Neoplatonism
Neoplatonism
Neoplatonism
Neoplatonism is a modern term used to designate the period of Platonic philosophy beginning with the work of Plotinus and ending with the closing of the Platonic Academy by the Emperor Justinian in 529 CE !his brand of Platonism" which is often described as #mystical# or religious in nature" de$eloped outside the mainstream of Academic Platonism !he origins of Neoplatonism can be traced back to the era of %ellenistic syncretism which spawned such mo$ements and schools of thought as &nosticism and the %ermetic tradition A ma'or factor in this syncretism" and one which had an immense influence on the de$elopment of Platonic thought" was the introduction of the Jewish (criptures into &reek intellectual circles $ia the translation known as the Septuagint !he encounter between the creation narrati$e of &enesis and the cosmology of Plato#s Timaeus set in motion a long tradition of cosmological theori)ing that finally culminated in the grand schema of Plotinus# Enneads Plotinus# two ma'or successors" Porphyry and *amblichus" each de$eloped" in their own way" certain isolated aspects of Plotinus# thought" but neither of them de$eloped a rigorous philosophy to match that of their master *t was Proclus who" shortly before the closing of the Academy" be+ueathed a systematic Platonic philosophy upon the world that in certain ways approached the sophistication of Plotinus ,inally" in the work of the so-called Pseudo-.ionysius" we find a grand synthesis of Platonic philosophy and Christian theology that was to e/ercise an immense influence on mediae$al mysticism and 0enaissance %umanism
!able of Contents 1Clicking on the links below will take you to those parts of this article2
3 4hat is Neoplatonism5 2 Plotinian Neoplatonism a Contemplation and Creation b Nature and Personality c (al$ation and the Cosmic Process i Plotinus# 6ast 4ords d !he Achie$ement of Plotinus i !he Plotinian (ynthesis 7 Porphyry and *amblichus a !he Nature of the (oul i !he 1re2turn to Astrology b !he 8uest for !ranscendence i !heurgy and the .istrust of .ialectic 9 Proclus and Pseudo-.ionysius a :eing -- :ecoming -- Being b !he &od :eyond :eing 5 Appendix: !he 0enaissance Platonists ; Sources
1. What is Neoplatonism?
!he term #Neoplatonism# is a modern construction Plotinus" who is often considered the #founder# of Neoplatonism" would not ha$e considered himself a <new< Platonist in any sense" but simply an e/positor of the doctrines of Plato !hat this re+uired him to formulate an entirely new philosophical system would not ha$e been $iewed by him as a problem" for it was" in his eyes" precisely what the Platonic doctrine re+uired *n a sense" this is true" for as early as the =ld Academy we find Plato#s successors struggling with the proper interpretation of his thought" and arri$ing at strikingly different conclusions Also" in the %ellenistic era" certain Platonic ideas were taken up by thinkers of $arious loyalties -- Jewish" &nostic" Christian -- and worked up into new forms of e/pression that $aried +uite considerably from what Plato actually wrote in his Dialogues (hould this lead us to the conclusion that these thinkers were any less #loyal# to Plato than were the members of the Academy 1in its $arious forms throughout the centuries preceding Plotinus25 No> for the multiple and often contradictory uses made of Platonic ideas is a testament to the uni$ersality of Plato#s thought -- that is" its ability to admit of a wide $ariety of interpretations and applications *n this sense" Neo-Platonism may be said to ha$e begun immediately after Plato#s death" when new approaches to his philosophy were being broached *ndeed" we already see a hint" in the doctrines of ?enocrates 1the second head of the =ld Academy2 of a type of sal$ation theory in$ol$ing the unification of the two parts of the human soul -- the <=lympian< or hea$enly" and the <!itanic< or earthly 1.illon 39@@" p 2@2 *f we accept ,rederick Copleston#s description of Neoplatonism as <the intellectualist reply to the yearning for personal sal$ation< 1Copleston 39;2" p 23;2 we can already locate the beginning of this reply as far back as the =ld Academy" and Neoplatonism would then not ha$e begun with Plotinus %owe$er" it is not