Attikos

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attikos was an ancient Greek philosopher in the tradition of Platonism . He lived in the second half of the 2nd century. His lifetime fell in the epoch of Middle Platonism , of which he was one of the most famous representatives.

From the only fragmentary surviving writings of Attikos it can be seen that he was conservatively minded and wanted to purify the original pure teaching of Plato , of whose correctness he was convinced, of falsifications. In particular, he turned against the intrusion of elements of Aristotelianism . As an interpreter of Plato, Attikos thought philologically and advocated a literal, not metaphorical interpretation of the school founder's doctrine of creation. This led to the assumption that the world began in time. With this and also with his understanding of the Creator God and the doctrine of ideas as well as his anti-Aristotelian attitude, Attikos took a decidedly opposite position to views that later belonged to the core of the ideas of late ancient Neoplatonism .

Life

Nothing is known about the origin of the Attikos, very little about its life. In the late antique Chronicle of Eusebios of Caesarea , which Jerome translated into Latin , his philosophical activity is mentioned in a brief entry for the year 176. Since 176 was the year in which the Emperor Marcus Aurelius established four chairs of philosophy in Athens , the year may indicate a connection with this measure; perhaps Attikos was the first to hold the chair in Platonic philosophy. Harpokration von Argos was one of his disciples .

Works

Only fragments of the works of Attikos have survived , which Eusebius of Caesarea in particular has handed down in his Praeparatio evangelica . However, some of them are extensive and give a detailed impression of his positions. Most of the fragments come from Attikos' commentary on Plato's dialogue Timaeus ; the longest, which take up by far the most space in the critical edition, are taken from his treatise Against Those Who Want to Explain Plato's Teachings through Aristotle's . He also wrote a commentary on Plato's dialogue Phaedrus . It is uncertain whether he also commented on Plato's Phaedo and wrote a treatise on the soul (or on the world soul ). Improbable is the hypothesis that he and the categories of Aristotle commented. As a commentator, Attikos was first and foremost a conscientious philologist ; he adhered strictly to the wording of the commented text instead of starting from his own philosophical speculations.

Teaching

Criticism of Aristotelianism

A concern of Attikos, to which he attaches great importance, is a clear demarcation between Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy. He emphatically opposes attempts to construct a harmony between Plato and Aristotle and to interpret Plato's works with the help of Aristotelian teachings. He considers Aristotle's approaches to be wrong. He thinks that this thinker systematically created his philosophy as a counter-concept to Platonism. A reproach that he directs against Aristotle is that he has violated the rules of the observation of nature, because he has disregarded the principle that the observer of nature does not have to make laws, but should research the laws given by nature. The Aristotelian doctrine of the heavenly bodies contradicts the observable phenomena and thus does not fulfill the task of explaining the phenomena.

Theology and ontology

Attikos regards the demiurge (world creator) of Timaeus as the highest god. Ontologically he sees it as the supreme principle; he identifies it with the Platonic idea of the good , the good in itself, which appears in Plato's Politeia as the highest deity. In doing so, he follows the conservative direction in Middle Platonism, also represented by albinos , and contradicts the view of the prominent Middle Platonist Numenios . Numenios - like later the Neo-Platonists Plotinus and Proclus - understood the demiurge ontologically as a separate entity subordinate to the “good in itself”. According to the common view of the Middle Platonists, the demiurge creates the world by looking at the archetypes (ideas) of things - that is, she thinks, because his seeing is a thinking and the ideas are his thoughts. Attikos shares this view, but, unlike most Middle Platonists, does not assume that the world of ideas is in the spirit ( nous ) of the demiurge. Rather, he assigns it a separate existence outside the nous, on the level of the soul.

A characteristic of Atticus' theology is that he does not share the belief that otherwise prevailed among the ancient Platonists that the supreme deity, because of its perfection, does not necessarily know any change. The god of Attikos ponders, plans, waits, decides and turns to the things he has created in personal care. He is not just mind, but mind and soul. This philosopher's concept of God is closer to that of popular religion (and Christianity) than the conventional theology of the Platonists. It is a counter-model to the teachings of Aristotle and Epicurus , which Attikos opposed, and which do not postulate any divine providence that cares about individual fates. Providence is one of the doctrines that Attikos vigorously defends.

