Antiochus and Platonism

Mapping Platonism The issue of Antiochus’ relationship to Middle Platonism is as old as it is complicated. Antiochus is a shadowy figure, mentioned only a few times by Platonists of the Roman imperial age, whereas the only unifying factor of Middle Platonism seems to be that it is in the middle of something else: trying to clarify Antiochus’ philosophical position through an analysis of his relationship to Middle Platonism runs the risk of being a typical case of explicatio obscuri per obscurius. Besides, the very category of (Middle) Platonism as distinct from the Academy, distinguishing a doctrinal and a sceptical interpretation of Plato, does not work very well. For Antiochus regarded himself as an Academic, explicitly denying any contact between the genuine Academic philosophy and any kind of scepticism, and so did other early imperial Platonists such as Eudorus of Alexandria and the anonymous commentator on the Theaetetus. This is not simply a matter of classifications and terms. In fact, the real and most important problem is that there is not a single Platonism, but many competing Platonisms. Platonism is better described as a battlefield, where many different Platonists attempted to reconstruct the genuine sense of Plato's philosophy in mutual competition for hegemony. Moreover, the search for the genuine Plato was further complicated by the confrontation with other philosophical schools. Given Plato's importance and glamour, many of the most important schools claimed a relationship, be it positive or critical, with his philosophy, and this provoked the emergence of several images and interpretations of Plato himself. Along with Plato the sceptic we find Plato the Stoic; and while the Pythagorean renewal pointed out Plato's debt to Pythagoras, the new interest in the school treatises recommended also an engagement with Aristotle.