Amelios Gentilianos

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
relief
Presumed representation of Plotinus and his pupils on a sarcophagus in the Museo Gregoriano Profano, Vatican Museums

Amelios Gentilianos ( Greek  Ἀμέλιος Γεντιλιανός Amélios Gentilianós ; * probably between 216 and 226; † probably between 290 and 300) was an ancient philosopher . He was a Neoplatonist and belonged to the philosophy school in Rome , which was directed by his teacher Plotinus , the founder of Neoplatonism.

Amelios played a prominent role among the students of Plotinus. When his teacher fell fatally ill, he left Rome in 268/269 and moved to the east of the Roman Empire. He settled in Apamea in Syria . His extensive work has only survived in fragments.

As a Platonist , Amelios represented the doctrine of ideas introduced by Plato , based on their Neoplatonic interpretation. The Platonists understood ideas to be the eternal metaphysical archetypes of the transitory sense objects. They ascribed an objective existence to the ideas in a purely spiritual realm, the intelligible world. Amelios strongly advocated the Neoplatonic conviction that ideas can only be located within the nous , the divine world reason. However, he rejected the prevailing opinion in ancient Platonism that the number of ideas was limited. He said there were an infinite number of ideas. In doing so, he accepted the notion of numerical infinity in intelligible reality, which is unacceptable to other Platonists .

Life

Amelios came from Etruria . Although he was not of Greek origin, he always used the Greek language in his works, as was customary with the Platonists at the time. His name ( cognomen ) was originally Gentilianos (Latin Gentilianus). For an unknown reason he was given the nickname (supernomenal) Amelios, which is of Greek origin (derived from amelḗs "carefree", "careless"). Plotinus, who found this epithet inappropriate, wanted to change it to Amerios (from améreia , "indivisibility", a quality of the supreme deity).

Since Amelios was around 20 to 30 years old when he joined Plotinus in 246, the time period between 216 and 226 is assumed for his birth. He received his first philosophical lessons from a stoic named Lysimachos. However, he tended towards Platonism at an early age , because he copied almost all of the writings of the famous Middle Platonist Numenios and knew most of them by heart. Under the influence of the teachings of Numenios, he turned away from the Stoa and became a Platonist. The philosophy of Numenios' friend Kronios may also have influenced him during this time. At that time, however, there were probably no organized classes in Platonic philosophy in his area. This changed when Plotinus came to Rome in 244 and founded his school of philosophy there, from which Neoplatonism originated. Amelios entered this school in 246. He became a confidante of Plotinus and one of his greatest students.

Amelios took notes in Plotin's courses. He also taught at school himself. He took a strong interest in the polemics between the school of Plotinus and philosophical opponents, which were carried out in writing. Within the school there was a philosophical argument between him and his prominent classmate Porphyrios .

In contrast to Plotinus, to whom traditional religious celebrations and sacrifices meant nothing, Amelios liked to attend such events; he tried in vain to get Plotinus to participate.

268/269, apparently shortly before Plotinus definitely had to stop teaching due to illness, Amelios left school. He went to the east of the Roman Empire, where he brought copies of the works of Plotinus to the philosopher Longinos , who was then advisor to Queen Zenobia of Palmyra . When Plotinus 270 died, Amelios was in the Syrian city of Apamea. There he appears to have gained citizenship and lived the rest of his life. In Apamea he adopted a local philosopher named Hostilianos Hesychios, to whom he dedicated his notes from Plotinus' lectures.

Works

Only fragments of the works of Amelios, which reached a considerable total volume, have survived. Some of their subjects are known from mentions by other authors.

