2023/06/29

Neoplatonism - Wikipedia 신플라톤주의

Neoplatonism - Wikipedia


====
   

Neoplatonism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with Modern Platonism.
Part of a series on
Neoplatonism
Reconstructed bust believed to represent Plotinus
Reconstructed bust believed to represent Plotinus
Concepts
Works
People
Related topics
 Philosophy portal

Neoplatonism is a version of Platonic philosophy that emerged in the 3rd century AD against the background of Hellenistic philosophy and religion.[1][note 1][note 2] The term does not encapsulate a set of ideas as much as a series of thinkers. Among the common ideas it maintains is monism, the doctrine that all of reality can be derived from a single principle, "the One".[2]

Neoplatonism began with Ammonius Saccas and his student Plotinus (c. 204/5–271 AD) and stretched to the 6th century AD.[3] After Plotinus there were three distinct periods in the history of neoplatonism: the work of his student Porphyry (3rd to early 4th century); that of Iamblichus (3rd to 4th century); and the period in the 5th and 6th centuries, when the Academies in Alexandria and Athens flourished.[4]

Neoplatonism had an enduring influence on the subsequent history of Western philosophy and religion. In the Middle Ages, neoplatonic ideas were studied and discussed by Christian, Jewish, and Muslim thinkers.[5] 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 (Ibn Sina), and Moses Maimonides incorporated neoplatonic elements into their own thinking.[6]

Christian philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) had direct access to the works of Proclus, Simplicius of Cilicia, and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, and he knew about other Neoplatonists, such as Plotinus and Porphyry, through second hand sources.[7] The German mystic Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 – c. 1328) 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 19th-century Universalism and modern-day spirituality and nondualism.

Origins of the term[edit]

Neoplatonism is a modern term.[note 1] The term neoplatonism has a double function as a historical category. On the one hand, it differentiates the philosophical doctrines of Plotinus and his successors from those of the historical Plato. On the other, the term makes an assumption about the novelty of Plotinus's interpretation of Plato. In the nearly six centuries from Plato's time to Plotinus', there had been an uninterrupted tradition of interpreting Plato which had begun with Aristotle and with the immediate successors of Plato's Academy and continued on through a period of Platonism which is now referred to as middle Platonism. The term neoplatonism implies that Plotinus' interpretation of Plato was so distinct from those of his predecessors that it should be thought to introduce a new period in the history of Platonism. Some contemporary scholars, however, have taken issue with this assumption and have doubted that neoplatonism constitutes a useful label. They claim that merely marginal differences separate Plotinus' teachings from those of his immediate predecessors. As a pupil of philosopher Ammonius Saccas, Plotinus used the knowledge of his teacher and predecessors in order to inspire the next generation.[10]

Whether neoplatonism is a meaningful or useful historical category is itself a central question concerning the history of the interpretation of Plato. For much of the history of Platonism, it was commonly accepted that the doctrines of the neoplatonists were essentially the same as those of Plato. The Renaissance Neoplatonist Marsilio Ficino, for instance, thought that the neoplatonic interpretation of Plato was an authentic and accurate representation of Plato's philosophy.[11] Although it is unclear precisely when scholars began to disassociate the philosophy of the historical Plato from the philosophy of his neoplatonic interpreters, they had clearly begun to do so at least as early as the first decade of the nineteenth century. Contemporary scholars often identify the German theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher as an early thinker who took Plato's philosophy to be separate from that of his neoplatonic interpreters. However, others have argued that the differentiation of Plato from neoplatonism was the result of a protracted historical development that preceded Schleiermacher's scholarly work on Plato.[12]

Origins and history of classical Neoplatonism[edit]

Part of a series on
Platonism
Platon.png
Plato from Raphael's The School of Athens (1509–1511)
Related articles
Related categories
 Plato
See also: Plato's unwritten doctrines

Neoplatonism started with Plotinus in the 3rd century AD.[1][note 2] Three distinct phases in classical neoplatonism after Plotinus can be distinguished: the work of his student Porphyry; that of Iamblichus and his school in Syria; and the period in the 5th and 6th centuries, when the Academies in Alexandria and Athens flourished.[4]

Hellenism[edit]

Main article: Hellenistic philosophy

Neoplatonism synthesized ideas from various philosophical and religious cultural spheres. The most important forerunners from Greek philosophy were the Middle Platonists, such as Plutarch, and the Neopythagoreans, especially Numenius of Apamea. Philo, a Hellenized Jew, translated Judaism into terms of Stoic, Platonic, and Neopythagorean elements, and held that God is "supra rational" and can be reached only through "ecstasy". Philo also held that the oracles of God supply the material of moral and religious knowledge. The earliest Christian philosophers, such as Justin Martyr and Athenagoras of Athens, who attempted to connect Christianity with Platonism, and the Christian Gnostics of Alexandria, especially Valentinus and the followers of Basilides, also mirrored elements of Neoplatonism,[14] albeit without its self-consistency.

Ammonius Saccas[edit]

Ammonius Saccas (died c. 265 AD) was a teacher of Plotinus. Through Ammonius Saccas, Plotinus may have been influenced by Indian thought. The similarities between Neoplatonism and Indian philosophy, particularly Samkhya, have led several authors to suggest an Indian influence in its founding, particularly on Ammonius Saccas.[15][16][17]

Both Christians (see Eusebius, Jerome, and Origen) and pagans (see Porphyry and Plotinus) claimed him a teacher and founder of the neoplatonic system.[18] Porphyry stated in On the One School of Plato and Aristotle, that Ammonius' view was that the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle were in harmony. Eusebius and Jerome claimed him as a Christian until his death, whereas Porphyry claimed he had renounced Christianity and embraced pagan philosophy.

Plotinus[edit]

Presumed depiction of Plotinus and his disciples on a Roman sarcophagus in the Museo Gregoriano Profano, Vatican Museums, Rome

Plotinus (c. 205 – c. 270) is widely considered the father of Neoplatonism. Much of our biographical information about him comes from Porphyry's preface to his edition of Plotinus' Enneads. While he was himself influenced by the teachings of classical Greek, Persian, and Indian philosophy and Egyptian theology,[19] his metaphysical writings later inspired numerous Pagan, Jewish, Christian, Gnostic, and Islamic metaphysicians and mystics over the centuries.

Plotinus taught that there is a supreme, totally transcendent "One", containing no division, multiplicity, nor distinction; likewise, it is beyond all categories of being and non-being. The concept of "being" is derived by us from the objects of human experience and is an attribute of such objects, but the infinite, transcendent One is beyond all such objects and, therefore, is beyond the concepts which we can derive from them. The One "cannot be any existing thing" and cannot be merely the sum of all such things (compare the Stoic doctrine of disbelief in non-material existence) but "is prior to all existents".

Porphyry[edit]

Porphyry (c. 233 – c. 309) wrote widely on astrology, religion, philosophy, and musical theory. He produced a biography of his teacher, Plotinus. He is important in the history of mathematics because of his Life of Pythagoras and his commentary on Euclid's Elements, which Pappus used when he wrote his own commentary. Porphyry is also known as an opponent of Christianity and as a defender of paganism; of his Adversus Christianos (Against the Christians) in 15 books, only fragments remain. He famously said, "The gods have proclaimed Christ to have been most pious, but the Christians are a confused and vicious sect."

Iamblichus[edit]

Iamblichus (c. 245 – c. 325) influenced the direction taken by later neoplatonic philosophy. He is perhaps best known for his compendium on Pythagorean philosophy. In Iamblichus' system, the realm of divinities stretched from the original One down to material nature itself, where soul, in fact, descended into matter and became "embodied" as human beings. The world is thus peopled by a crowd of superhuman beings influencing natural events and possessing and communicating knowledge of the future, and who are all accessible to prayers and offerings. Iamblichus had salvation as his final goal (see henosis). The embodied soul was to return to divinity by performing certain rites, or theurgy, literally, 'divine-working'.

Academies[edit]

After Plotinus' (around 205–270) and his student Porphyry (around 232–309) Aristotle's (non-biological) works entered the curriculum of Platonic thought. Porphyry's introduction (Isagoge) to Aristotle's Categoria was important as an introduction to logic, and the study of Aristotle became an introduction to the study of Plato in the late Platonism of Athens and Alexandria. The commentaries of this group seek to harmonise Plato, Aristotle, and, often, the Stoics.[20] Some works of neoplatonism were attributed to Plato or Aristotle. De Mundo, for instance, is thought not to be the work of a 'pseudo-Aristotle' though this remains debatable.[21]

Hypatia (c. 360 – 415) was a Greek philosopher and mathematician who served as head of the Platonist school in Alexandria, Egypt, where she taught philosophy, mathematics and astronomy prior to her murder by a fanatical mob of Coptic Parabalani monks because she had been advising the Christian prefect of Egypt Orestes during his feud with Cyril, Alexandria's dynastic archbishop.[22] The extent of Cyril's personal involvement in her murder remains a matter of scholarly debate.

Proclus Lycaeus (February 8, 412 – April 17, 485) was a Greek neoplatonist philosopher, one of the last major Greek philosophers (see Damascius). He set forth one of the most elaborate, complex, and fully developed neoplatonic systems, providing also an allegorical way of reading the dialogues of Plato. The particular characteristic of Proclus' system is his insertion of a level of individual ones, called henads, between the One itself and the divine Intellect, which is the second principle. The henads are beyond being, like the One itself, but they stand at the head of chains of causation (seirai or taxeis) and in some manner give to these chains their particular character. They are also identified with the traditional Greek gods, so one henad might be Apollo and be the cause of all things apollonian, while another might be Helios and be the cause of all sunny things. The henads serve both to protect the One itself from any hint of multiplicity and to draw up the rest of the universe towards the One, by being a connecting, intermediate stage between absolute unity and determinate multiplicity.

