Тема выпуска



страница1/27
Дата22.06.2019
Размер3.85 Mb.
#106219
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   27

Σ Χ Ο Λ Η




Философское антиковедение

и классическая традиция

Том 5
Выпуск 2
2011

Тема выпуска:

Античная космология и астрономия


ΣΧΟΛΗ

Философское антиковедение

и классическая традиция

Издается «Центром изучения древней философии

и классической традиции»
Главный редактор

Е. В. Афонасин



Ответственный секретарь

А. С. Афонасина



Редакционная коллегия

Леонидас Баргелиотис (Афины–Олимпия), И. В. Берестов (Новосибирск),

М. Н. Вольф (Новосибирск), В. П. Горан (Новосибирск), Джон Диллон (Дублин), С. В. Месяц (Москва), Е. В. Орлов (Новосибирск), В. Б. Прозоров (Москва), А. В. Цыб (Санкт-Петербург), А. И. Щетников (Новосибирск)

Редакционный совет

С. С. Аванесов (Томск), Леван Гигинейшвили (Тбилиси), Люк Бриссон (Париж), В. С. Диев (Новосибирск), Доминик O’Мара (Фрибург), Теун Тилеман (Утрехт), В. В. Целищев (Новосибирск), С. П. Шевцов (Одесса)



Учредители журнала

Новосибирский государственный университет,

Институт философии и права СО РАН

Основан в марте 2007 г. Периодичность – два раза в год

Данный выпуск подготовлен и опубликован благодаря поддержке

Института «Открытое общество» (Будапешт)

Адрес для корреспонденции

Философский факультет НГУ, ул. Пирогова, 2, Новосибирск, 630090

Тексты принимаются в электронном виде

по адресу: afonasin@gmail.com


Адрес в сети Интернет: www.nsu.ru/classics/schole/

ISSN 1995-4328 (Print)

ISSN 1995-4336 (Online)

© Центр изучения древней философии

и классической традиции, 2011


Σ Χ Ο Λ Η


Ancient Philosophy and

the Classical Tradition
Volume 5
Issue 2
2011

Special issue:

Ancient Cosmology and Astronomy

ΣΧΟΛΗ

A Journal of the Centre for Ancient Philosophy

and the Classical Tradition
Editor-in-Chief

Eugene V. Afonasin


Executive Secretary

Anna S. Afonasina


Editorial Board

Leonidas Bargeliotes (Athens–Ancient Olympia), Igor V. Berestov (Novosibirsk),

Vasily P. Goran (Novosibirsk), John Dillon (Dublin), Svetlana V. Mesyats (Moscow), Eugene V. Orlov (Novosibirsk), Vadim B. Prozorov (Moscow), Andrei I. Schetnikov (Novosibirsk), Alexey V. Tzyb (St. Petersburg), Marina N. Wolf (Novosibirsk)

Advisory Committee

Sergey S. Avanesov (Tomsk), Luc Brisson (Paris), Levan Gigineishvili

(Tbilisi), Vladimir S. Diev (Novosibirsk), Dominic O’Meara (Friburg), Sergey P. Shevtsov (Odessa), Teun Tieleman (Utrecht), Vitaly V. Tselitschev (Novosibirsk)

Established at

Novosibirsk State University

Institute of Philosophy and Law (Novosibirsk, Russia)
The journal is published twice a year since March 2007
Preparation of this volume is supported by

The “Open Society Institute” (Budapest)
The address for correspondence

Philosophy Department, Novosibirsk State University,

Pirogov Street, 2, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia

E-mail address: afonasin@gmail.com
On-line version: www.nsu.ru/classics/schole/


ISSN 1995-4328 (Print)

ISSN 1995-4336 (Online)



© The Center for Ancient Philosophy and

the Classical Tradition, 2011




СОДЕРЖАНИЕ / CONTENTS

Предисловие редактора . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

109

Editorial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

110

ЛЕКЦИИ / LECTURES




Discussions on the Eternity of the World in Late Antiquity . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Michael Chase

