Plotinus the antipalamite

IF 0.1 0 MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES
F. Lauritzen
{"title":"Plotinus the antipalamite","authors":"F. Lauritzen","doi":"10.2298/zrvi2259133l","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The synod of Constantinople of 1351 discussed six questions and answers concerning the Palamite doctrine of energies. Nikephoros Gregoras was condemned at the gathering and subsequently defended his position in his History of the Romans, where he indicated that the Neoplatonist Plotinus held the same views on the relation between the divine and its activities. This would imply that Plotinus? ideas were also condemned at the synod of 1351. On the other side of the debate, the Neoplatonist Proclus had anticipated the same arguments as Gregory Palamas in his commentary on Plato?s Parmenides. Indeed, the Palamite debate employed argumentative strategies which had distinguished Plotinus from Proclus and therefore revealed the brilliant dynamism of Byzantine Platonism in the fourteenth century.","PeriodicalId":53859,"journal":{"name":"Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2298/zrvi2259133l","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The synod of Constantinople of 1351 discussed six questions and answers concerning the Palamite doctrine of energies. Nikephoros Gregoras was condemned at the gathering and subsequently defended his position in his History of the Romans, where he indicated that the Neoplatonist Plotinus held the same views on the relation between the divine and its activities. This would imply that Plotinus? ideas were also condemned at the synod of 1351. On the other side of the debate, the Neoplatonist Proclus had anticipated the same arguments as Gregory Palamas in his commentary on Plato?s Parmenides. Indeed, the Palamite debate employed argumentative strategies which had distinguished Plotinus from Proclus and therefore revealed the brilliant dynamism of Byzantine Platonism in the fourteenth century.
反palamite的普罗提诺
1351年君士坦丁堡主教会议讨论了六个问题和回答有关帕拉米特学说的能量。尼克弗罗斯·格雷戈拉斯在集会上受到谴责,随后他在《罗马人史》中为自己的立场辩护,他在书中指出,新柏拉图主义者普罗提诺对神与神的活动之间的关系持同样的观点。这意味着普罗提诺?1351年的宗教会议也谴责了这些观点。在争论的另一边,新柏拉图主义者普罗克劳斯在他对柏拉图的评论中预测到了与格里高利·帕拉马斯相同的论点。巴门尼德。的确,帕拉米特辩论采用的辩论策略使普罗提诺与普罗克劳斯区别开来,从而揭示了14世纪拜占庭柏拉图主义的辉煌活力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta
Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES-
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
25 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信