Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Philoponus
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Evil as Privation in Neoplatonism. Simplicius and Philoponus in Defense of Matter

100%
Cardullo R. L.
Peitho. Examina Antiqua
|
2017
|
vol. 8
|
issue 1
391-408
EN
The aim of this paper is to highlight the decisive contribution of Simplicius and Philoponus to the resolution of the problem of evil in Neoplatonism. A correct and faithful interpretation of the problem, which also had to agree with Plato’s texts, became particularly needed after Plotinus had identified evil with matter, threatening, thus, the dualistic position, which was absent in Plato. The first rectification was made by Proclus with the notion of parhypostasis, i.e., “parasitic” or “collateral” existence, which de-hypostasized evil, while at the same time challenging the Plotinian theory that turned evil into a principle that was ontologically opposed to good. In light of this, the last Neoplatonic exegetes, Simplicius and Philoponus, definitely clarified the “privative” role of kakon, finally relieving matter from the negative meaning given to it by Plotinus and restoring metaphysical monism. 
IT
The aim of this paper is to highlight the decisive contribution of Simplicius and Philoponus to the resolution of the problem of evil in Neoplatonism. A correct and faithful interpretation of the problem, which also had to agree with Plato’s texts, became particularly needed after Plotinus had identified evil with matter, threatening, thus, the dualistic position, which was absent in Plato. The first rectification was made by Proclus with the notion of parhypostasis, i.e., “parasitic” or “collateral” existence, which de-hypostasized evil, while at the same time challenging the Plotinian theory that turned evil into a principle that was ontologically opposed to good. In light of this, the last Neoplatonic exegetes, Simplicius and Philoponus, definitely clarified the “privative” role of kakon, finally relieving matter from the negative meaning given to it by Plotinus and restoring metaphysical monism.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Koinon and koinônia: A Particular Case of Participation in John Philoponus

100%
Granata D.
Peitho. Examina Antiqua
|
2018
|
vol. 9
|
issue 1
101-120
EN
The aim of this study is to discuss an original philosophical contribution made by Philoponus, who in In Cat. 18, 14–22 equates koinon in its most peculiar meaning with the concept of koinônia understood as a particu­lar case of Platonic methexis. First, the paper analyzes the passages where the Neoplatonic commentators of the Categories distinguish four distinct meanings of the Aristotelian concept of koinon. Subsequently, this article emphasizes the differences between Philoponus’ herme­neutical suggestions and those of the other commentators. Philopo­nus clarifies that while every koinon is methekton, Aristotle’s koinon is characterized by the fact that the participation is ex isou and kata meros. Thus, koinônia, according to Philoponus, is a particular case of methexis, where everyone participating in something participates in it equally and singly. The example cited by Philoponus to explain Aristotle’s koinon is that of men participating equally and singly in human nature. The study concludes with a discussion of the relationship among the concepts of koinon, koinônia and methexis.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Filozoficzna apologia monofizytyzmu w "Rozjemcy" Jana Gramatyka

67%
Mielnik D.
Vox Patrum
|
2020
|
vol. 73
49-62
EN
The main purpose of the paper is an attempt of presentation of philosophical argumentation used by ancient philosopher John Philoponus for justifying the condemned by Council of Chalcedon monophysical doctrine. The purpose realization was possible thanks to analysis of arguments used by Philoponus which arguments were presented in six chapters of his Arbiter. The paper was divided into three parts. In the first one the profile of Arbiter was presented. In the second one, which was longer in relation to volume, the philosopher’s systematic teaching was analyzed. In the last one the most important features of Philoponus’ argumentation were presented. On the basis of the analysis it could be claimed that John Philoponus used the terms “nature” and “substance” interchangeably. What’s more, he used different examples for showing the legitimacy of his reasoning and he also builds next arguments on the ground of beforehand conclusions.
PL
Celem niniejszego opracowania jest próba przedstawienia filozoficznej argumentacji wykorzystanej przez starożytnego filozofa, Filopona, do uzasadnienia potępionej na soborze chalcedońskim doktryny monofizyckiej. Osiągnięcie celu pracy jest możliwe dzięki przebadaniu użytych przez Jana Gramatyka argumentów w sześciu rozdziałach traktatu Rozjemca. Opracowanie składa się z trzech części. Najpierw ma miejsce krótka charakterystyka analizowanego utworu. Następnie w objętościowo największej części pracy zostaje przeanalizowany systematyczny wykład filozofa pod kątem postawionego problemu badawczego. Wreszcie w części trzeciej wskazano najważniejsze cechy argumentacji Jana Gramatyka. W świetle przeprowadzonych zestawień można zauważyć wyraźną tendencję Filopona do zamiennego stosowania takich pojęć, jak natura i substancja. Co więcej, autor traktatu chętnie sięga po różne przykłady mające wykazać zasadność jego rozumowania oraz wyraźnie buduje kolejne argumenty na podstawie uprzednio wyciągniętych wniosków.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.