Keywords
substance
commentators
Neoplatonism
Plotinus
Porphyry
Syrianus
Ammonius
immanent forms
universals
How to Cite
Abstract
One of the main difficulties that Neoplatonic commentators of Aristotle face is the different treatment that the Categories and the Metaphysics offer to the question of the substance. After describing briefly the status quaestionis ousiae in Aristotle, and after tracing the main Neoplatonic interpretations of this doctrine (from Plotinus’ negative one to Porphyry’s positive and “conciliatory” one), this article attempts to demonstrate that the Neoplatonists of Athens and Alexandria, Syrianus and Ammonius, inaugurate a new interpretation of the Aristotelian doctrine. With regard to the category of substance in general and to the question of substantiality of “immanent form” in particular, this new interpretation goes beyond the positions of Plotinus and Porphyry and returns the ontological value to the Aristotelian substances. Unlike Plotinus, who recognized as ousia only that one intelligible, that is five genres of the Platonic Sophist, and unlike Porphyry, who defused the anti–Platonic fuse of the Categories, giving to this treaty a mainly semantic skopos, these philosophers, through their original study of the theory of the three states of katholou, already shed in the Porphyrian Eisagôgê, fit the immanent forms of Aristotle, recognized as substances and as a reflection of the transcendental universal, into the late antique Neoplatonic metaphysical triadic structure.
References
Accattino, P., Donini, P.L., 1996, (cur.), Alessandro di Afrodisia, L’anima, Roma e Bari.
Bodéüs, E., 2001, (éd.), Aristote, Catégories, Paris.
Cardullo, R.L., (cur.), 2012, Asclepio di Tralle, Commentario al libro Alpha meizon (A) della Metafisica di Aristotele. Introduzione, testo greco, traduzione e note di commento, Acireale e Roma.
Castelli, L.M., 2012, (a cura di), Aristotele, Fisica. Libro IV, Roma.
Cohen, S.M., Matthews, G.B. (transl.), 1991, Ammonius, On Aristotle Categories, London.
Dillon, J. (transl.), 1990, Dexippus, On Aristotle Categories, London.
Hadot, I., (comm. et notes), 1990, Simplicius, Commentaire sur les Catégories, fasc. 1 (pp. 1-9, 3), Paris.
O’Meara, D., Dillon, J. (transl.), 2008, Syrianus, On Aristotle’s Metaphysics 3-4, London.
Pelletier, Y., (éd.), 1990, Les Attributions (Catégories). Le texte aristotélicien et les prolégomènes d’Ammonios d’Hermeias, Montréal et Paris.
Reale, G., (cur.), 2004, La Metafisica di Aristotele, Milano.
Sorabji R., Dillon, J., O’Meara,D. (transl.), 2007, Syrianus. On Aristotle’s Metaphysics 13-14, London.
Strange, S.K., (transl.), 1992, Porphyry, On Aristotle Categories, London.
Zanatta, M., (cur.), 1989, Aristotele, Categorie, Milano.
AA.VV., 1974, Plotino e il neoplatonismo in oriente e in occidente, Roma.
Adamson, P., Baltussen, H., Stone, M.W.F. (eds.), 2005, Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries, London.
Aubenque, P., 1985, “Plotin et Dexippe exégètes des Catégories d’Aristote”, in: Rutten, Motte (1985), pp. 7-40.
Barnes, J., 1997, “Roman Aristotle”, in: Barnes, Griffin (1987), pp. 1-69.
Barnes J., Griffin M. (eds.), 1987, Philosophia Togata II. Plato and Aristotle at Rome, Oxford.
Berti, E., 1989, “Il concetto di ‘sostanza prima’ nel libro Z della Metafisica”, Rivista di Filosofia 80, pp. 3-23.
Bianchetti M. (cur.), Plotino e l’ontologia. Sostanza assimilazione bellezza, Milano.
Bonelli, m., Masi, F.G., 2011, Studi sulle Categorie di Aristotele, Amsterdam.
Cardullo, R.L., 1993, “Syrianus défenseur de Platon contre Aristote. Selon le témoignage d’Asclépius (Métaphysique 433, 9-436, 6)”, in: Dixsaut (1993), pp. 197-214.
Cardullo, R.L., 1995, Siriano esegeta di Aristotele. I. Testimonianze e frammenti dei Commentari all’Organon, Firenze.
Cardullo, R.L., 2000, Siriano esegeta di Aristotele. II. Testimonianze e frammenti dei Commentari alla Fisica, Catania.
