Alcinous (philosopher)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The beginning of Didaskalikos des Alcinous in the oldest manuscript, Paris, French National Library , Gr. 1962, fol. 147r (9th century)

Alkinoos ( Greek  Ἀλκίνοος ALKINOOS ) was an ancient Greek philosopher . Presumably he lived in the 2nd century. He is one of the best-known representatives of Middle Platonism , the prevailing trend in Platonism at the time . Since relatively little of the works of the Middle Platonists has survived, Alcinous ' textbook of the principles of Plato ( Didaskalikós tōn Plátōnos dogmátōn , briefly Didaskalikos ) is one of the most important sources for the Middle Platonic understanding of the legacy of the school's founder. The work, a summarizing and systematic presentation of the Platonic philosophy, provides insights into the thinking of the Platonists of the Roman Empire before the emergence of Neoplatonism in the 3rd century. In the case of controversial issues, the Didaskalikos usually does not offer any decisions by the author, but only reports on different doctrinal opinions.

The question of the identity of Alcinous has long been controversial. Of the various proposals discussed in the research literature to identify him with other attested philosophers, none have prevailed so far.

Life and the question of identity

Nothing is known about the life of Alcinous. He is mentioned as an author in the manuscripts of Didaskalikos ; only from the presumed date of origin of this work can one infer that its activity probably falls into the 2nd century. However, it cannot be ruled out that the Didaskalikos originated in the 1st or 3rd century.

Since there is no other information about Alcinous, Jacob Freudenthal suggested in 1879 that he be identified with Albinos , a well-known Middle Platonist of the 2nd century. Freudenthal said that the handwritten name Alcinous was a typographical error, and that the original text contained "Albinos". He underpinned this hypothesis with references to content-related similarities between Didaskalikos and the writing Introduction to Plato's Dialogues, which was surely from albinos . The identification of Alcinous and Albinos soon caught on; it remained the prevailing doctrinal opinion until the second half of the 20th century. It was not until the 1960s that Michelangelo Giusta and John Whittaker showed in a series of studies that equating the two thinkers is erroneous; this knowledge has prevailed in the period that followed.

In addition, research has suggested identifying the author of Didaskalikos with two philosophers of the same name about whom very little is known:

  • In the biographies of the Sophists , written by the Sophist Philostratus , "Alcinous the Stoic" is mentioned. In research, the hypothesis is being considered that this otherwise unknown philosopher is to be equated with the author of Didaskalikos .
  • The Byzantine scholar Photios reports that in a treatise on the universe an author by the name of “Josepos” combated the teachings of an “Alkinous”, apparently a Platonist, about soul and matter . It is unclear whether this Platonist is the author of Didaskalikos . In any case, the criticism of “Josepos”, a Christian, of whose work only fragments have survived, does not seem to refer to Didaskalikos . According to a widespread research opinion, "Josepos" can be identified with Hippolytus of Rome .

A new, speculative variant of the equation hypotheses was proposed by Harold Tarrant in 1985. He thinks that the Platonist Albinos, whose name was of Latin origin (Albinus), wanted to emphasize his belonging to Greek culture and his commitment to a Greek philosophical tradition by changing his name at a later stage in his life. Therefore he decided to call himself Alcinous from now on. Didaskalikos came from this second phase of life . This philosopher Albinos / Alkinous is also the Alkinous mentioned by Philostratos and referred to as the Stoic.

Didaskalikos

The work of Alcinous is entitled Textbook of the Principles of Plato (Didaskalikós tōn Plátōnos dogmátōn) ; the also handwritten title Excerpt from the teachings of Plato (Epitomḗ tōn Plátōnos dogmátōn) is probably not authentic. The Didaskalikos is possibly a short version of a lost, more extensive work. It offers an introductory systematic presentation of Platonism, which is strongly influenced by Aristotelian and in places also by Stoic ideas, but in which - especially in ethics - there is a polemic against Stoic positions. Alcinous does not see a contradiction between Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy; he does not want to mix systems, but rather to use non-Platonic literature to serve his explanation of Platonism. Its target audience is not philosophical laypeople, but rather readers with considerable prior knowledge.