Creation doctrine

In the controversial question of whether the world creation account in Plato's Timaeus is to be understood in the sense of a temporal beginning of the world, Attikos advocates the temporal beginning. In accordance with his general philological way of thinking, he gives preference to a literal understanding of the text. With this interpretation he turns against the position of numerous Platonists, according to which, for philosophical reasons, the cosmos must be beginningless and therefore Plato's statements about creation are to be understood metaphorically . According to the metaphorical interpretation, Plato does not mean an act of creation at a certain point in time, but only wants to vividly express a timeless dependence of the eternal world on the equally eternal deity. Attikos, however, is of the opinion that according to Plato's teaching there was a time before the Demiurge created the world and preserved it in being. In this he sees no contradiction to his conviction that the being of the demiurge consists in producing. Namely, he thinks that the demiurge, before he created the world as an image, already produced and preserved its archetype (paradigm). As the permanent cause of the archetypal world of ideas, the demiurge was never inactive, which would be incompatible with his nature. Attikos does not ascribe to the archetype any forces of its own that were involved in creating the world; for him it has the function of a world plan of the demiurge and does not belong to the realm of the uncreated. Despite this relatively low classification of the world of ideas for a Platonist, he sees in it more than just the means to the end of the creation of the cosmos; it has its value in itself.

According to the wording of Plato's Timaeus , to which Attikos adheres, the Creator found, when he created the world, the already existing matter, which was in disorderly movement (chaos). Accordingly, matter was not part of creation. Therefore Attikos, who accepts a unique act of creating the cosmos, assumes an uncreated matter ( hyle ) independent of the demiurge . He is thus committed to a dualistic model: God and matter exist independently of one another and originally have nothing to do with one another.

Since the primordial matter in this model was already in motion before the world came into being, the question of the cause of this motion arises. Attikos, who traces every movement back to a soul as its originator, assigns a soul to matter. So he regards matter as animate ( hylozoism ). Since the movement of pre-cosmic matter according to the Timaeus was chaotic, no naturally perfect soul can be considered as the cause of this movement for Attikos, because a perfect or good soul could only produce order. From this Attikos concludes that the soul of the primordial matter itself must have been disordered and therefore “bad” (kakḗ) . For him, together with the matter that it animates, it is the cause of the bad in the world. Attikos uses the technical term "malevolent soul" (kakergétis psychḗ), which is characteristic of his teaching . It was only through the act of creation of the demiurge that the evil soul of matter received a divine attachment. This gave her a share in the world of ideas and the nous and assumed reason. Since then, she has been performing orderly movements. In this way the originally evil soul of matter has become the good (even if not entirely perfect) world soul . In the process, however, the "evil soul" was not completely transformed, but it persists as a bad part of the soul in the cosmos and continues to develop its effects to a limited extent. The inherent badness of matter is not eliminated by the change of its soul, but it is limited; it only affects the area between the moon and the earth (thought of as the center of the world). This area is the only part of the cosmos in which, according to Plato's teaching, evils occur.

The idea that the world soul owes its reason and goodness to the creative deity, Attikos shares in principle with other Platonists. But since he understands creation in terms of time, he assumes, in contrast to those who interpret it metaphorically, a real period in the past in which there was no good world soul, but only the bad soul of matter. Thus for him the world soul belongs to the created things, it does not exist independently of time.

In contrast to the thinkers who regard the cosmos as beginningless and Plato's account of creation as metaphorical, Attikos feels compelled to grapple with the paradox of a temporal origin of time. According to the Timaeus , time coincided with the cosmos. Attikos solves this problem by assuming two types of time: a pre-cosmic disordered time and the familiar orderly one that has only existed since the act of creation. He believes that the time of the act of creation was not chosen arbitrarily, but that the Creator observed the changes in the chaos until it reached a state suitable for the creation of the world.

With his doctrine of creation, Attikos also combats the Aristotelian view that everything that has become must inevitably perish. He assumes a beginning of the world, but not an end of the world. As something that has arisen and is changeable, the world is actually transitory by its nature, but the will of the demiurge prevents its dissolution. The creator must have the ability to save his creation from perishing. Otherwise the divine will would be weak and imperfect and thus ungodly. It would be subordinate to the natural law, which determines the transience of what has become, and subordinate to it as a cause. That would contradict the hierarchical character of the world order.

Soul teaching

Attikos emphatically defends the Platonic doctrine of the immortality of the soul against Aristotle. He accuses Aristotle of representing a conception of the soul which amounts to denying not only the activities of the soul but also its substance character and separating them from the spirit (nous); with that he makes the soul superfluous.

