Aristotelian and Stoic Syllogistic in the Anonymous Commentary on Plato’s Theaetetus
In: History of Philosophy & Logical AnalysisSearch for other papers by Bernd Hene in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
The present paper investigates the question as to how and for what purposes the Middle Platonic author of the Anonymous Commentary on Plato’s Theaetetus uses Aristotelian and Stoic syllogistic in his interpretation of the Platonic text. This investigation shows that the commentator employs Aristotelian categorical syllogistic as an exegetical tool for reconstructing arguments in the Platonic text, enabling him not only to uncover doctrinal statements that are in his view hidden in the Platonic text, but also to dissociate Plato from unwelcome propositions. By contrast, the commentator uses Stoic hypothetical syllogistic as a polemical tool for constructing ad hominem arguments against the Stoics. More precisely, the author exploits the Stoic type of deductive reasoning to draw anti-Stoic conclusions from premises that are accepted by the Stoics, and in doing so, he manages not only to refute Stoic doctrines, but also to corroborate the corresponding Platonic theories.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
[Anonymous.] Commentarium in Platonis « Theaetetum ». Bastianini, G. & Sedley, D. N. (eds., trs.). In: Corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini. Testi e lessico nei papiri di cultura greca e latina. Parte III: Commentari, 1995. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki, 227–562. (= In Tht.)
-
[Alcinoos.] Enseignement des doctrines de Platon. Whittaker, J. (ed.) & Louis, P. (tr.), 1990. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. (= Did.)
-
[Alcinous.] The Handbook of Platonism. Dillon, J. (tr.), 1993. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
-
[Galen.] Institutio logica. Kalbfleisch, K. (ed.), 1896. Leipzig: Teubner. (= Inst. log.)
-
[Plato.] Platonis Opera. Vol. 1: Euthyphro, Apologia Socratis, Crito, Phaedo, Cratylus, Theaetetus, Sophista, Politicus. Burnet, J. (ed.), 1905. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (= Tht.)
-
[Plato.] Theaetetus. Jowett, B. (tr.). In: B. Jowett, The Dialogues of Plato. Translated into English with Analyses and Introductions. Vol. IV. 1875 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 221–370.
-
Annas, J. 1993. The Morality of Happiness. New York – Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Barnes, J. 2012. Logical Matters. Essays in Ancient Philosophy II. Bonelli, M. (ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
-
Bobzien, S. 2003. Logic. In: Inwood, B. (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 85–123.
-
Bonazzi, M. 2003a. Academici e Platonici. Il dibattito antico sullo scetticismo di Platone. Milano: LED Edizioni Universitarie.
-
Bonazzi, M. 2003b. Un dibattito tra Academici e Platonici sull’eredità di Platone. La testimonianza del commentario anonimo al Teeteto. In: Papiri filosofici. Miscellanea di Studi IV (Studi e testi per il Corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini 11). Firenze: Leo S. Olschki, 41–74.
-
Bonazzi, M. 2008. The Commentary as Polemical Tool: The Anonymous Commentator on the Theaetetus against the Stoics. Laval théologique et philosophique 64(3), 597–605.
-
Bonazzi, M. 2013. Le commentateur anonyme du Théétète et l’invention du platonisme. In: El Murr, D. (ed.), La mesure du savoir. Études sur le Théétète de Platon. Paris: Vrin, 309–333.
-
Boys-Stones, G. 2018. Platonist Philosophy 80 BC to AD 250. An Introduction and Collection of Sources in Translation (Cambridge Source Books in Post-Hellenistic Philosophy). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Brittain, C. 2001. Philo of Larissa. The Last of the Academic Sceptics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Diels, H. & Schubart, W. 1905. Anonymer Kommentar zu Platons Theaetet (Papyrus 9782) nebst drei Bruchstücken philosophischen Inhalts (Pap. N. 8; P. 9766. 9569) (Berliner Klassikertexte II). Berlin: Weidmann.
-
Frede, M. 1974. Die stoische Logik (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse. Dritte Folge, Nr. 88). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
-
Hene, B. 2018. Ein anonymer Kommentar zu Platons Theaitetos und seine philosophische Bedeutung. Ph.D. diss., KU Leuven.
