Aristotle and other Platonists

173 Pages·2005·15.83 MB·English

by  Gerson

Aristotle and
ALSO BY LLOYD P. GERSON
Other Platonists
Neoplatonic Philosophy: Introductory Readings (2004; with
John Dillon)
Knowing Persons: A Study in Plato (2003)
Aristotle: Critical Assessments (1999)
Cambridge Companion to Plotinus (1996)
Plotinus (1994)
God and Greek Philosophy: Studies in the Early History of
Natural Theology (1990)
Hellenistic Philosophy: Introductory Readings (1998; with
Brad Inwood)
Lloyd P. Gerson
Aristotle’s Politics (1986; with Hippocrates G. Apostle)
Aristotle: Selected Works (1983; with Hippocrates G.
Apostle)
Cornell U niversity Press
Ithaca and London
To my beloved
Copyright © 2005 by Cornell University
All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review,
this book, or parts thereof, must not be reproduced
in any form without permission in wilting from the
publisher. For information, address Cornell University
Press, Sage House, 512 East State Street, Ithaca, New York
14850.
First published 2005 by Cornell University Press
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Gerson, Lloyd P.
Aristotle and other Platonists / Lloyd P. Gerson
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.
ISBN 0-8014-4164-1 (cloth : alk. paper)
1. Aristotle. 2. Platonists. I. Title.
B485.G36 2005
185—dc28 8004013045
Cornell University Press strives to use environmentally
responsible suppliers and materials to the fullest extent
possible in the publishing of its books. Such materials
include vegetable-based, low-VOC inks and acid-free papers
that are recycled, totally chlorine-free, or partly
composed of nonwood fibers. For further information, visit
our website at www.comellpress.comell.edu.
Cloth printing 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Contents
Acknowledgments ix
Introduction i
1. What Is Platonism? 24
What Is Platonism. ? 27
Platonism by Negation 3 7
Is There a Non-Platonic Aristotelianism? 42
2. The Exoteric W ritings and the Early Aristotle 47
The Exoteric Writings 49
Eudemus on the Soul and Forms 51
Protrepticus 60
On Philosophy 67
3. The Categories of Reality 76
4. Nature and Its Principles 101
Matter in Aristotle and the Platonic Tradition / 02
Paradigmatic Causes and Eternity /17
Final Causality and Nature 122
Contents
5. Psychology: Souls and Intellects *3*
The Definition of the Soul 733
Aristotle’s Account of Embodied Cognition 140
De Anima, Gamma 5 752
6. A ristotle’s Metaphysics t73
: The Shape and Theme o/Metaphysics 7 74
Acknowledgments
The Case of Alpha Flatten 180
: Book A 6-10; Theology and Metaphysics 188
Dipine Thinking 795
i Divine Causality 200
Plotinus’s Critique of Aristotle’s God as First Principle of All 205
7. A ristotle and the Forms 2°9
The Neoplatonic Interpretation of Plato’s Theory of Forms 210
Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato’s Theory of Forms 22 o
Mathematics and the Forms 232
8. Aristotle’s Ethics 242 I have been unusually fortunate in the unstinting assistance I have been
The Central Idea of Neoplatonic Ethics 242 given by friends and colleagues. Earlier versions of the book were read by
A Neoplatonic Reading of Aristotle’s Ethics 252 Ian Bell, S. R. L. Clark, John Dillon, Richard Dufour, Asli Gocer, Charles
Aristotle on the Farm of the Good 2 60 Kahn, Debra Nails, Sara Rappe, John Rist, C. D. C. Reeve, and Harold Tar­
The Doctrine of Virtue as a Mean and the Platonic Art of Measurement 2 63 rant. I am deeply grateful to all of these scholars for sharing with me their
learning and for their critical engagement with my ideas. An early version
of the main themes in this book was presented at a conference on Plato’s
9. A ristotle: Platonist malgre lui? 275
ancient readers at the University of Newcastle, NSW, in the summer of 2002.
