Time, Perpetuity and Eternity in Late Antique Platonism

Time and Cosmology in Plato and the Platonic Tradition, 2022

Time and cosmology are strongly interconnected in the Platonic corpus. The way Plato’s characters discuss these topics has puzzled and divided readers from the very beginning, giving rise to rich and diverse interpretations. Do Plato’s dialogues argue for an eternal cosmos or one with a punctual beginning? What is the nature of time, and how should we understand its relation to eternity, change, and transition? How should we understand the relation between God, the cosmos, and time? The present volume assembles an international team of ancient philosophy scholars to engage with Plato’s texts, and their ancient and modern interpretations, and to answer these and other closely related questions. The overall purpose of the volume is to push forward the study and understanding of Plato’s conception of time and the cosmos as a way of finding fresh insight into the interpretation of his philosophy and his reception in antiquity. I begin with an introduction to these topics in Plato and the Platonic tradition broadly understood, before explaining the motivation and overall structure of the volume. I conclude by offering a concise description of the contents of each chapter.

This article explores the concepts of eternity and time as employed by Plato in his metaphysics and natural philosophy. It focuses on the Timaeus, which is the main source used in the attempts to reconstruct Plato's theory of time and to gain insights into his understanding of time's paradigm and counterpart, i.e. eternity. The chief thesis regarding Plato's concept of eternity presented here is that Plato conceived of it not as infinite duration (sempiternity), but as timeless, unchanging present (eternity proper). It thus, in accordance with the original meaning of the Greek term for eternity (αἰών), signifies the state of being of the Forms. As far as time (χρόνος) and its nature is concerned, an attempt is made here to argue that Plato did not identify time with a) the heavenly sphere in motion, b) number, nor with c) motion in general, motion of the heavenly sphere, or motion of some of its part –as suggested by some ancient, as well as contemporary commentators. In fact, time is inseparable from motion, however not as being motion, but as being characterized by regular motion, through which it enlivens the world of Becoming and makes it what it is. So it turns out that Plato's somewhat poetic description of time as moving image of eternity is more than just a metaphorical expression – eternity, the state of being of the Forms, reflects itself into time, the never-ending-life of the universe in constant motion. Time, as every image, has to be imperfect and therefore, unlike its paradigm, entails permanent change and instability.

2018

Plato’s Timaeus is the first philosophical work that discussed the concept of Time in the history of Western philosophy. The dialogue explains the creation of Time as the Demiurge’s imitating the Eternity of the model Being. This explanation is based on the ontological distinction between the forms, which always are in themselves, and the sensible things, which constantly change but never remain the same. The article examines the key text (37C-38C) in order to observe how Plato defines Time as “the moving image of eternity” (37D). He argues that Time has three parts, namely, “was”, “is” and “will be”, while it is a mistake to attribute “was” and “will be” to the eternal being. This claim corresponds to the Parmenidean notion of Being, in that it excludes “was” and “will be” (DK B8.19-20), contra Melissus, who accepts “was”, “is” and “will be” for the one Being. Parmenides, on the other hand, drops the word “always” (aei) from Xenophanes’ notion of the god (B26). In describing Eterni...

Research Article, 2022

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.

This paper investigates rival views about the nature of time that were articulated in the fourth-century Christian controversies over the Trinity. In his Contra Eunomium Basil of Caesarea refuted the definition of time put forward by his opponent, Eunomius of Cyzicus, and presented his own views on its nature. This study seeks to contextualize the views of both contestants polemically, theologically, and philosophically. It is argued that Eunomius’s definition of time has a Platonic pedigree. In addition, it is demonstrated that, in both his critique of Eunomius’s definition and the positive presentation of his own views on time, Basil draws upon his familiarity with the philosophical critique of Plato’s views, as found in Aristotle, the Peripatetics, the Stoics, and the Middle Platonists (and perhaps even Galen). Basil’s own views on time have been most immediately influenced by Middle Platonist, Peripatetic, and Stoic concerns.

During the Hellenistic centuries it was taken for granted that, according to Plato, the universe was created. As is well known, this was also Aristotle’s interpretation. In the Early Imperial centuries, on the other side, the dominant view was the opposite: with the remarkable exception of Plutarch and Atticus the majority of Middle Platonists attributed (and therefore endorsed) an eternalist thesis to Plato. The aim of my paper is to reconstruct the arguments advanced in order to defend such a view and the reasons that stimulated it. In particular I will try to show that, along with the exegesis of the dialogues, a major role was played by the polemical confrontation with Aristotle and the Stoics.

Nova Tellus

This paper surveys the uses of two ancient Greek terms — αἰώνιος and ἀΐδιος — commonly translated as “eternal”, from their earliest occurrences in poetry and pre-Socratic philosophy down through the Septuagint and the New Testament, and culminating in the Christian theologian Origen. It examines the rise of the idea of infinitely extended time (generally denoted by ἀΐδιος), and Plato’s innovative introduction of a concept of a timeless eternity (sometimes described as αἰώνιος). It is argued that in the Greek Bible, αἰώνιος, as opposed to ἀΐδιος, does not necessarily denote absolute eternity. Since only αἰώνιος, and never ἀΐδιος, is applied to punishment in the afterlife, Origen could find support in this usage for his doctrine of universal salvation and the finite duration of hell.

"Christians of the Patristic Period in Relation to Nature", Studia Patristica 131, 2024

In the first three centuries AD, there was a debate in Platonic circles on the origin of the material world. Is the world generated or ungenerated? If it is generated, was it generated in time or out of time? Jewish and Christian thinkers of the first centuries AD joined this debate. Interestingly, their answer was not at all based on a literal interpretation of Genesis. The seven days of the work of creation, especially for the fathers of the Alexandrian tradition, should be interpreted allegorically, that is, as representing a logical rather than a temporal order. The Alexandrians would have agreed with many of the theses posited by the Greco-Roman Middle Platonists. The world could exist eternally as created by God. However, the argumentation of such a thesis differed. According to the Greco-Roman Middle Platonists, the world is eternal because Ideas, matter and God are eternal, and are thus the core cosmological principles. According to the Jewish and Christian Platonists, the world is eternal because the Good, which is God, is an infinite creative power. If God ceased his beneficent activity, he would cease to be God. The purpose of this article is to trace these two types of arguments concerning the origin of the world.