Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Eraclito allievo di Pirrone: per una revisione di Philop. In Cat. 2,7–24

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Méthexis

In this article I try to solve an hermeneutical problem concerning some lines (2,7–24) of the Commentary to the Categories of John Philoponus. There, the commentator would seem committing an error, stating that Heraclitus was a disciple of Pyrrho by the expression «ὁ δὲ μαθητὴς αὐτοῦ Ἡράκλειτος (2,15)». I will present the edition of the text made by Busse with its translation and exegesis and, then, I will compare the passage in Philoponus with similar ones in other Neoplatonic commentators to the Categories. Hence, I will show how the speech of Philoponus is, contrary to what was previously thought, complete and efficient and I will try to propose possible solutions for the text.

Affiliations: 1: Università di Catania, Italy,


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

1. Adoménas M., (2002). ‘"The Fluctuating Fortunes of Heraclitus in Plato"’. In Laks A.,; Louguet C. Qu’est-ce que la philosophie présocratique? What is the Presocratic philosophy?. pu du Septentrion, Villeneuve d’Ascq: pp. 419447.
2. Castagnoli L. (2007). ‘"«Everything is True», «Everything is False»: Self-Refutation Arguments from Democritus to Augustine’". Antiquorum philosophia , Vol 1: 1174.
3. Erginel M.M. (2009). ‘"Relativism and Self-Refutation in the Theaetetus’". Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy , Vol 37: 145.
4. Flückiger H., (2005). ‘"The EΦEKTIKOI in the Commentators’". In Brancacci A., Philosophy and Doxography in the Imperial Age . Leo S. Olschki Editore, Firenze: 113129.
5. Irwin T. (1977). ‘"Plato’s Heracleiteanism’". Philosophical Quarterly , Vol 27: 113.
6. Kahn C.H. (1977). ‘"Plato and Heraclitus"’. Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy , Vol 1: 241258.
7. Mansfeld J. (1994). Prolegomena: Questions to Be Settled Before the Study of an Author, or a text. Brill, Leiden/New York 1994.
8. McCabe M.M. (2000). Plato and His Predecessors: The Dramatisation of Reason. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 97104.
9. Moyal G.J.D. (1988). ‘"Did Plato Misunderstand Heraclitus?’". Revue des études anciennes , Vol 90: 8998.
10. Notomi N., (2013). ‘"A Protagonist of the Sophistic Movement? Protagoras in Historiography’". In van Ophuijsen J.M.,; van Raalte M.,; Stork P. Protagoras of Abdera: The Man, His Measure. Brill, Leiden: 1136.
11. Philoponus. On Aristotle Categories , 15. Transl. by Sirkel R.,, Tweedale M., & Harris J.,, with Philoponus. A Treatise Concerning the Whole and the Parts . Transl. by King D.. Bloomsbury Academic. London, 2014.
12. Pirrone. Testimonianze . A cura di Fernanda Decleva Caizzi. Bibliopolis. Napoli 1981.
13. Polito R. (2004). The Sceptical Road: Aenesidemus’ Appropriation of Heraclitus. Brill, Leiden.
14. Polito R. (2014). Aenesidemus of Cnossus: Testimonia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
15. Rist J.M. (1970). ‘"The Heracliteanism of Aenesidemus’". Phoenix , Vol 24/4: 309319.
16. Schofield M., (2007). ‘"Aenesidemus: Pyrrhonist and Heraclitean"’. In Ioppolo A.M.,; Sedley D.N."Pyrrhonists, Patricians and Platonizers: Hellenistic Philosophy in the Period 155–86 b.c". Bibliopolis, Naples: 269338.
17. Simplicius. Commentaire sur les “Catégories”. Fasc. 1: introduction, première partie, (pp. 1–9,3 Kalbfleisch), trad. de Ph. Hoffmann (avec la collaboration de I. et P. Hadot); commentaire et notes par I. Hadot. Brill. Leiden, 1990.
18. Tarán L. (1999). ‘"Heraclitus: the River-fragments and their Implications’". Elenchos , Vol 20/1: 952.
19. Tarrant H., (1998). ‘"Introduction"’. In Olympiodorus. Commentary on Plato’s Gorgias . Transl. with full notes by Jackson R.,, Lycos K.,, Tarrant H.. Brill. Leiden.
20. van Eck J. (2009). ‘"Moving like a Stream: Protagoras’ Heracliteanism in Plato’s Theaetetus’". Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy , Vol 36: 199248.
21. Wedin M. (2004). "‘On the Use and Abuse of Non-contradicton. Aristotle’s Critique of Protagoras and Heraclitus in Metaphysics Gamma 5’. Oxford Studies in Ancient" Philosophy , Vol 26: 213239.
22. Westerink L.G., (1990). ‘"The Alexandrian commentators and the Introductions to their Commentaries’". In Sorabji R."Aristotle Transformed. The Ancient commentators and their Influence". Duckworth, London/Ithaca, ny: 325348.
23. Wiśniewski B. (1953). ‘"Protagoras et Héraclite’". Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire , Vol 31/2–3: 490499.

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Méthexis — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation