Ilaria Grimaldi

La riflessione neoplatonica sul dinamismo della natura. Damascio a confronto con Proclo

Introduction

La riflessione neoplatonica sul dinamismo della natura. Damascio a confronto con proclo. La riflessione neoplatonica sul dinamismo della natura: Damascio a confronto con Proclo. Analizza il naturalismo e la causalità metafisica.

Abstract

The present study analyses Damascius’ naturalism in the light of the definition of the activities attributed to φύσις. This subject will be examined both by reference to Galen’s physiology and by comparison with Proclus’ naturalistic doctrine, which is characterised in a theological sense. Like Galen, Proclus and Damascius reject the autonomistic and mechanistic conception of nature, and to varying degrees they are critical of Aristotelian naturalism and psychology. Instead, the three thinkers considered propose an interpretation of natural phenomena that is firmly centred on the causal and finalist function of the principles governing the physical domain. In particular, it is emphasised that, in the case of the two Neoplatonists studied, this aetiological and teleological approach to physical research is transformed into a structured metaphysical theorisation of causality that transcends the empirical realm.

Review

The paper, "La riflessione neoplatonica sul dinamismo della natura. Damascio a confronto con Proclo," presents a compelling and timely investigation into the Neoplatonic understanding of nature's dynamism. By focusing on Damascius' naturalism and his conceptualization of the activities attributed to *physis*, the study promises to shed new light on a complex area of late antique philosophy. The ambition to frame this analysis through a direct comparison with Proclus' theological naturalistic doctrine, while also referencing Galen's physiology, suggests a broad and sophisticated approach. This multi-faceted comparison is crucial for understanding how Neoplatonic thought engaged with both contemporary philosophical rivals and scientific traditions in defining the fundamental principles governing the physical world. The methodological strength of this research lies in its comparative framework, which effectively highlights shared intellectual currents and distinct contributions. The abstract clearly outlines a common ground among Galen, Proclus, and Damascius in their rejection of autonomistic and mechanistic conceptions of nature, alongside their critical stance, albeit to varying degrees, towards Aristotelian naturalism and psychology. This sets the stage for the paper's core argument: that these thinkers advanced an interpretation of natural phenomena firmly rooted in causal and finalist principles. Crucially, for the two Neoplatonists, this aetiological and teleological approach is shown to evolve into a "structured metaphysical theorisation of causality that transcends the empirical realm," indicating a profound philosophical development that the paper intends to unpack. This study makes a significant contribution to the fields of ancient philosophy, Neoplatonism, and the history of science by meticulously exploring the metaphysical underpinnings of natural processes. By elucidating how Damascius and Proclus transformed teleological explanations into a comprehensive metaphysical system, the paper will deepen our understanding of Neoplatonic efforts to reconcile philosophical principles with the observed world. The clear articulation of the paper's scope and central argument suggests a well-structured and insightful piece of scholarship that will be highly valuable for scholars interested in the interplay between metaphysics, physics, and the evolution of causal explanations in ancient thought.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.