Theodoros of Asine

Theodoros von Asine ( Greek  Θεόδωρος ὁ Ἀσιναῖος Theódōros ho Asinaíos ; * probably around 275/280; † probably around 360 at the latest) was a late antique philosopher of the Neoplatonic direction.

Life

Theodoros came from the city of Asine (today Koroni ) in Messenia . Nothing is known about his family of origin. In his youth he was a student of the Neo-Platonist Porphyrios in Rome . After his death he temporarily joined Iamblichus , the most famous student of Porphyry. Later, however, there were important philosophical differences of opinion between Theodorus and Iamblichus. Theodoros defended older doctrines (positions of the Neo-Platonists Porphyrios and Amelios Gentilianos as well as the Middle Platonist Numenios ) against the views of Iamblichus.

It is unclear whether Theodoros can be equated with an unnamed “philosopher from Rhodes ” who - as a report by Proclus shows - was one of the commentators on Plato's dialogue Parmenides . Henri Dominique Saffrey, who advocates the identity hypothesis, suspects that there was an oversight by a careless copyist who wrote “from Rhodes” while the original text said “Theodoros”.

Works

The works of Theodoros have been lost, but information about their content has been handed down in later literature. The titles of two writings are known: "About the names" ( Perí onomátōn ) and "That the soul is all forms" ( Hóti hē psychḗ pánta ta eídē estí ). “About names” probably dealt with the terminology of Neoplatonic metaphysics ; In addition to the transmigration of souls, the subjects of the treatise “That the soul is all forms” included the consequences of the proposition that the soul “is everything”. In addition, Theodoros probably commented on Plato's dialogues Timaeus , Politeia , Phaidon and Philebos as well as the categories of Aristotle . However, the comments may not have been works authorized by him, but only transcripts from students from his classes.

Teaching

Ontology and theory of the soul

Theodoros represents a variant of Neoplatonism, which represents an intermediate stage between the system of Iamblichos and that of Proclus and at the same time offers in some respects an alternative to the thinking of Iamblichos. From Iamblichos he takes over the principle of the threefolding of the individual areas of being, which he is still expanding in his cosmology. At the top of the world order he places a first principle (“the first”), which is “inexpressible” (cannot be paraphrased in words) and is the source of all things. While Iamblichos assumes two first principles, the absolutely transcendent one , from which nothing proceeds, and the one as an active, creative principle, Theodoros dispenses with such a distinction. Theodoros' first principle is followed by several hierarchically arranged hypostases (levels of being), each of which is divided into three parts. Immediately below the first principle is the level of the intelligible , followed by the level of the intellect . The triad of the intellect level consists of being before being, thinking before spirit ( nous ) and life (as an infinitive ) before life (as noun ), that is, from the acts of being, thinking and living. In contrast to Iamblichos, Syrianos and Proklos, Theodoros assigns the demiurge (world creator) Plato, whom he sees as a triad, to an ontologically independent area. This demiurgic area immediately below the level of the intellect is a triad that consists of beings, nous and life. Below is the level of souls. The source of souls is life on the demiurgic level. The realm of matter lies below the soul level. The soul mediates between the intelligible and the material, sensually perceptible world; it can both descend into matter and ascend to the upper hypostasis and unite with them.

In the philosophy of Theodoros the inner connection of all components of the cosmos is emphasized. He means that every human soul is unreservedly identical in nature to the world soul (i.e. not just similar in the sense of a kinship or a graded participation of the lower in the higher or the presence of the higher in the lower, as far as this is possible at the respective level of being). In the controversial question among Platonists whether the soul of a person can also incarnate in an animal body, he takes the view that this is possible. In doing so he contradicts both Porphyrios and Iamblichus. In his opinion, when the human soul enters an animal body, it connects with its already existing animal soul without changing its spiritual nature. It is only indirectly connected to the animal body via the animal soul.

Theodoros considers time to be a product of the world soul, in which he also locates eternity. Therefore for him the soul - both the world soul and the human soul of the same nature - stands above time and eternity.

Theodoros shares the conviction of Plotinus , which Iamblichos emphatically rejected , according to which a part of the soul free of suffering remains in constant communion with the divine realm even during the stay of the soul in the body. According to his teaching, this community is not even interrupted by the soul entering an animal body.

Gender theory

Theodoros judges the relationship between the sexes according to the idea of ​​the equality of human soul. He considers the extensive equality of the sexes demanded in Plato's Politeia to be justified, since he assumes that the virtue ( arete ) that is to be attained and realized in a perfect way is the same in men and women and therefore through the same upbringing and tasks is to strive for. If there were specifically male and specifically female virtues, the virtues of one sex would not be completely realizable for the other. But since a virtue can only be completed in association with the other, a completed virtue would be excluded in principle for both sexes. Such a limitation of possible virtue, however, appears unacceptable from a Platonic point of view; it cannot be considered for Theodoros.

