Speusippos

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Speusippos ( Greek  Σπεύσιππος , Latinized Speusippus ; * around 410–407 BC; † 339 or 338 BC) was an ancient Greek philosopher. He was a nephew and student of Plato and his successor as head of the Platonic Academy ( Scholarch ). Since only small fragments of his philosophical works have survived, the reconstruction of his teachings is difficult. Thanks to the development of new sources since the middle of the 20th century, his philosophical achievement is judged more favorably today than in older research. On key issues, Speusippus distanced himself from Plato's view and took new paths.

Life

Speusippus was a son of Plato's sister Potone and her husband Eurymedon of Myrrhinous . He grew up in Athens and joined Plato at an early age. According to an anecdote handed down by Plutarch , Plato took part in the boy's upbringing and dissuaded him from a questionable way of life, which the parents had not succeeded in doing. Speusippus probably also took lessons from Isocrates .

When the Sicilian politician Dion of Syracuse , who was friends with Plato since his first trip to Sicily (around 388 BC), was banished in 366 by the tyrant Dionysius II of Syracuse , he went to Greece. In Athens he entered Plato's academy. There he made friends with Speusippus; as Plutarch reports, Dion, who was very rich, gave his friend an estate. In 361, at the invitation of Dionysius, Plato undertook his third journey to Sicily, accompanied by some of his students, including Speusippus and Xenocrates . He wanted to work in Syracuse in particular for a rehabilitation of Dion. The attempt at reconciliation failed, however, and Dionysius confiscated Dion's great fortune which he had not yet touched; that meant the final break between the two. As a radical supporter of Dion, Speusippos was one of the proponents of a violent solution to the conflict by military means. He used his stay in Syracuse to inquire about the mood of the citizens. He wanted to find out how the population would behave in the event of an attempt to overthrow the tyrant. In all likelihood, these activities of Speusippus were not hidden from Dionysius. Plato and his students were suspected of sympathizing with a violent opposition. This led to the final alienation between Plato and the suspicious tyrant. Plato was threatened by mercenaries of Dionysius, got into a life-threatening situation and was only able to get an opportunity to leave with difficulty.

After Plato's return in 360, Dion advanced the armor for a campaign, supported by his friends at the Academy. Speusippos reinforced his assumption that the tyrant was hated by his subjects and that the project was therefore promising. Some Platonists took part in the enterprise that Dion 357 began with a relatively small force of mercenaries. Speusippos stayed in Athens, but was informed by letter from one of the participating academy members, Timonides von Leukas , about the successful course of the campaign.

After Plato's death, Speusippus took over the management of the academy in 348/347; a formal election does not appear to have taken place. He introduced school fees and thus deviated from Plato's attitude, according to which lessons had always been free. In contrast to his predecessor Plato and his successor Xenocrates, Speusippus did not live in the academy as a scholarch. He continued the rivalry with the school of Isocrates, which already existed in Plato's time. In the struggle for Macedonian hegemony in Greece, he resolutely sided with the Macedonian side. He was one of the zealous followers of the Macedonian king Philip II and tried - apparently unsuccessfully - to push back the influence of Isocrates at the Macedonian court.

The news of his death (339/338) is contradicting itself; allegedly he ended his life because of a chronic serious illness. He is said to have been a writer until the end. Following his wish, the members of the Academy elected Xenocrates as his successor.

The author of the false 13th letter in the collection of letters attributed to Plato claims that Speusippus married his niece.

Works

Only fragments of the philosophical writings of Speusippus have survived . In particular, he takes up questions that arise from the later works of Plato. Diogenes Laertios provides an incomplete list of the works. It comprises 27 titles, including both treatises and dialogues. Topics are metaphysics , mathematics, epistemology , philosophy of science , philosophy of language , ethics , politics, theology and cosmology , presumably also rhetoric . From the correspondence of Speusippus only one letter to King Philip II has survived.

Homoia

About a third of the known fragments come from his main work “Similar Things” ( Hómoia ), which consists of ten books . It was a systematically ordered representation of the totality of the things known at the time. Speusippos was not interested in the creation of an encyclopedia as a reference work, rather his aim was a consistent classification of the whole of reality using a uniform method of definition and concept formation. For this purpose, he designed a comprehensive system of genera and species. As the title suggests, similarity served as the principle of order. Speusippos seems to have distinguished several degrees of similarity. The ambitious project probably went back to a suggestion by Plato.

