- Second retrospective projection: the commentators of theIsagoge bring the Ammonian distinction of the three states of the universal into the interpretation of Porphyry's third question
- Reminder of Skinner's "mythology of prolepsis" and analysis of textual feedback
- The interpretation of David the invincible
- Ammonius' distinction is a matrix from which several important models for the history of universals are derived
- Three examples. Eustratus of Nicea, Avicenna, Albert the Great
- Back to Porphyry's first question
- The Stoic dimension
- A test and a confirmation: transferring Porphyry's questionnaire from the universal to evil
- Proclus' questionnaire on the subsistence of evil
- Isaac Comnene Sebastokrator's Peri tês tôn kakôn hupostaseôs
- Existence/hypostasis
- Distinction between ἀνυπόστατα (who have no hypostasis) and parasites who depend on the hyspostasis of another
- The notions of parhypostasis and parhypostatic existence(ἐν παρυποστάσει)
- Analysis of Proclus' questionnaire
- Repetition of Porphyry's first question: a cross opposition (chiasmus) between true things and false concepts
- Through this inconsistency, real or apparent, Porphyry opens the door to a confrontation with Stoicism
- Modern interpreters make room for the Stoics in Porphyry's system: they are the proponents of the universal "concept"
- This is the case of Gérando († 1842), who combines the distinction of the three states of the universal with that of the three main schools of Antiquity: Plato's school, for the universal ante rem; Aristotle's, for the universal in re; Zeno's, for the universal post rem
- Stoicism as a prefiguration of medieval conceptualism.
11:30 - 13:00