Ideas[edit]

The Enneads of Plotinus are the primary and classical document of neoplatonism. As a form of mysticism, it contains theoretical and practical parts. The theoretical parts deal with the high origin of the human soul, showing how it has departed from its first estate. The practical parts show the way by which the soul may again return to the Eternal and Supreme.[14] The system can be divided between the invisible world and the phenomenal world, the former containing the transcendent, absolute One from which emanates an eternal, perfect, essence (nous, or intellect), which, in turn, produces the world-soul.

The One[edit]

See also: Henology and Henosis

For Plotinus, the first principle of reality is "the One", an utterly simple, ineffable, unknowable subsistence which is both the creative source of the Universe[23] and the teleological end of all existing things. Although, properly speaking, there is no name appropriate for the first principle, the most adequate names are "the One" or "the Good". The One is so simple that it cannot even be said to exist or to be a being. Rather, the creative principle of all things is beyond being, a notion which is derived from Book VI of the Republic,[24] when, in the course of his famous analogy of the sun, Plato says that the Good is beyond being (ἐπέκεινα τῆς οὐσίας) in power and dignity.[25] In Plotinus' model of reality, the One is the cause of the rest of reality, which takes the form of two subsequent "hypostases" or substances: Nous and Soul (psyché). Although neoplatonists after Plotinus adhered to his cosmological scheme in its most general outline, later developments in the tradition also departed substantively from Plotinus' teachings in regards to significant philosophical issues, such as the nature of evil.

Emanations[edit]

Main article: Emanationism

From the One emanated the rest of the universe as a sequence of lesser beings.

Demiurge or nous[edit]

The original Being initially emanates, or throws out, the nous, which is a perfect image of the One and the archetype of all existing things. It is simultaneously both being and thought, idea and ideal world. As image, the nous corresponds perfectly to the One, but as derivative, it is entirely different. What Plotinus understands by the nous is the highest sphere accessible to the human mind,[14] while also being pure intellect itself. Nous is the most critical component of idealism, Neoplatonism being a pure form of idealism.[note 3] The demiurge (the nous) is the energy, or ergon (does the work), which manifests or organises the material world into perceivability.

World-soul[edit]

The image and product of the motionless nous is the world-soul, which, according to Plotinus, is immaterial like the nous. Its relation to the nous is the same as that of the nous to the One. It stands between the nous and the phenomenal world, and it is permeated and illuminated by the former, but it is also in contact with the latter. The nous/spirit is indivisible; the world-soul may preserve its unity and remain in the nous, but, at the same time, it has the power of uniting with the corporeal world and thus being disintegrated. It therefore occupies an intermediate position. As a single world-soul, it belongs in essence and destination to the intelligible world; but it also embraces innumerable individual souls; and these can either allow themselves to be informed by the nous, or turn aside from the nous and choose the phenomenal world and lose themselves in the realm of the senses and the finite.[14]

Phenomenal world[edit]

The soul, as a moving essence, generates the corporeal or phenomenal world. This world ought to be so pervaded by the soul that its various parts should remain in perfect harmony. Plotinus is no dualist in the sense of certain sects, such as the Gnostics; in contrast, he admires the beauty and splendour of the world. So long as idea governs matter, or the soul governs the body, the world is fair and good. It is an image – though a shadowy image – of the upper world, and the degrees of better and worse in it are essential to the harmony of the whole. But, in the actual phenomenal world, unity and harmony are replaced by strife or discord; the result is a conflict, a becoming and vanishing, an illusive existence. And the reason for this state of things is that bodies rest on a substratum of matter. Matter is the indeterminate: that with no qualities. If destitute of form and idea, it is evil; as capable of form, it is neutral.[14] Evil here is understood as a parasite, having no-existence of its own (parahypostasis), an unavoidable outcome of the Universe, having an "other" necessity, as a harmonizing factor.[28]

Celestial hierarchy[edit]

Later neoplatonic philosophers, especially Iamblichus, added hundreds of intermediate beings such as gods, angels, demons, and other beings as mediators between the One and humanity. The neoplatonist gods are omni-perfect beings and do not display the usual amoral behaviour associated with their representations in the myths.

  • The One: God, The Good. Transcendent and ineffable.
  • The Hypercosmic Gods: those that make Essence, Life, and Soul
  • The Demiurge: the Creator
  • The Cosmic Gods: those who make Being, Nature, and Matter—including the gods known to us from classical religion.

Evil[edit]

Neoplatonists did not believe in an independent existence of evil. They compared it to darkness, which does not exist in itself but only as the absence of light. So, too, evil is simply the absence of good. Things are good insofar as they exist; they are evil only insofar as they are imperfect, lacking some good which they should have.

Return to the One[edit]

Neoplatonists believed human perfection and happiness were attainable in this world, without awaiting an afterlife. Perfection and happiness—seen as synonymous—could be achieved through philosophical contemplation.

All people return to the One, from which they emanated.[29][30][31]

The neoplatonists believed in the pre-existence, and immortality of the soul.[32][33] The human soul consists of a lower irrational soul and a higher rational soul (mind), both of which can be regarded as different powers of the one soul. It was widely held that the soul possesses a "vehicle" (okhêma),[34] accounting for the human soul's immortality and allowing for its return to the One after death.[35] After bodily death, the soul takes up a level in the afterlife corresponding with the level at which it lived during its earthly life.[36][37] The neoplatonists believed in the principle of reincarnation. Although the most pure and holy souls would dwell in the highest regions, the impure soul would undergo a purification,[33] before descending again,[38] to be reincarnated into a new body, perhaps into animal form.[39] Plotinus believed that a soul may be reincarnated into another human or even a different sort of animal. However, Porphyry maintained, instead, that human souls were only reincarnated into other humans.[40] A soul which has returned to the One achieves union with the cosmic universal soul[41] and does not descend again; at least, not in this world period.[38]

Influence[edit]

Early Christianity[edit]

Main article: Neoplatonism and Christianity

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.[42] As a Manichaen, 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[43] and that God is not material.[44] When writing his treatise 'On True Religion' several years after his 387 baptism, Augustine's Christianity was still tempered by neoplatonism.

The term logos was interpreted variously in neoplatonism. Plotinus refers to Thales[45] in interpreting logos as the principle of meditation, the interrelationship between the hypostases[46] (Soul, Spirit (nous) and the 'One'). St. John introduces a relation between Logos and the Son, Christ,[47] whereas Paul calls it 'Son', 'Image', and 'Form'.[47][48][49] Victorinus subsequently differentiated the Logos interior to God from the Logos related to the world by creation and salvation.[47]

For Augustine, the Logos "took on flesh" in Christ, in whom the Logos was present as in no other man.[50][51][52] He strongly influenced early medieval Christian philosophy.[53] 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]

Main article: Neoplatonism and Gnosticism

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").

Because their belief was 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.[54]

Byzantine education[edit]

See also: Platonic Academy § Neoplatonic Academy

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) that a revived academy (which had no connection with the original Academy) was established in Athens by some leading neoplatonists.[55] 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.[56][57]

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.[57] 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[57]

Michael Psellos (1018–1078), 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 in the 1030s and 1040s.

Gemistos Plethon (c. 1355 – 1452; 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 neoplatonism[edit]

Main article: Platonism in Islamic philosophy

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.[58] 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.[59] Islamic neoplatonism adapted the concepts of the One and the First Principle to Islamic theology, attributing the First Principle to God.[60] God is a transcendent being, omnipresent and inalterable to the effects of creation.[59] Islamic philosophers used the framework of Islamic mysticism in their interpretation of Neoplatonic writings and concepts.[note 4]

Jewish thought[edit]

Main article: Jewish philosophy

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.

Western mysticism[edit]

The works of Pseudo-Dionysius were instrumental in the flowering of western medieval mysticism, most notably the German mystic Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 – c. 1328).

Western Renaissance[edit]

Main article: Platonism in the Renaissance

Neoplatonism ostensibly survived in the Eastern Christian Church as an independent tradition and was reintroduced to the West by Pletho (c. 1355 – 1452/1454), 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), 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 neoplatonists 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 (1433–99) was "chiefly responsible for packaging and presenting Plato to the Renaissance" (Hole). In 1462, 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, Ficino translated these works into Latin, making them widely accessible, as only a minority of people could read Greek. And, between 1484 and 1492, he translated the works of Plotinus, making them available for the first time to the West.

Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463–94) 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".[62]

Cambridge Platonists (17th century)[edit]

Main article: Cambridge Platonists

In the seventeenth century in 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.

Later, Thomas Taylor (not a Cambridge Platonist) was the first to translate Plotinus' works into English.[63][64]

Modern neoplatonism[edit]

Notable modern neoplatonists include Thomas Taylor, "the English Platonist", who wrote extensively on Platonism and translated almost the entire Platonic and Plotinian corpora into English, and the Belgian writer Suzanne Lilar.

The science fiction writer Philip K. Dick identified as a neoplatonist and explored related mystical experiences and religious concepts in his theoretical work, compiled in The Exegesis of Philip K. Dick.[65]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Jump up to:a b The term first appeared in 1827.[8] According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The term 'neoplatonism' is an invention of early 19th century European scholarship and indicates the penchant of historians for dividing 'periods' in history. In this case, the term was intended to indicate that Plotinus initiated a new phase in the development of the Platonic tradition."[9]
  2. ^ Jump up to:a b 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".[13]
  3. ^ 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)."[26]

