Neoplatonism
| Part of a series on |
| Neoplatonism |
|---|
 |
 Philosophy portal |
| Part o |
Neoplatonism refers to a philosophical and religious[1][2][3][4][5] system, beginning with the work of Plotinus in 245 AD,[6] that teaches interpretations of the philosophy and theology[7][8] of Plato,[6] extending[9] the Middle Platonism of the intervening centuries, c. 80–c. 245 AD.[10] The English term 'neoplatonism',[11] or 'Neo-Platonism',[12][note 1] or 'Neoplatonism'[14] comes from 18th[15] and 19th century Germanic scholars (Germanic term: 'Neu-Platonische' in the 18th century; 'Neuplatoniker' in the 19th century)[16] who wanted to systematize history into nameable periods.[17]
Neoplatonism was founded[18] in c. 245 AD by the Egyptian[19] philosopher Plotinus when he moved from Alexandria to Rome and established a school[20] where he taught an interpretation of Plato's philosophy[6][21] until c. 270 AD.[22] The neoplatonism of late antiquity ended in 529 AD[23][24] after the Byzantine emperor Justinian I confirmed his Novum Justinianeum Codicem, or Codex Justinianus,[25] on the 7th of April 529 AD,[26] and administrators[27] enforcing the new laws, after they had legal force on the 16th of April 529 AD,[28] closed the last neoplatonic school in Athens,[6] that at the time was headed by the Syrian philosopher Damascius.[29]
History[edit]
Neoplatonism synthesized ideas from earlier philosophical and religious traditions, namely Platonism, Aristotelianism, and Stoicism, and it is that synthesis that explains the central difference between Plato and neoplatonism.[30] Because scholars believe that neoplatonism did not arise spontaneously from Platonism, they postulate an intermediate series of stages, called middle Platonism (German term: Vorneuplatonismus), that evolved Plato's doctrines into neoplatonic doctrines.[31] Middle Platonism is where historians see the first attempts to combine the earlier traditions of Platonism, Aristotelianism, and Stoicism.[31]
'Neoplatonism' is a modern term that originated in Germanic scholarship of the 18th[15] and 19th centuries in an attempt to organize history into conspicuous periods.[18] 21st century scholarship has revealed that the conceptual foundation of the division between ancient Platonism into middle Platonism and neoplatonism was cemented by the six volume work called Critical History of Philosophy (Latin: Historia critica philosophiae) published between 1742 and 1767 by the 18th century German historian Johann Jakob Brucker.[32][15] Unfortunately, in the 18th century the usage of the term 'neoplatonism' was mostly pejorative.[15]
The term 'neoplatonism' has a double function as a historical category. On the one hand, it separates the developments of Platonic doctrines from the time of Plotinus onwards.[33] On the other hand, the prefix 'neo' suggests that there is something new in the interpretations of Plato by Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Proclus.[18] In the Renaissance, Platonist Marsilio Ficino thought that the neoplatonic interpretation of Plato was an authentic and accurate representation of Plato's philosophy.[34] Similarly, some contemporary scholars claim that merely marginal differences separate Plotinus' teachings from those of his immediate predecessors.[35][36]
21st century scholarship marks the beginning of neoplatonism when the philosopher Plotinus moved from Alexandria to Rome and established a school there in c. 245 AD.[6][note 2][24] There is a recent view, held by the 21st century Irish Professor Sarah Klitenic Wear, that three major periods in neoplatonism can be distinguished after Plotinus: the period of work by Plotinus' student Porphyry; the period of Iamblichus' school in Syria; and the period in the 5th and 6th centuries, when Platonic Academies in Athens and Alexandria flourished with the activities of the philosophers Syrianus, Proclus, Damascius, and Olympiodorus.[38] According to Damascius, the main religious exponents of neoplatonism were Iamblichus, Syrianus and Proclus, whilst Plotinus and Porphyry were the main philosophical exponents of neoplatonism.[39]
1st to 2nd century[edit]
Important forerunners of neoplatonism were the 1st century Jewish-Greek[40] philosopher Philo of Alexandria, whose key theological doctrines approximate neoplatonic doctrines;[41] the 1st century middle Platonist Plutarch of Chaeronea,[42] who was inspired by Plato, but was opposed to Stoic doctrines;[43] and the 2nd century middle Platonist[44] Numenius of Apamea,[45] who was a significant influence on the neoplatonic philosophers Plotinus, Porphyry and Proclus, and also anticipated an important neoplatonic doctrine.[46][47]
Philo of Alexandria[edit]
The 1st century philosopher Philo of Alexandria, who lived at the same time as Jesus of Nazareth, was the most distinguished scholar of Diaspora Judaism in Alexandria, was most likely born in Alexandria,[48] spoke Greek and was a Roman citizen.[49] He may have been born between c. 15 BC and c. 10 BC, the years corresponding approximately to the births of his elder and younger brothers, although he is often said to be born c. 20 BC and died when he was over 60 years old,[50] after 41 AD.[51] Philo was born into a very wealthy family that was related or had connections to the family of the Roman client king Herod the Great,[52] it is possible that he was in Jerusalem in 29 AD, as he went there to pray;[53] and he once led a Jewish delegation to the Roman emperor Gaius Caligula in 38 AD or 39 AD.[54] His family's status allowed Philo to receive a full education in philosophy where he studied Plato, as testified by his own writings in De Specialibus Legibus III 1–2 that is full of Platonic echoes.[55]
The writings of Philo reveal a conception of God that anticipates Plotinus' neoplatonic conception of the One, also his conceptions of the Logos as mediator between God and humans, and his conception of Powers, that very closely resemble the Platonic conception of Ideas; all anticipate neoplatonic doctrines.[56] For both Philo and Plotinus, the suggestion for a doctrine of 'ecstasy' came from Platonic dialogues,[57] where Philo's doctrine distinguished four classes of 'ecstasy': madness, sudden astonishment, deep sleep and inspiration.[58] Philo also accepted the cosmological teachings of Plato, but rejected key cosmological views held by Aristotle and the Stoics.[59]
Plutarch of Chaeronea[edit]
The 1st century historian and philosopher Plutarch of Chaeronea, or Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus, known simply as Plutarch, was born in c. 45 AD and educated in a small Greek village in Chaeronea at a time when Rome controlled the Mediterranean world politically and militarily.[60] He travelled to Athens when he was 20 years old and studied at the Platonic Academy in Athens between 66 AD and 67 AD.[61] Plutarch was fascinated with history and studied many ancient historical works, with one of his greatest heroes being Alexander the Great, who was personally involved in the battle of Chaeronea.[62] He travelled extensively, visiting Italy, Greece, Macedonia, Crete, Northern Egypt, and parts of Asia Minor, was politically active in Chaeronea, and there taught philosophy and mathematics, and was a priest of the nearby temple of Apollo at Delphi.[63] Plutarch left an enormous literary and intellectual legacy; contemporary scholars say he died after c. 119 AD, probably c. 125 AD.[64]
Plutarch anticipated neoplatonic doctrines in his system that was less elaborate and less thorough than that of Plotinus.[43] In Plutarch's system, there are two first principles, God and Matter, between them, Platonic Ideas or patterns that formed the world, and another principle that he called the World-soul.[43] Plotinus borrowed from Plutarch the non-Platonic term 'hypostasis', a concept also used by the Aristotelian-Stoic philosophers Cornutus and Sextus of Chaeronea ('hexis'; in Stoic dialect) and also in Alexandria by Philo of Alexandria, the Septuagint and Lucian of Antioch.[65] Plutarch also wrote on the connection between prophecy and imagination.[66]
Numenius of Apamea[edit]
The Syrian philosopher Numenius of Apamea, whose activities, to the best of our knowledge,[69] flourished after the middle[67] of the 2nd century; probably during the reign of the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius from 161–180 AD, and about 20 years after the birth of Saint Clement of Alexandria in c. 150 AD.[68] Numenius taught in Apamea,[70] where among his pupils or followers or friends were, Kronius, Harpokration and Boethos.[68] He was very familiar with the teachings of Greek philosophers, that might have been the result of a visit to Athens,[71] and was familiar with the religious beliefs of the Jews, Persians, other theologies and Egyptians, which due to his knowledge of the Serapistic mysteries,[72] might have been the result of a visit to Egypt.[73][74] His primary scholarly activities were dedicated to mediating those creeds with Plato's philosophy.[75] He greatly admired Philo of Alexandria and knew his works well; and saw that the Old Testament and Plato both taught the existence of One Supreme God.[75]
Numenius is seen as belonging to Platonism's Pythagorean wing, and was a source of the variety of Platonism that Plotinus promoted.[76] Because of that, Plotinus was seen as a kind of successor to Numenius.[77] Numenius preferred deep allegorical interpretations of Plato and Homer and hence was an important methodological influence on Proclus.[78] It was from Numenius that Porphyry derived the idea of his allegorizing work on Homer called Cave of the Nymphs.[79] Numenius' works were read in Plotinus' classrooms and he anticipated a fundamental neoplatonic doctrine that distinguished between the Demiurge, identified with Plotinus' conception of the intelligible realm of Intellect,[80] and the Supreme Unity, identified with Plotinus' conception of the One.[81] Numenius' chief work was On the Good, in six books, and his other works included, About the Mystery-teachings of Plato, The Initiate, About the Indestructibility or Incorruptibility of the Soul, About Space, and About Numbers.[82]
Christian[edit]
The 2nd century Christian apologist Saint Justin Martyr, who initially sought wisdom from the Stoics, Peripatetics and Platonists before converting to Christianity, alluded to a conception of the Logos as a means for transmitting the Good News of Christian Gospels.[83] Logos was also an important conception in Plotinus' neoplatonic doctrines.[80] Saint Justin Martyr also refers to the Second Epistle of Plato to explain the Christian Trinity Platonically, and the same Epistle was used by Plotinus as an authority in his neoplatonic doctrines.[84] Similarly, the 2nd century Christian[85] Saint Athenagoras of Athens,[86] the first master of the Catechetical School of Alexandria and who taught Saint Clement of Alexandria,[87] describes God as the Logos.[88]
Gnostic[edit]
The 2nd century Alexandrian Christian Gnostic Valentinus used the technical Gnostic term 'plenitude' (plērōma)[89] to describe a multitude of higher beings in the spiritual cosmos.[89] The Gnostic conception of a 'plenitude' of higher beings in the spiritual cosmos, seen in Valentinus' conception of 30[89] or 33[90] Aeons;[89] and the 2nd century Christian Gnostic Basilides'[90] conception of seven Powers; was previously found in: Philo's conception of five Powers; in Hermetic writings, where there is a conception of a Demiurge and seven Governors; in Numenius' conception of triply divided First and Second gods; and in the 2nd century Christian Gnostic[91] Saturninus'[92] conception of seven creative spheres,[93] or Seven Angels.[90] The term 'plenitude' is an important neoplatonic term, however in Plotinus' neoplatonic doctrines, 'plenitude' was an activity in a hypostasis that retained its unity.[94]
3rd to 4th century[edit]
In the 3rd and 4th centuries, prominent members of the neoplatonic school in Rome and Alexandria were: the 3rd century Egyptian[19] philosopher Plotinus,[95] the founder of neoplatonism;[6] the 3rd century Alexandrian philosopher Ammonius Saccas, who taught Plotinus in Alexandria;[96] the 3rd century Etruscan-Roman philosopher Amelius,[22] who studied with Plotinus for over 20 years; the 3rd century Tyrian philosopher Porphyry,[97] who first studied with the 3rd century middle-Platonist philosopher Longinus in Athens and afterwards studied with Plotinus in Rome from 263 AD; the 3rd century Syrian philosopher Iamblichus,[98] who studied with Porphyry in Rome or Sicily; and the 4th century Roman emperor Julian, who as a philosopher, wrote simplified versions of the doctrines of Plotinus and Iamblichus.[99]
Ammonius Saccas[edit]
The 3rd century philosopher Ammonius Saccas established a school in Alexandria in c. 200 AD where one of his students was Plotinus.[96] As Ammonius' instruction was purely oral,[100] he did not write philosophical works,[101][102] it is difficult to know what Plotinus learned from him; however, since Plotinus studied under him for 11 years,[100] his influence on Plotinus was significant.[96] The hypothesis that Ammonius was Indian is improbable[103] and any Indian influence on neoplatonism was thought unlikely in the mid 20th century;[104][105] however, notable 21st century scholarship has opened major areas of research in that field.[106] The early 4th century Greek Christian historian Saint Eusebius, citing a work wrongly ascribed to Ammonius,[107][108][109] and the 4th century Christian theologian Saint Jerome, who confused Ammonius Saccas with another Ammonius,[108] both claimed Ammonius Saccas was a Christian, whereas Porphyry claimed he was born a Christian but reverted back to the Greek religion.[101] The 5th century neoplatonist Hierocles and Porphyry, in his work On the Return of the Soul (fr. 302F[110]), both stated that Ammonius attempted to harmonize the conflicting doctrines of Plato and Aristotle.[111]
Plotinus[edit]
The 3rd century Egyptian[112][19] philosopher Plotinus, born in 204 AD or 205 AD and died in 270 AD,[19] was the founder of neoplatonism,[113][114][115][116][117] that has had a profound influence on Middle Ages philosophy, and more broadly, on Western philosophy.[118] The principal source[119] of our biographical information about Plotinus comes from Porphyry's Life of Plotinus (Latin: Vita Plotini),[120] written in 301 AD[121] as a preface to his edition of Plotinus' works, called Enneads.[122] During the time Plotinus was a student of Ammonius Saccas in Alexandria, from 232–242 AD,[121] he became eager to learn about Persian and Indian philosophy.[123][124] To try to achieve that aim, in 242 AD Plotinus embarked on a military expedition with the Roman emperor Gordian III;[121] however, he did not venture very far east, as Gordian III was killed in Mesopotamia[125] in 244 AD,[126] and Plotinus escaped to the city Antioch.[123] In 244 AD[121] Plotinus settled in Rome, where he was to stay until the last year of his life,[123] and established a school there c. 245 AD marking the beginning of neoplatonism.[6]
Plotinus' school was open to all women and men, and attracted people who just wanted to hear his lectures or attend meetings or seminars or participate in open philosophical discussions, whilst others came to seek a philosophical way of life, and others attended because they wanted to become philosophers.[129] Subjects of study at the school included commentaries on Plato and Aristotle by the Middle Platonists, or Pythagoreans and Aristotelians.[130] Plotinus did not impose a rigid structured curriculum at his school, rather it was the thinking that one did for oneself that was important.[113] Plotinus remained head of his school in Rome until he moved to Campania for the last year of his life where he died in 270 AD at the age of 66.[123] Plotinus entrusted Porphyry with arranging his treatises, written in the last 17 years of his life, which Porphyry arranged according to subject matter into six sets of nine treatises, i.e. six enneads, where an 'ennead' is a set of nine, and called the work Enneads.[131] Porphyry completed the arrangement, about 30 years after Plotinus died, and it comprises everything Plotinus wrote and also includes a preface written by Porphyry.[132]
Porphyry[edit]
The 3rd century Tyrian[97] philosopher Porphyry, born in 234 AD and died in 305 AD,[97] flourished towards the end of the 3rd century amidst radical religious transformations that was to affect the entire Roman empire, resulting in the Diocletianic Persecution of Christians in 303 AD, about two years before Porphyry died.[133] In his biography of Plotinus, Life of Plotinus written in 301 AD,[121] Porphyry mentions meeting the early 3rd century Christian theologian Origen,[134] later he studied literature, rhetoric and philology with the 3rd century Syrian philosopher Longinus, and when he was 30, in c. 262 AD, went to Rome and studied philosophy with Plotinus[127] for six years, and in 268 AD left Rome for Sicily and married Marcella.[128]
Notable 21st century scholarship by the American historian of Christianity Elizabeth DePalma Digeser has revealed that the context of Porphyry's writings against the Christians, in his work Against the Christians, was a lot more complex[135] than the simple opposition of 'pagans'[note 3] and Christians.[137] Porphyry was not only 'at war' with the followers of the Christian theologian Origen over shaping religious law for the Roman empire, but he was similarly 'at war' with the school of Iamblichus, who was regarded by early Christians as a 'pagan'.[137] Further, Porphyry's work Against the Christians was only known as a single work several centuries after Porphyry's death.[138] The work Against the Christians cited by the Suda is likely a Byzantine summary of Porphyry's compositions that was circulated after the original compositions were burnt due to the edicts issued by the Eastern Roman emperor Theodosius II and the Roman emperor Valentinian III[139] in 448 AD.[138] Prior to those edicts, the Roman emperor Constantine had issued an edict, in 325 AD shortly after the First Council of Nicaea, that all of Porphyry's works be burnt and his reputation destroyed.[139]
Porphyry was amongst the first serious students of the Bible, and wrote on astrology;[140] religion, where he was an apologist for traditional Roman religion; philosophy, where he was a critic of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and the school of his student Iamblichus;[137] he also wrote on the 8th century BC author Homer in his work On the Cave of the Nymphs; and he also wrote on musical theory.[141][113] He is relevant to the history of mathematics because of: his work called Life of Pythagoras, that collects traditions of the Pythagoreans;[142] and his commentary on Euclid's Elements, that may have been used by the 4th century Greek mathematician Pappus, when he wrote his own commentary on Euclid's Elements.[143] Porphyry's introduction to Aristotle's Categoriae, called Isagoge, was important as an introduction to the study of logical works of Aristotle in Plotinus' school in Rome.[144]
Iamblichus[edit]
The 3rd century Syrian philosopher Iamblichus was born to a noble family in Chalcis ad Belum in c. 245 AD, and he may have studied with Porphyry in Rome.[145] He established a school in Syria that was an important link in the Platonic tradition.[146] We do not know much about Iamblichus' life, his date of birth is uncertain, and much of our biographical information, that comes from the 4th century Greek historian Eunapius of Sardis, lacks factual detail.[147] The 6th century Syrian philosopher Damascius, says in his work Life of Isidore, that Iamblichus descended from the royal line of priest-kings of Emesa,[148] where among his ancestors were Sampsigeramos and Monimos, the founder of Iamblichus’ native city.[149] We know that growing up in Syria during the mid 3rd century must have been confusing and disorientating, as during Iamblichus' early youth the Persian King Shapur I broke Roman Empire strongholds around the Kingdom of Chalcis and pillaged the whole of northern Syria, including Antioch.[148]
Scholars are unsure about who Iamblichus' teachers were, but think that he might have studied with Porphyry in Rome in the 280s AD; however, we know he was very critical of Porphyry's philosophical position,[154] and sought to reform the theological basis of neoplatonism.[155] It is not known when Iamblichus left Rome to set up his school in Apamea,[156][151][157] Syria, but the fact that he did make the move might indicate the tension that existed between him and Porphyry.[158] In the 3rd century AD, Apamea was a well-known centre of philosophy for over a century and was likely the base of the 2nd century philosopher Numenius of Apamea.[156] Iamblichus' school seems to have shared many similarities with other Platonic schools, in that students lived with or near their teacher, met daily and studied the works of Plato and Aristotle, and held discussions on set topics. The school was supported by the 3rd century sophist and neoplatonic philosopher Sopater, who was a distinguished citizen of Apamea.[156] Iamblichus is likely to have lived in Apamea in the 320s AD, and we say he died, or a terminus for his life can be found, before 326 or 327 AD, as that is when his supporter Sopater left Apamea for Constantinople.[159]
Iamblichus' works are complex and contentious and have attracted a lot of commentary by historians of philosophy and religion, and hold a noticeable place in contemporary scholarship.[146] He is hailed by some scholars as a superb and brilliant metaphysician, who further advanced Platonism, but discredited by other scholars for being obscure and introducing all sorts of superstitions into his texts.[146] One of Iamblichus' best known and most translated works is his treatise On the Pythagorean Way of Life, that is now a valuable and leading source of information on the Pythagorean tradition.[146] Another of his well known works On the Mysteries of Egypt, is popular amongst students of Platonism and classical religion.[160] That work is a reply by Abamon to a letter Porphyry addressed to Anebo, where it is thought by scholars that Abamon is a pseudonym for Iamblichus, and Anebo might have been a member of Iamblichus' circle.[161] There has been much late 20th century and 21st century scholarship on Iamblichus' commentaries, treatises, letters and fragments, that have overcome many old prejudices, and now his works are seen as an enticing field of study for students of late Platonism[162] Late Platonism is a term used in 21st century scholarship to describe a progression of ideas, including Stoic and Hermetic elements, found in both middle Platonism and neoplatonism.[163]
4th to 5th century[edit]
In the 4th and 5th centuries, prominent members of the neoplatonic school in Athens and Alexandria were: the late 4th century Greek philosopher Plutarch of Athens,[164] who was head of the neoplatonic school in Athens until his death in c. 432 AD; the 5th century Greek philosopher Syrianus,[164] who was head of the neoplatonic school in Athens for five years after Plutarch of Athens, until 437 AD;[165] and the 5th century philosopher Proclus,[166] who was head of the neoplatonic school in Athens after Syrianus, for nearly 50 years, until 485 AD.[167] A prominent member of the neoplatonic school in Alexandria was the late 4th to early 5th century Egyptian philosopher Hypatia,[168] who taught mathematics, astronomy and philosophy.