Are Anti-Nominalists All Platonists ? 2 j6
1 benefited immensely from die very good-humored and pointed dialogue
Persons and Human Beings 282
that my paper inspired. I am especially grateful to Dirk Baltzly, John Cleary,
The Twin Pillars of Aristotle’s Platonism 289
and Richard Sorabji for their helpful suggestions. Another version was pre­
sented at a colloquium at Trinity College, Dublin, where a learned and cor­
Appendix: Platonists and Other Aristotelians 291 dial audience provided me with much food for thought. Holger Thesleff
offered me his warm encouragement and, from his own library, material that
Bibliography 295 was not otherwise available to me. An earlier version of a portion of chapter
Ancient Authors 295 2 appeared in Journal of the History of Philosophy; material contained in chap­
ter 4 appeared in an article in Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophic; parts of
Modem Authors, Editors, and Translators 298
chapter 5 appeared in an article in Phronesis; and parts of chapter 8 in an
article in Oxford Studies in Philosophy. I am grateful to the editors of these pub­
General Index 315
lications for their permission to reprint. The Social Sciences and Humani­
ties Research Council of Canada endowed me with a research grant during
Index Locorum 321 the period 2002-4, which gave me much needed time, among other things,
to complete my research.
L. P. G.
Toronto, Ontario
Aristotle and Other Platonists
Introduction
Aristotle versus Plato. For a long time that is the angle from which the
tale has been told, in textbooks on the history of philosophy and to univer­
sity students. Aristotle’s philosophy, so the story goes, was au fond in opposi­
tion to Plato’s.1 But it was not always thus. The indispensable historian of
philosophy Diogenes Laertius tells us, for example, that Aristotle was Plato’s
“most authentic disciple.”2 Beginning perhaps in the ist century b.c.e., we
observe philosophers already claiming the ultimate harmony of Academic
and Peripatetic thought. Antiochus of Ascalon is frequently recognized as
a principal figure in this regard.3 * * * * A similar view is recorded by Cicero, a
1. See Zeller (1923, 475-480), whose influence in this matter as in so much else in the
study of ancient philosophy is still felt today. Jaeger’s role in establishing the paradigm of oppo­
sition is discussed below. See also Frank (1940, 166-185), who expresses another version of
the working assumption of much Aristotelian scholarship in this century. The eminent histo­
rian of philosophy Etienne Gilson, writing about Aquinas’s decision to construct his own phi­
losophy on an Aristotelian rather than a Platonic foundation, claims in relation to the latter
two that “reduced to their bare essences, these metaphysics are rigorously antinomical; one
cannot be for the one without being against all those who are with the other, and that is why
Saint Thomas remains with Aristotle against all those who are counted on the side of Plato.”
See Gilson 1926/27, 127(1 owe this reference to Francis O’Rourke). By contrast, Boas (1943,
172-193), atypically, identifies Aristotle’s ‘protophilosophy’ as being thoroughly Platonic. See
also Merlan (1953, 3-4), who argues for the Neoplatonic character of Aristotle’s interpreta­
tion of Plato as well as the Neoplatonic character of “some fundamental doctrines of Aristotle.”
2. See D.L. V 1,6: γνησιότατος των Πλάτωνος μαθητών.
3· For Antiochus of Ascalon, see Glucker 1978; Dillon 1996b, chap. 2, and Barnes 1989, (esp.
78-81), who tries to give a sympathetic interpretation of Antiochus’ ‘syncretism.’As Dillon (57-58),
notes, Antiochus’s view of the matter undoubtedly rested in part on the availability of a great deal
more of the writings of the Old Academy than is available to us. Cicero DeFin. V 3, 7, says, “As you
have heard Antiochus say, in the Old Academy are included not only those who are called Acade­
mics ... but even the old Peripatetics, of whom Aristotle is the first and best.” See next note.
2 Aristotle and Other Platonists Introduction 3
disciple of Antiochus.4 Later, in the 2nd century C.E., we find the Platonist label ‘Neoplatonists’ with the hope that the reader will keep in mind that
Alcinous in his influential Handbook of Platonism simply incorporating what ‘neo’ is the last thing that these Platonists wished to be.
we might call Aristotelian elements into his account of what he took to be The case for harmony is partly cumulative. The more one sees harmony
authentic Platonism.5 Finally, and most important, for a period of about in a particular area, the more one is inclined to consider it in another, per­
three hundred years, roughly from the middle of the 3rd century c.e. to the haps hitherto unsuspected. And naturally, the more one views Aristotle’s
middle of the 6th, Aristotelianism and Platonism were widely studied and philosophy as a system, the more is one inclined to view partial harmony as
written about on the assumption that they were harmonious philosophical suggesting, if not entailing, complete harmony. Still, from the Neoplaton­
systems.6 The philosophers of this period who held this view are today usu­ ists’ point of view, resistance to an account of Aristotle’s philosophy as a sys­
ally given the faintly pejorative label ‘Neoplatonists.’ The label, originating tem is not all that troubling. Platonism itself provided all the systematic
in early nineteenth-century Germanic scholarship, has a dubious value as a structure necessary.