clear that ?enocrates# idea of sal$ation in$ol$ed the indi$idual> it is +uite possible that he was referring to a unified human nature in an abstract sense *n any case" the early %ermetic-&nostic tradition is certainly to an e/tent Platonic" and later &nosticism and Christian Logos theology markedly so *f an intellectual reply to a general yearning for personal sal$ation is what characteri)es Neoplatonism" then the highly intellectual &nostics and Christians of the 6ate %ellenistic era must be gi$en the title of Neoplatonists %owe$er" if we are to be rigorous and define Neoplatonism as the synthesis of $arious more or less #Platonistic# ideas into a grand e/pression of Platonic philosophy" then Plotinus must be considered the founder of Neoplatonism Aet we must not forget that these Platoni)ing Christian" &nostic" Jewish" and other #pagan# thinkers pro$ided the necessary speculati$e material to make this synthesis possible
:ack to !able of Contents
2. Plotinian Neoplatonism
!he great third century thinker and #founder# of Neoplatonism" Plotinus" is responsible for the grand synthesis of progressi$e Christian and &nostic ideas with the traditional Platonic philosophy %e answered the challenge of accounting for the emergence of a seemingly inferior and flawed cosmos from the perfect mind of the di$inity by declaring outright that all ob'ecti$e e/istence is but the e/ternal self-e/pression of an inherently contemplati$e deity known as the =ne 1to hen2" or the &ood 1ta kalon2 Plotinus compares the e/pression of the superior godhead with the self-e/pression of the indi$idual soul" which proceeds from the perfect conception of a ,orm 1eidos2" to the always
flawed e/pression of this ,orm in the manner of a materially deri$ed #personality# that risks succumbing to the demands of di$isi$e discursi$ity" and so becomes something less than di$ine !his diminution of the di$ine essence in temporality is but a necessary moment of the complete e/pression of the =ne :y ele$ating the e/perience of the indi$idual soul to the status of an actuali)ation of a di$ine ,orm" Plotinus succeeded" also" in preser$ing" if not the autonomy" at least the dignity and ontological necessity of personality !he Cosmos" according to Plotinus" is not a created order" planned by a deity on whom we can pass the charge of begetting e$il> for the Cosmos is the self-e/pression of the (oul" which corresponds" roughly" to Philo#s logos prophorikos" the logos endiathetos of which is the *ntelligence 1nous2 0ather" the Cosmos" in Plotinian terms" is to be understood as the concrete result or #product# of the (oul#s e/perience of its own Bind 1nous2 *deally" this concrete e/pression should ser$e the (oul as a reference-point for its own selfconscious e/istence> howe$er" the (oul all too easily falls into the error of $aluing the e/pression o$er the principle 1arkh2" which is the contemplation of the di$ine ,orms !his error gi$es rise to e$il" which is the purely sub'ecti$e relation of the (oul 1now di$ided2 to the manifold and concrete forms of its e/pressi$e act 4hen the (oul" in the form of indi$idual e/istents" becomes thus preoccupied with its e/perience" Nature comes into being" and the Cosmos takes on concrete form as the locus of personality
:ack to !able of Contents
that is" as something to be e/perienced or undergone" while forgetting that the soul itself is the creator of this Nature -- e$il and suffering ensue 6et us now e/amine the manner in which Plotinus e/plains Nature as the locus of personality
:ack to !able of Contents
Plotinus" like his older contemporary" the Christian philosopher =rigen of Ale/andria" $iews the descent of the soul into the material realm as a necessary moment in the unfolding of the di$ine *ntellect" or &od ,or this reason" the descent itself is not an e$il" for it is a reflection of &od#s essence :oth =rigen and Plotinus place the blame for e/periencing this descent as an e$il s+uarely upon the indi$idual soul =f course" these thinkers held" respecti$ely" +uite different $iews as to why and how the soul e/periences the descent as an e$il> but they held one thing in commonD that the rational soul will naturally choose the &ood" and that any failure to do so is the result of forgetfulness or