swell

Alkinous apparently processed a large number of unknown sources. In Didaskalikos there are a number of parallels to Apuleius' treatise On Plato and his Doctrine (De Platone et eius dogmate) and at the beginning of the 12th chapter there is a longer passage that corresponds almost literally to a fragment from a work by the philosopher Areios Didymos . Whether Alcinous used the work of Areios Didymos or whether the relationship between the two scriptures can be explained differently is controversial. A direct relationship of dependency between Didaskalikos and the writing of Apuleius cannot be assumed.

construction

The introduction (Chapters 1–3) deals with the meaning of the terms philosophy and philosopher , the intellectual and character prerequisites for philosophizing, the different ways of life and the division of philosophy into sub-areas.

The first main part (Chapters 4–6) covers the presentation of the dialectic including the epistemology that is part of it . It is about thinking and reason, about judgment and opinion, memory and imagination, about insight (noēsis) and its objects, about sensory perception and the types of its objects as well as logic , which according to Aristotle , but with reference to Plato's works is depicted; Plato appears as their real originator.

The second main part (Chapters 7-26) deals with the “theoretical”. There the philosophical relevance of mathematics, astronomy and music theory is discussed first, then principles and theology are dealt with , whereby matter , Platonic ideas , the “first god” and qualities are dealt with. This is followed by natural philosophy ( cosmology ), anthropology and, in Chapter 26, a consideration of the relationship between necessity and free will .

The third main part (chapters 27–35) is devoted to “practical” philosophy. Here Alcinous first discusses ethics ( doctrine of goods and eudaimonia , alignment with God as the goal of life, virtue and wickedness, affects , friendship and love). Then he turns to the forms of government. Finally, he defines the sophist by distinguishing him from the philosopher.

content

Tasks and goals of the philosopher

Alcinous states that there are two ways of life, the contemplative ( bíos theōrētikós ) and the active ( bíos practikós ) . The goal of the contemplative life is the knowledge of the truth, while in the active life it is a matter of doing what is commanded by reason. Consideration as the basis of philosophical life deserves priority, but activity is also necessary. With the activity, what has been recognized in philosophical consideration is practiced in life. The philosopher turns to community activity when he realizes that public affairs are in bad hands. For him, legislation and the education of young people are the most important fields of activity. In turning to an active way of life, he must by no means neglect contemplation; it is rather to be practiced incessantly.

Alcinous thinks that the approximation of man to God striven for in Platonism “as far as this is possible” relates to the immanent deity located in heaven (epouránios theós) and not to the transcendent, “supernatural God” (hyperouránios theós) . He justifies this by saying that the approximation is done by practicing virtue; but the heavenly God has no virtue because he is “better than this”.

For Alcinous, ethical perfection plays a central role on the path to the deification of philosophizing people; he is convinced that it cannot be replaced by mere contemplation . As a philosopher, one strives to achieve and maintain eudaimonia, a balanced state of mind, and to lead a successful life thanks to this achievement. In modern terminology, the difficult-to-translate term eudaimonia is often imprecisely portrayed as luck or bliss . According to the rigorous ethical concept of Alcinous, this goal is realized exclusively through the acquisition of spiritual goods, the virtues. External, material goods such as health, physical beauty, strength and wealth are irrelevant for a successful lifestyle from a philosophical point of view, they do not contribute to eudaimonia. These “human” or “mortal” goods are usually called “good”, but for Alcinous they are not good in and of themselves, but only insofar as they are used according to virtue. Thus, because of their natural constitution, they do not share in divine good, but their participation in good is imparted to them through virtue. If this mediation is not carried out, they can be badly used, and then they are not goods but become evils.

