Увійти

Готові списки джерел за темами / John Philoponus / Статті в журналах

Щоб переглянути інші типи публікацій з цієї теми, перейдіть за посиланням: John Philoponus.

Статті в журналах з теми "John Philoponus"

Автор: Grafiati

Опубліковано: 15 лютого 2025

Оформте джерело за APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard та іншими стилями

Оберіть тип джерела:

Ознайомтеся з топ-50 статей у журналах для дослідження на тему "John Philoponus".

Біля кожної праці в переліку літератури доступна кнопка «Додати до бібліографії». Скористайтеся нею – і ми автоматично оформимо бібліографічне посилання на обрану працю в потрібному вам стилі цитування: APA, MLA, «Гарвард», «Чикаго», «Ванкувер» тощо.

Також ви можете завантажити повний текст наукової публікації у форматі «.pdf» та прочитати онлайн анотацію до роботи, якщо відповідні параметри наявні в метаданих.

Переглядайте статті в журналах для різних дисциплін та оформлюйте правильно вашу бібліографію.

1

Granata, Daniele. "Koinon and koinônia: A Particular Case of Participation in John Philoponus." Peitho. Examina Antiqua 9, no. 1 (December 13, 2018): 101–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/pea.2018.1.6.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

The aim of this study is to discuss an original philosophical contribution made by Philoponus, who in In Cat. 18, 14–22 equates koinon in its most peculiar meaning with the concept of koinônia understood as a particular case of Platonic methexis. First, the paper analyzes the passages where the Neoplatonic commentators of the Categories distinguish four distinct meanings of the Aristotelian concept of koinon. Subsequently, this article emphasizes the differences between Philoponus’ hermeneutical suggestions and those of the other commentators. Philoponus clarifies that while every koinon is methekton, Aristotle’s koinon is characterized by the fact that the participation is ex isou and kata meros. Thus, koinônia, according to Philoponus, is a particular case of methexis, where everyone participating in something participates in it equally and singly. The example cited by Philoponus to explain Aristotle’s koinon is that of men participating equally and singly in human nature. The study concludes with a discussion of the relationship among the concepts of koinon, koinônia and methexis.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

2

Koshelev, Alexander. "The Notion of Matter in Contra Proclum of John Philoponus: Modern Scientific Discussions." Ideas and Ideals 13, no. 2-1 (June 15, 2021): 165–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.17212/2075-0862-2021-13.2.1-165-187.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

The purpose of this opening article is to give a brief overview of key foreign works, mainly monographs, concerning the account of matter in the treatise Contra Proclum John Philoponus, and thus to make evident the corresponding research situation to the Russian reader. John Philoponus is one of the last Greek commentators on Aristotle, both a neoplatonist and a Christian. In his work Contra Proclum (c. 529 AD) John Philoponus redefines the classical concept of matter, rejecting the universal qualityless prime matter of the Neoplatonists. At the beginning of the article, a brief historical introduction is given, which is necessary for the formulation of the problem. The author analyses several works relevant to the topic: an article by a Russian researcher M. N. Varlamova (2017) and foreign (German, English, Dutch, French) monographs by Michael Wolff (1971), Richard Sorabji (1988), Christian Wildberg (1988), Jeanne de Groot (1991), Frans de Haas (1997), Pantelis Golitzis (2008) and Pascal Mueller-Jourdan (2011). The overview covers the entire research history of John Philoponus’ account of matter. The author pays special attention to a detailed description of the current scientific discussions related to this issue: the positions of researchers, their approaches and perspectives. At the same time, the problem of Philoponic matter is also presented in close connection with many related research topics of the history of late-antique philosophy: the ontological status of species differences, the reception of the Aristotelian doctrine of categories, the separation of the Alexandrian and Athenian Neoplatonic traditions, etc. In conclusion, the article gives a general summary, identifying the most important discussions related to the topic of Philoponus’ matter, and finally proposes an author’s assessment of their current state.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

3

Mandolino, Giovanni. "On the Origin of John Philoponus’s De contingentia mundi." Mediterranea. International Journal on the Transfer of Knowledge 9 (April 23, 2024): 165–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.21071/mijtk.v9i.16628.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

The article re-examines the question of the origin of a text by the sixth-century Greek philosopher and Christian theologian John Philoponus, extant only as an epitome in Arabic translation, the so-called De contingentia mundi. It analyses the evidence for the existence of an anti-eternalist work by Philoponus in addition to those known in Greek and examines the correspondence between a portion of the Arabic epitome and a Greek fragment of Philoponus’s Against Aristotle that was preserved by Simplicius. Based on the vocabulary and phraseology of the epitome, the article proposes to attribute the Arabic epitome to the circle of the ninth-century Muslim philosopher al-Kindī. Finally, the article attempts to explain the evidence concerning the transmission of the epitome in milieus as diverse as that early Islamic philosophical circle and the later Christian Arabic tradition, which preserved it.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

4

SORABJI, RICHARD. "CHAPTER 1 — JOHN PHILOPONUS." Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 56, Supplement_103 (February 1, 2013): 41–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-5370.2013.tb02536.x.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

5

Ventureyra, Scott. "JOHN PHILOPONUS CONTRA ARISTOTLE." Science et Esprit 72, no. 1-2 (2020): 137. http://dx.doi.org/10.7202/1067583ar.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

6

Krausmüller, Dirk. "Philosophia Ancilla Theologiae: Plotinus’ Definition of Sensible Substance and its Adaptation in John Philoponus’ Arbiter." Vigiliae Christianae 73, no. 2 (May 7, 2019): 149–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15700720-12341385.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

Abstract This brief article discusses one particular aspect of John Philoponus’ Christology, his understanding of nature or substance. It makes the case that Philoponus adapted Plotinus’ definition of sensible substance because it helped him defend the notion that the incarnated Word is one single nature but nevertheless has two sets of natural qualities.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

7

Kakavelaki, Antonia. "The Authorship of Philoponus’ Commentary On the Soul iii." Ancient Philosophy 42, no. 1 (2022): 291–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/ancientphil202242113.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