ac+uired ignorance :ut whence this failure5 =rigen ga$e what" to Plotinus# mind" must ha$e been a +uite unsatisfactory answerD that souls pre-e/isted as spiritual beings" and when they desired to create or #beget# independently of &od" they all fell into error" and languished there until the coming of 6ogos *ncarnate !his $iew has more than a little &nostic fla$or to it" which would ha$e sat ill with Plotinus" who was a great opponent of &nosticism !he fall of the soul Plotinus refers" +uite simply" to the tension between pure contemplation and di$isi$e action -- a tension that constitutes the natural mode of e/istence of the soul 1cf Ennead *C E ;-@2 Plotinus tells us that a thought is only completed or fully comprehended after it has been e/pressed" for only then can the thought be said to ha$e passed from potentiality to actuality 1Ennead *C 7 7G2 !he +uestion of whether Plotinus places more $alue on the potential or the actual is really of no conse+uence" for in the Plotinian plrma e$ery potentiality generates an acti$ity" and e$ery acti$ity becomes itself a potential for new acti$ity 1cf Ennead *** E E2> and since the =ne" which is the goal or ob'ect of desire of all e/istents" is neither potentiality nor actuality" but <beyond being< 1epekeina ousias2" it is impossible to say whether the stri$ing of e/istents" in Plotinus# schema" will result in full and complete actuali)ation" or in a repose of potentiality that will make them like their source <6ikeness to &od as far as possible"< for Plotinus" is really likeness to oneself -- authentic existence Plotinus lea$es it up to the indi$idual to determine what this means
relief of this e/haustion" and the return to a state of contemplati$e repose *s this return to the *ntellect a return to potentiality5 *t is hard to say Perhaps it is a synthesis of potentiality and actualityD the moment at which the soul is both one and many" both human and di$ine !his would constitute Plotinian sal$ation -- the fulfillment of the e/hortation of the dying sage
:ack to !able of Contents
premise %owe$er" Plotinus reali)ed that it is not the nature of the human soul to simply escape from a realm of acti$e engagement with e/ternal reality 1the cosmos2 to a passi$e receptance of di$ine form 1within the plrma2 !he (oul" as Plotinus understands it" is an essentially creati$e being" and one which understands e/istence on its own terms =ne of the beauties of Plotinus# system is that e$erything he says concerning the nature of the Cosmos 1spiritual and physical2 can e+ually be held of the (oul Now while it would be false to charge Plotinus with solipsism 1or e$en narcissism" as one prominent commentator has done> cf Julia Hriste$a in %adot 3997" p 332" it would be correct to say that the entire Cosmos is an analogue of the e/perience of the (oul" which results in the attainment of full self-consciousness !he form of Plotinus# system is the $ery form by which the (oul naturally comes to know itself in relation to its acts> and the e/pression of the (oul will always" therefore" be a philosophical e/pression 4hen we speak of the Plotinian synthesis" then" what we are speaking of is a natural dialectic of the (oul" which takes its own e/pressions into account" no matter how faulty or incomplete they may appear in retrospect" and wea$es them into a cosmic tapestry of noetic images
:ack to !able of Contents
misunderstood" or neglected to e$en attempt to understand" Plotinus on the important doctrine of contemplation 1see abo$e2 !his $iew led *amblichus to posit a (upreme =ne e$en higher than the =ne of Plotinus" which generates the *ntellectual Cosmos" and yet remains beyond all predication and determinacy *amblichus also made a tripartite di$ision of (oul" positing a cosmic or All-(oul" and two lesser souls" corresponding to the rational and irrational faculties" respecti$ely !his somewhat gratuitous skewing of the Plotinian noetic realm also led *amblichus to posit an array of intermediate spiritual beings between the lower souls and the intelligible realm -- daemons" the souls of heroes" and angels of all sorts :y placing so much distance between the earthly soul and the intelligible realm" *amblichus made it difficult for the would-be philosopher to gain an