Dialectics and Epistemology

For Alcinous, the objects of insight are the intelligible things. With them he differentiates between the transcendent ideas and the immanent forms that are inseparable from matter. According to his presentation, the ideas or primary intelligible things are grasped and assessed in an intuitive , non-discursive cognitive process by an encompassing conception (perilēpsis) , but with the scientific consideration (epistēmonikós lógos) involved; the forms or secondary intelligible things are the subject of scientific reflection with the involvement of intuitive discernment. Alcinous regards sensually perceptible things as aggregates; he thinks they are nothing more than combinations of their various properties ( bundle theory ).

Alcinous distinguishes three types of analysis . He understands analysis to be a process with which to find out what a certain object of investigation is by proceeding “from the bottom” upwards, that is to say “climbing”. The second type of analysis is particularly relevant in the history of philosophy, the ascent “through what is proven and demonstrated to the unprovable and immediate propositions”. In doing so, one takes the object of investigation, the sentence to be tested, as given and turns to what is earlier than it, that is, what logically precedes it. This is then proven by the following steps, by proceeding from the logically later to the earlier and finally arriving at the first and indisputable. Then you take the way back from there and at the end you come back to the starting point, the object of investigation.

In connection with his discussion of the immortality of the soul, Alcinous takes up an epistemological question. He criticizes the Aristotelian idea of induction as a way of gaining general knowledge by arguing against the reliability of inductive inferences. However, he gives induction a helpful role because it is "very useful for awakening the natural concepts" that are already inherent in the soul. Against Aristotelian epistemology, he defended the Platonic doctrine, according to which the soul acquires knowledge by remembering the ideas that were accessible to it before it entered the body. In his opinion, the soul has no direct access to the ideas while it is in the body, as it cannot sufficiently free itself from its attachment to the sensory world. However, she is able to acquire knowledge through the memory of the ideas.

Theology, cosmology and theory of the soul

In Didaskalikos , cosmology, like anthropology, the science of man, is treated as a sub-area of ​​"physics" - that is, natural science. This also includes the theological and natural philosophical question of the divine order and control of the cosmos. For Alcinous, the task of naturalists is to find out “what the nature of the universe is, what kind of living being man is, what place he occupies in the cosmos, whether God has providence over all things, whether other gods are subordinate to him and what the relationship between men and gods is ”. The basis for this is formed by Plato's remarks in his natural-philosophical dialogue Timaeus , which Alcinous interprets. The philosopher starts from the basic assumption that the cosmos has not become what it is "out of itself"; rather, its existence and nature must have a cause.

Alcinous adopts three original principles: God, matter and idea. He regards the first, supreme god, whom he equates with Plato's idea of ​​the good , as the highest intellect ( nous ). Under the first god stands the cosmic intellect which he has produced, the intellect of the world soul . In the sense of the Aristotelian distinction between current and potential reason, this is the potential cosmic reason, which only becomes an actually thinking reason through the influence of the first God. Since this influence has no beginning or end, the cosmic intellect is eternally active. He establishes the order of nature.

Alcinous distinguishes between the transcendent first god and the ontologically subordinate creator god, the demiurge , to whom the cosmos owes its existence. The role of the demiurge falls to the cosmic intellect. Accordingly, the first god only has an indirect effect on the cosmos by activating the cosmic intellect and causing it to act creatively.

In the controversial question of how Plato's designation of the cosmos is to be interpreted as "originated", Alcinous stands on the side of those who reject an origin in time; by “originated” is meant that the cosmos is always in the making. The “everlasting” world soul was not created in a single act of creation or - as one direction in Middle Platonism assumed - was “awakened” by the Creator at a certain point in time. Rather, it is only ordered by the Creator, whereby this act of order has no beginning in time, but is an everlasting event. The ordered world soul for its part produces the world order through its intellect. The entire area below the lunar sphere, including the human habitat, was left to the administration of subordinate gods, who directed this part of the cosmos according to the will of the demiurge. Only the uppermost part of the human soul, the rational soul, is immortal; the affective parts are transitory, as are the unreasonable animal souls. With regard to the mortality of unreasonable souls or parts of souls, however, Alcinous admits that the Plato interpreters disagree. The reason an immortal soul resides in a mortal body is either because of the will of the gods, or because of the soul's self-indulgence or its affection for the body.