To this day no consensus has been reached concerning the authorship of the 3rd book of Philoponus’ on the Soul. I will begin this article by surveying the discussion of the authorship. In this first section I go into some detail concerning the arguments of scholars who attribute the DAC 3 to Philoponus, and those who do not believe that it is by Philoponus, including those who attribute it to Stephanus of Alexandria. The second section of the paper consists in an analysis and evaluation of the arguments involved in the debate. Finally, I conclude by presenting my own position, including new arguments in favor of the attribution of the DAC 3 to John Philoponus.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

8

Varlamova, Maria. "Philoponus on the Nature of the Heavens and the Movement of Elements in Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World." Scrinium 14, no. 1 (September 20, 2018): 446–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18177565-00141p29.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

Abstract This paper deals with the John Philoponus' arguments against the eternity of the heavens in context of the dispute against the eternity of the world. The theory of eternity of the heavens was defended by Aristotle in his Physics and in the 1st book On the Heavens. In his treatise On Eternity of the World against Aristotle Philoponus attacks the arguments of Aristotle in order to prove the essential finititude of the heavens. The Philoponus' arguments are related to the nature and motion of elements and especially to the nature of fire. In order to explore the Philoponus' arguments against Aristotle I compare his doctrine with the Aristotle's theories of elemental nature and celestial motion.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

9

Lautner, Peter. "Methods in examining Sense-perception : John Philoponus and Ps.-Simplicius." Dossier 64, no. 3 (July 14, 2009): 651–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.7202/037697ar.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

Abstract The paper discusses the methods applied by Philoponus and Pseudo-Simplicius in commenting on Aristotle’s theory of sense-perception, and indicates their differences. Philoponus frequently employs medical theories and empirical material, mostly taken from Aristotle, to highlight not only the activities of the particular senses, but also a certain kind of awareness and the way we experience our inner states. By contrast, his Athenian contemporary Pseudo-Simplicius disregards such aspects altogether. His method is deductive : He relies on some general thesis, partly taken from Iamblichus, from which to derive theses on sense-perception. The emphasis falls on Philoponus’ doctrine since his reliance on medical views leads to an interesting blend of Platonic and medical/empirical theories.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

10

McGinnis, Jon. ""For Every Time there is a Season: John Philoponus on Plato's and Aristotle's Conception of Time"." KronoScope 3, no. 1 (2003): 83–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156852403322145397.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

AbstractThe originality of John Philoponus' temporal theory has been underestimated.The paper emphasizes Philoponus' creativity, especially in his reconciliation of Plato's and Aristotle's temporal theories (or at least one possible interpretation of Aristotle's account of time). To this end, the paper sketches both Plato's (and later Neoplatonic interpretations of Plato) and suggests an interpretation of Aristotle's accounts of time, which is at odds with the Platonic and Neoplatonic view of time. It next presents Philoponus' reconstruction of Aristotle's account along Platonic lines and concludes with the relevance of these ancient theories to contemporary temporal discussions.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

11

Varlamova, Maria. "Philoponus’ Dispute Against the Eternity of the World and Its Influence on the Byzantine Philosophy." Scrinium 13, no. 1 (November 28, 2017): 383–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18177565-00131p24.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

The article deals with the philosophical and theological context of the dispute against the eternity of the world and studies how Philoponus’ arguments against the eternity of the world were seen in Byzantine philosophy and theology. Special attention is paid to Philoponus’ influence on Byzantine philosophy in such aspects as the concept of matter, the doctrine of the logoi and the relation of the finite to the infinite. In order to demonstrate the influence of Philoponus’ arguments against the eternity of the world the article compares his doctrine with the doctrines of John Damascene and Maximus the Confessor.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

12

Lourié, Basil. "JOHN PHILOPONUS ON THE BODILY RESURRECTION." Scrinium 9, no. 1 (March 22, 2013): 79–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18177565-90000071.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

13

Shchukin, Timur. "Matter as a Universal: John Philoponus and Maximus the Confessor on the Eternity of the World." Scrinium 13, no. 1 (November 28, 2017): 361–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18177565-00131p23.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

In his Ambigua, St. Maximus the Confessor dedicated some chapters to refuting the conception of eternity of the world. That was a keystone notion for John Philoponus’ system, and Maximus partly repeats his proofs in its favor and partly rejects them. The authors converge in being convinced that spatial and temporal limitations, as well as staying in motion, are unalienable features of the creation distinguishing it from the Creator. Nevertheless, in interpreting the notion of the matter they go separately, for while John Philoponus denied the existence of the matter, Maximus Confessor needed the matter concept as a cosmological basis for Christological conclusions.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

14

Krausmuller, Dirk. "Does the Flesh Possess Hypostatic Idioms, and If So, Why is it Then Not a Separate Hypostasis?" Scrinium 15, no. 1 (July 16, 2019): 193–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18177565-00151p13.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

Abstract This article focuses on a conceptual problem that arose from the application to Christology of the Cappadocian definition of hypostasis as substance with idioms. It discusses the solutions that were proposed by John of Caesarea, Leontius of Byzantium, John Philoponus, Leontius of Byzantium, Maximus the Confessor and John of Damascus.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

15

Pirtea, Adrian C. "Astral Ensoulment and Astral Signifiers in Sixth-Century Readings of Origen and Evagrius: Justinian’s Anathemas, Sergius of Rešʿaynā, John Philoponus". Vigiliae Christianae 75, № 5 (21 квітня 2021): 483–523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15700720-12341477.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

Abstract In 543 and 553, two church councils initiated by Justinian condemned Origen’s belief that stars possess rational souls. In this article, I place Justinian’s anathemas in the wider context of sixth-century debates on Biblical cosmology and on the validity of astral sciences. In the first part, I review the arguments for and against astral ensoulment and astral signification in Origen, Evagrius, and other Christian and Neoplatonic authors. The second part consists of an in-depth reading of two sixth-century Christian authors who reacted differently to Origen’s ideas: Sergius of Rešʿaynā (d. 536) and John Philoponus (d. ca. 570). While Sergius endorses and expands on the Origenian view by integrating Evagrian and Neoplatonic elements, I argue that John Philoponus constructs his arguments not only in opposition to Origen, but specifically as a reaction to the Origenist-Evagrian line of interpretation represented by Sergius. Finally, I offer a few examples of how Sergius’ and Philoponus’ divergent readings of Origen can contribute to a better understanding of later debates on similar issues in Byzantium and the Islamic world.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