intuiti$e knowledge of the higher (oul" although he insisted that e$eryone possesses such knowledge" coupled with an innate desire for the &ood *n place of the $i$id dialectic of Plotinus" *amblichus established the practice of theurgy 1theourgia2" which he insists does not draw the gods down to man" but rather renders humankind" <who through generation are born sub'ect to passion" pure and unchangeable< 1'n the $ysteries * 32 92> in ,owden 39E;" p 3772 4hereas <likeness to &od< had meant" for Plotinus" a recollection and perfection of one#s own di$ine nature 1which is" in the last analysis" identical to nous> cf Ennead *** 92" for *amblichus the relation of humankind to the di$ine is one of subordinate to superior" and so the pagan religious piety that Plotinus had scorned -- <6et the gods come to me" and not * to them"< he had once said 1cf Porphyry" Li e o !lotinus 3G2 -returns to philosophy with a $engeance *amblichus is best known for his lengthy treatise 'n the $ysteries 6ike Porphyry" he also wrote a biography of Pythagoras
:ack to !able of Contents
tells us that he had been a Christian" Augustine speaks of him as if he were an apostate" and the historian (ocrates states outright that Porphyry had once been of the Christian faith" telling us that he left the fold in disgust after being assaulted by a rowdy band of Christians in Caesarea 1Copleston 39;2" p 23E2 *n any case" it is certain that he was ac+uainted with Plotinus# older contemporary" the Christian =rigen" and that he had been e/posed to Christian doctrine *ndeed" his own spirited attack on Christianity 1<,ifteen Arguments Against the Christians"< now preser$ed only in fragments2 shows him to ha$e possessed a wide knowledge of %oly (cripture" remarkable for a #pagan# philosopher of that era Porphyry#s e/posure to Christian doctrine" then" would ha$e left him with a $iew of sal$ation +uite different from that of Plotinus" who seems ne$er to ha$e paid Christianity much mind !he best e$idence we ha$e for this e/planation is Porphyry#s own theory of sal$ation -- and it is remarkably similar to what we find in =rigenF Porphyry#s sal$ation theory is dependent" like =rigen#s" on a notion of the soul#s ob'ecti$e relation to &od" and its conse+uent stri$ing" not to actuali)e its own di$ine potentiality" but to attain a le$el of $irtue that makes it capable of partaking fully of the di$ine essence !his is accomplished through the e/ercise of $irtue" which sets the soul on a gradual course of progress toward the highest &ood :eginning with simple #practical $irtues# 1politikai artai2 the soul gradually rises to higher le$els" e$entually attaining what Porphyry calls the paradeigmatikai artai or #e/emplary $irtues# which make of the soul a li$ing e/pression of the di$ine Bind 1cf Porphyry" Letter to $arcella 292 Note that Porphyry stops the soul#s ascent at nous" and presumably holds that the #sa$ed# soul will eternally contemplate the infinite power of the =ne *f Porphyry#s concern had been with the preser$ation of personality" then this e/planation makes some sense %owe$er" it is more likely that the true reason for Porphyry#s re'ection of the radically #hubristic# theory 1at least to pietistic pagans2 of the nature of the indi$idual soul held by Plotinus was a result of his intention to restore dignity to the traditional religion of the &reeks 1which had come under attack not only by Plotinus" but by Christians as well2 E$idence of such a program resides in Porphyry#s allegorical interpretations of %omer and traditional cultic practice" as well as his possibly apologetic work on !hilosophy rom 'racles 1now lost2 Compared to Plotinus" then" Porphyry was +uite the conser$ati$e" concerned as he was with maintaining the ancient $iew of humankind#s relati$ely humble position in the cosmic hierarchy" o$er against Plotinus# $iew that the soul is a god" owing little more than a passing nod to its #noble brethren# in the hea$ens
