WHY SHOULD WE PREFER PLATO's TIMAEUS TO ARISTOTLE's PHYSICS? PROCLUs' CRITIQUE OF ARISTOTLE's CAUSAL EXPLANATION OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD

Steel, Carlos

doi:10.1111/j.2041-5370.2003.tb02141.x

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…80 I remain most grateful to the anonymous referee who pressed me to address this issue. 81 This is a reference to Generation of Animals 3.11, 762a18-21, as is correctly identified by Steel (2009) 266. It is remarkable that neither Festugière nor Baltzly identified the proper reference in their translations (the reference to De mundo 391b13-14 is plausible, but the Generation of Animals may be a better option, especially as Proclus doubts the authorship of De mundo; see Baltzly (2013) 232 n.556).…”

Section: Biology As a Proper Part Of Aristotle's Natural Philosophymentioning

confidence: 96%

Neoplatonists on the place of Aristotle’s biological works

2022

J. Hell. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the Neoplatonic classification of Aristotle’s writings, it has often been claimed that his biological works were excluded from his physical writings, and do not form a part of Neoplatonic school curricula. In this paper, I shall challenge this view, arguing that there are reasonable indications that the Neoplatonists regarded most of Aristotle’s biological works (apart from the History of Animals) as a proper part of his natural philosophy, and as works which deserved serious study.

show abstract

Section: Biology As a Proper Part Of Aristotle's Natural Philosophymentioning

confidence: 96%

Neoplatonists on the place of Aristotle’s biological works

2022

J. Hell. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[3][4]. For a reconstruction of the contents of this lost treatise, see Steel 2005. was well-versed in Aristotelian logic. A most important contribution to formal logic is the doctrine that posterity would call the "canons of Proclus."…”

Section: Teachings and Writings On Aristotlementioning

confidence: 99%

“…For we do have a commentary by Proclus on Plato's Timaeus, in which he embarks on a discussion about the merits of both Plato's and Aristotle's philosophy of nature. In addition, Proclus wrote a now-lost treatise called Examination of Aristotle's Objections against the Timaeus, which consisted of a survey of the main criticisms that Aristotle had directed against the Timaeus, particularly in the Physics, On the Soul, and On the Heavens, with extensive refutations of them by Proclus (see Steel 2005). There is no equivalent work extant for Syrianus, but it is beyond doubt that he was one of the main sources of Proclus and his take on Aristotle's natural philosophy must have been very similar.…”

Section: Natural Philosophymentioning

confidence: 99%

Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity

Falcon¹

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The overall study program was reflected in the view that some authors took according to which Aristotle and Plato are in fundamental agreement but the former is inferior to the latter 24 . However, the Athenians, Syrianus and, even more so, Proclus took a markedly different line: they criticised Aristotle for not agreeing with Plato (see, e.g., Steel 2003; 2005). 25 The study program also functioned as an initiation to mysteries, Aristotle’s works being considered ‘the lesser mysteries’ and Plato’s ‘the greater mysteries’, and the initiate was not allowed to proceed in too long steps or “leap over the threshold” (Marinus, Life of Proclus 13.69).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Philosophy of the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle

Tuominen

2012

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From the first century BCE onwards, philosophers started to write commentaries on those Aristotle’s treatises that were meant for the internal use of his school. Plato’s works had been commented on already earlier, the first reported commentary originates in the 300s BCE. Commentaries are treatises that follow an object text in a more or less linear fashion. The format was not unknown before the first century BCE but new in extensive philosophical use. This review essay focuses on authors who commented on Aristotle’s works. The commentaries emerged when Platonists and Aristotelians observed the need to teach the philosophy of these ancient masters to their students and to systematise their philosophy to respond to rival schools. In the late ancient schools, Plato and Aristotle were considered great thinkers, whose views needed to be studied carefully when considering any matter at hand. Many also argued that, despite the initial appearance to the contrary, there is no deep disagreement between Plato and Aristotle but, rather, a division of labour; Aristotle is dominant in natural philosophy and Plato in theology. However, this harmony thesis was not universally accepted. Despite their respect for Plato and Aristotle, the commentators were not mere followers of these authors. They developed, criticised and transformed the doctrines in significant ways, not only by suggesting different answers to the same questions but also by transforming the questions themselves.

show abstract

WHY SHOULD WE PREFER PLATO's TIMAEUS TO ARISTOTLE's PHYSICS? PROCLUs' CRITIQUE OF ARISTOTLE's CAUSAL EXPLANATION OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Neoplatonists on the place of Aristotle’s biological works

Neoplatonists on the place of Aristotle’s biological works

Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity

Philosophy of the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About