Alcinous distinguishes three approaches to the knowledge of God. The first is the turning away from all ideas from the realm of the sensually perceptible, the second is based on the use of analogies between the transcendent and intuitive facts, the third is the ascent from lower to ever higher ontological levels of the knowable. In the later history of philosophy, these three paths were referred to as the path of negation (Latin via negationis ), the path of analogy (via analogiae) and the path of increase or exaggeration (via eminentiae) . The turning away is like mathematicians who come from the body to the point, removing one dimension step by step. In the second way, the nature of the first god is determined on the basis of the analogy between him and the sun. The third way leads from the perception of the beauty of the sense objects to the apprehension of the beauty of what is only accessible to purely spiritual observation.

Alcinous puts forward the following argument for the existence of the gods: Since there are intelligible things that are not sensually perceptible and do not participate in the sensually perceptible, but in "first" intelligible things, there are such first, simple intelligible things in pure form as objects of thinking. Human beings, however, cannot advance to a thinking as pure as it would be appropriate for such objects, since their thinking is always filled with ideas from the world of the senses. It can therefore be assumed that there are beings who are able to really think these pure objects of thought, and actually do so. The beings to which these objects of thought are assigned are the gods. This consideration presupposes the assumption that for every thought object there is a thinking that corresponds to it.

Theory of ideas

In explaining the Platonic doctrine of ideas, Alcinous gives five definitions of an idea , which result from the various possible perspectives:

  • With regard to the first god, the idea is his own insight into reason (nóēsis) and at the same time its result, the nóēma . God thinks the ideas in the thinking of himself. As his thoughts, like himself, they are unchangeable and perfect. They are pure acts (enérgeiai) .
  • With regard to man, the idea is the first intelligible (noētón prṓton) , that is, the primary object of human rational insight , in contrast to the immanent form, which forms the secondary rational object.
  • With regard to matter, the idea is measure (métron) . Since matter in itself has no measure, it needs a measure that produces an orderly world, a cosmos, from it. Thus the idea is the measure both for the individual objects and for the comprehensive overall structure of the cosmos.
  • With regard to the visible cosmos, the idea is the model or pattern (parádeigma) according to which it is designed. In this regard, Alkinous states: “The idea is defined as an eternal model for things that are natural.” This definition of the idea is the most widespread in Platonism.
  • With regard to itself, the idea is substance ( usía ) , that is, something that is real and constant, as opposed to what is emerging, changeable and perishable.

When discussing the role model function of ideas, Alcinous points out that most Platonists are convinced that there are no ideas of the unnatural (such as diseases), of individual individuals, of the worthless (such as dirt) or of relational concepts and relationships (such as the greater or Superior). For the products of art and craftsmanship, too, no ideas can be accepted as samples. It seems that Alcinous regards such objects, such as a shield or a musical instrument, as products of the soul, since they are not natural things. For Alcinous, the exclusion of everything unnatural and inferior results from the fact that the highest deity cannot think of anything low, worthless or imperfect.

reception

Antiquity, Middle Ages and Early Modern Times

In the school of Plotinus , who founded Neoplatonism in Rome in the 3rd century, Didaskalikos was not one of the works used in the classroom, and it was also ignored by the Neoplatonists of late antiquity. The oldest surviving manuscript - the famous Codex Parisinus Graecus 1962 - dates from the second half of the 9th century.

In 1460 at the latest, the humanist Pietro Balbi made the first Latin translation of Didaskalikos ; he dedicated it to Nikolaus von Kues . In 1469 it was printed in Rome as an appendix to an Apuleius edition. This made Alcinous the first Greek-speaking author of antiquity to have a work - even if only in translation - published. The second Latin translation came from Marsilio Ficino , to whom it dedicated Cosimo de 'Medici in 1464 ; their first edition did not appear until 1497. The first edition of the Greek text was an Aldine , which was published in Venice in 1521, with Didaskalikos being an appendix to an Apuleius edition; the editor Francesco d'Asola sharply criticized Balbi's “barbaric” translation. A number of other issues followed. A Latin translation by the humanist Denis Lambin (Dionysius Lambinus) was published in Paris in 1567 . The English translation by Thomas Stanley, published in 1656, was the first translation into a modern language. In 1853 Karl Friedrich Hermann published the first critical edition in Leipzig.