category of historical reality. For the so-called Neoplatonists regarded them­ Many scholars have noticed and argued for a Platonic influence in one
selves simply as Platonists; that is, as interpreters and followers of Plato.7 or another of the texts of Aristode. Not infrequendy these interpretadons
They would have probably been more comfortable with the label ‘Paleo- are rejected for no other reason than that diey “make Aristode too much of
platonists’ than with die label ‘Neoplatonists.’ In addition, the presumptive a Platonist.” But when a large number of such texts are put alongside each
designation of later followers of Plato as ‘neo’ subtly suggests that Aristotle other, such protestations begin to seem hollow. At sow point one might well
must have been a ‘non’ Platonist. This book aims to give an account of how begin to wonder whether perhaps the reason Aristode appears to be a Pla­
the perception of harmony arose among these Platonists, how it was articu­ tonist is that in fact he is one.
lated and defended, and to what extent it is justified.8 I use the accepted The case for harmony is also partly inferential. That is, most of the Neo­
platonic material—both the commentaries and the personal writings—
assumes harmony rather dian presenting a brief on its behalf. Since the
4. See Cicero Acad. 14, 17, who has Varro, a pupil of Antiochus, say: “But on the authority
of Plato, a thinker with a variety of complex and fecund thoughts, a type of philosophy was ini­ plausibility of the assumption is in large part what this book is about, my task
tiated that was united and harmonious and known under two names, the Academics and the is often to try to show how it helps us to illuminate some otherwise very puz­
Peripatetics, and they agreed substantially while differing in their names." Also, Acad. II 5, 15. zling texts. Most revealingly, we shall see time and again that a text seem­
Antiochus was apparently reacting to the view of Philo of Larissa (158-84 B.C.E.), who claimed
ingly resistant to any reasonable conclusion regarding its meaning has been
the harmony of the Old Academy and the so-called New Academy, which embraced a form of
skepticism from the time of Arcesilaus onward. rendered so by an antiharmonist assumption. When scholars repeatedly say,
5. See Dillon 1993, especially introd. and commentary. The fact that the Platonist Atticus “This is what the text appears to mean, though it simply can’t mean that
(fl. 175 C.E.) wrote a treatise titled Against Those Who Claim to Interpret the Doctrine of Plato through
because that would be Platonic,” it is perhaps salutary to reexamine the
That of Aristotle supports the conclusion that the harmony between Plato and Aristotle was at
least a current view. Perhaps as Dillon (1996b, 247-250) suggests, Atticus was writing against assumption that leads to this cul-de-sac.
the Peripatetic Aristocles, teacher of Alexander of Aphrodisias, who had argued that the phi­ ‘Harmony,’ when used of two philosophical positions, can of course
losophy of Aristotle “perfected” that of Plato. Chiesara (2001, xxi-xxiii), takes a somewhat
mean many things. Most innocuously, it can mean ‘not in contradiction’
more cautious view, claiming that Aristocles’ praise of Plato did not necessarily indicate that he
or, simply, ‘consistency.’9 There are countless philosophical positions that
viewed the philosophies of Aristode and Plato as being in harmony. Atticus held that Anstode
differed from Plato on three fundamental issues: (1) he denied that virtue was sufficient for are harmonious in this sense simply because they are logically uncon­
happiness (see Baudry 1931, frag. 2); (2) he denied the providence of the divine (frags. 3, 8); nected. Usually there is litde point even in mentioning that A’s position
(3) he denied the temporal creation of the world (frag. 4). On all three points, Atticus was
does not, in fact, contradict B’s. Those who held Aristotelianism to be in
assuming mainstream Middle Platonic interpretations of Plato, especially of Ttmaeus.
6. The Greek term translated here as ‘harmony’ and usually used by Neoplatonists to indi­ harmony with Platonism did not mean merely that their views were not in
cate agreement between Plato and Aristode is συμφωνία. Plato Symp. 187B4, uses συμφωνία contradiction with each other. Another relatively weak though significant
synonymously with αρμονία. The latter term tends to be reserved among the Neoplatonists for
sense of ‘harmony’ underlies the principle ‘the enemy of my enemy is my
a more technical use in scientific theory. See Lloyd 1967, 275» f°r a sketch of the elements of
friend.’ With the rise of competing philosophical schools in antiquity, a
harmony as seen by Neoplatonists.
