Plotinus (Greek: Πλωτῖνος) (ca. AD 205–270) was a major philosopher of the ancient
world who 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. His metaphysical writings have inspired
centuries of Pagan, Christian, Jewish, Islamic and Gnostic metaphysicians and mystics.
Biography
Porphyry reported that Plotinus was 66 years old when he died in 270, the
second year of the reign of the emperor Claudius II, thus giving us the year of his
teacher's birth as around 205. Eunapius reported that Plotinus was
born in the Deltaic Lycopolis (Latin: Lyco) in
Egypt, and so it has been suggested that he may have been a native Egyptian of Roman descent,[1] Greek descent,[2] or a Hellenized Egyptian,[3] but these are
speculations.
Plotinus had an inherent distrust of materiality (an attitude common to Platonism),
holding to the view that phenomena were a poor image or mimicry (mimesis) of something "higher and intelligible" [VI.I] which was
the "truer part of genuine Being". This distrust extended to the body, including his own; it is reported by Porphyry that at one
point he refused to have his portrait painted, presumably for much the same reasons of dislike. Likewise Plotinus never discussed
his ancestry, childhood, or his place or date of birth. From all accounts his personal and social life exhibited the highest
moral and spiritual standards.
Plotinus took up the study of philosophy at the age of twenty-seven, around the year
232, and travelled to Alexandria to study. There Plotinus was
dissatisfied with every teacher he encountered until an acquaintance suggested he listen to the ideas of Ammonius Saccas. Upon hearing Ammonius lecture, he declared to his friend, "this was the man I was
looking for," and began to study intently under his new instructor. Besides Ammonius, Plotinus was also influenced by the works
of Alexander of Aphrodisias, Numenius, and various Stoics.
Expedition to Persia and return to Rome
After spending the next eleven years in Alexandria, he then decided to investigate the philosophical teachings of the
Persian philosophers and the Indian
philosophers around the age of 38.[4] In the pursuit
of this endeavour he left Alexandria and joined the army of Gordian III as it marched on
Persia. However, the campaign was a failure, and on Gordian's eventual death Plotinus found himself abandoned in a hostile land,
and only with difficulty found his way back to safety in Antioch.
At the age of forty, during the reign of Philip the Arab, he came to Rome, where he stayed for most of the remainder of his life. There he attracted a number of students. His innermost
circle included Porphyry, Amelius Gentilianus of Tuscany, the Senator Castricius Firmus, and Eustochius of Alexandria, a doctor who devoted himself to learning from Plotinus and attended to
him until his death. Other students included: Zethos, an Arab by ancestry who died before Plotinus, leaving him a legacy and some land; Zoticus, a critic and poet; Paulinus, a doctor of
Scythopolis; and Serapion from Alexandria. He
had students amongst the Roman Senate beside Castricius, such as Marcellus Orontius, Sabinillus, and
Rogantianus. Women were also numbered amongst his students, including Gemina, in whose house he lived during his residence in Rome, and her daughter, also Gemina; and Amphiclea, the wife of Ariston the son of Iamblichus. Finally, Plotinus was a correspondent of the philosopher Cassius Longinus.
Later life
While in Rome Plotinus also gained the respect of the Emperor Gallienus and his wife
Salonica. At one point Plotinus attempted to interest Gallienus in rebuilding an abandoned settlement in Campania, known as the 'City of Philosophers', where the inhabitants would live under the constitution set out
in Plato's Laws. An Imperial subsidy was never granted, for reasons unknown to Porphyry,
who reports the incident.
Porphyry subsequently went to live in Sicily, where word reached him that his former teacher
had died. The philosopher spent his final days in seclusion on an estate in Campania which his
friend Zethos had bequeathed him. According to the account of Eustochius, who attended him at the end, Plotinus' final words
were: "Strive to give back the Divine in yourselves to the Divine in the All." Eustochius records that a snake crept under the
bed where Plotinus lay, and slipped away through a hole in the wall; at the same moment the philosopher died.
Plotinus wrote the essays that became the Enneads over a period of several years from
ca. 253 until a few months before his death seventeen years
later. Porphyry makes note that the Enneads, before being compiled and arranged by himself, were merely the enormous collection
of notes and essays which Plotinus used in his lectures and debates, rather than a formal book. Plotinus was unable to revise his
own work due to his poor eyesight, yet his writings required extensive editing, according to Porphyry: his master's handwriting
was atrocious, he did not properly separate his words, and he cared little for niceties of spelling. Plotinus intensely disliked
the editorial process, and turned the task to Porphyry, who not only polished them but put them into the arrangement we now
have.