In 1554 the Sevillian humanist Sebastián Fox Morcillo published a commentary on Plato's Timaeus in Basel (In Platoni's Timaeum commentarium) . Among other things, he relied on Alcinous' interpretation of Plato's philosophy. He read Alcinous, whose harmonization by Plato and Aristotle suited him, in the Greek original.

Modern antiquity

In classical studies the judgments about the philosophical achievement of the Alcinous turned out differently. Since the relationship between Didaskalikos and the lost sources it contains is difficult to assess, it is difficult to assess its originality. Contradictory statements or statements in the work that are determined from different perspectives can be related to the fact that Alcinous does not present a closed system of his own, but rather describes Platonism in the role of a reporter. Some researchers point to the partly lacking coherence or see in Alcinous a mere compiler who was insignificant as a philosopher; others grant him skills in developing the material. David Sedley considers the interpretation of Plato's epistemology presented in Didaskalikos to be a "not insignificant achievement". After the analysis of Franco Trabattoni, Alcinous developed an original version of Platonism in his confrontation with rival schools of philosophy , with which he tried to overcome the tension between the metaphysical and the scientific dimension of the Platonic worldview. Franco Ferrari believes that the work's dependence on doxographic sources is no reason "to belittle the author's philosophical qualities"; he created one of the most interesting writings of Middle Platonism.

Text editions and translations

  • John Dillon (Ed.): Alcinous: The Handbook of Platonism . Clarendon Press, Oxford 1993, ISBN 0-19-824472-X (English translation with introduction and detailed commentary)
  • John Whittaker, Pierre Louis (eds.): Alcinoos: Enseignement des doctrines de Platon . 2nd (unchanged) edition, Les Belles Lettres, Paris 2002, ISBN 2-251-00407-6 (critical edition of the Greek text with French translation and commentary)
  • Orrin F. Summerell, Thomas Zimmer (eds.): Alkinoos, Didaskalikos. Text-book of the principles of Plato . De Gruyter, Berlin 2007, ISBN 978-3-11-019451-7 (uncritical edition of the Greek text with German translation)

literature

Overview display

Investigations

  • Karin Alt : God, gods and soul with Alcinous . Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 1996, ISBN 3-515-06935-6
  • Tryggve Göransson: Albinus, Alcinous, Arius Didymus . Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, Göteborg 1995, ISBN 91-7346-282-9 , pp. 105-202
  • Charlotte Köckert : Christian cosmology and imperial philosophy. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2009, ISBN 978-3-16-149831-2 , pp. 127-174
  • David Sedley : Theoretikos Bios in Alcinous . In: Thomas Bénatouïl, Mauro Bonazzi (eds.): Theoria, Praxis and the Contemplative Life after Plato and Aristotle . Brill, Leiden 2012, ISBN 978-90-04-22532-9 , pp. 163-181