operations of the hea$enly bodies and their relation to humankind would ha$e been an important tool in gaining e$er higher le$els of $irtue *n fact" Porphyry seems to ha$e held the $iew that the soul recei$es certain <powers< from each of the planets -- right 'udgment from (aturn" proper e/ercise of the will from Jupiter" impulse from Bars" opinion and imagination from the (un" and 1what else52 sensuous desire from Cenus> from the Boon the soul recei$es the power of physical production 1cf %egel" p 97G2 -- and that these powers enable to the soul to know things both earthly and hea$enly !his theoretical knowledge of the powers of the planets" then" would ha$e made the more practical knowledge of astrology +uite useful and meaningful for an indi$idual soul seeking to know itself as such !he usefulness of astrology for Porphyry" in this regard" probably resided in its ability to permit an indi$idual" through an analysis of his birth chart" to know which planet -- and therefore which <power< -- e/ercised the dominant influence on his life *n keeping with the ancient &reek doctrine of the <golden mean"< the task of the indi$idual would then be to work to bring to the fore those other <powers< -- each present to a lesser degree in the soul" but still acti$e -- and thereby achie$e a balance or sphrosun that would render the soul more capable of sharing in the di$ine Bind !he art of astrology" it must be remembered" was in wide practice in the %ellenistic world" and Plotinus# re'ection of it was an e/ception that was by no means the rule Plotinus# $iews on astrology apparently found few adherents" e$en among Platonists" for we see not only Porphyry" but also 1to an e/tent2 *amblichus and e$en Proclus declaring its $alue -- the latter being responsible for a paraphrase of Claudius Ptolemy#s astrological compendium known as the Tetra)i)los or sometimes simply as The Astronomy *n addition to penning a commentary on Ptolemy#s tome" Porphyry also wrote his own %ntroduction to Astronomy 1by which is apparently meant <Astrology"< the modern distinction not holding in %ellenistic times2 Infortunately" this work no longer sur$i$es intact 1,or more on this topic" see %ellenistic Astrology 2
:ack to !able of Contents
p 3722" belie$ing" as he did" that no such way had yet been disco$ered by or within philosophy !his did not imply" for Porphyry" a wholesale re'ection of the Plotinian dialectic in fa$or of a more esoteric process of sal$ation> but it did lead Porphyry 1see abo$e2 to look to astrology as a means of orienting the soul toward its place in the cosmos" and thereby allowing it to achie$e the desired sal$ation in the most efficacious manner possible *amblichus" on the other hand" re'ected e$en Porphyry#s approach" in fa$or of a path toward the di$inity that is more worthy of priests 1hieratikoi2 than philosophers> for *amblichus belie$ed that not only the =ne" but all the gods and demi-gods" e/ceed and transcend the indi$idual soul" making it necessary for the soul seeking sal$ation to call upon the superior beings to aid it in its progress !his is accomplished" *amblichus tells us" by <the perfecti$e operation of unspeakable acts 1erga2 correctly performed acts which are beyond all understanding 1huper pasan nosin2< and which are <intelligible only to the gods< 1'n the $ysteries ** 33 9;-@" in ,owden" p 3722 !hese ritualistic acts" and the #logic# underlying them" *amblichus terms <theurgy< 1theourgia2 !hese theurgic acts are necessary" for *amblichus" because he is con$inced that philosophy" which is based solely upon thought 1ennoia2 -- and thought" we must remember" is always an accomplishment of the indi$idual mind" and hence discursi$e -- is unable to reach that which is )eyond thought !he practice of theurgy" then" becomes a way for the soul to e/perience the presence of the di$inity" instead of merely thinking or conceptuali)ing the godhead Porphyry took issue with this $iew" in his Letter to Ane)o" which is really a criticism of the ideas of his pupil" *amblichus" where he stated that" since theurgy is a physical process" it cannot possibly translate into a spiritual effect *amblichus# 'n the $ysteries was written as a reply to Porphyry#s criticisms" but the defense of the pupil did not succeed in $an+uishing the persistent attacks of the master 4hile both Porphyry and *amblichus recogni)ed" to a lesser and greater e/tent" respecti$ely" the limitations of the Plotinian dialectic" Porphyry held firm to the idea that since the di$inity is immaterial it can only be grasped in a noetic fashion -- i e " discursi$ely 1and e$en astrology" in spite of its mediati$e capacity" is still an intellectual e/ercise" open to dialectic and narrati)ation2> *amblichus" adhering roughly to the same $iew" ne$ertheless argued that the human soul must not think god on its own terms" but must allow itself to be transformed by the penetrating essence of god" of which the soul partakes through rituals intended to transform the particulari)ed" fragmented soul into a being that is <pure and unchangeable< 1cf 'n the $ysteries * 32 92> ,owden" p 3772