111

I. Philoponus and Simplicius on the Eternity of the World . . . . . . . . . . . . .

112

II. Philoponus, Simplicius, and the Theory of Instantaneous Change . . . . .

133

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

148

Appendix 1. Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

150

Appendix 2. Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

151

ПЕРЕВОДЫ / TRANSLATIONS




Гемин. Введение в явления . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

А. И. Щетников, предисловие, перевод, примечания

174

От переводчика . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

174

Введения в явления . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

179

Вальтер Буркерт. Астрономия и пифагореизм. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

А. С. Афонасина, предисловие и перевод

234

От переводчика . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

234

1. Структура мира и планетарная система . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

237

2. Теория планетарных движений . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

260

3. Космос Филолая . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

276

4. Гармония сфер и астральное бессмертие . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

290

Библиографические сокращения . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

309

Аннотации . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

312

Abstracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

314

ПРЕДИСЛОВИЕ РЕДАКТОРА

Второй выпуск пятого тома журнала посвящен античной космологии и астрономии. В него включен курс лекций Майкла Чейза «Дискуссии о вечности мира в поздней античности», прочитанный в мае 2011 г. в НГУ, а также два перевода: глава из монографии знаменитого историка античности Вальтера Буркерта, посвященная античной астрономии, и перевод «Введений в явления» Гемина. Эти тексты подготовлены специально для участников семинара по истории античной науки, который пройдет в Сибирском научном центре в августе 2011 г. при поддержке Института «Открытое общество».

Следующий выпуск журнала (январь 2012 г.) будет посвящен истории античной музыки. Приглашаем к сотрудничеству заинтересованных авторов. Работы принимаются до конца ноября 2011 г.

Сердечно благодарим всех коллег и друзей, принявших участие в наших встречах, и напоминаем, что журнал индексируется The Philosophers Index и SCOPUS, и все предыдущие выпуски можно найти на собственной странице журнала www.nsu.ru/classics/schole/, а также в составе следующих электронных библиотек: www.elibrary.ru (Научная электронная библиотека) и www.ceeol.com (Central and Eastern European Online Library).

Евгений Афонасин

Академгородок

15 июля 2011 г.

afonasin@gmail.com
EDITORIAL
The second issue of the fifth volume of the journal is entirely devoted to ancient cosmology and astronomy. It includes lectures by Michael Chase, “Discussions on the eternity of the world”, delivered in May 2011 at Novosibirsk, a Russian translation of a chapter on ancient astronomy from Walter Burkert’s “Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism”, and a commented Russian translation of the Elementa astronomiae by Geminus. These texts are prepared for the participants of the international school “Τεχνη. Theoretical Foundations of Arts, Sciences and Technology in the Greco-Roman World” (August 2011, Siberian Scientific Centre) organized by the “Centre for Ancient philosophy and the classical tradition” and sponsored by the “Open Society” Institute (Budapest).

Next issue of the journal (January 2012) will be dedicated to Ancient Music. Interested persons are welcome to contribute. Studies and translations are due by November 2011.

I wish to express my gratitude to all my friend and colleagues for participation in our seminars and would like to remind that the journal is abstracted / indexed in The Philosopher’s Index and SCOPUS, and available on-line at the following addresses: www.nsu.ru/classics/schole/ (journal home page); www.elibrary.ru (Russian Index of Scientific Quotations); and www.ceeol.com (Central and Eastern European Online Library).

