98 - For a Limited Time Only: John Philoponus

John Philoponus refutes Aristotle’s and Proclus’ arguments for the eternity of the universe, and develops new ideas in physics.

Press 'play' to hear the podcast: 

You are missing some Flash content that should appear here! Perhaps your browser cannot display it, or maybe it did not initialize correctly.

Further Reading: 

• F.A.J. de Haas, John Philoponus’ New Definition of Prime Matter (Leiden: Brill, 1997).
• J.F. Phillips, “Neoplatonic Exegeses of Plato’s Cosmogony (Timaeus 27C-28C),” Journal of the History of Philosophy 35 (1977), 173-97. 
• Philoponus, Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World, trans. C. Wildberg (London: 1987).
• Philoponus, Against Proclus on the Eternity of the World, trans. M. Share and J. Wilberding, 4 vols (London: 2005, 2005, 2006, 2010).
• Proclus, On the Eternity of the World, trans. H.S. Lang and A.D. Macro (Berkeley: 2001).
• R. Sorabji (ed.), Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science (Ithaca: 1987, new ed. 2011).
• G. Verbeke, “Some Late Neoplatonic Views on Divine Creation and the Eternity of the World,” in Neoplatonism and Christian Thought, ed. D. O’Meara (Albany: 1982), 45-53.

Stanford Encyclopedia: Philoponus

John Stamps's picture

Limited time only?

Why a limited time only? Is this a telemarketer trick to get us to listen?
Nevertheless, I liked the lecture. And I look forward to hearing Richard Sorabji!

Peter Adamson's picture

Limited time only

Well as usual the title is supposed to be funny, or at least wryly amusing. In this case it refers to the fact that he denies the eternity of the world (i.e. the world exists for a limited time only... get it? Hilarious!). Or maybe you knew that and you are just teasing me! Anyway glad you liked the episode.



Edwin's picture



John Stamps's picture

Me being obtuse and literal

I was being obtuse and literal. Yes, it's funny. Not Whoopy Cushion funny. Philoponic wit worthy of the Grammarian.

Peter Adamson's picture


To be honest I'd take whoopie cushion funny. I'm not proud.

Nicholas Marinides's picture

John Philoponus' other job

Hi Peter, although you of course mention the importance of Philoponus' Christianity in his philosophical project, it might be worth adding (in the written version) that he was a theologian too, and quite controversial at that. I don't in fact know how much of his theological work survives, but he was known as a champion of "Tritheism," a branch of Monophysitism that claimed that God was not one essence and three hypostases, but rather three essences and three hypostases. He also speculated on the nature of the resurrected body and wrote an explanation of the relation of the Jewish to the Christian Passover.


Peter Adamson's picture

Philoponus' theology

Hi Nick,

Good point, you actually have spotted something I meant to do but didn't because of lack of space when I got to the Church Fathers. My original intention was to cover this side of Philoponus when I did the Trinity debates but I couldn't squeeze that in. Adding something in the book version is a good idea, thank you for reminding me!



Nicholas Marinides's picture

RE: Philoponus' theology

I just came across a recent article on Maximus Confessor vs. Philoponus that might be useful to you when you get around to the revision: Grigory Benevich, "Maximus Confessor’s polemics against Tritheism and his Trinitarian teaching," Byzantinische Zeitschrift 105/2 (Dec. 2012): 595-610.

Aaron Estis's picture

Paganism to Christianity

I found this podcast most interesting because it has always intrigued me how western civilization transitioned to Christianity. Although I don't think I yet fully understand it, this philosopher, whom I learned about for the first time here, seems to me a key to gaining a better understanding of that transition. I get from what has gone before that the philosophical traditions of western civilization prepared the western mind to embrace Christianity, but it was not necessarily destined from the start (with apologies to the determinists among your readers.)

And while I'm here and fired up, you make mention of the need of the pagan philosophers to compete with Christianity but it seems from the direction pagan philosophy took up to this period, its major motivation was in fact staying relevant in an era of Christian ascendancy - Theurgy / liturgy, pagan gods as manifestation of one god, the one, etc, etc. I expected more emphasis on the role of competition in affecting the course of pagan philosophy during this period.

Peter Adamson's picture


Yes, that is an important issue. I tried to cover it to some extent in episode 97 but the would be more to be said. I think that the Platonist pagans to some extent actually defined themselves in deliberate opposition to Christianity, which might be why we see ever greater emphasis on the traditional gods in figures like Iamblichus and Proclus. With some colleagues I am running a workshop on this and other philosophical issues around paganism, in Munich this winter. Some of that will be made available online with links here on the site!