attempt to know reality" is seen by *amblichus as an attempt by an already fallen being to lead itself up out of the $ery locus of its own forgetfulness Now *amblichus does not completely re'ect dialectical reason> he simply re+uests that it be tempered by an appeal to intermediate di$inities" who will aid the fallen soul in its ascent back towards the (upreme &ood !he practice of ritualistic theurgy is the medium by which the fallen soul ascends to a point at which it becomes capable of engaging in a meaningful dialectic with the di$inity !his dependence upon higher powers ne$ertheless negates the soul#s own innate ability to think itself as god" and so we may say that *amblichus# ideas represent a decisi$e break with the philosophy of Plotinus
:ack to !able of Contents
*ndeed" the earliest reference to the .ionysian Corpus that we possess is from 577 CE !here is no mention of this author#s work before this date Careful study of the Pseudo-.ionysian writings has unco$ered many parallels between the theurgical doctrines of *amblichus" and the triadic metaphysical schema of Proclus Aet what we witness in these writings is the attempt by a thinker who is at once religiously sensiti$e and philosophically engaged to bring the highly de$eloped Platonism of his time into line with a Christian theological tradition that was apparently persisting on the fringes of orthodo/y !o this e/tent" we may refer to the Pseudo-.ionysius as a #decadent"# for he 1or she52 was writing at a time when the heyday of Platonism had attained the status of a palaios logos 1#ancient teaching#2 to be" not merely commented upon" but sa*ored as an aesthetic monument to an era already long past *t is important to note" in this regard" that the writings of Pseudo-.ionysius do not contain any theoretical arguments or dialectical moments" but simply many subtle $ariations on the apophaticLkataphatic theology for which our writer is renowned *ndeed" he writes as if his readers already kno." and are merely in need of clarification %is message is +uite simple" and is manifestly distilled from the often cumbersome doctrines of earlier thinkers 1especially *amblichus and Proclus2 Pseudo-.ionysius professes a &od who is beyond all distinctions" and who e$en transcends the means utili)ed by human beings to reach %im ,or Pseudo-.ionysius" the %oly !rinity 1which is probably analogous to Proclus# highest trinity" see abo$e2 ser$es as a <guide< to the human being who seeks not only to know but to unite .ith <him who is beyond all being and knowledge< 1Pseudo-.ionysius" The $ystical Theology 99@A-3GGGA" tr C 6uibheid 39E@2 *n the e/pression of the Pseudo-.ionysius the yearning for the infinite reaches a poetical form that at once fulfills and e/ceeds philosophy
:ack to !able of Contents
2322 &io$anni Pico" the Count of Birandola" was a colorful figure who li$ed a short life" fraught with strife %e roused the ire of the papacy by composing a $oluminous work defending ninehundred theses drawn from his $ast reading of the Ancients> thirteen of these theses were deemed heretical by the papacy" and yet Pico refused to change or withdraw a single one 6ike his friend ,icino" Pico was a de$otee of ancient wisdom" drawing not only upon the Platonic canon" but also upon the Pre-(ocratic literature and the %ermetic Corpus" especially the !oimandres Pico#s most famous work is the 'ration on the Dignity o $an" in which he elo+uently states his learned $iew that humankind was created by &od <as a creature of indeterminate nature"< possessed of the uni+ue ability to ascend or descend on the scale of :eing through the autonomous e/ercise of free will 1'ration 7" in Cassirer" et al 1ed2 399E" p 2292 Pico#s $iew of free will was +uite different from that e/pressed by Plotinus" and indeed most other Neoplatonists" and it came as no surprise when Pico composed a treatise 'n Being and the 'ne which ended on Aristotelian terms" declaring the =ne to be coincident with or persisting amidst :eing -- a wholly un-Platonic doctrine 4ith ,icino" then" we may say that Platonism achie$ed a brief moment of archaic glory" while with Pico" it was plunged once again into the +uagmire of self-referential empiricism