16

Накаидзе, Александр Гивиевич. "Angelology of John Philopon in the Treatise «On the Creation of the World» («De opificio mundi»): Philosophical and Theological Views." Theological Herald, no. 2(37) (June 15, 2020): 154–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.31802/2500-1450-2020-37-2-154-187.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

В статье анализируется учение об ангелах выдающегося христианского мыслителя, философа и богослова Иоанна Филопона (~ 490-575), которое содержится в его трактате «De opificio mundi» с 8-й главы по 22-ю включительно. Рассматриваются его воззрения о предсуществовании, бесплотности, а также неограниченности духовных существ в человеческом понимании. Филопон, как бывший неоплатоник, пытается учитывать философские разработки любых воззрений в вопросе бытия ангелов. Помимо анализа, в качестве метода используется сопоставление между различными толкованиями Филопона и его главного оппонента Феодора Мопсуестийского (350-428). В ходе этой работы показаны те стороны учения Иоанна, которые особенным образом выявляют его склонность к аристотелевской философии. В числе прочего, важность текста в том, что в нём цитируются те воззрения Феодора Мопсуестийского, которые утеряны в оригинале и сохранены Филопоном. The article analyzes the teaching about angels of the outstanding Christian thinker, philosopher and theologian John Philopon (490-575), which is contained in his treatise “De opificio mundi” from the 8th Chapter to the 22nd inclusive. We consider his views on the preexistence, disembodied, and unlimited spiritual beings in the human understanding. Philoponus, as a former Neoplatonist, tries to take into account the philosophical developments of any views on the question of the existence of angels. In addition to analysis, the method is used by comparing the various interpretations of philoponus and His main opponent Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428). In the course of this work, the sides of John’s teaching that particularly reveal his inclination to Aristotelian philosophy are shown. Among other things, the text is important because it quotes the views of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which are lost in the original and preserved by Philoponus.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

17

Koshelev, A. V. "THE CONCEPTS OF ὕπαρξις and ὑπόστασις IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NEW CONCEPT OF MATTER BY JOHN PHILOPONUS". Metaphysics, № 1 (15 червня 2024): 179–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.22363/2224-7580-2024-1-179-188.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

This article examines one terminological distinction associated with the rethinking of the concept of matter by John Philoponus in his treatise De aeternitate mundi contra Proclum. The author of the article shows, using specific textual examples, that Philoponus uses the concepts of ὕπαρξις and ὑπόστασις, though closely, still differently, and each concept has a very specific ontological signified and a corresponding focus of signification. A clear distinction between the spheres of use of these concepts sheds light on the ontological status of matter. The redefinition of materia prima is the main theme of the eleventh book of Contra Proclum . The article demonstrates how this terminological difference is related to the ontological difference induced by the new Philoponus’ concept of matter.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

18

Castelli, Marco Raciti, and Ernesto Benini. "Philoponus' Comments to Aristotle's Physics as the First Step to the Development of Modern Laws of Motion." Advanced Materials Research 748 (August 2013): 381–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.748.381.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

The present work focuses on the historical importance of John Philoponus' criticism to Aristotles Physics as the basis of the birth of the science of modern mechanics. In the Physics commentary, written during the 6th century, Philoponus attacks a genuinely Aristotelian doctrine which states that motion must be the effect of some kind of force acting on a body, thus requiring the continuous operation of an external agent in order to obtain a uniform motion. On the contrary, according to Philoponus' theories, motion is the result of a force impressed by a mover and which exhausts itself during the motion. Although still erroneous, in this insightful theory the first step towards the concept of inertia in modern physics can be found.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

19

Macierowski, E. M., and R. F. Hassing. "John Philoponus on Aristotle’s Definition of Nature." Ancient Philosophy 8, no. 1 (1988): 73–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/ancientphil19888122.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

20

Щукин, Тимур Аркадьевич. "Whom do Angels Serve? The Teaching of John Philoponus on the Angelic World in the Context of the Christological Controversy of the Mid Sixth-century." Библия и христианская древность, no. 4(8) (December 25, 2020): 72–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.31802/bca.2020.8.4.004.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

В статье на материале трактата «О сотворении мира» («De opificio mundi») (557-560 гг.) рассматривается ангелология богослова и философа VI в. Иоанна Филопона. Проводится сравнение его учения об ангелах и учения Феодора Мопсуестийского; делается вывод о том, что ключевым расхождением между ними было понимание функции ангельского мира: если для антиохийцев ангел обращён к творению и человеку как его венцу, то для Иоанна Филопона - к Богу. Подвергается сомнению традиционное представление о том, что основным объектом критики Иоанна Филопона был трактат Космы Индикоплова «Христианская топография». Приводятся аргументы в пользу того, что трактат «О сотворении мира» следует рассматривать в русле полемики вокруг богословия Трёх глав 530-550-х гг. The paper uses the material of the treatise «On the creation of the world» («De opificio mundi») (AD 557-560) to examine the angelology of the sixth-century theologian and philosopher John Philoponus. A comparison is made between his teaching on angels and the teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia; it is concluded that the key difference between them was the understanding of the function of the angelic world: whereas for the Antiochians the angel is addressed to creation and man as its crown, then for John Philoponus the angel is addressed to God. The traditional idea that the main object of criticism of John Philoponus was the treatise of Cosmas Indicopleustes «Christian Topography» is questioned. It is argued that the treatise «On the creation of the world» should be considered in the context of the Three-Chapter controversy which took place in the 530s-550s.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

21

Giardina, Giovanna R. "Providence in John Philoponus’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics." Chôra 13 (2015): 149–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/chora20151340.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

22

Baranov, Vladimir A. "Sources of Fragments by the Iconoclastic Patriarch John Grammaticus (837–843): Leontius of Byzantium." ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition 14, no. 1 (2020): 278–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.25205/1995-4328-2020-14-1-278-292.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