Hypatia[edit]
The late 4th to early 5th century Alexandrian philosopher, mathematician and astronomer[169] Hypatia, who most[170] scholars say was born in Alexandria in c. 370 AD, but some 21st century scholars put the year of her birth as early as c. 350 AD,[171][172][173] was the first distinctly neoplatonic philosopher that taught in one brilliant[174] period of neoplatonism in Alexandria.[168] It is clear that Hypatia had a comprehensive education,[175] and embraced neoplatonic philosophy;[176] however, apart from her father, the 4th century Alexandrian mathematician Theon of Alexandria, nothing is known about her other teachers.[175]
Hypatia took over the position of head[177] of the neoplatonic[178] school in Alexandria from her father,[179] and there she taught mathematics,[179] astronomy[180] and a philosophy based on the ideas of Plotinus and Porphyry that emphasized contemplation over ritual.[181] One of Hypatia's students, from 390–395 AD,[182] was the 5th century Greek bishop Synesius of Cyrene,[183] who wrote letters to Hypatia, seven of which survive to explain the workings of Hypatia’s inner circle of students, and the rapport Hypatia shared with those students.[184] Other students of Hypatia included Synesius' brothers Eutropius and Alexander, the sophist Athanasius, and Synesius’ friend Olympius.[185]
By 415 AD, Hypatia had been Alexandria’s leading thinker for 35 years and was having regular audiences[186] with Orestes, the Roman governor of Alexandria.[187] Whilst Hypatia had no formal authority in the government of Alexandria, her presence at Orestes’ side was very beneficial to Orestes and made him appear to be the reasonable party in any dispute, and so Hypatia was seen by Alexandrians as a tremendous symbolic power.[187] By March 415 AD[188] there had been three years[189] of confrontations, at times violent,[190] between: supporters of the 5th century bishop of Alexandria Saint Cyril of Alexandria; other Alexandrian groups; and supporters of Orestes;[187] that led to a fateful situation that quickly got out of control,[191] and tragically resulted in the murder of Hypatia by an angry mob.[192]
Hypatia's works include a commentary on the work Arithmetica by the 3rd century mathematician Diophantus of Alexandria; a commentary on the work Conic Sections by the 3rd century BC geometer Apollonius of Perga, both which are lost; an edited manuscript of astronomical tables, originally written by the 2nd century Alexandrian mathematician Ptolemy, called Handy Tables; and a commentary on Book 3 and possibly also on Books 4–13 of Ptolemy's astronomical treatise called Almagest.[193]
Proclus[edit]
The 5th century philosopher Proclus elaborated on Plotinus' neoplatonism with an intricate view of the unseen world[194] and also provided a systematic allegorization of the dialogues of Plato.[195] Proclus, born in Constantinople between 410[196]–412 AD,[197] received his early education in Xanthus[198] and then travelled to Alexandria, when he was about 15 or 16[199] years old, to study rhetoric, Roman law, mathematics and philosophy.[200][201] In Alexandria, he was taught by: Leonas of Isauria;[202] the 5th century grammarian Orion of Thebes;[199] the 5th century neoplatonic philosopher Olympiodorus the Elder, with whom he studied works by Aristotle,[199] and the 5th century Alexandrian mathematician Heron, with whom he studied mathematics.[203] Proclus was a brilliant[180] student with a remarkable memory[204] and quickly comprehended the logical works of Aristotle.[205]
From Alexandria, he sailed to Athens, where he lived in the Athenian neoplatonic school, and there studied the works of Plato and Aristotle with the late 4th to early 5th century Greek neoplatonic philosopher Plutarch of Athens, and the 5th century Greek neoplatonic philosopher Syrianus.[206] At the school, Proclus was also instructed on Chaldaean[207] wisdom by the 5th century Greek philosopher Asclepigenia, the daughter of Archiades[208] and Plutarch of Athens.[209] After Syrianus had died, in c. 437 AD, Proclus at the age of about 25 became the head of the neoplatonic school in Athens,[210] a position he held for nearly 50 years, until he died in 485 AD.[167]
During Proclus' time as the head of the neoplatonic school of Athens, he taught many students, some of the more prominent were:
- Agapius of Athens,[212] was one of Proclus' last students and who later worked with the physician Gessius of Petra in Alexandria, and then set up his own school of philosophy in Constantinople where he taught the 5th century writer John Lydus, who described him as the 'last' and the 'first' of Proclus’ students;[213] "...the soul is at one and the same time, the first and the last"[214]—Proclus, Commentary on Timaeus II.150.14
- Ammoniums Hermias,[215] who in c. 470 AD became head of the neoplatonic school in Alexandria;[216]
- Anthemius, later to become a Western Roman emperor;[217]
- Asclepiodotus of Alexandria, who was one of Proclus' best[218] students and later left Athens to become a senator in Aphrodisias;[219]
- Heliodorus of Alexandria, brother of Ammoniums Hermias, who went on to become a philosopher in Alexandria;[220]
- Isidore of Alexandria,[221] who in c. 488-489 AD fled with the 6th century Syrian philosopher Damascius from Alexandria to avoid persecution,[215] and also influenced Damascius to turn from the study of rhetoric to the study of philosophy,[222] and who later was as the head of the neoplatonic school in Athens after Marinus of Neapolis.[223]
- Marinus of Neapolis, a mathematician who succeeded Proclus as the head of the neoplatonic school in Athens, and was his biographer;[223]
- Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, the late 5th century to early 6th century Christian theologian, who was probably a student[224][225] of Proclus or a student of the late neoplatonic school of Athens[226] or a hearer of Proclus' lectures;[227]
- Severianus of Damascus,[228] who later became the chief minister to Anthemius in Rome.[229]
Marinus of Neapolis, Proclus' biographer, reports Proclus lived in Athens as a predominantly vegetarian scholar, prosperous and generous to his friends, and that Proclus had a great devotion to the goddess Athena, whom he believed guided him in key moments of his life.[211] Proclus was a prominent member of Athenian society, remained unmarried, promoted literary studies, composed letters for noblemen and gave advice to magistrates.[230] He was also involved in public education and was under the protection of a distinguished member of Athenian society called Rufinus.[223] In his prime, Proclus would usually deliver five lectures a day, and at times hold informal evening discussions, write hymns at night, employ himself with his Orphic and Chaldaic devotions, and write or dictate to a scribe about 700 lines a day.[223][231]
Proclus' major activity was writing commentaries on Plato's dialogues, but he also spent some time writing on mathematics, astronomy, treatises of philosophical expositions, and hymns to deities.[232] Of major importance are his lengthy commentaries on Plato's dialogues in: Commentary on First Alcibiades, Commentary on Cratylus, Commentary on Parmenides, Commentary on Republic, and Commentary on Timaeus.[233][234] Also of importance is his lengthy work Commentary on the First Book of Euclid's Elements, his systematic neoplatonic theological work Elements of Theology, and his lengthy neoplatonic theological work Platonic Theology.[233][234] Proclus is one of the most influential philosophical commentators of antiquity, and is regarded by some scholars as the greatest neoplatonic philosopher of the 5th century AD.[235]
5th to 6th century[edit]
In the 5th and 6th centuries, prominent members of the neoplatonic school in Athens and Alexandria were: the 5th century Alexandrian philosopher Ammonius,[236] who was a student of Proclus and afterwards was the head of the neoplatonic school in Alexandria; the 6th century Greek philosopher Simplicius of Cilicia,[29] who was a student of Ammonius; the late 5th to early 6th century Syrian philosopher Damascius,[29] who was head of the neoplatonic school of Athens in 529 AD when it was closed by administrators due to laws confirmed by Justinian I;[237] and the 6th century Alexandrian[238] philosopher Olympiodorus,[239] who was head of the Alexandrian neoplatonic school after Ammonius, and was still lecturing in Alexandria in 565 AD.[240]
Damascius[edit]
Much of what we know about the late 5th to early 6th century Syrian philosopher Damascius' life comes from his semi-autobiographical work called The Philosophical History, or Life of Isidore, and from a work called Vita Severi written by the 6th century bishop and historian Zacharias Scholasticus.[241] Damascius, as his name suggests, was born in Damascus in c. 462 AD, and travelled to Alexandria in the 480s AD to study rhetoric at the coeducational school of the late 5th century Alexandrian professor[242] Horapollo, where students of different religions and philosophies studied together.[243] Zacharias reports that there was a close relationship between the neoplatonic communities of Athens and Alexandria, as Agapius of Athens and Severianus of Damascus, students of Proclus' neoplatonic school in Athens, also studied in neoplatonic schools in Alexandria.[244] Damascius may have travelled to Athens shortly before Proclus died in 485 AD, to teach rhetoric, and travelled back to Alexandria before 488 AD.[222]
.jpg)
Late 5th century Alexandria was a tumultuous place, there were conflicting factions of pro-Chalcedonian and Monophysite Christians, and a growing hostile sentiment towards neoplatonists and people of other non-Christian religions and philosophies that sometimes led to rioting and arrests of leaders of non-Christian schools, resulting in students having to flee and go into hiding.[245] Damascius' accounts of these times paints a picture of a circle of intellectuals that was under siege, arrested, interrogated and who were sometimes courageous, but at other times capitulated.[245] Horapollo, the head of the school at which Damascius had studied and taught rhetoric for nine years,[222] was arrested in 489 AD causing Damascius and the neoplatonic philosopher Isidore of Alexandria to flee Alexandria and start on a journey to Athens with the aim of studying in the neoplatonic school in Athens.[245]
That journey took eight months, and during that time Damascius writes that he lost interest in pursuing a profession as a rhetorician.[245] When they finally arrived in Athens, Damascius and Isidore became students of the 5th century neoplatonist Marinus of Neapolis, Proclus' successor, at the neoplatonic school of Athens.[245] By 515 AD, Damascius had become head of the neoplatonic school in Athens, succeeding Marinus of Neapolis successor Isidore,[246] and continued Isidore's path of steering the school back to the philosophical studies of Aristotle, Plato, Orphic theogony and the Chaldean Oracles, and away from theurgy and rituals, which were previously being favoured, most likely due to the increasing external pressure on the school's philosophical teachings.[247] Damascius was still the head of the school in 529 AD after the Byzantine emperor Justinian I confirmed his Novum Justinianeum Codicem, or Codex Justinianus,[25] on the 7th of April 529 AD;[28] and administrators[248] enforcing the new laws, after they had legal force on the 16th of April 529 AD,[28] closed the last neoplatonic school in Athens.[245]
According to the 6th century historian Agathias, soon after the school closed in 529 AD, Damascius, Isidore, and the 6th century neoplatonic philosophers: Simplicius of Cilicia, Eulamius of Phrygia, Priscianus of Lydia, Hermias and Diogenes of Phoenicia; left Athens and travelled to Persia, where they had heard that the intellectual climate might be more suited to them,[249][250] under the refuge of the Persian King Chrosroes.[29] It is not known if Damascius and his retinue of philosophers arrived in Persia, although late 20th and early 21st century scholarship by the French historian and philosopher Pierre Hadot, French scholar Michel Tardieu and German historian and philosopher Ilsetraut Hadot, advanced the establishment of a neoplatonic school in Charrae (present-day Harran,[251] Turkey) in the Persian Empire,[250] a view that is disputed by other 21st century scholarship.[252] The last trace of Damascius we have is a epigram carved in stele in Emesa that confirms Damascius returned to Syria in 538 AD, and that is also the year we say he died.[253] Damascius composed a number of works, and fortunately we have a significant number of his works in fragments or derived from his writings, the more complete works being: the literary work Life of Isidore, or Philosophical History, preserved by Saint Photius the Great;[29] and the philosophical works: Problems and Solutions Concerning First Principles; Commentary on the Parmenides; Commentary on the Phaedo; and Lectures on the Philebus.[254]
Doctrines[edit]
The Enneads of Plotinus are the first full expression of an interpretation of Plato that continued through the key neoplatonic philosophers, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Proclus and Damascius.[255] Plotinus' Enneads stand at the beginning of neoplatonism and the works of Proclus at its apex.[256] The neoplatonists, rather than saying they were pioneers or original thinkers, said they provided critical explanations or interpretations of previous ancient texts and doctrines, a famous example of that time-honoured claim to accepted practice amongst neoplatonists is found in Plotinus' Ennead 5.1.8.11–15: [257]
It is frequently said that Plotinus was a 'mystic' and hence the Enneads are a form of 'mysticism'; however, the type of 'mysticism' that can be correctly applied to the Enneads must avoid all connection with magic,[259] irrationality, emotional experience, trance-like states, or Dionysian experiences.[260][261] Plotinus only once, in Ennead 1.6.8.25, speaks explicitly of 'mysticism' (or 'myein', which means to close one's eyes) and there it means completely turning the mind away from all sensations and concentrating the mind entirely upon itself and what is internal, with the goal of achieving a clarity of intellect.[260] A more common mistake, and a 'capital error', is to label neoplatonists as 'mystics'.[259]
Plotinus was the first neoplatonist to develop the hierarchy of the One, Intellect and Soul, but it was not a fixed doctrine of scholastic rigidity, rather it was a theoretical structure that enabled the exploration of Platonism.[263] In the Enneads, Plotinus employs the first three hypothesis of Parmenides by Plato to derive doctrines in which reality has three hypostases, the One, Intellect, and Soul.[257] For Plotinus, the first hypothesis of the Parmenides, at 137c4, is referred to as the One, and is the first hypostasis that is the transcendent source of all.[257] The second hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides is referred to by Plotinus as Intellect, or Nous, and is the second hypostasis that arises when the One comprehends itself giving rise to Being, which is an intelligible realm of eternal intellects each comprehending all the other intellects.[257] The third hypostasis is Soul, which is generated by Nous, and it is where temporal beings are generated and embodied, and whose ultimate destiny is a return to their source by recovering their unity with the One.[257]
The One[edit]
For Plotinus, the One (τὸ ἕν),[264] or the first principle, could be imagined as a spring of water from which all rivers have their source:[265]
Plotinus' first principle, the One (or the Good), is among the most remarkable and most perplexing beliefs of ancient Greek philosophy.[267] His doctrine of the One builds on earlier doctrines, notably from Plato's Parmenides and Republic, but its depth transcends earlier endeavours to postulate a totally simple, ineffable first cause of everything.[267] His doctrines lead to the conclusion of a unique, absolutely simple first cause, having no division, that is beyond being and non-being, and there is nothing, after having named it, that needs to be said about the One, or the Good.[268]
Plotinus' argument that the One is beyond being[171] is derived from Book VI (509b) of the Republic,[270] when, in the course of his famous analogy of the sun, Plato says that the Good transcends being (ἐπέκεινα τῆς οὐσίας) in dignity and surpassing power.[271] Plotinus' doctrines led him to the conclusion that the One is beyond thought, knowledge and language, but can be known through its effects.[272] In Plotinus' neoplatonic doctrines, the One, by generating the second hypostasis Nous, or Intellect, implies that a unique mentality is present in the One; however, our concepts of mentality imply plurality and hence are unsuited to the comprehension of the mentality of the One.[272] Plotinus also explains that when the One generates something, which he calls emanation, it does so without losing anything of itself, which he calls a double activity, and that entire external act is called by Plotinus a potential intellect.[272] That potential intellect becomes actual when the potential intellect seeks to comprehend its source, the One, and in so doing, generates Platonic Ideas (or Forms).[272]
Emanation or Double Activity[edit]
For Plotinus, his neoplatonic doctrines of emanation and double activity explain how things come to be from the One,[273] and hence they permeate through all his doctrines in his work Enneads.[274] Physical analogies or metaphors are often used by Plotinus to describe the generation of beings, and in his notable description of the emanation of the hypostasis of Soul from the hypostasis of Nous, in Ennead 5.1.3, he uses the analogy of 'fire':[275]
In Ennead 5.1.3, Plotinus discusses his doctrine of emanation and double activity.[277] The pictorial language of emanation metaphors is described by the philosophical term double activity.[275] In each of the three neoplatonic hypostasis, the One, Nous and Soul, there is a characteristic activity that is an internal, or a self-contained activity of the hypostasis, which Plotinus calls 'being', or 'essence' (ousia).[277] Accompanying each internal activity, or internal act, is an external act that generates the next hypostasis, and that double activity is what Plotinus refers to as emanation.[277][278] The generated hypostasis is a diminished image of the generator and it acts according to the power it receives.[279] As to why there was a first emanation from the One, it is described metaphorically by Plotinus as due to the One having such an abundance that it overflowed, which Plotinus calls 'superabundance' in Ennead 5.2.1.7–9:[280]
Neoplatonists after Plotinus employed his doctrine of double activity to understand the relationship between Platonic Ideas, or Forms, and material bodies, where Forms are principles in the hypostasis of Nous.[282] They found the doctrine of double activity preserved the transcendence of Forms, and while remaining undiminished, Forms could generate likenesses of themselves in the hypostasis of Soul, which in the same way as Forms, could generate likenesses of themselves in material bodies.[282] Plotinus also discusses his doctrine of double activity in Ennead 2.9.8.16–26; 5.3.7.18–34; 5.4.1.21–41 and 5.4.2.19–33.[283]
Proclus formalizes and systematizes Plotinus' doctrine of double activity in Elements of Theology propositions 18[284] and 28,[285] elaborates on the doctrine in his Commentary on Parmenides IV 908.19–31, and applies the doctrine to explain the causal nature of the Demiurge in Platonic Theology V 18.64.25–65.7.[273] The roots of Plotinus' doctrine of emanation and double activity can be found in Plato's Republic Book VI 509e–509b and Book IV 443c–d, Timaeus 29e and 42e4–5, Symposium 212a–b, and Phaedrus 245c–d and also in Aristotle's On Generation and Corruption 336b ff.[286] The 20th century French philosopher Henri Bergson, who was influenced by Plotinus,[287] also employs the concept of double activity in his book Time and Free Will and includes a quote from Plotinus in the front matter of the book.[288]
Return to the One[edit]
A crucial premise of neoplatonism, and why it constitutes a religion, is that all things progress from the One and all things, especially human souls, have a destiny to return to the One.[289][290][291]
Henads[edit]
The declaration of an absolutely transcendent One by Plotinus is one of his most remarkable philosophical innovations.[292] However, Plotinus left a yawning gulf[293] between the One and reality, in that he could not explain how to get plurality out of the absolutely transcendent One, without first putting plurality into the One, thereby contradicting his definition of the One.[293] Plotinus more or less confesses this in Ennead 6.8.9:[293]
