Works › Definitions of Philosophy
Work #1808

Definitions of Philosophy

Six definitions of philosophy harmonised by the Armenian Neoplatonist who brought Greek thought to a new civilisation

David the Invincible · c. 5th–6th century (precise date uncertain) · Greek (with early Armenian translation) · Philosophical prolegomenon (introduction to philosophy)

Tradition: Alexandrian Neoplatonist commentary tradition

What is philosophy? — six answers from the Greek tradition harmonised into a single propaedeutic for the Armenian philosophical curriculum

The Definitions of Philosophy (also known as Definitions and Divisions of Philosophy or Prolegomena Philosophiae) is David the Invincible's most influential work, a systematic introduction to philosophy that surveys, explains, and harmonises six classical definitions of the discipline: (1) philosophy is knowledge of beings qua beings (the Aristotelian definition); (2) philosophy is knowledge of divine and human things (the Stoic definition, adopted by the Fathers); (3) philosophy is care of death (from Plato's Phaedo); (4) philosophy is assimilation to God insofar as this is possible for a human being (from Plato's Theaetetus, via the Neoplatonist tradition); (5) philosophy is the art of arts and the science of sciences (the Aristotelian claim to architectonic status); (6) philosophy is love of wisdom (the etymological definition from Pythagoras). David demonstrates that these six definitions are not contradictory but complementary, each capturing a different aspect of the philosophical enterprise: its object (beings), its scope (divine and human things), its practice (dying to the body), its goal (likeness to God), its rank (supreme among the sciences), and its motive (love). The work follows the standard format of the Alexandrian Neoplatonist prolegomenon: it addresses preliminary questions (what is philosophy? how many kinds of philosophy are there? what is its purpose?) before the student proceeds to the study of Aristotle's logic. David's text became the foundational philosophical work of the Armenian intellectual tradition, widely studied and commented upon for centuries in Armenian monastic schools.

Author

Editions cited

  • David the Invincible, Definitions and Divisions of Philosophy, tr. Bridget Kendall and Robert W. Thomson (Scholars Press, 1983; English translation from the Armenian)
  • Davidis Prolegomena et in Porphyrii Isagogen Commentarium, ed. Adolf Busse (CAG XVIII.2, Berlin, 1904; Greek text)
  • Armenian Texts and Studies: David Anhaght, ed. S. S. Arevshatyan (Yerevan, 1960; Armenian critical edition)
Compare this work

School Embodiments

Neo-Platonism · 35%
Aristotelianism · 25%
Platonism (Classical) · 20%
Eastern Orthodox Christianity · 10%
Classicism · 10%
Neo-Platonism 35%

The work belongs to the Alexandrian Neoplatonist prolegomenon genre. David follows the method of Ammonius Hermiae, Elias, and Olympiodorus in systematically introducing philosophy through the standard Neoplatonic preliminary questions.

"Philosophy is the assimilation to God, insofar as this is possible for a human being." (The fourth definition, derived from Plato's Theaetetus 176b via the Neoplatonist tradition)
Aristotelianism 25%

Two of the six definitions are Aristotelian (knowledge of beings qua beings; art of arts and science of sciences), and the work serves as a propaedeutic to the study of Aristotle's Organon.

"Philosophy is the knowledge of beings qua beings — that is, not the knowledge of particular beings in their particularity but of being as such." (The first definition, Aristotelian in origin)
Platonism (Classical) 20%

Two definitions derive from Plato: care of death (Phaedo 64a) and assimilation to God (Theaetetus 176b). The Platonic orientation of the work is clear in its privileging of the contemplative and theological dimensions of philosophy.

"Philosophy is the care of death — for the philosopher practises dying to the body and living to the soul, separating the soul from the passions of the body." (The third definition, from Plato's Phaedo)
Eastern Orthodox Christianity 10%

David's Christian context (he is venerated as a saint) inflects his reading: the definition "assimilation to God" was readily adopted by Christian thinkers as a description of theosis, and the definition "knowledge of divine and human things" was a patristic commonplace.

The Armenian church adopted the Definitions as a standard textbook, reading its Neoplatonic content within a Christian theological framework.
Classicism 10%

David's work is an act of cultural transmission: bringing the Greek philosophical curriculum to the Armenian-speaking world.

The work reproduces the Alexandrian curriculum — Porphyry's Isagoge, then Aristotle's Organon — and translates it into a new intellectual tradition.

Internal Tensions

The harmonisation of six definitions is philosophically elegant but raises the question of whether genuine tensions between them are suppressed. Is philosophy primarily theoretical (knowledge of beings) or practical (assimilation to God)? Is it primarily Aristotelian (science of sciences) or Platonic (care of death)? David's Neoplatonist synthesis resolves these by subordination: the lower definitions are contained in the higher (assimilation to God encompasses all the others). The tension between pagan Neoplatonic philosophy and David's Christian context remains below the surface of the extant texts.

⧖

I. Time

Both — the eternal realm of the Forms and intelligible truths, and the temporal order in which the student pursues philosophy. Substantival, linear, uni-directional.

Attributes
Extent: Both Ontological Status: Substantival Grain: Continuous Freedom: Non-Deterministic Traversability: Linear Direction: Uni-directional Dimensionality: One
✦

II. Space

Finite, substantival, three-dimensional. The Neoplatonic hierarchy implies a structured metaphysical space from the One downward, though David does not theorise physical space independently.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Curvature: not engaged Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local
◉

III. Matter

Emergent: matter is the lowest level of the Neoplatonic emanative hierarchy. "Care of death" implies rising above material existence. Finite, conserved.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Emergent Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local
◎

IV. Observer

Both embodied and capable of intellectual ascent toward the divine. Active: philosophy requires dialectical effort. Mediated: knowledge comes through the commentary tradition and the study of texts. Total retainment: the soul retains knowledge of eternal truths.

