This volume deals with the general theory of pleasure of Plato and his successors.The first part describes the two paradigms between which all theories of ...
This book presents a comprehensive study into Plato's theological doctrines, offering an important re-valuation of the status of Plato's gods and the relation between metaphysics and theology according to Plato. Starting from an examination of Plato's views of religion and the relation between religion and morality, Gerd Van Riel investigates Plato's innovative ways of speaking about the gods. This book is invaluable to readers interested in philosophical theology and intellectual history.
From an epistemological viewpoint, the Forms constitute the objects of true knowledge. From an ontological point of view, they are the principles that underlie the order of the universe.
In his discussion of pleasure, Aristotle assumes the thesis that a perfect activity always and necessarily yields pleasure. The occurrence of pleasure is even presented as a sign that the activity is perfect. But this assumption seems to be too easy. It is possible that we do feel pleasure in activities which are not perfectly performed, and on the other hand, it is not certain at all that I will enjoy a perfect activity. Pleasure falls into the category of what (...) J. Elster has called 'states that are essentially by-products'. Up to a point, Aristotle acknowledges this, but he does not follow this analysis to its final consequences. If one agrees, as Aristotle does, that there is a difference between the perfect activity and pleasure, it should be possible that an activity is perfect without yielding pleasure, or that pleasure will accompany even an activity which is not perfect. (shrink)
In this chapter, the arguably most complex and most important part of Proclus’ metaphysics is under scrutiny: the One, the Henads, and the principles. The author discusses the transcendence and knowability of the One/Good, and how it can be a cause; the Iamblichean principles Limit and Unlimited, as the first coupling of unity and multiplicity, and how they invert the Aristotelian notion of dunamis. Together these principles produce ‘the mixture’, and all beings result from the triad Limit-Unlimited-Mixture. The author then (...) moves on to analysing the structure of the intelligible world in detail as an accumulation of determinations derived from these principles and the second hypothesis of the Parmenides, and to showing how the fourteen layers of the intelligible allow a rationalization of the controversial Henads, as participated forms of unity: they do not form a hypostasis in their own right, but they are all supra-essential. (shrink)
The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity comprises over forty specially comissioned essays by experts on the philosophy of the period 200-800 C.E. Designed as a successor to The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy , it takes into account some forty years of scholarship since the publication of that volume. The contributors examine philosophy as it entered literature, science and religion, and offer new and extensive assessments of philosophers who until recently have been mostly ignored. (...) The volume also includes a complete digest of all philosophical works known to have been written during this period. It will be an invaluable resource for all those interested in this rich and still emerging field. (shrink)
Carolingian Biblical Culture John J. CONTRENI Qui sim nosse uolens, scito Bibliotheca dicor El ueteris legis ius ueho siue nouae. Ne me sperne, precor, ...
La présentation ambiguë de la χώρα dans le Timée a donné lieu à une grande diversité d’interprétations, dont la plupart se sont inspirées de la critique aristotélicienne du discours de Timée. Depuis l’Antiquité, ceux qui ont voulu sauver l’analyse de Platon face aux objections formulées par Aristote se sont servis des notions et des présuppositions que celui‑ci a imposées au débat. Or, il importe d’essayer de dépouiller de ces présupposés la question de la χώρα, en cherchant à identifier les questions (...) que Platon lui‑même s’est posé, et qu’il a voulu résoudre en établissant la notion de χώρα. Vu que, en Tim. 52d‑53b, Platon indique que la χώρα contenait des qualités avant l’intervention démiurgique, il faut accepter que ce réceptacle qui reçoit les éléments n’est pas sans forme et, dès lors, qu’il ne correspond pas à la notion aristotélicienne de la matière. Il s’agit plutôt d’une masse corporelle douée d’une motion déséquilibrée, et dont la nature n’est pas changée lors de l’imposition de la forme. La matérialité de cette masse corporelle ne faisant l’objet d’aucune conceptualisation, ce passage sur la χώρα, comme d’ailleurs l’analyse des éléments en Tim. 53b‑61c, montre que Platon n’a pas élaboré une theorie de la matière. (shrink)
Ethics of any kind basically assume that all human beings by nature aim at happiness. However, this general starting point has to be made concrete in order to be relevant for action, and hence suitable for moral appreciation. What does my happiness consist in? Contrary to what has often been taken for granted, the concrete aim is not instrumental or subsidiary to the overall aim of happiness. To me, my particular aim is rather identical with happiness. The choice I make (...) — if choice it is — indeed constitutes my happiness, i.e. the overall aim that directs my existential choices. This article is focused on the way Aristotelian ethics envisages the concreteness of this overall aim. This is not the concreteness of the means leading to the aim, which has often been discussed in Aristotelian scholarship, but happiness itself, taken as the specific but nevertheless universal aim that I seek to accomplish in my life. The main arguments are taken from Nicomachean Ethics VI and III. These texts, central to any discussion of Aristotle's views on the role of choice and deliberation in acquiring happiness, are re-interpreted, avoiding the deadlock of a debate between intellectualists and non-intellectualists. (shrink)