Attikos teaches that the human immortal rational soul (logikḗ psychḗ) is to be understood as the union of a divine and an unreasonable soul. He regards the unreasonable soul as the substratum, the divine as the ordering principle and as the carrier of the nous. He also adopts a senseless , transitory principle of life (álogos zōḗ) . He identifies this principle with the mortal aspects of the soul in the Timaeus , which are the source of passionate desire. From his point of view, it is not a real part of the soul, but only a temporary addition that the soul receives for the duration of its stay in the body. This addition comes from the “malevolent” soul of matter and returns to it when the person dies. For the embryo , Attikos apparently assumes vitalization and formation solely through the unreasonable principle of life; for him the embryo is not yet a human being, but only later becomes one when the rational soul comes in from outside.

The world soul arranges and pervades everything, because only when a single animated force connects and holds everything together can the universe be managed sensibly and beautifully.

ethics

In ethics, Attikos' rejection of Aristotelianism is particularly sharp. He defends the Platonic doctrine, according to which virtue alone is sufficient to achieve eudaimonia , against the view of the Aristotelians. The Aristotelian doctrine states that physical and external goods are also required for eudaimonia. It is therefore necessary that the virtuous person striving for eudaimonia should be additionally favored by advantageous external circumstances, otherwise eudaimonia is beyond his reach. Attikos polemicizes against the thesis that human happiness also depends on noble origins, physical beauty and wealth. In this he sees a low and misguided thinking.

logic

In logic , Attikos criticizes Aristotle's doctrine of homonyms . He tries to show that Aristotle's definitions lead to the absurd conclusion that all homonyms must be synonyms .

reception

Antiquity

The impact of Attikos' philosophy was considerable and lasting. With his cosmology and theory of the soul he influenced a famous contemporary, the doctor Galen , who, however, rejected his view on the formation of the embryo. The prominent Peripatetic Alexander von Aphrodisias dealt with Attikus' criticism of Aristotle. In the 3rd century, the Platonist Longinos was influenced by the metaphysics of Atticus.

In the Neo-Platonic school, which Plotinus founded in Rome in the 3rd century, Attikus' commentaries on Plato were part of the curriculum. Plotin's pupil Porphyrios and his pupil and adversary Iamblichus made extensive use of the Timaeus commentary. Other Neoplatonists such as Proklos , Syrianos , Damascios and Simplikios also expressed themselves - often critically - on the teachings of Attikos. At least in part, they did not rely on his original writings, but on the works of Porphyrios and Iamblichus. Proclus dealt intensively with the views of the Middle Platonist. He emphasized - ironically, probably - Attikos' extraordinary diligence. Hierocles probably had Atticos in particular in mind when he attacked philosophers who represented Plato and Aristotle as representatives of opposing positions. In Neoplatonic circles the polemic against Aristotle was displeasing; Even Plotin's teacher Ammonios Sakkas tried in the 3rd century to show a harmony between Plato and Aristotle. Also the opinion of the Attikos that the ideas were outside the nous and his idea of ​​the demiurge were wrong from the point of view of the Neoplatonists. His doctrine of the temporal origin of the world and of a time before the beginning of the world appeared to them to be absurd.

Attikos also received a lot of attention from Christians, since his conception of God is relatively compatible with the Christian one and his interpretation of Plato's account of creation suits the Christian doctrine of creation. Christian authors who mention or quote him include Eusebios of Caesarea , Theodoret , John Philoponos and Aeneas of Gaza . The late antique theologian Arius (Areios), after whom Arianism is named, shows parallels in his theological thinking with the ideas of Attikos, but there is no concrete evidence of a direct influence.

Modern

In modern research it is critically noted that Attikos' argument with Aristotelianism was shaped by his polemical intent and that he often painted a superficial and distorted picture of Aristotelian philosophy. It is also criticized that Attikos did not do justice to his own concern to present the authentic philosophy of Plato, because he was guilty of an “inadmissible simplification” of Platonic ontology. On the other hand, the fact that he succeeded in designing a system that was able to compete with the alternative models common at the time in terms of its coherence and that deserves attention from today's perspective is also recognized.

Text editions and translations

  • Édouard des Places (Ed.): Atticus: Fragments . Les Belles Lettres, Paris 1977 (critical edition of the Greek texts with French translation)
  • Olof Gigon (ed.): Attikos, On the contrast between Plato and Aristotle . In: Olof Gigon (ed.): Aristoteles: introductory writings . Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, Munich 1982, ISBN 3-423-06117-0 , pp. 293–321 (only German translation)

literature

Remarks

  1. ^ Irmgard Männlein-Robert: Attikos. In: Christoph Riedweg et al. (Hrsg.): Philosophy of the Imperial Era and Late Antiquity (= Outline of the History of Philosophy. The Philosophy of Antiquity. Volume 5/1), Basel 2018, pp. 594–601, here: 594 f.
  2. ^ Franco Ferrari: Harpokration von Argos. In: Christoph Riedweg et al. (Ed.): Philosophy of the Imperial Era and Late Antiquity (= Outline of the History of Philosophy. The Philosophy of Antiquity. Volume 5/1), Basel 2018, pp. 601–604, here: 601.
  3. ↑ The fragments from the Praeparatio evangelica are compiled in the edition by Édouard des Places: Atticus: Fragments , Paris 1977, pp. 38–69.
  4. ↑ George E. Karamanolis: Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? , Oxford 2006, pp. 151f. doubts that the traditionally accepted title of the latter work is the authentic one.
  5. ↑ George E. Karamanolis: Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? , Oxford 2006, pp. 177f.
  6. ^ Matthias Baltes: On the philosophy of the Platonist Attikos . In: Horst-Dieter Blume, Friedhelm Mann (ed.): Platonism and Christianity , Münster 1983, pp. 38–57, here: 39; Irmgard Männlein-Robert: Attikos. In: Christoph Riedweg et al. (Ed.): Philosophy of the Imperial Era and Late Antiquity (= Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of antiquity. Volume 5/1), Basel 2018, pp. 594–601, here: 595f.
  7. ↑ George E. Karamanolis: Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? , Oxford 2006, pp. 158-190; for the details see Paul Moraux : Der Aristotelismus bei den Greeks , Vol. 2, Berlin 1984, pp. 564-582.
  8. ↑ Charlotte Köckert: Christian cosmology and imperial philosophy , Tübingen 2009, p. 55f. and note 20.
  9. ^ Matthias Baltes: On the philosophy of the Platonist Attikos . In: Horst-Dieter Blume, Friedhelm Mann (ed.): Platonism and Christianity , Münster 1983, pp. 38–57, here: 39–41.
  10. ^ Matthias Baltes: On the philosophy of the Platonist Attikos . In: Horst-Dieter Blume, Friedhelm Mann (ed.): Platonism and Christianity , Münster 1983, pp. 38–57, here: 41f., 50f .; Jan Hendrik Waszink : Comments on the influence of Platonism in early Christianity . In: Vigiliae Christianae 19, 1965, pp. 129–162, here: 139.
  11. ↑ Alexandra Michalewski: La puissance de l'intelligible , Leuven 2014, pp. 85f .; Matthias Baltes: On the philosophy of the Platonist Attikos . In: Horst-Dieter Blume, Friedhelm Mann (ed.): Platonism and Christianity , Münster 1983, pp. 38–57, here: 47.
  12. ↑ Attikos, fragment 3. Cf. Claudio Moreschini: Attico: una figura singolare del medioplatonismo . In: Rise and Fall of the Roman World , Vol. II 36.1, Berlin 1987, pp. 477–491, here: 482f.
  13. ^ Matthias Baltes: On the philosophy of the Platonist Attikos . In: Horst-Dieter Blume, Friedhelm Mann (ed.): Platonism and Christianity , Münster 1983, pp. 38–57, here: 43, 46f .; Alexandra Michalewski: La puissance de l'intelligible , Leuven 2014, pp. 81–84.
  14. ^ Irmgard Männlein-Robert: Attikos. In: Christoph Riedweg et al. (Ed.): Philosophy of the Imperial Era and Late Antiquity (= Outline of the History of Philosophy. The Philosophy of Antiquity. Volume 5/1), Basel 2018, pp. 594–601, here: 597 f .; Matthias Baltes: On the philosophy of the Platonist Attikos . In: Horst-Dieter Blume, Friedhelm Mann (ed.): Platonism and Christianity , Münster 1983, pp. 38–57, here: 44.