Around sixty zoological and botanical examples have been preserved. They all come from the second of the ten books devoted to biological systematics . The discussions primarily concern individual cases from the zoological and botanical systematics. It is striking that Speusippus' classifications correspond to those of Aristotle in his Historia animalium . In the remaining nine books of Homoia the structure of inanimate nature was presented; the division into metaphysics, mathematics, ethics and technology was probably also dealt with there.

It is unclear whether Speusippus was only interested in the methodology of classification, i.e. the philosophical question of general laws governing the structure of reality, or whether he also undertook his scientific investigations out of a specific scientific interest. In any case, an empirical approach cannot be established with him; Aristotle was the first to take the step towards empirical science and thereby turned away from the Academy's understanding of science.

More philosophical works

Other writings that were devoted to the same subject area as Homoia were titled “On examples of genera and species” (or: “On genera and species as examples”, Peri genōn kai eidōn paradeigmátōn ), “Classifications and assumptions regarding similar things "( Dihairéseis kai pros ta hómoia hypothéseis ) and" Definitions "( hóroi ). He also wrote a treatise "On the Pythagorean Numbers" ( Peri Pythagorikōn arithmōn ), in which he presented his theory of numbers; he treated the numbers from the point of view of their "similarity", that is, their peculiarities, similarities, analogies and mutual relationships. He proceeded from an assignment of the numbers to certain geometric figures such as squares, rectangles and the Platonic solids . An extract from this work has been preserved.

Speusippus spoke in detail on the question of the function of pleasure , which Plato had dealt with in his dialogue with Philebos . He dealt with this topic in a dialogue entitled Aristippos (named after Aristippus of Cyrene , a prominent exponent of hedonism ) and in a treatise "On Lust" ( Peri hēdonḗs ). Some other writings appeared to have been devoted to rhetorical subjects.

Speusippos also wrote an " Enkomion (eulogy or praise) on Plato". It is unclear whether this is the commemorative speech that Speusippos gave either at Plato's funeral meal or (more likely) on the occasion of the first celebration of Plato's birthday, which was celebrated every year in the academy after his death. Here the legend of Plato's divine descent appears for the first time; his father is said to have been the god Apollo . However, it can hardly be assumed that Speusippus himself believed in the legend.

Letters

In the collection of the “Socratic Letters” there are eight letters that are said to have been written by Speusippos or were addressed to him. According to the current state of research, all but one letter from the philosopher to King Philip II are spurious. The authenticity of the letter to Philip is almost unanimously accepted in recent research, although not with complete certainty. In the letter written in 343/342, the king recommended a historian named Antipater of Magnesia, who was better suited than Isocrates to promoting Macedonian politics. The opposition to Isocrates, with whom Speusippus rivaled for the favor of Philip, comes to light. It is controversial whether the letter was private or whether its author intended it to be published in order to influence public opinion.

There is also said to have been a correspondence between Speusippus and Dionysius II. Correspondence between the tyrant and the philosopher in letters has been handed down in quotations, but the authenticity of these quotations is uncertain.

Teaching

Speusippus deviated in essential points from the teaching of Plato, in which, as Aristotle reports, he had discovered "difficulties". This particularly applies to the ontology .

Overall, Speusippo's view of the world seems more complex and less clear than that of Plato. The reasons for this are that the stages of being are linked less stringently and the ontological order does not at the same time consistently represent a value order. In addition, the relationships between the elements of reality come to the fore over their special characteristics. This kind of philosophizing earned Speusippus the accusation of Aristotle that he thought episodically and represented reality as in a bad tragedy.

ontology

Speusippos assumes five stages for the ontological structure of the world. The following sequence applies: on top the one , which, however, is not understood as a level, but is above all levels; then as the first (top) level the numbers, as the second the geometric figures, as the third the moving world soul . The world soul is understood as a mathematical (geometrical) entity and defined as the "idea (shape) of that which is expanded everywhere". The fourth and fifth levels include the realm of the sensually perceptible bodies, the subdivision of which has not been handed down; Presumably the animate bodies form the fourth level, the inanimate material objects the fifth. The numbers bring the multiplicity and the ousía (“beingness”) with them, the geometrical figures also the expansion, the soul introduces the movement and with the bodies materiality is added. The first and second stages make up the divine nous .