This article analyzes two fragments by the last Iconoclastic Patriarch John Grammaticus (837–843). A number of parallels to the doctrine in the fragments have been identified, including Aristotle, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Basil of Caesarea, and John Philoponus. It is proposed that the main source of the fragments was a passage from the Epilyseis or Solutions Proposed to the Arguments of Severus by Leontius of Byzantium.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

23

Erismann, Christophe. "The Trinity, Universals, and Particular Substances: Philoponus and Roscelin." Traditio 63 (2008): 277–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0362152900002166.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

During late antiquity, an interesting doctrinal shift can be observed: Aristotelian logic and its Neoplatonic complements, in particular the teachings of Aristotle'sCategoriesand Porphyry'sIsagoge, were progressively accepted as a tool in Christian theology. This acceptance met drawbacks and was never unanimous. Among the authors who used concepts that originated in logic in order to support their theological thinking, we can mention, on very different accounts, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, John Philoponus, Leontius of Byzantium, Maximus the Confessor, Theodore of Raithu, and John of Damascus, the author of an importantDialectica. In the Byzantine context, handbooks of logic were written specifically for Christian theologians, showing that logic was perceived to be an important tool for theological thinking.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

24

VARLAMOVA, MARIA. "THE CONCEPT OF MATTER IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF MICHAEL PSELLOS AND JOHN ITALOS." ΣΧΟΛΗ Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition XVIII, no. 1 (2024): 148–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.25205/1995-4328-2024-18-1-148-165.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

. In this article, I discuss the concept of matter - both the first matter and the physical matter of the world, that is, elements - in Byzantine philosophy of the 11th century, namely, in the works of Michael Psellos and John Italos. In particular, I am interested in how the concept of matter is interpreted in connection with the idea of Creation and the finiteness of the world. I trace the connection between the philosophy of the 11th century and the late ancient discussions about matter. I focus on Philoponus' arguments against the eternity of the world and his definition of matter as a three-dimensional extension as well as on the Simplicius' analysis of matter as a principle of corporality. However, it is important for me to show not only the dependence of the Byzantine philosophers on Philoponus and Simplicius, but also their autonomy in defining philosophical terms. The intellectual horizon of Michael Psellos' and John Italos' thought, which influences the approach of these philosophers to the discussion of physical concepts, differs from the horizon of late ancient philosophy.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

25

Maccoull, L. S. B. "A New Look at the Career of John Philoponus." Journal of Early Christian Studies 3, no. 1 (1995): 47–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/earl.0.0042.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

26

Накаидзе, Александр Гивиевич. "Arguments in ‘De opificio mundi’ by John Philopon, Testifying to the Probable Belonging to him ‘Corpus Areopagiticum’." Theological Herald, no. 4(39) (December 15, 2020): 154–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.31802/gb.2020.39.4.009.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

Сравнение сочинений выдающегося византийского мыслителя Иоанна Филопона (или Грамматика) (~490-575) с Ареопагитским корпусом является непростой задачей. Значение последнего для византийской богословско-философской и поздней средневековой мысли трудно переоценить. Нелегко вкратце изложить всё богатство идейного содержания упомянутых многогранных произведений. На это указывает и обилие комментариев, созданных к ним в разное время. В настоящем исследовании разбирается главным образом сходство богословско-философских концепций Иоанна Филопона и «Ареопагитик» и его следы в трактате «О сотворении мира» («De opificio mundi»). Также отчасти затрагиваются отразившиеся там христологические споры. Выясняется возможность принадлежности корпуса «Ареопагитик» Филопону путём выборочного анализа сочинения «О сотворении мира». В указанных творениях рассматриваются элементы, наиболее близкие к неоплатонической философии (особенно к воззрениям Прокла). Показано, что именно через это проявляется наибольшее сходство. Comparing the works of the outstanding Byzantine thinker John Philoponus (or Grammaticus) (~490-575) with the Areopagite corpus is not an easy task. The significance of the latter for Byzantine theological-philosophical and late medieval thought is difficult to overestimate. It is not easy to summarize all the richness of the ideological content of these multi-faceted works. This is also indicated by the abundance of comments created for them at different times. This study examines mainly the similarity of the theological and philosophical concepts of John Philoponus and the «Areopagiticus» and its traces in the treatise «De opificio mundi». The Christological controversies reflected there are also partly affected. It turns out that the corpus «Areopagiticus» belongs to Philoponus by selective analysis of the work «De opificio mundi». These works deal with elements that are closest to neo-Platonic philosophy (especially the views of Proclus). It is shown that it is through this that the greatest similarity is manifested.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

27

Hasnawi, Ahmad. "Alexandre d'AphrodisevsJean Philopon: Notes sur quelques traités d'Alexandre “perdus” en grec, conservés en arabe." Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 4, no. 1 (March 1994): 53–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0957423900001867.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

In this paper, are included new data about three treatises ascribed in Arabic to Alexander of Aphrodisias. These treatises were thought to have no Greek correspondent. The author shows that one of them, (D.8a), is an adapted version – following the norms of “al-Kindi circle” – ofQuaestioI 21, along with the later and more exact version of thisQuaestioby Abū ‘Uṭmān al-Dimašqi (d. 900). He shows also that the two other treatises (D.9 and D.16) are, in contradistinction to the first, adapted versions of passages belonging in theDe Aeternitate mundi contra Proclumof John Philoponus: respectively IV, 4–6 and IX, 11. Philoponus’ book was known to have been translated, into Arabic. But, except for some short fragments in al-Bīrūnī (d. 1048), it seems that it is the first time that important adapted extracts of it are put in light. Some points are made about the historical position of the epitomator of these passages. In Appendix II, another treatise ascribed to Alexander (D.27g) appears – provisionally – as a composite text, mixing elements coming from Philoponus and others from neoplatonic texts in Arabic. In Appendix III is analysed the use of D.16 by Miskawayh (d. 1030), and the use of D.27g by ‘Abdallaṭīf al-Baġdādī (d. 1231).

