God, Being and Non-being in Ancient Philosophy 3800-BNB26-S

The seminar will be focused on the concepts of being, non-being and existence in Ancient Philosophy, and in particular on the relation of those concepts to the conception of God. Since the seminar is a continuation of the discussions from last year, some topics will be shortly summarized, and some will be treated in more detail.
The following four sets of topics are planned:
1) Do we find the concept of existence in Ancient Greek philosophy – both in the Classical era and in the Hellenistic era? If not, how is the Ancient Greek concept of being different from the contemporary one?
There is a well known thesis by Charles Kahn that classical Greek philosophy didn’t have a concept comparable to our concept of existence (Latin existere). Instead, the Greek philosophers operated with a concept of being (einai, to on) which was concentrated on the predicative aspect of being (connected with being a definite nature, being something) and the veritative aspect (connected with truth).
In this part of the seminar we will be interested in discussing Kahn’s thesis and looking for different contexts in which the contrast between being and existence appears in Greek philosophy. In particular we will be interested in Aristotle’s idea that being is not a genus and that being is homonymous (is ambiguous, has many senses).
We will discuss shortly some of Kahn’s main theses and then read some passages from Metaphysics where Aristotle discusses the Platonic claim that being is a genus. We will also read arguments by Christopher Shields that Aristotle is mistaken in thinking that being is homonymous.
Another topic which will be taken up in this part of the seminar will be the innovations of the Stoics and of the Hellenistic era. We will try to answer the question, what new ontological concepts have been introduced in this era.

2) What is the relation between the conception of God in Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism and the way in which philosophers of this era understand ontological concepts?
In the era of Middle Platonic philosophy (Early Roman Empire, 1st c. BC – 3rd c. AD) many philosophers assumed there is an intimate connection between being and God. This idea was promoted by such important and diverse thinkers as Philo of Alexandria, Plutarch and the author of the Anonymous Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides. In this part of the seminar we will read and discuss those texts.

3) What is the relation between the Christian conception of God and the way in which Christian theologians understand such ontological concepts as ousia and hypostasis?
The Christian idea that God created the world out of nothing (Latin ex nihilo) has been very influential in the development of European philosophy. In effect historians of philosophy speculate what kind of influence this might have had on the understanding of concepts of being and existence in Christian philosophers.
In this part of the seminar we will discuss shortly the concept of creatio ex nihilo, but our main focus will be on the ontological concepts of ousia and hypostasis in the Trinitarian debate in 4th c. AD, in particular in Gregory of Nyssa (also some passages from Augustine and other philosophers will be read).

4) What is the concept of being in Neoplatonism? Do the concepts of hypostasis and hyparxis introduce something comparable to our notion of existence?
It is sometimes thought that in Neoplatonism the emergence of new ontological concepts such as hyparxis and hypostasis brings a deeper appreciation for the existential aspect of being (a connection with Kahn’s thesis). This claim has been made, among other scholars, by Pierre Hadot, Kevin Corrigan and L.P. Gerson. In this part of the seminar we will discuss the question whether Plotinus does in fact introduce the distinction between essence and existence and we will also try to discover the meaning of new ontological concepts, i.e. of hypostasis and hyparxis, in the texts of Neoplatonic philosophers. We will study in particular passages from Plotinus and Proclus and read the interpretations of L.P. Gerson and K. Corrigan. We will also go back to Riccardo Chiaradonna’s book “Ontology in Early Neoplatonism”.