6740578d2677591a7c897d6e: Difference between revisions
Jackkausch (talk | contribs) (CSV import) |
Jackkausch (talk | contribs) (CSV import) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
|Title=De Mysteriis | |Title=De Mysteriis | ||
|Latin=DE VOLUPTATE | |Latin=DE VOLUPTATE | ||
Poftrema uero Ariftotelis argumentatio probat, propriam immortallium deorum operationem in sola contemplatione consistere ideoque neque quicquam in nobis praeter primam (ut diximus) mentem contemplationemque, atque eam, quae ex illa oritur, voluptatem, quod deo cognatum sit, inesse videtur, quod si voluptas huiusmodi, quia sola quis immortalibus convenit, maxime divina est, reliquis omnibus voluptatibus praestantior merito judicabitur. His igitur argumentationibus, ut contemplationis voluptatem illi quae agendo percipitur, anteponeret, Aristoteles utebatur verum ad eas iam, quae quasi titillant sensus, | Poftrema uero Ariftotelis argumentatio probat, propriam immortallium deorum operationem in sola contemplatione consistere ideoque neque quicquam in nobis praeter primam (ut diximus) mentem contemplationemque, atque eam, quae ex illa oritur, voluptatem, quod deo cognatum sit, inesse videtur, quod si voluptas huiusmodi, quia sola quis immortalibus convenit, maxime divina est, reliquis omnibus voluptatibus praestantior merito judicabitur. His igitur argumentationibus, ut contemplationis voluptatem illi quae agendo percipitur, anteponeret, Aristoteles utebatur verum ad eas iam, quae quasi titillant sensus, et ad eos suavitate quadam affluunt, atque illabuntur, deveniamus. Has in duas ab Aristotele species divisas comperimus, ex quibus aliae quidem naturales, aliae contra naturam esse videntur atque naturales eas vocat, quae cum naturam reficiant ab omnibus, aut pluribus appetuntur, atque pari quoque numero bifariam dividit, quarum aliae cunctis animalibus aequae communes sunt, aliae vero singulis pro diversitate naturae quodammodo propriae, atque cognatae. Namque quod cibum cuncta, potumque, ac veneris usum expetunt, communis naturalisque libidinis, ac voluptatis est proprium, quod autem singula pro naturae diversitate singulis, certisque rebus varie delectantur, aliique alia gratiora contingunt, id naturali quidem attamen propriae voluptati competit. Nam cum id voluptatum cuique, quod eius naturae congruat, videatur, diversaeque sint diversorum animalium affectiones, atque naturae, necesse est differentibus animalibus ea quoque, quae congruant discrepare. Atque iccirco certam, et quasi propriam singulis animalibus cupiditatem (ut inquit Heraclitus) voluptatemque competere. Delectat enim quenque, quod naturae suae sit aptum, trahit sua quenque voluptas. Atque hae sunt, quas naturales appellat contra naturam vero eas esse vult, a quibus universum pene hominum genus abhorret easque in tria dividit genera. Alias enim flagitiosa quadam corruptaque natura, alias consuetudine pessima, non nullas morbis, adversisque casibus evenire perversitate vero naturae contigisse scribit Aristoteles, ut mulier quaedam praegrantium viscera rescindere, puerosque vorare ardentissime niteretur, vel quod de efferatis quibusdam gentibus circa Pontum ferunt. Alios enim crudis, alios humanis carnibus delectari, non nullos tradere natos inuicem, ut in conviviis comedantur. Troglodytas vero serpentinis carnibus vesci. Diuturna quoque consuetudine plerisque contingit, ut pilorum euulsione, aut unguium esu | ||
|English=Aristotle's final argument proves that the proper activity of the immortal gods consists solely in contemplation; and therefore, it seems that in us there is nothing besides the first (as we have said) mind and contemplation, and the pleasure arising from it, which is akin to God. If this kind of pleasure, because it alone is fitting for the immortals, is supremely divine, it will rightly be judged superior to all other pleasures. Therefore, Aristotle used these arguments to place the pleasure of contemplation above that which is perceived through action. But let us now turn to those pleasures which, as it were, tickle the senses and flow into and penetrate them with a certain sweetness. We find these divided by Aristotle into two kinds, of which some seem to be natural, others contrary to nature. He calls those natural which, because they restore nature, are desired by all or most, and he divides these in two ways into equal numbers. Some are common to all animals, others are somehow proper and related to individuals according to the diversity of nature. For the fact that all things desire food, drink, and the use of Venus is the property of a common and natural desire and pleasure; but that individual things delight in various things according to the diversity of nature, and that some things are more pleasing to some than to others, pertains to a natural, yet