  • Notes from the lessons of Plotinus: Until 263 Amelios did not write any writings except a compilation of notes from the courses of Plotinus. This collection grew in the course of time - it was probably expanded until 268/269 - to about a hundred books. Apparently, Amelios was not satisfied with simply reproducing what he had heard in class, but rather commented, incorporating his views and interpretations. His collection was not only intended for his personal use, but gained some circulation. The fact that he dedicated the notes to the philosopher Hostilianos Hesychios like his own work shows that he considered his own contribution to be important.
  • Polemics against Porphyrios: Soon after entering the school of Plotinus, Porphyrios turned against the doctrine represented there, according to which the Platonic ideas exist within the nous. He even wrote a pamphlet setting out his objections to his teacher's position and presented it to him. Plotinus charged Amelios with the refutation. Amelios then wrote an extensive treatise with the title Against the Aporias of Porphyrios , in which he traced the contradictions in Plotin’s theory assumed by Porphyrios back to misunderstandings. Porphyry replied with a written reply. Amelios commented on this in another pamphlet. Finally, under the impression of the counter-arguments, Porphyrios changed his mind and wrote a retraction ( palinody ) of his allegations, which he put forward in school. The controversy between Amelios and Porphyrios is likely to have taken place in 263/264.
  • On the essence of Plotin's philosophy : The Platonist Longinos, who taught in Athens, was, like Porphyry at the beginning, also of the conviction that ideas exist outside the nous. He stuck to this opinion after reading Porphyry's revocation. He wrote a statement on this question, in which he also critically addressed other teachings of the Roman school. Amelios defended the prevailing views in the Roman school in a letter to Longinos in the form of a treatise entitled On the Nature of the Philosophy of Plotinus . Since he expressed himself there in particular on the interpretation of Plato's concept of justice , this letter treatise is also called On Justice according to Plato . Longino's detailed reply letter also reached the size of a treatise. This correspondence takes place around the mid-sixties.
  • Against the book of Zostrianos : This 40-book comprehensive pamphlet belongs in the context of the polemics Plotinus and his circle against the teachings of the Gnostics . Plotinus himself wrote a general text against the Gnostics, and his students commented on individual Gnostic works on his behalf. Among other things, the Gnostics referred to the Iranian religious founder Zarathustra , who at the latest in the 6th century BC. Lived; In Rome, revelations were circulated among them, which were placed under his name. The Neo-Platonists criticized such literature. So Porphyrios wrote a treatise in which he exposed alleged revelations of "Zoroastres" (a Greek form of the name of Zarathustra) as a forgery. Amelios turned against a Gnostic work that was ascribed to "Zostrianos" (another variant of the name of Zarathustra), but which in reality was probably not written until the first half of the 3rd century. A paraphrase of parts of the prologue of the Gospel of John ( Jn 1,1-4 and 1,14  EU ), which the church father Eusebios of Caesarea quotes in his Praeparatio evangelica , possibly originates from this antignostic pamphlet .
  • On the difference between Plotinus and Numenios with regard to their doctrinal opinions : Amelios wrote this treatise three days after Porphyry asked him to do so. The dedication letter to Porphyrios has been preserved. Amelios writes that philosophers who came from Greece accused Plotinus of plagiarizing Numenios and also criticized his style. The work of Amelios was directed against these attacks, the purpose of which was to demonstrate the independence of Plotin’s thinking and to record essential features of his philosophy in a memorable form.
  • Commentary on Plato: It is not known whether the traditional utterances of Amelios on individual dialogues of Plato ( Timaeus , Politeia , Parmenides , Philebos ) come from comments that he wrote on these dialogues, or are based on Porphyry's memories of Amelios' oral communications.
  • Oracle of Apollo : As Porphyrios reports, after Plotin's death, Amelios asked the god Apollo - apparently the oracle of Delphi is meant - where the deceased's soul had escaped to. Porphyry gives us a detailed answer from Apollo in 51 heximeters . Research suggests that Amelios himself composed the verses in whole or in part, but Porphyrios is also a possible author.

