[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review]
This volume of collected studies is a significant contribution to our understanding of how ancient philosophers built and conceptualized traditions. By examining the interplay of disagreements among ancient philosophical schools, this volume sheds light on the complex dynamics that helped shape philosophical discourse in antiquity. Particularly noteworthy is the project’s approach to understanding both pagan and Christian intellectual traditions not in isolation but as part of a continuous philosophical dialogue. This perspective not only enriches our comprehension of ancient philosophical methods and concerns but also underscores the importance of textual and ideological exchanges across different schools of thought. Moreover, the volume’s focus on the construction of tradition through disagreement highlights the fundamental role of intellectual conflict in the development of philosophical identity and legacy, offering invaluable insights into the historical progression of philosophical thought.
The volume starts with an extensive scholarly discussion by Riccardo Chiaradonna of the interpretation of Aristotle’s Categories by the Peripatetic philosophers Andronicus of Rhodes and Boethus of Sidon from the 1st century BC. Chiaradonna attempts to reconstruct the distinctive approaches of Andronicus and Boethus against the broader backdrop of philosophical debates of their time. As Chiaradonna argues, Andronicus and Boethus did not merely accept Aristotle’s teachings but critiqued and modified them, incorporating influences from earlier philosophical traditions, such as the Old Academy. This included questioning Aristotle’s categorization in Categories and adapting his concepts in a way which had broader philosophical implications. In this context, these early Peripatetics exhibited a significant degree of philosophical flexibility and openness, which stands in contrast to later commentators who often sought to defend and systematize Aristotle’s views more rigidly. This openness reflects a broader characteristic of the first-century BC philosophical landscape, which was marked by a return to ancient philosophical sources while engaging critically and creatively with them. These conclusions underscore a period of philosophical innovation and exchange, where the boundaries between different philosophical schools were more fluid, allowing for a creative reinterpretation of Aristotle’s works that was both respectful of tradition and open to revision.
The contribution “È esistita un’eterodossia nel medioplatonismo?” by Franco Ferrari discusses the lack of a unified doctrinal orthodoxy in Middle Platonism, a philosophical movement spanning the 1st century BC to the early 3rd century AD. Middle Platonism emerged as a reaction to Hellenistic skepticism and saw a diversification of interpretations of Plato’s philosophy. The closure of the Platonic Academy is seen as a pivotal moment that led to the proliferation of diverse and often conflicting interpretations of Platonic philosophy. Without a central authoritative institution, Middle Platonism became a “battlefield” of ideas where various philosophical currents and personal interpretations clashed. Ferrari outlines how Middle Platonists like Antiochus of Ascalon, Eudorus of Alexandria, Numenius, and others developed their versions of Platonism by integrating or opposing Stoic, Pythagorean, and Aristotelian elements. They also engaged with Platonic skepticism, each striving to systematize Plato’s teachings into a coherent doctrinal structure while often disagreeing on methodologies and interpretations of key philosophical issues such as the nature of the cosmos, the role of the demiurge, and the interpretation of Platonic metaphysics. The essay illustrates that Middle Platonism was marked by a dynamic and open-ended engagement with Plato’s teachings, lacking a definitive orthodoxy but rich in philosophical innovation and interpretative diversity.
Teun Tieleman’s exploration of Galen of Pergamum’s critical stance against various philosophical and medical sects is a testament to that philosopher’s significant role in bridging these diverse fields. Tieleman illustrates Galen’s methodological approach to philosophy and medicine and his critique of sectarian divisions. Galen, in his critique, highlighted the divisive nature of philosophical and medical schools (haireseis), such as the Stoics, Epicureans, and Christians, which, in his view, prioritized allegiance over truth. He contended that such sectarianism is not just intellectually limiting but morally flawed, as it fosters contention and obstructs scientific and philosophical progress. Galen, in contrast, promoted an eclectic approach, refusing to align with any single school. He valued scientific demonstration and rational judgment over reliance on authority, selecting what he considered best from each school to synthesize medical and philosophical knowledge aimed at human well-being. Overall, the essay portrays Galen as a significant figure in the history of medicine and philosophy, whose efforts to bridge the gap between different schools of thought helped shape a more collaborative and less contentious intellectual landscape.
Albert Joosse’s essay explores how Clement of Alexandria incorporated and transformed the Delphic maxim “know yourself” within the framework of Christian philosophy. Joosse argues that, although Platonic thinkers interpret the maxim as an invitation to deep self-understanding and to a notion of the self as a microcosm of the cosmos linked to the divine, Clement reinterpreted it to align with Christian teachings. Joosse shows how Clement uses the maxim as a pedagogical tool to guide Christian readers toward a deeper understanding of their faith and to illustrate the superiority of Christian wisdom over Greek philosophy. Clement’s work is shown to exemplify how early Christian thinkers engaged with and transformed philosophical ideas from pagan traditions to articulate and defend their own theological and philosophical positions. This approach not only appeals to Greek-educated audiences but also affirms the philosophical depth of Christian doctrine for believers, asserting its uniqueness and superiority through integrating Greek philosophical rigor with Christian revelation.
Sébastien Morlet discusses the concept of παρακοή (misunderstanding or mishearing) in late antiquity, highlighting how it has been used historically to explain the emergence of doctrinal innovation or error. It illustrates how error can stem from truth and deviance from tradition, grounded in human frailty. In essence, the paper underscores the dynamic interplay of accusation and acknowledgment of shared heritage between Christians and Greeks in antiquity, where misunderstandings and their interpretations played a central role in defining religious and philosophical identities.