Attributes
Time Instance: Single Space Instance: Single Knowledge Extent: Mediated Knowledge Retainment: Total Physicality: Both Agency: Active Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: Personal
⚡

V. Energy

Finite, conserved. The Neoplatonic framework implies emanation from the One but David does not develop an independent energy theory.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Irreversible
⧉

VI. Information

Substantival: the six definitions encode the informational structure of philosophy itself. The Forms and logical categories are the fundamental informational substrate. Conserved through the commentary tradition and the soul's immortality.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Substantival Cosmic Conservation: Conserved Personal Conservation: Conserved Granularity: Continuous

Personas that cite this work

David the Invincible

Personas with the nearest attribute fingerprint

Historical figures whose own classification on the same six-dimensional grid lands closest to this work's. Computed by attribute-agreement on coordinates both address.

100%
David the Invincible
33/33
97%
Michael Psellos
32/33
94%
Al-Jahiz
31/33
94%
Eleanor Roosevelt
31/33
94%
Gerbert of Aurillac (Pope Sylvester II)
31/33
94%
Photius I of Constantinople
31/33

Computed school proximity

The work's attribute fingerprint scored against all schools using the same quiz scorer. Useful as a sanity check on the hand-curated embodiments above.

87%
Natural Law
23/25
87%
Thomism
23/25
87%
Transcendental Thomism
23/25
83%
Christian Personalism
22/25
83%
Middle Platonism
21/25
82%
Anti-Trinitarianism
22/25
81%
Christianity (Generic)
22/25
81%
Rabbinic Judaism
22/25

How Definitions of Philosophy resolves each dilemma

51 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 3 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 6 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas, all mainstream
Do you really choose? The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it. 69% Are addicts responsible for their addiction? The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real. 69% Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do? An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible. 69% How much weight do future people deserve? Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much. 47% Is regret rational? The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing. 47% Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them? Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing. 47% Is the universe running out of usable energy? Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional. 26% Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so? The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us. 26% Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide? The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on. 26%

Matter · 7 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

What stuff is — fundamental, relational, or appearance.

Distinctive · only 23% of schools agree (47/208)
Is the world created from nothing?
Creatio ex nihilo is one of the most distinctive Western-theological claims. Whether matter was created from nothing, eternally exists, or is sustained moment-by-moment turns on what kind of thing matter is.
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
On this view, matter is genuinely there, but it isn't the floor of reality. It depends on something more fundamental — dependent origination, mind, divine sustaining act, computational substrate, or the structure of conditions — and is conserved only at its own level of description. …
Roads not taken Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance. (56%) · Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance. (16%) · Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal. (4%)
Distinctive · only 23% of schools agree (47/208)
Is the physical world fully real?
Realists, idealists, and relationalists divide on whether matter exists mind-independently, derivatively, or as a pattern of relations. The split runs deeper than any single scientific question.
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense.
On this view, the physical world is real enough — it has its own laws, its own conservation principles, its own resistance to wish — but it is not the floor of being. It is sustained by something else: mind, divine attention, computational substrate, or …
Roads not taken Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting. (56%) · Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction. (16%) · Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution. (4%)
Distinctive · only 23% of schools agree (47/208)
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Do rocks, soil, rivers, and stuff in general deserve moral consideration — or only the living, the conscious, the human? The answer turns on what matter is.
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains.
On this view, matter doesn't have standing on its own; it has standing through what it makes possible. Soil matters because it grows food; water matters because it sustains life and mind and practice. Asking whether the rock as such has moral standing slightly misreads …
Roads not taken Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good. (56%) · Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric. (16%) · Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated. (4%)
4 mainstream positions
What is money? Money is a real institution with intrinsic features. 55% What is a nation? A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character. 55% What makes someone male or female? Sex is a real biological kind with given content. 55% Should we edit the human germline? Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given. 55%
Observer · 37 dilemmas, all mainstream
Could causation work backwards? Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural. 68% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction. 68% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description. 68% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation. 66% Can a civilization recover from collapse? Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial. 66% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current. 66% When does a person begin? A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. 55% What is marriage? Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. 55% What is our place in nature? Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. 50% Should we colonize space? Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. 50% Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? Genetic modification is cultivation by other means. 50% Is reality fundamentally digital? No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure. 44% Are there indivisible units of experience? No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness. 44% Is memory stored or reconstructed? Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed. 44% What happens to "you" when you die? A soul continues into another mode of being. 38% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for. 38% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence. 38% Are the dead morally present to the living? The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence. 37% Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering. 34% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach. 34% Does prayer change God's mind? God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted. 34% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce. 31% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it. 31% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing. 31% What makes someone the same person over time? You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect. 30% Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's. 30% If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it. 30% Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos. 29% Could an AI have a mind that matters? Yes — mind is a pattern, not a substrate. 9% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? If the pattern of mind is there, the standing is there — regardless of species. 9% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? If the pattern is present at sufficient complexity, the experience is present too. 9% Does history have a direction or meaning? — — How is knowledge of reality produced? — — Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal? — — Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? — — What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize? — — Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species? — —
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets? Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it. 39% Does deleting your data online destroy something real? Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access. 39% Could the dead, in principle, be brought back? The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible. 39% Is forgiveness ontologically possible? The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was. 39%
← #1807 Seventeen-Article Constitution All Works #1809 Ecclesiastes (Qohelet) →