7. See, e.g„ Proclus PTI 1, who lauds Plotinus, Iamblichus, Theodore of Asine, and others member of one school might be viewed as an ally of members of another
as “exegetes of the Platonic revelation’ (τούς τής Πλατωνικής έποπτείας έξηγητάς). Two
points need to be noted here. The first is Proclus’s implicit assumption of the distinction
between the doctrine that Plato revealed and Plato’s writings and words narrowly construed,
and the second is the claim that although Plotinus initiated a recovery of this doctrine (long
misunderstood by inferior exegetes), he himself was no innovator. esp. 37-39, for some additional remarks on benefiting from the interpretive stance of the Neo­
8. See Frede 1987, intro., and particularly his remarks about doing “philosophical justice platonic commentators.
to ancient philosophy" (xiii). I believe that doing philosophical justice to botii Aristode and 9. See, e.g., Syrianus In Met. 141,2 for the use of συμφωνία in the sense of the ‘self-consis­
Plato is facilitated by a serious consideration of the harmonists’ position. See also Sedley 2002, tent’ doctrines of a single philosopher: namely, Aristotle.
4 Aristotle and Other Platon ists Introduction 5
school owing to their joint antagonisms.10 The idea of the harmony actually contradicted each other.13 Yet at the same time they recognized
between Platonism and Aristotelianism that drove the philosophy of our their shared commitment to the principles that expressed the essence of Pla­
period was different from these. It was also typically not explicitly thema- tonism.14 As we shall see, even Plato’s own philosophical positions taken
tized. In many cases we have to infer the meaning a Neoplatonic author together could be viewed as constituting one type of Platonism, where ‘Pla­
gives to ‘harmony’ from the specific claims made about putatively harmo­ tonism’ is a term practically identical with ‘true philosophy.’15 If Aris­
nious doctrines. Though necessarily somewhat vague, the concept of har­ totelianism is indeed a version of Platonism, it may well be granted that it is
mony contains a rich description of a nexus of relations, which emerges a version propounded by a ‘dissident’ Platonist. Although conceding the dis-
in the following discussion. sidence, this book aims to concentrate on the Platonist that Aristotle was,
There are, however, some relatively clear boundaries within which all nevertheless, held to be.
our authors were working. First, the idea of harmony rested on a per­ We need to make the idea of harmony a bit more precise, since not all of
ception of a sort of division of labor. Roughly, it was held that Plato was Aristotle’s doctrines (on Neoplatonic interpretations) are harmonized with
authoritative for the intelligible world and Aristotle was authoritative for those of Plato (again, on their interpretations) in the same way. There are
the sensible world: “In every case he did not want to depart from nature (i) doctrines of Aristotle that are basically identical with those of Plato; (2)
but to consider the things above nature according to their relation to doctrines of Aristotle that are superficially different owing principally to lan­
nature, just as the divine Plato, for his part, and in the manner of the guage, though they rest on principles that are identical with those held by
Pythagoreans, examined even natural things according as they partake Plato; (3) doctrines of Aristotle that are different from those of Plato
of those things above nature.”11 But this division of labor rested upon because they rest on an imperfect or incomplete grasp by Aristotle of the
and flowed from jointly held philosophical principles. What this meant correct Platonic principles. Examples of (1) are the superiority of the con­
was that Aristotelian philosophical claims could be subsumed under the templative or theoretical life to any other, the immortality of intellect, and
more capacious and ultimately true Platonic system in a way roughly the unicity of the first principle of all; of (2), the nature of matter, the role
analogous to the way that Newtonian mechanics can be subsumed under of divine providence, the relative primacy of sensible substance, the immor­
quantum mechanics or sentential logic can be subsumed under the pred­ tality of the person, and the rejection of separate Forms;16 of (3), the iden­
icate calculus.12 tification of the first principle of all with thinking, the completeness of the
A slightly different way of understanding harmony would see Aris­ fourfold schema of causal analysis, and the identification of the first princi­
totelianism as a type or version of Platonism. I shall have much more to say ple of all exclusively as a final cause. Depending on the context, to hold that
about Platonism in the next chapter. Here it will perhaps suffice to indicate Aristode’s philosophy is in harmony with Plato’s can mean any one of those
that many self-declared followers of Plato held philosophical positions that examples, though it may be doubted whedier any Neoplatonic author is
always so clear about the precise sense of harmony being employed.