Remarks

  1. ↑ See on the dating John Whittaker: Introduction . In: John Whittaker, Pierre Louis (eds.): Alcinoos: Enseignement des doctrines de Platon . 2nd (unchanged) edition, Paris 2002, pp. VII – LXXII, here: XIIf .; John Dillon (Ed.): Alcinous: The Handbook of Platonism , Oxford 1993, pp. XIIf .; Tryggve Göransson: Albinus, Alcinous, Arius Didymus , Göteborg 1995, p. 133.
  2. ^ Jacob Freudenthal: The Platonist Albinos and the false Alcinous , Berlin 1879.
  3. ↑ The history of research is presented in Tryggve Göransson: Albinus, Alcinous, Arius Didymus , Göteborg 1995, pp. 13–23.
  4. ↑ Philostratos, Vitae sophistarum 1,24, ed. Carl Ludwig Kayser, Flavii Philostrati opera , Volume 2, Leipzig 1871, p. 40, lines 28-32.
  5. ↑ Simone Follet: Alcinoos . In: Richard Goulet (Ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques , Volume 1, Paris 1989, pp. 113f .; Harold AS Tarrant: Alcinous, Albinus, Nigrinus . In: Antichthon 19, 1985, pp. 87-95, here: 88f., 94; John Whittaker: Platonic Philosophy in the Early Centuries of the Empire . In: Rise and Decline of the Roman World , Volume 36.1, Berlin 1987, pp. 81–123, here: 98–101; Tryggve Göransson: Albinus, Alcinous, Arius Didymus , Göteborg 1995, pp. 133-135; Matthias Baltes is strictly against the hypothesis : Does the “map of Middle Platonism” have to be redrawn? In: Matthias Baltes: Dianoemata. Small writings on Plato and Platonism , Stuttgart 1999, pp. 327-350, here: 341f.
  6. ^ Photios, library cod. 48.
  7. ^ Marie-Luise Lakmann (ed.): Platonici minores. 1st century BC Chr. - 2nd century AD , Leiden / Boston 2017, pp. 41f., 274f .; Simone Follet: Alcinous . In: Richard Goulet (Ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques , Volume 1, Paris 1989, pp. 114f .; Tryggve Göransson: Albinus, Alcinous, Arius Didymus , Göteborg 1995, pp. 135f.
  8. ^ Harold AS Tarrant: Alcinous, Albinus, Nigrinus . In: Antichthon 19, 1985, pp. 87-95, here: 88-95.
  9. ↑ On the reception of Aristotelian thoughts in Alcinous see Paul Moraux : Der Aristotelismus bei den Greeks , Volume 2, Berlin 1984, pp. 445-480; Lawrence P. Schrenk: The Middle Platonic Reception of Aristotelian Science . In: Rheinisches Museum für Philologie , New Series, Vol. 136, 1993, pp. 342–359.
  10. ↑ Harold Tarrant: Instruction and Hermeneutics in the Didascalicus . In: Ada Neschke-Hentschke (Ed.): Argumenta in dialogos Platonis , Part 1, Basel 2010, pp. 77–100, here: 98.
  11. ^ John Whittaker: Platonic Philosophy in the Early Centuries of the Empire . In: Rise and Fall of the Roman World , Volume 36.1, Berlin 1987, pp. 81–123, here: 102f.
  12. ↑ See the comparison of the texts in Michelangelo Giusta: Due capitoli sui dossografi di fisica . In: Giuseppe Cambiano (ed.): Storiografia e dossografia nella filosofia antica , Torino 1986, pp. 149–201, here: 190f.
  13. ↑ See the detailed study by Tryggve Göransson: Albinus, Alcinous, Arius Didymus , Göteborg 1995, pp. 137–181.
  14. ↑ On epistemology see George Boys-Stones: Alcinous, Didaskalikos 4: in Defense of Dogmatism . In: Mauro Bonazzi, Vincenza Celluprica (ed.): L'eredità platonica. Studi sul platonismo da Arcesilao a Proclo , Napoli 2005, pp. 201-234; David Sedley: Alcinous' Epistemology . In: Keimpe A. Algra u. a. (Ed.): Polyhistor. Studies in the History and Historiography of Ancient Philosophy , Leiden 1996, pp. 300-312.
