The Ontological Relation "One-Many" according to the Neoplatonist Damascius

C. Terezis
{"title":"The Ontological Relation \"One-Many\" according to the Neoplatonist Damascius","authors":"C. Terezis","doi":"10.1075/BPJAM.1.02TER","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AbstractIn his commentary on the Platonic dialogue Philebus, the Neoplatonic philosopher Damascius investigates the ontological question of the relation between the One as the highest principle and the many sensible beings produced through it. Three points are emphasized: 1. Damascius attempts to situate movement in the metaphysical realm and avoid a static metaphysical model by propounding a connection between sensible beings and their productive archetype through what he conceives as metaphysical amplification. 2. His explication of the relation between the physical and the metaphysical indicates that he is not concerned with just a general description, but instead intends to specify the forms of their mutual communication. To a certain degree, physical beings are presented as developments of metaphysical states in terms of the relation of \"appearance\" to \"being,\" in the sense that the appearance teleologically portrays that which is ontologically complete. 3. Because Damascius sets logic in analytic relation to ontology and defines the conditions of this coordination, it gains no independent status, even as its propriety becomes explicit, for he shows its principal determination by ontology. Hence, Damascius remains within the framework of a consistent ontological realism.","PeriodicalId":148050,"journal":{"name":"Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch Fur Antike Und Mittelalter","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch Fur Antike Und Mittelalter","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/BPJAM.1.02TER","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

AbstractIn his commentary on the Platonic dialogue Philebus, the Neoplatonic philosopher Damascius investigates the ontological question of the relation between the One as the highest principle and the many sensible beings produced through it. Three points are emphasized: 1. Damascius attempts to situate movement in the metaphysical realm and avoid a static metaphysical model by propounding a connection between sensible beings and their productive archetype through what he conceives as metaphysical amplification. 2. His explication of the relation between the physical and the metaphysical indicates that he is not concerned with just a general description, but instead intends to specify the forms of their mutual communication. To a certain degree, physical beings are presented as developments of metaphysical states in terms of the relation of "appearance" to "being," in the sense that the appearance teleologically portrays that which is ontologically complete. 3. Because Damascius sets logic in analytic relation to ontology and defines the conditions of this coordination, it gains no independent status, even as its propriety becomes explicit, for he shows its principal determination by ontology. Hence, Damascius remains within the framework of a consistent ontological realism.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新柏拉图主义者大马士革认为的“一-多”的本体论关系
新柏拉图主义哲学家达马西斯在《柏拉图对话录菲利伯斯》中,探讨了作为最高原则的“一”与由此产生的许多感性存在之间关系的本体论问题。强调三点:1。达马西乌斯试图将运动置于形而上学的领域,避免静态的形而上学模型,通过他所认为的形而上学放大,提出了可感知的存在和它们的生产原型之间的联系。2. 他对物理和形而上学之间关系的解释表明,他不只是关心一般的描述,而是打算具体说明它们相互交流的形式。在某种程度上,物理存在被呈现为形而上学状态的发展,根据“表象”与“存在”的关系,在某种意义上,表象在目的论上描绘了本体论上完整的东西。3.因为大马士革将逻辑置于与本体论的分析关系中,并规定了这种协调的条件,所以即使逻辑的适当性变得明确,它也没有获得独立的地位,因为他指出了本体论的主要决定。因此,大马士革仍然在一个一致的本体论实在论框架内。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Die Chaldäischen Orakel in proklos philosophie Kritik über Leeten (2019): Redepraxis als Lebenspraxis. Die diskursive Kultur der antiken Ethik Kritik über Hengelbrock (2018): Zeit und Freizeit: Seneca, Epistulae morales Proclus armeniacus “Mirum est si intellectus noster omnem scientiam accipiens ex phantasmate”
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1