10. See Sedley 1996,97-119. Sextus Empiricus PHI 90,98, points to the tact of the dishar­
mony (διαφωνία) among dogmatists as the basis for one crucial skeptical argument: how can
dogmatists be trusted when they disagree; which one should we trust? We should not discount 13. E.g., Neoplatonists differed concerning the relationship between intellect and intelli-
as a motive among some harmonists a wish to enhance the appearance of the cogency—indeed, gibles, specifically how to interpret the relationship in Plato’s Timaeus between the Demiurge
the inevitability—of Platonism in the face of alien attacks on it. and the Forms. See Syrianus In Met. 109, 33-110, 7, and Produs In Tim. I 306, 31-307, 4; 322,
11. Simplicius In Cat. 6, 27-30. See also In Phys. 8, 9-15. One thinks of the great painting 20-26; 323, 1-22, etc. See Hadot 1990, 177-182, on divergences among the Neoplatonists in
by Raphael, The School of Athens, painted in 1510, with the image of Plato and Aristotle strolling their understanding of the elements of harmonization.
through the Academy together—Plato, holding his Timaeits, with finger raised upward to the
14. One may compare in this regard Roman Catholicism and Protestantism as types of
heavens, and Aristotle, holding his Ethics, with palm facing downward to the earth. Countless Christianity. Despite their opposition on various points, one can reasonably insist on their
generations of students have heard the misinterpretation of this painting to the effect that
underlying harmony owing to their shared principles. On this analogy, for Neoplatonists, Pla­
Raphael is contrasting the ‘otherworldly’ Plato with the ‘down-to-earth’ Aristotle. In fact, this
tonism is Christianity, Plato’s philosophy is Roman Catholicism, and Aristotelianism is a type of
is very likely not what Raphael had in mind. Having learned his ancient philosophy from, Protestantism.
among others, the harmonist Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494), Raphael was probably indi­
15. See O’Meara 1989, 210-211, on Iamblichus’s unique and influential role in the Neo­
rectly representing the “division oflabor” postulated by Simplicius. See Hall 1997, 35-37· It is
platonic interpretation of Plato. Iamblichus was particularly concerned to harmonize Plato
worth adding that Raphael and his audience must have known that Aristotle’s Nicomachean
with Pythagoras, something that is not found at all in Plotinus, Porphyry, or to a great extent
Ethics ends with an exhortation to ‘divinization’ corresponding exacdy to what Plato says at the
in Proclus. Iamblichus is also reported by Proclus as criticizing Porphyry for saying things that
end of Timaeus. are “neither Platonic nor true” (ovre Πλατών news' ovrt άληθώ?) and for “introducing alien
12. Here, for the sake of the analogy, we should focus especially on the empirical ade­
elements into Platonism” (άλλοτρίω? τοΰ nXaTwvos Είσαγομεvas). The implication of the for­
quacy of Newtonian mechanics within a circumscribed domain. Quantum mechanics pro­
mer remark is that ‘Platonic’ and ‘true’ are least logically distinct. See Proclus In Tim. 1307, 4;
vides a deeper and more comprehensive explanation. I thank Dirk Baltzly for his insight into
I 152, 29; III 65, 9 (I owe these references to John Dillon).
this analogy. 16. See Simplicius In Gael 69, 11-15; 64°> 27-28; 679, 27-31.
6 Aristotle and Other Platonists Introduction 7
Simplicius, one of the most prolific of the ancient commentators and per­ basis of the textual evidence of the Aristotelian material extant and available
haps our most valuable source for the entire commentary tradition, provides to them, they held that Aristotle was in some nontrivial sense an adherent
in his massive work on Categories the fundamental ^ationaW for harmoniza­ of Platonism or of its fundamental principles.
tion. Writing in his introduction about Aristotle’s style of writing, he says: Second, Simplicius gives us one important reason for the appearance of
disharmony: namely, that the starting points of Plato and Aristotle are dif­
The form of Aristotelian expression both in his thought and in his writing is ferent. Aristotle starts from nature—that is, the sensible world—and rises to
dense, intellectual, and vigorous. For he either straightaway brings in the solu­ speculation about the intelligible world on the basis of his account of nature.