Plotinus' theory
The One
Plotinus taught that there is a supreme, totally transcendent "One", containing no division, multiplicity or 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 that we 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". Thus, no attributes can be assigned to the One. We can only identify it with the
Good and the principle of Beauty. [I.6.9]
For example, thought cannot be attributed to the One because thought implies distinction
between a thinker and an object of thought. Even the self-contemplating intelligence must contain duality. "Once you have uttered
'The Good,' add no further thought: by any addition, and in proportion to that addition, you introduce a deficiency." [III.8.10]
Plotinus denies sentience, self-awareness or any other action to the One [V.6.6], rather if we insist on describing it further we
must call the One a sheer Dynamis or potentiality without which nothing could exist. [III.8.10] As Plotinus explains in both
places and elsewhere [e.g. V.6.3], it is impossible for the One to be Being or a self-aware Creator God. At [V.6.4], Plotinus
compared the One to "light", the Divine Nous (first will towards Good) to the "Sun", and
lastly the Soul to the "Moon" whose light is merely a "derivative conglomeration of light from the 'Sun'". The first light could
exist without any celestial body.
The One, being beyond all attributes including being and non-being, is the source of the world -- but not through any act of
creation, willful or otherwise, since activity cannot be ascribed to the unchangeable, immutable One. Plotinus argues instead
that the multiple cannot exist without the simple. The "less perfect" must, of necessity, "emanate", or issue forth, from the
"perfect" or "more perfect". Thus, all of "creation" emanates from the One in succeeding stages of lesser and lesser perfection.
These stages are not temporally isolated, but occur throughout time as a constant process. Later Neoplatonic philosophers,
especially Iamblichus, added hundreds of intermediate beings as emanations between
the One and humanity; but Plotinus' system was much simpler in comparison.
Emanation by the One
Plotinus offers an alternative to the orthodox Christian notion of creation ex
nihilo (out of nothing), which attributes to God the deliberation of mind and action of a will, although Plotinus never
mentions Christianity in any of his works. Emanation ex deo (out of God), confirms the absolute transcendence of the One,
making the unfolding of the cosmos purely a consequence of its existence; the One is in no way affected or diminished by
these emanations. Though the emanations are, since as they become farther away from the source they became diminished. Plotinus
uses the analogy of the Sun which emanates light indiscriminately without thereby diminishing
itself, or reflection in a mirror which in no way diminishes or otherwise alters the object being reflected.
The first emanation is nous (thought), identified metaphorically with the
demiurge in Plato's Timaeus. It is the first
will towards Good. From nous proceeds the world soul, which Plotinus subdivides into upper and lower, identifying the lower aspect of Soul
with nature. From the world soul proceeds individual human souls,
and finally, matter, at the lowest level of being and thus the least
perfected level of the cosmos. Despite this relatively pedestrian assessment of the material
world, Plotinus asserted the ultimately divine nature of material creation since it ultimately derives from the One, through the
mediums of nous and the world soul. It is by the Good or through beauty that we recognize the One, in material things and
then in the Forms.[5]
The essentially devotional nature of Plotinus' philosophy may be further illustrated by his concept of attaining ecstatic
union with the One (henosis see Iamblichus).
Porphyry relates that Plotinus attained such a union four times during the years he knew him. This may be related to
enlightenment, liberation, and other
concepts of mystical union common to many Eastern and Western traditions. Some have compared
Plotinus' teachings to the Hindu school of Advaita Vedanta (advaita "not two", or
"non-dual"),[6].
True Human and Happiness
Authentic human happiness for Plotinus consists of the true human identifying with that which is the best in the universe.
Because happiness is beyond anything physical, Plotinus stresses the point that worldly fortune does not control true human
happiness, and thus “… there exists no single human being that does not either potentially or effectively possess this thing we
hold to constitute happiness.” (Enneads I.4.4) The issue of happiness is one of Plotinus’ greatest imprints on Western thought,
as he is one of the first to introduce the idea that eudaimonia is attainable only within
consciousness.