Speusippus refuses, like Plato , to equate the good with the one and the archḗ , the world cause. He argues that the one as a value principle must take precedence over everything that is valuable, including the good. In addition, the good lies in the use and yield (e.g. from plants and farm animals), i.e. in the goal of something and thus not in its cause or origin. The good cannot coincide with the one, because otherwise the multiplicity that forms the opposite pole of the one would have to be the bad in itself. Then everything in which multiplicity is involved, including the mathematical conditions, would have to be bad to a certain extent. With this Speusippos rejects a core component of Plato's metaphysics. He removes the ethical concept of goodness from the ontologically highest-ranking area of ​​the One, because from his point of view ethical concepts are only appropriate for levels of being on which the "nature of things that are" has advanced further. He considers the process of the emergence of manifold from the unity to be value-neutral in itself. A rejection of diversity and the matter in which it exists as the source of evil is therefore inappropriate for Speusippus. Rather, he regards unity and plurality as primordial principles, both of which lie beyond the realm of beings and values. For him, unity and multiplicity are directly principles of numbers and thus indirectly principles of everything. The matter in which the multiplicity manifests itself in a sensually perceptible manner cannot in itself be bad, for it is the receiving place of the good; if she were receptive to what she is in absolute opposition to, this would lead to her self-abolition. Terms like “good” and “bad”, “beautiful” and “ugly” are therefore only applicable to an intermediate area between unity and multiplicity. There the valuable first appears as beautiful (namely in the area of ​​mathematical conditions) and only then as good (in the area of ​​the mental and physical).

Another innovation is that Speusippos emphasizes the peculiarity of each area of ​​being and assigns a specific level of being to each sphere of being. In this way he ontologically upgrades the individual compared to the general, while Plato basically concentrates his striving for knowledge on the general as the higher-ranking. Speusippos does not derive the principles of the stages of being directly from one another, but only establishes analogies between them.

Speusippus also turns away from Plato's theory of ideas . For the general beings (Plato's ideas) he does not assume an independent being separate from the individual things. In doing so, he reverses Plato's ontological order of precedence between the general and the individual; the general in him is dependent on and bound to the individual. In Speusippos, the Platonic ideas are replaced by numbers and geometric figures. What is meant are the mathematical numbers as such, not their ideas such as "two" or "three". Speusippus assigns an independent, independent metaphysical existence to the numbers and figures. He regards them as realities that can be directly grasped by the human mind, the knowledge of which forms the starting point for all other knowledge. With this concept he combines mathematics and metaphysics; the laws of mathematics appear at the same time as those of metaphysics. The Platonic principle of the ontological primacy of the mathematical over the transitory is preserved despite the renunciation of the theory of ideas.

In contrast to Aristotle, who regards the immobile mover (the first principle) as a pure act and thus gives reality ontological priority over possibility, Speusippus advocates the opposite relationship. He understands the first principle as pure potency (possibility), which must first produce something in order to be able to really exist itself. This thought can also be used as an explanation for the fact that the first principle produces anything at all. Aristotle, who criticizes this position, illustrates the two opposing viewpoints with the example that an adult living being (act) must exist before its seed (potency); Speusippos wrongly adopted the reverse order (see chicken and egg problem ). With his understanding of the One, Speusippos anticipates an element of Neoplatonic thought. He regards the one as an absolute limit and an absolute minimum that eliminates multiplicity and quantity, which is at the same time infinite and in this respect also a maximum.

Theory of Science and Philosophy of Language

Speusippos makes high demands on a definition. He thinks that you can only define a thing if you know how it differs from all other things. Accordingly, every definition presupposes a knowledge of total reality; the relationship between the thing to be defined and everything else that exists must be known. From this, Speusippos does not derive a skeptical attitude regarding the possibility of a correct determination of the essence of individual things. Rather, he thinks that within the framework of a universal classification that his work Homoia aims at, the relationship of every object to every other can be shown. Behind this is the view that individual things do not exist separately, but are only constituted by the totality of their relationships to other things. Speusippos follows this concept in his Homoia , where he classifies on the basis of statements about similarity relationships. His approach differs from Plato's method of Dihairesis , in which one proceeds differentiatingly through dichotomous division of genera via subgenera to species.