    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."[27] 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.
  4. ^ 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."[61]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Jump up to:a b Moore, Edward (n.d.). "Neoplatonism". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2 May 2019.
  2. ^ Halfwassen, Jens (2014). "The Metaphysics of the One". In Remes, Pauliina; Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism. Routledge Handbooks in Philosophy. Abingdon, Oxfordshire and New York: Routledge. pp. 182–199. ISBN 9781138573963.
  3. ^ 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.
  4. ^ Jump up to:a b 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.
  5. ^ Armstrong, Karen (1993). A History of God. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 978-0345384560.
  6. ^ 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.
  7. ^ Wayne Hankey, "Aquinas, Plato, and Neo-Platonism"
  8. ^ etymonline.com, Neoplatonism
  9. ^ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Plotinus
  10. ^ 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
  11. ^ Allen, Michael J.B. (Summer 1977). "Ficino's Lecture on the Good?". Renaissance Quarterly. 30 (2): 160–171. doi:10.2307/2860654. JSTOR 2860654. S2CID 163651079.
  12. ^ Tigerstedt, E. N. The Decline and Fall of the Neoplatonic Interpretation of Plato. 1974
  13. ^ Pauline Remes (2008), Neoplatonism. Acumen publishing, page 1.
  14. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e  One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Adolf Harnack; John Malcolm Mitchell (1911). "Neoplatonism". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 19 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 372–378.
  15. ^ J. Bussanich. The roots of Platonism and Vedanta. International Journal of Hindu Studies. January 2005, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 1-2
  16. ^ Harris, R. Baine (ed.), Neoplatonism and Indian Thought, Norfolk Va., 1982: The International Society for Neoplatonic Studies
  17. ^ J.F. Staal, Advaita and Neoplatonism. A Critical Study in Comparative Philosophy. University of Madras, Madras 1961
  18. ^ "Neoplatonism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. 2021.
  19. ^ Porphyry, On the Life of Plotinus and the Order of His Books, Ch. 3 (Armstrong's Loeb translation).

    "he became eager to make acquaintance with the Persian philosophical discipline and that prevailing among the Indians"

  20. ^ Handboek Geschiedenis van de Wijsbegeerte I, Article by Frans de Haas
  21. ^ De Mundo, Loeb Classical Library, Introductory Note, D. J. Furley
  22. ^ Hypatia of Alexandria (Revealing Antiquity) by Maria Dzielska (author), F. Lyra (translator), Harvard University Press; reprint edition (October 1, 1996), ISBN 978-0674437760, pp. 38–39.
  23. ^ Brenk, Frederick (January 2016). "Pagan Monotheism and Pagan Cult". "Theism" and Related Categories in the Study of Ancient Religions. SCS/AIA Annual Meeting. Vol. 75. Philadelphia: Society for Classical Studies (University of Pennsylvania). Archived from the original on 6 May 2017. Retrieved 14 October 2020. Historical authors generally refer to "the divine" (to theion) or "the supernatural" (to daimonion) rather than simply "God." [...] The Stoics, believed in a God identifiable with the logos or hegemonikon (reason or leading principle) of the universe and downgraded the traditional gods, who even disappear during the conflagration (ekpyrosis). Yet, the Stoics apparently did not practice a cult to this God. Middle and Later Platonists, who spoke of a supreme God, in philosophical discourse, generally speak of this God, not the gods, as responsible for the creation and providence of the universe. They, too, however, do not seem to have directly practiced a religious cult to their God. {{cite book}}: External link in |series= (help)
  24. ^ Dodds, E.R. "The Parmenides of Plato and the Origin of the Neoplatonic 'One'". The Classical Quarterly, Jul–Oct 1928, vol. 22, p. 136
  25. ^ Plato, Republic 509b
  26. ^ Parerga and Paralipomena, Volume I, "Fragments for the History of Philosophy," § 7)
  27. ^ Ludwig Noiré, Historical Introduction to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
  28. ^ Richard T. Wallis and Jay Bregman (1992), Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, SUNY Press, pp. 42–45
  29. ^ D. G. Leahy, Faith and Philosophy: The Historical Impact, pages 5–6. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
  30. ^ Enneads VI 9.6
  31. ^ Richard T. Wallis and Jay Bregman (1992), SUNY Press, page 173.
  32. ^ Plotinus, iv. 7, "On the immortality of the Soul."
  33. ^ Jump up to:a b Glen Warren Bowersock, Peter Brown, Peter Robert Lamont Brown, Oleg Grabar, 1999, Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World, page 40. Harvard University Press.
  34. ^ See Plato's Timaeus, 41d, 44e, 69c, for the origin of this idea.
  35. ^ Paul S. MacDonald, 2003, History of the Concept of Mind: Speculations About Soul, Mind and Spirit from Homer to Hume, page 122. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
  36. ^ Plotinus, iii.4.2
  37. ^ Andrew Smith, 1974, Porphyry's Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition: A Study in Post-Plotinian Neoplatonism, page 43. Springer.
  38. ^ Jump up to:a b Andrew Smith, 1974, Porphyry's Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition: A Study in Post-Plotinian Neoplatonism, page 58. Springer.
  39. ^ "Whether human souls could be reborn into animals seems to have become quite a problematical topic to the later neoplatonists." – Andrew Smith, (1987), Porphyrian Studies since 1913, ANRW II 36, 2.
  40. ^ Remes, Pauliina, Neoplatonism (University of California Press, 2008), p. 119.
  41. ^ James A. Arieti, Philosophy in the Ancient World: An Introduction, page 336. Rowman & Littlefield
  42. ^ Augustine, Confessions Book 7
  43. ^ Augustine, Confessions, Book 7.12.18
  44. ^ Augustine, Confessions, Book 7.1.1-2
  45. ^ Handboek Geschiedenis van de Wijsbegeerte I, Article by Carlos Steel
  46. ^ The journal of neoplatonic studies, Volumes 7–8, Institute of Global Cultural Studies, Binghamton University, 1999, P 16
  47. ^ Jump up to:a b c Theological treatises on the Trinity, By Marius Victorinus, Mary T. Clark, P25
  48. ^ Col. 1:15
  49. ^ Phil. 2:5-7
  50. ^ Augustine, Confessions, Book 7.9.13-14
  51. ^ De immortalitate animae of Augustine: text, translation and commentary, By Saint Augustine (Bishop of Hippo.), C. W. Wolfskeel, introduction
  52. ^ 1 John 1:14
  53. ^ Handboek Geschiedenis van de Wijsbegeerte I, Article by Douwe Runia
  54. ^ "PLOTINUS, Ennead, Volume I: Porphyry on the Life of Plotinus. Ennead I". www.loebclassics.com.
  55. ^ 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.
  56. ^ Lindberg, David C. "The Beginnings of Western Science", page 70
  57. ^ Jump up to:a b c Encyclopædia Britannica, Higher Education in the Byzantine Empire, 2008, O.Ed.
  58. ^ Cleary, John J., ed. (1997). The perennial tradition of Neoplatonism. Leuven: Univ. Press. p. 443. ISBN 978-90-6186-847-7.
  59. ^ Jump up to:a b Cleary, John J., ed. (1997). The perennial tradition of Neoplatonism. Leuven: Univ. Press. pp. 420–437. ISBN 978-90-6186-847-7.
  60. ^ Cleary, John J., ed. (1997). The perennial tradition of Neoplatonism. Leuven: Univ. Press. p. 431. ISBN 978-90-6186-847-7.
  61. ^ Morewedge, Parviz, ed. (1992). Neoplatonism and Islamic thought. Albany: State University of New York Press. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-7914-1335-7.
  62. ^ Heiser, James D., Prisci Theologi and the Hermetic Reformation in the Fifteenth Century, Repristination Press: Texas, 2011. ISBN 978-1-4610-9382-4
  63. ^ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – entry for Plotinus
  64. ^ 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. S2CID 163842278.
  65. ^ 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.

