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

Sotiria Triantari
{"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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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