According to Plato, pleasure consists in the replenishment of a lack, i.e., in restoring the natural condition. At first sight, this might seem to mean that pleasure is always linked to previous pain. However Plato stresses the importance of so-called ‘true’ or ‘pure’ pleasure, which is not paired by pain. The acceptance of this type of pleasure depends on a dissociation of the definition of pleasure and pain from the physiological condition that underlies them . The latter are inescapable: our (...) condition is subject to an everlasting whirl of lack and replenishment, although they are not always perceptible. Pleasure is, then, the experienced replenishment of a lack. This qualification allows one to introduce important nuances in the theory of pleasure: ‘pure’ or ‘true’ pleasure occurs in those cases where the preceding lack was not felt, and thus did not give rise to pain. ‘Mixed’ or ‘impure’ pleasures, on the other hand, refer to cases where both the lack and the replenishment are perceptible. A third situation is the so-called ‘neutral state’, which consists in a coincidence of unfelt lack and imperceptible replenishment. According to Aristotle, who disagrees with Plato on almost every detail of the doctrine of pleasure, pleasure consists in the unimpaired activity of a disposition in its natural condition, i. e., pleasure is a sign of nature indicating that the situation is all right, when any faculty operates as it should. In this model, pleasure is not a ‘movement’ or a process, and neither can it be excessive in se. These two models are criticized for accepting a necessary link between pleasure and the conditions described in the definitions. This seems to misrepresent an essential characteristic of pleasure: pleasure can always fail to occur, even if the concrete situation completely fits the terms set by the definition. Or, conversely, it can suddenly occur, even if the conditions outlined in the definition are not met. (shrink)
What is the 'good life'? Is it a life completely devoted to intellect, or should we take for granted the hedonistic position, which says that pleasure is the absolute good? The hedonist subordinates everything to pleasure, and tests anything in a rigorous calculus for the amount of pleasure it yields. It is against this hedonism that Plato turns himself in a unique manner in his dialogue Philebus. After having reached a deadlockin a sterile opposition between hedonism and intellectualism in his (...) former works, Platonow wants to dig deeper. He wants to criticize hedonism from within. In the first place, Plato investigates the proper nature of pleasure. It is to be situated within the continuous fluxus of our lives; a going back and forth between lack and replenishment. The limit that gives sense to this movement is the 'natural state', which we never attain in its purity. The role of intellect is hereby reduced to a strictminimum. It seems to be mainly a faculty which concerns the recognition and experience of pleasure as pleasure. In this way, Plato strives to establish a certain degree of consensus of opinion with hedonism, in order to be able to refute it afterwards. This refutation is supported by the formal structure of the dialogue: it consists in a gradual 'conversion' of a hedonist, who will eventually be brought into the intellectualist camp of Socrates. The critique to which Socrates' interlocutor yields is based on three main ideas. 1.Hedonism pretends to know what the good is. Plato counters this with a moderate intellectualism, taking the good to be undecided, and providing a place also for pleasure within the good life. 2. Moreover, Plato reveals an internal contradiction in hedonism: every hedonist will, if possible, prefer a 'pure' pleasure, in which the mixture with its contrary, pain, is as small as possible. However, this purity cannot be reduced to the hedonistic calculus. 3. Finally, the choice of the title of this dialogue is to be seenas a part of Plato's critique against hedonism. The main character Philebus refuses to engage in the debate. Plato suggests by this that he who proclaimspleasure to be the only intrinsic good is unable to partake in a discussion about pleasure. For he would, before any argument whatever, subordinate pleasure to truth and reason. If a hedonist is willing to argue he has already surrendered, and will be 'converted' whether he wants it or not. (shrink)
At In Platonis Timaeum Commentarii II, 1.393.31–394.5 Diehl, Proclus follows Porphyry's inferences against the theory of Atticus, focussing more precisely on the fact that the latter's account of the principles does not correspond to the views expounded by Plato himself. In Diehl's text, based on a limited selection of primary manuscript-witnesses, the introductory phrase to this criticism contains a reference to the maker, which cannot easily be explained within the context. On the basis of a new examination of the manuscript (...) tradition, and of the context of the passage, we will present a new conjecture that allows one to avoid the problems involved in Diehl's reading of the text. (shrink)
Plato’s Philebus famously combines a deliberation on the virtuous life as a balancing act between prudence and pleasure with a theory of the composition of mixtures from limit and limitedness. The latter aspect of the dialogue is used by the Neoplatonic philosopher Proclus as a basis for his own metaphysical analysis of the ultimate first principle, the One, and the manner in which it produces all things which exist. Multiple scholarly analyses have been provided of Proclus’ use of the Phileban (...) theory of limit and the unlimited for his description of the first principle’s creation process. However, this paper shows that Proclus reads the Philebus not merely for its discussion of limit and unlimited, but also for its description of the good life. After all, the Neoplatonic One is also the Good from Plato’s Republic. In Phil. 20d1–11, Socrates suggest that the good is perfect, sufficient, and desirable. Proclus’ Commentary on the Republic and Platonic Theology reveal that these three aspects of the good provide Proclus with a framework to describe the Neoplatonic first principle qua Good. In Proclus’ view, the three Phileban concepts constitute the base elements of the good which reappear in all of its manifestations, and thus link the good in us to the transcendent and unqualified Good: the desirable element represents the good’s singularity and its position as the centre around which all beings circle; the sufficient element represents the non-reciprocal bestowal of existence and generative power by any form of the good upon its participants; lastly, the perfect element reverts all creatures to the good in which they participate, even when not all genera of beings in the Neoplatonic universe are equally capable of such participation. Furthermore, Proclus uses the description of the good life as not merely intellectual from the Philebus to fortify his arguments in disagreements with other Neoplatonic commentators regarding the transcendence of the Good over the intelligible principles, and conversely employs the Neoplatonic definition of the first principle to affirm the ethics of the Platonic dialogue. Thus, although Proclus’ primary goal in reading the Philebus is to obtain knowledge of the ultimate first principle, Socrates’ analysis of the virtuous life in the dialogue is just as important for his purposes as the theory of mixtures. (shrink)