Theodoros not only underpins his view with this virtue-theoretical consideration, but also makes ethnological , physiological and mythological arguments for equality. He refers to the mythical Amazons and to peoples like the Sarmatians and the Lusitans , where women are not inferior to men in the virtue of bravery traditionally considered masculine. From this it follows that the conventional role models are not given by nature, but are culturally conditioned and therefore philosophically irrelevant.

He also argues that there are male deities as well as goddesses who, like the gods, are blissful . Happiness presupposes that gods and goddesses have the same virtue. Thus, with regard to virtue, analogous relationships are to be assumed among the human sexes.

Theodoros draws another argument from a variant of the Helena myth, referring to an Egyptian tradition that was communicated to him orally. According to this version of the legend, Helena, the wife of King Menelaus , for whose sake the Trojan War was fought, was only apparently a mortal person. In reality, she was an embodiment of the goddess Aphrodite . She did not get to Troy with the kidnapper Paris , but was raptured to Egypt, where she was worshiped. Only an illusion resembling her had arrived in Troy. Theodore uses the fact that, according to this myth, a deity can also inhabit a woman's body to justify his view of the rank of woman.

reception

Theodoros founded a school for which Emperor Julian used the term "Theodoreer". It was a countercurrent to the philosophy of Iamblichos. In a letter that Julian wrote to his friend, the Neo-Platonist Priskos , before he was promoted to emperor , he warned of the "shouting" of the Theodorees who disparaged Iamblichus.

Eunapios of Sardis names Theodoros among the important disciples of Iamblichus and emphasizes his extraordinary virtue. Remarks by Proclus, who mentioned him with praise and made extensive reference to his Timaeus interpretation, but also often contradicted him, show that his philosophy was still respected in Neo-Platonist circles in the 5th century . In the course of his discussion with Iamblichus, Proklos used the thoughts of Theodoros. In other sources, however, the name of Theodoros rarely occurs; apparently his writings did not have a broad and lasting impact.

Source collection

• Werner Deuse (ed.): Theodoros von Asine. Collection of testimonies and commentary. Franz Steiner, Wiesbaden 1973

literature

• Ugo Criscuolo: Fra Porfirio e Giamblico: la 'teologia' di Teodoro di Asine (il 'Primo' e l''Uno ') . In: Claudio Moreschini, Giovanni Menestrina (eds.): Lingua e teologia nel cristianesimo greco . Morcelliana, Brescia 1999, ISBN 88-372-1710-2 , pp. 201-226
• Jan Opsomer, Bettina Bohle, Christoph Horn : Iamblichos and his school. 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). Schwabe, Basel 2018, ISBN 978-3-7965-3699-1 , pp. 1349–1395, 1434–1452, here: 1389–1393, 1451
• Henri Dominique Saffrey: Théodore d'Asiné. In: Richard Goulet (ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques. Volume 6, CNRS Éditions, Paris 2016, ISBN 978-2-271-08989-2 , pp. 926-928

Remarks

1. ↑ To identify the place of origin, see Henri Dominique Saffrey: Le "Philosophe de Rhodes" est-il Théodore d'Asinè? In: Henri Dominique Saffrey: Le Néoplatonisme après Plotin. Paris 2000, pp. 101–117, here: p. 105 and note 17.
2. ^ Henri Dominique Saffrey: Le "Philosophe de Rhodes" est-il Théodore d'Asinè? In: Henri Dominique Saffrey: Le Néoplatonisme après Plotin. Paris 2000, pp. 101-117, here: 104-117; Henri Dominique Saffrey: Encore Théodore d'Asinè sur le Parménide . In: Henri Dominique Saffrey: Le Néoplatonisme après Plotin. Paris 2000, pp. 119-124.
3. ↑ Werner Deuse (Ed.): Theodoros von Asine. Collection of testimony and commentary , Wiesbaden 1973, pp. 4, 69-71.
4. ↑ Werner Deuse (Ed.): Theodoros von Asine. Collection of testimony and commentary , Wiesbaden 1973, pp. 3–7.
5. ↑ Werner Deuse (Ed.): Theodoros von Asine. Collection of testimony and commentary , Wiesbaden 1973, pp. 10, 155–161.
6. ↑ Werner Deuse (Ed.): Theodoros von Asine. Collection of testimony and commentary , Wiesbaden 1973, pp. 131–135.
7. ↑ For the argumentation of Theodoros see Angela Longo: Gli argomenti di Teodoro di Asine sull'educazione comune di uomini e donne nel Commento alla Repubblica di Proclo (I 253-5 Kroll) . In: Elenchos , Vol. 23, 2002, pp. 51-73; John Dillon : The Equality of the Sexes - Variations on a rhetorical theme in the fourth century AD . In: Hermathena , No. 158, 1995, pp. 27-35, here: 30-32.