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.

External links[edit]

Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Library resources about
Neoplatonism



====


===

신플라톤주의

위키백과, 우리 모두의 백과사전.

플라톤
Plato-raphael.jpg
1509년 라파엘 작 《아테네 학당》에서의 플라톤
우화와 은유
관련 기사

신플라톤주의(Neoplatonism)는 3세기 이후, 플로티노스의 《엔네아데스》를 기초로 전개해 오는 사상 체계로서 플라톤·아리스토텔레스·스토아 학파 등 고대 여러 학파의 사상을 종합화하기 위해 성립한 것이라 볼 수 있다. 기본적으로는 이데아계-현상계(現象界)라고 하는 플라톤적 양분론을 계승하고 있으며, 특히 전자를 세분화하여 전 존재를 계층적으로 파악하려고 하는 것이 특색이다. 그러나, 이데아계와 현상계가 독립적으로 나눠져있다는 이원론적 세계관은 많이 희석된 상태로 존재하며, 《엔네아데스》의 규정성에 따라 일자(一者)에 의한 일원론적 세계관을 강조한다는 점에서 이전의 플라톤주의와 구분된다고 할 수 있다.

신플라톤주의의 학파로서의 존재는 529년 유스티니아누스 대제에 의한 이교도(異敎徒)의 학원폐쇄령과 함께 막을 내리지만, 사상 자체는 중세·근세의 철학에 커다란 영향을 미치게 된다. 르네상스시대에 있어 플라톤주의 부흥이라 일컬어지는 것과 근세 말기 과학적 방법론 도입에 관한 실제 내용은 신플라톤주의 색채를 진하게 갖는 것이다.

신플라톤주의는 중동 및 소아시아 지역에 걸쳐 존재했던 고대 그리스 철학을 일원론적 통일성에 기반하여 해석했다. 마음·정신·물질을 이해하는 측면에서 신플라톤주의 사상가들은 물질과 정신이 일자(一者) 파생의 만유이자, 그 구성물이라는 논리를 전개한 것으로 유명하다.

