Plotinus uses "the One" and "the Good" interchangeably. — Gus Lamarch
Plotinus uses "the One" and "the Good" interchangeably. — Gus Lamarch
"Good" is related to Act, and "One" is related to Potential. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is one reason why people have trouble understanding Plotinus. Metaphysical concepts which have contrary incompatible underlying assumptions cannot be used interchangeably without introducing equivocation and logical incoherence.
Plato mostly got these right whereas Platonists uniformly get them wrong. It is amazing how a fundamentally simple closed static One can be confused with an open transcendent interactive Good, or how either can be thought of as an active creative Agent. — magritte
Plotinus, ... his philosophy was focused on a group of people who would understand what Plotinus was trying to explain - his students -. — Gus Lamarch
And everything, yes?
— praxis
No, because everything emanates from it. Plotinus denies sentience, self-awareness or any other action to the One:
"It is impossible for the One to be Being or a self-aware Creator God."
Plotinus, Enneads — Gus Lamarch
You gotta admit it’s pretty self-denying for anyone to deny sentience or self-awareness. — praxis
In the moment we try to atribute something to a concept of absolute, it is not anymore absolute. People don't get that - praxis - — Gus Lamarch
If we read some Plato, can we pick your brain for guidance? — frank
Plotinus denies sentience, self-awareness or any other action to the One. Rather, if we insist on describing it further, we must call the One a sheer potentiality without which nothing could exist. So no, the one is not related to potential. — Gus Lamarch
The Symposium as a good introduction to Plato's style. — Metaphysician Undercover
Plotinus accepts the Good as a principle of action, bit he cannot reconcile the Good with the One, which is supposed to be an absolute, and eternal potentiality. — Metaphysician Undercover
I was thinking the Symposium or Phaedo.. — frank
For Plotinus the Good is associated with Nous, so why would he have to reconcile it with the One? — frank
It's an absolute, like One, and a good metaphysics needs to show the relationship between first principles. — Metaphysician Undercover
Any time we talk about the One, duality is already on the scene because the intellect is operating. Any object of thought stands against a backdrop of its negation. (Plato alludes to this in Phaedo). The negation of the One is the Nous and the Soul (sort of).
But is the Good absolute? If matter is a privation of the Good, doesnt that mean the Good can show up in a partial way? — frank
Any object of thought stands against a backdrop of its negation. — frank
do not think that Plotinus develops an adequate description of the relationship between matter and good — Metaphysician Undercover
any case, I don't think you can say that matter is a privation of the Good itself, it is a privation of a thing in relation to the Good. Objects are deprived, the Good is not. — Metaphysician Undercover
Its a principle essential to Neoplatonism and runs from Plato through Hegel to Schopenhauer. Even if you disagree with it, you cant deny its place in philosophy, right?don't agree with this. There is no necessity for the negation of an object of thought, I believe that's a faulty principle. — Metaphysician Undercover
Matter is privation of the Good isn't it? — frank
Its a principle essential to Neoplatonism and runs from Plato through Hegel to Schopenhauer. Even if you disagree with it, you cant deny its place in philosophy, right? — frank
I think a privation is always of the form, when a thing is less that perfect, so matter is a separate principle from privation. I believe it was the Manicheans and perhaps Gnostics who taught that matter is inherently evil. But I think Plotinus rejected this for a more Aristotelian perspective which holds that good, and privation are proper to the form of a thing, not its matter. — Metaphysician Undercover
I know Plato pretty well, and I don't see this negation of intelligible objects, ideas, in his work, not even in The Sophist. Nor do I see it in any Neo-Platonism. I think you are relying on faulty interpretation. — Metaphysician Undercover
Plotinus' matter is devoid of form. It's also evil: — frank
"Considered abstractly and from within Plotinus' system it should be no surprise that matter is the ultimate evil: matter is at the bottom, the Good is at the top. They are opposites. What could matter be, then, other than evil? Matter is not, by consequence, an independent power opposing the Good, however: Plotinus' whole approach to the question of evil consists in explaining its evil nature as its lack of goodness and being, its powerlessness, indefinitenesss..." -- Plotinus, Eyjolfur K Emilsson, 194 — frank
There remains, only, if Evil exist at all, that it be situate in the realm
of Non-Being, that it be some mode, as it were, of the Non-Being, that
it have its seat in something in touch with Non-Being or to a certain
degree communicate in Non-Being.
If matter or evil is ultimately caused by the One, then is not the One, as the Good, the cause of evil? In one sense, the answer is definitely yes. — frank
Did you read Phaedo? Based on what you're saying, I don't know what you would make of the argument for the immortality of the Soul. — frank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.