tion to a problem or, collecting many problems together, he provides one con­ By contrast, Plato starts from what we might term a priori considerations
cise solution that applies to all, never wishing to separate himself from the about the intelligible world and then treats of the natural world on the basis
evidence. Since the evidence that leads to conviction is twofold, one kind com­
of these. This interpretation of the approaches of Aristotle and Plato is well
ing from intellect and one coming from sense-perception, and since he is con­
grounded in the texts of both authors even if it does not even begin to rep­
versing with those who are dependent on sense-perception, he prefers the
resent the totality of their methodologies.19 Simplicius plainly acknowledges
kind of evidence that is sensible. That is why his demonstrations have the force
apparent disagreement between Plato and Aristotle, but he thinks it is only
of necessity, so that even one who is not convinced owing to some unfortunate
apparent—in most matters.20 The question we need to try to face squarely
prejudice is nevertheless forced to be silent. In every case he does not wish to
cut himself off from nature and so he even speculates on the things above is how much of this supposed harmony is fact and how much fancy.
nature according to its relation [σχέσιν] to nature, just as, conversely, the At this point an entirely reasonable response would be; “If that is what Neo­
divine Plato, according to the Pythagorean practice, examines natural things platonists meant by the ‘harmony’ of Plato and Aristotle, then so much the
according as they participate in those things above nature. Indeed, Aristotle worse for them!” One might be at a loss to understand how anyone reading
had no recourse to myths or symbolic puzzles as did some of his predecessors, objectively the corpus of Aristotelian texts could suppose that Aristotle did
but preferred obscurity to any other masking device.17 not see himself as profoundly opposed to Plato.21 Part of my task is to show
that such a perception is less well founded than one might suppose. Still, a
After some further discussion of the reasons for the obscurity and some
book that aimed to do nothing more than show that a group of largely for­
advice about the requirements for being a good commentator, Simplicius
gotten scholars and eccentric philosophers were not quite as naive as is some­
adds: “In my opinion it is necessary that in regard to the things that Aristo­
times thought would in my view be of little interest. Rather, I want to show
tle says against Plato the commentator must not arrive at the judgment that
that reading Aristode as a Platonist, or understanding Aristotelianism as a
there is disharmony between the two philosophers looking only to the words
type of Platonism, far from being an exercise in historical perversity, does
[λεζιν], but rather he must look into the meaning [vo€v] in order to follow
actually yield significant results both exegetical and philosophical. In regard
the trail of their harmony in most matters.”18 These texts, normative for
to the many problematic claims made by Aristode, various interpretations are
most of the commentators from Porphyry to the end of the Neoplatonic
commentary tradition, reveal several basic points about harmonization.
First, all exegesis has to be comprehensive, a point^yideq|ly $X odds with 19. SeePhys. A 1, 184316-18. Cf. ENA 2, 1095I13. Plato’s Tmaeusprovides the most impor­
tant example of his treatment of nature on the basis of principles articulated for the intelligi­
the notion of a development of the thought of both Plato and Aristotle. The
ble world. It begins with an argument for the existence of a demiurgic god and then proceeds
Neoplatonists started with the assumption that there was such a thing as Pla­ to deduce the manner and scope of its creative activity ending in the creation of the sensible
tonism more or less amenable to systemizing. Aristotle’s relation to this phi­ world.
20. See his In Phys. 1249, 12-13, where Simplicius contrasts the apparent verbal difference
losophy was neither indisputable nor unambiguous. Nevertheless, on the
(in όνομα) between Plato and Aristotle from a putative real difference (in πράγμα). The rea­
son for the verbal difference is the different startup-points of the two philosophers.