어떠한 사상이 신플라톤주의에 기반하였는지 평가하기 위해서는 해당 사상이 일원론·이원론·다원론 중 어느 입장을 옹호하느냐, 그리고 현상을 해석하는 단 하나의 무한적·우월적 개념을 사용하느냐, 사용하지 않느냐로 파악해야 할 것이다. 또한, 신플라톤주의 사상은 기독교 신학 이론에 커다란 영향을 주었으나, 대부분의 초기 신플라톤주의자들은 신에 대한 능동주의적 해석 및 인격신 개념을 철저히 부정하였으며, 기본적으로 범신론 사상을 갖고 있었다. 그러나, 후기 신플라톤주의 이후부터는 스토아학파적 사고관이 점점 배제되고 신에 대한 능동주의적 해석이 증가해감에 따라 그리스 신화의 인격신을 수호하는 전형적인 밀교적 철학으로 나아가게 되었다.

역사[편집]

학파의 역사적 발전과정을 살펴 보면, 학조(學祖) 플로티노스에서 제2대 학두 포르피리오스를 거쳐 이암블리코스(4세기 중엽)까지는 로마에 그 중심을 두고 있었으나, 그 후에 아테네와 알렉산드리아 등지의 동방세계로 중심이 옮겨졌다. 특히 전자의 경우, 그 곳에 존속하던 플라톤의 사상을 계승하는 아카데미아가 그대로 신플라톤학파의 학원(學園)화가 되었다. 아테네를 중심으로 하는 그룹의 학풍은 프로클로스(410-485, <신학원리>나 플라톤의 주해서를 다수 저술했다), 시리아누스, 다마스키오스, 심플리키오스로 계승되어 갔다. 알렉산드리아를 중심으로 하는 그룹은 여성 철학자들이었으며 그리스도교도에 의해 학살된 히파티아, 시네시오스등에 의해 4-5세기에 걸쳐서 활발한 활동을 벌였다.

다른 한편, 서방 세계에서도 신플라톤주의의 사상적 조류가 완전히 사라진 것은 아니고 마크로비우스(400년경의 사람. 신플라톤주의의 관점에서 키케로의 <공화정에 관하여>에 수록되어 있는 <스키피오의 꿈>을 해석하였다), 마르티아누스 카펠라, 칼키디우스(플라톤의 <티마이오스>를 라틴어로 번역, 주해를 거쳐 등장하였다) 등의 인물들이 4-5세기에 걸쳐 등장하여 그 사상적 흐름을 이어갔다. 다만 그들의 움직임이 동방의 경우와 달리 구조화된 학파를 형성한 것은 아니었으나 서방 세계에서 기독교와 점차 결합되어 갔다. 이에 대해 동방의 경우 쇠퇴 일로에 있던 이교(異敎)에 대해 이론적 지주를 주려는 경향이 엿보였으며, 이교의 제신(諸神)이나 신화를 플로티노스의 사상 체계 속에 엮어 넣어 재해석하려는 의도를 보이며 신비주의적 경향을 심화시켜 나갔다.

사상[편집]

플로티노스를 예로 들면 신플라톤주의는 대체로 다음과 같다. 우주에 존재하는 세계를 이데아계와 현상계로 2분(二分)한다. 그리고 이데아계는 '1자(一者)'(토·헨), '누스'(지성 내지 정신), '프시케'(영혼)의 3원리(三原理)로 설정된다. 이 '1자'에 관해서는 '선(善)한 것' '단순한 것' '자족적(自足的)인 것' 등 갖가지 표현이 사용되고 있으나 그것은 명확한 규정이 불가능한 것이며 단지 "그 무엇이 아닌가"라고 하는 부정적인 형태로밖에 표현할 수 없는 온갖 존재의 궁극적(究極的) 원리라고 되어 있다. 이같은 '1자'의 발상은 일괄적으로 규정하기 어려운 다양한 형태의 현실계의 이면에는 파편적이며 불규칙적으로 보이는 현상들을 합리적인 이성에 의해 보편적인 법칙을 이끌어내는 '1'('多'에 대한 '1')이 없어서는 안된다는 전제에서 나온 것이다.

이러한 3원리는 각각 독립된 실체가 아니라 '1자'로부터 유출(流出)되어(에마나티오) 생겨난 것으로서 그 움직임이 연속적이고 복합적인 형태로 포착되고 있다('一者'→'누스'→'프시케'). 즉, 불(火)은 열(熱)을, 얼음(氷)은 냉(冷)을 발산하고, 인간이 아이를 낳는 것과 같이 물건(物)은 성숙하고 충실해지면 자기와 동형(同形)의 물건을 산출하려고 하는데 이와 마찬가지로 완전히 충실해진 '일자(一者)'로부터 '누스', 다시 '누스'에서 '프시케'가 산출된다고 하는 것이다. 그리고 '프시케'에는 '이데아계'(英智界)와 그 그림자인 '현상계'를 연결하고 양자를 매개하는 기능이 있다. 또 이와 같은 '일자'로 부터의 산출·유출과 동시에 우주만물이 일자로의 환귀(還歸) 과정이 고려되고 있는 것이다.