Porphyry struggled with the problem of generating multiplicity from the One whilst leaving the One absolutely transcendent, and Iamblichus posits two Ones in his solution to the problem,[292] which later neoplatonists did not accept.[295] The late neoplatonist Proclus explained his solution to this problem in his doctrine of henads, formalized and systematized in his Elements of Theology propositions 113–165,[296] which he attributes to his teacher Syrianus.[297] The complex theology[298] of henads, elaborated by Proclus, imports plurality into the first hypostasis while leaving intact the absolute unity of the One.[293] Proclus' neoplatonic doctrine of henads asserts that henads are: individual,[299] limited in number,[299] are more unified than the beings in the second hypostasis of Nous,[299] are transcendent sources of plurality without internal differentiation,[300] are unifying principles, heads of chains of causation at the summit of the second hypostasis of Nous and the third hypostasis of Soul,[301] and are allegorically represented by distinctive properties[302] of particular gods in Greek mythology, which are then reflected in different levels of reality. For example, the generic attributes[303] of the monad Helios, progresses (where progressions imply likeness)[304] into the material universe through a series of causation resulting in the Sun itself, people with a sun-like soul, sun-like animals, e.g. a rooster, sun-like plants, e.g. heliotropes and stones like sunstones.[305]
Nous[edit]
In the neoplatonism of Plotinus, the second hypostasis called Nous (νοῦς),[306] or Intellect, which emanates from the first hypostasis called the One, is a grade of reality, or level of existence that is different from the One because of its plurality.[307] For Plotinus, Nous is as unified as anything plural can be, as it is the first emanation from the One.[307] Nous is a locus of real beings; known as Platonic Ideas, or Forms; and simultaneously, a locus of perfect knowledge.[307] A fundamental aspect of Plotinus' doctrine of Nous is that being, or essence, and knowledge, coalesce in Nous.[307] Without the absolute simplicity of the One, three logically distinct things are evident in Nous: the subject of thought, or the thinker; the act of thought; and the object of thought; each requiring the others, and forming a unity.[308] Plotinus somewhat illuminates these conceptions in Ennead 5.3.13.16–21:[309]
Plotinus explains the simultaneous plurality and unity of Nous using the five fundamental Platonic Ideas, or Forms: being, difference, sameness, motion and rest; from which are generated all other Forms; as described in Plato's Sophist 254d ff.[311] In Plotinus' doctrine of Nous, Nous is self-thinking, but because Nous is immaterial and the object of its thought, the One, is also immaterial, then: the act of thought, the subject of thought and the object of thought are the same, and hence form a unity.[312] For Plotinus, Nous is also non-temporal and therefore when it comprehends something, it does so instantaneously and as a whole.[312] Further, each of the Forms in Nous reflect that wholeness of Nous, which means if one Form comprehends another Form, it instantaneously comprehends all Forms in the hypostasis of Nous.[312]
Plotinus held a view that the highest part of a human soul is perpetual intuitive[313] and can attain unification with Nous, and hence unification with the major gods of Greek theology.[314] However, Iamblichus and later neoplatonists[315] downgraded Plotinus' position, as it would enable a theurgist to manipulate the major gods, and instead limited a human soul's contact to intermediate beings in the hypostasis of Soul, which in turn 'opened the door'[314] to a culture that Plotinus had condemned in his treatise Against the Gnostics.[316][314]
Soul[edit]
According to the doctrines of Plotinus, Soul (ψυχή);[317] the third and last immaterial hypostasis; is generated by Nous, the second hypostasis.[318] The hypostasis of Soul, due to its many aspects, and being the principle of life, is the most complex hypostasis in the doctrines of Plotinus and later neoplatonists.[319] For Plotinus, some aspects of Soul always remain in the immaterial realm and eternally aspire to comprehend beings in Nous, other aspects rule the motions of the universe and generate material qualities and quantities, including matter; and still other aspects generate and control activities in human beings such as reasoning, sense perception and digestion.[318] Further, for Plotinus, a human soul experiences a desire to comprehend those aspects in the hypostasis of Soul that in turn aspire to comprehend beings in the hypostasis of Nous.[318]
The many aspects of the hypostasis of Soul are derived from Plotinus' reading of Plato, where those aspects are the same as Plato's conception of soul, with perhaps the exception of the hypostasis of Soul generating matter.[318] In his conception of the hypostasis of Soul, Plotinus is also influenced by Aristotle's psychological terminology, that he largely adopts, but despite Plotinus' wholehearted attempts to clarify questions regarding the hypostasis of Soul, in Ennead 3.7 and 4.3–4.5, numerous questions remain unanswered,[318] or are left ambiguous, such as the relationship between soul, eternity and time, as discussed in Ennead 3.7.11–12 and 4.4–4.5.[320]
In Plotinus' doctrines, the hypostasis of Soul is similar to the hypostasis of Nous in that it is essentially a thinker; however, thoughts in Nous are non-discursive and intuitive, whereas in Soul they are discursive and only partially intuitive.[321] The relationship between the hypostasis of Soul and the hypostasis of Nous follows Plotinus' pattern of double activity, as expressed in Ennead 5.1.6.45–48:[322]
The comprehension between souls in the hypostasis of Soul is diminished when compared with the comprehension between Forms in the hypostasis of Nous, but is similar to Forms and their comprehension of the hypostasis of Nous, in that each soul comprehends the whole hypostasis of Soul in itself.[321] For Plotinus, the hypostasis of Soul has at least five aspects, the World-Soul, or the soul of the universe; souls of stars; the soul of the Earth; human souls; and the soul of the whole hypostasis of Soul.[324] With the exception of the soul of the hypostasis of Soul, all the other souls are individual souls, i.e. they are souls of particular material bodies.[322] Often in Plotinus' doctrines, the souls of stars and the soul of the Earth are seen as aspects of the World-Soul, whilst nature, or the vegetative soul, is a power that controls biological functions and is regarded as an immanent phase of the World-Soul.[321]
The neoplatonic doctrine on the immortality of the soul is discussed in Plotinus' Ennead 4.7.[325] Plotinus' doctrines on soul are substantially Platonic, as a soul does not need a material body to exist, and has activities of its own as well as having activities it employs through its material body.[321] His doctrines on soul convey that: a soul is not in a material body, rather a material body is in a soul; a soul animates, or gives life to a material body; and a material body does not affect its soul, just as light itself is unaffected by the air it illuminates.[321] Whilst the Stoics and Epicureans hold that a soul is some sort of body, and the Aristotelians hold that it is a form of matter, Plotinus has numerous objections about those conceptions, that he expounds in Ennead 3.7, 4.2–4.4, and 4.8–4.9.[326]
Late neoplatonists strongly held to a doctrine that a human soul had a rational aspect and an irrational aspect.[327] That view has its roots in Plato's Republic where he divided the soul into three aspects, rational, spirited and irrational.[328] For Plato, and the neoplatonists, the rational aspect was capable of thought, while the other two aspects linked the soul to the body and physical world.[328] Neoplatonists also embraced the Platonic and Aristotelian conceptions of an aspect in human and animal souls called phantasia (φαντασία), that governs the appearance of sensible objects as mental images,[329] and in human souls, also governs the appearance that something is the case,[329] like an opinion.[330] For Plotinus, in Ennead 4.3.30.2–11, and Proclus, in Commentary on the First book of Euclid's Elements 141.2–19 and 121.2–7, there is a crucial point in the human soul, between the rational and irrational aspects, called phantastikon (φανταστικόν) which acts like a mirror that imperfectly reflects the rational aspect of a human soul into the irrational aspect.[331]
Neoplatonism also adopted Aristotle's conception of eudaimonia, a reversion to the most excellent rational aspect of the human soul, the intellect.[332] In Aristotle's conception of eudaimonia, which is discussed in Nicomachean Ethics II–VI, intellectual virtues are the excellences of the rational aspect in a human soul, which are capable of persuading, by reason, the irrational aspect of a human soul to excellent moral values.[333]
Intermediate Souls[edit]
The 3rd century Syrian neoplatonist philosopher Iamblichus, in his books I, II and III of de Mysteriis, discusses intermediate souls between planetary gods and human souls and especially angels, daemons (spirit, daimon, δαίμων)[334] and heroes, that exist in separate well-ordered ranks and that cannot change into each other.[335] For Iamblichus, a human soul could not change into another type of soul, but the antecedent ranks of souls, such as planetary gods, angels, daemons and heroes, were helpful for a human soul's ascent, even though they remained separate.[335] That ascent, for Iamblichus, required the mastery of our own souls through philosophic study and theurgic purification.[335] In Iamblichus' work de Mysteriis 100.2–5, Iamblichus objects to the 3rd century Tyrian neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry's request for a precise enunciation of the divination of the future, on the grounds that it cannot be understood as a natural phenomenon, nor is it a human technique capable of discursive analysis, and hence rules out the divination of the future by some kind of theurgic ritual designed to contact angels, daemons or other intermediate souls.[336]
However, well before the 3rd century AD neoplatonist philosopher Iamblichus, the 4th century BC Greek philosopher Plato, an authority for neoplatonists,[337] mentions daemons in his work Laws 713d, where the Athenian Stranger describing a most ancient tradition says, daemons are assigned by Cronos as 'kings and rulers' of cities as they are 'nobler and more divine' than humans,[338][339] and also in Laws 717b, Plato says, again through the Athenian Stranger, that a 'wise man' should offer worship to daemons and then heroes, both after the gods.[340] For the 1st century Jewish-Greek[40] philosopher Philo of Alexandria, an important forerunner of neoplatonism, angels take on a limited mediating role with little autonomy when compared to the logos, where they are regarded as the two principal powers, sovereignty and goodness, as explained in his work De cherubim 27–28 and 35; however, in his work De confusione linguarum 28, angels are regarded as nearly comprising the entirety of the logos.[341] Further, in Philo's other works, De gigantibus 12 and De plantatione 14, he regards angels as the equivalent of daemons (daimones), souls that are not embodied or as heroes, and where in his work De Abrahamo 115 and De somniis I.143, they are ministers and ambassadors of God that benefit humans, whilst not being directly connected with God.[341]
The 2nd century Syrian philosopher Numenius of Apamea; whose thoughts on angels and daemons are said to be reflected in the work Commentary on the Timaeus (120 and 133) by the 4th century philosopher Calcidius; associated ether, air and humidity with angels and daemons, the highest rank being occupied by angels.[343] The 3rd century Christian theologian Saint Origen, in his work Against Celsus 5.4, and the late 4th century former neoplatonist and Christian theologian Saint Augustine, in his work City of God 9.23, both held the view that although neoplatonists postulated intermediate souls, they were not violating Christian doctrines, as those souls owed their divine characteristics to one God.[344] Saint Augustine, in his work City of God 9.19, treated all demons (different spelling) as bad, and regarded angels as good.[345]
The 3rd century neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry, in his works On Abstinence From Animal Food and Against the Christians, writes of a class of angels that live in an aetherial region and teach divine knowledge,[346] which he contrasts with a class of daemons that dwell below the moon.[347] Porphyry also writes, in his work On Abstinence From Animal Food, that daemons have vaporous bodies that can change shape according to their imaginings (phantasiai); however, their bodies are not eternal and depend on nourishment from sacrifices and cooking smoke; however, the nourishment arguments are rejected by Iamblichus.[345] Porphyry differentiates between good and bad demons, where the good daemons look after crops and animals, while bad demons harm humans, and sacrifices in no way persuade them to do good.[345] For the 5th century neoplatonist philosopher Proclus, angels, daemons and heroes are described, in his work Tria opuscula, as superior souls where all three are classed as a kind of daemon.[340] Proclus also cites Plato's comments in Laws 717b, in his Commentary on the Cratylus 68.25, with regard to the worshipping of the heroic class of Intermediate souls,[340] and in his work On the Existence of Evils writes that daemons are not evil.[348] The 6th century neoplatonist philosopher Olympiodorus, whose students were mostly Christians, taught that to accurately reflect neoplatonic doctrines, Christians should regard neoplatonic daemons as a Christian would regard angels.[342]
Evils[edit]
So writes the 3rd century neoplatonist philosopher and founder of neoplatonism[113][116] Plotinus in his Enneads,[350] where he gives an example, as part of his famed central neoplatonic doctrine on evil (κακόν)[351] in Ennead 1.8,[352] that there can be no world without Form actioning Matter (ὕλη[353]).[354] For Plotinus, Form and Matter are 'one illuminated reality', and it is only when Matter is abstractly isolated, by an 'illegitimate' reasoning, that Matter appears to be evil by resisting the One and the Good.[354] Plotinian Matter is not the physical matter of 21st century physics, it is an immaterial absence of order,[355] a bare receptacle for Form which alone gives it essence and reality.[353] In Plotinus' doctrines, the half-blinded aspect of the human soul, a clouded perception, and the shapeless object called Matter, all belong together, and all desire to rise into a light were they will be renewed.[354] Plotinus had a faith that hierarchies of existence and ethical value must correspond, his entire philosophy is based on that assumption,[356] hence that which has the lowest degree of reality, Matter, must correspond to the lowest ethical value, evil.[356]
In his doctrine On the Existence of Evils, the 5th century neoplatonic philosopher Proclus advances a systematic development of the Platonic doctrine on evil.[357] In that doctrine, Proclus rejects Plotinus' identification of evil with matter in Ennead 1.8.[357] Proclus' most compelling argument uses Aristotle's definition of contraries, which asserts contraries belong to the same genus that is prior[358] to the contraries.[359] For Proclus, if evil exists in Plotinian Matter, then it is identical to Plotinian Matter and exists on its own, as Plotinian Matter exists on its own.[359] Now, by Proclus' argument, if the One, also known as the Good, and evil are contraries that both exist on their own, they must belong to the same genus that is prior to the contraries, according to Aristotle's definition of contraries.[359] But there is no genus antecedent to the Good and its contrary, as for Proclus the Good is the first principle.[359] Therefore, by Proclus' argument, evil is not contrary to the Good, and evil does not exist on its own, for if it did, evil and the Good would be contraries, which Proclus has shown leads to a contradiction, and hence evil is not Plotinian Matter, which according to both Plotinus and Proclus, does exist on its own.[359] Further, by Aristotle's definition of contraries, Proclus argues that nothing is contrary to the Good.[360]
For Proclus, it is better to speak of evils (κακά)[351] as a plural, as relative evils exist, but an independent principle of evil does not exist.[361] In his doctrine on evils, On the Existence of Evils, Proclus systematically examines the three neoplatonic hypostases, and their divisions, and finds that evils are not to be found in gods, divine souls, angels, daemons or heroes, but are only present in human souls, i.e. the rational aspect of human souls; and also images of souls, i.e. the irrational aspect of human souls, animal souls, and the governing principle of particular material bodies.[362] Further, in his doctrine On the Existence of Evils, Proclus argues that the evils in particular souls only affects powers and activities, but does not corrupt their essence; however, particular material bodies can have their essence corrupted by evils.[362] According to Proclus, those souls in which evils are present, where evils are produced out of the weakness in a soul, are souls that are capable of not acting according to their nature, and are capable of choosing that which is worse.[363]
According to Proclus' doctrine On the Existence of Evils, everything, including evils, needs some power of the good for its existence, which originates from the first principle of the Good, as all things after the first principle are at all times mixed with some form of good.[364] Towards the end of his doctrine On the Existence of Evils, Proclus speaks of evils as a privation of a good, a privation that is more than a reduction of order and function, like the privation of a form, but rather evils are a privation that can invade and subvert the order of a body, because evils derive their power from the good, and therefore evils maybe termed a 'subcontrary' to the good.[365] Proclus' concept of 'subcontrary' is derived from Plato's Theaetetus 176a, and is defined by Proclus as a special form of contrary where evils derive their essence and power from the good it opposes.[365]
Vehicles of Soul[edit]
For late neoplatonists, the invariable essence of a soul was to animate a body, and because the soul has a perpetual existence, there is also a body that is animated perpetually and perpetually existent.[366] The 3rd to 6th century neoplatonists Plotinus, Porphyry, Macrobius, Plutarch of Athens, Syrianus, Proclus, Damascius, Simplicius and Olympiodorus gradually formalized into a neoplatonic doctrine a long held Greek theory about the perpetual body of a soul called 'ókhēma-pneûma' (ὂχημα-πνεῦμα) where 'ókhēma' means chariot, or vehicle, and 'pneûma' means spirit.[367][368]
The ókhēma-pneûma, or vehicles of a soul, has a transcendent aspect (ókhēma) that is immaterial, incapable of suffering, imperishable and is the perpetual source of irrationality in a human soul which survives every purgation of a soul; and an immanent aspect (pneûma) that is a temporary accumulation made of fire, water, air and earth that carries the irrational soul proper, survives bodily death, but is eventually purged.[369] In the late neoplatonic ókhēma-pneûma doctrine, a human soul is perpetually embodied by the transcendent vehicle of a soul in its cycle between its return to the hypostasis of Soul and its progression back to the material universe.[369][370]
The origins of the neoplatonic doctrine on vehicles of soul comes from Plato's: Phaedrus 247b, where gods use vehicles to circle the heavens; Phaedo 113d, where souls are taken in vessels, or vehicles, to Acheron; Timaeus 41e and 69c, where in Timaeus 41e the Demiurge uses stars as vehicles to sow rational souls, in Timaeus 69c where the body is called the soul's vehicle; and in Laws 898e, where the soul procures itself a body made of fire and air.[371][337][372]
In the neoplatonic doctrines on vehicles of soul:
- the immanent vehicle of the soul (pneûma) feels desires and pain, which enables its punishment after the material body dies, in Olympiodorus' Commentary on Plato's Gorgias;[373]
- vehicles of a soul recognize other vehicles of soul, which enable souls to communicate (by sunesis) after the material body dies, in Plotinus' Enneads and Proclus' Commentary on Plato's Republic;[374]
- human desires and senses come from the immanent vehicle of the soul (pneûma), in Proclus Commentary on Plato's Timaeus where he paraphrases Syrianus;[375]
- some humans can hear daemons through their immanent vehicle of their soul (pneûma), in Porphyry's Abstinence From Animal Food and Proclus' Commentary on Plato's Republic;[376]
- the transcendent vehicle of the soul (ókhēma) is imperishable, whilst the immanent vehicle of the soul (pneûma) is temporary and survives bodily death, but is eventually purged after the end of one cycle of reincarnations, in Proclus' Commentary on Plato's Timaeus, Damascius' Commentary on Plato's Phaedo, and in Olympiodorus' Commentary on Plato's Alcibiades I paraphrasing Damascius.[377] There are 10 cycles of reincarnations in 10000 years according to Plato in Phaedrus 248e–249d;[378]
- vehicles of a soul enable a soul to move, in Syrianus' Commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics and Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics.[379]
Periodicity of Souls[edit]
For the 5th century Athenian neoplatonist Proclus, the periodicity of a human's soul is more than one human life, it is the entire time it takes from a soul's progression from the hypostasis of Soul into a human body, to the time of its return to its original purity in the hypostasis of Soul.[380] In Proclus' doctrines, there can be an infinite number of cycles, from the hypostasis of Soul into a material body and back to the hypostasis of Soul, before a soul returns to its original purity.[381] Proclus' doctrine on the periodicity of souls is derived by applying Aristotle's physical theory, in Physics 8.8 and 8.9, to immaterial individual souls, e.g. the World-Soul, planetary souls, and human souls, where Proclus' authority for the application of Aristotle's theory to immaterial individual souls is Plato, in Phaedrus 246b ff and Timaeus 36b ff.[382] In Aristotle's theory, in Physics 8.8 and 8.9, movement in a finite space must return to its starting point if the movement is continuous through an infinite time.[380]