Speusippos proceeds in the same way in the philosophy of language . He examines terms and definitions. It is characteristic of his way of thinking that he does not classify the terms according to their own characteristics, but classifies the different types of their relationships to one another. It divides the possible relationships between words into two main groups and five subgroups according to the criterion of the extent to which the meanings match.

cosmology

In cosmology , Speusippus, like his successor Xenocrates, was one of the followers of the opinion that the representation of the world creation in Plato's dialogue Timaeus is not meant in the literal sense of a creation at a certain point in time, but rather that Plato's expression is to be understood metaphorically and only from a didactic point of view Reason was chosen. Like many other Platonists, Speusippus kept the world forever.

ethics

As is common in ancient philosophy, eudaimonia also appears in Speusippus as the goal of human activity. He understands it to be the ease of complaint ( aochlēsía ) that the “good guys” strive for. By symptomlessness he means both the absence of pain and the avoidance of pleasure; for he does not regard pleasure as a good, but evaluates it negatively. For him, pain and pleasure are phenomena of becoming and movement and, as such, are inferior to the resting being of an affect-free indifference. It has long been disputed in research whether the "opponents of Philebos" mentioned by Plato in the Philebos Dialogue , according to whom pleasure is only the cessation of pain and therefore does not exist independently, were supporters of Speusippus' theory of pleasure. If this is the case - as many researchers assume - Plato dealt with his nephew's view in Philebus .

reception

Aristotle repeatedly goes into the teachings of Speusippus. He criticizes them polemically, but is also stimulated by them, because their deviations from Plato's views meet his own criticism of Plato.

In the Platonic Academy, the after-effects of Speusippus' teachings were relatively minor, especially since his successor Xenocrates took a different direction, which turned out to be more promising. The Speusippos tradition did not die out, however, but continued into late antiquity . In Neoplatonism , Speusippus' thought was taken up that the one is above the realm of being and in this respect is not itself something that is. The late antique Neo-Platonist Iamblichus knew the Speusippos system; in his work De communi mathematica scientia he gives an outline of it.

As a public figure, Speusippos was controversial in antiquity because of his political partisanship. The conflicting opinions about him are reflected in the sources. His biography with Diogenes Laertios contains material from a tradition that is well-disposed to him and an opposing one. Plutarch reports positive things, including a favorable opinion of Plato about Speusippus. Athenaios and Diogenes Laertios provide information from the opposing side, which allegedly go back to letters of the tyrant Dionysius II. According to the assertions of his enemies, Speusippos was irascible, lustful, alcohol-loving and greedy. The church writer Tertullian writes, apparently following a legend, that Speusippus was killed in adultery.

In modern research, Speusippus' thinking was long considered absurd. This assessment arose from the impression of the one-sided presentation of Aristotle. However, when Philip Merlan discovered the large Speusippos fragment near Iamblichos in 1953 and further sources were opened up in the following period, a much more favorable picture of the philosophical achievement of Plato's successor emerged. Hans Krämer considers it to be, alongside Plato and Aristotle, the "strongest philosophical power of the Elder Academy". His unreserved support for Philip II, which was seen as opportunistic, continues to be viewed negatively.

Editions and translations

  • Margherita Isnardi Parente (Ed.): Speusippo. Frammenti. Naples 1980, ISBN 88-7088-011-7 (edition of the fragments with Italian translation and commentary)
  • Margherita Isnardi Parente (Ed.): Supplementum Academicum . In: Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Class di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche. Memorie , Series 9, Vol. 6, 1995, pp. 247-311 (contains additions to the publisher's 1980 edition)
  • Anthony Francis Natoli: The Letter of Speusippus to Philip II . Franz Steiner, Stuttgart 2004, ISBN 3-515-08396-0 (edition of the letter with English translation, introduction and commentary)
  • Wilhelm Nestle (Ed.): The Socratic . Scientia, Aalen 1968 (reprint of the Jena 1922 edition; contains p. 192–199 Speusippos fragments in German translation)
  • Leonardo Tarán: Speusippus of Athens. A critical study with a collection of the related texts and commentary . Brill, Leiden 1981, ISBN 90-04-06505-9