Robbert M. van den Berg explores the phenomenon of disagreement and misinterpretation within the Platonic tradition, focusing on how Plato’s works, especially the Timaeus, have been understood differently by various interpreters. Plato’s texts, by their nature, risk misinterpretation and even intentional distortion due to their open and dialogic form. Plato leveraged this potential for misreading to foster philosophical discourse. Early followers, such as Numenius and Atticus, and later Neoplatonists like Proclus, interpreted Plato’s writings differently, often influenced by motivations of their own and the philosophical climate of their times. Numenius accused his contemporaries of distorting Plato’s ideas, driven by ambition rather than ignorance. Neoplatonists like Proclus adopted a more relaxed approach towards differing interpretations among fellow Platonists but were less tolerant of external interpretations, particularly from the Christian intellectuals. The Christian interpretations were viewed as violent misinterpretations, not just diverging in understanding but actively distorting Plato’s philosophy to fit their theological narratives. Van den Berg argues that the disagreements highlight a broader issue within philosophical traditions, namely the tension between preserving a philosopher’s original insights and adapting his ideas to new contexts and agendas.
Helmut Seng critically examines the views of Julius Firmicus Maternus, who is often accused of oppressive intolerance, superficial knowledge of contemporary philosophy and Christian theology, and blatant opportunism. As the author shows, Firmicus’s work features a questionable blend of philosophy and theology. In particular, Firmicus criticized contemporary religious practices using philosophical rhetoric, often blending it with theological positions that align with his strategy of highlighting the worst aspects of pagan practices and philosophy to argue for the superiority and truth of Christian doctrines. As Seng argues, Firmicus’s work mirrors the changing dynamics of the time, shifting from a mere defense of Christianity to an aggressive critique of paganism, advocating for policies that align with his religious convictions. This represents a broader movement within the late Roman Empire towards intolerance of paganism, culminating in Christianity becoming the state religion under Theodosius I.
‘L’âme est le lieu des formes’ by Alexandra Michalewski outlines how Asclepius of Tralles and his teacher Ammonius attempt to reconcile the philosophical positions of Plato and Aristotle regarding the nature and causality of the Forms. It particularly delves into Asclepius ’ interpretation of Aristotle’s De Anima 3.4, 429a27-8, which states that “the soul is the place of forms.” This remark, traditionally seen as tendentious, is interpreted by Asclepius to mean that Aristotle does not reject the notion of a divine intellect that actively produces and contains the Forms. Michalewski concludes that the commentaries of Ammonius and Asclepius do not merely defend Plato against Aristotle but show a fundamental agreement between the two on key metaphysical issues.
Finally, Mareike Hauer’s paper investigates Simplicius’ references to Stoic concepts of quality in his commentary on Aristotle’s Categories. While Simplicius often criticizes Stoic ideas, he also incorporates them into his analysis, which indicates that he acknowledges the Stoic contribution to philosophical tradition despite its limitations. In exploring how Stoics view qualities and the qualified, Simplicius emphasizes differences in their accounts of what it is for qualities to be corporeal and how qualities may sometimes exist without a corresponding quality. Hauer concludes that Simplicius uses his critique of Stoicism to demonstrate that Aristotle’s philosophical approach is superior in terms of explanatory power and coherence.
To sum up, Dealing with Disagreement significantly enriches our understanding of the construction of philosophical traditions through the lens of intellectual disagreement. By focusing on how ancient thinkers from various traditions engaged with dissenting opinions, the project sheds light on the dynamic process of tradition-building within both pagan and Christian intellectual contexts. It offers a nuanced exploration of how disagreements influenced the development of doctrines, stimulated philosophical advancements, and shaped the identities of competing intellectual communities. Collectively, these essays reveal that conflict and critique were not mere obstacles to consensus but were pivotal in fostering a deeper engagement with philosophical issues and in promoting a richer, more diverse intellectual landscape. By examining the interplay between different schools of thought, the volume not only enhances our understanding of ancient philosophical methods and concerns but also highlights the importance of intellectual diversity in the evolution of philosophical ideas.
Authors and Titles
- Riccardo Chiaradonna, ‘The Early Peripatetic Interpreters of Aristotle’s Categories and the Previous Philosophical Tradition’
- Franco Ferrari, ‘È esistita un’eterodossia nel medioplatonismo?’
- Teun Tieleman, ‘Galen on Disagreement. Sects, Philosophical Methods and Christians’
- Albert Joosse, ‘Γνῶθι σαυτόν and the Platonic Tradition in Clement of Alexandria’
- Sébastien Morlet, ‘L’accusation de mauvaise entente (παρακοή) dans la polémique entre païens et chrétiens à la fin de l’Antiquité’
- Robbert M. van den Berg, ‘Plato’s Violent Readers. Pagan Neoplatonists against Christian Appropriations of Plato’s Timaeus’
- Helmut Seng, ‘Mythenkritik und Kultpolemik bei Firmicus Maternus’
- Alexandra Michalewski, ‘« L’âme est le lieu des formes ». Une réponse à l’argument du troisième homme à travers la symphônia de Platon et d’Aristote dans le Commentaire à la Métaphysique d’Asclépius de Tralles’
- Mareike Hauer, ‘The Use of Stoic References in Simplicius’ Discussion of Quality’