Résumés
Abstract
Aristotle regards the informed particular as primary substance and real. Plotinus as a Platonist sees intelligible substance as real and the particulars that belong to a genus as secondary substance and ontically deficient. To avoid the infinite regress involved in predicating the Form both of the particular and the Form Aristotle locates the Form in the particular. Plotinus preserves the transcendence of Form by replacing the Aristotelian predication by synonymy with a system of predication built on pros hen equivocity. The Form then becomes eidos aneideon, “formless form.” This formless form is, not a restricted entity, but rather as an ocean of possibity. As such it dismisses the world of Aristotelian science and opens up new possibilities for understanding art. The Form is regarded as an individual aspect of the intelligible world which is expressed in a P-series which extends from the intelligible world to sensible reality.
Résumé
Aristote considère le particulier porteur d’une forme comme la substance première réellement existante. En tant que platonicien, Plotin conçoit la substance intelligible comme réelle, et les particuliers relevant d’un genre comme substances secondes et ontologiquement inférieures. Dans le but d’éviter la régression à l’infini qu’implique la prédication de la Forme à propos du particulier et de la Forme elle-même, Aristote situe la Forme dans le particulier. Pour sa part, Plotin conserve la transcendance de la Forme en remplaçant la prédication aristotélicienne par une synonymie dont le mécanisme de prédication repose sur une équivocité pros hen. La Forme devient alors eidos aneideon, une « forme sans forme ». Celle-ci ne constitue pas une entité limitée, mais plutôt un océan de possibilités. C’est ainsi qu’elle déclasse le monde de la science aristotélicienne et ouvre de nouvelles perspectives pour la compréhension de la technique [l’art]. La Forme est envisagée comme un aspect singulier du monde intelligible qui s’exprime dans une [série-P] dont l’extension va du monde intelligible à la réalité sensible.
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Ackrill, John L. 1963, Aristotle’s Categories and De Interpretatione, Oxford, Clarendon.
- Anton, John P. 1964, “Plotinus’ Refutation of Beauty as Symmetry,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 23, pp. 233-237.
- Anton, John P. 1967, “Plotinus’ Conception of the Functions of the Artist,” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 26, pp. 91-101.
- Armstrong, Arthur H. 1966-1988, Plotinus, 7 vol., London and Cambridge, Mass and Heinemann.
- Aubenque, Pierre 1981, “Néoplatonisme et analogie de l’être,» in Néoplatonisme. Mélanges offerts à Jean Trouillard (Les Cahiers de Fontenay, 19-22), Lyon, ENS Éditions, pp. 68-73.
- Beierwaltes, Werner 1995, Plotin über Ewigkeit und Zeit, Frankfurt am Main, Klostermann.
- Beierwaltes, Werner 2013, “Plotins Theorie des Schönen und der Kunst,” in Filip Karfik and Euree Song (ed.), Plato Revived. Essays on Ancient Platonism in Honour of Dominic J. O’Meara, Berlin, De Gruyter, pp. 3-26.
- Blumenthal, Henry J. 1966, “Did Plotinus Believe in Ideas of Individuals?,” Phronesis, 11, pp. 61-80.
- Blumenthal, Henry J. 1971, Plotinus’ Psychology. His Doctrines of the Embodied Soul, The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff.
- Blumenthal, Henry J. 1972, “Aristotle in the Service of Platonism,” International Philosophical Quarterly, 12, pp. 340-364.
- Cherniss, Harold F. 1944, Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato and the Academy, Baltimore MD, Johns Hopkins.
- Chiaradonna, Riccardo 2014, “Substance,” in Svetla Slaveva-Griffin and Pauliina Remes (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism, London, Routledge, pp. 216-230.
- Costa, Cristina D’Ancona 1992, “ΑΜΟΡΦΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΑΝΕΙΔΕΟΝ. Causalité des formes et causalité de L’Un chez Plotin,” Revue de Philosophie Ancienne, 9, pp. 69-113.