-
Hene, B. 2019. Wissen und Meinung im anonymen Theaitetoskommentar. In: Bonazzi, M., Forcignanò, F. & Ulacco, A. (eds.), Thinking, Knowing, Acting: Epistemology and Ethics in Plato and Ancient Platonism (Brill’s Plato Studies Series, vol. 3). Leiden & Boston: Brill, 251–278.
-
Invernizzi, G. 1976. Un commentario medioplatonico al Teeteto e il suo significato filosofico. Rivista di Filosofia Neoscolastica 68, 215–233.
-
Ioppolo, A. M. 1980. Aristone di Chio e lo Stoicismo antico (Elenchos. Collana di testi e studi sul pensiero antico, vol. 1). Napoli: Bibliopolis.
-
Long, A. A. & Sedley D. N. 1987. The Hellenistic Philosophers. Vol. I: Translations of the principal sources with philosophical commentary. Vol. II: Greek and Latin texts with notes and bibliography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Luschnat, O. 1958. Das Problem des ethischen Fortschritts in der alten Stoa. Philologus 102, 178–214.
-
Moraux, P. 1984. Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Vol. II: Der Aristotelismus im I. und II. Jh. n. Chr. (Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus, vol. 6). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.
-
Opsomer, J. 1998. In Search of the Truth. Academic Tendencies in Middle Platonism. Brussel: KAWLSK.
-
Petrucci, F. M. 2018. Wave-Like Commentaries: The Structure and Philosophical Orientation of Middle Platonist Commentaries. Journal of Hellenic Studies 138, 209–226.
-
Praechter, K. 1909. Review of Diels, H. & Schubart, W. Anonymer Kommentar zu Platons Theaetet (Papyrus 9782) nebst drei Bruchstücken philosophischen Inhalts (Pap. N. 8; P. 9766. 9569). Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 171, 530–547.
-
Runia, D. T. 1986. Redrawing the Map of Early Middle Platonism. Some Comments on the Philonic Evidence. In: Caquot, A., Hadas-Lebel, M. & Riaud, J. (eds.), Hellenica et Judaica. Hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky. Leuven – Paris: Peeters, 85–104.
-
Sedley, D. N. 1993. A Platonist Reading of Theaetetus 145–147. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, suppl. vol. 67, 125–149.
-
Sedley, D. N. 1996. Three Platonist Interpretations of the Theaetetus. In: Gill, C. & McCabe, M. M. (eds.), Form and Argument in Late Plato. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 79–103.
-
Tarrant, H. 1983. The Date of Anon. In Theaetetum. Classical Quarterly 33(1), 161–187.
-
Tarrant, H. 2000. Plato’s First Interpreters. London: Duckworth.
-
Tarrant, H. 2018. From Fringe Reading to Core Curriculum: Commentary, Introduction and Doctrinal Summary. In: Tarrant, H., Layne, D. A., Baltzly, D. & Renaud, F. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity (Brill’s Companions to Classical Reception, vol. 13). Leiden & Boston: Brill, 101–114.
-
Whittaker, J. 1987. Platonic Philosophy in the Early Centuries of the Empire. In: Haase, W. (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (ANRW) II 36.1. Berlin: De Gruyter, 81–123.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 324 | 0 | 0 |
| Full Text Views | 362 | 77 | 2 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 464 | 71 | 0 |
Aristotelian and Stoic Syllogistic in the Anonymous Commentary on Plato’s Theaetetus
In: History of Philosophy & Logical AnalysisSearch for other papers by Bernd Hene in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
The present paper investigates the question as to how and for what purposes the Middle Platonic author of the Anonymous Commentary on Plato’s Theaetetus uses Aristotelian and Stoic syllogistic in his interpretation of the Platonic text. This investigation shows that the commentator employs Aristotelian categorical syllogistic as an exegetical tool for reconstructing arguments in the Platonic text, enabling him not only to uncover doctrinal statements that are in his view hidden in the Platonic text, but also to dissociate Plato from unwelcome propositions. By contrast, the commentator uses Stoic hypothetical syllogistic as a polemical tool for constructing ad hominem arguments against the Stoics. More precisely, the author exploits the Stoic type of deductive reasoning to draw anti-Stoic conclusions from premises that are accepted by the Stoics, and in doing so, he manages not only to refute Stoic doctrines, but also to corroborate the corresponding Platonic theories.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 324 | 0 | 0 |
| Full Text Views | 362 | 77 | 2 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 464 | 71 | 0 |