The true human is an incorporeal contemplative capacity of the soul, and superior to all things corporeal. It then follows
that real human happiness is independent of the physical world. Real happiness is, instead, dependent on the metaphysical and
authentic human being found in this highest capacity of Reason. “For man, and especially the Proficient, is not the Couplement of
Soul and body: the proof is that man can be disengaged from the body and disdain its nominal goods.” (Enneads I.4.14) The human
who has achieved happiness will not be bothered by sickness, discomfort, etc., as his focus is on the greatest things. Authentic
human happiness is the utilization of the most authentically human capacity of contemplation. Even in daily, physical action, the
flourishing human’s “…Act is determined by the higher phase of the Soul.” (Enneads III.4.6) Even in the most dramatic arguments
Plotinus considers (if the Proficient is subject to extreme physical torture, for example), he concludes this only strengthens
his claim of true happiness being metaphysical, as the truly happy human being would understand that that which is being tortured
is merely a body, not the conscious self, and happiness could persist.
Plotinus offers a comprehensive description of his conception of a person who has achieved eudaimonia. “The perfect life”
involves a man who commands reason and contemplation.(Enneads I.4.4) A happy person will not sway between happy and sad, as many
of Plotinus’ contemporaries believed. Stoics, for example, question the ability of someone to be happy (presupposing happiness is
contemplation) if they are mentally incapacitated or even asleep- Plotinus disregards this claim, as the soul and true human do
not sleep or even exist in time, nor will a living human whom has achieved eudaimonia suddenly stop using its greatest, most
authentic capacity just because of the body’s discomfort in the physical realm. “…The Proficient’s will is set always and only
inward.” (Enneads I.4.11)
Overall, happiness for Plotinus is "...a flight from this world's ways and things." (Theat 176AB) and a focus on the highest,
i.e. Forms and The One.
Against causal astrology
Plotinus seems to be one of the first to argue against the still popular notion of causal Astrology. In the late tractate 2.3, "Are the stars causes?", Plotinus makes the argument that specific stars
influencing one's fortune (a common hellenistic theme) attributes
irrationality to a perfect universe, and eliminates moral turpitude. He does, however,
claim the stars and planets are ensouled, as witnessed by their movement.
Plotinus and the Gnostics
- See also: Neoplatonism and
Gnosticism
Modern conferences within the Hellenic philosophy fields of study have been held in order to address what Plotinus stated in
his tract Against the gnostics and who he was addressing it to. In order to separate and clarify the events and persons
involved in the origin of the term "Gnostic". From the dialogue, it appears that the word had an origin in the Platonic and
Hellenistic tradition long before the group calling themselves "Gnostics" -- or the group covered under the modern term
"Gnosticism" -- ever appeared. It would seem that this shift from Platonic to Gnostic usage has led many people to confusion. The
strategy of sectarians taking Greek terms from philosophical contexts and re-applying
them to religious contexts was popular in Christianity, Mithraism, the Cult of Isis and other ancient religious contexts
including Hermetic ones (see Alexander of
Abonutichus for an example).
In the case of gnosticism it is important to understand that Plotinus and the Neoplatonists viewed it as a form of heresy or
sectarianism to the Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy of the Mediterranean and Middle East.[7] He accused them of using senseless jargon and being overly dramatic and insolent in their distortion
of Plato's Ontology.[8] Plotinus attackes his opponents as
untraditional, irrational and immoral[9][10] and arrogant[11]. He also attacks them as elitist and blasphemous to Plato for the gnostics despising the material
world and it's maker.[12]
Plotinus, for example, attacked the Gnostics he was familiar with for vilifying Plato's ontology of the universe contained in Timaeus, and the universes'
creation by the demiurge.[13] In this view the Demiurge is an artist or craftsman, in that he creates through mixing or amalgamating what already is. Plotinus accused
Gnosticism of vilifing the Demiurge or craftsman that crafted the material world, even thinking of the material world as evil or
a prison.
The Neoplatonic movement (though Plotinus would have simply referred to himself as a philosopher of Plato) seems to be
motivated by the desire of Plotinus to revive the pagan philosophical tradition. Plotinus was not claiming to innovate with the
Enneads, but to clarify aspects of the works of Plato that he considered misrepresented or misunderstood. Plotinus
referred to tradition as a way to interpret Plato's intentions. Because the teachings of Plato were for members of the academy
rather than the general public, it was easy for outsiders to misunderstand Plato's meaning. However, Plotinus attempted to
clarify how the philosophers of the academy had not arrived at the same conclusions (such as misotheism or Dystheism of the creator God as an answer to the
problem of evil) as the targets of his criticism.