  15. ↑ On the question of fate, determinism and that which is in the power of man, see Heinrich Dörrie, Matthias Baltes: Der Platonismus in der Antike , Volume 6.2, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 2002, pp. 64f., 258–264 ; Jaap Mansfeld : Alcinous on Fate and Providence . In: John J. Cleary (Ed.): Traditions of Platonism , Aldershot 1999, pp. 139-150; Erik Eliasson: The Middle Platonist reception of the myth of Er as a theory of fate and 'that which depends on us': the case of Alcinous' Didascalicus. In: Anne Sheppard (Ed.): Ancient approaches to Plato's Republic , London 2013, pp. 59–85, here: 59f., 83–85.
  16. ↑ On this subject, discussed in particular by Aristotle, see Robert Joly: Le thème philosophique des genres de vie dans l'antiquité classique , Bruxelles 1956.
  17. ^ David Sedley: Theoretikos Bios in Alcinous . In: Thomas Bénatouïl, Mauro Bonazzi (eds.): Theoria, Praxis and the Contemplative Life after Plato and Aristotle , Leiden 2012, pp. 163-181, here: 180.
  18. ↑ Alkinous, Didaskalikos 28.3. On the doctrine of virtue see José M. Zamora: La vertu comme “chose divine” chez Alcinoos . In: Revue de Philosophie Ancienne 22, 2004, pp. 39–50.
  19. ^ Franco Ferrari: Alcinous. 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. 607–613, here: 612.
  20. ↑ Filip Karfík: Middle Platonic doctrine de finibus with Stobaios, Alcinous and Apuleius. In: Christian Pietsch (Ed.): Ethik des antiken Platonismus , Stuttgart 2013, pp. 115–129, here: 120f.
  21. ↑ On these distinctions see Heinrich Dörrie , Matthias Baltes: Der Platonismus in der Antike , Volume 4, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1996, pp. 298-301; Franco Trabattoni: Logos and noēsis in Alcinous, Didaskalikos 4. In: Phronesis 61, 2016, pp. 60–81, here: 74–77.
  22. ↑ Alkinous , Didaskalikos 4,7f. See Lawrence P. Schrenk: A Note on ἄθροισμα in 'Didaskalikos' 4.7 . In: Hermes 119, 1991, pp. 497-500.
  23. ↑ Alkinous, Didaskalikos 5.5. See Donald Ray Morrison: Alcinous on Methods of Analysis. In: Cristina Cerami (ed.): Nature et sagesse , Louvain-la-Neuve 2014, pp. 417–428, here: 420–426.
  24. ↑ Alkinous, Didaskalikos 25.3; see. 5.7.
  25. ^ Lawrence P. Schrenk: A Middle Platonic Reading of Plato's Theory of Recollection . In: Ancient Philosophy 11, 1991, pp. 103-110.
  26. ↑ Alkinous, Didaskalikos 7.1. See Charlotte Köckert: Christian Cosmology and Imperial Philosophy , Tübingen 2009, p. 129f.
  27. ↑ Charlotte Köckert: Christian cosmology and imperial philosophy , Tübingen 2009, pp. 130–140.
  28. ^ Heinrich Dörrie, Matthias Baltes: Platonism in antiquity , Volume 4, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1996, p. 328f .; Jan Opsomer: Demiurges in Early Imperial Platonism . In: Rainer Hirsch-Luipold (Ed.): Gott und die Götter bei Plutarch , Berlin 2005, pp. 51–99, here: 79–82.
  29. ^ Franco Ferrari: Alcinous. 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. 607–613, here: 611; Jan Opsomer: Demiurges in Early Imperial Platonism . In: Rainer Hirsch-Luipold (Ed.): Gott und die Götter bei Plutarch , Berlin 2005, pp. 51–99, here: 82f. Lloyd P. Gerson, however, has a different opinion: From Plato to Platonism , Ithaca / London 2013, pp. 196–199.
  30. ↑ See Heinrich Dörrie, Matthias Baltes: Der Platonismus in der Antike , Volume 5, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1998, pp. 442f .; Alexandra Michalewski: La puissance de l'intelligible , Leuven 2014, pp. 87f.
  31. ↑ See on this expression Charlotte Köckert: Christliche Kosmologie und Kaiserzeitliche Philosophie , Tübingen 2009, pp. 161–163.
