Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Democritus FV 68 B 1: an amputation

Democritus FV 68 B 1: an amputation 90 Democritus FV 68 B 1: an amputation H.B. GOTTSCHALK This fragment is taken from the section of Proclus' commentary on Plato's Republic (II 113.6ff Kroll) in which Proclus comments on the narrative introducing the myth of Er (10.614b). At the outset he refutes certain objections to Plato's account made by Kolotes, the follower of Epicurus who became the favourite butt of the later Platonists. One of these concerned the implausibility of a man reviving after appearing to be dead for ten days, and Proclus counters it with an ad hominem argument: Kolotes should have read the work On Hades by Democritus, the teacher of his master Epicurus,' which included a list of people who had appeared to die and subsequently returned to life. This is followed by an explanation of Er's symptoms: (Proclus p. 113.13-19 = FV6 II p.130.22ff). The gist of this explanation is repeated a few pages later (p. 117.7-12) in reply to another of Kolotes' objections, that Er could not have been dead for then days without putrefying, but on this occasion there is no reference to Democritus. This is a perfectly rationalistic explanation and on the face of it there is no reason http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Phronesis Brill

Democritus FV 68 B 1: an amputation

Gottschalk, H.B.
Phronesis , Volume 31 (1-3): 90 – Jan 1, 1986
Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/democritus-fv-68-b-1-an-amputation-GvGIyLu0IJ

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 1986 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0031-8868
eISSN
1568-5284
DOI
10.1163/156852886X00056
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

90 Democritus FV 68 B 1: an amputation H.B. GOTTSCHALK This fragment is taken from the section of Proclus' commentary on Plato's Republic (II 113.6ff Kroll) in which Proclus comments on the narrative introducing the myth of Er (10.614b). At the outset he refutes certain objections to Plato's account made by Kolotes, the follower of Epicurus who became the favourite butt of the later Platonists. One of these concerned the implausibility of a man reviving after appearing to be dead for ten days, and Proclus counters it with an ad hominem argument: Kolotes should have read the work On Hades by Democritus, the teacher of his master Epicurus,' which included a list of people who had appeared to die and subsequently returned to life. This is followed by an explanation of Er's symptoms: (Proclus p. 113.13-19 = FV6 II p.130.22ff). The gist of this explanation is repeated a few pages later (p. 117.7-12) in reply to another of Kolotes' objections, that Er could not have been dead for then days without putrefying, but on this occasion there is no reference to Democritus. This is a perfectly rationalistic explanation and on the face of it there is no reason

Journal

Phronesis – Brill

Published: Jan 1, 1986

There are no references for this article.