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

28

Claessens, Guy A. J. "The Drawing Board of Imagination: Federico Commandino and John Philoponus." Journal of the History of Ideas 76, no. 4 (2015): 499–515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhi.2015.0031.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

29

Hahm, David E. "John Philoponus' Criticism of Aristotle's Theory of Aether. Christian Wildberg." Isis 81, no. 2 (June 1990): 334–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/355386.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

30

Щукин, Тимур Аркадьевич. "John Philoponus and His Opponents: A Discussion on the Nature of the Heavens and Heavenly Bodies in Book iii of the Treatise “On the Creation of the World”." Платоновские исследования 1, no. 16 (June 17, 2022): 131–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.25985/pi.16.1.08.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

В статье рассматривается учение христианского неоплатоника VI века Иоанна Филопона о форме и движении небес, а также о природе небесных тел. Этому вопросу посвящена книга III его трактата «О сотворении мира». Акцент делается на выявлении оппонентов Иоанна Филопона, традиции, против которой он полемизирует, и круга авторов, которые могут принадлежать к этой традиции. Единственный автор, которого Иоанн Филопон называет напрямую и полемике с которым он посвящает большую часть книги, - это Феодор Мопсуестийский. Александрийский философ, однако, не имеет в виду, что предметом его критики являются только сочинения Феодора: он также неоднократно ссылается на некоторых его безымянных последователей, и какие-то из них даже являются современниками Филопона. В связи с этим возникает необходимость «нарисовать портрет» этих оппонентов и определить, если позволяют источники, против кого именно направлена полемика Иоанна Филопона. Для достижения этой цели в работе выполняются две процедуры. Во-первых, на основе дошедших до нас соответствующих текстов Феодора Мопсуестийского - толкований на книгу Бытия, а также некоторых других экзегетических работ - делается попытка реконструировать учение Феодора Мопсуестийского о природе неба, прежде всего с точки зрения того, насколько адекватно это учение воспроизводится Иоанном Филопоном. Во-вторых, на основе материала 10-й главы книги III трактата сделана попытка выявить те толкования Священного Писания, которые Иоанн Филопон приписывает своим оппонентам, не называя их по имени, и которые, по его мнению, эти оппоненты используют для критики теории шарообразной Земли. В результате удалось найти некоторые параллели неодобряемых им комментариев с толкованиями Феодорита Кирского, Космы Индикоплова, Севериана Габальского, псевдо-Иустина и Олимпиодора Александрийского. The paper deals with the teaching of the sixth-century Christian Neoplatonist John Philoponus on the form and movement of heavens, as well as on the nature of the heavenly bodies, to which issues book iii of his treatise “On the Creation of the World” is devoted. The emphasis is on identifying the opponents of Philoponus, the tradition against which he polemizes, and the set of authors who may have belonged to this tradition. The only author whom Philoponus mentions explicitly, and to whom he devotes most of the book to dispute with, is Theodore of Mopsuestia. The Alexandrian philosopher, however, does not mean that the subject of his criticism is only the writings of Theodore himself: he also repeatedly refers to his nameless followers. At this juncture, there is a need to “draw a portrait” of these opponents. To achieve this goal, two procedures are performed in the paper. First, on the basis of the relevant texts of Theodore of Mopsuestia, the author attempts to reconstruct the latter’s teaching on the nature of heaven from the point of view, above all, of how adequately this doctrine was reproduced by John Philoponus. Secondly, on the basis of the material of the 10th chapter of book iii of the treatise, an attempt is made to identify those interpretations of the Holy Scripture that John Philoponus attributes to his nameless opponents. As a result, it becomes feasible to find a number of parallels of the anonymous comments he disapproves of with the interpretations of Theodoret of Cyrus, Cosmas Indicopleustes, Severian of Gabala, Pseudo-Justin, and Olympiodorus of Alexandria.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

31

Накаидзе, Александр Гивиевич. "The Creation of Man in the Image and Likeness of God in the Light of the Anthropological Views of John Philoponus in the Context of Byzantine Literature." Theological Herald, no. 3(38) (October 15, 2020): 105–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.31802/gb.2020.38.3.005.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

В статье анализируется учение о создании человека по образу и подобию Божию в свете антропологии выдающегося христианского мыслителя, философа и богослова Иоанна Филопона (~ 490-575). Этому вопросу посвящена VI-я книга трактата «De opificio mundi» (О сотворении мира) с 1-й главы по 22-ю включительно. Кроме изучения воззрений самого Филопона на библейское учение об образе и подобии Божием, сопоставляются различные толкования указанных терминов Иоанном и его главным оппонентом Феодором Мопсуестийским (~ 350-428) в контексте византийской литературы. Особое внимание уделено многогранности философии Филопона, которая проявляется в том, что его интерес к вопросу о сотворении людей имеет не только богословский характер. Ещё один важный аспект данного исследования в том, что в нём рассматривается сопоставление Иоанном Грамматиком переводов Акилы (II в.), Симмаха (II-III вв.), Феодотиона (II в.) и Семидесяти при толковании Быт. 1, 26-27. В работе применены методы филологического и богословского анализа, сравнительный метод (сопоставление переводов толкований библейских текстов), метод структурного контент-анализа. Основным выводом данной публикации является утверждение Филопона, в котором он отождествляет образ с разумной способностью. Различие же между образом и подобием он видит в том, что первый актуализируется с самого начала, а второе осуществляется свободной волей при проявлении добродетели. The article analyzes the doctrine of the creation of man in the image and likeness of God in the light of the anthropology of the outstanding Christian thinker, philosopher and theologian John Philoponus (~ 490-575). this issue is devoted to the VI-th book of the treatise «De opificio mundi» (On the creation of the world) from the 1st chapter to the 22nd inclusive. In addition to the study of Philoponus’ own views on the biblical teaching about the image and likeness of God, various interpretations of these terms by John and his main opponent Theodore of Interpreter (~ 350-428) are compared in the context of Byzantine literature. Special attention is paid to the versatility of Philoponus’ philosophy, which is manifested in the fact that His interest in the question of the creation of people is not only theological in nature. Another important aspect of this study is that it examines the comparison of John the Grammarian’s translations of Aquila (II c.), Symmachus (II-III c.), Theodotus (II c.), and the Seventy in the interpretation of Gen. 1, 26-27. The paper uses the methods of philological and theological analysis, comparative method (comparison of translations of interpretations of biblical texts), and the method of structural content analysis. The main conclusion of this publication is the statement of Philoponus, in which he identifies the image with a reasonable ability. He sees the difference between image and likeness in the fact that the former is actualized from the very beginning, and the latter is carried out by free will in the manifestation of virtue.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

