The aim of this paper is to show how some passages in the treatise VI 6 (34) of the Enneads (On numbers) could be considered a Plotinian attempt to achieve a sort of mediation between Plato’s dialogues and the Academic models concerning the generation of numbers and ideas by the two principles of the One and the Indefinite Dyad. Through a complex exegetical contamination, Plotinus gets to identify numbers, ideas and the Dyad with the hypostasis of the Intellect, saving for the One the condition of the sole principle of every reality. This new reading modifies the ontological role played by ideal numbers : they gain an ontological priority on any other being, thanks to their being conceived as the a priori condition of the display of multiplicity. The so-called Intermediates, on the other hand (as far as they are linked to computation and quantity), have a reshaped status, as a result of the fact that calculation is unable to grasp the essence of a given reality.

L’opposition créé (creatus) / incréable (increabile) est un des couples conceptuels eckhartiens qui marquent la différence ontologique, thème dominant de la pensée du mystique allemand. L’increabile définit l’intellect, dans la mesure où celui-ci est apparenté à Dieu. Le système eckhartien paraît déchiré par la double définition de Dieu : ontologique (esse est deus) et méontologique ou noétique (deus est intelligere). Le scandale suscité par la thèse de l’incréabilité de l’intellect et par l’apparente fracture dans le système eckhartien pousse Eckhart à des réflexions sur l’intellect de ses détracteurs et, malgré tout, sur la cohérence de son propre système.

Epicurus claimed that „all sensations are true”, and that the false is only in the opinions. This paradoxical theory, very much criticized both by ancient and modern commentators, for it seems counterfactual, draws on Aristotle’s theory of sensations. Aristotle (as shown especially in the De anima) holds that sensations and opinions must be distinguished. As long as sensations stick to their „proper domain”, they remain trustworthy and cannot refute each other, regardless of whether they are similar or different in kind. Yet they can fail to perceive the truth, when they pass beyond their proper domain into what one can call their „improper domain” (sizes and things). At this moment sensations resemble opinions and become fallible. So, to a certain extent, the divide between sensations and opinions becomes blurred. Epicurus seems to have taken up much of this theory. Yet he submitted it to a radical simplification: now, there is no room for the „improper domain”, so that all one sensation seizes always belongs to its „proper domain”. Thus it can never be refuted neither by a similar, nor by a dissimilar sensation in kind; therefore it is always and in every circumstance trustworthy. One can add that, in reshaping Aristotle’s theory of senses by removing the „improper domain”, Epicurus purged the theory of senses of all elements that could involve uncertainty and imprecision – which is typical for his strenuous attempt to achieve calm and serenity.

Apuleius’ generation was caught in the passage from philosophic monotheism to that form of imperial henotheism whose aim was to counteract the tension between philosophy and popular religiosity. It can be affirmed that terminology, vocabulary and especially the motive of discreetness and the prudence in the use of defining syntagmatic expressions are a common fact of Medioplatonism. Author’s attitude is that of a philosopher resorting to the mystic cults, plainly aware of their value and, not the last of the things, of the worship responsibilities devolving on a deliberate attachment. The prudence characterizing the discourse on the ineffable nature of the divinity dwells rather on the meaning and requirement of Platonic mysteries, as they were translated and interpreted by Medioplatonism, in its semi-literal manner, current that Apuleius joined on a base of a certain familiarity from a stylistic and thematic point of view.

One of the main philosophical works by Alexander of Aphrodisias, De principiis, is lost in its original Greek text, but it is preserved in three extant Medieval Semitic versions, one in Syriac and two in Arabic, which were written in the Near East between 500 and 950 AD. These versions are not totally identical and, as we have shown in 2012, they are in a rather complex textual relationship. As we will show in this article, a tentative reconstruction of the lost text should be based upon an attentive and point‑to‑point comparative analysis of some aspect of all three versions. We have tentatively called the abore way “critical translation”.

