In his book chapter “The ancient commentators on Aristotle” Richard Sorabji argues that beginning in the first century ancient scholars began a tradition of Aristotelian commentary and debate that resulted in several new theories and that serve as important windows into ancient and medieval philosophy. He begins by crediting Porphyry, the student of Plotinus, as the first Neo-Platonist who linked Aristotelian ideas to Platonic studies. This began a long tradition of attempting to harmonize Aristotle’s writings to other sometimes dissimilar doctrines, particularly those of Plato and Christianity.
In the Neo-Platonist tradition, the harmony between Plato and Aristotle was widely accepted. Some philosophers, such as Iamblichus in the fourth century, went as far as to say that there were no ideological contradictions between the two men’s work. By the fifth century Neo-Platonists had begun to take a more sophisticated view, accepting that while there were many common themes, there were some ideological differences though “it is a formally stated duty of the commentator to display that harmony of Plato and Aristotle in ‘most things.’”[1] The idea of harmony extended beyond Aristotle for the Neo-Platonists like Proclus and Simplicus in the 6th century who attempted to unify all ancient Greek Philosophy, from the Pre-Socratics forward. Most importantly, due to the nature of several different philosophers over a great deal of time attempting to harmonize such different theories, this period yielded a great number of different philosophical theories, each of which was a nuanced amalgam different from the originals.
The Neo-Platonist commentaries also are useful to historians as they reflect the teaching curriculum. The introductions to commentaries from Ammonius onwards explain the order in which Aristotle’s works should be studied, the qualities demanded of the commentator, and the care taken to study written works. Also, the manuscripts of commentaries teach that students were encouraged to write up the lectures and seminars of their teachers, occasionally adding “‘reflections of his own.’”[2] Sorabji also introduces concepts that will presumably be addressed later in the book calling attention to several chapters where Neo-Platonic schools are discussed in more detail.
Though the original Neo-Platonist such as Porphyry and Iamblichus were extremely critical of Christianity, Christians soon began to reconcile Aristotle to their own beliefs. While some such as Proclus and Hierocles of Alexandria were actively persecuted for their writings, others such as Ammonius made concessions with Christian leaders and were tolerated and even funded by the Church. Soon Christian Neo-Platonists such as Philoponus and Augustine began to approach Aristotelian philosophy. Some wrote as if they saw no difference between Neo-Platonism and Christianity and therefore penetrated Neo-Platoism deep into Christian teachings. Others wrote alternative treatises with the goal of reconciling Aristotelian beliefs to their own doctrines. In both cases, Christians continued the pagan tradition of linking Aristotle to their own beliefs.
Finally, Sorabji explains the dangers and benefits of studying ancient commentators. The greatest danger is of reading the Neo Platonist curriculum as straightforward guides to Aristotle without taking account their intended purpose. Additionally, one needs to take into account which Aristotelian and Pre-Socratic texts were even selected for review which also reflect the Neo-Platonist bias. However, despite their leanings, Aristotelian commentaries are excellent guides to Aristotle as they study hundreds of phrases in great depth that could otherwise be overlooked.
No comments:
Post a Comment