21. See, e.g., Richard Sorabji’s general introduction to the series of groundbreaking transla­
17. Simplicius In Cat. 6, 19-32. tions of the Greek Aristotle commentaries, (Wildberg 1987,7), where he refers to the idea of har­
18. Ibid., 7, 31-33. Elias (or David) In Cat. 123, 7-12, says that the exegete must not only mony as a “perfectly crazy proposition,” though he allows that it “proved philosophically fruitful.”
show that Aristotle is in harmony with Plato, but that both Aristotle and Plato are in harmony One might well wonder why, if harmony is a crazy idea, the attempt to show it should be other than
with themselves: that is, they are self-consistent. Here is an implicit rejection of developmen­ philosophically fruitless. Sorabji in a recent as yet unpublished paper suggests as an example of
tal! sm in the thought of both Plato and Aristotle. The attribution of this commentary to Elias tire fruitful outcome of the harmonization principle the efforts by Neoplatonists to understand
has been questioned. For my purposes, the authorship is unimportant. Olympiodorus in his In the Aristotelian account of sensible reality as it relates to the Platonic account of unchanging, eter­
Gorg. 41 9, 1-4, says in passing, “Concerning Aristotle we must point out that in the first place nal reality. See also Szlezak (1994, 215-232), who begins by asserting the huge gulf that exists
he does not disagree at all with Plato, except in appearance. In the second place, even if he between Aristotle and Plato and then goes on to show the harmony of the two “nell ambito dei
does disagree, it is on the basis of his having benefited [ώφεληβίίε] from Plato.” The Neopla- motive di londo e dei metodi" as opposed to a harmony of “dottrine” (218). This harmony includes
tonist Olympiodorus in his In Cat. 112, 19-113, 15, actually argues that Aristotle is right and “la concezione di filosofia” (232). One might legitimately wonder, however, if there can be a har­
Plato wrong in his definition of relatives (I owe this reference to Richard Sorabji). mony in the conception of philosophy without a doctrinal harmony of some sort.
8 A ristotle and Other Platonists Introduction 9
possible. 1 would like this book to undermine the widely held belief that any practice untouched. This is entirely understandable since Aristotle and Peri­
interpretation that “turns Aristotle into a Platonist” must be ipso facto ruled patetics generally had almost nothing to say about religion. Thus it should
out of court. occasion no surprise that a Neoplatonist could regard Aristotle’s philosophy
The view that the philosophy of Aristotle was in harmony with the philos­ as being in harmony with Plato’s at the same time as he practiced and
ophy of Plato must be sharply distinguished from the view, held by no one defended a religious life sharply different from what we could imagine that
in antiquity, that the philosophy of Aristotle was identical with the philoso­ an Aristotelian might practice.27 For example, Proclus’s deeply religious way
phy of Plato. For example, in Plato’s dialogue Parmenides, Socrates suggests of life did not prevent him from defending harmony where he found it.
that Zeno’s book states the “same position” as Parmenides’, differing only The first concrete indication we possess that Neoplatonists were pre­
in that it focuses on an attack on Parmenides’ opponents. Zeno acknowl­ pared to argue for the harmony of Aristotle and Plato is contained in a ref­
edges this identity.22 The harmony of Aristotle and Plato was not supposed erence in Photius’s Bibliography to the Neoplatonist Hierocles’ statement
to be like the identity of the philosophy of Zeno and Parmenides. Again, that Ammonius of Alexandria, the teacher of Plotinus, attempted to resolve
Eusebius famously tells us that Numenius asked rhetorically, “What is Plato the conflict between the disciples of Plato and Aristotle, showing that their
but Moses speaking Attic Greek.”23 No Neoplatonist supposed that Aristo­ understanding (γνώμην) was in fact in harmony (σύμφωνον) regarding the
tle was just Plato speaking a Peripatetic ‘dialect.’24 25 important and most necessary doctrines.28 The second indication of an
Nor should we take harmony to indicate some sort of eclecticism or syn­ effort to display harmony is found in the Suda, where it is stated that Por­
cretism^3 Even if these terms have some useful application tOvafious dimly phyry, Plotinus’s disciple, produced a work in six books titled On Plato and
known philosophers in the period between Plato and Plotinus, they are quite Aristotle Being Adherents of the Same School (lie pi τοΰ μίαν el ναι την Πλάτωνος
useless in understanding the engagement of Neoplatonists with Aristotle. For καί Άριστοτελσνς αίρεσιν).29 We know nothing of this work apart from
one thing, the Neoplatonists did not believe that they were constructing some the title and what we can infer from what Porphyry actually says in the
new philosophy from a supposedly neutral standpoint outside of any com­ extant works. It seems reasonably clear, however, that a work of such length
mitment to one philosophical school or another. For another, their univer­ was attempting to provide a substantial argument, one that was evidently
sally held view that the Platoniism to which they adhered was a comprehensive opposed to at least some prevailing views.30 It is also perhaps the case that
system of philosophy precluded the typical motivation of eclectic or syncretic
schools. They had no inWifig that the terms ‘bigger,’ ‘better,’ and ‘newer’
27. Hadot 1996, introd., 57-58, where she points out that Simplicius held that Aristotle’s
could be used honorifically in the construction of a philosophical system.