Commentando Aristotele, Phys. II 4, 6 e 8, Filopono assume costantemente Empedocle come modello di tutta una tradizione filosofica che individua nella materia e nel caso i principi sia dell’universo sia degli enti particolari. Filopono e d’accordo con Aristotele nel ritenere assurda la posizione dei materialisti, che considerano il caso non soltanto come causa degli enti che divengono sempre o per lo piu allo stesso modo, tra i quali talvolta si verificano casi di enti che si generano contro natura, ma anche come causa dei corpi celesti, che si muovono di movimenti sempre identici e tra i quali non si osservano casi di contro natura. Ma se nella Fisica Aristotele ha opposto a questa posizione teorica la sua nozione di natura come causa finale, Filopono oppone al caso dei fisiologi materialisti la provvidenza, che egli chiama anche “provvidenza della natura” e che differenzia come natura universale e natura particolare. Pur utilizzando un concetto non aristotelico, gli argomenti di Filopono sono il frutto di un’eccellente esegesi di Aristotele, e persino l’esclusione del contro natura nell’ambito della natura universale sembra riconducibile a quanto Aristotele insegna nel De generatione animalium.

L’article se penche sur l’opposition bi‑l‑majāz (par extension) vs. bi‑l‑ḥaqīqa (en verite/realite) qu’on rencontre dans plus d’un traite d’al‑Kindī. Il s’agit de determiner si l’usage qu’en fait al‑Kindī se situe sur le plan lexical, voire semantique, a savoir l’opposition ‛sens propre’ vs. ‛sens figure’ ou devrait plutot se lire sur le plan ontologique, ḥaqīqa s’appliquant alors a tout ce qui est propre a Dieu et majāz a ce qui est cree par lui et donc en derive. S’appuyant sur les conclusions de Wolfhart Heinrichs au sujet de la genese de la dichotomie ḥaqīqa ‑ majāz, l’auteure montre que l’usage qu’al‑Kindī en fait releve de l’ordre ontologique, ce en quoi il s’accorde avec les milieux mu‛tazilites contemporains du philosophe. Cette interpretation est relayee par un temoin plus tardif, a savoir le theologien et philosophe andalou Baḥya Ibn Paqūda (XIe s.) dont le traite al‑Hidāya ilā farā’iḍ al‑qulūb («Guide des devoirs du coeur») fait d’importants emprunts a la Philosophie Premiere d’al‑Kindī.

The term ‘Manichaean’ has come to be regarded as synonymous with a radical dualistic perspective, and is now utilised in all sorts of contexts such as literature and politics. Gardner examines what can be known of the actual teachings of the third‑century sage and self‑declared ‘Apostle of Jesus Christ’ known as Mani or Manichaios. His extant writings are surveyed in order to determine what he says about the nature of God and the origin of matter and evil. Particular attention is given to the terminology and symbolism applied to the idea of two eternal and opposite principles, the kingdoms of light and darkness. Gardner considers possible origins for Mani’s teachings in the Judaeo‑Christian, Gnostic and Iranian traditions ; together with the question of further developments within the community after its founder’s death.

L’article examine la tension qui existe entre tendances monistes et dualistes dans l'ancien hermétisme et propose de considérer que les écrits hermétiques, tout en opérant dans un cadre dualiste pluriforme (ontologique, cosmologique, anthropologique), soutiennent un modele moniste de la réalité issue d’une divinité transcendante et tout‑englobante. L’imposition d’un état d’esprit dualiste est typique pour les premieres étapes de l’initiation hermétique, suivies par un dépassement progressif de toutes les dualités (Aufhebung) et l’acquisition finale d'un point de vue totalisant et noétique du monde.

Cette contribution est le résumé d’une communication sur la notion de la matiere dans le commentaire de Calcidius sur le Timée de Platon. Pour arriver a un dualisme minimal, Calcidius (a) combine des éléments d’Aristote, des Stoiciens, et de Numénius, mais (b) rejette la notion qu’il attribue aux Hébreux, certains aspects de la notion de Numénius, et d’une notion qu’il attribue a certains Platoniciens.