Teaching

The philosophy of Amelios can only be reconstructed to a relatively small extent on the basis of the fragmentary tradition. Since most of the information comes from works whose authors are critical of Amelios' views, distortions due to one-sided reproduction of his position are to be expected.

metaphysics

In metaphysics , Amelios represents the Neoplatonic conception of the intelligible world, which for him as for Plotinus consists of the one , the nous (intellect) and the soul . By “soul” he understands the world soul as well as the individual souls of living beings, which according to their nature do not differ from the world soul; the world soul is present in all individual souls. In so far as the world soul is "above", it forms a unit; in "descending" it brings out the numbers two, three and four. This is how the Tetraktys ("quartet") of Pythagorean cosmology comes into being , to which Amelios connects.

A special feature of Amelios is the division of the nous into three areas, the first, second and third intellect. He starts from a place in Plato's Timaeus . The first intellect is the one who simply “is”. The second is the intelligible given in the first; he is the one who “has” that which is in the first, contains it and participates comprehensively in it. The third is the one who "contemplates"; he has what is in the second and he looks at the first. With increasing distance from the first, "having" becomes weaker. Amelios characterizes the first intellect as wanting, the second as creating through thinking, the third as physically creating. He also calls the three intellects three rulers ("kings"). He identifies the third intellect with the creator god Phanes , who plays an important role in Orphic . All three are creators ( demiurges ), but the third is primarily responsible for the creator quality. This trinity is reminiscent of the cosmology of Numenios. However, it is not a question of three separate hypostases , but rather Amelios emphasizes their unity; they can thus be viewed as three aspects of the one nous.

Amelios considers the number of ideas (forms) to be infinite, thus allowing the principle of numerical infinity in the intelligible world. From this it follows for him that the cosmos, although it has existed for an infinite period of time, never absorbs and depicts all forms. He assumes that not only good things but also bad things have their own ideas as causes. He equates the logos addressed in the prologue of the Gospel of John with the world soul described in Plato's Timaeus . In doing so, however, he withholds the Christian context - he does not name the evangelist, but only mentions him as a “ barbarian ” - and represents a completely different cosmology than John. The sensually perceptible world standing below receives its order from the world soul by means of the lógoi . Nature receives the lógoi from the world soul and matter has a share in the lógoi of nature.

With regard to the individual souls, Amelios apparently essentially represents the traditional Platonic doctrine, to which the transmigration of souls belongs. Like Plato and Plotinus, he is of the opinion that a soul that has animated a human body can later migrate into an animal body; thus he does not consider human and animal souls to be essentially different, like Porphyrios and Iamblichus. In his view, a soul is fundamentally able to leave the cycle of rebirths definitely. The soul is homogeneous ( homoiomerḗs ), its essence is one and always the same; in each of their parts things are present in their totality. The principle of individuation of souls (the cause of their individual existence) is position and arrangement ( katátaxis ). In a certain way the soul always stays “up” in its home, in another way it moves away from itself and returns to itself. It thus carries both the principle of rest and movement within itself.

ethics

In ethics , Amelios strives for a harmonization of necessity and free will , whereby his understanding of necessity points to the influence of stoic ideas. He does not advocate consistent determinism , but allows free will a real existence, but sees it embedded in a world order ruled by necessity. With regard to the assessment of pleasure , as is customary with Platonists, he emphatically opposes the opinion of the Epicureans . He rejects the "kinetic" pleasure (associated with violent emotions), since it deprives man of reason and wisdom (in contrast to the static pleasure that arises from peace of mind and freedom from pain).

reception

Contemporary Platonists such as Porphyrios and Longinos respected Amelios in spite of weighty philosophical differences of opinion. Porphyrios praised his diligence, which none of his contemporaries had surpassed, but criticized his "unphilosophical" verbosity. In doing so, he referred to Longinos, a style-conscious literary critic who had criticized Amelios' style as rambling. Leading neo-Platonists from late antiquity thought little of his philosophy: Iamblichos and Proklos expressed disapproval of his views, Syrianos sharply attacked his doctrine that all forms are never depicted in the cosmos, because it seemed unacceptable that there should be models without images and causes without effect gives. Amelios found a defender, however, in Theodoros von Asine , the most famous student of Iamblichus.

Historians of philosophy discuss the hypothesis that Hegel was familiar with Eusebius' text on Amelios and its interpretation of the Johannes prologue and used it for his own interpretation of the prologue.