Apocatastasis[edit]
In Proclus' doctrine on the periodicity of souls, a period of the World-Soul ends in a universal apocatastasis (ἀποκατάστασις) and is known as 'the whole of time' or a cosmic cycle,[383] followed by an infinite number of similar periods.[384] Before Proclus, the 4th century Roman official and neoplatonist author Salutius also held to the doctrine of an infinite number of periods of the World-Soul.[383] That the World-Soul has an infinite number of periods is a major difference between the doctrines of the neoplatonists Salutius and Proclus and the doctrines and the 3rd and 4th century Christian neoplatonists[383] Saint Origen and Saint Gregory of Nyssa, whose doctrines argue for a finite number of aeons, where an aeon is the equivalent to a neoplatonic period of the World-Soul.[385] Both Syrianus and Proclus, in his Commentary on Timaeus III.278.10 ff., claim that a human soul will progress into the material universe at least once in every period of the World-Soul.[386] That claim by the late Athenian neoplatonists Syrianus and Proclus is a rejection of the Pythagorean, Gnostic and a doctrine of Plotinus, in Ennead 5.1.1, that claim the progression of a human soul into the material universe is sinful, rather, it is part of a soul's education.[386] Further, in his Commentary on Cratylus chapter 117, Proclus claims heroic souls, e.g. Heracles, could spend many periods of the World-Soul without progression into the material universe.[387][388] In the 2014 English translation of Commentary on Cratylus by Proclus, the translation of chapters 117–120 are between chapters 131 and 132.[389]
Reincarnation[edit]
In the neoplatonic doctrine of reincarnation, souls lose most or all memories and characteristics of those bodies that have incarnated in previous lives.[390] In one of Plotinus' neoplatonic doctrines of reincarnation, Ennead 3.4.2.16–30, those who have 'cherished the human in them' become humans again, whilst those who have lived 'purely by their senses' (αἴσθησις) are reincarnated as different kinds of animals or even plants, dependent on which character traits dominated their former incarnation, e.g. anger, appetite, sluggishness, irrationality, obsession with music or lack of civic virtues.[391] The neoplatonist Porphyry, in his Commentary on Timaeus, argues that Plato's doctrine of transmigration teaches that a human soul can be reincarnated into a more bestial person as a punishment for vice, but not the body of a beast.[392][393][394]
Similarly the neoplatonists Iamblichus, Hierocles of Alexandria and Proclus,[395] thought that Pythagorean and Platonic doctrines of transmigration, e.g. Phaedo 81d ff. and Timaeus 42b–d,[395] meant that humans could be reincarnated as beast-like people, but not beasts, which is a psychological, and not a biological, interpretation[396] of Timaeus 42b–d.[397] For Proclus, if the doctrine of reincarnation is true, then it was possible that human souls could be punished for vices or enjoy rewards for acts whilst in a previous incarnation, and in his treatise Ten Problems Concerning Providence, gives the example of the 1st century Neopythagorean philosopher Apollonius of Tyana enjoying the rewards of a previous incarnation.[398] Also in Proclus' interpretation of the neoplatonic doctrine of reincarnation, souls that incarnate into a family or town may be punished for the acts of that family or town, as souls do not incarnate into a specific family or town by coincidence.[399] For neoplatonists, providential punishment, that accompanies a soul in its infinite cycles of reincarnation, restores the moral order of the universe through a temporal existence, and its primary purpose is the harmony of the universe and its souls, not retribution.[400]
Nature[edit]
For neoplatonists, nature (phusis, φύσις)[401] is the living principle of bodies, physically immersed in bodies, but being their principle, nature precedes bodies and hence is immaterial.[402] Nature gives structure and unity to bodies, it produces, conserves, regenerates and fills bodies with life, a life that flickers even in inanimate bodies, and is the cause of movement for animate bodies.[402] Neoplatonist doctrines regard nature as a transitional hypostasis between the hypostasis of Soul and body, that contains 'reason principles' (logoi) originating from the Demiurge, and is the last of the demiurgic causes proceeding from Rheia, the goddess that gives life and is nature's ultimate cause.[402] Things that are generated by nature and conform with nature are called natural, and are its products, not nature itself.[402] The formal principles, or 'reason principles', that are causally contained in the Demiurge, which impart shape, structure and order to the material universe and govern all biological and natural processes, become diverse and particular as they progress through the hypostasis of Soul, and then through the transitional hypostasis of nature into the material universe.[403]
The 3rd century neoplatonist Plotinus in Ennead 3.8.4.1–10 gives a voice to nature:
For Plotinus, nature was the productive principle, or an aspect, of the hypostasis of Soul, that generated and maintained immaterial Plotinian Matter and the physical universe.[405] In Ennead 3.8.4.1–14, part of the Plotinian doctrine on nature, Plotinus claims nature to be a thinking and contemplative principle, that contemplates the antecedent superior aspects of the hypostasis of Soul.[406] Just as aspects in the hypostasis of Soul cannot fully grasp antecedent aspects in the hypostasis of Nous, and so contemplates itself, so nature cannot fully grasp antecedent superior aspects of the hypostasis of Soul, and so contemplates itself, and the external act of that self contemplation is the generation of a 'brilliant object',[407] the material universe.[406]
Body[edit]
For Plato and the neoplatonists, there are four classical elements that are the building blocks of the material universe (kosmos, κόσμος):[408] fire, air, water and earth.[409] In the doctrines of the 5th century neoplatonist Proclus, these elements were generated in a definite order by the Demiurge, assisted by the demiurgic triad of Zeus, Poseidon and Pluto.[409] First in that order was fire, supervised by Zeus, then air, supervised in its higher aspect by Zeus and in its lower aspect by Poseidon, then water, supervised by Poseidon, and last was earth, supervised by Pluto.[409] The demiurgic triad concerned themselves with these elements as totalities, whilst the younger gods, following the instructions from the Demiurge, created geometric shapes in the material universe.[409]
For Plato, there was a two-fold aspect of the four classical elements, the first aspect was the body of the universe as a whole, and the second aspect was the necessary material conditions for the production of the elements.[409] Proclus interpreted Plato's first aspect as teleological, where the body (σῶμα)[414] of the universe needs visibility and tangibility, and hence he claimed fire as necessary for visibility, and earth for tangibility, with the other two elements acting as intermediaries.[409] How the four elements are used to construct physical matter is the second of Plato's aspects of the four classical elements, where in the Timaeus, he explains the elements are themselves composed of material elemental triangles, or material elementary corpuscles, where each elementary corpuscle consists of a principle called a Platonic Idea, or a Form, and the principle of physical matter, called Matter.[415]
For Plato and the neoplatonists, a material body, which is made up of material elementary corpuscles, is the combination of two principles, Form and Matter, and is known as a hylomorphic structure.[410] Each element (στοιχεῖον),[416] fire, air, water and earth, is made of material elementary corpuscles that combine into four material geometric forms.[410] These four material geometric forms are known as Platonic bodies, where the fundamental geometric form for fire is the tetrahedron; the hexahedron or a cube for earth; the octahedron for air; and the icosahedron for water.[410] Plato, an authority for neoplatonists,[337] in his work Timaeus 55c, allegorized the entire body of the material universe as the geometric form of the dodecahedron,[411] maybe by symbolizing each of the 12 faces of the dodecahedron as each of the 12 constellations of the Zodiac;[417][418][419][420] as elsewhere he said the material universe had the geometric form of the sphere.[421][422] Whether Plato recognized the dodecahedron as the fifth element was a topic of much debate between the Platonists and Middle Platonists such as Plutarch of Chaeronea, e.g. in his work Moralia 422f–423a.[423] For the 5th century neoplatonist Proclus, there is an allegorical association between the shape of the universe and the geometric form of the dodecahedron.[424] The theory of Platonic bodies that was adopted by the neoplatonists is called 'geometric atomism'.[410]
Divisions of Hypostases[edit]
Neoplatonists after Plotinus, especially the late Athenian neoplatonist Proclus formalized, systematized and elaborated Plotinus' theological system by introducing divisions into Plotinus' three hypostases of the One, Nous and Soul, as summarized in the list below, also given are the sources from Plato and the equivalent Chaldean Oracles and Orphic deities:[425]
The One (τὸ ἕν):[426] [divine reality: the One: from 1st hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [Chaldean Oracles: Unique Principle] [Orphic: Chronos][427]
The Henads: [divine reality: Henads: from doctrine of henads by Proclus and Syrianus][297]
- Dyad: [divine reality: Limit (First One) and Unlimited: from Plato's Philebus] [Orphic: Ether, Chaos][427]
The Intelligible Realm[427] (νοητὸς τόπος)[306]
Being (ὄν):[414] [divine reality: Intelligible gods (noêtoi): from Plato's Philebus 23c] [Chaldean Oracles: Paternal Abyss] [Orphic: The Intelligible][427]
- Intelligible Being or One Being: [divine reality: First Intelligible Triad from the 2nd hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides: Intelligible; Intelligible-Intellective; Intellective, or Living Being in Itself: from Timaeus] [Chaldean Oracles: Father] [Orphic: Primordial Egg][427]
- Intelligible Life: [divine reality: Second Intelligible Triad: Intelligible; Intelligible-Intellective; Intellective] [Wholeness: from 1st hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [Chaldean Oracles: Aiôn] [Orphic: Conceived Egg][427]
- Intelligible Intellect: [divine reality: Third Intelligible Triad: Intelligible; Intelligible-Intellective; Intellective from Paradigm in Plato's Timaeus] [Plurality: from 1st hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [Chaldean Oracles: Total Living Being] [Orphic: Phanes][428]
Life (zôê, ζωή):[429] [divine reality: Intelligible-Intellective gods (noêtoi kai noeroi)] [Chaldean Oracles: Intelligible-Intellective gods] [Orphic: Intelligible-Intellective gods][428]
- Divine number [428]
- [divine reality: First Intelligible-Intellective Triad from Plato's Phaedrus: Supra-celestial place] [Many (polla): from 1st hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [Chaldean Oracles: Triad of Iynges] [Orphic: Three Nights][428]
- [divine reality Second Intelligible-Intellective Triad from Plato's Phaedrus: Heaven] [Whole-Parts: from 1st hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [Chaldean Oracles: Triad of Connectors] [Orphic: three parts of Ouranos][428]
- [divine reality: Third Intelligible-Intellective Triad from Plato's Phaedrus: Sub-celestial vault] [Shape: from 1st hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [Chaldean Oracles: Triad of Teletarchs] [Orphic: three gods of the perfective class][428]
Intellect (Nous, νοῦς):[306] [divine reality: Intellective gods (noeroi): from Plato's Phaedrus; Zeus and other Olympians] [Chaldean Oracles: Intellective gods] [Orphic: Intellective][428]
- Intellective Being: [divine reality: First Intellective Triad: Intelligible; Intelligible-Intellective; Intellective, or Demiurge from Plato's Timaeus] [In itself-In another: from 1st hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [Chaldean Oracles: three Paternal Sources: Kronos, Hecate, Zeus] [Orphic: Triad of Parents: Kronos, Rheia, Zeus][428]
- Intellective Life: [divine reality: Second Intellective Triad] [Moving and Resting: from 1st hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [Chaldean Oracles: three Implacables] [Orphic: three Immaculate gods][428]
- Intellective Intellect: [divine reality: Seventh Divinity (monad)] [Same and Different: from 2nd hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [Chaldean Oracles: Diaphragm] [Orphic: castration of Ouranos by Kronos][430]
Hypercosmic souls:[divine reality: Hypercosmic gods] [Like and Unlike: from 2nd hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [Chaldean Oracles: Leading gods] [Orphic: Four triads][430]
- Divine souls
- [divine reality: First Hypercosmic Triad from Plato's Gorgias 523a3–5, Second Hypercosmic Triad, Third Hypercosmic Triad, Fourth Hypercosmic Triad] [Chaldean Oracles: (1) Paternal Triad: Zeus, Poseidon, Hades; (2) Coric Triad: Hecate, Soul, Virtue; (3) Apolloniac Triad: three Helios’ or three Apollo’s; (4) Corybantic Triad] [Orphic: (1) Paternal Triad: Zeus, Poseidon, Hades; (2) Coric Triad: Hecate, Soul, Virtue; (3) Apolloniac Triad: three Helios’ or three Apollo’s; (4) three Couretes][430]
Hypercosmic-Encosmic souls: [divine reality: Hypercosmic-Encosmic gods: from Plato's Phaedrus: 12 gods of Phaedrus myth] [Contiguous and Separate: from 2nd hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [Chaldean Oracles and Orphic: demiurgic: Zeus, Poseidon, Hephaestus; immaculate: Hestia, Athena, Ares; life-giving: Demeter, Hera, Artemis; elevating: Hermes, Aphrodite, Apollo][430]
Encosmic souls: [divine reality: Encosmic gods; non-wandering gods: fixed stars; wanderings gods: planets and nine sublunary gods: from young gods in Timaeus 40e5–41a3] [Equal and Unequal: from 2nd hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [Orphic: equal: Dionysus, unequal: Dionysus torn to pieces by the Titans][431]
Universal soul: [divine reality: World-Soul from Plato's Timaeus] [partaking in time: from 2nd hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [Chaldean Oracles: Nature and Fatality] [Orphic: gods linked to the celestial bodies][431]
Intermediate souls: [divine reality: angels, daemons, heroes from Plato's Phaedrus myth] [partaking in the division of time: from 2nd hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides] [Chaldean Oracles: Archangels, Angels, Daemons, Heroes] [Orphic: Higher Souls][431]
Particular souls: [divine reality: Human souls: from Plato's Phaedrus myth] [Chaldean Oracles: human souls, rational part] [Orphic: human souls: rational aspect][431]
Nature[431] (phusis, φύσις)[401]
Particular irrational souls: [reality (immaterial): irrational aspect of human souls, animal souls][431]
Universal bodies: [reality (immaterial): Elements: from four elements in Plato's Timaeus][432]
Formed matter: [reality (immaterial): from traces of Forms in Plato's Timaeus] [Chaldean Oracles: bodies] [Orphic: bodies][432]
First body: [reality (immaterial): from Plato's Sophist 248–256][432]
Matter: [reality (immaterial): from Plato's Timaeus and 5th hypothesis of Plato's Parmenides 159b2–160b4][432]
Influence[edit]
Neoplatonism had an enduring influence on the subsequent history of philosophy. In the Middle Ages, neoplatonic ideas were studied and discussed by Christian, Jewish, and Muslim thinkers.[433] In the Islamic cultural sphere, neoplatonic texts were available in Arabic and Persian translations, and notable philosophers such as al-Farabi, Solomon ibn Gabirol (Avicebron), Avicenna, and Maimonides incorporated neoplatonic elements into their own thinking.[434] Thomas Aquinas had direct access to works by Proclus, Simplicius and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, and he knew about other neoplatonists, such as Plotinus and Porphyry, through secondhand sources.[435] The mystic Meister Eckhart (c. 1260–c. 1328 AD) was also influenced by neoplatonism, propagating a contemplative way of life which points to the Godhead beyond the nameable God. Neoplatonism also had a strong influence on the perennial philosophy of the Italian Renaissance thinkers Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Mirandola, and continues through nineteenth-century Universalism and modern-day spirituality and nondualism.
Early Christian[edit]
Augustine[edit]
Certain central tenets of neoplatonism served as a philosophical interim for the Christian theologian Augustine of Hippo on his journey from dualistic Manichaeism to Christianity.[436] As a Manichee hearer, Augustine had held that evil has substantial being and that God is made of matter; when he became a neoplatonist, he changed his views on these things. As a neoplatonist, and later a Christian, Augustine believed that evil is a privation of good[437] and that God is not material.[438] When writing his treatise 'On True Religion' several years after his 387 AD baptism, Augustine's Christianity was still tempered by neoplatonism.
The term logos was interpreted variously in neoplatonism. Plotinus refers to Thales[439] in interpreting logos as the principle of meditation, the interrelationship between the hypostases[440] (Soul, Spirit (nous) and the 'One'). St. John introduces a relation between Logos and the Son, Christ,[441] whereas Paul calls it 'Son', 'Image', and 'Form'.[441][442][443] Victorinus subsequently differentiated the Logos interior to God from the Logos related to the world by creation and salvation.[441]
For Augustine, the Logos "took on flesh" in Christ, in whom the Logos was present as in no other man.[444][445][446] He strongly influenced early medieval Christian philosophy.[447] Perhaps the key subject in this was Logos.
Origen and Pseudo-Dionysius[edit]
Some early Christians, influenced by neoplatonism, identified the neoplatonic One, or God, with Yahweh. The most influential of these would be Origen, the pupil of Ammonius Saccas; and the sixth-century author known as Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, whose works were translated by John Scotus in the ninth century for the West. Both authors had a lasting influence on Eastern Orthodox and Western Christianity, and the development of contemplative and mystical practices and theology.
Gnosticism[edit]
Neoplatonism also had links with Gnosticism, which Plotinus rebuked in his ninth tractate of the second Enneads: "Against Those That Affirm The Creator of The Cosmos and The Cosmos Itself to Be Evil" (generally known as "Against The Gnostics").
Due to their belief being grounded in Platonic thought, the neoplatonists rejected Gnosticism's vilification of Plato's demiurge, the creator of the material world or cosmos discussed in the Timaeus. Neoplatonism has been referred to as orthodox Platonic philosophy by scholars like John D. Turner; this reference may be due, in part, to Plotinus' attempt to refute certain interpretations of Platonic philosophy, through his Enneads. Plotinus believed the followers of Gnosticism had corrupted the original teachings of Plato and often argued against likes of Valentinus who, according to Plotinus, had given rise to doctrines of dogmatic theology with ideas such as that the Spirit of Christ was brought forth by a conscious god after the fall from Pleroma. According to Plotinus, The One is not a conscious god with intent, nor a godhead, nor a conditioned existing entity of any kind, rather a requisite principle of totality which is also the source of ultimate wisdom.[448]
Middle Ages[edit]
Byzantine[edit]
After the Platonic Academy was destroyed in the first century BC, philosophers continued to teach Platonism, but it was not until the early 5th century (c. 410 AD) that a revived academy (which had no connection with the original Academy) was established in Athens by some leading neoplatonists.[449] It persisted until 529 AD when it was finally closed by Justinian I because of active paganism of its professors. Other schools continued in Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria which were the centers of Justinian's empire.[450][451]
After the closure of the neoplatonic academy, neoplatonic and/or secular philosophical studies continued in publicly funded schools in Alexandria. In the early seventh century, the neoplatonist Stephanus of Alexandria brought this Alexandrian tradition to Constantinople, where it would remain influential, albeit as a form of secular education.[451] The university maintained an active philosophical tradition of Platonism and Aristotelianism, with the former being the longest unbroken Platonic school, running for close to two millennia until the fifteenth century[451]
Michael Psellos (1018–1078 AD), a Byzantine monk, writer, philosopher, politician and historian, wrote many philosophical treatises, such as De omnifaria doctrina. He wrote most of his philosophy during his time as a court politician at Constantinople between 1030–1049 AD.