literature

Overview representations in manuals

Investigations

Web links

Remarks

  1. ↑ Philip Merlan: On the biography of Speusippos . In: Philip Merlan: Kleine philosophische Schriften , Hildesheim 1976, pp. 127–143, here: 131.
  2. ↑ Plutarch, Dion 22. See Kai Trampedach : Platon, the Academy and contemporary politics , Stuttgart 1994, p. 110; Kurt von Fritz : Plato in Sicily and the problem of the rule of the philosophers , Berlin 1968, p. 70; Helmut Berve : Dion , Wiesbaden 1957, p. 53.
  3. ↑ Plutarch, Dion 22.
  4. ↑ Information that he went along with it is incorrect. For the students of Plato who took part, see Kai Trampedach: Platon, the Academy and contemporary politics , Stuttgart 1994, p. 111 f .; Helmut Berve: Dion , Wiesbaden 1957, p. 65 f.
  5. ↑ John Dillon, The Heirs of Plato , Oxford 2003, p. 32, considers this often repeated claim to be very implausible.
  6. ↑ Diogenes Laertios names thirty titles, three of which are cited twice; see John Dillon: The Heirs of Plato , Oxford 2003, p. 34 and note 14.
  7. ↑ This is an abbreviated title, the exact wording of the full title is unclear.
  8. ↑ Leonardo Tarán: Speusippus of Athens , Leiden 1981, p. 228 f.
  9. ↑ Kai Trampedach: Platon, the Academy and contemporary politics , Stuttgart 1994, p. 138 and note 100; Francisco Pina Polo, Sabine Panzram: Mito, historia y propaganda política: La carta de Espeusipo a Filipo II de Macedonia . In: Gerión 19, 2001, pp. 355-390, here: 357 f. Note 6; Anthony Francis Natoli: The Letter of Speusippus to Philip II , Stuttgart 2004, pp. 17–31. Leonardo Tarán is different: Speusippus of Athens , Leiden 1981, p. XXIII.
  10. ↑ For the background, see Minor M. Markle III: Support of Athenian intellectuals for Philip: a study of Isocrates 'Philippus and Speusippus' Letter to Philip . In: The Journal of Hellenic Studies 96, 1976, pp. 80-99.
  11. ↑ Anthony Francis Natoli: The Letter of Speusippus to Philip II , Stuttgart 2004, pp. 20–22 advocates the private character of writing and discusses the older research opinions.
  12. ↑ Philip Merlan: On the biography of Speusippos . In: Philip Merlan: Kleine philosophische Schriften , Hildesheim 1976, pp. 127–143, here: 136–138.
  13. ↑ Aristotle: Metaphysics 1075b37-1076a4 and 1090b19 f.
  14. ^ John Dillon: The Heirs of Plato , Oxford 2003, pp. 54 f.
  15. ↑ Hans Krämer: Der Ursprung der Geistmetaphysik , 2nd edition, Amsterdam 1967, pp. 208–210, 216–218; later, Krämer modified his scheme somewhat, see Hans Krämer: Speusipp . In: Hellmut Flashar (ed.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of antiquity , vol. 3, 2nd edition, Basel 2004, pp. 13–31, here: 21 f. Harold AS Tarrant presents a somewhat different scheme: Speusippus' ontological classification . In: Phronesis 19, 1974, pp. 130-145.
  16. ↑ Aristotle: Metaphysics 1091a35 f.
  17. ^ John Dillon, The Middle Platonists , London 1977, pp. 12-15.
  18. ↑ Hans Krämer: Der Ursprung der Geistmetaphysik , 2nd edition, Amsterdam 1967, pp. 212-214. For a different view expressed by Leonardo Tarán, see John Dillon: Speusippus in Iamblichus . In: Phronesis 29, 1984, pp. 325-332, here: 327 f.
  19. ↑ Hans Krämer: Der Ursprung der Geistmetaphysik , 2nd edition, Amsterdam 1967, p. 32, 210 f .; Jens Halfwassen : Speusipp and the infinity of the one. In: Archive for the History of Philosophy 74, 1992, pp. 43–73, here: 62 f.