:ack to !able of Contents
#. Sources
Cassirer" Ernst> Hristeller" Paul =skar> 0andall" John %erman Jr 1editors2 The #enaissance !hilosophy o $an 1Ini$ersity of Chicago Press 399E2 Cooper" John B 1ed 2" !lato: &omplete 1orks 1%ackett Publishing 399@2 Copleston ( J " ,rederick" A (istory o !hilosophy 1$ol *" part **2D +reece and #ome 1*mage :ooks 39;22 .illon" John 139@@2" The $iddle !latonists 1Cornell Ini$ersity Press2 Eusebius 1tr & A 4illiamson 39;52" The (istory o the &hurch 1Penguin :ooks2 ,owden" &arth" The Egyptian (ermes: A (istorical Approach To The Late !agan $ind 1Cambridge Ini$ersity Press 39E;2 %adot" Pierre 1tr B Chase2" !lotinus, or The Simplicity o 2ision 1Ini$ersity of Chicago Press 39972 %egel" &eorg 4ilhelm ,riedrich 1tr E ( %aldane and ,rances % (imson2" Lectures on the (istory o !hilosophy 1$ol **2D !lato And The !latonists 1:ison :ooks 39952 Jaeger" 4erner" Early &hristianity and +reek !aideia 1%ar$ard Ini$ersity Press 39;32
6ayton" :entley 139E@2" The +nostic Scriptures 1.oubledayD !he Anchor :ible 0eference 6ibrary2 =#:rien ( J " Elmer 139;92" The Essential !lotinus: #epresentati*e Treatises /rom The Enneads 1%ackett Publishing2 =rigen of Ale/andria" &ommentary on 3ohn" tr in The Ante"Nicene /athers" $ol ? 1Eerdmans 39@9" reprint2 =rigen of Ale/andria" 'n /irst !rinciples J.e PrincipiisK" tr in The Ante"Nicene /athers" $ol *C 1Eerdmans 39@9" reprint2 Philo of Ale/andria 1tr , % Colson and & % 4hitaker2" 'n the &reation o the 1orld J.e =pificio BundiK" in $ol 3 of !he 6oeb Classical 6ibrary edition of Philo 1%ar$ard Ini$ersity Press 39292 Plotinus 1tr A % Armstrong2" The Enneads" in se$en $olumes 16oeb Classical 6ibraryD %ar$ard Ini$ersity Press 39;;2 Porphyry 1tr H &uthrie2" Launching"!oints to the #ealm o $ind JPros ta noeta aphorismoiK 1Phanes Press 39EE2 Porphyry 1tr A Mimmern2" !orphyry4s Letter to (is 1i e $arcella &oncerning the Li e o !hilosophy and the Ascent to the +ods 1Phanes Press 39E;2 Porphyry 1tr A % Armstrong2" Li e o !lotinus JCita PlotiniK" in $olume one of the 6oeb Classical 6ibrary edition of Plotinus 1%ar$ard Ini$ersity Press 39;;2 Proclus 1tr ! !aylor2" Lost /ragments o !roclus 14i)ards :ookshelf 39EE2 Proclus 1tr ! !aylor2" Ten Dou)ts &oncerning !ro*idence" and 'n the Su)sistence o E*il 1Ares Publishers 39EG2 Pseudo-.ionysius 1tr C 6uibheid 39E@2" !seudo"Dionysius: The &omplete 1orks 1Paulist Press2
*)$ori sredn'o$eko$ne filo)ofi'e (redn'o$eko$na filo)ofi'a ra)$ila se pod utica'em hriNOanske religi'e" sa 'edne strane" i antiPke filo)ofi'e" sa druge
,ilo)ofi sredn'eg $eka mahom su bili i $isoki s$eNtenici crk$e M o$emo ih filo)ofima )ato Nto su se ba$ili filo)ofi'om" a ne )ato Nto bi oni sami sebe na'pre tako na)$ali N'iho$a gla$na briga bilo 'e ra)'aNn'a$an'e i i)lagan'e hriNOanskog uPen'a !a n'iho$a d$ostruka uloga uticala 'e na neke promene u odnosu na sliku s$eta antiPke filo)ofi'e Po :ibli'i" :og 'e st$orio s$et i Po$eka i) niPega 1 ex nihilo 2" slobodnom $ol'om =n 'e liPnost ko'a go$ori i delu'e" ali i ta'no$iti $ladalac 1<s$edrQitel'<2 s$emira Na )eml'i 'e bio n'ego$ (in - %ristos" ko'i 'e <istosuNtan< sa n'im %ristos 'e 'edan lik 'ednog 'edinog :oga ($e o$o su" pored 'oN mnogih drugih sta$o$a" elementi hriNOanske dogme ko'a ni'e smela biti do$edena u pitan'e !o ot$ara 'edan problem koga rani'e ni'e bilo u filo)ofi'i I &rPko' ni'edno uPen'e ni'e u)eto kao oba$e)no i smatralo se da 'e doka) slobode u ok$iru filo)ofi'e raspra$l'ati o s$im uPen'ima &la$ni problem sredn'e$eko$ne filo)ofi'e bio 'e kako $ero$ati u hriNOansko uPen'e" a ipak us$a'ati i ra)$i'ati filo)ofsko )nan'e ko'e moQda donosi i)a)o$e samom tom uPen'u AntiPka filo)ofi'a 'e drugi i)$or )nan'a pomoOu koga se uobliPa$a sredn'o$eko$na filo)ofi'a (tari i No$i )a$et nisu pruQali )aokruQenu i