Gemistos Plethon (c. 1355–1452 AD; Greek: Πλήθων Γεμιστός) remained the preeminent scholar of neoplatonic philosophy in the late Byzantine Empire. He introduced his understanding and insight into the works of neoplatonism during the failed attempt to reconcile the East–West Schism at the Council of Florence. At Florence, Plethon met Cosimo de' Medici and influenced the latter's decision to found a new Platonic Academy there. Cosimo subsequently appointed as head Marsilio Ficino, who proceeded to translate all Plato's works, the Enneads of Plotinus, and various other neoplatonist works into Latin.
Islamic[edit]
The major reason for the prominence of neoplatonic influences in the historical Muslim world was availability of neoplatonic texts: Arabic translations and paraphrases of neoplatonic works were readily available to Islamic scholars greatly due to the availability of the Greek copies, in part, because Muslims conquered some of the more important centres of the Byzantine Christian civilization in Egypt and Syria.[citation needed]
Various Persian and Arabic scholars, including Avicenna (Ibn Sina), Ibn Arabi, al-Kindi, al-Farabi, and al-Himsi, adapted neoplatonism to conform to the monotheistic constraints of Islam.[452] The translations of the works which extrapolate the tenets of God in neoplatonism present no major modification from their original Greek sources, showing the doctrinal shift towards monotheism.[453] Islamic neoplatonism adapted the concepts of the One and the First Principle to Islamic theology, attributing the First Principle to God.[454] God is a transcendent being, omnipresent and inalterable to the effects of creation.[453] Islamic philosophers used the framework of Islamic mysticism in their interpretation of neoplatonic writings and concepts.[note 4]
Jewish[edit]
In the Middle Ages, neoplatonist ideas influenced Jewish thinkers, such as the Kabbalist Isaac the Blind, and the Jewish neoplatonic philosopher Solomon ibn Gabirol (Avicebron), who modified it in the light of their own monotheism.
Renaissance[edit]
Neoplatonism ostensibly survived in the Eastern Christian Church as an independent tradition and was reintroduced to the West by Pletho (c. 1355–1452/1454 AD), an avowed pagan and opponent of the Byzantine Church, inasmuch as the latter, under Western scholastic influence, relied heavily upon Aristotelian methodology. Pletho's Platonic revival, following the Council of Florence (1438–1439 AD), largely accounts for the renewed interest in Platonic philosophy which accompanied the Renaissance.
"Of all the students of Greek in Renaissance Italy, the best-known are the Nnoplatonists who studied in and around Florence" (Hole). Neoplatonism was not just a revival of Plato's ideas, it is all based on Plotinus' created synthesis, which incorporated the works and teachings of Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, and other Greek philosophers. The Renaissance in Italy was the revival of classic antiquity, and this started at the fall of the Byzantine empire, who were considered the "librarians of the world", because of their great collection of classical manuscripts and the number of humanist scholars that resided in Constantinople (Hole).
Neoplatonism in the Renaissance combined the ideas of Christianity and a new awareness of the writings of Plato.
Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499 AD) was "chiefly responsible for packaging and presenting Plato to the Renaissance" (Hole). In 1462 AD, Cosimo I de' Medici, patron of arts, who had an interest in humanism and Platonism, provided Ficino with all 36 of Plato's dialogues in Greek for him to translate. Between 1462 and 1469 AD, Ficino translated these works into Latin, making them widely accessible, as only a minority of people could read Greek. And, between 1484 and 1492 AD, he translated the works of Plotinus, making them available for the first time to the West.
Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463–1494 AD) was another neoplatonist during the Italian Renaissance. He could speak and write Latin and Greek, and had knowledge on Hebrew and Arabic. The pope banned his works because they were viewed as heretical – unlike Ficino, who managed to stay on the right side of the church.
The efforts of Ficino and Pico to introduce neoplatonic and Hermetic doctrines into the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church has recently been evaluated in terms of an attempted "Hermetic Reformation".[456]
Modern[edit]
17th Century[edit]
Cambridge Platonists[edit]
In 17th century England, neoplatonism was fundamental to the school of the Cambridge Platonists, whose luminaries included Henry More, Ralph Cudworth, Benjamin Whichcote and John Smith, all graduates of the University of Cambridge. Coleridge claimed that they were not really Platonists, but "more truly Plotinists": "divine Plotinus", as More called him.
18th Century[edit]
The late 18th to early 19th century English translator Thomas Taylor was the first to translate Plotinus' works into English.[457][458] He also wrote extensively on Platonism and translated almost the entire Platonic and Plotinian corpora into English, and the Belgian writer Suzanne Lilar.
19th Century[edit]
The 19th century German philosophers Arthur Schopenhauer and Ludwig Noiré both state that Plotinus' Enneads was the first appearance of idealism in Western Philosophy.[note 5]
Contemporary[edit]
Scholarship[edit]
During the late 19th and early 20th century, scholars generally accepted that Plato's doctrines and neoplatonic doctrines were two different things, and that it was the doctrines of neoplatonism that were transmitted into the Middle Ages and not Plato's.[461] This was the view of the early 20th century German historian Ernst Hoffmann, that relied on the assumption that there is a significant difference between Platonic and neoplatonic doctrines.[462] However, later 20th scholarship has shown significant similarity between the aims and content of Platonism, middle Platonism and neoplatonism, and that has the effect of blurring the lines of distinction between these phases in the history of philosophy.[31]
Late 20th century scholarship showed there is ample evidence in Plato's dialogues that indicate Plato's thought was very close to neoplatonism, much closer than that conceived by 19th century scholarship.[463] This evidence is further corroborated by reports of Plato's oral teachings in the Platonic Academy by later writers from Aristotle onwards.[463] These reports, now known as 'Plato's unwritten doctrines', detail Plato's later doctrines that were not reflected in his dialogues and show that Plato's oral teachings, late in his career when he was not writing regularly, have much in common with Neoplatonic doctrines, especially those of Plotinus.[464] Pioneering scholars in this field of research were the 19th century German philosopher Eduard Zeller and the 20th century French philosopher Léon Robin.[465]
Significant recent scholarship that advanced tenets of similarity between Platonism, middle Platonism and neoplatonism were authored by the 20th century French philosopher André-Jean Festugiere,[466] the 20th century Dutch philosopher Cornelia de Vogel,[463] the 20th century American historian Harold F. Cherniss,[467] the 20th century Irish scholar E. R. Dodds,[468] the 20th century German philosopher Philip Merlan and the 20th and 21st century Irish philosopher John M. Dillon.[469]
Books[edit]
The 20th century science fiction writer Philip K. Dick identified as a neoplatonist and explores related mystical experiences and religious concepts in his theoretical work, compiled in The Exegesis of Philip K. Dick.[470]
Films[edit]
The 2009 film Agora directed by the Spanish-Chilean film director Alejandro Amenábar is a historical drama about the life of the late 4th to early 5th century neoplatonist philosopher, mathematician and astronomer Hypatia.[471] It is a historically dubious reconstruction of late 4th to early 5th century Alexandria, its intellectual accomplishments, the public responsibilities of women, the erosion of authority of female intellectuals, and its religious conflicts.[472] The film is notable for its fictional portrayal of Hypatia as the first astronomer to model the solar system as heliocentric, where the planets move around the Sun in elliptical orbits.[471]
Sculpture[edit]
The sculpture The Large Glass by the 20th century French painter and sculptor Marcel Duchamp is regarded by the 20th century Mexican Nobel laureate in Literature Octavio Paz as a new reflexive or voluntary appearance of neoplatonism.[473] Duchamp's works are often described by scholars with images taken from neoplatonism.[474]
Literary Theory and Aesthetics[edit]
There has been a vast influence of neoplatonism on the appreciation of European arts, and neoplatonist aesthetics has earned recognition from philosophers and literary theorists who have little interest in neoplatonic religious doctrines or other aspects of neoplatonism.[475] In the case of the 5th century neoplatonist philosopher Proclus, his notable theory of inspired poetry has engaged significant attention, but not always in the context of Greek literary culture or his general philosophy.[475] Proclus' literary theory and his use of allegorical interpretation has been received into the wider study of literature in late antiquity, where his theories diffuse into neoplatonist aesthetics by way of his views on visual art and music.[476] Proclus had a Platonic view on the beauty of the universe, which led him to theology, and for him and other neoplatonists there was no distinction between aesthetic theory and theology, where in that theology, there is a fundamental role played by analogies drawn from literary theory and aesthetics.[477]
Literary Culture[edit]
A standard part of Proclus' education and the education of other neoplatonists was rhetoric, and his and other neoplatonists' allegorical interpretations of Homer and Hesiod draw on a large amount of earlier commentaries on those poets.[477] Proclus' commentaries on Platonic dialogues include many passages that comment on Plato's literary style and skill using words common to rhetorical traditions from the 1st century AD onwards, words such as 'mimesis' (mimêsis), 'vividness' (by way of the word enargeia) and 'visualization' (by way of the word phantasia).[478] Proclus also uses standard terms of Greek literary criticism like 'style' (charaktêr), 'lofty' (semnos), 'different' (exêllagmenos), 'powerful' (hadros), and 'concise' (suntomos) and words from the Platonic corpus like 'inspired' (enthousiastikos) and 'finished' (apêkribômenos).[479]
Literary Theory[edit]
Proclus' name is frequently used in discussions of ancient literary theory and criticism because of his theories of inspired poetry in his works Commentary on Republic and Commentary on Timaeus.[479] In his work Commentary on Republic, the inspired poetry of heroic deeds is described as having an educational function and sets fine examples for the youth, whilst in his work Commentary on Timaeus, he discusses the difference between inspired poetry, that is drawn from the gods, and poetry that is a product of technical human skill.[479] Further, in his work Commentary on Republic, Proclus explains Plato's censorship of Homer's work from Plato's theoretical 'Republic', where the main thrust of the explanation is that complex allegorical interpretations of Homer, where things are sometimes represented by their opposites, are only understood by very few people.[480] For Proclus, there are three kinds of inspired poetry, one that comes from the part of the soul that is more closely associated with the gods, which is explained in Plato's Ion and Phaedrus; another, mimetic poetry, that uses irrational images and perceptions and comes from the irrational aspect of the soul, which is explained in Plato's Republic Book X; and the third is an educational poetry that is a mixture of the two, which offers moral advice and comes from both intellect and knowledge, like that in Plato's Laws Book I.[480]
Music[edit]
Proclus' views of musical theory parallel his views on poetry and play a fundamental role in his theology, and here the line between aesthetics and theology is even harder to define. For Proclus, the word 'music' (mousikê, μουσική) does not always mean what we mean by music, sometimes it means philosophy, or harmonics which is a purely mathematical form of music;[481] and at other times it is heard music; where both types are discussed in his work Commentary on Republic 1.56.20–60.13.[482] Just as there are three kinds of inspired poetry for Proclus, there are three kinds of music, one kind that comes from the part of the soul that is more closely associated with the gods: harmonics;[481] another that comes from irrational images and perceptions: music that educates the passions; and the third which is a mixture of the two: a more lovely music than the previous, that goes from perceptible to imperceptible harmonies.[482] In his work Commentary on Timaeus there is an involved discussion about a Pythagorean kind of musical scale that symbolizes the divisions of the World-Soul, and leads to an understanding of the objective structure of reality;[482] and in his work Commentary on Cratylus the allegorical interpretation for the songs of the mythological Sirens are harmonies that produce the structure of the heavenly spheres.[483]
Visual Arts[edit]
In Proclus' work Commentary on Timaeus, he shares Plotinus' view, in Ennead 5.8.1.31–40,[484] that sometimes visual art, like Phidias’ statue of Zeus, does not imitate things, but rather are created by the artist[484] from rational principles (logoi) of the World-Soul,[484] that generated the transitional hypostasis of nature itself.[485] Those views of Plotinus and Proclus were built on the earlier views of the 1st century BC philosophers Antiochus of Ascalon and Cicero and the 1st century AD philosopher Seneca, that led to a re-evaluation of visual art within the Platonist tradition.[485]
According to the 20th century German-Jewish art historian Erwin Panofsky, neoplatonic doctrines influenced the Renaissance artist Michelangelo,[486] whose contact with Florentine neoplatonism[487] and his understanding of neoplatonism, demonstrated in his lyrical poetry,[488] was intentionally expressed in his visual representations[489] of human life and destiny.[490] However, the conclusions drawn by Panofsky have been vigorously challenged by the 20th century Swiss art and architectural historian Kurt W. Forster,[491] the 20th century Austrian art historian Otto Pächt[491] and 20th–21st century American art historian Michael Ann Holly.[492] The painting Primavera by Italian Renaissance painter Sandro Botticelli belongs to the the milieu of Florentine neoplatonism according to the 20th century German-born British art historian Edgar Wind, the Austrian-born British art historian Ernst Gombrich and the late 19th–20th century German art historian Aby Warburg and 'many others'.[493]
For Proclus, to grasp the intellectual god, you need to understand symbolic descriptions, for example, in his work Commentary on Parmenides, Proclus declares that those who have 'seen' the goddess Athena as described in Homer's Iliad 5.734-748, will paint a better picture of her than those who copy a statue of the goddess.[485] Below is an English translation of that description of Athena from Homer's Iliad:
See also[edit]
- Allegorical interpretations of Plato
- Antiochus of Ascalon
- Atticus (philosopher)
- Baháʼí cosmology
- Brethren of Purity
- Christian theology
- Dehellenization
- International Society for Neoplatonic Studies
- Judeo-Islamic philosophies (800–1400)
- List of ancient Greek philosophers
- Panentheism
- Pantheism
- Peripatetic school
- Plato's Laws
Notes[edit]
- ^ A very early appearance of the term 'Neo-Platonism' is in 1775 in "Pamphlets, Religious: Miscellaneous", Volume 8, p. 6. published by the University of Michigan Library[13]
- ^ Pauline Remes: "'neoplatonism' refers to a school of thought that began in approximately 245 CE, when a man called Plotinus moved [to] the capital of the Roman Empire [and] began teaching his interpretation of Plato's philosophy. Out of the association of people in Rome [...] emerged a school of philosophy that displays enough originality to be considered a new phase of Platonism".[37]
- ^ Ariane Magny (2014): "The term 'pagan', used solely by Christians to identify ‘the Other’, has been challenged. A consensus has yet to be reached among scholars as to what term(s) would best suit the other religious affiliations."[136]
- ^ Morewedge: "The greatest cluster of neoplatonic themes is found in religious mystical writings, which in fact transform purely orthodox doctrines such as creation into doctrines such as emanationism, which allow for a better framework for the expression of neoplatonic themes and the emergence of the mystical themes of the ascent and mystical union."[455]
- ^ Schopenhauer wrote of this neoplatonist philosopher: "With Plotinus there even appears, probably for the first time in Western philosophy, idealism that had long been current in the East even at that time, for it taught (Enneads, iii, lib. vii, c.10) that the soul has made the world by stepping from eternity into time, with the explanation: 'For there is for this universe no other place than the soul or mind' (neque est alter hujus universi locus quam anima), indeed the ideality of time is expressed in the words: 'We should not accept time outside the soul or mind' (oportet autem nequaquam extra animam tempus accipere)."[459]
Similarly, professor Ludwig Noiré wrote: "For the first time in Western philosophy we find idealism proper in Plotinus (Enneads, iii, 7, 10), where he says, "The only space or place of the world is the soul," and "Time must not be assumed to exist outside the soul."[460] It is worth noting, however, that, like Plato, but unlike Schopenhauer and other modern philosophers, Plotinus does not worry about whether or how we can get beyond our ideas in order to know external objects.
References[edit]
- ^ "Definition of Neoplatonism". Lexico.com. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 28 March 2022.
- ^ Remes, Pauliina; Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla, eds. (2014). The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism. H. Tarrant, R. Sorabji, G. Reydams-Schils, F. Ferrari, J. D. Turner, V. Adluri, H. Baltussen, A. Smith, L. Brisson, M. Martijn, S. Ahbel-Rappe, J. Halfwassen, C. O’Brien, T. Arnold, T. Ratzsch, S. Slaveva-Griffin, R. Chiaradonna, J-M. Narbonne, R. M. Berg, L. P. Gerson, J. F. Finamore, F. M. Schroeder, G. Aubry, P. Lautner, A. Linguiti, J. Wilberding, K. Corrigan, S. Stern-Gillet, B. Collette-Dučić, P. Adamson, P. Remes, D. J. O’Meara, P. Vassilopoulou, D. Moran, D. Y. Dimitrov, S. Pessin. Oxford; New York: Routledge. pp. i. ISBN 9781315744186.
- ^ Remes, Pauliina (2008). "Introduction". Neoplatonism. Stocksfield: Acumen Publishing Limited. p. 10. ISBN 9781844651252.
- ^ Inge, William Ralph (1948a). The Philosophy of Plotinus. The Gifford Lectures at St. Andrews 1917-1918. Vol. 1. London; New York; Toronto: Longmans, Green and Co. p. 36. ark:/13960/t1qg41d4n.
- ^ Murray, James A. H.; Craigie, Sir William A.; Onions, C. T., eds. (1908). A New English Dictionary (Oxford English Dictionary). Vol. 6 part 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press at Oxford. p. 90. ark:/13960/t3125qj49.
- ^ a b c d e f g Remes 2008, p. 1, Introduction.
- ^ Théologie Platonicienne. Collection des universités de France. (in French). Translated by Westerink, Leendert Gerrit; Saffrey, H. D. Les Belles Lettres. 1968–1997. pp. Cover page. ISBN 9782251003863.
- ^ Six Books of Proclus on the Theology of Plato. Vol. 1. Translated by Taylor, Thomas. London: A. J. Valpy. 1816. pp. Cover page. ark:/13960/t8dg83t31.
- ^ Dodds 1928.
- ^ Gerson, Lloyd P. (July 2005). "What is Platonism?". Journal of the History of Philosophy. 43 (3): 254 (footnote 5). doi:10.1353/hph.2005.0136 – via Project MUSE.
- ^ Eadie, John; Waller, Francis; Rankine, W. J. M.; Lankester, Edwin; Bowen, Francis; Waller, Francis, eds. (1857). The Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography. Original Memoirs of Distinguished Men, of all Ages and all Nations. Vol. II. London: William Mackenzie. p. 1026. ark:/13960/t5w66nh43.
- ^ Whittaker, Thomas (1918). "Introduction". The Neo-Platonists. Cambridge: The University Press. pp. xi. ark:/13960/t8bg3pj9v.
- ^ "Pamphlets, Religious: Miscellaneous. 1775 Volume 8, p.6" from Google Books
- ^ Remes 2008, p. Cover page.
