Plato and Aristotle in Agreement?: Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry (Oxford Philosophical Monographs)

426 Pages·2006·6.37 MB·English

by  George E. Karamanolis

PLATO AND ARISTOTLE IN AGREEMENT?
OXFORDPHILOSOPHICALMONOGRAPHS
EditorialCommittee
AnitaAvramides,R.S.Crisp,
MichaelRoser,ChristopherShields,RalphC.S.Walker
OTHERTITLESINTHESERIESINCLUDE
Kant’sEmpiricalRealism
PaulAbela
AgainstEqualityofOpportunity
MattCavanagh
Causality,Interpretation,andtheMind
WilliamChild
MetaphorandMoralExperience
A.E.Denham
SemanticPowers
MeaningandtheMeansofKnowinginClassicalIndianPhilosophy
JonardonGaneri
Kant’sTheoryofImagination
BridgingGapsinJudgementandExperience
SarahL.Gibbons
OfLibertyandNecessity
JamesA.Harris
TheGroundsofEthicalJudgement
NewTranscendentalArgumentsinMoralPhilosophy
ChristianIllies
ProjectiveProbability
JamesLogue
UnderstandingPictures
DominicLopes
Wittgenstein,Finitism,andtheFoundationsofMathematics
MathieuMarion
TruthandtheEndofInquiry
APeirceanAccountofTruth
C.J.Misak
TheGoodandtheTrue
MichaelMorris
Hegel’sIdeaofFreedom
AlanPatten
NictzschcandMetaphysics
PeterPoellner
TheOntologyofMind
Events,Processes,andStates
HelenSteward
ThingsthatHappenBecauseTheyShould
ATeleologicalApproachtoAction
RowlandStout
Plato and Aristotle in
Agreement?
Platonists on Aristotle from
Antiochus to Porphyry
GEORGE E. KARAMANOLIS
CLARENDON PRESS (cid:1) OXFORD
3
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxfordox26dp
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwidein
Oxford NewYork
Auckland CapeTown DaresSalaam HongKong Karachi
KualaLumpur Madrid Melbourne MexicoCity Nairobi
NewDelhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
WithoYcesin
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile CzechRepublic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
SouthKorea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
OxfordisaregisteredtrademarkofOxfordUniversityPress
intheUKandincertainothercountries
PublishedintheUnitedStates
byOxfordUniversityPressInc.,NewYork
(cid:1)GeorgeKaramanolis2006
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
DatabaserightOxfordUniversityPress(maker)
Firstpublished2006
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,
storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,
withoutthepriorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,
orasexpresslypermittedbylaw,orundertermsagreedwiththeappropriate
reprographicsrightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproduction
outsidethescopeoftheaboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,
OxfordUniversityPress,attheaddressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisbookinanyotherbindingorcover
andyoumustimposethesameconditiononanyacquirer
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
TypesetbySPIPublisherServices,Pondicherry,India
PrintedinGreatBritain
onacid-freepaperby
BiddlesLtd.,King’sLynn,Norfolk
ISBN0–19–926456–2 978–0–19–926456–8
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
Contents
Abbreviations x
Introduction 1
1. AntiochusofAscalon 44
2. Plutarch 85
3. Numenius 127
4. Atticus 150
5. AmmoniusSaccas 191
6. Plotinus 216
7. Porphyry 243
AppendixI:ThePlatonismofAristotleandofthe
EarlyPeripatetics 331
AppendixII:ListofWorksofPlatonistson
Aristotle’sPhilosophy 337
Bibliography 340
GeneralIndex 363
IndexofPassages 379
Abbreviations
InthefollowingIlisttheabbreviationsofnames,works,andeditionswhichare
mostoftenreferredto.Therestofmyabbreviationsforthemostpartfollowthe
conventions of H. Liddell, R. Scott, and H. Jones, A Greek–English Lexicon
(Oxford,1940;9thedn).
AGP Archivfu¨rdieGeschichtederPhilosophie
AJP AmericanJournalofPhilology
ANRW AufstiegundNiedergangderro¨mischenWelt
CAG CommentariainAristotelemGraeca
CQ ClassicalQuarterly
DG H.Diels,DoxographiGraeci(Berlin,1879).