32

Накаидзе, Александр Гивиевич. "The Creation of Man in the Image and Likeness of God in the Light of the Anthropological Views of John Philoponus in the Context of Byzantine Literature." Theological Herald, no. 3(38) (October 15, 2020): 105–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.31802/gb.2020.38.3.005.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

В статье анализируется учение о создании человека по образу и подобию Божию в свете антропологии выдающегося христианского мыслителя, философа и богослова Иоанна Филопона (~ 490-575). Этому вопросу посвящена VI-я книга трактата «De opificio mundi» (О сотворении мира) с 1-й главы по 22-ю включительно. Кроме изучения воззрений самого Филопона на библейское учение об образе и подобии Божием, сопоставляются различные толкования указанных терминов Иоанном и его главным оппонентом Феодором Мопсуестийским (~ 350-428) в контексте византийской литературы. Особое внимание уделено многогранности философии Филопона, которая проявляется в том, что его интерес к вопросу о сотворении людей имеет не только богословский характер. Ещё один важный аспект данного исследования в том, что в нём рассматривается сопоставление Иоанном Грамматиком переводов Акилы (II в.), Симмаха (II-III вв.), Феодотиона (II в.) и Семидесяти при толковании Быт. 1, 26-27. В работе применены методы филологического и богословского анализа, сравнительный метод (сопоставление переводов толкований библейских текстов), метод структурного контент-анализа. Основным выводом данной публикации является утверждение Филопона, в котором он отождествляет образ с разумной способностью. Различие же между образом и подобием он видит в том, что первый актуализируется с самого начала, а второе осуществляется свободной волей при проявлении добродетели. The article analyzes the doctrine of the creation of man in the image and likeness of God in the light of the anthropology of the outstanding Christian thinker, philosopher and theologian John Philoponus (~ 490-575). this issue is devoted to the VI-th book of the treatise «De opificio mundi» (On the creation of the world) from the 1st chapter to the 22nd inclusive. In addition to the study of Philoponus’ own views on the biblical teaching about the image and likeness of God, various interpretations of these terms by John and his main opponent Theodore of Interpreter (~ 350-428) are compared in the context of Byzantine literature. Special attention is paid to the versatility of Philoponus’ philosophy, which is manifested in the fact that His interest in the question of the creation of people is not only theological in nature. Another important aspect of this study is that it examines the comparison of John the Grammarian’s translations of Aquila (II c.), Symmachus (II-III c.), Theodotus (II c.), and the Seventy in the interpretation of Gen. 1, 26-27. The paper uses the methods of philological and theological analysis, comparative method (comparison of translations of interpretations of biblical texts), and the method of structural content analysis. The main conclusion of this publication is the statement of Philoponus, in which he identifies the image with a reasonable ability. He sees the difference between image and likeness in the fact that the former is actualized from the very beginning, and the latter is carried out by free will in the manifestation of virtue.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

33

Krausmüller, Dirk. "A Conceptualist Turn: The Ontological Status of Created Species in Late Greek Patristic Theology." Scrinium 16, no. 1 (October 19, 2020): 233–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18177565-00160a23.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

Abstract The realist ontology of Maximus the Confessor cannot be considered representative of the Greek theological discourse of his time. Several authors writing in the sixth, seventh and eighth centuries denied the existence of immanent universals in creation. This position was first formulated as a response to the nominalist Trinitarian theology of John Philoponus. As time went on, however, it began to serve a different function. It was now used to emphasise the distinction between God and creation.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

34

Hankinson, R. J. "Notes on the Text of John of Alexandria." Classical Quarterly 40, no. 2 (December 1990): 585–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0009838800043329.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

John of Alexandria is an obscure figure. Little is known of his life: his floruit is placed in the first half of the seventh century A.D. He was a practising doctor; the exact significance of the epithet ‘sophista’ which is found on the superscription to his commentary on the sixth book of Hippocrates' Epidemics is uncertain: but it may indicate an interest beyond the purely medical. Apart from the commentaries on the Epidemics and De Sectis, the only other work ascribed to him with any certainty is a commentary on the Hippocratic text On the Nature of the Child, although four other works traditionally attributed to Philoponus and of a purely medical nature have been ascribed to him.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

35

Pisano, Raffaele. "RUNNING DETAILS ON THE TWO MOVEMENTS IN THE INTELLECTUAL HISTORY OF SCIENCE AND IDEAS." Journal of Baltic Science Education 15, no. 6 (December 15, 2016): 660–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.33225/jbse/16.15.660.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

A long tradition concerning the causes of the planetary movements existed as to the movements on the earth: the so called problem de motu locali. Starting from late middle Ages many criticisms were carried out against the Aristotelian doctrine of natural and violent motions. A well accredited and historically coherent theory to explain the movement and the change of movement was the medieval theory of impetus substantially developed by Jean Buridan (ca. 1300–ca. 1360) and by Nicolas d’Oresme (1320? 1325?–1382) on the basis of ideas that came back to John Philoponus (490–570).