Еugene Afonasin

Academgorodok, Russia

July 15, 2011

afonasin@gmail.com

Лекции / Lectures

DISCUSSIONS

ON THE ETERNITY OF THE WORLD

IN LATE ANTIQUITY1

Michael Chase

CNRS, Paris

Goya@vjf.cnrs.fr



Abstract: This article studies the debate between the Neoplatonist philosophers Simplicius and John Philoponus on the question of the eternity of the world. The first part consists in a historical introduction situating their debate within the context of the conflict between Christians and Pagan in the Byzantine Empire of the first half of the sixth century. Particular attention is paid to the attitudes of these two thinkers to Aristotle's attempted proofs of the eternity of motion and time in Physics 8.1. The second part traces the origins, structure and function of a particular argument used by Philoponus to argue for the world's creation within time. Philoponus takes advantage of a tension inherent in Aristotle's theory of motion, between his standard view that all motion and change is continuous and takes place in time, and his occasional admission that at least some kinds of motion and change are instantaneous. For Philoponus, God's creation of the world is precisely such an instantaneous change: it is not a motion on the part of the Creator, but is analogous to the activation of a state (hexis), which is timeless and implies no change on the part of the agent. The various transformations of this doctrine at the hands of Peripatetic, Neoplatonic, and Islamic commentators are studied (Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius, al-Kindi, al-Farabi), as is Philoponus' use of it in his debate against Proclus.

Keywords: Christians, Pagans, Philoponus, Simplicius, Aristotle, Proclus, Themistius, Neoplatonism, physics, creation, change, motion



Part one :

Philoponus and Simplicius

on the Eternity of the World

1. Introduction

One of the main reasons for the existence of particle colliders like the one we saw earlier today2 is to try to reproduce as closely as possible the conditions of the very first instants of the existence of our universe, a few billionths of a second after the Big Bang, which is now believed to have happened some 13.7 billion years ago.

It seems natural today to talk about the Big Bang, with its resulting implication that the univese had a beginning in time, as if it were obvious. Yet it was not until 1922, less than a century ago, that the Russian Physicist Alexander Friedmann suggested Einstein's view of a static, spherical universe be replaced by a theory of a universe in which space varies throughout time. It were Friedmann's views, eventually accepted by Einstein and elaborated by Georges Lemaître, that led to the current standard view of a universe emerging from a point of infinite density and now expanding at a perpetually accelerating rate. As late as 1950, scholars such as Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi and Fred Hoyle defended a steady-state theory in which, much like Aristotle believed, the universe remained the same for eternity. Since then, the discovery of the cosmic background radiation by Penzias and Wilson in the mid-1960s, followed by evidence obtained in 1998 for the acceleration of cosmic expansion, have led to the widespread acceptance of the Big Bang theory, although still not all scientists are convinced.

These debates have some points of resemblance to one that took place almost 1500 years ago, between the Christian John Philoponus, who believed in something approximating a Big-Bang cosmology, and the Pagan Simplicius, who followed Aristotle in defending something like a steady-state cosmology.

The present article concerns a few of the transformations of a debate that began in the fourth century BC, over whether the world as we know it is eternal or was created in time. Our story will begin, like most questions in Greek philosophy, with Plato and Aristotle, who seem to us today to have defended opposing positions on this question, although, as we'll see, not everyone in Antiquity thought so. We'll briefly review the positions of some of their followers in what modern historians refer to as Middle and Neoplatonism, in a period where, as Pierre Hadot has shown, philosophy gradually changed its nature. From a focus on the teacher's transformation, by means of dialogue, of the disciples' way of perceiving, being and living, philosophy gradually shifted until it became primarily the painstaking commentary of the works of the great founders of the various philosophical schools. We'll see how this task of commenting on the works of the ancients was not viewed as primarily “objective” in the modern sense, but had a number of specific goals, including explaining the texts of Plato and Aristotle in such a way that they were compatible with the more elaborate theories of Neoplatonism, and emphasizing the underlying harmony of the doctrines of Plato and of Aristotle, despite all appearances to the contrary. We'll try to illustrate these and other phenomena by examining the debate between the pagan Simplicius and the Christian Philoponus in the mid-6th century AD, as they each take up and transform various Aristotelian and Platonic texts and doctrines in order to support their own very different view of the nature and origin of the universe. We'll pay particular attention, as we proceed, to the way each side in this debate makes use of specific ancient philosophical doctrines concerning motion and change, taken especially from Aristotelian physics. Specifically, we'll see how Philoponus and Simplicius each exploit an opposing aspect of Aristotelian physics – the possibility or impossibility of instantaneous change – in order to argue, respectively, for and against the Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo.