Influence
Neoplatonism was sometimes used as a philosophical foundation for paganism, and as a means
of defending the theoretic of paganism against Christianity (see Porphyry, Eunapius). However, many Christians were also influenced
by Neoplatonism, most notably Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. He also
influenced modern Russian philosophers like Nikolai Lossky. St. Augustine, though often referred to as a "Platonist," acquired his Platonist philosophy through
the mediation of Plotinus' teachings. Indeed, Plotinus' philosophy still exerts influence today: in the 20th century, American integral
theorist Ken Wilber has drawn heavily upon the Enneads in his cosmology, reaching some metaphysical conclusions comparable to Plotinus'
own. In England, Plotinus was the cardinal influence on the 17th-century school of the Cambridge Platonists, and on numerous writers from Samuel
Taylor Coleridge to W.B. Yeats and Kathleen
Raine.
Many of the Indian philosophers of great renown such as Sarvepalli
Radhakrishnan, Ananda Coomaraswamy and others used the writing of Plotinus in
their own texts as a superlative elaboration upon Indian monism, specifically Upanishadic and Advaita Vedantic
thought.
Neo-Platonism and the ideas of Plotinus influenced medieval Islam as well, since the Sunni Abbasids fused Greek concepts into sponsored state texts, and found
great influence amongst the Ismaili Shia.[14] Persian philosophers as well, such as Muhammad
al-Nasafi and Abu Yaqub Sijistani. By the 11th century, Neo-Platonism was adopted by
the Fatimid state of Egypt, and taught by their da'i
(Islam).[14] Neo-Platonism was
brought to the Fatimid court by Iraqi Hamid al-Din
al-Kirmani, although his teachings differed from Nasafi and Sijistani, who were more aligned with original teachings of
Plotinus.[15] The teachings of Kirmani in
turn influenced philosophers such as Nasir Khusraw of Persia.[15]
See also
Notes
- ^ "Plotinus." The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Columbia
University Press., 2003. Answers.com 16 Oct. 2007. http://www.answers.com/topic/plotinus
- ^ "Plotinus." The Concise Oxford Companion to Classical Literature. Oxford
University Press, 1993, 2003. Answers.com 16 Oct. 2007. http://www.answers.com/topic/plotinus
- ^ Bilolo, M.: La notion de « l’Un » dans les Ennéades de Plotin
et dans les Hymnes thébains. Contribution à l’étude des sources égyptiennes du néo-platonisme. In : D. Kessler, R.
Schulz (Hrsg.), "Gedenkschrift für Winfried Barta Htp dj n Hzj", (Münchner Ägyptologische Untersuchungen, Bd. 4), Frankfurt;
Berlin; Bern; New York; Paris; Wien: Peter Lang, 1995, pp. 67-91.
- ^ Porphyry, On the Life of Plotinus and the Order of His Books, Ch. 3
(in Armstrong's Loeb translation, "he became eager to make acquaintance with the Persian philosophical discipline and that
prevailing among the Indians").
- ^ I.6.6 and I.6.9
- ^ This connection is made in the works of Ananda Coomaraswamy[1] and has been elaborated upon in J. F. Staal,
Advaita and Neoplatonism: A critical study in comparative philosophy, Madras: University of Madras, 1961. More recently,
see Frederick Copleston, Religion and the One: Philosophies East and West (University of
Aberdeen Gifford Lectures 1979-1980) and the special section "Fra Oriente e
Occidente" in Annuario filosofico No. 6 (1990), including the articles "Plotino e l'India" by Aldo Magris and "L'India e
Plotino" by Mario Piantelli. The connection is also mentioned in Sarvepalli
Radhakrishnan (ed.), History of Philosophy Eastern and Western (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1952), vol. 2, p.
114; in a lecture by Professor Gwen Griffith-Dickson [2]; and in John Y. Fenton, "Mystical Experience as a Bridge for Cross-Cultural
Philosophy of Religion: A Critique," Journal of the American Academy of Religion 1981, p. 55. The joint influence of
Advaitin and Neoplatonic ideas on Ralph Waldo Emerson is considered in Dale Riepe,
"Emerson and Indian Philosophy," Journal of the History of Ideas, 1967.
- ^ From Introduction to Against the Gnostics Plotinus' Enneads as translated
by A. H. Armstrong pgs220-222. The treatise as it stands in the Enneads is a most powerful protest on behalf of Hellenic philosophy against
the un-Hellenic heresy (as it was from the Platonist as well as the orthodox Christian point of
view) of Gnosticism. There were Gnostics among Plotinus's own friends, whom he had not succeeded in converting (Enneads ch.10 of
this treatise) and he and his pupils devoted considerable time and energy to anti-Gnostic controversy (Life of Plotinus ch.16).
