<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { margin-top: 0 ; margin-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: Numenius and idea eautou</title></head><body>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">My question
is about Numenius' fragment 16 (ed.Des Places= fr.25
ed.Leemans).</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">Numenius
writes: "(o g\ar de/uteros ditt\os )\wn a)utopoîei t/hn te
)id/ean (eautoû ka\i t\on k/osmon..."</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">I think that
we must understand: "The Second (...) produces himself the idea
of the self and the world"; indeed, the Second cannot produce his
own idea because the First is already the idea of the Second (fr.20,
l.5-6). The First thinks ideas but does not think himself, the
particularity of the Second is the reflexiveness.</font></blockquote>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>M.C.:<font face="Arial" size="-1">I don't
believe your translation is possible, Fred: I don't know of any
thinker before Themistius who hypostasizes the self in such a way, and
when he does so Themistius speaks not of *eautou* but of *to egO*. I
think your Numenius passage must be translated « for the second,
since he is twofold, auto-creates his own form, and the
universe ». As you know, the Greek *idea* does not *have to*
mean "Platonic Form or Idea"; it does not always mean this
even in Plato.</font></blockquote>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
<div><x-tab> </x-tab>But of
course I could be wrong. One text seems to speak in favor of an
interpretation similar to yours: at In Alc. §172, when discussing
the different modalities of self-knowledge, Olympiodorus writes that
it is possible to know oneself "theologically, viz. when one
knows oneself according to the idea of oneself (*kata tEn idean tEn
heautou*"). Here too, however, I believe we must translate not
«the idea of the Self» but «the idea of oneself»; not
«l'Idée du Soi » but «l'Idée de soi-même».</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><x-tab> </x-tab>HTH,
Mike.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
<div><x-tab> </x-tab></div>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
<div><x-tab> </x-tab></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>-- <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab><br>
<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Michael
Chase, Phd<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>(goya@vjf.cnrs.fr)<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>C.N.R.S./Annee
Philologique<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Villejuif/Paris</div>
</body>
</html>