1.1. Interpretations of Plato's Timaeus

Our Text 1 is, of course, one of the key passages in all of Western philosophy, and it's hard to overestimate its impact and influence. Leaving aside for the moment the fundamentally important question of whether Plato intends us to understand this text literally, metaphorically, or in some other sense, let's note a few important points at the outset.

First, as Cornford pointed out in 1937, “ Plato is introducing into philosophy for the first time the image of a creator god ”. Whatever his precise ontological status — and Plato's successors were to expend vast quantities of ink and papyrus on this question — the Demiurge appears, in the Timaeus, to be an anthropomorphic divinity who thinks, has motivations, and has a will. His motivation for creating the universe is clear: it is his goodness, equated here with his lack of phthonos or jealousy. As subsequent commentators did not fail to point out, there seems to be an implicit reductio ad absurdum underlying Plato's argument. If the Demiurge is powerful enough to create a world, but then fails to do so, his only reason for failing to do so would seem to be jealousy, stinginess, or just plain spite. But since the Demiurge is good, there can be no evil in him. Therefore, he cannot fail to create the world, therefore he creates it.

Second, we note that although the Demiurge “ framed ” (Greek sunistêmi) the world, he did not create it out of nothing. There was already something present when he began his creative activity: something that was visible and was moving in a disorderly way. The Demiurge does not create these elements, whatever they may be, but “ takes them up ” (Greek paralambanein) and brings them from a state of disorder into one of order.

A little later in the Timaeus (Text 2), Plato declares that although the world is generated, it will have no end to its existence, owing to the will of the Demiurge.

Plato's position as set forth in the Timaeus was rather unusual. As Aristotle points out, it was common, if not universal among Plato's philosophical predecessors, to make the universe arise out of some eternally preexisting element and be dissolved back into those elements: this was indeed the standard Presocratic view, at least as interpreted by the later Greek philosophers who transmitted their fragments. But Plato seemed to teach that the world both had a beginning and was eternal, or rather everlasting. This view seems to have been both extraordinary and innovative, so much so that it immediately sparked debate over whether Plato really meant what he had said. This is illustrated by our third text, from Aristotle's On the Heavens.

We see from this text that according to Aristotle, although all previous philosophers agreed that the world had a beginning, in other words, was generated (Greek verbal form genomenon, adjective genêtos) out of some pre-existent material, Aristotle distinguishes between those who, like Empedocles and Heraclitus, believed the world periodically emerged from and dissolved back into that element, and Plato, who believed that although the world had been generated out of pre-existing elements, its existence would henceforth have no end in time.

We also learn from the text of the De Caelo that “ some people ” argued that Plato's description of the generation of the world in the Timaeus was not intended to be taken literally, but was merely for pedagogical purposes. We know from other sources that this was the view of such first-generation members of Plato's Academy as Speusippus3 and Xenocrates4, as well as the early commentator Crantor.5 It became the standard, athough not universal view among Middle- and Neoplatonists.6



1.2. Hellenistic and Neoplatonist interpretations

As time went by, Plato's statement in the Timaeus that the world was generated (Greek genêtos)7 continued to be a source of embarrassment to the commentators, whose attempts to explain what Plato meant became increasingly sophisticated, not to say sophistic. We should bear in mind that Greek adjectival form ending in -tos is inherently ambiguous. Generally speaking, it indicates capability or potentiality, and can be assimiltaed to the English ending -able: what is kinêtos (derived from the noun kinêsis) is what is movable. But the Greek ending leaves open the question of whether or not that potentiality is realized: hence the adjective genêtos can mean both what is generated and what can, could, or might be generated.8

Partly in order to take account of this ambiguity, the Middle Platonist Calvinus Taurus9 (fl. c. 145AD) distinguished four meanings of the world generated (genêtos).