  32. ↑ See Heinrich Dörrie, Matthias Baltes: Der Platonismus in der Antike , Volume 5, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1998, p. 504f; Alexandra Michalewski: La puissance de l'intelligible , Leuven 2014, pp. 88–90.
  33. ↑ Alkinous , Didaskalikos 15: 1f.
  34. ↑ Alkinous, Didaskalikos 25.6.
  35. ↑ Heinrich Dörrie, Matthias Baltes: Platonism in antiquity , Volume 7.1, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 2008, pp. 88f., 377–381.
  36. ^ Franco Ferrari: Alcinous. 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. 607–613, here: 611; Wouter Goris: The Starting Points of Human Understanding. In: Mnemosyne 67, 2014, pp. 214–246, here: 240f.
  37. ^ Heinrich Dörrie, Matthias Baltes: The Platonism in the Ancient World , Volume 7.1, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 2008, pp. 102-105, 407-409.
  38. ↑ See also Wouter Goris : The Starting Points of Human Understanding. In: Mnemosyne 67, 2014, pp. 214–246, here: 215–221, 236, 241–244.
  39. ↑ See Heinrich Dörrie, Matthias Baltes: Der Platonismus in der Antike , Volume 5, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1998, pp. 240–242; Franco Ferrari: Alcinous. 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. 607–613, here: 610; Wouter Goris: The Starting Points of Human Understanding. In: Mnemosyne 67, 2014, pp. 214–246, here: 236.
  40. ↑ See Heinrich Dörrie, Matthias Baltes: Der Platonismus in der Antike , Volume 5, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1998, pp. 243–245 and note 70.
  41. ^ John Whittaker: Introduction . In: John Whittaker, Pierre Louis (eds.): Alcinoos: Enseignement des doctrines de Platon , 2nd edition, Paris 2002, pp. XVf., XXXVI.
  42. ↑ Orrin F. Summerell, Thomas Zimmer (ed.): Alkinoos, Didaskalikos. Textbook of the principles of Plato , Berlin 2007, p. XIII; John Whittaker: Introduction . In: John Whittaker, Pierre Louis (eds.): Alcinoos: Enseignement des doctrines de Platon , 2nd edition, Paris 2002, pp. XLVIII – LXII.
  43. ↑ See María José Martínez Benavides: La filosofía de Platón en el renacimiento a través de un intermediario . In: Fortunatae , No. 9, 1997, pp. 81-101.
  44. ^ For example, Tryggve Göransson: Albinus, Alcinous, Arius Didymus , Göteborg 1995, p. 132; Matthias Baltes as a reviewer contradicts him: Does the “map of Middle Platonism” have to be redrawn? In: Matthias Baltes: Dianoemata. Small writings on Plato and Platonism , Stuttgart 1999, pp. 327-350, here: 333-341.
  45. ↑ For example Orrin F. Summerell, Thomas Zimmer (Ed.): Alkinoos, Didaskalikos. Textbook of the principles of Plato , Berlin 2007, p. XIII; Burkhard Reis: The Platonist Albinos and his so-called Prologos , Wiesbaden 1999, p. 15; Harold Tarrant: Instruction and Hermeneutics in the Didascalicus . In: Ada Neschke-Hentschke (Ed.): Argumenta in dialogos Platonis , Part 1, Basel 2010, pp. 77–100, here: 98.
  46. ↑ David Sedley: Alcinous' Epistemology . In: Keimpe A. Algra u. a. (Ed.): Polyhistor. Studies in the History and Historiography of Ancient Philosophy , Leiden 1996, pp. 300-312, here: 312.
  47. ↑ Franco Trabattoni: Logos and noēsis in Alcinous, Didaskalikos 4. In: Phronesis 61, 2016, pp. 60–81, here: 60f., 79f.
  48. ^ Franco Ferrari: Alcinous. 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. 607–613, here: 608.
This article was added to the list of articles worth reading on March 6, 2013 in this version .
personal data
SURNAME Alcinous
BRIEF DESCRIPTION ancient Greek philosopher
DATE OF BIRTH between 1st century BC BC and 3rd century
DATE OF DEATH between 1st century and 4th century