He obviously considered Gnosticism an extremely dangerous influence, likely to pervert the minds even of members of his own
circle. It is impossible to attempt to give an account of Gnosticism here. By far the best discussion of what the particular
group of Gnostics Plotinus knew believed is M. Puech's admirable contribution to Entretiens
Hardt V (Les Sourcesde Plotin). But it is important for the understanding of this treatise to be clear about the reasons why
Plotinus disliked them so intensely and thought their influence so harmful.
- ^ From Introduction to Against the Gnostics Plotinus' Enneads as translated
by A. H. Armstrong pgs220-222.Short statement of the doctrine of the three hypostasis,
the One, Intellect and Soul; there cannot be more or fewer than these three. 1.Criticism of the attempts to multiply the
hypostasis, and especially of the idea of two intellects, one which thinks and that other which thinks that it thinks. (Enneads
Against the Gnostics ch. 1). The true doctrine of Soul (ch. 2).
- 2.The law of necessary procession and the eternity of the universe (ch.3).
- Attack on the Gnostic doctrine of the making of the universe by a fallen soul, and on their despising of the universe and the
heavenly bodies (chs. 4-5).
- The sense-less jargon of the Gnostics, their plagiarism from and perversion of Plato, and their insolent arrogance (ch.
6).
- 3.The true doctrine about Universal Soul and the goodness of the universe which it forms and rules (chs. 7-8).
- 4.Refutation of objections from the inequalities and injustices of human life (ch. 9).
- 5.Ridiculous arrogance of the Gnostics who refuse to acknowledge the hierarchy of created gods and spirits and say that they
alone are sons of God and superior to the heavens (ch. 9).
- 6.The absurdities of the Gnostic doctrine of the fall of "Wisdom" (Sophia) and of the gemeratio and activities of the Demiurge,
maker of the visible universe (chs. 10-12).
- 7.False and melodramatic Gnostic teaching about the cosmic spheres and their influence (ch. 13).
- 8.The blasphemous falsity of the Gnostic claim to control the higher powers by magic and the absurdity of their claim to cure
diseases by casting out demons (ch. 14).
- 9.The false other-worldiness of the Gnostics leads to immorality (ch. 15).
- 10.The true Platonic other-worldliness, which love and venerates the material universe in all its goodness and beauty as the
most perfect possible image of the intelligible, contracted at length with the false, Gnostic, other-worldliness which hates and
despises the material universe and its beauties (chs. 16-18).
AH Lawrence introduction to - Pages 220-222
- ^ From Introduction to Against the Gnostics Plotinus' Enneads as translated
by A. H. Armstrong.pg 220-222 The teaching of the Gnostics seems to him untraditional,
irrational and immoral. They despise and revile the ancient Platonic teaching and claim to have a new and superior wisdom of
their own: but in fact anything that is true in their teaching comes from Plato, and all they have done themselves is to add
senseless complications and pervert the true traditional doctrine into a melodramatic, superstitious fantasy designed to feed
their own delusions of grandeur. They reject the only true way of salvation through wisdom and virtue, the slow patient study of
truth and pursuit of perfection by men who respect the wisdom of the ancients and the know their place in the universe.Pages
220-222
- ^ Introduction to Against the Gnostics Plotinus' Enneads as translated by
A. H. Armstrong pg 220-222 9.The false other-worldiness of the Gnostics leads to
immorality (Enneads ch. 15).
- ^ Introduction to Against the Gnostics Plotinus' Enneads as translated by
A. H. Armstrong pg 220-222 Ridiculous arrogance of the Gnostics who refuse to
acknowledge the hierarchy of created gods and spirits and say that they alone are sons of God and superior to the heavens
(Enneads ch. 9)
- ^ They claim to be a privileged caste of beings, in whom alone God is
interested, and who are saved not by their own efforts but by some dramatic and arbitrary divine proceeding; and this, Plotinus
says, leads to immorality. Worst of all, they despise and hate the material universe and deny its goodness and the goodness of
its maker. This for a Platonist is utter blasphemy, and all the worse because it obviously derives to some extent from the
sharply other-worldly side of Plato's own teaching (e.g. in the Phaedo). At this point in his
attack Plotinus comes very close in some ways to the orthodox Christian opponents of Gnosticism, who also insist that this world
is the good work of God in his goodness. But, here as on the question of salvation, the doctrine which Plotinus is defending is
as sharply opposed on other ways to orthodox Christianity as to Gnosticism: for he maintains not only the goodness of the
material universe but also its eternity and its divinity. The idea that the universe could have a beginning and end is
inseparably connected in his mind with the idea that the divine action in making it is arbitrary and irrational. And to deny the
divinity (though a subordinate and dependent divinity)of the World-Soul, and of those noblest of embodied living beings the
heavenly bodies, seems to him both blasphemous and unreasonable.Pages 220-222
- ^ Short statement of the doctrine of the three hypostasis, the One,
Intellect and Soul; there cannot be more or fewer than these three. - - 1.Criticism of the attempts to multiply the hypostasis,
and especially of the idea of two intellects, one which thinks and that other which thinks that it thinks. (ch. 1). The true
doctrine of Soul (ch. 2).