obscure style is intended to reserve his ‘revelations’ for the philosophically adept. But this is
Finally, the harmony of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle should not not, I take it, equivalent to attributing to Aristotle himself Neoplatonic religious practices. I
be thought necessarily to include the practical religious aspect of Platonism. think that this is the case even for Iamblichus, who was especially eager to emphasize the con­
tinuity of Platonism with the religion of the ancient sages of Egypt and Persia, as well as those
One of tlu' significant ways in which Neoplatonism distinguished itself from
of Greece.
«ither forms of Platonism was in its religious practices, especially theurgy and 28. See Photius Bibliothoca 214. 2, 172a2-g; Porphyry De. Reg. An. (frag. 302E 6 Smith). At
j Taxet26 Iamblichus is a c entral figure in this regard. The idea that Aristotle's 214. 8, 173318-40, Hierocles makes the bolder claim that all those from Aristotle up to Ammo­
nius “who had a reputation for wisdom” were in agreement with Plato, and all those “born of
philosophy could be subsumed under Platonism left questions of religious
the sacred race” from Ammonius up to Plutarch of Athens were in agreement with the “puri­
fied version of Plato’s philosophy” (διακίκαθαρμώ/ή φιλοσοφία). The qualifications are obvi­
22. Plato Farm. 128A-E. ously intended to exclude genuine non-Platonists such as Stoics and Epicureans. More
23. See Des Places 1973, frag. 8 who suggests, however, that Numenius’s comparison was importantly, Hierocles here recognizes the need to grasp Platonism “purified.” This purifica­
probably limited in its doctrinal ambit. Indeed, without a context it is difficult to judge its level tion must include the elimination of false interpretations, a claim that rests upon the momen­
of generality. tous assumption that Plato must be imeipreted. See During 1957, 332-336, for a useful
24. See, e.g., Ammonius In Cat. 3, 9-16, and the anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic Philos­ compilation of the texts from the Neoplatonists relating to harmony. St. Augustine Con. Acad.
ophy possibly attributable to Olympiodorus, 5, 18-30, which explains that ‘Peripatetic’ is a term Ill 19, 42, echoes Cicero’s remarks on the harmony of Plato and Aristotle, noting that appre­
that comes from Pfatoi habit of walking around while philosophizing. Accordingly, Aristotle ciating die harmony beneath the apparent disagreement requires discernment. See also
(and Xenocrates), as followers of Plato, were called ‘Peripatetics,’ though the former taught in Boethius In de Ini. 80, 1 -6, who seems to be following the Neoplatonic line.
the Lyceum, the latter in the Academy. 29. See Suda Π 2098, 8-9 (= frag. 23gT Smith). Cf. Elias In Porph. Isag. 39, 6-8. See Smith
25. See Donini 1988a, 15-33, esp. 27-28, for some properly critical remarks on the use of 1987, 754 n. 218, on the likelihood that the title of the book indicates that Porphyry argued
the terms ‘eclectic’ and ‘syncretic’ among historians of ancient philosophy in the 19th and 20th for the harmony of Plato and Aristotle. On the meaning of the term at penis in this period, see
centuries. Gluckcr 1978, 166-193. After discussing a large amount of evidence Glucker concludes that
26. See, e.g., Proclus In Tim. I 210, gyff. Simplicius In Cael. 731, 25-29. See Dome 1976a, aipents is never used of a ‘school’ in an institutional or organizational sense but always of a way
514, “in der Tat war der Platonismus [i.e„ Neoplatonism] im Innersten le’ugios fundiert.” See of thinking or set of beliefs.
generally on the Neoplatonic commentaries themselves as a form of prayer Erler 1987, 30. See Schibli (2002, 27-31, with nn. 98 and too), who mentions the prevailing view that
179-217; Van den Berg 2001, esp. 22-30, on philosophy and prayer in Proclus; Shaw 1995; Hierocles got from Porphyry his idea that Ammonius taught the harmony of Plato and Aristo­
Nasemann 1991 on theurgy in Iamblichus. tle; see n. g6 for references and Dodds’s (1960) dissent from this view. Whatever the case, Schibli