{"title":"What Time is Not","authors":"Thomas Seissl","doi":"10.1163/18725473-12341542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In one of the most famous but equally obscure passages in the Timaeus, Plato describes the generation of time and the heavens. The “moving image of eternity” (37d5) is commonly read as Plato’s most general characterisation of time. Rémi Brague famously challenged the traditional interpretation on linguistic grounds by claiming that Plato actually did not conceive of time as an image (εἰκών) but rather as a number (ἀριθμός). In this paper, I shall claim that this controversy is by no means a modern one. The traditional interpretation is mostly owed to Plato’s most prominent reader, Plotinus, who famously conceives of time in relation to eternity (Enn.\n III.7.13.24-25). Brague’s alternative reading, however, is anticipated by Simplicius’ attempt to refute the Plotinian interpretation, as I shall show. According to my reconstruction, Simplicius’ reading of the Timaeus not only shows why the traditional interpretation falls short, but it also offers a systematic argument that bolsters Brague’s alternative reading. Finally, I shall show that this is consistent with Plato’s text. It shall become clear that current interpretative problems are essentially prefigured in the late ancient debate.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18725473-12341542","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In one of the most famous but equally obscure passages in the Timaeus, Plato describes the generation of time and the heavens. The “moving image of eternity” (37d5) is commonly read as Plato’s most general characterisation of time. Rémi Brague famously challenged the traditional interpretation on linguistic grounds by claiming that Plato actually did not conceive of time as an image (εἰκών) but rather as a number (ἀριθμός). In this paper, I shall claim that this controversy is by no means a modern one. The traditional interpretation is mostly owed to Plato’s most prominent reader, Plotinus, who famously conceives of time in relation to eternity (Enn.
III.7.13.24-25). Brague’s alternative reading, however, is anticipated by Simplicius’ attempt to refute the Plotinian interpretation, as I shall show. According to my reconstruction, Simplicius’ reading of the Timaeus not only shows why the traditional interpretation falls short, but it also offers a systematic argument that bolsters Brague’s alternative reading. Finally, I shall show that this is consistent with Plato’s text. It shall become clear that current interpretative problems are essentially prefigured in the late ancient debate.
在《蒂迈奥》中,柏拉图描述了时间和天堂的生成,这是一段最著名但同样晦涩难懂的段落。“永恒的运动影像”(37d5)通常被解读为柏拉图对时间最一般的描述。r米·布拉格(r mi Brague)从语言学的角度对传统的解释提出了著名的挑战,他声称柏拉图实际上并没有把时间想象成一个形象(ε ι κών),而是一个数字(ριθμός)。在本文中,我将声明,这一争论绝不是一个现代的争论。传统的解释主要归功于柏拉图最杰出的读者普罗提诺(Plotinus),他以将时间与永恒联系起来而闻名。III.7.13.24-25)。而布拉格的另一种解读,在辛普利西乌斯试图反驳普罗提尼解释时就已经预料到了,我将会展示。根据我的重构,辛普利西乌斯对《蒂麦乌》的解读不仅表明了传统解读的不足,而且还提供了一个系统的论证,支持了布拉格的另一种解读。最后,我将证明这与柏拉图的文本是一致的。很明显,现在的解释问题在古代晚期的辩论中已经有了本质的预示。