Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch für Antike und Mittelalter - Volume 18, Issue 1, 2015

The author interprets the dialogues belonging to Plato’s first Tetralogy, i. e. Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and Phaedo, as a coherent whole, in which the concept of ‘gratuitousness’ plays the leading role. The expression ‘gratuitous’ does not mean here, however, ‘arbitrary’ or ‘as someone likes’ but rather ‘free’, ‘gratis’, ‘for nothing’. Based on such an interpretation the author discusses then the important similarities existing between – on the one hand – Plato’s metaphysics of ‘gratuitousness’ and – on the other hand – Meister Eckhart’s ‘mystics’ (in which the concept of ‘why-less’ being [wesen sunder warumbe] is crucial) and Schelling’s Philosophy of Identity (in which the concept of ‘absolute’ being plays the fundamental role). These three thinkers are all interested in the world as it is not merely for us or for something else – that is not in the world as it merely appears to someone under particular given conditions –, but in the world as it is in itself. However, this distinction between ‘appearances’ and ‘things-in-themselves’ is not to be thought as an epistemological but rather as an ethical or existential one, which is not related to the way how we ‘can know’ the world but rather to the way how we ‘should live’ in it.

Beginning from Plato, there exists a philosophical tradition, which interprets philosophy as preparation for death. However, for Plato the death of a philosopher does not necessarily imply death in its ordinary meaning, but rather a spiritual way of life maximally free from corporeal affections. This kind of relationship between philosophy and death was intensively discussed in late antique philosophy, Patristics, medieval Byzantine philosophy, and also in medieval Georgian literature. Based on Plato’s and Plotinus’ philosophy, Porphyry presented definitions of three kinds of death in his Sententiae (8; 9; 23): (1) ‘death’ of a philosopher, (2) natural death, (3) ‘death’ of a soul. The aim of this paper is to provide a philosophical analysis of three concepts of death in the post-Porphyrian tradition, mainly in Byzantine and Georgian texts. The paper is based on the analysis of the above mentioned issues in the texts of Porphyry (also of Plotinus, as of his predecessor), Macrobius, Michael Psellos, as well as in the old Georgian versions of the works of Ammonios Hermiae, John of Damascus and John Sinaites. We also take into consideration the views on the relation between philosophy and death in the thought of the philosophers of Humanism and Renaissance, such as Georgios Gemistos Plethon, Marsilio Ficino, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, and Michel de Montaigne, whether or not and to what extent their views on the relation between philosophy and death are different from the theories of ancient and medieval Platonists.

The Commentary on Sefer Yeṣira (Book of Creation), with its pronounced Pythagorean and Neo-Platonic overtones, written by Saadya Gaon in 931, stands out among the other writings of this Jewish theologian (mutakallim), and raises the question of the purpose of its composition. It has been argued that in writing a commentary on this work of letter-speculation, Saadya responded to mythical and mystical trends in tenth-century Judaism, endeavoring to recast this foundational mystical text as a work of rational philosophy. The present article argues that Saadya was also responding to the intellectual challenge of his broader environment, stretching beyond the Jewish community. In some circles in the Islamicate world, letterspeculations, often associated with the sciences of the occult, were presented in this period as the height of philosophy. In particular, al-Tawḥīdī’s account of the Pure Brethren and Ibn Masarra’s Book on the Properties of Letters demonstrate the relevance of these trends in Saadya’s immediate geographic and intellectual environment.

Dans cette note il s’agit de la découverte de deux copies manuscriptes inconnues du chapitre quinze d’une oeuvre d’eschatologie hebraique de la moitié du XIIe siècle rédigée par Abrahm bar HIija ou Abraham Savosarda (Savosurda), le Liber revelator. Cette oeuvre est connue seulement en hebraique et dans la traduction de Marie Josef Millás-Vallicrosa. Le chapitre cinque regarde une conception astrologique de la philosophie de l’histoire du monde, de la naissance ou de la chute des gouvernements et des religions avec le titre De redemptione Israel. L’Autrice a retrouvé une traduction latine inconnue en deux copies manuscriptes (fin XIVe siècle-commencement XVe siècle), dans deux Bibliotèques allemandes, une à Lipsie et l’autre à Wolfenbüttel redigées par le frère des Franciscains mineurs du Couvent de Gottingen Theodoricus de Northem. On demontre en renvoyant aussi à ses études précédantes à ces propos, que ce chapitre cinq à été la source primaire de l’oeuvre de Pierre d’Ailly qui partagait la même philosophie astrologique de l’histoire sacrée, l’ Elucidarium opus concordantiae astronomiae cum theologia nec non historice veritatis édité en 1490, à commencer du chapitre 24 jusqu’au chapitre 33.

In the article are discussed the semantic theories of Dietrich of Freiberg and Meister Eckhart in the comparative way. The both Dominicans are known through their theory of intellect, but for declamation of this theory they are choosing the certain model of language and of predication. The aim of the article is to outline the specific aspect of their semantic theories that are influenced by the modi significanditheory on the one hand and by the causa-essentialis-theory on the other hand. The causa-essentialis-theory becomes a part of their philosophy of language in the sense, that both Dominicans are thinking the parts of the sentence – subject and predicate – in the ontological terms: both of them are considering the predicate as a cause, and subject as a caused one. Therefore they understand the semantical and the ontological entities in the reciprocity. Such an ontologization of semantic results from the inherence-model of language that is the basis for understanding of sentences expressing the definition according to Dietrich von Freiberg as well as Meister Eckhart.

It is well-known among historians that rhetoric was at the centre of the studia humaniora in the Italian Renaissance and an important part of education in those times. In this essay the author draws attention to three short tracts discussing the merits of rhetoric from various points of view. Ognibene da Lonigo claims in Oratio de laudibus eloquentiae (1485) that rhetoric is absolutely indispensable in all fields of human life. In Filippo Beroaldo’s Declamatio philosophi, medici et oratoris de excellentia disceptantium (1497), the orator gains the victory over his rivals. Both these writers argue mainly by citing ‘authorities’. In his Dialogus de eloquentia (set down before 1555), Marcantonio Maioragio tries to argue by rational argument for the higher value of the studia humaniora over an exclusively Christian education. None of the three authors achieves more than plausibility for his claim. The echo of Cicero’s philosophical and rhetorical works is clearly perceptible in all of them.

In 1825, Johann Theodor Voemel published Nicholas of Methone’s (12th century) Refutatio institutionis theologicae Procli Platonici. Thus, for the first time an important document of Byzantine philosophy became accessible to researchers, which also allowed important insights into the medieval history of the reception of Proclus’ Institutio theologica in the Byzantine Empire. The essay reconstructs the genesis of this edition and the history of its early reception. While it focuses on Creuzer’s contribution to the publication of Refutatio, it also takes the achievements of Johann Theodor Voemel and Carl Ullmann into consideration. In so doing, the essay provides new findings concerning the study of Neoplatonism during the classical period of German philosophy.