  20. ↑ See Harold Cherniss : The older academy , Heidelberg 1966, pp. 44–56.
  21. ^ John Dillon: The Middle Platonists , London 1977, p. 12 f.
  22. ↑ Hans Krämer: Der Ursprung der Geistmetaphysik , 2nd edition, Amsterdam 1967, pp. 351–353.
  23. ↑ Jens Halfwassen: Speusipp and the infinity of the one. In: Archive for the History of Philosophy 74, 1992, pp. 43–73, here: 55–67.
  24. ↑ Harold Cherniss: The older academy , Heidelberg 1966, p. 49.
  25. ↑ Malcolm Wilson: Speusippus on knowledge and division . In: Wolfgang Kullmann , Sabine Föllinger (eds.): Aristotelische Biologie , Stuttgart 1997, pp. 13-25. On Speusippus' non-dihairetic approach see also Andrea Falcon: Aristotle, Speusippus, and the method of division . In: The Classical Quarterly New Series 50, 2000, pp. 402-414.
  26. ↑ Malcolm Wilson: Speusippus on knowledge and division . In: Wolfgang Kullmann, Sabine Föllinger (Eds.): Aristotelische Biologie , Stuttgart 1997, pp. 13–25, here: 20–22. It is generally accepted today that Speusippos is talking about concepts and not (as Jonathan Barnes put it) about things. See the detailed argument by Leonardo Tarán: Speusippus and Aristotle on Homonymy and Synonymy . In: Hermes 106, 1978, pp. 73-99.
  27. ↑ Matthias Baltes : The world emergence of the Platonic Timaeus according to the ancient interpreters , part 1, Leiden 1976, pp. 18-21.
  28. ↑ Hans Krämer: Speusipp . In: Hellmut Flashar (ed.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of antiquity , Vol. 3, 2nd edition, Basel 2004, pp. 13–31, here: 27–29.
  29. ↑ John M. Dillon: Speusippus on Pleasure. In: John M. Dillon: The Great Tradition , Aldershot 1997, No. III, pp. 104-113.
  30. ↑ On the continued effect of Speusippos see Hans Krämer: Der Ursprung der Geistmetaphysik , 2nd edition, Amsterdam 1967, pp. 222, 351 ff. On the origin of Iamblichus' remarks from a lost work by Speusippos, which Leonardo Tarán wrongly disputed, see John Dillon: Speusippus in Iamblichus . In: Phronesis 29, 1984, pp. 325-332; Jens Halfwassen: Speusipp and the infinity of the one. In: Archive for the History of Philosophy 74, 1992, pp. 43–73, here: p. 44 and note 4; Hans Krämer: Speusipp . In: Hellmut Flashar (ed.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of antiquity , Vol. 3, 2nd edition, Basel 2004, pp. 13–31, here: 21; Alain Metry: Speusippos. Number - Knowledge - Being , Bern 2002, pp. 148–151.
  31. ^ Tertullian, Apologeticum 46.10.
  32. ↑ Jens Halfwassen: Speusipp and the infinity of the one. In: Archive for the History of Philosophy 74, 1992, pp. 43–73, here: 43–45. See John Dillon: The Heirs of Plato , Oxford 2003, p. 42; Alain Metry: Speusippos. Number - Knowledge - Being , Bern 2002, p. 2 f .; Leonardo Tarán: Speusippus of Athens , Leiden 1981, p. 8 ("a highly original philosopher", "Speusippus ... need not have been inferior even to Aristotle himself").
  33. ↑ Hans Krämer: Speusipp . In: Hellmut Flashar (ed.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of antiquity , Vol. 3, 2nd edition, Basel 2004, pp. 13–31, here: 30.
  34. ^ Anthony Francis Natoli: The Letter of Speusippus to Philip II , Stuttgart 2004, p. 10.
personal data
SURNAME Speusippos
BRIEF DESCRIPTION Plato's nephew, Scholarch of the Elder Academy
DATE OF BIRTH around 410-407 BC Chr.
DATE OF DEATH 339 BC BC or 338 BC Chr.