A Theory of Five Substances in Marsilio Ficino’s Thought?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15448/1984-6746.2020.3.39771Keywords:
Renaissance, substance, Plotinus, Proclus, FicinoAbstract
In this paper I explore the so-called theory of five substances that has characterized the traditional interpretation of Ficino’s ontology since Kristeller published his book The philosophy of Marsilio Ficino. My point of departure is the first chapter of Book I of his Platonic Theology. I seek to demonstrate that it is not clear that the five degrees of reality can be identified as “substances” in Ficino’s text. From the comparison of this chapter with certain passages in his Parmenides’ Commentary, I propose that it is more appropriate to describe only the first three degrees as “substances”. Therefore, the traditional interpretation of Ficino’s ontology is not accurate.
Downloads
References
ALLEN, Michael, 1982, “Ficino five substances and the Neoplatonist’s Parmenides”, Journal of the Medieval and Reinassances Studies, vol. 12, n.° 1, pp. 18-45.
ALLEN, Michael, 2014, “Marsilio Ficino”, en Gersh, Stephen (ed), Interpreting Proclus. From Antiquity to the Renaissance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139014090.022
ANTON, John, 1977, “Some Logical Aspects of the Concept of ‘Hypostasis’ in Plotinus”. The Review of Metaphysics, XXXI, 258-71.
ARISTÓTELES, 1982, Tratados de Lógica I, Gredos, Madrid.
BACKES, Christopher, 2016, “Plotinus, Ennead V.I.: On the Three Primary Levels of Reality. Translated by Erick Perl.” The Review of Metaphysics; Washington, 69, N.º 4, 830-832.
D’HOINE, Pieter, 2011, “Aristotle’s Criticism of Non-Substance Forms and its Interpretation by Neoplatonic Commentator”. Phronesis, Volume 56, Issue 3, 262-307. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156852811X575916
FICINO, Marsilio, 2001, Platonic Theology, Vol. I. The I Tatti Renaissance Library. London.
FICINO, Marsilio, 1641, “In Parmenidem”, en Marsilii Ficini philosophi platonici medici atque theologi omnium praestantissimi, Operum. Tomus secundus. Paris: Guillaume Pelé, 1641.
KARAMANOLIS, George, 2009, “Plotinus on Quality and Inmanent Form”, Physics and Philosophy of Nature in Greek Neoplatonism, Brill.
KRISTELLER, Paul Oskar, 1953, Il pensiero filosófico de Marsilio Ficino”, G.C. Sansoni Editore, Florencia.
LAVAUD, Laurent, 2014, The Primary Substance in Plotinus’ Metaphysics: A Little-Known Concept. Phronesis 59 369-384. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15685284-12341273
LLOYD, A.C., 1995, “Neoplatonic Logic and Aristotelian Logic I”, Phrónesis, I, 1, 58-72 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156852855X00069
MAGNAVACCA, Silvia, 2005, Léxico Técnico de Filosofía Medieval. Niño y Dávila. Buenos Aires.
MARTIJN, Marije, 2010, Proclus on Nature, Brill, Leiden. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004181915.i-362
PLOTINO, 1982-1998, Eneadas, Gredos, Madrid.
SAFFREY H. D. y Westernik, L.G., 1968, “Introduction” a Proclus, Theologie Platonicienne. Les Belles Letres, Paris.
RUSSI, Chiara, 2009, “Causality and sensible objects”, Physics and Philosophy of Nature in Greek Neoplatonism, Brill.
VITALE, Enrico, 2011, “Saggio Introduttivo”, Teologia Platonica, Bompiani, Milano.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Veritas (Porto Alegre)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright
The submission of originals to Revista Veritas implies the transfer by the authors of the right for publication. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication. If the authors wish to include the same data into another publication, they must cite Revista Veritas as the site of original publication.
Creative Commons License
Except where otherwise specified, material published in this journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, which allows unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is correctly cited. Copyright: © 2006-2020 EDIPUCRS</p
