George Karamanolis breaks new ground in the study of later ancient philosophy by examining the interplay of the two main schools of thought, Platonism and Aristotelianism, from the first century BC to the third century AD. From the time of Antiochus and for the next four centuries Platonists were strongly preoccupied with the question of how Aristotle''s philosophy compared with the Platonic model. Scholars have usually classified Platonists into two groups, the orthodox ones and the eclectics or syncretists, depending on whether Platonists rejected Aristotle''s philosophy as a whole or accepted some Peripatetic doctrines. Karamanolis argues against this dichotomy. He argues that Platonists turned to Aristotle only in order to discover and elucidate Plato''s doctrines and thus to reconstruct Plato''s philosophy, and they did not hesitate to criticize Aristotle when judging him to be at odds with Plato. For them, Aristotle was merely auxlilary to their accessing and understanding Plato. Platonists were guided in their judgement about Aristotle''s proximity to, or distance from, Plato by their own assumptions about what Plato''s doctrines were. Also crucial for their judgement were their views about which philosophical issues particularly mattered. Given the diversity of views rehearsed in Plato''s works, Platonists were flexible enough to decide which were Plato''s own doctrines. The real reason behind the rejection of Aristotle''s testimony was not to defend the purity of Plato''s philosophy, as Platonists sometimes argued in a rhetorical fashion. Aristotle''s testimony was rejected, rather, because Platonists assumed that Plato''s doctrines were views found in Plato''s work which Aristotle had discarded or criticized. The evaluation of Aristotle''s testimony on the part of the Platonists also depends on their interpretation of Aristotle himself. This is particularly clear in the case of Porphyry, with whom the ancient discussion reaches a conclusion which most later Platonists accepted. While essentially in agreement with Plotinus''s interpretation of Plato, Porphyry interpreted Aristotle in such a way that the latter appeared to agree essentially with Plato on all significant philosophical questions, a view which was dominant until the Renaissance. Karamanolis argues that Porphyry''s view of Aristotle''s philosophy guided him to become the first Platonist to write commentaries on Aristotle''s works.Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? offers much food for thought to ancient philosophers and classicists.
Industry Reviews
George Karamanolis...provides an excellent scholarly survey of the way in which Platonists from Antiochus to Porphyry have approached Aristotle...[he] is successful in challenging the traditional view: he examines an impressive amount of evidence and his investigation provides what will certainly be the standard treatment of the topic for many years to come...[his] remarkable discussion sheds new light on the extant evidence. Riccardo Chiaradonna, Archiv fur Geschichte d. Philosophie In addressing the views of particular authors on the harmony of Plato and Aristotle, Karamanolis gives in each case a reconstruction of their general philosophical position. He focuses, of course, on the areas of contention; but these include such central issues as the nature of the soul, and the status of the transcendent realm which is uncontroversially characteristic of post-Antiochean Platonism. As such, these accounts serve in their own right as excellent introductions to their respective subjects - some of whom remain much less well known than they deserve. G. R. Boys-Stones, Mind Journal ...challenges the current view that Porphyry criticised Aristotle for fundamental departures from Platonic theory in metaphysics and psychology, and aims to show that no Porphyrian criticism of Aristotle survives. The result is a thoughtful book, itself a fertile garden of arguments and positions, rich in historical and linguistic detail. James Wilberding, The Classical Review full of high quality research Lloyd P. Gerson, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews Karamanolis' exposition is fluid and unpedantic Julien Villeneuve, McGill University