- Evangeliou, Christos 1982, “The Ontological Basis of Plotinus’ Criticism of Aristotle’s Theory of Categories,” in R. Baine Harris (ed.), The Structure of Being: A Neoplatonic Approach, Albany NY, State University of New York Press, pp. 73-82.
- Evangeliou, Christos 1987, “The Plotinian Reduction of Aristotle’s Categories,” Ancient Philosophy, 7, pp. 147-161.
- Gurtler, Gary M. 1988, “The Origin of Genera,” Dionysius, 12, pp. 3-15.
- Harder, Richard, Rudolf Beutler and Willy Theiler 1956-1960, Plotins Schriften, 5 vol., Hamburg, Felix Meiner.
- Hopkins, Gerard Manley 1990, The Poetical Works of Gerard Manley Hopkins, edited by Norman H. MacKenzie, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
- Joachim, Harold H. 1951, The Nicomachean Ethics. A Commentary by the late H. H. Joachim, David A. Rees (ed.), Oxford, Oxford University Press.
- Lloyd, Anthony C. 1956, “Neoplatonic Logic and Aristotelian Logic – II,” Phronesis, 1, pp. 146-160.
- Lloyd, Anthony C. 1962, “Genus, Species and Ordered Series in Aristotle,” Phronesis, 7, pp. 67-90.
- Lloyd, Anthony C. 1990, The Anatomy of Neoplatonism, Oxford, Clarendon.
- Mamo,Plato Salvador 1969, “Forms of Individuals in the Enneads,” Phronesis, 14, pp. 77-96.
- Regen, Frank 1998, Formlose Formen. Plotins Philosophie als Versuch, die Regressprobleme des Platonischen Parmenides zu lösen, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
- Schelling, Friedrich 1982, Texte zur Philosophie der Kunst, Werner Beierwaltes (ed.), Stuttgart, Suhrkamp.
- Schroeder, Frederic M. 1978, “The Platonic Parmenides and Imitation in Plotinus,” Dionysius, 2, pp. 51-73.
- Schroeder, Frederic M. 1980, “Representation and Reflection in Plotinus,” Dionysius, 4, pp. 37-60.
- Schroeder, Frederic M. 1992, Form and Transformation. A Study in the Philosophy of Plotinus, Montreal and Kingston, McGill-Queen’s Press.
- Schroeder, Frederic M. 1997, “Plotinus and Aristotle on the Good Life,” in John J. Cleary (ed.), The Perennial Tradition of Neoplatonism, Leuven, Leuven University Press, pp. 207-220.
- Schroeder, Frederic M. 2001, “Plotinus and Interior Space,” in Paulos M. Gregorios (ed.), Neoplatonism and Indian Philosophy, Albany NY, State University of New York Press, pp. 83-96.
- Schroeder, Frederic M. 2004, “The Hermeneutics of Unity in Plotinus,” in Jean-Marc Narbonne and Alfons Reckermann (ed.), Pensées de l’«Un» dans l’histoire de la philosophie. Études en hommage au professeur Werner Beierwaltes, Paris-Québec, J. Vrin-Presses de l’Université Laval, pp. 108-122.
- Schroeder, Frederic M. 2012, “Avocatio, Rhetoric, and the Technique of Contemplation in Plotinus,” Dionysius, 30, p. 147-159.
- Schroeder, Frederic M. 2015, “Porphyry’s Life of Plotinus and Academic Power,” Dionysius, 3, p. 147-180.
- Schwyzer, Hans R. and Paul Henry (ed.) 1964-1982, Plotini Opera, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
- Strange, Steven K. 1981, “Plotinus Treatise ‘On the Genera of Being’: An Historical and Philosophical Study,” Doctoral thesis, Austin TX, University of Texas.
- Strange, Steven K. 1987, “Plotinus, Porphyry, and the Neoplatonic Interpretation of the ‘Categories’,” in Wolfgang Haase (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, II.36.2, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, pp. 955-974.
- Wurm, Karl 1973, Substanz und Qualität. Ein Beitrag zur Interpretation der Plotinischen Traktate VI 1, 2 und 3, New York NY, Walter de Gruyter.