  15. ^ Matthias Baltes: On the philosophy of the Platonist Attikos . In: Horst-Dieter Blume, Friedhelm Mann (ed.): Platonism and Christianity , Münster 1983, pp. 38–57, here: 44f., 47.
  16. ^ Matthias Baltes: On the philosophy of the Platonist Attikos . In: Horst-Dieter Blume, Friedhelm Mann (ed.): Platonism and Christianity , Münster 1983, pp. 38–57, here: 44–50.
  17. ^ Matthias Baltes: On the philosophy of the Platonist Attikos . In: Horst-Dieter Blume, Friedhelm Mann (ed.): Platonism and Christianity , Münster 1983, pp. 38–57, here: 47–51.
  18. ^ Matthias Baltes: On the philosophy of the Platonist Attikos . In: Horst-Dieter Blume, Friedhelm Mann (ed.): Platonism and Christianity , Münster 1983, pp. 38–57, here: 45f.
  19. ↑ Attikos, fragment 4. See Charlotte Köckert: Christliche Kosmologie und Kaiserzeitliche Philosophie , Tübingen 2009, pp. 60–62.
  20. ↑ See Heinrich Dörrie, Matthias Baltes: Der Platonismus in der Antike , Volume 6.1, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 2002, pp. 170–179.
  21. ↑ On the irrational principle of life and on the embryology of Attikos see Matthias Baltes: On the philosophy of the Platonist Attikos . In: Horst-Dieter Blume, Friedhelm Mann (ed.): Platonism and Christianity , Münster 1983, pp. 38–57, here: 53–56.
  22. ^ Paul Moraux: Aristotelianism among the Greeks , Vol. 2, Berlin 1984, pp. 45, 577-579.
  23. ↑ Attikos, fragment 2. Cf. Claudio Moreschini: Attico: una figura singolare del medioplatonismo . In: Rise and Fall of the Roman World , Vol. II 36.1, Berlin 1987, pp. 477–491, here: 480–482; John Dillon: The Middle Platonists , London 1977, pp. 251f.
  24. ^ Paul Moraux: Aristotelianism among the Greeks , Vol. 2, Berlin 1984, pp. 535 f .; Irmgard Männlein-Robert: Attikos. In: Christoph Riedweg et al. (Ed.): Philosophy of the Imperial Era and Late Antiquity (= Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of antiquity. Volume 5/1), Basel 2018, pp. 594–601, here: 599 f.
  25. ^ Matthias Baltes: The world emergence of the Platonic Timaeus according to the ancient interpreters , Part 1, Leiden 1976, pp. 63–65; Matthias Baltes: On the philosophy of the Platonist Attikos . In: Horst-Dieter Blume, Friedhelm Mann (ed.): Platonism and Christianity , Münster 1983, pp. 38–57, here: 55.
  26. ↑ Charlotte Köckert: Christian cosmology and imperial philosophy , Tübingen 2009, pp. 68–71; George E. Karamanolis: Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? , Oxford 2006, p. 156.
  27. ^ Matthias Baltes: On the philosophy of the Platonist Attikos . In: Horst-Dieter Blume, Friedhelm Mann (ed.): Platonism and Christianity , Münster 1983, pp. 38–57, here: p. 42 note 21.
  28. ^ On the Neo-Platonic Reception of Attikos see John Dillon: The Middle Platonists , London 1977, pp. 254–256; Édouard des Places (Ed.): Atticus: Fragments , Paris 1977, pp. 24-26; Matthias Baltes: On the philosophy of the Platonist Attikos . In: Horst-Dieter Blume, Friedhelm Mann (ed.): Platonism and Christianity , Münster 1983, pp. 38–57, here: 56f.
  29. ^ Eginhard P. Meijering: HN ΠOTE OTE OYK HN O YIOΣ. A Discussion on Time and Eternity . In: Vigiliae Christianae 28, 1974, pp. 161-168.
  30. ↑ George E. Karamanolis: Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? , Oxford 2006, p. 178; John Dillon: The Middle Platonists , London 1977, pp. 248f.
  31. ↑ Jan Hendrik Waszink: Comments on the influence of Platonism in early Christianity . In: Vigiliae Christianae 19, 1965, pp. 129–162, here: 138f.
  32. ^ Claudio Moreschini: Attico: una figura singolare del medioplatonismo . In: Rise and Fall of the Roman World , Vol. II 36.1, Berlin 1987, pp. 477–491, here: 491.
This article was added to the list of articles worth reading on March 12, 2013 in this version .
personal data
SURNAME Attikos
ALTERNATIVE NAMES Atticus
BRIEF DESCRIPTION Platonist
DATE OF BIRTH 2nd century
DATE OF DEATH 2nd century or 3rd century