- 2.The law of necessary procession and the eternity of the universe (ch.3).
- Attack on the Gnostic doctrine of the making of the universe by a fallen soul, and on their despising of the universe and the
heavenly bodies (chs. 4-5).
Pages 220-222
- ^ a b Halm, 176.
- ^ a b Halm, 177.
References
- Robert M. Berchman, From Philo to Origen: Middle Platonism in Transition (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984).
- Frederick Copleston, S.J., A History of Philosophy: Vol. 1, Part 2. ISBN
0-385-00210-6
- Halm, Heinz (2004). Shi'ism: Second Edition. New York: Columbia University Press.
- Bentley Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures. SCM, 1987. ISBN 0-334-02022-0
- P. Merlan, "Greek Philosophy from Plato to Plotinus," in The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval
Philosophy, edited by A. H. Armstrong. Cambridge, 1967. ISBN 0-521-04054-X.
- Plotinus. Enneads, 7 vols., translated by A.H. Armstrong, Loeb Classical Library.
- Plotinus. The Enneads, translated by Stephen MacKenna. London: Medici Society, 1917-1930.
- Revised by B.S. Page. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 1952. With a foreword by E.R.
Dodds, London: Faber, 1957.
- Abridged by John Dillon. London: Penguin, 1991. ISBN 0-14-044520-X
- Porphyry, On the Life of Plotinus and the Arrangement of his Works in Neoplatonic Saints: The Lives of Plotinus and
Proclus by their Students, Mark Edwards (ed.). Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000.
- J.M. Rist, Plotinus, the Road to Reality
- Gershom Scholem, Kabbalah Jerusalem: Keter, 1974.
- N. Joseph Torchia, Plotinus, Tolma, and the Descent of Being. New York: Peter Lang, 1993. ISBN 0-8204-1768-8 US-ISBN
0-8204-1768-8
- Thomas Taylor, The fragments that remain of the lost writings of
Proclus, surnamed the Platonic successor. London, 1825. (Selene Books reprint edition, 1987, ISBN 0-933601-11-5.)
- Thomas Taylor, Collected Writings of Plotinus. Frome, Somerset, UK: Prometheus Trust, 1994. ISBN 1-898910-02-2.
- Antonia Tripolitis, The Doctrine of the Soul in the thought of Plotinus and Origen. Libra Publishers, 1978. Library of
Congress Catalog No. 76-1616321.
- Richard T. Wallis, Neoplatonism and Gnosticism University of
Oklahoma, 1984. ISBN 0-7914-1337-3 ISBN 0-7914-1338-1
Further reading
- Introductory texts in translation, with annotations
- Kevin Corrigan, Reading Plotinus: A Practical Introduction to Neoplatonism. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University
Press, 2005.
- John M. Dillon and Lloyd P. Gerson, Neoplatonic Philosophy: Introductory Readings. Hackett, 2004.
- Major commentaries in English
- Michael Atkinson, Plotinus: Ennead V.1, On the Three Principal Hypostases. Oxford, 1983.
- Kevin Corrigan, Plotinus' Theory of Matter-Evil: Plato, Aristotle, and Alexander of Aphrodisias (II.4, II.5, III.6,
I.8). Leiden, 1996.
- Barrie Fleet, Plotinus: Ennead III.6, On the Impassivity of the Bodiless. Oxford, 1995.
- W. Helleman-Elgersma, Soul-Sisters (IV.3). Amsterdam, 1980.
- P.A. Meijer, Plotinus on the Good or the One (VI.9). Amsterdam, 1992.
- H. Oosthout, Modes of Knowledge and the Transcendental: An Introduction to Plotinus Ennead V.3. Amsterdam, 1991.
- A.M. Wolters, Plotinus on Eros (III.5). Amsterdam, 1972.
- Greek text
External links
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