DK H.DielsandW.Kranz,DieFragmentederVorsokratiker(Ber-
lin,1934–7;5thedn)
DL DiogenesLaertius
E-K I.EdelsteinandI.G.Kidd(eds.),Posidonius,i–iii(Cambridge,
1972–99).
fr.,frs. fragment,fragments
GRBS Greek,Roman,andByzantineStudies
HSCPh HarvardStudiesinClassicalPhilology
JHS JournalofHellenicStudies
IndexAcad. Philodemus, Index Academicorum, ed. T. Dorandi, Filodemo:
Storia dei WlosoW. Platone e l’ Academia (PHerc.1021 e 164).
(Naples,1991).
LSJ H. Liddell, R. Scott, and H. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon
(Oxford,1940;9thedn).
OCT OxfordClassicalTexts
OLD P.G.W.Glare,OxfordLatinDictionary(Oxford,1982).
OSAP OxfordStudiesinAncientPhilosophy
PE Eusebius,PraeparatioEvangelica
PHP Galen,DeplacitisHippocratisetPlatonis
RE Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Enzyclopa¨die der klassischen Altertums-
wissenschaft(StuttgartandMunich,1894–1980).
SVF H. von Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, i–iii (Leipzig,
1903–5;vol.iv,index,compiledbyM.Adler,1924).
V.Plot. Porphyry,VitaPlotini
Sent. Porphyry,Sententiae
W F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles, i–x (Basel and Stuttgart,
1944–62).
Introduction
1. THE STUDY OF ARISTOTLE’S PHILOSOPHY
BY PLATONISTS IN LATE ANTIQUITY
AnyonewhobeginstostudythephilosophyoflateantiquitymustWnd
strikingthefactthattheknowncommentariesonAristotle’sworksafter
ad 300 are written exclusively by Platonists.1 Two important features
makethisfactparticularlyconspicuous.TheWrstisthatthepracticeof
writing extensive commentaries on Aristotle’s works had started, as we
would expect, with the Peripatetics, and for a long time had remained
their undisputed domain. The Peripatetics had been commenting on
several Aristotelian works, especially the Categories, since the days of
Andronicus, Boethus, and Aristo of Alexandria in the Wrst century bc,
but their exegetical activity culminated in the second century ad with
Adrastus, Herminus, Aspasius, and especially with Alexander of Aph-
rodisias(c.ad200).ThethreecenturiesfollowingAlexander,however,
were utterly bereft of Peripatetic commentators of any signiWcance,2
whilemanyimportantPlatonistsdevotedmuchoftheirtimetowriting
commentariesonAristotle.
Secondly, a telling indication of the Platonist preoccupation with
commenting on Aristotle is the fact that the written work of several
Platonists of this era (third–sixth centuries ad), such as Ammonius
Hermeiou (435/45–517/26) and Simplicius (6th century),3 consists
largely of commentaries on Aristotle. What is remarkable here is
not that these Platonists were engaged in writing commentaries. For
1 For some basic information aboutthe Greekcommentators see Praechter (1909,
1910), whose views have been modiWed by I. Hadot (1978, 1991); see also Sorabji
(1990:1–30).
2 With the possible exception of Themistius (c. 317–88); on him see Blumenthal
(1990).
3 OnthecommentariesofAmmoniusandSimpliciusandtheirattitudetoAristotle
seeWesterink(1990),I.Hadot(1978:20–32)andHoVmann(1987).
2 Introduction
philosophersoflateantiquity,commentingonancientauthoritiesboth
orally and in writing was the main way of doing philosophy. What is
remarkable rather is that Platonists, who had been commenting on
Platosince atleastthetimeofCrantor(latefourth–earlythirdcentury
bc),4 began around ad 300 to write commentaries on Aristotle quite
systematically. And for some of them this became their main literary
activity.
HowandwhydidAristotlebecomesoimportanttothePlatonistsas
to be considered an authority deserving extensive commentary? One
may be tempted to think that Aristotle became a useful guide to
Platonists in areas which Plato had insuYciently explored, such as
biology,or,moregenerally,science andespeciallylogic.Thisistrue,at
leastsofaraslogicisconcerned.AlargenumberofPlatonistcommen-
taries are on the Categories, the De interpretatione, and the Analytics.