In modern research, Amelios was initially viewed as an unoriginal student of Plotinus. More recently, his teaching has been recognized by the three intellects as an independent achievement. It also highlights its key role in the school of Plotinus and its remarkable productivity. The relatively small aftereffect of his philosophy and the loss of his works is explained by the fact that he was a "loser" in the history of philosophy, since late ancient philosophy was significantly shaped by the views of his critics.

Source collection

  • Anastasios N. Zoumpos (Ed.): Amelii Neoplatonici fragmenta , Athens 1956 (compilation of the source texts)

literature

Remarks

  1. ↑ See on this Leonardo Tarán: Amelius-Amerius: Porphyry Vita Plotini 7 and Eunapius Vitae Soph. 4.2 . In: American Journal of Philology 105, 1984, pp. 476-479.
  2. ↑ Luc Brisson: Amélius . In: Richard Goulet (ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques , Volume 1, Paris 1989, pp. 160–164, here: 161; Irmgard Männlein-Robert: Longinos and Amelios. 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 5/2), Basel 2018, pp. 1310–1321, here: 1318.
  3. ↑ Luc Brisson: Amélius: Sa vie, son œuvre, sa doctrine, son style . In: Rise and Fall of the Roman World , Part II, Volume 36/2, Berlin 1987, pp. 793–860, here: 800.
  4. ↑ Porphyrios, Vita Plotini 3, 44–46. Cf. Irmgard Männlein-Robert: Longinos and Amelios. 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 5/2), Basel 2018, pp. 1310–1321, here: 1319.
  5. ↑ On the Kronios reception of Amelios see Luc Brisson: Amélius: Sa vie, son œuvre, sa doctrine, son style . In: Rise and Fall of the Roman World , Part II, Volume 36/2, Berlin 1987, pp. 793–860, here: 803.
  6. ↑ Luc Brisson: Amélius: Sa vie, son œuvre, sa doctrine, son style . In: Rise and Fall of the Roman World , Part II, Volume 36/2, Berlin 1987, pp. 793–860, here: 798 f.
  7. ↑ Luc Brisson: Amélius: Sa vie, son œuvre, sa doctrine, son style . In: Rise and Fall of the Roman World , Part II, Volume 36/2, Berlin 1987, pp. 793–860, here: 805.
  8. ^ John F. Finamore: Biography as Self-Promotion: Porphyry's Vita Plotini . In: Dionysius New Series 23, 2005, pp. 49-61 collects evidence of a rivalry between Amelios and Porphyrios.
  9. ↑ Porphyrios, Vita Plotini 10: 33-37. Cf. Luc Brisson: Plotin et la magie. In: Luc Brisson et al. (Ed.): Porphyre, La Vie de Plotin , Volume 2, Paris 1992, pp. 465-475, here: 472 f.
  10. ↑ Irmgard Männlein-Robert: Longin, philologist and philosopher , Munich 2001, pp. 156–158.
  11. ↑ Porphyrios, Vita Plotini 3.46-48. Compare Richard Goulet: L'Oracle d'Apollon dans la Vie de Plotin. In: Luc Brisson et al. (Ed.): Porphyre, La Vie de Plotin , Volume 1, Paris 1982, pp. 369–412, here: 405 f .; Luc Brisson: Hostilianus Hésychius d'Apamée. In: Richard Goulet (ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques , Volume 3, Paris 2000, p. 814.
  12. ↑ Porphyrios, Vita Plotini 3.46-48. What is meant are not books in today's sense, but the ancient scrolls; a “book” corresponded to a papyrus roll, usually 19 to 25 cm high and up to ten meters long. See Horst Blanck : Das Buch in der Antike , Munich 1992, pp. 85f.
  13. ↑ Porphyrios, Vita Plotini 18. Cf. Luc Brisson et al. (Ed.): Porphyre, La Vie de Plotin , Volume 2, Paris 1992, pp. 279–281.