- ^ a b c d Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 3, Introduction.
- ^ Nikulin, Dmitri (2019). Neoplatonism in Late Antiquity. United States of America: Oxford University Press. pp. x. ISBN 9780190662363.
- ^ Dillon, John; Gerson, Lloyd P. (2004). Neoplatonic Philosophy. United States of America: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. pp. xiii. ISBN 0872207072.
- ^ a b c Dillon & Gerson 2004, p. xiii, Introduction.
- ^ a b c d Remes 2008, p. 19, Introduction.
- ^ Corrigan, Kevin (2005). "Introduction". Reading Plotinus: A Practical Introduction to Neoplatonism. United States of America: Purdue University Press. p. 1. ISBN 1557532346.
- ^ Siorvanes, Lucas (2018). "Plotinus and Neoplatonism: The Creation of a New Synthesis". In Keyser, Paul T.; Scarborough, John (eds.). Oxford Handbook of Science and Medicine in the Classical World. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 847–868. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734146.013.78. ISBN 9780199734146. LCCN 2017049555.
- ^ a b Remes 2008, p. 21, Introduction.
- ^ Select Passages Illustrating Neoplatonism. Translated by Dodds, E. R. London; New York; Toronto: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; The MacMillan Co. 1923. p. 7. ark:/13960/t5t77jp65.
- ^ a b Moore, Edward (n.d.). "Neoplatonism". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2 May 2019.
- ^ a b Ahbel-Rappe 2010, p. 424 (note 17), Notes to Pages 4-7.
- ^ Smith, William, ed. (1870a). Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. Vol. 2. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company. p. 667. ark:/13960/t9f47mp93.
- ^ Lang, Macro & McGinnis 2001, p. 4 (note 9).
- ^ a b c Smith 1870a, p. 667, Justinianus.
- ^ a b c d e Remes 2008, p. 30, Introduction.
- ^ Gersh, Stephen (1986). Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism the Latin Tradition. Publications In Medieval Studies. Vol. I and II. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press. pp. 29–30. ISBN 9780268013639.
- ^ a b c Gersh 1986, p. 30, Introduction, Vol. 1.
- ^ Catana, Leo (April 18, 2013). "The origin of the division between Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism". Apeiron: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science: 2. doi:10.1515/apeiron-2012-0029 – via De Gruyter.
- ^ Gersh 1986, p. 5, Introduction, Vol. 1.
- ^ Allen, Michael J.B. (Summer 1977). "Ficino's Lecture on the Good?". Renaissance Quarterly. 30 (2): 160–171. doi:10.2307/2860654. JSTOR 2860654.
- ^ Dillon & Gerson 2004, pp. xiii–xiv, Introduction.
- ^ Wildberg, Christian (2021), "Neoplatonism", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2021-11-08
- ^ Pauline Remes (2008), Neoplatonism. Acumen publishing, page 1.
- ^ Wear, Sarah Klitenic (16 October 2018) [26 August 2013]. "Neoplatonism". oxfordbibliographies.com. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/obo/9780195389661-0201. ISBN 978-0-19-538966-1. Archived from the original on 3 May 2019. Retrieved 5 August 2021.
- ^ Butorac, David D.; Layne, Danielle A., eds. (2017). Proclus and his Legacy. Millennium Studies. Vol. 65. J. Dillon, D. D.Butorac, D. A. Layne, S. Gersh, H. Tarrant, D. A. Vasilakis, H. S. Lang, A. Vargas, I.Ramelli, E. Watts, M. Luz, R. Coughlin, T. Lankila, B. Schomakers, E. S. Mainoldi, S. K.Wear, F. Lauritzen, L. Gigineishvili, J. M. Robinson, E. Tempelis, C. Terezis, T. Riggs, T.Zampaki, M. Chase, E. Giannakis, G. Steiris, T. Kirby, Y. T. Langermann, M. Zovko. Berlin; Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH. p. 100. ISBN 9783110471625.
- ^ a b Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 40, Middle Platonism and its relation to Stoicism and the Peripatetic tradition by Reydams-Schils & Ferrari.
- ^ Elsee, Charles (1908). Neoplatonism in Relation to Christianity. London; Edinburgh; Leipzig; Berlin; New York; Bombay and Calcutta: Cambridge University Press Warehouse; A. Brockhaus; Asher and Co.; G. P. Putnam's Sons; Macmillan and Co., Ltd. p. 34. ark:/13960/t2x34rj11.
- ^ Sorabji, Richard (2005). The Philosophy of the Commentators, 200-600 AD. Vol. 1: Psychology (with Ethics and Religion). Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. p. 419. ISBN 0801489873.
- ^ a b c Elsee 1908, p. 37, Earlier Systems of Greek Philosophy.
- ^ Goodman, Lenn E., ed. (1992). Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought. Studies In Neoplatonism: Ancient and Modern. Vol. 7. New York: State University of New York Press, Albany. p. 82. ISBN 0791413403.
- ^ d'Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 130.
- ^ Whittaker 1918, p. 33, Plotinus and his Nearest Predecessors.
- ^ d'Hoine & Martijn 2017, pp. 35, 36, 38, 39, Proclus in the Platonic Tradition by Tarrant.
- ^ Kamesar, Adam, ed. (2009). The Cambridge Companion to Philo. A. Kamesar, C. Lévy, R. Radice, J. R. Royse, D. T. Runia, D. R. Schwartz, F. Siegert, C. Termini , D. Winston. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo, Delhi: Cambridge University Press. p. 11. ISBN 9780521860901.
- ^ Daniélou, Jean (2014) [1958]. Philon d’Alexandrie [Philo of Alexandria]. Translated by Colbert, James G. United Kingdom: James Clarke & Co by arrangement with Cascade Books. p. 1. ISBN 9780227174494.
- ^ Daniélou 2014, pp. 1–4, 24, Life of Philo.
- ^ Kamesar 2009, p. 10, Philo, His Family, and His Times by Schwartz.
- ^ Daniélou 2014, pp. 1, 4, Life of Philo.
- ^ Kamesar 2009, p. 210, Philo and the Early Christian Fathers by Runia.
- ^ Kamesar 2009, pp. 9–10, Philo, His Family, and His Times by Schwartz.
- ^ Daniélou 2014, pp. 4–5, Life of Philo.
- ^ Elsee 1908, pp. 34–35, Earlier Systems of Greek Philosophy.
- ^ Whittaker 1918, p. 105, The Mysticism of Plotinus.
- ^ Elsee 1908, p. 36, Earlier Systems of Greek Philosophy.
- ^ Elsee 1908, pp. 35–36, Earlier Systems of Greek Philosophy.
- ^ Beck, Mark, ed. (2014). A Companion to Plutarch. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. M. Beck, P. A. Stadter, T. A. Schmitz, M. Trapp, J. Dillon, F. Becchi, P. Bertucci, J. Opsomer, E. Kechagia-Ovseiko, M. Bonazzi, L. Van Hoof, C, Pelling, R, Hirsch-Luipold, E. Bowie, G. Tsouvala, F. Klotz, S. T. Newmyer, P. Payen, C. Welch, A. Georgiadou, L. de Blois, E. Almagor, J. Geiger, A. V. Zadorojnyi, L. Van der Stockt, T. E. Duff, A. G. Nikolaidis, C. Soares, C. Alvahydo, C. Cooper, D. H. J. Larmour, M. T. Schettino, J. Mossman, B. Boulet, F. B. Titchener, F. Frazier, J. Beneker, G. Roskam, M. Pade, O. Guerrier, F. Frazier, A. P. Jiménez, G. Braden, J. Mossman, C. J. Richard. Malden Massachusetts, USA; Oxford, UK; Chichester, UK: Blackwell Publishing Limited. pp. 1–2. ISBN 9781405194310.
- ^ Beck 2014, p. 2, Introduction.
- ^ Beck 2014, pp. 2–3, Introduction.
- ^ Beck 2014, p. 6, Introduction.
- ^ Beck 2014, pp. 1, 6, Introduction.
- ^ Plotinos Complete Works. Vol. IV. Translated by Guthrie, Kenneth Sylvan. United States of America: Comparative Literature Press. 1918d. pp. 1300–1301. ark:/13960/t7sn01h8d.
- ^ Sorabji 2005, p. 40, 2. Phantasia.
- ^ a b Remes 2008, p. 5, Introduction.
- ^ a b c Guthrie 1917, p. 99, Life and Significance.
- ^ Guthrie, Kenneth Sylvan (1917). Numenius of Apamea. London: George Bell and Sons. p. 99. ark:/13960/t3fx7434j.
- ^ Siorvanes, Lucas (1996). Proclus Neo-platonic Philosophy and Science. Great Britain: Edinburgh University Press. pp. 16, 149. ISBN 0748607684.
- ^ Guthrie 1917, p. 99-100, Life and Significance.
- ^ Guthrie 1917, p. 100, Life and Significance.
- ^ Guthrie 1917, p. 99-101, Life and Significance.
- ^ Crawford, W. S. (1901). Synesius The Hellene. London: Rivingtons. pp. 53–54. ark:/13960/t0js9k765.
- ^ a b Crawford 1901, p. 54, The Philosopher.
- ^ d'Hoine & Martijn 2017, pp. 35, 36, Proclus in the Platonic Tradition by Tarrant.
- ^ d'Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 35, Proclus in the Platonic Tradition by Tarrant.
- ^ d'Hoine & Martijn 2017, pp. 35, 38, 39, Proclus in the Platonic Tradition by Tarrant.
- ^ d'Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 39, Proclus in the Platonic Tradition by Tarrant.
- ^ a b c Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 253, The Gift of Hermes: The Neoplatonists on language and philosophy by Berg.
- ^ Dodds 1923, p. 12 (footnote 1), Introduction.
- ^ Guthrie 1917, p. 101-102, Life and Significance.
- ^ Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 509, Neoplatonism and Christianity in the West by Moran.
- ^ Inge, William Ralph (1948b). The Philosophy of Plotinus. The Gifford Lectures at St. Andrews 1917-1918. Vol. 2. London; New York; Toronto: Longmans, Green and Co. p. 210. ark:/13960/t2t493h6f.
- ^ Sorabji 2005, p. 230, 8. Vehicles of Soul.
- ^ Copenhaver 2002, p. xliii.
- ^ Smith, William, ed. (1870). Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. Vol. 1. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company. p. 402. ark:/13960/t9s17xn41.
- ^ Goodman 1992, p. 242, Divine Unity in Maimonides, Tosafists, Me'iri.
- ^ a b c d Copenhaver 2002, p. 144, Notes to page 22.
- ^ a b c Guthrie 1918d, p. 1300, Vol. 4 Plotinos's Creation of the Trinity.
- ^ Inge 1948a, p. 100 (footnote 1), Forerunners of Plotinus, Vol. 1.
- ^ Mead, G. R. S. (1906). Fragments of a Faith Forgotten. London and Benares: Theosophical Publishing Society. p. 177. ark:/13960/t2t44pw51.
- ^ Mead 1906, p. 179, Saturninus.
- ^ Guthrie 1918d, p. 1301, Plotinos's Creation of the Trinity.
- ^ Remes 2008, pp. 19–21, Introduction.
- ^ a b c Remes 2008, p. 6.
- ^ a b c Remes 2008, p. 22, Introduction.
- ^ Remes 2008, pp. 23–24, Introduction.
- ^ Elsee 1908, p. 70-71, The History of Neoplatonism.
- ^ a b Dodds 1923, p. 7, Introduction.
- ^ a b Inge 1948a, p. 95, Forerunners of Plotinus.
- ^ Crawford 1901, p. 54 (footnote 2), The Philosopher.
- ^ Harris, R. Baine (1982). Neoplatonism and Indian Thought. Thought Studies in Neoplatonism. Vol. 2. United States of America: State University of New York Press. p. 308. ISBN 9780585068411.
- ^ Staal, J. F. (1961). Advaita and Neoplatonism. Madras University Philosophical Series. Vol. no. 10. Madras: University of Madras. p. 249. OCLC 2026357.
- ^ Dodds 1971, p. 203 (footnote 1).
- ^ Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 14, 82, 92.
- ^ Sorabji 2005, p. 204, 6. Soul-Body.
- ^ a b Inge 1948a, p. 95 (footnote 3), Forerunners of Plotinus.
- ^ Crawford 1901, p. 54 (footnote 2).
- ^ Gerson 2005, p. 270 footnote 61, Was Aristotle a Platonist?.
- ^ Gerson 2005, p. 270, Was Aristotle a Platonist?.
- ^ Emilsson, Eyjólfur K. (2017). Plotinus. Routledge Philosophers. Oxford; New York: Routledge. pp. 11–12. ISBN 9780203413159.
- ^ a b c d e Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 21, Platonist Curricula and their Influence by Tarrant.
- ^ Sorabji 2005, p. 6, Introduction.
- ^ Goodman 1992, p. 7, Introduction.
- ^ a b Dodds 1971, p. xix, Introduction.
- ^ Select Works of Plotinus. Translated by Taylor, Thomas. Preface and Bibliography by G. R. S. Mead. London; New York: George Bell & Sons York Street Covent Garden. 1895. pp. vii. ark:/13960/t2d799x92.
- ^ Emilsson 2017, p. i, front matter.
- ^ O'Meara, Dominic J. (1995). An Introduction to the Enneads. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 1. ISBN 0198751478.
- ^ O'Meara 1995, p. 1, Introduction.
- ^ a b c d e Emilsson 2017, p. ix, Chronology.
- ^ Emilsson 2017, p. 10, Life, works and philosophical background.
- ^ a b c d Emilsson 2017, p. 11, Life, works and philosophical background.
- ^ Porphyry, On the Life of Plotinus and the Order of His Books, Ch. 3 (Armstrong's Loeb translation).
- ^ Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 77, Plotinus and the Orient: aoristos dyas by Adluri.
- ^ Peachin, Michael (1990). Roman Imperial Titulature and Chronology, A.D. 235 - 284. Studia Amstelodamensia Ad Epigraphicam Tus Antiquum Et Papyrologicam Pertinentia. Vol. XXIX. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. pp. 29–30. ISBN 9050630340. ark:/13960/t9d62br8p.
- ^ a b Magny 2014, p. 7-8, Introduction.
- ^ a b Berchman, Robert M. (2005). Porphyry Against the Christians. Leiden; Boston: Brill. p. 1. ISBN 9004148116.
- ^ Emilsson 2017, p. 14-16, Life, works and philosophical background.
- ^ Emilsson 2017, p. 27, Life, works and philosophical background.
- ^ Emilsson 2017, p. 18-19, Life, works and philosophical background.
- ^ Emilsson 2017, p. 18, Life, works and philosophical background.
- ^ Magny, Ariane (2014). Porphyry in Fragments. Oxford; New York: Routledge. p. 7. ISBN 9781409441151.
- ^ Magny 2014, p. 7, Introduction.
- ^ Digeser, Elizabeth Depalma (2012). A Threat to Public Piety. Ithaca; London: Cornell University Press. p. 305. ISBN 9780801441813.
- ^ Magny (2014), Porphyry in Fragments. Routledge, p. 9.
- ^ a b c Magny 2014, p. 8, Introduction.
- ^ a b Berchman 2005, p. 3, Chapter 1: Author, Title, Date, Sources, Provenance.
- ^ a b Magny 2014, p. 12, Introduction.
- ^ Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 445, Freedom, providence and fate by Adamson.
- ^ Berchman 2005, p. 2, Chapter 1: Author, Title, Date, Sources, Provenance.
- ^ Porphyry on Abstinence from Killing Animals. Translated by Clark, Gillian. London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury Academic. 2014. p. 14. ISBN 9781780938882.
- ^ Heath, Thomas, Sir (1921). A History of Greek Mathematics. Vol. II From Aristarchus to Diophantus. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. p. 529. ark:/13960/t41s27d7j.
- ^ Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 119, The non-commentary tradition by Smith.
- ^ Afonasin, Eugene; Dillon, John; Finamore, John F., eds. (2012). Iamblichus and the Foundations of Late Platonism. Ancient Mediterranean and Medieval Texts and Contexts; Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic Tradition. Vol. 13. E. Afonasin; L. Brisson; J. Dillon; D. P. Taormina; C. Maggi; G. Shaw; J. F. Finamore; C. Addey; S. Mesyats; A. Lecerf. Leiden; Boston: Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. p. 1. ISBN 9789004230118.
- ^ a b c d Afonasin, Dillon & Finamore 2012, p. 1, Introduction.
- ^ Clarke, Dillon & Hershbell 2003, p. xviii.
- ^ a b Clarke, Dillon & Hershbell 2003, p. xix, Introduction.
- ^ Afonasin, Dillon & Finamore 2012, p. 27, The Pythagorean Way of Life in Clement of Alexandria and Iamblichus by Afonasin.
- ^ Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 32, The Alexandrian classrooms excavated and sixth-century philosophy teaching by Sorabji.
- ^ a b Sorabji 2005, p. 7, Introduction.
- ^ a b Siorvanes 1996, p. 18, Proelus' Life, Times and Influence.
- ^ Balty, Janine (1995). Mosaïques antiques du Proche-Orient. Annales littéraires de l'Université de Besançon; 551 (in French). Vol. 1. Paris: University of Franche-Comté. p. 380. ISBN 2251605517.
- ^ Clarke, Dillon & Hershbell 2003, p. xxi-xxii, Introduction.
- ^ Sorabji 2005, p. 419, Main Thinkers Represented in the Sourcebook.
- ^ a b c Clarke, Dillon & Hershbell 2003, p. xxiii, Introduction.
- ^ Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 280, Iamblichus on soul by Finamore.
- ^ Clarke, Dillon & Hershbell 2003, p. xxii-xxiii, Introduction.
- ^ Clarke, Dillon & Hershbell 2003, p. xxiv, Introduction.
- ^ Afonasin, Dillon & Finamore 2012, p. 1-2, Introduction.
- ^ Clarke, Dillon & Hershbell 2003, p. xxix (footnote 54), Introduction.
- ^ Afonasin, Dillon & Finamore 2012, p. 2-3, Introduction.
- ^ Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 510, Neoplatonism and Christianity in the West by Moran.
- ^ a b Remes 2008, p. 26, Introduction.
- ^ d'Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 10, Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg.
- ^ Remes 2008, p. 27, Introduction.
- ^ a b d'Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 19, Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg.
- ^ a b c Remes 2008, p. 25, Introduction.
- ^ Deakin, Michael A. B. (2007). Hypatia of Alexandria. United States of America: Prometheus Books. p. 16. ISBN 9781591025207.
- ^ Deakin 2007, p. 51, The Details o f Hypatia ’s Life.
- ^ a b Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 512, Neoplatonism and Christianity in the West by Moran.
- ^ Watts, Edward J. (2017). Hypatia. United States of America: Oxford University Press. p. 21. ISBN 9780190659141.
- ^ Deakin 2007, p. 52, The Details o f Hypatia ’s Life.
- ^ Whittaker 1918, p. 27, Plotinus and His Nearest Predecessors.
- ^ a b Watts 2017, p. 26, Childhood and Education.
- ^ Deakin 2007, p. 54, The Details o f Hypatia’s Life.
- ^ Watts 2017, p. 136, A Modern Symbol.
- ^ Dodds 1923, p. 8, Introduction.
- ^ a b Watts 2017, p. 37, The School of Hypatia.
- ^ a b Watts 2017, p. 38, The School of Hypatia.
- ^ Watts 2017, p. 50, The School of Hypatia.
- ^ Watts 2017, p. 66, A Philosophical Mother and Her Children.