proper pleasure. For since that pleasure seems suitable to each thing which accords with its nature, and since the affections and natures of different animals are diverse, it is necessary that those things which are suitable to different animals should also differ. And therefore, a certain and, as it were, proper desire and pleasure belongs to individual animals (as Heraclitus says). For each thing delights in that which is suited to its nature; each thing is drawn by its own pleasure. And these are what he calls natural. He believes, however, that those are contrary to nature from which almost the whole human race recoils, and he divides these into three kinds. For some result from a certain wicked and corrupt nature, others from the worst habit, and some from diseases and adverse circumstances. Aristotle writes that perversity of nature has also occurred, such as a certain woman striving eagerly to tear out the entrails of pregnant women and devour children, or what is reported about certain savage tribes around the Pontus. For some delight in raw flesh, others in human flesh, and some hand over their newborns to be eaten at feasts. The Troglodytes, however, are said to feed on serpents. Also, through long habit it happens to many that they are pleased by pulling out hairs or eating nails. | |English=Aristotle's final argument proves that the proper activity of the immortal gods consists solely in contemplation; and therefore, it seems that in us there is nothing besides the first (as we have said) mind and contemplation, and the pleasure arising from it, which is akin to God. If this kind of pleasure, because it alone is fitting for the immortals, is supremely divine, it will rightly be judged superior to all other pleasures. Therefore, Aristotle used these arguments to place the pleasure of contemplation above that which is perceived through action. But let us now turn to those pleasures which, as it were, tickle the senses and flow into and penetrate them with a certain sweetness. We find these divided by Aristotle into two kinds, of which some seem to be natural, others contrary to nature. He calls those natural which, because they restore nature, are desired by all or most, and he divides these in two ways into equal numbers. Some are common to all animals, others are somehow proper and related to individuals according to the diversity of nature. For the fact that all things desire food, drink, and the use of Venus is the property of a common and natural desire and pleasure; but that individual things delight in various things according to the diversity of nature, and that some things are more pleasing to some than to others, pertains to a natural, yet proper pleasure. For since that pleasure seems suitable to each thing which accords with its nature, and since the affections and natures of different animals are diverse, it is necessary that those things which are suitable to different animals should also differ. And therefore, a certain and, as it were, proper desire and pleasure belongs to individual animals (as Heraclitus says). For each thing delights in that which is suited to its nature; each thing is drawn by its own pleasure. And these are what he calls natural. He believes, however, that those are contrary to nature from which almost the whole human race recoils, and he divides these into three kinds. For some result from a certain wicked and corrupt nature, others from the worst habit, and some from diseases and adverse circumstances. Aristotle writes that perversity of nature has also occurred, such as a certain woman striving eagerly to tear out the entrails of pregnant women and devour children, or what is reported about certain savage tribes around the Pontus. For some delight in raw flesh, others in human flesh, and some hand over their newborns to be eaten at feasts. The Troglodytes, however, are said to feed on serpents. Also, through long habit it happens to many that they are pleased by pulling out hairs or eating nails. | ||
|Pagenumber=7 | |Pagenumber=7 | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:08, 27 June 2025
| Property | Value |
|---|---|
| Uuid | 6bd2d39b-ed02-5f7e-3269-afe3e89f13FAKEUUID |
| ItemId | 674057212677591a7c897d60 |
| PageId | 6740578d2677591a7c897d6e |
| Author | Iamblichus |
| Title | De Mysteriis |
| Pagenumber | 7 |
Original Page:
Latin:
