Doctrines in it, this passage does discuss the One (as being
      unaspected and unaspectable). It's easy to associate this bit with
      Plato's Parmenides and of course that is the context in which Proclus
      is reproducing it. But this also shows one problem with trying
      to 'disentangle' potential references to the U.D. in later writers;
      quotations made without attribution to author or to a specific work,
      which discuss many of the matters concerned in interpreting the U.D.
      could also as easily be concerned with issues of the first and second
      hypotheses of the Parmenides. Add to this any of the Neopythagorean
      (or even earlier Pythagorean for that matter) discussions of the One
      and Infinite Dyad, etc, and how they too are sometimes alluded to
      rather vaguely in a later writer, and there is potentially a three-
      sided ambiguity.

      Or so it seems to me, and I have spent a goodly amount of time trying
      to disentangle these for myself at least. (I am certainly aware there
      is not universal acceptance of the U.D., but as you can tell I give
      them credence, and I really don't see how the objections at this
      point are valid.) I have also come to the conclusion that this may
      just all be, aside from the point of trying to determine a
      developmental chronology, rather a distinction without a real
      difference, at least from the point of view of anyone writing in the
      third or later centuries.

      Dennis Clark
      Issaquah
    • vaeringjar
      ... least ... parts ... Just a correction - Protrepticus obviously. The eyes are the first to go. Dennis Clark Issaquah
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 1 11:09 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, "vaeringjar" <vaeringjar@y...>
        wrote:
        >
        > I just wanted to add two points to my previous posting.
        >
        > The fact that Iamblichus was able to reproduce sections of the
        > Protepticus of Aristotle in his own Protepticus shows that at
        least
        > that exoteric work of Aristotle was still extant, or at least
        parts
        > of it were, in the late third century.

        Just a correction - "Protrepticus" obviously. The eyes are the first
        to go.


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