Cardullo, R.L., 2003, “«Come le frecce dei Traci …». Siriano contro Aristotele a proposito di due aporie di Metafisica B sul soprasensibile”, in: Celluprica (2003), pp. 159-225.
Cardullo, R.L., 2009, “Una lettura neoplatonica di Metaphysica Alpha; gli scolii di Asclepio di Tralle trascritti “dalla voce” di Ammonio”, in: Cardullo (2009a), pp. 239-270.
Cardullo, R.L. (cur.), 2009a, Il libro Alpha della Metafisica di Aristotele tra storiografia e teoria, Catania.
Celluprica V. (cur.), 2003, Il libro B della Metafisica di Aristotele, Napoli.
Chiaradonna, R., 1996, “L’interpretazione della sostanza aristotelica in Porfirio”, Elenchos 17, pp. 55-94.
Chiaradonna, R., 2002, Sostanza, movimento, analogia. Plotino critico di Aristotele, Napoli.
Chiaradonna, R. (cur.), 2005, Studi sull’anima in Plotino, Napoli.
Chiaradonna, R., 2010, “Sostanze intelligibili e unità numerica in Plotino”, in: Taormina (2010), pp. 123-136.
Chiaradonna, R., 2012a, (cur.), Filosofia tardoantica, Roma.
Chiaradonna, R., Rashed, M., Sedley, D., 2012b, “A Rediscovered Categories Commentary”, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 44, pp. 129-194
Chiaradonna, R., 2014, Substance, in: Slaveva-Griffin, Remes (2014), pp. 216-230.
D’ancona, C., 2000, “Syrianus dans la tradition exégétique de la Métaphysique d’Aristote. Deuxième partie: Antécédents et postérité”, in: Goulet-Cazé (2000), pp. 311-327.
De Haas, F., 2001, “Did Plotinus and Porphyry disagree on Aristotle’s Categories?”, Phronesis 46, pp. 492-526.
De Libera, A., 1996, La querelle des universaux. De Platon à la fin du Moyen Age, Paris.
D’hoine, P., 2011, “Aristotle’s Criticism of Non-Substance Forms and its Interpretation by the Neoplatonic Commentators”, Phronesis 56, pp. 262-307.
Dixsaut M. (dir.), 1993, Contre Platon. 1. Le platonisme dévoilé, Paris.
Donini, P.L., 1995, Metafisica. Introduzione alla lettura, Roma.
Donini, P.L., 2006, “Plotino e la tradizione dei medioplatonici e dei commentatori aristotelici”, in: Bianchetti (2006), pp. 17-32.
Donini, P.L., 2010, Commentary and Tradition: Aristotelianism, Platonism and Post-hellenistic Philosophy, M. Bonazzi (ed.), Berlin.
Evangeliou, C., 1982, The Problematic of Aristotles Doctrine of Categories in the Philosophy of Porphyry and the Plotinian Background, Ann Arbor.
Evangeliou, C., 1987, “The Plotinian Reduction of Aristotle’s Categories”, Ancient Philosophy 7, pp. 147-162.
Evangeliou, C., 1988, Aristotle’s Categories and Porphyry, Leiden.
Fazzo, S., 2002, Aporia e sistema. La materia, la forma, il divino nelle Quaestiones di Alessandro di Afrodisia, Pisa.
Frede, M, 2009, Syrianus on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, in: Longo (2009), pp. 23-56.
Gersh, S., 2009, Da Giamblico a Eriugena. Origini e sviluppi della tradizione pseudo-dionisiana, trad. M. Leone, C. Helmig, Bari.
Gerson, L.P. (ed.), 2010, The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, vol. I, Cambridge.
Goulet-Cazé M.O. (dir.), 2000, Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation, Paris.
Haase, W. (hrsg.), 1987, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II 36, 1, Berlin and New York.
Haase, W., Temporini, H. (hrsg.), 1987, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II 36, 2, Berlin.
Hadot, I., 1992, “Aristote dans l’enseignement philosophique néoplatonicien. Les préfaces des commentaires sur les Catégories”, Revue de théologie et de philosophie 124, pp. 407-425.
Hadot, I., 2014, Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contemporaines. Un bilan critique, Sankt Augustin.
Hadot, P., 1974, L’harmonie des philosophies de Plotin et d’Aristote selon Porphyre dans le Commentaire de Déxippe sur les Catégories, in: AA.VV. (1974), Roma, pp. 31-47.
Helmig, C., 2009, «The Truth can never be refuted». Syrianus’ View(s) on Aristotle reconsidered, in: Longo (2009), pp. 347-380.
