Excerpts from J. O. Urmson, Simplicius: Corollaries on Place and Time, 1992.
From pages 88f of the translation = pages 774f of the edition:
"So time is the measure of the flow of being, and by being I mean not only essential nature but also activity. Aristotle saw wonderfully well the nature of time and made it clear, saying that for process ‘and the rest to be in time is that their being is measured by time’ [Physics 221a8]. But just as a process does not take place in indivisible parts (for it is not composed of elementary changes, nor a line of points, but the limits of both a line and a process are indivisible, whereas the portions of them of which they are composed, being continuous, are not indivisible but divisible), so in the same way some elements of time that are bounds, the ‘nows’, are indivisible, but the portions of time are not so. For, since time is continuous, it too has portions that are infinitely divisible. So that, even if process and time be in continuous flux, they are not unreal, but have their being in becoming. But becoming is not simply not-being, but is to exist atdifferent times in different areas of being. For just as eternity is the cause of that which undergoes an intelligible differentiation from its own proper unified being remaining within its own single being, so time is the cause of the dance around the intelligible One by that radiance from the form which has descended from THERE into perception and which holds the continuous dance in order. For just as because of place the portions of separate things do not merge together, so because of time the being of the Trojan war is not confounded with that of the Peloponnesian war, nor in each person the being of the baby with that of the adolescent. It is clear that everywhere time is involved with process and alteration, holding together in becoming those things which have their being therein, which is the same thing as to make that which becomes dance around that which is."
From page 103 of the translation = pages 784f of the edition:
"If I am right about this, this primary time is related to the soul as unparticipated eternity is to life. For neither is life eternal (for the eternal is that which is measured by eternity), though it has the same nature as the eternal, viewed from a different perspective, nor is the soul in time but is its own time. The only difference is that soul exists as life-creating, but time as the measurement of the duration of being, unless, indeed, procession has divided their natures, so that soul is one thing, time another. For THERE also there must be this threefold intermediacy, in one way viewed as life, in another as eternity and in another as wholeness; but these are not divided in themselves, though we make divisions in their unified totality. It is clear that this must be the time that is honoured as a god by the Chaldeans and other holy religion (hieras hagisteias, 'sacred ritual'), but it is not this that natural scientists study but that which is viewed in participation. So that must be enough on this topic."
Pages 116f of the translation = page 795 of the edition:
"But Proclus, the Lycian philosopher and the guide of our teachers, also holds roughly the same philosophical view about the separated time (chronos) as Iamblichus, and strives to demonstrate that it is not only intellect but also a god, so that it has even been called on to appear by the theurgists (tôn theourgôn). He says that this time has its internal activities unchangeable, whereas those reaching beyond it are in change. However, concerning the participated time that is inseparable from becoming he maintains the same view as Aristotle, believing that Aristotle says that time exists only in the now. Proclus’ successors right up to our time have followed him not only on this point but in all other matters. I except Asclepiodotus, the best of Proclus’ pupils, and our Damascius, of whom the former, because of his extreme cleverness, rejoiced in novel doctrines, while Damascius, through rivalry and his sympathy with Iamblichus, did not hesitate to reject many of Proclus’ doctrines. With regard to the opinions of these two philosophers, suffice it for me to say that if those who have sought the cause of time among intellects and gods have said that it, too, is an intellect and unchanging and a god, we must accept it. For if anyone seeks the first causes of process and coming to be he will most certainly find them to be intellect and god. There is nothing surprising if they should call time itself by the same names, since this has often seemed good to theologians [or: mythological poets], and perhaps also to the gods themselves. But if anyone is enquiring into the generally recognised time which is present in process, I do not think it possible to call it unchanging or existing as a simultaneous whole or intellect just as it is not possible to think of process as unchanging or existing as a simultaneous whole."
The reference to theurgists here and Chaldaeans in the previous excerpt is probably to the Julians (Julian the Chaldaean and Julian the theurgist), who coined the word 'theurgy'.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen