search
Include:
3 Research products, page 1 of 1

  • Article
  • CA
  • Greek

Relevance
arrow_drop_down
  • Publication . Article . 2007
    Open Access Greek
    Authors: 
    Dillon, John;
    Publisher: Novosibirsk State University Press

    Джон Диллон (Тринити колледж, Дублин) вновь обращается к проблеме истоков платонического догматизма в Древней Академии. См. также рус. пер. его книг Наследники Платона (СПб., 2003) и Средние платоники (СПб., 2001). Школьная полемика и соперничество между школами, изначально между Академией и Перипатом, а затем между платониками, стоиками и аристотеликами, привела к тому, что платонизм со временем стал более формальным, нежели он был во времена Платона, причем за это развитие прежде всего ответственен Ксенократ, который, в ряде трактатов общего и частного характера заложил основу новой цельной доктрины. Нельзя утверждать, что платоники были склонны к монолитной ортодоксии. Учение Платона не представлялась им как нечто, снизошедшее свыше. Скорее всего, школа представляла собой саморегулирующуюся систему, в рамках которой каждый в целом понимал, что значить быть платоником (а впоследствии и пифагорейцем) и, со своей точки зрения, страстно полемизировал как со своими коллегами, так и с представителями других школ. John Dillon (Trinity College, Dublin) argues, that the exigencies of inter‐school rivalry, initially between the Academy and the Peripatos, but then between later Platonists and both Stoics and Aristotelians, demanded that Platonism become more formalized than it was left by Plato himself, and that it was primarily Xenocrates, in a vast array of treatises, both general and particular, who provided the bones of this organized corpus of doctrine. Not that the Platonists were ever subject to anything like a monolithic orthodoxy. Platonic doctrine was not anything handed down centrally, from above; it was rather a self‐regulating system, in which everyone knew what it meant, broadly, to be a Platonist (which could, in later times, embrace being a Pythagorean as well), and managed to stay within those parameters, while squabbling vigorously with each other, as well as with the other schools.

  • Publication . Article . 2007
    Open Access Greek
    Authors: 
    Dillon, John;
    Publisher: Novosibirsk State University Press

    John Dillon (Trinity College, Dublin) argues, that Plato, and the tradition deriving from him, has a number of important things to say to the modern world, to which the modern world would do well to listen. Of course, Plato had no conception of the nature or complexity of the issues with which modern civilisation is currently faced, but nonetheless there are many useful insights which we may derive both from his own works in particular his last great work, The Laws and from those of certain of his followers, in particular Plotinus. The topics on which the paper focuses are just three, but they seem to represent the great bulk of what is wrong with modern western society, and what is inexorably putting intelligent life on this planet under mortal threat. They are the following: 1) The problem of the destruction of the environment and of waste disposal; 2) The problem of religious conflict and mutual intolerance and 3) The problem of the legitimation of authority and the limits of personal freedom. В статье "Платонизм и мировой кризис" Джон Диллон (Дублин) рассматривает важнейшие проблемы современности (такие, как разрушение окружающей среды, религиозная нетерпимость и кризис легитимации публичной власти) в контексте философии Платона и предлагает в поисках решений этих проблем еще раз обратиться к наследию великого мыслителя прошлого.

  • Open Access Greek
    Authors: 
    Dillon, John;
    Publisher: Novosibirsk State University Press

    An article by John Dillon (Trinity College, Dublin) argues that the Platonism that Plotinus inherits setting aside Ammonius Saccas, of whom we know all too little is by the later second century distinctly dualist in tendency, and is able, especially in the case of Plutarch, to quote Plato to its purpose. Plato himself, though, as the author maintains, is, despite appearances to the contrary, what one might term a 'modified monist'. That is to say, he fully recognizes the degree of imperfection and evil in the world, and holds it to be ineradicable, but he does not in the last resort believe in a positive countervailing force to the Good or the One. What we have is simply a negative force, whether Indefinite Dyad, disorderly World-Soul, or Receptacle, which is an inevitable condition of their being a world at all, but which, as a side-effect of introducing diversity, generates various sorts of imperfection. It is this scenario that justifies his follower Hermodorus in declaring that Plato recognizes only a single first principle, and it to this sort of monism if anything, in a more pronounced form that Plotinus returns. A Russian translation of this article is published in ΣΧΟΛΗ ΙΙ. 1 (2008) 11-20. Статья Джона Диллона (Тринити колледж, Дублин) посвящена интересной странице в истории приключения идей. В ней прослеживается путь, проделанный метафизикой платонического толка от «умеренного монизма» Платона и Древней Академии, через дуализм Плутарха и Нумения, к монистической позиции Плотина. Рус. пер. этой статьи см. ΣΧΟΛΗ ΙΙ. 1 (2008) 11-20.

Send a message
How can we help?
We usually respond in a few hours.