Helmig, C., 2012, Forms and Concepts. Concept Formation in the Platonic Tradition, Berlin and Boston.
Iozzia, D., 2009, “In che senso in Plotino la Metafisica καταπεπύκνωται (Porph,. Vita Plot. 14,5-6)? Un’indagine su Metaph. A”, in: Cardullo (2009a), pp. 195-210.
Karamanolis, G., 2004, Porphyry, in: Adamson, Baltussen, Stone (2004), pp. 97-120.
Karamanolis, G., 2006, Plato and Aristotle in agreement? Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry, Oxford.
Lloyd, A.C., 1981, Form and Universal in Aristotle, Liverpool.
Longo, A., 2005, Siriano e i principi della scienza, Napoli.
Longo, A. (cur.), 2009, Syrianus et la métaphysique de l’antiquité tardive, Napoli.
Luna, C., 2000, “Syrianus dans la tradition exégétique de la Métaphysique d’Aristote. Première partie: Syrianus entre Alexandre d’Aphrodise et Asclépius”, in: Goulet-Cazé (2000), pp. 301-309.
Madigan, A.S.J., 1986, “Syrianus and Asclepius on Forms and Intermediates in Plato and Aristotle”, Journal of History of Philosophy 24, pp. 149-171.
Militello, C., 2010, I commentari all’Isagoge di Porfirio tra V e VI secolo, Catania.
Moreschini, C., 1987, “Attico. Una figura singolare del medioplatonismo”, in: Haase (1987), pp. 477-491.
Natali, C., Maso, S., 1999, (eds.), Antiaristotelismo, Amsterdam.
Perilli, L., Taormina, D.P. (cur.), 2012, La filosofia antica. Itinerario storico e testuale, Torino.
Rashed, M., 2007, Essentialisme. Alexandre d’Aphrodise entre logique, physique et cosmologie, Berlin et New York.
Romano, F., 1983, “Lo «sfruttamento» neoplatonico di Aristotele”, in: Romano (1983a), pp. 35-47.
Romano, F. (cur.), 1983a, Studi e ricerche sul neoplatonismo, Napoli.
Romano, F., 1985, Porfirio e la Fisica aristotelica, Catania.
Rutten C., Motte A. (ed.), 1985, Aristotelica. Mélanges offerts à M. De Corte, Bruxelles et Liège.
Saffrey, H.D., 1987, “Comment Syrianus, le maître de l’école néoplatonicienne d’Athènes, consideraitil Aristote?”, in: Wiesner (1987), pp. 205-14.
Saffrey, H.D., 1992, “Pourquoi Porphyre a-t-il édité Plotin? Réponse provisoire”, in: Porphyre, La vie de Plotin, II, L. Brisson (dir.), Paris, pp. 31-64.
Sharples, R., 2008, “Habent sua fata libelli. Aristotle’s Categories in the first century BC”, Acta Antiqua Hungarica 48, pp. 273-287.
Sharples, R., 2010, “Peripatetics”, in: Gerson (2010), pp. 140-160.
Slaveva-Griffin, S., Remes P. (eds.), 2014, The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism, Abingdon and New York.
Sorabji, R., 2004, The Philosophy of the Commentators. 200-600 AD. A sourcebook. Vol. 3. Logic and Metaphysics, London.
Steinfath, H., 1991, Selbständigkeit und Einfachheit. Zur Substanztheorie des Aristoteles, Frankfurt am Main.
Strange, S.K., 1987, “Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic interpretation of the Categories”, in: Haase, Temporini (1987), pp. 955-974.
Taormina, D.P., 1999, “L’antiaristotelismo di Plotino e lo pseudo-aristotelismo di Giamblico. Due interpretazioni di Aristotele, Categ. 6, 5b 11 ss.”, in: Natali, Maso (1999), pp. 231-250.
Taormina, D.P. (cur.), 2010, L’essere del pensiero. Saggi sulla filosofia di Plotino, Napoli.
Taormina, D.P., 2012, “Filosofia e filosofi di lingua greca nei sec. III-VI d. C. Da Plotino agli ultimi commentatori di Alessandria”, in: Perilli, Taormina (2012), pp. 466-513.
Tetamo, E., 1999, L’antiaristotelismo di Attico. La critica alle tesi peripatetiche sulla provvidenza e sull’eternità del cosmo, in: Natali, Maso (1999), pp. 113-121.
Wiesner, J. (hrsg.), 1987, Aristoteles Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet, Band II: Kommentierung, Ueberlieferung, Nachleben, Berlin.
License
Peitho provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.