Common use of Xxxxx’x intellectual milieu Clause in Contracts

Xxxxx’x intellectual milieu. Xxxxxx, Runia In the past, scholars have assigned Xxxxx to several philosophical schools, such as the Stoa or Platonism.109 Ideas and concepts stemming from different philosophical traditions can indeed be identified in Xxxxx’x works.110 What has 107 See Heinemann, Bildung, pp. 515–523, and also Tobin, Creation, p. 4, note 13 where Xxxxxx X. Xxxxx refers in agreement to the work of Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxx, who wrote ‘C’est lorsque l’on fait d’un thème techniquement philosophique le centre de la recherche que l’on se heurte surtout à un éclectisme décourageant et à d’inextricables contradictions’ (see Xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Commentaire, p. 237 and also references in Xxxxx, Timaeus, p. 366, note 2 and p. 512, note 200). 108 This approach is how a Philonic scholar like Xxxxxx solved the problem with the concept of God’s transcendence in Xxxxx’x works. Xxxxxx noted that the concept of God’s graceful providence is difficult to combine with Xxxxx’x statements on God’s transcendence (Völker, Fortschritt, p. 54). However, according to Xxxxxx, the tension should not be stressed too much. He maintained that the concept of God’s providence belongs to Xxxxx’x Jewish piety, which is always at the forefront of Xxxxx’x thought, and the concept of God’s transcendence simply takes a secondary position. 109 See Xxxxxx, Virtue, p. 148 for an overview of the different stances towards Xxxxx’x philosophical position that have been taken throughout the history of Philonic study. 110 The various philosophical ideas and concepts appearing in Xxxxx’x works have been catalogued by — Introduction — frustrated scholars, however, is that it turns out to be rather difficult to assign Philo to any one of these schools exclusively. Xxxxx used different concepts of different philosophical schools next to each other, apparently without noting any conflict between them.111 Such eclecticism has led some scholars to present Xxxxx as a thinker who used philosophical concepts as he saw fit without any concern for consistency.112 As was shown by Xxxx X. Xxxxxx (*1939), however, Xxxxx’x Alexandrian intellectual context provided him with a philosophical vocabulary in which the boundaries between various philosophical schools had already become blurred. Xxxxxx showed how shortly before Xxxxx’x time, Alexandrian intellectuals had attempted to harmonise the vocabulary of varying philosophical traditions. As an example, Xxxxxx put forward Xxxxxxx of Alexandria (fl. 60 BCE). Xxxxxxx devised a philosophical-historical framework that provided him with the possibility to incorporate ideas from various philosophical schools into one philosophical framework. Xxxxxxx claimed that Xxxxxxxxxx was the principal source for all subsequent philosophy. As a result, discrepancies between schools became less pronounced and important. Xxxxxxx characterised those discrepancies as having arisen when schools took divergent historical paths. He presented philosophical concepts as in principle compatible, since he considered them to have grown from the same source.113 Xxxxxx therefore emphasised that, as a consequence of this harmonising trend, the appearance of a particular word or concept in a given text cannot lead to the conclusion that its author must belong to a certain philosophical school. Even less does the occurrence of a certain concept exclude the usage of another scholars such as Xxxxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx. A recent example of cataloguing various sources of Xxxxx’x thought can be found in Xxxxx-Xxxxx, Xxxxx, pp. 164–175. See also above (pp. 12–22) for the various positions Bréhier, Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx took towards Xxxxx’x philosophical sources. 111 An almost classical example is Xxxxx’x use of μετριοπάθεια and ἀπάθεια alongside each other. Μετριοπάθεια, the ideal of controlling the passions and maintaining a balance between two extremes, is catalogued as an Aristotelian ideal. Ἀπάθεια, the ideal of completely cancelling out the influence of the passions, is catalogued in the history of philosophy as a Stoic ideal. It would appear that the one ideal cannot coexist with the other: either the passions are destroyed, or they are controlled. In LA III, 129–132 Xxxxx mentions both as different stages on the road to moral perfection (Xxxxx practising μετριοπάθεια; Xxxxx ἀπάθεια); in Abr. 257 Xxxxx seems to slightly prefer μετριοπάθεια over ἀπάθεια. 112 See note 107. 113 Xxxxxx, Middle Platonists, p. 120. Xxxxxx presents as another example Xxxxxxxxx of Xxxxxxx (c. 120–68 BCE). He attempted to build a bridge between the philosophy of the Academy and the Stoa. Xxxxxxxxx advocated the ideal of ἀπάθεια, usually associated with the Stoa. He harmonised this with the concept of μετριοπάθεια, usually associated with the Academy. Xxxxxxxxx reasoned that controlling the passions (the ideal of μετριοπάθεια) is essentially the same as eliminating the effect of the passions (the ideal of ἀπάθεια). He argued that a πάθος under control is essentially not a πάθος anymore (see ibid., pp. 77–78). — Introduction — concept, or prove authors inconsistent if they used them alongside each other.114 Xxxxxx claimed that Xxxxx’x works are the main evidence of this phenomenon, and presented Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx as other examples of the same trend.115 Dillon convincingly showed how Xxxxx was part of an Alexandrian intellectual milieu where differences between philosophical traditions had become less pronounced. Xxxxxx also demonstrated that the occurrence, within the works of one author, of what in earlier times might have been conflicting philosophical concepts should not be considered a sign of an incoherent and philosophically opportunistic mind. Xxxxx used an integrated philosophical vocabulary that was no more than common in his Alexandrian context. Somewhat problematic is Xxxxxx’x presentation of this trend to harmonise ideas and concepts of various philosophical traditions in one shared vocabulary as a hallmark of ‘Middle Platonism’. Such a label invites to transform a general intellectual milieu into a clearly demarcated philosophical school. Xxxxx X. Xxxxx (*1951) presented what he considered the main principles of the Middle Platonists: they considered themselves followers of Xxxxx and the Platonic school of thought; they had a dogmatic view on Xxxxx and claimed that they presented the authentic Plato; they were loyal to the writings of Xxxxx, albeit to a limited set in particular (Phaedo, Republic, Xxxxxxxx, Symposium, Xxxxxxx); their main method was to explain Xxxxx from Xxxxx and through this method to systematise his ideas; their view on the history of philosophy was that Xxxxx was a student of Xxxxxxxxxx and that Xxxxxxxxx and the Stoa had learned from Xxxxx.116 Xxxxx then argued that Xxxxx did not conform to these main principles of ‘Middle Platonism’: for Xxxxx, Xxxxx was his main teacher, not Xxxxx; the Books of Xxxxx were his main authoritative source; Xxxxx did not aim at systematisation; Xxxxx sometimes even disagreed with Xxxxx. Because of this, Xxxxx called Xxxxx a ‘philosophical opportunist’, not loyal to one philosophical school alone.117 Did Xxxxx belong to the school of ‘Middle Platonism’ or not? This question, however, arises from the same mistake as when scholars before Xxxxxx had