- ^ Deakin 2007, p. 13, Introduction.
- ^ Watts 2017, p. 66-67, A Philosophical Mother and Her Children.
- ^ Watts 2017, p. 46, The School of Hypatia.
- ^ Dzielska, Maria (1996). Hypatia of Alexandria. Translated by Lyra, F. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. pp. 38–39. ISBN 9780674437760.
- ^ a b c Watts 2017, p. 2, A Lenten Murder.
- ^ Watts 2017, p. 114, Murder in the Street.
- ^ Watts 2017, p. 1, A Lenten Murder.
- ^ Watts 2017, p. 2, 3, 58, 109, 111.
- ^ Watts 2017, p. 116, Murder in the Street.
- ^ Watts 2017, pp. 2–3, A Lenten Murder.
- ^ Watts 2017, p. 30-31, Childhood and Education.
- ^ Ahbel-Rappe 2010, p. xv, Prolegomenon.
- ^ Dodds 1928, p. 134, The Parmenides and the Neoplatonic 'One'.
- ^ Kaufmann, Walter (1963). Philosophic Classics. Vol. Thales to St. Thomas. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. (New Jersey, USA): Prentice-Hall, INC. p. 536. ark:/13960/t11n91p54.
- ^ d'Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 6, Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg.
- ^ Proclus' Commentary on Plato's Parmenides (in English and Ancient Greek). Introduction and Notes by Dillion. United States of America: Princeton University Press. 1992 [1987]. pp. xi. ISBN 0691020892.
- ^ a b c d'Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 8, Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg.
- ^ Proclus: A Commentary on the First Book of Euclid's Elements (in English and Ancient Greek). Translated by Morrow, Glenn R. Foreword to the 1992 edition by lan Mueller. New Jersey (USA): Princeton University Press. 1992 [1970]. pp. xxxix. ISBN 9780691020907.
- ^ Whittaker 1918, p. 157, The Athenian School.
- ^ Tarrant, Harold, ed. (2007). Book 1: Proclus on the Socratic State and Atlantis. Proclus: Commentary on Plato's Timaeus. Vol. 1. Translated by Tarrant, Harold. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 2. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511482656. ISBN 9780511482656.
- ^ Morrow 1992, p. xxii, Forward by I. Mueller.
- ^ Morrow 1992, p. xxxix, Forward by I. Mueller.
- ^ Morrow 1992, p. xxiii, Introduction.
- ^ Morrow & Dillon 1992, p. xii, General Introduction.
- ^ Berg, R.M. van den; Mansfeld, J.; Runia, D.T.; Van Winden, J. C. M., eds. (2001). Proclus' Hymns Essays, Translations, Commentary. Philosophia Antiqua. Vol. 90. Leiden; Boston; Köln: Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. p. 75. ISBN 90-04-12236-2.
- ^ Taylor 1999, p. 225.
- ^ Waithe, Mary Ellen (1987). Ancient Women Philosophers 600 B.C. –500 A.D. A History of Women Philosophers. The Netherlands: Springer. p. 201. ISBN 9789400934979.
- ^ Morrow & Dillon 1992, pp. xii–xiii, General Introduction.
- ^ a b Taylor 1999, p. 221, 223, 228, 230, 239, The Life of Proclus or Concerning Felicity by Marinus.
- ^ Ahbel-Rappe 2010, pp. 7, 423.
- ^ Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 366 note 14, Neoplatonism and medicine by Wilberding.
- ^ The Commentaries of Proclus on the Timaeus of Plato. Vol. 2. Translated by Taylor, Thomas. London: A. J. Valpy, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street. 1820. p. 41. ark:/13960/t00z70w6n.
- ^ a b Sorabji 2005, p. 9, Introduction.
- ^ Manolea, Christina-Panagiota, ed. (2021). Brill's Companion to the Reception of Homer from the Hellenistic Age to Late Antiquity. Brill's Companions to Classical Reception. Vol. 22. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. p. 408. ISBN 9789004472686.
- ^ Gersh, Stephen, ed. (2014). Interpreting Proclus. S. Gersh, L. Siorvanes, A. Sheppard, J. M. Dillon, C. D'Ancona, D. J. O'Meara, M. Trizio, L. Alexidze, C. Steel, P. Porro, M. Fu¨hrer, M. J. B. Allen, T. Leinkauf. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. pp. 33, 36. ISBN 9780521198493.
- ^ Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 366 note 12, Neoplatonism and medicine by Wilberding.
- ^ Siorvanes 1996, p. 27, Proelus' Life, Times and Influence.
- ^ d'Hoine & Martijn 2017, pp. 22–23, Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg.
- ^ d'Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 5, Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg.
- ^ a b c Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 36, The Alexandrian classrooms excavated and sixth-century philosophy teaching by Sorabji.
- ^ a b c d Morrow & Dillon 1992, p. xiii, General Introduction.
- ^ Russell, Bertrand (1945). A History Of Western Philosophy. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 418. ISBN 0671201581.
- ^ Westcott, Brooke Foss (1891). Essays in the History of Religious Thought. Macmillan and Co. p. 147. ark:/13960/t2d797r6j.
- ^ Butorac & Layne 2017, p. 201, The Transfiguration of Proclus’ Legacy by Mainoldi.
- ^ Whittaker 1918, p. 187, The Influence of Neo-Platonism.
- ^ Ahbel-Rappe 2010, p. 423, Notes to Pages 3–4.
- ^ Gersh 2014, p. 39, Proclus' life, works, and education of the soul by Siorvanes.
- ^ Taylor 1999, p. 228-229, The Life of Proclus or Concerning Felicity by Marinus.
- ^ d'Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 11, Proclus of Athens: A Life by Wildberg.
- ^ Whittaker 1918, p. 161, The Athenian School.
- ^ a b Morrow & Dillon 1992, p. xiv, General Introduction.
- ^ a b d'Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 329–332, Appendix II.
- ^ d'Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. v, Preface.
- ^ Remes 2008, p. 28, Introduction.
- ^ Ahbel-Rappe 2010, p. 3, Introduction to the Life and Philosophy of Damascius.
- ^ Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 23, Platonist Curricula and their Influence by Tarrant.
- ^ Remes 2008, p. 31, Introduction.
- ^ Olympiqdorus Commentary on Plato's Gorgias. Translated by Jackson, Robin; Lycos, Kimon; Tarrant, Harold. Boston; Koln: Brill. 1998. p. 3. ISBN 9004109722.
- ^ Ahbel-Rappe 2010, p. 3, 423 (note 4).
- ^ Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 35, The Alexandrian classrooms excavated and sixth-century philosophy teaching by Sorabji.
- ^ Ahbel-Rappe 2010, p. 3, 423.
- ^ Ahbel-Rappe 2010, p. 3, 423 (note 6).
- ^ a b c d e f g Ahbel-Rappe 2010, p. 4, Introduction to the Life and Philosophy of Damascius.
- ^ Remes 2008, p. 29, Introduction.
- ^ Ahbel-Rappe 2010, p. 4-5, Introduction to the Life and Philosophy of Damascius.
- ^ Lang, Macro & McGinnis 2001, p. 4 (note 9), Introduction.
- ^ Ahbel-Rappe 2010, p. 424 (note 18), Notes to Pages 4-7.
- ^ a b Ahbel-Rappe 2010, p. 6, Introduction to the Life and Philosophy of Damascius.
- ^ Ahbel-Rappe 2010, p. 423 (note 3), Notes to Pages 3-4.
- ^ Ahbel-Rappe 2010, p. 8, 425.
- ^ Ahbel-Rappe 2010, p. 3, 8, Introduction to the Life and Philosophy of Damascius.
- ^ Ahbel-Rappe 2010, p. 3-4, 10-12, Introduction to the Life and Philosophy of Damascius.
- ^ Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 4, Introduction.
- ^ Nikulin 2019, p. xi, Preface.
- ^ a b c d e Ahbel-Rappe 2010, p. xiv, Prolegomenon.
- ^ Plotinos Complete Works. Vol. I. Translated by Guthrie, Kenneth Sylvan. United States of America: Comparative Literature Press. 1918a. p. 186. ark:/13960/t4xg9fh13.
- ^ a b Dodds 1971, p. xx, Introduction (footnote 4).
- ^ a b Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 194, The metaphysics of the One by Halfwassen.
- ^ Emilsson 2017, p. 335, Ethics II.
- ^ Guthrie 1918a, p. 53, i.6 Of Beauty.
- ^ Dillon & Gerson 2004, p. xxii, Introduction.
- ^ Gerson, Lloyd P., ed. (2020). Plotinus Reader (in English and Ancient Greek). Indianapolis; Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. p. 289. ISBN 9781624668951.
- ^ Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 55, Plotinus and the Gnostics by Turner.
- ^ Plotinos Complete Works. Vol. II. Translated by Guthrie, Kenneth Sylvan. United States of America: Comparative Literature Press. 1918b. p. 547.
- ^ a b Emilsson 2017, p. 99, The One and the genesis of Intellect.
- ^ Emilsson 2017, pp. 99–100, The One and the genesis of Intellect.
- ^ Guthrie 1918b, p. 549, Vol. 2, iii.8 Of Contemplation.
- ^ Dodds 1928, p. 136.
- ^ The Republic, Books VI-X. Plato: In Twelve Volumes, Vol. 6. Vol. 2. Translated by Shorey, Paul. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London: Harvard University Press. 1980 [1930]. pp. 106 (509B). ISBN 0674993047.
- ^ a b c d Emilsson 2017, p. 100, The One and the genesis of Intellect.
- ^ a b d’Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 107, Platonic Forms and Being–Life–Intellect by d’Hoine.
- ^ Emilsson 2017, pp. 48, 90, 94, The world according to Plotinus.
- ^ a b Emilsson 2017, pp. 48–49, The world according to Plotinus.
- ^ Guthrie 1918a, p. 177, Vol.1 v.1 Three Principal Hypostases.
- ^ a b c Emilsson 2017, pp. 48, The world according to Plotinus.
- ^ Ahbel-Rappe 2010, p. 474, Notes To Pages 319-324.
- ^ Corrigan, Kevin (2005). Reading Plotinus. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press. p. 29. ISBN 1557532346.
- ^ Emilsson 2017, p. 90, The world according to Plotinus.
- ^ Guthrie 1918a, p. 193, Vol.1 v.2 Of Generation.
- ^ a b d’Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 108, Platonic Forms and Being–Life–Intellect by d’Hoine.
- ^ d’Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 120, Platonic Forms and Being–Life–Intellect by d’Hoine.
- ^ Dodds 1971, p. 204, Commentary.
- ^ Dodds 1971, p. 216, Commentary.
- ^ Emilsson 2017, pp. 51–54, 69, The world according to Plotinus.
- ^ Harris, R. Baine, ed. (2002). "The Influence of Plotinus on Berson's Critique of Empirical Science". Neoplatonism and Contemporary Thought. Studies in Neoplatonism. Vol. 10. Curtis L. Hancock. Albany (N.Y.): State University of New York Press. pp. 139 ff. ISBN 9780791452769.
- ^ Bergson, Henri (1950). Time and Free Will. Translated by Pogson, F. L. (6th ed.). London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. p. 178. ark:/13960/t1mg7fx9z.
- ^ Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 178, Metaphysics by Ahbel-Rappe.
- ^ Butorac & Layne 2017, p. 220, 226, Pseudo-Dionysius and Proclus on Parmenides 137d by Wear.
- ^ d’Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 224, Theurgy in the Context of Proclus’ Philosophy by Berg.
- ^ a b Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 124, The non-commentary tradition by Smith.
- ^ a b c d Dodds 1971, p. 259, Commentary.
- ^ Guthrie 1918b, p. 324–325, Vol. 2, vi.5 Essence is Present Everywhere.
- ^ Afonasin, Dillon & Finamore 2012, p. 174, Iamblichus on Henads by Mesyats.
- ^ Dodds 1971, pp. 257, 259, Commentary.
- ^ a b Dodds 1971, p. 258, Commentary.
- ^ Copenhaver 2002, p. 178, Notes to pages 46-7.
- ^ a b c Morrow & Dillon 1992, p. xxii, General Introduction.
- ^ Dodds 1971, pp. 263, 289, Commentary.
- ^ Dodds 1971, p. 282, Commentary.
- ^ Dodds 1971, pp. 93, 111, 133, 267.
- ^ Dodds 1971, p. 209, Commentary.
- ^ d'Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 91, The One, the Henads, and the Principles by Van Riel.
- ^ d'Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 225, Theurgy and Proclus' Philosophy by Berg.
- ^ a b c Gerson 2020, p. 287, English Glossary of Important Terms.
- ^ a b c d Emilsson 2017, p. 104, Intellect.
- ^ Emilsson 2017, p. 140, Intellect.
- ^ Emilsson 2017, p. 105, Intellect.
- ^ Guthrie 1918d, p. 1113, Vol. 4 v.3 Of the Self-consciousnesses.
- ^ Emilsson 2017, p. 107, Intellect.
- ^ a b c Emilsson 2017, p. 141, Intellect.
- ^ Dodds 1971, p. 233, Commentary.
- ^ a b c Dodds 1971, p. xx, Introduction.
- ^ Dodds 1971, p. xx, 310, Introduction.
- ^ Berg, R.M. van den (2001). Mansfeld, J.; Runia, D.T.; Van Winden, J. C. M (eds.). Proclus' Hymns Essays, Translations, Commentary. Philosophia Antiqua (in English and Greek). Vol. 90. Leiden, Boston, Köln: Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. p. 73. ISBN 9004122362.
- ^ a b Gerson 2020, p. 293, English Glossary of Important Terms.
- ^ a b c d e Emilsson 2017, p. 144, Soul.
- ^ Emilsson 2017, pp. 144, 180, Soul.
- ^ Emilsson 2017, pp. 167–172, Soul.
- ^ a b c d e Emilsson 2017, p. 181, Soul.
- ^ a b Emilsson 2017, p. 145, Soul.
- ^ Guthrie 1918a, p. 183, Vol. 1 v.i Three Principal Hypostases.
- ^ Emilsson 2017, pp. 144–145, Soul.
- ^ Gerson, Lloyd P., ed. (2018). Plotinus The Enneads (in English and Greek). Translated by Boys-Stones, George; Dillon, John M.; Gerson, Lloyd P.; King, R.A.H.; Smith, Andrew; Wilberding, James. United Kingdom; USA; Australia; India; Singapore: Cambridge University Press. pp. Ennead 4.7 (2) ff. doi:10.1017/9780511736490. ISBN 9781107001770.
- ^ Emilsson 2017, pp. 181–182, Soul.
- ^ Ahbel-Rappe 2010, p. 88, Section II. Ascent to the First Principle.
- ^ a b Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 281, Iamblichus on soul by Finamore.
- ^ a b Sorabji 2005, p. 61, 2. Phantasia.
- ^ Sorabji 2005, pp. 61–83, 2. Phantasia.
- ^ Blumenthal, H. J.; Finamore, J. F., eds. (1997). Syllecta Classica (in English and Ancient Greek). H. J. Blumenthal, C. G. Steel, G. Van Riel, F. Romano, J. M. Dillon, R. L. Cardullo, D. P. Taormina, A. Sheppard, A. Charles-Saget, F. G. Bazan. Iowa City, Iowa: The University of Iowa. p. 115. ISSN 1040-3612.
- ^ Dillon & Gerson 2004, p. 363, Glossary.
- ^ Cohen, S. Marc; Curd, Patricia; Reeve, C.D.C, eds. (2011). Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy: from Thales to Aristotle (4th ed.). Indianapolis; Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. p. 691. ISBN 9781603845977.
- ^ Dillon & Gerson 2004, p. 366, Glossary.
- ^ a b c Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 284, Iamblichus on soul by Finamore.
- ^ Afonasin, Dillon & Finamore 2012, p. 94, The Role of Aesthesis in Theurgy by Shaw.
- ^ a b c d Dodds 1971, p. 315, Appendix II.
- ^ Laws Books I-VI. Plato in Twelve Volumes Vol. X (in English and Greek). Vol. I. Translated by Bury, R. G. London; Cambridge, Massachusetts: William Heinemann Ltd; Harvard University Press. 1967 [1926]. pp. 285 Laws, Book IV 713 D. ark:/13960/t0xq2f21x.
- ^ The Works of the Emperor Julian (in English and Greek). Vol. I. Translated by Wright, Wilmer Cave. London; New York: William Heinemann; The Macmillan Co. 1913. pp. 397 (footnote 1). ark:/13960/t5gb32365.
- ^ a b c Butorac & Layne 2017, p. 54 (footnote 2), The Platonic Hero by Layne.
- ^ a b Kamesar 2009, p. 140, Philo’s Theology and Theory of Creation by Radice.
- ^ a b Sorabji 2005, p. 20, Introduction.
- ^ Tarrant, Harold, ed. (2007). Book 1: Proclus on the Socratic State and Atlantis. Proclus: Commentary on Plato's Timaeus Vol. 1 (in English and Greek). Translated by Tarrant, Harold. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 77. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511482656. ISBN 9780511482656.
- ^ Sorabji 2005, p. 21, Introduction.
- ^ a b c Sorabji 2005, p. 403, Religious Practice.
- ^ Berchman 2005, p. 50, Chapter 3: Religious and Philosophical Elements.
- ^ Gersh 1986, p. 632, Martianus Capella, Vol.2.
- ^ Sorabji 2005, p. 404, Religious Practice.
- ^ Guthrie 1918d, p. 1154, Vol. 4 i.8 Of the Nature of Evils.
- ^ Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014, p. 238, Matter and evil in the Neoplatonic tradition by Narbonne.
- ^ a b Gerson 2020, p. 275, English Glossary of Important Terms.
- ^ Proclus On the Existence of Evils (in English, Greek, and Latin). Translated by Opsomer, Jan; Steel, Carlos. London; New York: Bloomsbury. 2014a [2003]. pp. 3–4, 12. ISBN 9781472501035.
- ^ a b Inge 1948a, p. 128, The World of Sense.
- ^ a b c Inge 1948a, p. xvi, Syllabus of Lectures: Lectures VI, VII, VIII.
- ^ Inge 1948a, p. 134, The World of Sense.
- ^ a b Inge 1948a, p. 132, The World of Sense.
- ^ a b Opsomer & Steel 2014a, p. 4, Introduction.
- ^ Ross, W. D., ed. (1928). Metaphysica. The Works of Aristotle (in English and Greek). Vol. VIII. Translated by Ross, W. D. (2nd ed.). London; Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leipzig, Copenhagen, New York, Toronto, Melbourne, Capetown, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Shanghai: The Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press. pp. 1057b3-5. ark:/13960/t2k649z2f.
- ^ a b c d e Opsomer & Steel 2014a, p. 18, Introduction.
- ^ Opsomer & Steel 2014a, p. 19, Introduction.
- ^ Opsomer & Steel 2014a, p. 20, 23, Introduction.
- ^ a b Opsomer & Steel 2014a, p. 22, Introduction.
- ^ Opsomer & Steel 2014a, p. 22, 24, Introduction.
- ^ Opsomer & Steel 2014a, p. 21, Introduction.
- ^ a b Opsomer & Steel 2014a, p. 30, Introduction.
- ^ Dodds 1971, p. 171, Of Souls.
- ^ Dodds 1971, p. 313-314, Appendix II.
- ^ Sorabji 2005, pp. 221–229, 8. Vehicles of Soul.
- ^ a b Dodds 1971, p. 320, Appendix II.
