Que fait et qui est le démiurge dans le Timée  ?

Karfík, Filip

doi:10.4000/etudesplatoniciennes.907

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…See Brisson 1998, 32-36, 53, 70. 97 Yet another representative of this view is Karfik (2007), who holds the Demiurge to be a thinking and acting divine Intellect. 98 Broadie 2012, 7, 13, 17-24.…”

Section: What Plato Really Thought: a Modest Proposalmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Demiurge and His Place in Plato’s Metaphysics and Cosmology

Ilievski

2022

Time and Cosmology in Plato and the Platonic Tradition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Close to the beginning of his grand speech, Plato's Timaeus makes the following declaration: "To find the maker and father of this universe is a difficult task, and even once found, it's impossible to declare him to all" (Timaeus 28c3-5). This is certainly not meant to be taken as a hyperbole, for the inquiry into the cause of creation must indeed be an arduous and unpredictable one. Now, the Timaean maker and father1 was made famous under another appellation, one much less straightforward and much more perplexing than the former twoho dēmiourgos. It turns out that pinpointing the Demiurge's status within Plato's metaphysics is a task almost as difficult as pursuing the contemplative effort needed to attain to poiētēn kai patera himself. In fact, this seems to be the only indubitable thing regarding the Demiurge, as demonstrated by both the ancient divergence of opinions and the contemporary debates.My purpose in this chapter is not to settle the differences over the ontology and the cosmogonical role of Plato's creator-god, for that could be too ambitious a task. Instead, I pursue a more modest aim, which is to offer a further contribution toward the resolution of this long-standing dispute by considering and combining certain aspects of my predecessors' views, perhaps adding a distinct flavor to the mixture. In short, my intention is to argue that the Timaean divine craftsman stands for a transcendent Intellect, which is not only a productive cause,2 but also the highest god and the ultimate creative 1 The latter is the only "biological" metaphor applied to the Demiurge. For some Middle Platonic interpretations of Plato's intentions behind this double predication, see Voerwerk 2010, 79-94. 2 Throughout this chapter, I shall use "cause" to express the Greek notion of aitia/ aition, instead of the alternative "explanation", "reason", etc. This is for two reasons: a) it is neither wrong nor outlandish to render aitia/ aition with "cause", and the instances in the scholarly literature that demonstrate this are too numerous to mention; b) unless specified otherwise, it is employed here in the sense of an active force or agent that brings about or produces something, which is close to the modern idea of cause. For the interrelatedness of the notions of explanation, reason, cause, and some peculiarities regarding the last one, see Hankinson 2001, 4-5.

show abstract

Section: What Plato Really Thought: a Modest Proposalmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Demiurge and His Place in Plato’s Metaphysics and Cosmology

Ilievski

2022

Time and Cosmology in Plato and the Platonic Tradition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Why Is the World Soul Composed of Being, Sameness and Difference?

Pitteloud

2019

Philosophical Studies Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Les stoïciens et Platon – monistes ou dualistes ?

Mikeš

2020

Archiv Für Geschichte Der Philosophie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Stoics’ way of presenting principles – the active and the passive – is ambiguous because they say that principles are two while also suggesting that they are inseparable and thus interdependent. This ambiguity cannot be resolved in favour of one or the other side of the dilemma, as is shown by analysis of two possible models of the relations among principles – a causal and a categories-based model. This ambiguity is rather a necessary consequence of the Stoic view of principles and should be compared to the ambiguity of Plato’s concept of “principles” in the Timaeus. Plato’s Receptacle is in a similar relation to other constitutive elements of his cosmogonical account as are the two Stoic principles, each to the other. In particular, the relation between the Receptacle and qualities in it is to be seen as a systematic parallel to the relation of the Stoic principles (and probably also its historical model). The concluding claim is that Plato and the Stoics advance a similar kind of dualism which should be called such, despite its ambiguity. The ambiguity in both systems is due to the need to see the principles in such a relation as would reveal their dependence, and thus secure the basic unity of the cosmos.

show abstract

Que fait et qui est le démiurge dans le Timée  ?

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

The Demiurge and His Place in Plato’s Metaphysics and Cosmology

The Demiurge and His Place in Plato’s Metaphysics and Cosmology

Why Is the World Soul Composed of Being, Sameness and Difference?

Les stoïciens et Platon – monistes ou dualistes ?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Que fait et qui est le démiurge dans le Timée ?

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

The Demiurge and His Place in Plato’s Metaphysics and Cosmology

The Demiurge and His Place in Plato’s Metaphysics and Cosmology

Why Is the World Soul Composed of Being, Sameness and Difference?

Les stoïciens et Platon – monistes ou dualistes ?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Que fait et qui est le démiurge dans le Timée  ?