ra)$i'enu teori'u o strukturi s$eta i prirodi :oga .a bi se ra)$ila teologi'a nuQno 'e bilo nado$e)ati se na sliPna ra)matran'a antiPke filo)ofi'e =sno$u )a to pr$o 'e pruQio Plotin 12G9-2@G n e 2 Plotina bi trebalo obraditi u ok$iru )a$rNnog perioda antiPke filo)ofi'e" ali 'e on toliko uticao na hriNOanst$o da ga spomin'emo tek sada (tru'a u filo)ofi'i ko'a poPin'e sa n'im na)i$a se no$oplatoni)am Plotin 'e prih$atio Platono$ s$et ide'a" ali 'e i)nad n'ega posta$io $iNi princip - Jedno ili :oga No$ina 'e da 'e suNtina Plotino$og :oga i)nad ra)uma" Nto )naPi da treba )nati da filo)ofi'a i n'eni po'mo$i posusta'u kada treba po)iti$no odrediti Nta :og 'este =$im Plotino$im postupkom ot$ara se prostor )a ono Nto Oe se kasni'e u hriNOanst$u 'asno o)naPa$ati reP'u $era" dok kod Plotina moQemo go$oriti o posebnim stan'ima u ko'ima doQi$l'a$amo :ogaD o intuici'i i eksta)i ,ilo)ofi'a 'e ust$ari retko sklona da traQi posebna stan'a da bi se imalo neko sa)nan'e" nego po pra$ilu u)ima da ga u principu s$ako i u$ek moQe imati Plotin 'e i)gradio posebnu Nemu ko'a ob'aNn'a$a strukturu s$eta Na $rhu Neme 'e Jedno 1:og2" nesh$atl'i$o i s$eprisutno =no isi'a$a 1emanira2 i) sebe .uh 1Nus2 kao sledeOi" niQi stepen biOa I .uhu se nala)i Platono$ s$et ide'a i modeli )a s$e st$ari Jos niQe 'e s$etska duNa i po'edinaPne duNe Qi$ih biOa =ne su $e)a idealnog i materi'alnog s$eta" okrenute i prema 'ednom i prema drugom" one oQi$l'a$a'u materi'u Bateri'a 'e na'niQi stupa n' :iOa" ona 'e opo)ici'a Jednom PoNto Jedno isi'a$a i) sebe s$e ostalo" ono se moQe uporediti sa suncem" dok 'e materi'a potpuna tama Ro$ek 'e biOe na sredini o$ih s$eto$a" koga n'ego$a priroda $uPe i ka materi'alnom s$etu i ka idealnom s$etu =$a Nema bila 'e prih$atl'i$a i inspirati$na )a kasni'e hriNOanske pisce Na osno$u Plotino$ih ide'a u Atini 'e u ; $eku nastao spis kasni'e po)nat kao Pseudo.ionisi'e Aeropagita" ko'i 'e dobio o$o ime po s$om na$odnom autoru" pr$om hriNOanskom episkopu u Atini I tom spisu se 'e)ikom grPke filo)ofi'e go$orilo o
imenima boQi'im i crk$eno' i nebesko' hi'erarhi'i (pis 'e tek u 9 $eku 1E2@ n e 2 na Mapadu pre$eo 'edan irski s$eNtenik" Jo$an (kot Eriugena .al'i pute$i antiPkih uPen'a ka sredn'em $eku bili su dosta )amrNeni Negde od @ $eka n e na )apadu E$rope malo ko 'e )nao grPki !o 'e ograniPa$alo upo)na$an'e sa starim grPkim filo)ofi'ama Na latinski su rani'e bila pre$edena Aristotelo$a logiPka dela 1pre$eo ih 'e :oeti'e" 9EG-5292 i Platono$ di'alog !ima'" gde se go$orilo o :ogust$araocu ko'i st$ara s$et na osno$u ide'a =stali Aristotelo$i teksto$i su na Mapad stigli na'pre preko Arapa (pisi su rani'e bili pre$edeni na arapski i komenatrisali su ih Pu$eni arapski filo)ofi A$icena 133 $ek2 i A$eroes 132 $ek2 Hada su pre$edeni na latinski uticali su na )apadnu sholastiku" filo)ofi'u ko'a se preda$ala u crk$enim Nkolama Na'Pu$eni'i poNto$alac Aristotela bio 'e !oma Ak$inski" ko'i predsta$l'a )enit )apadne teologi'e sredn'eg $eka Hada 'e mislio na Aristotela" !oma Ak$inski 'e pisao samo ,ilo)of Ritan'e Aristotelo$ih spisa i n'iho$o komentarisan'e predsta$l'alo 'e potku sredn'o$eko$ne filo)ofi'e s$e do n'enog )a$rNetka
Plotin" grPki filo)of i) 6ikopolisa" obno$itel' 'e platoni)ma" no u n'ego$u su d'elu u )naPa'no' m'eri e$identne natruhe i aristoteli)ma" stoici)ma" Pak i mistici)ma N'ego$o uPen'e" s$o'e$remeno $eoma popularno u 0imu" gd'e 'e preda$ao filo)ofi'u" temel'i se na ide'i o 3ednom" boQanst$u ko'e $'ePno emanira" a re)ultat tog emaniran'a 'e s$e posto'eOe 3edno ni'e moguOe sa)nati" 'er 'e i)nad i i)$an spo)na'nog aparata po'edinaPnog entiteta Po'a$nost 3ednog )rcali se u duhu 1nus2" ko'i" pak" u sebi nosi misleOe i )amiNl'eno" dakle pretposta$l'enu d$o'nost
D$ela %uredi&
Hako 'e Plotin nauPa$ao ugla$nom usmeno" prisutne su d$o'be glede autentiPnosti nekih spisa ko'i mu se pripisu'u Porfiri'e 'e prikupio i i)dao trideset i Petiri n'ego$a preda$an'a i ob'a$io ih u Nest s$e)aka pod na)i$om Eneade Pro'lo 1grP 2" 1933 - 9E5 2" grPki filo)of 1no$oplatoniPar2 0odom 'e i) Honstantinopolisa" a Qi$io 'e i d'elo$ao u Ateni Podu)imao 'e studi'ska puto$an'a u daleke )eml'e Napisao 'e $iNe d'ela i) podruP'a filo)ofi'e" matematike i astronomi'e" a ba$io se i poe)i'om Po)nat 'e kao $rstan komentator Euklido$ih Elemenata