{"title":"斯多葛主义与拜占庭哲学:爱比克泰德与尼塞弗鲁斯·布莱米得斯的自我保护主义","authors":"Sotiria Triantari","doi":"10.1075/BPJAM.17.04TRI","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Was the Byzantine thinker Nicephorus Blemmydes (1197–1272) directly influenced in his views about human “proairesis” by the Stoic Epictetus (50–138 AD) or did he take over his views from the Neoplatonic Simplicius?\nAfter exploring Blemmydes’ reception of Epictetus, one can say that Blemmydes drew elements in a brief treatise under the title “De virtute et ascesi” from the mainly Neoplatonic Simplicius, who commented on the handbook by the \nStoic Epictetus (50–138 AD). Blemmydes, following Simplicius identifies “ἐφ’ ἡμῖν” with “aftexousion” and he designates “proairesis” as an activity, which emanates from “aftexousion”. Blemmydes shows the moral power of “proairesis” as a transforming factor of human existence and the mediatory factor to the dialectical relation between man and God.\nFor the completion of the study, the following sources have been used: \nBlemmydes’ De virtute et ascesi, Epictetus’ Handbook, and Neoplatonic Simplicius’ commentaries on the Handbook. I specifically focus on the views of Aristotle, Epictetus, and Neoplatonic Simplicius about “proairesis” and compare the views of Blemmydes to Simplicius’ ideas. I conclude that Blemmydes drew ideas from Simplicius, with regard to human “proairesis” and in the context of the practising and cultivating virtues in everyday life.","PeriodicalId":148050,"journal":{"name":"Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch Fur Antike Und Mittelalter","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stoicism and Byzantine philosophy: Proairesis in Epictetus and Nicephorus Blemmydes\",\"authors\":\"Sotiria Triantari\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/BPJAM.17.04TRI\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Was the Byzantine thinker Nicephorus Blemmydes (1197–1272) directly influenced in his views about human “proairesis” by the Stoic Epictetus (50–138 AD) or did he take over his views from the Neoplatonic Simplicius?\\nAfter exploring Blemmydes’ reception of Epictetus, one can say that Blemmydes drew elements in a brief treatise under the title “De virtute et ascesi” from the mainly Neoplatonic Simplicius, who commented on the handbook by the \\nStoic Epictetus (50–138 AD). Blemmydes, following Simplicius identifies “ἐφ’ ἡμῖν” with “aftexousion” and he designates “proairesis” as an activity, which emanates from “aftexousion”. Blemmydes shows the moral power of “proairesis” as a transforming factor of human existence and the mediatory factor to the dialectical relation between man and God.\\nFor the completion of the study, the following sources have been used: \\nBlemmydes’ De virtute et ascesi, Epictetus’ Handbook, and Neoplatonic Simplicius’ commentaries on the Handbook. I specifically focus on the views of Aristotle, Epictetus, and Neoplatonic Simplicius about “proairesis” and compare the views of Blemmydes to Simplicius’ ideas. I conclude that Blemmydes drew ideas from Simplicius, with regard to human “proairesis” and in the context of the practising and cultivating virtues in everyday life.\",\"PeriodicalId\":148050,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch Fur Antike Und Mittelalter\",\"volume\":\"13 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.17.04TRI\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch Fur Antike Und Mittelalter","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/BPJAM.17.04TRI","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
拜占庭思想家尼塞弗罗斯·布莱米德斯(Nicephorus Blemmydes, 1197-1272)关于人类“proairesis”的观点是直接受到斯多葛派的爱比克泰德(Epictetus,公元50-138年)的影响,还是从新柏拉图派的辛普利西乌斯那里继承了他的观点?在探索了布伦米德斯对爱比克泰德的接受之后,我们可以说,布伦米德斯在一篇题为《美德与ascesi》的简短论文中,从主要是新柏拉图派的辛普利西乌斯那里汲取了一些元素,辛普利西乌斯评论了斯多亚派爱比克泰德(公元50-138年)的手册。继辛普利西乌斯之后,布莱米德斯将“φ”与“aftexousion”区分开来,并指出“proairesis”是一种由“aftexousion”产生的活动。布莱米德斯展现了“自然”作为人类生存的转化因素和人与上帝辩证关系的中介因素的道德力量。为了完成这项研究,我们使用了以下资料:Blemmydes的《De virtute et ascesi》,爱比克泰德的《手册》,以及新柏拉图主义者辛普利西乌斯对《手册》的评论。我特别关注亚里士多德、爱比克泰德和新柏拉图派的辛普利西乌斯关于“proairesis”的观点,并将blemydes的观点与辛普利西乌斯的观点进行比较。我的结论是,布伦米德斯从辛普利西乌斯那里获得了关于人类“自我保护”以及在日常生活中实践和培养美德的思想。
Stoicism and Byzantine philosophy: Proairesis in Epictetus and Nicephorus Blemmydes
Was the Byzantine thinker Nicephorus Blemmydes (1197–1272) directly influenced in his views about human “proairesis” by the Stoic Epictetus (50–138 AD) or did he take over his views from the Neoplatonic Simplicius?
After exploring Blemmydes’ reception of Epictetus, one can say that Blemmydes drew elements in a brief treatise under the title “De virtute et ascesi” from the mainly Neoplatonic Simplicius, who commented on the handbook by the
Stoic Epictetus (50–138 AD). Blemmydes, following Simplicius identifies “ἐφ’ ἡμῖν” with “aftexousion” and he designates “proairesis” as an activity, which emanates from “aftexousion”. Blemmydes shows the moral power of “proairesis” as a transforming factor of human existence and the mediatory factor to the dialectical relation between man and God.
For the completion of the study, the following sources have been used:
Blemmydes’ De virtute et ascesi, Epictetus’ Handbook, and Neoplatonic Simplicius’ commentaries on the Handbook. I specifically focus on the views of Aristotle, Epictetus, and Neoplatonic Simplicius about “proairesis” and compare the views of Blemmydes to Simplicius’ ideas. I conclude that Blemmydes drew ideas from Simplicius, with regard to human “proairesis” and in the context of the practising and cultivating virtues in everyday life.