Affiliation:
1. KU Leuven , Leuven , Belgium
Abstract
Abstract
According to the prevalent scholarly opinion, Eudorus of Alexandria supposes two interrelated levels within the same metaphysical hierarchy: one transcendent principle (to hen) at the highest level and two opposing principles (monas and aoristos dyas) at the subjacent level. This paper presents an alternative interpretation, arguing that Eudorus’ report, in fact, involves two different explanations regarding the first principle(s): one strictly monistic and the other dualistic. Eudorus holds the former approach (the so-called highest teaching, which is particularly influenced by Platonic henotheism) to represent the pinnacle of Pythagorean metaphysics according to which the latter, secondary teaching ought to be construed. In the final analysis, interpreting dualism through the lens of henology results in a somewhat idiosyncratic yet Pythagoreanising account of a Monad and Dyad that are, if understood as principle, identical to the One.
Reference31 articles.
1. Baltes, M., and M.-L. Lakmann. 2006. “Eudoros.” In Der Neue Pauly, edited by H. Cancik, and H. Schneider, Brill Reference Online. Available at https://doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e404280.
2. Baltussen, H., M. Atkinson, M. Share, and I. Mueller. 2012. Simplicius: On Aristotle Physics 1.5–9. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
3. Bonazzi, M. 2005. “Eudoro di Alessandria: alle origini del platonismo imperiale.” In L’eredità platonica: studi sul platonismo da Arcesilao a Proclo, edited by M. Bonazzi, and V. Celluprica, 115–60. Napoli: Bibliopolis.
4. Bonazzi, M. 2007. “Eudorus of Alexandria and Early Imperial Platonism.” In Greek and Roman Philosophy 100 BC–200 AD (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Suppl. 94), Vol. 2, edited by R. Sorabji, and R. W. Sharples, 365–77. London: Institute of Classical Studies, University of London.
5. Bonazzi, M. 2013. “Pythagoreanising Aristotle: Eudorus and the Systematisation of Platonism.” In Aristotle, Plato and Pythagoreanism in the First Century BC, edited by M. Schofield, 160–88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.