그의 이러한 체계는 플라톤적인 '이데아계(英智界)'에 아리스토텔레스적인 운동·생성(生成)의 견해와 스토아적인 통일된 하나의 생명체·유기체로서의 우주를 보려고 하는 관점 등을 도입하여, 그렇게 함으로써 플라톤적 2원론(二元論)이 갖는 모순(상호간에 따로 존재하는 '이데아계'와 '현상계'를 어떻게 결합하여 관련을 맺게 할 것인가)의 한 가지 해결책으로서 의미를 갖는 것이라 생각되었다. 또 '1자' '누스' '프시케'의 3원리는 인간의 의식 내 사고(思考)의 반영(反映) 내지 산물로 생각되고 있다. 즉 현상계의 다양성이 의식 내에 있어서 논리적으로 정리되어 가는 단계를 3원리는 표시하고 있는 것이다. 이런 의미에서 3원리는 초월적인 동시에 내재적(內在的)이라고 할 수 있다. 그는 결국 이와 같은 체계를 구상함으로써 초월적 절대자와 유한적 존재인 인간의 신비적 합일을 의도하였던 것이다. 그러나 그 후 3원리는 초월적인 실체로서 생각하게 되어 절대자('토·헨', 그 밖에 갖가지 명칭으로 불린다)를 정점으로 하는 존재의 계층단계를 표시하는 것으로 되었다.

차이[편집]

그리스도교[편집]

신인동형적 논리와, 신에 의한 능동적 창조 원리를 강조하는 기독교는 세상만물이 신에 의한 능동적 창조 과정에 따라 태어났으며, 제일 근원적으로 보이는 원리도 신에 귀속시킨다. 반면 신플라톤주의는 제일 근원적으로 보이는 원리가 바로 신이며, 세상만물의 움직임과 구성은 그것 자체가 가진 자기원인적 힘의 발현이라고 본다. 따라서 기독교는 근본적이라 여겨지는 원리 위에 신에 의한 능동적 창조 과정을 설명하기 위해 지적 설계라는 함정에 빠질 수 있는 반면 신플라톤주의는 자연법칙 및 그것을 관통하는 절대계의 논리 구조는 그것 자체로 자기원인적이라고 하기에 지적 설계의 함정에 빠지지 않으며, 지적 설계를 주장하지 않는다.[1]

또한 자유의지와 인간성에 관한 관점도 역시 다르다. 기독교의 원죄론은 인간을 본래 악한 존재로 규정하고 있으며, 동시에 인간은 신에게 자유의지를 선물받았기에 어떠한 제약도 없이 스스로에게 책임성을 부여하는 자유의지를 누릴 수 있다고 본다. 반면 신플라톤주의 사상은 하강성(prohodos)의 산물인 질료적 존재가 인간이며, 상승성(epistrophe)을 이루지 못 하는 것이 악(惡)일 뿐, 인간 자체가 악한 것이 아니며 그것은 어떻게 행동하느냐에 따라 달렸다고 보았다. 동시에 신플라톤주의자들은 자유의지는 상승성의 과정에서만 제한적으로 나타나는 것이라고 하였다.[2]

스토아주의[편집]

신플라톤주의는 본래 스토아주의적 사고에 강한 영향을 받은 만큼 스토아주의와 상당한 유사성을 보이고 있다. 특히, 이성(理性)에 대한 체계적 관점과 일원론적 사고 및 최고 원리 인식에 관한 실천지(phronesis)를 중시한다는 점에서 스토아주의와 같으며, 정신(nous)에 관한 언표불가능성과 더불어 그것에 관해 언어성을 초월한 근원적 논리 구조를 갖는다고 보기에 이 역시 스토아주의와 상당히 유사하다. 그러나 그럼에도 불구하고 몇 가지 차이점이 존재한다. 로고스에 대한 유물론적 관점인 스토아주의는 절대계를 구성하는 형태의 논리 구조에 공간성을 부여하는 반면, 신플라톤주의는 절대계의 그것이 질료를 구성하는 시간성, 공간성은 물론이고 어떠한 동질적인 성격조차 갖지 않는다는 논리를 내세운다. 이성적 사유 내에서 명증되지 않는 '체험'에 관해, 스토아주의자들은 그저 현상적 인지 및 경험일 뿐이라는 입장으로 나아갔으나, 신플라톤주의자들은 그 어떠한 이성적 설명으로 제공될 수 있는 체험을 중시하는 쪽으로 나아갔고 이는 신플라톤주의가 후기로 접어들수록 신비주의적 요소가 강해지는 이유가 되었다.[3]

참고 문헌[편집]

외부 링크[편집]

각주[편집]

  1. ↑ Richard T. Wallis. 박기철, 서영식, 조규홍. 2011년. 신플라톤주의. 누멘. pp. 91-92
  2. ↑ Richard T. Wallis. 2011년. pp. 104-105
  3. ↑ Richard T. Wallis. 2011년. pp. 85-86



Posted by at