As we can see in Table 1, these meanings include (1) what is not generated but has the same genus as generated things; such things are generable in the sense that an object hidden in the center of the earth can still be visible (Greek horaton), even if it will never actually be seen. The second meaning (2) covers what is notionally but not actually composite: things, that is, that can be analysed in thought into their component parts. The third meaning (3) of genêtos concerns what's always in the process of becoming; that is, according to Platonic philosophy, the whole of the sublunar world, which is subject to constant change. Finally (4), genêtos can mean what derives its being from elsewhere; that is, from God: similarly, the moon's light may be said to be generated by the sun, although there has never been a time when this was not the case.

Slightly more than a century later, the Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry (c. 234-c. 310) added additional meanings of genêtos (Text 4 and Table 2): these include (5): what has the logos of generation, i.e. what can be analysed in thought. It must be admitted that it's not terribly clear what the difference is between this meaning and Taurus' meaning no. 2, except that Porphyry adds the crucial example of what is composed out of matter and form. Meaning (6) covers sensible objects like houses, ships, plants and animals, which obtain their being through a process of generation. Finally, the seventh and last meaning (7) of genêtos is what begins to exist in time after not having existed. It's this last meaning of ‘generated’ that Porphyry denies is applicable to Plato's creation story in the Timaeus. Later in the fragments cited by Philoponus, Porphyry reveals that he himself believes that “constituted of form and matter” is the most appropriate interpretation of genêtos in Plato's Timaeus.

I'd like to call your attention to the part of our Text 4 where Porphyry claims that phenomena such as lightning, snapping of the fingers, and anything that comes into and out of existence suddenly (exaiphnês) is not said to be generated: instead, these are things that come into being without a process of generation (genesis) and pass into not being without a process of destruction (phthora). He is quite right to claim there is a good Aristotelian pedigree for such notions,10 as we shall see later. What will turn out to be especially crucial for the problems that interest us here is that Porphyry – unless Philoponus is putting words into his mouth here – seems to draw an analogy between these processes of instantaneous generation or change and God's creation of the universe. As in the case of these examples, the world did not have to undergo a process of generation in order to come being, but God brought it into substantification (ousiôsis) simultaneously with his thought (hama noêmati). We will look more closely into this question shortly below.


Simplicius, writing some two and a half centuries after Porphyry, was to follow the Tyrian's lead.11 According to Simplicius, by ‘generated’ Aristotle means what earlier does not exist, but then later does (i.e., meaning no. 7). Plato, in contrast, means by ‘generated’ what has its being in becoming (meaning no. 6) and derives its being from another cause (meaning no. 4). It was, Simplicius claims, because Philoponus was too dumb to realize that Aristotle and Plato did not mean the same thing by the term ‘genêtos’ that he wrongly maintained that Plato and Aristotle held opposing views on the question of whether the universe is generated or created. This, of course, is precisely what most scholars believe today, so that we are today, at least on this point, the heirs of Philoponus rather than Simplicius.

Since we have already mentioned the Neoplatonists, the school of Greco-Roman thought usually considered to have been founded by Plotinus (c. 204-270 AD), it seems appropriate give a sketch here of the historical background to the debate between Philoponus and Simplicius.



Каталог: classics -> schole
schole -> И классическая традиция Том выпуск 2014 Традиция платонизма
schole -> И классическая традиция Том выпуск 2012 ΣΧΟΛΗ
schole -> 2009 ΣΧΟΛΗ Философское антиковедение и классическая традиция
schole -> И классическая традиция Том выпуск 2012 ΣΧΟΛΗ
schole -> 2009 ΣΧΟΛΗ Философское антиковедение и классическая традиция
schole -> ΣΧΟΛΗ Философское антиковедение и классическая традиция
schole -> S c o L h философское антиковедение и классическая традиция Том I выпуск 1


Поделитесь с Вашими друзьями:
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   27




База данных защищена авторским правом ©vossta.ru 2022
обратиться к администрации

    Главная страница