DE VOLUPTATE Poftrema uero Ariftotelis argumentatio probat, propriam immortallium deorum operationem in sola contemplatione consistere ideoque neque quicquam in nobis praeter primam (ut diximus) mentem contemplationemque, atque eam, quae ex illa oritur, voluptatem, quod deo cognatum sit, inesse videtur, quod si voluptas huiusmodi, quia sola quis immortalibus convenit, maxime divina est, reliquis omnibus voluptatibus praestantior merito judicabitur. His igitur argumentationibus, ut contemplationis voluptatem illi quae agendo percipitur, anteponeret, Aristoteles utebatur verum ad eas iam, quae quasi titillant sensus, et ad eos suavitate quadam affluunt, atque illabuntur, deveniamus. Has in duas ab Aristotele species divisas comperimus, ex quibus aliae quidem naturales, aliae contra naturam esse videntur atque naturales eas vocat, quae cum naturam reficiant ab omnibus, aut pluribus appetuntur, atque pari quoque numero bifariam dividit, quarum aliae cunctis animalibus aequae communes sunt, aliae vero singulis pro diversitate naturae quodammodo propriae, atque cognatae. Namque quod cibum cuncta, potumque, ac veneris usum expetunt, communis naturalisque libidinis, ac voluptatis est proprium, quod autem singula pro naturae diversitate singulis, certisque rebus varie delectantur, aliique alia gratiora contingunt, id naturali quidem attamen propriae voluptati competit. Nam cum id voluptatum cuique, quod eius naturae congruat, videatur, diversaeque sint diversorum animalium affectiones, atque naturae, necesse est differentibus animalibus ea quoque, quae congruant discrepare. Atque iccirco certam, et quasi propriam singulis animalibus cupiditatem (ut inquit Heraclitus) voluptatemque competere. Delectat enim quenque, quod naturae suae sit aptum, trahit sua quenque voluptas. Atque hae sunt, quas naturales appellat contra naturam vero eas esse vult, a quibus universum pene hominum genus abhorret easque in tria dividit genera. Alias enim flagitiosa quadam corruptaque natura, alias consuetudine pessima, non nullas morbis, adversisque casibus evenire perversitate vero naturae contigisse scribit Aristoteles, ut mulier quaedam praegrantium viscera rescindere, puerosque vorare ardentissime niteretur, vel quod de efferatis quibusdam gentibus circa Pontum ferunt. Alios enim crudis, alios humanis carnibus delectari, non nullos tradere natos inuicem, ut in conviviis comedantur. Troglodytas vero serpentinis carnibus vesci. Diuturna quoque consuetudine plerisque contingit, ut pilorum euulsione, aut unguium esu
English:
Aristotle's final argument proves that the proper activity of the immortal gods consists solely in contemplation; and therefore, it seems that in us there is nothing besides the first (as we have said) mind and contemplation, and the pleasure arising from it, which is akin to God. If this kind of pleasure, because it alone is fitting for the immortals, is supremely divine, it will rightly be judged superior to all other pleasures. Therefore, Aristotle used these arguments to place the pleasure of contemplation above that which is perceived through action. But let us now turn to those pleasures which, as it were, tickle the senses and flow into and penetrate them with a certain sweetness. We find these divided by Aristotle into two kinds, of which some seem to be natural, others contrary to nature. He calls those natural which, because they restore nature, are desired by all or most, and he divides these in two ways into equal numbers. Some are common to all animals, others are somehow proper and related to individuals according to the diversity of nature. For the fact that all things desire food, drink, and the use of Venus is the property of a common and natural desire and pleasure; but that individual things delight in various things according to the diversity of nature, and that some things are more pleasing to some than to others, pertains to a natural, yet proper pleasure. For since that pleasure seems suitable to each thing which accords with its nature, and since the affections and natures of different animals are diverse, it is necessary that those things which are suitable to different animals should also differ. And therefore, a certain and, as it were, proper desire and pleasure belongs to individual animals (as Heraclitus says). For each thing delights in that which is suited to its nature; each thing is drawn by its own pleasure. And these are what he calls natural. He believes, however, that those are contrary to nature from which almost the whole human race recoils, and he divides these into three kinds. For some result from a certain wicked and corrupt nature, others from the worst habit, and some from diseases and adverse circumstances. Aristotle writes that perversity of nature has also occurred, such as a certain woman striving eagerly to tear out the entrails of pregnant women and devour children, or what is reported about certain savage tribes around the Pontus. For some delight in raw flesh, others in human flesh, and some hand over their newborns to be eaten at feasts. The Troglodytes, however, are said to feed on serpents. Also, through long habit it happens to many that they are pleased by pulling out hairs or eating nails.