- ^ MacDonald, Paul S. (2017) [2003]. History of the Concept of Mind. Vol. 1. Oxon; New York, NY, USA: Routledge. p. 122. ISBN 9780754613640.
- ^ Sorabji 2005, p. 221, 8. Vehicles of Soul.
- ^ MacDonald 2017, p. 121, From the New Testament to St. Augustine.
- ^ Sorabji 2005, p. 223, 8. Vehicles of Soul.
- ^ Sorabji 2005, pp. 224–225, 8. Vehicles of Soul.
- ^ Sorabji 2005, pp. 225–226, 8. Vehicles of Soul.
- ^ Sorabji 2005, pp. 226–227, 8. Vehicles of Soul.
- ^ Sorabji 2005, pp. 227–228, 8. Vehicles of Soul.
- ^ Sorabji 2005, p. 227, 8. Vehicles of Soul.
- ^ Sorabji 2005, p. 228-229, 8. Vehicles of Soul.
- ^ a b Dodds 1971, pp. 301–302, Commentary.
- ^ Dodds 1971, p. 181, Of Souls.
- ^ Dodds 1971, pp. 301–302, 305, Commentary.
- ^ a b c Butorac & Layne 2017, p. 118, Proclus and Apokatastasis by Ramelli.
- ^ Dodds 1971, p. 302, Commentary.
- ^ Butorac & Layne 2017, pp. 117–118, Proclus and Apokatastasis by Ramelli.
- ^ a b Dodds 1971, p. 305, Commentary.
- ^ Dodds 1971, p. 305 (footnote 2), Commentary.
- ^ Smith, Andrew (1974). Porphyry's Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition (in English and Ancient Greek). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. p. 58. doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1604-9. ISBN 9789024716531.
- ^ Tarrant, Harold, ed. (2014). Proclus On Plato Cratylus (in English and Ancient Greek). Translated by Duvick, Brian. London; New York: Bloomsbury Academic. pp. 74–78. ISBN 9781472558190.
- ^ Remes 2008, p. 120, Human Being and the Self.
- ^ Sorabji 205, p. 211, 6. Soul-Body.
- ^ Gersh 1986, p. 432, Calcidius Vol. 2.
- ^ Remes 2008, p. 119, Human Being and the Self.
- ^ Smith, Andrew (1987). "Porphyrian Studies since 1913". Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. Philosophie. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Vol. II 36/2. De Gruyter. pp. 717–773.
Whether human souls could be reborn into animals seems to have become quite a problematical topic to the later neoplatonists.
- ^ a b Dodds 1923, p. 90, The Human Soul.
- ^ Siorvanes 1996, p. 141, Knowledge and the Levels of Being.
- ^ Sorabji 2005, p. 213, 6. Soul-Body.
- ^ Proclus Ten Problems Concerning Providence. Translated by Opsomer, Jan; Steel, Carlos. London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury Academic. 2014b [2012]. pp. 47, 115. ISBN 9781472501783.
- ^ Opsomer & Steel 2014b, pp. 47–48, 115.
- ^ Remes 2008, p. 195, Ethics and Politics.
- ^ a b Dillon & Gerson 2004, p. 364, Glossary.
- ^ a b c d d’Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 152, The Natural World by Opsomer.
- ^ d’Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 159, The Natural World by Opsomer.
- ^ Guthrie 1918, p. 535, Vol. 2 iii.8 Of Contemplation.
- ^ Emilsson 2017, p. 220, The physical world.
- ^ a b Emilsson 2017, p. 221, The physical world.
- ^ Guthrie 1918, p. 536, Vol. 2 iii.8 Of Contemplation.
- ^ Dillon & Gerson 2004, p. 367, Glossary.
- ^ a b c d e f g d’Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 153, The Natural World by Opsomer.
- ^ a b c d e d’Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 154, The Natural World by Opsomer.
- ^ a b Morrow & Dillon 1992, p. 213, Commentary.
- ^ Bury 1981, p. 134 (footnote 1), Timaeus 55c.
- ^ Archer-Hind 2014, pp. 190 (footnote 15), 197 (footnote 14), 199 (footnote 4), ΤΙΜΑΙΟΣ 55c.
- ^ a b Gerson 2020, p. 277, English Glossary of Important Terms.
- ^ d’Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 153, 154, The Natural World by Opsomer.
- ^ Gerson 2020, p. 281, English Glossary of Important Terms.
- ^ Book 4: Proclus on Time and the Stars. Proclus Commentary on Plato's Timaeus (in English and Ancient Greek). Vol. 5. Translated by Baltzly, Dirk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2013. pp. 241 (footnote 584). ISBN 9780521846585.
- ^ Timaeus Critias Cleitophon Menexenus Epistles. Plato In Twelve Volumes (in English and Ancient Greek). Vol. 9. Translated by Bury, The Rev. R. G. (7th ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts; London: Harvard University Press; William Heinemann Ltd. 1981 [1929]. pp. 134 (footnote 1). ISBN 0674992571. ark:/13960/t74v21n46.
- ^ ΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ ΤΙΜΑΙΟΣ The Timaeus of Plato (in English and Ancient Greek). Translated by Archer-Hind, R. D. (34th ed.). London; Breinigsville, Pennsylvania: Macmillan and Co; Nabu Press. 2014 [1888]. pp. 190 (footnote 15), 197 (footnote 14), 199 (footnote 4). ISBN 9781293660652. ark:/13960/t2v40n58f.
- ^ Plutarch Moralia. The Loeb Classical Library 427 (in English and Ancient Greek). Vol. XIII: Part I. Translated by Cherniss, Harold. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press. 1976. pp. 55 (footnote b). ISBN 9780674994706. ark:/13960/t6d23869b.
- ^ Timaeus and Critias. Translated by Waterfield, Robin. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2008. p. 144. ISBN 9780192807359.
- ^ Russell, Bertrand (1945). A History Of Western Philosophy. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 147. ISBN 0671201581.
- ^ Tarrant, Harold, ed. (2007). Book 1: Proclus on the Socratic State and Atlantis. Proclus: Commentary on Plato's Timaeus (in English and Ancient Greek). Vol. 1. Translated by Tarrant, Harold. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 99 (footnote 33). doi:10.1017/CBO9780511482656. ISBN 9780511482656.
- ^ Baltzly 2013, p. 241 (footnote 584), The tenth gift of the Demiurge.
- ^ d’Hoine & Martijn 2017, pp. 323–328, Appendix I by Brisson & Van Riel.
- ^ Gerson 2020, p. 289, English Glossary of Important Terms.
- ^ a b c d e f d’Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 324, Appendix I by Brisson & Van Riel.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i d’Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 325, Appendix I by Brisson & Van Riel.
- ^ Gerson 2020, p. 288, English Glossary of Important Terms.
- ^ a b c d e d’Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 326, Appendix I by Brisson & Van Riel.
- ^ a b c d e f d’Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 327, Appendix I by Brisson & Van Riel.
- ^ a b c d d’Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 328, Appendix I by Brisson & Van Riel.
- ^ Armstrong, Karen (1993). A History of God. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 978-0345384560.
- ^ Kreisel, Howard (1997). "Moses Maimonides". In Frank, Daniel H. Frank; Leaman, Oliver (eds.). History of Jewish Philosophy. Routledge history of world philosophies. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 245–280. ISBN 978-0-415-08064-4.
- ^ Wayne Hankey, "Aquinas, Plato, and Neo-Platonism"
- ^ Augustine, Confessions Book 7
- ^ Augustine, Confessions, Book 7.12.18
- ^ Augustine, Confessions, Book 7.1.1-2
- ^ Handboek Geschiedenis van de Wijsbegeerte I, Article by Carlos Steel
- ^ The journal of neoplatonic studies, Volumes 7–8, Institute of Global Cultural Studies, Binghamton University, 1999, P 16
- ^ a b c Theological treatises on the Trinity, By Marius Victorinus, Mary T. Clark, P25
- ^ Col. 1:15
- ^ Phil. 2:5-7
- ^ Augustine, Confessions, Book 7.9.13-14
- ^ De immortalitate animae of Augustine: text, translation and commentary, By Saint Augustine (Bishop of Hippo.), C. W. Wolfskeel, introduction
- ^ 1 John 1:14
- ^ Handboek Geschiedenis van de Wijsbegeerte I, Article by Douwe Runia
- ^ "PLOTINUS, Ennead, Volume I: Porphyry on the Life of Plotinus. Ennead I". www.loebclassics.com.
- ^ Alan Cameron, "The last days of the Academy at Athens," in Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society vol 195 (n.s. 15), 1969, pp 7–29.
- ^ Lindberg, David C. "The Beginnings of Western Science", page 70
- ^ a b c Encyclopædia Britannica, Higher Education in the Byzantine Empire, 2008, O.Ed.
- ^ Cleary, John J., ed. (1997). The perennial tradition of Neoplatonism. Leuven: Univ. Press. p. 443. ISBN 978-90-6186-847-7.
- ^ a b Cleary, John J., ed. (1997). The perennial tradition of Neoplatonism. Leuven: Univ. Press. pp. 420–437. ISBN 978-90-6186-847-7.
- ^ Cleary, John J., ed. (1997). The perennial tradition of Neoplatonism. Leuven: Univ. Press. p. 431. ISBN 978-90-6186-847-7.
- ^ Morewedge, Parviz, ed. (1992). Neoplatonism and Islamic thought. Albany: State University of New York Press. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-7914-1335-7.
- ^ Heiser, James D., Prisci Theologi and the Hermetic Reformation in the Fifteenth Century, Repristination Press: Texas, 2011. ISBN 978-1-4610-9382-4
- ^ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – entry for Plotinus
- ^ Notopoulos, James A. (1936). "Shelley and Thomas Taylor". Proceedings of the Modern Language Association of America. 51 (2): 502–517. doi:10.2307/458067. JSTOR 458067.
- ^ Parerga and Paralipomena, Volume I, "Fragments for the History of Philosophy," § 7)
- ^ Ludwig Noiré, Historical Introduction to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
- ^ Gersh 1986, p. 26, Introduction, Vol. 1.
- ^ Gersh 1986, pp. 26–27, Introduction, Vol. 1.
- ^ a b c Gersh 1986, p. 32, Introduction, Vol. 1.
- ^ Gersh 1986, pp. 32, 34, Introduction, Vol. 1.
- ^ Gersh 1986, p. 33-34, Introduction, Vol. 1.
- ^ Gersh 1986, p. 31, Introduction, Vol. 1.
- ^ Gersh 1986, p. 34, Introduction, Vol. 1.
- ^ Gersh 1986, p. 36, Introduction, Vol. 1.
- ^ Gersh 1986, p. 38, Introduction, Vol. 1.
- ^ Dick, Philip K. (2011). Jackson, Pamela; Lethem, Jonathan (eds.). The Exegesis of Philip K. Dick. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN 978-0-547-54927-9.
- ^ a b Watts 2017, p. 145, A Modern Symbol.
- ^ Watts 2017, p. 145-146, A Modern Symbol.
- ^ Paz, Octavio (2011) [1968]. Marcel Duchamp: Appearance Stripped Bare. Translated by Gardener, Donald; Phillips, Rachel. New York: Arcade Publishing. p. 56. ISBN 9781611454796.
- ^ Krauss, Rosalind E (1996). The Optical Unconscious. United States of America: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. p. 107. ISBN 0262611058.
- ^ a b d’Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 276, Literary Theory and Aesthetics by Sheppard.
- ^ d’Hoine & Martijn 2017, pp. 276–277, Literary Theory and Aesthetics by Sheppard.
- ^ a b d’Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 277, Literary Theory and Aesthetics by Sheppard.
- ^ d’Hoine & Martijn 2017, pp. 277–278, Literary Theory and Aesthetics by Sheppard.
- ^ a b c d’Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 278, Literary Theory and Aesthetics by Sheppard.
- ^ a b d’Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 279, Literary Theory and Aesthetics by Sheppard.
- ^ a b d’Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 168, 179-180, Mathematics and the Sciences by O’Meara.
- ^ a b c d’Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 282, Literary Theory and Aesthetics by Sheppard.
- ^ Tarrant & Duvick 2014, p. 166, Notes to pages 87-89.
- ^ a b c Emilsson 2017, p. 368, Ethics II.
- ^ a b c d’Hoine & Martijn 2017, p. 281, Literary Theory and Aesthetics by Sheppard.
- ^ Holly, Michael Ann (1984). Panofsky and the Foundations of Art History (in English and German). United States of America; London: Cornell University Press; Cornell University Press Ltd. p. 161. ISBN 0801416140.
- ^ Robb, Nesca A (1968) [1935]. Neoplatonism of the Italian Renaissance. New York: Octagon Books. pp. 12, 214 (footnote 1). OCLC 298826. ark:/13960/t2m698x76.
- ^ Robb 1968, pp. 239–269, The Lyric: Michelangelo.
- ^ Robb 1968, p. 214 (footnote1), Neoplatonism and the Arts.
- ^ Holly 1984, p. 161, Later Work.
- ^ a b Holly 1984, p. 162, Later Work.
- ^ Holly 1984, p. 173, Later Work.
- ^ Wind, Edgar (1958). Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp. 101 (footnote 1). ISBN 9780192812957. ark:/13960/t6tz13z54.
- ^ Homer The Iliad. The Loeb Classical Library (in English and Ancient Greek). Vol. I. Translated by Murray, A. T. (2nd ed.). London; New York: William Heinemann Ltd; G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1928 [1924]. p. 249. ark:/13960/t2r49vg31.
Bibliography[edit]
- Damascius' Problems and Solutions Concerning First Principles. Translated by Ahbel-Rappe, Sara. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. 2010. ISBN 9780195150292.
- Iamblichus: De mysteriis. Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Greco-Roman World. Vol. 4. Translated by Clarke, Emma C.; Dillon, John M.; Hershbell, Jackson P. USA: Society of Biblical Literature. 2003. pp. xviii. ISBN 158983058X.
- Hermetica. Translated by Copenhaver, Brian P. United Kingdom; United States of America; Australia; Spain; South Africa: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge; Cambridge University Press. 2002. ISBN 0521361443.
- d'Hoine, Pieter; Martijn, Marije, eds. (2017). All From One: A Guide to Proclus. C. Wildberg, H. Tarrant, M. Martijn, L. P. Gerson, G. Van Riel, P. d'Hoine, J. F. Finamore, E. Kutash, J. Opsomer, D. O'Meara, C. Helmig, L. Brisson, R. M. Berg, C. Steel, D. Baltzly, A. Sheppard, P. Adamson and F. Karfík. United States of America: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199640331.
- Select Passages Illustrating Neoplatonism. Translated by Dodds, E. R. London; New York and Toronto: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; The Macmillan Co. 1923. ark:/13960/t5t77jp65.
- Dodds, E. R. (July–October 1928). "The Parmenides of Plato and the Origin of the Neoplatonic 'One'". The Classical Quarterly. 22 (3/4): 129–142 – via JSTOR.
- Proclus The Elements of Theology. Translated by Dodds, E. R. Oxford: Reprinted Lithographically in Great Britain at the University Press, Oxford by Vivian Ridler printer to the University. 1971 [1963]. ISBN 9780198140979.
- Plotinos Complete Works. Vol. I. Translated by Guthrie, Kenneth Sylvan. United States of America: Comparative Literature Press. 1918a. ark:/13960/t93776g01.
- Plotinos Complete Works. Vol. II. Translated by Guthrie, Kenneth Sylvan. United States of America: Comparative Literature Press. 1918b. ark:/13960/t93776g01.
- Plotinos Complete Works. Vol. IV. Translated by Guthrie, Kenneth Sylvan. United States of America: Comparative Literature Press. 1918d. ark:/13960/t7sn01h8d.
- On the Eternity of the World, De Aeternitate Mundi, Proclus. Translated by Lang, Helen S.; Macro, A. D.; McGinnis, Jon. Berkeley; Los Angeles; London: University of California Press. 2001. ISBN 0520225546.
- Proclus: A Commentary on the First Book of Euclid's Elements. Translated by Morrow, Glenn R. New Jersey (USA): Princeton University Press. 1992 [1970]. ISBN 978-0-691-02090-7.
- Proclus' Commentary on Plato's Parmenides. Translated by Morrow, Glenn R.; Dillon, John M. United States of America: Princeton University Press. 1992 [1987]. ISBN 0-691-02089-2.
- Essays and Fragments of Proclus the Platonic Successor. The Thomas Taylor Series. Vol. XVIII. Translated by Taylor, Thomas. United Kingdom: The Prometheus Trust. 1999. ISBN 1898910170.
Further reading[edit]
- Addey, Crystal. 2014. Divination and Theurgy in Neoplatonism: Oracles of the Gods. Farnham; Burlington : Ashgate.
- Blumenthal, Henry J., and E. G. Clark, eds. 1993. The Divine Iamblichus: Philosopher and Man of Gods. Proceedings of a Conference held at the University of Liverpool on 23–26 September 1990. Bristol, UK: Bristol Classical Press.
- Catana, Leo 2013. "The Origin of the Division between Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism." Apeiron: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science 46: 2: 166–200.
- Chiaradonna, Riccardo and Franco Trabattoni eds. 2009. Physics and Philosophy of Nature in Greek Neoplatonism: Proceedings of the European Science Foundation Exploratory Workshop, Il Ciocco, Castelvecchio Pascoli, 22–24 June 2006. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
- Chlup, Radek. 2012. Proclus: An Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
- Dillon, John M. and Lloyd P. Gerson eds. 2004. Neoplatonic Philosophy. Introductory Readings. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.
- Gersh, Stephen. 2012. "The First Principles of Latin Neoplatonism: Augustine, Macrobius, Boethius." Vivarium 50.2: 113–138.
- Gerson, Lloyd P. ed. 1996. The Cambridge Companion to Plotinus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Gertz, Sebastian R. P. 2011. Death and Immortality in Late Neoplatonism: Studies on the Ancient Commentaries on Plato's Phaedo. Leiden: Brill.
- Hadot, Ilsetraut. 2015. "Athenian and Alexandrian Neoplatonism and the Harmonization of Aristotle and Plato." Translated by Michael Chase. Leiden; Boston: Brill.
- O’Meara, Dominic J. 1993. Plotinus: An Introduction to the Enneads. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
- Rangos, Spyridon. 2000. "Proclus and Artemis: On the Relevance of Neoplatonism to the Modern Study of Ancient Religion." Kernos 13: 47–84.
- Remes, P. 2008. Neoplatonism. Stocksfield, UK: Acumen.
- Remes, Pauliina and Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla eds. 2014. The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism, New York: Routledge.
- Smith, Andrew. 1974. Porphyry's Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition: A Study in Post-Plotinian Neoplatonism. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
- Whittaker, Thomas. 1901. The Neo-Platonists: A Study in the History of Hellenism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Some works of neoplatonism were attributed to Plato or Aristotle.
External links[edit]
 | Wikisource has original text related to this article: |
| Library resources about Neoplatonism |
- The London Philosophy Study Guide: Post-Aristotelian philosophy
- Wildberg, Christian. "Neoplatonism". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- "Neoplatonism". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- International Society for Neoplatonic Studies
- Christian Platonists and Neoplatonists: Historical and Modern
- Islamic Platonists and Neoplatonists
- Aristotle's Categories at Gutenberg
- Confessiones (Book I-XIII) - Augustine at Gutenberg
- De immortalitate animae of Augustine (Google Books)
Enneads public domain audiobook at LibriVox- Elements of Theology public domain audiobook at LibriVox
