Name: 'simplicius': On Aristotle on the Soul 3. 1-5 (en Inglés)
SKU: 63710906
Price: 3712.24 MXN
Availability: InStock
Author: H J Blumenthal
ISBN: 9780715628966

portada 'simplicius': On Aristotle on the Soul 3. 1-5 (en Inglés)

'simplicius': On Aristotle on the Soul 3. 1-5 (en Inglés)

Formato

Libro Físico

Editorial

Bristol Classical Press

Autor

H J Blumenthal

Idioma

Inglés

N° páginas

200

Encuadernación

Tapa Dura

ISBN13

9780715628966

'simplicius': On Aristotle on the Soul 3. 1-5 (en Inglés)

H J Blumenthal (Autor) · Bristol Classical Press · Tapa Dura

Libro Nuevo Importado

Envío: 14 a 19 días háb.

$ 6,187.06$ 3,712.24

-40%

Costos de importación incluídos en el precio ✅

Libro Nuevo

Quedan más de 100 unidades

$ 3,712.24

¡Envío Gratis! Llega entre el 05 Oct y el 13 Oct a CUAUHTÉMOC, Ciudad de México. Seleccionar ubicación

Agregar a lista de deseos

Reseña del libro "'simplicius': On Aristotle on the Soul 3. 1-5 (en Inglés)"

In On the Soul 3.1-5, Aristotle goes beyond the five sense to the general functions of sense perception, the imagination and the so-called active intellect, the of which was still a matter of controversy in the time of Thomas Aquinas. In his commentary on Aristotle's text, 'Simplicius' insists that the intellect in question is not something transcendental but the human rational soul. He denies both Plotinus' view that a part of the soul has never descended from uninterrupted contemplation of the Platonic Forms, and Proclus' view that the soul cannot be changed in its substance through embodiment. He also denies that imagination sees things as true or false, which requires awareness of one's own cognitions. He thinks that imagination works by projecting imprints. In the case of mathematics, it can make the imprints more like shapes taken on during sense perception or more like concepts, which calls for lines without breadth. He acknowledges that Aristotle would not agree to reify these concepts as substances, but thinks of mathematical entities as mere abstractions. Addressing the vexed question of authorship, H. J. Blumenthal concludes that the commentary was written neither by Simplicius nor Priscian. In a novel interpretation, he suggests that if Priscian had any hand in this commentary, it might have been as editor of notes from Simplicius' lectures.