  14. ↑ See also Luc Brisson: Amélius: Sa vie, son œuvre, sa doctrine, son style . In: Rise and Fall of the Roman World , Part II, Volume 36/2, Berlin 1987, pp. 793–860, here: 822–823; Irmgard Männlein-Robert: Longin, philologist and philosopher , Munich 2001, pp. 70, 92–93, 215.
  15. ↑ Porphyrios, Vita Plotini 16: 13-14. Compare Michel Tardieu: Les Gnostiques dans la Vie de Plotin. In: Luc Brisson et al. (Ed.): Porphyre, La Vie de Plotin , Volume 2, Paris 1992, pp. 503-546, here: 538-541.
  16. ↑ Porphyrios, Vita Plotini 16: 9-12. Compare Michel Tardieu: Les Gnostiques dans la Vie de Plotin. In: Luc Brisson et al. (Ed.): Porphyre, La Vie de Plotin , Volume 2, Paris 1992, pp. 503-546, here: 538-543.
  17. ↑ See on Amelios' understanding of the prologue Thomas M. Böhm: Ptolemaic Gnosis with Hegel? Notes on the interpretation of the Johannes prologue by Amelius . In: Ferdinand R. Prostmeier , Horacio E. Lona (ed.): Logos der Vernunft - Logos des Glaubens , Berlin 2010, p. 109–128, here: 116–121 (text and translation of the Eusebios passage p. 115– 116); John Dillon : St John in Amelius' seminary . In: Panayiota Vassilopoulou, Stephen RL Clark (Eds.): Late Antique Epistemology , Basingstoke 2009, pp. 30-43; Samuel Vollenweider: The logos as a bridge from the gospel to philosophy. The prologue of John in the re-reading of the Neo-Platonist Amelios . In: Andreas Dettwiler, Uta Poplutz (ed.): Studies on Matthäus and Johannes , Zurich 2009, pp. 377–397.
  18. ↑ Porphyrios, Vita Plotini 17-18. Cf. Irmgard Männlein-Robert: Longinos and Amelios. 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 5/2), Basel 2018, pp. 1310–1321, here: 1316 f.
  19. ↑ Luc Brisson: Amélius . In: Richard Goulet (ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques , Volume 1, Paris 1989, pp. 160–164, here: 162; Luc Brisson: Amélius: Sa vie, son œuvre, sa doctrine, son style . In: Rise and Fall of the Roman World , Part II, Volume 36/2, Berlin 1987, pp. 793–860, here: 826–828; Irmgard Männlein-Robert: Longinos and Amelios. 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 5/2), Basel 2018, pp. 1310–1321, here: 1318 f.
  20. ↑ Porphyrios, Vita Plotini 22. See the commentary by Luc Brisson and Jean-Marie Flamand: Structure, contenu et intentions de l'Oracle d'Apollon (VP 22). In: Luc Brisson et al. (Ed.): Porphyre, La Vie de Plotin , Volume 2, Paris 1992, pp. 565-602.
  21. ↑ Different opinions in research: Richard Goulet: L'Oracle d'Apollon dans la Vie de Plotin . In: Luc Brisson u. a. (Ed.): Porphyre, La Vie de Plotin , Volume 1, Paris 1982, pp. 369-412, here: 380-405 (only the introductory and closing verses are from Amelios); Jesús Igal: El enigma del oráculo de Apolo sobre Plotino . In: Emerita 52, 1984, pp. 83–115, here: 113–115 (the whole poem is written by Amelios); Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer : πλείων in the meaning of 'plenus' . In: Annemarie Etter (ed.): Oo-pe-ro-si. Festschrift for Ernst Risch on his 75th birthday , Berlin 1986, pp. 546–557, here: 547–551 (Authorship of Porphyry is more plausible).
  22. ↑ See on this teaching of the soul, Luc Brisson: Amélius: Sa vie, son œuvre, sa doctrine, son style . In: Rise and Fall of the Roman World , Part II, Volume 36/2, Berlin 1987, pp. 793–860, here: 840–844.
  23. ↑ Plato, Timaeus 39e7-9. See also John M. Dillon: Plotinus, Enn. 3.9.1, and Later Views on the Intelligible World . In: Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 100, 1969, pp. 63-70, here: 63-66.
  24. ↑ On Amelios' doctrine of Nous see Massimo Massagli: Amelio neoplatonico e la metafisica del Nous . In: Rivista di Filosofia neo-scolastica 74, 1982, pp. 225-243; Ruth Majercik: The Chaldean Oracles and the School of Plotinus . In: The Ancient World 29, 1998, pp. 91-105, here: 100-102; Kevin Corrigan: Amelius, Plotinus and Porphyry on Being, Intellect and the One. A reappraisal . In: Rise and Fall of the Roman World , Part II, Volume 36/2, Berlin 1987, pp. 975–993, here: 975–984.
  25. ↑ Syrianos, In Aristotelis metaphysica , ed. Wilhelm Kroll : Syriani in metaphysica commentaria (= Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca , Volume 6/1), Berlin 1902, p. 147, lines 2-6; Greek text and German translation by Heinrich Dörrie , Matthias Baltes : Der Platonismus in der Antike , Volume 5, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1998, pp. 78–79.
  26. ↑ See Heinrich Dörrie, Matthias Baltes: Der Platonismus in der Antike , Volume 5, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1998, pp. 351–352.
  27. ↑ Asklepios von Tralleis , In Nicomachi arithmeticam introductionem 1.44.
  28. ↑ Luc Brisson: Amélius: Sa vie, son œuvre, sa doctrine, son style . In: Rise and Fall of the Roman World , Part II, Volume 36/2, Berlin 1987, pp. 793–860, here: 840–843, 854; Heinrich Dörrie: Platonica minora , Munich 1976, pp. 491-507.
  29. ↑ Syrianos, In Aristotelis metaphysica , ed. Wilhelm Kroll: Syriani in metaphysica commentaria (= Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca , Volume 6/1), Berlin 1902, p. 119, lines 12-15.
  30. ↑ Peter Lautner: λέγει or λήγει? In: Hermes 125, 1997, pp. 294-308, here: 302-303.
  31. ↑ Luc Brisson: Amélius: Sa vie, son œuvre, sa doctrine, son style . In: Rise and Fall of the Roman World , Part II, Volume 36/2, Berlin 1987, pp. 793–860, here: 850–852.
  32. ↑ Luc Brisson: Amélius: Sa vie, son œuvre, sa doctrine, son style . In: Rise and Fall of the Roman World , Part II, Volume 36/2, Berlin 1987, pp. 793–860, here: 812–816; Irmgard Männlein-Robert: Longin, philologist and philosopher , Munich 2001, pp. 197–198.
  33. ↑ Luc Brisson: Amélius: Sa vie, son œuvre, sa doctrine, son style . In: Rise and Fall of the Roman World , Part II, Volume 36/2, Berlin 1987, pp. 793–860, here: 817–819.
  34. ↑ See also Thomas M. Böhm: Ptolemaic Gnosis with Hegel? Notes on the interpretation of the Johannes prologue by Amelius . In: Ferdinand R. Prostmeier, Horacio E. Lona (ed.): Logos der Vernunft - Logos des Glaubens , Berlin 2010, pp. 109–128.
  35. ↑ Luc Brisson: Amélius: Sa vie, son œuvre, sa doctrine, son style . In: Rise and Fall of the Roman World , Part II, Volume 36/2, Berlin 1987, pp. 793–860, here: 855; Irmgard Männlein-Robert: Longinos and Amelios. 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 5/2), Basel 2018, pp. 1310–1321, here: 1321.
This article was added to the list of articles worth reading on March 9, 2013 in this version .
personal data
SURNAME Amelios Gentilianos
ALTERNATIVE NAMES Amelius, Amelius Gentilianus
BRIEF DESCRIPTION ancient philosopher
DATE OF BIRTH between 216 and 226
DATE OF DEATH between 290 and 300