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

36

Krausmüller, Dirk. "Responding to John Philoponus: Hypostases, Particular Substances and Perichoresis in the Trinity." Journal for Late Antique Religion and Culture 9 (December 15, 2015): 13. http://dx.doi.org/10.18573/j.2015.10330.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

37

Nogovitsin, Oleg N. "Scientific Theories in the Exegesis of the Book of Genesis and Christological Polemics in the First Half of the Sixth Century: Methods of Argumentation using ἀναλογία and παράδειγμα". ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition 15, № 2 (2021): 789–813. http://dx.doi.org/10.25205/1995-4328-2021-15-2-789-813.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

This article analyzes the use of scientific theories in the exegesis of the Book of Genesis and in Christological dispute between Diophysites and Monophysites in the first half of the sixth century, focusing on the conditions under which traditional methods of rhetorical argumentation could be applied and on using scientific models for explaining the phenomena of the created nature in order to clarify the aporias from the Book of Genesis and Incarnation. The argument using παράδειγμα (example) and ἀναλογία (analogy), which belonged to the repertory of methods from the Neoplatonic scholarly tradition, made it possible to discuss such heterogeneous phenomena as created and non-created as well as divine and human in theological texts by providing the rules for correct descriptions and for verifying their theological and philosophical accuracy. These two methods are analyzed against the background of Neoplatonic commentaries of Aristotle, while their application to theology is viewed through polemical argument in John Philoponus and Leontius of Byzantium. The Monophysite Philoponus used the argument from ἀναλογία to defend the Christological formula of one composite nature of Christ, while the Chalcedonian Leontius of Byzantium employed the method of argumentation from παράδειγμα for defending the presence of two natures in Christ.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

38

Siorvanes, Lucas. "Philoponus on Aristotle - Christian Wildberg: John Philoponus' Criticisms of Aristotle's Theory of Aether. (Philoponus, Philologisch-Historische Studien zum Aristotelismus, 16.) Pp. xii + 274. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1988. DM 154." Classical Review 41, no. 1 (April 1991): 108–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0009840x00277494.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

39

LANG, U. M. "NICETAS CHONIATES, A NEGLECTED WITNESS TO THE GREEK TEXT OF JOHN PHILOPONUS' ARBITER." Journal of Theological Studies 48, no. 2 (October 1, 1997): 540–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jts/48.2.540.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

40

dell’Osso, Carlo. "Il triteismo nel VI secolo: la fase arcaica (557-567)." Augustinianum 60, no. 1 (2020): 189–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/agstm20206018.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

The Tritheism of the sixth century has not been widely studied. John Philoponus, the greatest exponent of the theory, developed the idea by applying Aristotelian realism to the doctrine of the Trinity and concluded that in the Trinity there are three hypostases and three natures, whence comes the name for those who hold this position: “Tri-theists,” since they divide the one nature and substance of God into three. This article sheds light on the earliest stage of the development of Tritheism beginning in the year 557, when we can date the first appearance of John Askotzanges in the sources, and goes up until the first Syndocticon, the agreement reached between the Tritheists and the Theodosians at Constantinople in the beginning of the year 567. After the death of Theodosius in 566, Tritheism no longer remained merely a local reality in Constantinople but spilled over the confines of the Imperial capital and spread throughout the East, especially in Egypt.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

41

RASHED, MARWAN. "AL-FĀRĀBĪ'S LOST TREATISE ON CHANGING BEINGS AND THE POSSIBILITY OF A DEMONSTRATION OF THE ETERNITY OF THE WORLD." Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 18, no. 1 (March 2008): 19–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0957423908000465.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

This article proposes a reconstitution of the philosophical tenor of al-Fārābī's lost treatise On Changing Beings (Fī al-Mawǧūdāt al-mutaġayyira). It is shown that this work is not only a response to book VI of John Philoponus' Contra Aristotelem, but that its real issues can only be grasped in the context of the author's metaphysical system. Although, for al-Fārābī, genuine demonstrations proceed from the cause to the caused, thus following the order of being, it will be explained how he also admits a strictly physical proof of the simple fact, independently of its cause, and that the physical demonstration of the eternity of the world pertains to this type of proof. This physical proof is specifically directed against the Kindian doctrine of creation.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

42

Litovchenko, Elena V., Irina V. Zaytseva, Maria A. Rudneva, Natalia Ye Zolotukhina, Anastasia A. Grechukhina, and Mihail I. Dorokhov. "Late Antiquity: The Regional Specific Nature of Intellectual Tradition." International Journal of Criminology and Sociology 9 (April 5, 2022): 2330–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.6000/1929-4409.2020.09.280.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

The primary purpose of the study is to investigate the specifics of the intellectual tradition prevailing in some regions of the Late Antique world. For the purpose of a comprehensive review of the problem, the authors focus on well-known intellectuals of the 5th–6th centuries, representing Gaul (Ausonius, Sidonius, Ennodius et al.), Alexandria (John Philoponus, Hypatia, Sinesius of Cyrene et al.), Africa (Fulgentius, Priscian, Corippus), Isauria (Candidus Isaurus). Despite the fact that, under the influence of objective factors (Christianization, barbarians), the intellectual tradition changed from its ancient model to the medieval one, it fulfilled its most important task - to preserve the best from the treasury of ancient thought and adapt the ancient heritage to a changing world. In conclusion, the outcomes of the study demonstrate various examples of intellectual tradition and the fortunes of “people of written culture” (literati).

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

43

Zajceva, Irina. "Olympiodor of Alexandria – Scholarch of the Alexandrian School of Neoplatonism." Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Serija 4. Istorija. Regionovedenie. Mezhdunarodnye otnoshenija, no. 4 (August 2021): 6–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu4.2021.4.1.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

Introduction. The domestic and foreign research literature pays great attention to Alexandrian Neo-Platonists of the 4th–6th centuries such as Hypatia, Ammonius son of Hermias, John Philoponus, but at the same time Olympiodorus, David the Invincible, Elias, Horapollon are given insufficient attention. This is largely due to lack of any reliable information in modern science, which reveals the life and professional path of these eminent intellectuals, as well as the fact that the majority of the few preserved works of these authors have not yet been translated into Russian and English. The author of the article aims to study the “intellectual portrait” of Olympiodorus without reconstruction or refinement of his curriculum vitae based on source analysis. Methods and materials. The Intellectual History and the micro-historical approach were chosen as the main methodological basis of this article. The work is based on the system-wide analysis and historical-biographical approach. The source base of the article consists of the extant Olympiodorus works in the book series “Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca”. The historiography of the topic, for the most part, is represented by the works of Western European scientists: L. Westerink, S. Viano, N. Tarrant, etc., in particular. Russian Science almost did not study the personality of Olympiodorus: the only exceptions are small articles or just incorporation of information about him in the biographies of other well-known personalities. Analysis. The author argues for the thesis that Olympiodorus, contrary to the prevailing opinion in Russian science, was a smart executive and a good scientist who managed to preserve the traditions of the Neo-Platonic School of Alexandria by continuing to interpret classical works of Plato and Aristotle. Conclusion. Based on the analysis of Olympiodorus works, the author concludes that Olympiodorus of Alexandria has assumed the post of head of the Alexandrian Philosophical School of Neo-Platonism in the competition with John Philoponus, also he has been able to continue the activities in line with the tradition of Ammonius, son of Hermias while supporting political parity with the Church authorities and has furthermore become one of the first of Alexandrian intellectuals who used a classical scientific approach to interpret works of Plato and Aristotle without striving for their absolutization.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