Suchastronginterestinlogicisunderstandableinviewofthefactthat
inlateantiquitylogicacquirededucationalvalueandbecamepartofthe
syllabus.5However,thestoryhereismorecomplex.Aristotle’slogic,as
expounded in one of his most popular works in late antiquity, the
Categories, involves, as we know, metaphysical views quite diVerent
from those Plato had presented in his dialogues. Yet, judging by the
activity of Platonist commentators, if there was one work which every
Platonist in late antiquity had to study, it was the Categories. How, we
wonder, did the Categories become such a basic text for Platonists to
study,givenitsnon-Platonicmetaphysics?
PlatonistsalsostudiedAristotle’smajorworksonthesoulandonthe
universe, such as the De anima and the De Caelo, and wrote long
commentaries on them.6 In these works, however, Aristotle rejects
several views which were subsequently regarded as the core of Plato’s
philosophy, most famously the view that the soul is immortal, and the
idea that the universe had been created by a divine craftsman. How,
4 CrantorcommentedontheTimaeus(Proclus,InTim.1.76.1–2),yetitisunclear
inwhatformhedidso,andweshouldnotassumethathewroteacommentarylikethe
lateantiqueones.SeeCh.7,pp.324–5.
5 See Clarke (1971: 2–7, 126) and Sandy (1997: 29–34). The Christian Origen
included dialectic in his course of studies (Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 6. 18. 3), while both
GelliusandApuleiusseemtohavelearntlogic(Gellius,NA.15.26,16.8,Apuleius,
Florida20).
6 Onemustbearinmindthatseveralcommentarieshavebeenlost.LikeSimplicius,
SyrianusalsowrotecommentariesontheDecaeloandtheDeanima,yettheydonot
survive;seePraechter(1926);Cardullo(1986).
Introduction 3
then, did Platonists committed to Plato’s philosophy come to Wnd
Aristotle’sviewsworthyofstudy?
Thequestionbecomesmorepressinggiventhat,forPlatonistsofall
ages, and especially for those of late antiquity, nothing which was
considered to be systematically contradictory to, or critical of, Plato
couldbeacceptable,letalonephilosophicallyimportantandbeneWcial,
preciselybecausePlatoenjoyedanenormousauthorityandhisphiloso-
phywastakenfortruth.Anyphilosophicalactivityaimingtorefuteor
tocriticizePlatowasassumedaprioritobemistakenornotevenworthy
of the name of philosophy. Apparently the Platonists who did study
Aristotle regarded him as being neither systematically nor radically in
conXictwithPlato.
In fact, it turns out that the majority of Platonists in this era shared
theviewthatAristotle’sphilosophy,whenunderstoodintherightspirit,
is essentially compatible with Plato’s doctrine, as they interpreted it.
Platonists actually maintained that the core of Aristotle’s philosophy
both supports and complements Plato’s philosophy, and this, they
argued, was not accidental. If it were, it could neither be helpful in
the study of philosophy nor of particular importance, and thus hardly
worthy of systematic study. When confronted with contradictions be-
tween Aristotle and Plato, Platonists argued that such contradictions
wereonlyapparent,theresultsofuncriticalfocusontheletterandnot
the real spirit of the texts.7 And they explicitly stated that Aristotle’s
workswerebothusefulandphilosophically importantforaPlatonist.8
For this reason, such a study, they believed, had to be done in a
systematicandproperway.
Thismeans at least two things.First, Aristotle’swork wasassigned a
deWnite place in the Platonist philosophical curriculum. Platonists
wrote introductions (Prolegomena) in which they gave an overview of
Aristotle’sphilosophicalworkandexplainedhowhisphilosophyistobe
studied.ThusAristotle’streatiseswereintegratedinthecontextofsuch
a curriculum.9 What is more, the study of Aristotle was a requirement
whichhadtobefulWlledearly,becauseitwasconsideredpreparatoryfor
7 See Simplicius, In Cat. 6. 7–18, 7. 23–32, In De caelo 454. 23–4, 640. 27–8,
Philoponus,Indeanima10.8–12.12,Olympiodorus,Proleg.4.3–15,InMet.7.21–30.
SeeBlumenthal(1986:92–7).
8 SeeAmmonius,InCat.6.9–16,Simplicius,InCat.6.6–15,13.27–8.Olympio-
dorus,Proleg.9.14–30,22.3–12Elias,InCat.132.5–21.
9 See e.g. Ammonius, In Cat. 7. 15–13. 11, Simplicius, In Cat. 3. 18–6. 18. See
Westerink (1990: 341–7) and esp. Plezia (1949: 70–81), who lists all the relevant
references.