C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/8894748/WORKINGFOLDER/ENGB/9781107166196C07.3D 120 [120–141] 8.11.2016 4:31PM chapter 7 The Platonist Appropriation of Stoic Epistemology Mauro Bonazzi What is Platonism? At rst sight the question might appear pointless. It would certainly have seemed so to ancient Platonists. Platonists, they all agreed, are those who follow Plato; given that Platos philosophy as it is exposed in the dialogues is anything but clear, this has the further con- sequence that the main task for Platonists is exegesis: Platonism concretely consists in the interpretation of the dialogues with the aim of making Platos thought clear. This is what ancient Platonists repeated over and over again. In spite of many divergences, several scholars agree with the view that Platonism consists in the systematization of the doctrines latently present in the dialogues. 1 Personally I nd things much more complex. It is certainly true that Platonism results from the interpretation of Platos dialogues. But such a description is not exhaustive. The confrontation with the other schools is equally important for the development of Platonism. Again, one might observe that this is a platitude if you consider the role played by Aristotle. Most, if not all, Platonist texts are full of allusions to Aristotles doctrines. Indeed, the engagement with Aristotle (though at dierent levels: Alcinousreception of Aristotle diers greatly from Plotinusand Plotinusreception of Aristotle diers greatly from Iamblichus, just to give a few examples) is undeniable, as most modern scholars are ready to admit. But Aristotle is a special case, since for a long period he was a pupil of Plato and a member of his school. Therefore one might argue, and many imperial Platonists did argue, that taking Aristotle into consideration was an obvious move for the very simple reason that all in all Aristotle should be regarded as a Platonist. 2 Confronting Plato with Aristotle is not, properly speaking, confronting him with another school. 1 Cf. among others the monumental Dörrie and Baltes 19872008, followed by Krämer 1964; Halfwassen 1992; Thiel 2006; Helmig 2012; Gerson 2013. 2 Gerson 2005. 120