44

Lang, Uwe Michael. "John Philoponus and the Fifth Ecumenical Council: A Study and Translation of the Letter to Justinian." Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 37, no. 2 (June 20, 2005): 411–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.30965/25890433-03702009.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

45

MacCoull, Leslie S. B. "The historical Context of John Philoponus' De Opificio Mundi in the Culture of Byzantine-Coptic Egypt." Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 9, no. 2 (January 19, 2006): 397–423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/zach.2005.007.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

46

Adamson, Peter. "Al-Kindī and the Mu‘tazila: Divine Attributes, Creation and Freedom." Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 13, no. 1 (March 2003): 45–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0957423903003035.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

The paper discusses al-Kindī's response to doctrines held by contemporary theologians of the Mu‘tazilite school: divine attributes, creation, and freedom. In the first section it is argued that, despite his broadly negative theology, al-Kindī recognizes a special kind of “essential” positive attribute belonging to God. The second section argues that al-Kindī agreed with the Mu‘tazila in holding that something may not yet exist but still be an object of God's knowledge and power (as the Mu‘tazila put it, that “non-being” is a “thing”). Also it presents a new parallel between al-Kindī and John Philoponus. The third section gives an interpretation of al-Kindī as a compatibilist, in other words as holding that humans may be free even though their actions are necessitated. In all three cases, it is argued, al-Kindī is close to the Mu‘tazilite point of view, though he departs from them in the arguments he gives for that point of view.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

47

مذكور, مليكة. "تأثير يحيى النحوي في التراث العلمي العربي = John Philoponus and Its Influence in the Islamic Scientific Heritage". Academic Journal of Social and Human Studies, № 12 Part 2 (червень 2014): 30–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.12816/0034296.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

48

Benevich, Grigory. "JOHN PHILOPONUS AND MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR AT THE CROSSROADS OF PHILOSOPHICAL AND THEOLOGICAL THOUGHT IN LATE ANTIQUITY." Scrinium 7-8, no. 1 (April 7, 2011): 102–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18177565-90000061.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

49

Cvetkovic, Vladimir. "The synthesis of ancient philosophical doctrines on movement in the thought of St Maximus the confessor." Theoria, Beograd 59, no. 2 (2016): 150–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/theo1602106c.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

The paper aims to explore St Maximus the Confessor? teaching on movement in the light of his ancient philosophical sources. Maximus? employment of Neoplathonic terminology for the purpose of exposing his theological thought implies a direct or indirect influence of ancient thinkers on his work. In examining the themes of ancient philosophical heritage in Maximus, the paper proposes a fourfold division of his sources. The first source is pagan authors, such as Aristotle, Plotinus and Proclus, whom Maximus might know directly. The second source are ancient philosophical doctrines that through Christian authors such as Origen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Nemesius of Emesa or Dionysius Areopagite already entered the Christian tradition, and which are transformed to a certain extent. The third source are the Christian Neo-Platonists of Alexandria Academy, like John Philoponus, Elias, David and Stephen of Alexandria who attempted to interprete previous philosophical tradition in conformity with certain Christian principles, and the fourth source are the Christian authors, who independently of previous philosophical traditions shaped their metaphysical views. The focus of the paper is on the first three sources.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

50

Zeltchenko, Vsevolod V. "Sources and Models of the Zoological Excursus in George of Pisidia’s Hexaemeron. Part 1: Aithyia, Ibis, Spider." Philologia Classica 19, no. 1 (2024): 121–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.21638/spbu20.2024.108.

Повний текст джерела

Анотація:

This article opens a series devoted to investigating the sources of the ample zoological excursus (vv. 916–1223) in the Hexaemeron by George of Pisidia, a 7th-century Byzantine poet. Since the two attempts to find a general formula for George of Pisidia’s treatment of his models have led to directly opposite results (according to Max Wellmann, the poet distanced himself from pagan zoologists; according to Luigi Tartaglia, on the contrary, he drew material from them, favouring Aelian), it seems that the question of the poem’s sources should be addressed by a step-by-step examination of passages, paying attention to such evidence as the coincidence of minor details or words. In v. 1116 the unusual metaphor “aithyia, bending its winged cloud” (in the sense of “spreading its wings”) makes one think of an (unconscious?) association with Arat. Phaen. 918–920, where “a stretching cloud” is mentioned in the catalogue of storm’s signs in immediate juxtaposition to the flapping of the wings of seabirds. In vv. 1117–1124 (the self-cleansing of the ibis) the reference to Galen is not a mere metonymy (= “the most skillful physician”), as interpreters have hitherto thought, but points to the poet’s source: in the Galenic corpus this story is attested three times, and the passage closest to George of Pisidia’s account is [Galen.] Introd. 1.2. In vv. 1154–1159 (the structure of the web) the confused sequence of the stages of the spider’s work (first concentric circles, then radial threads), that contradicts both reality and (which is more important) the ancient tradition going back to Book IX of Historia animalium, seems to betray the influence of John Philoponus (De opif. mundi, p. 257, 24 sqq. Reinhardt). In Philoponus’ text this sequence is justified by the fact that his rhetorical passage describes, strictly speaking, not the web itself, but a drawing of it made by a “diligent geometer”.

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Ми пропонуємо знижки на всі преміум-плани для авторів, чиї праці увійшли до тематичних добірок літератури. Зв'яжіться з нами, щоб отримати унікальний промокод!