NEOPLATONISMO

NEOPLATONISM. – Philosophical current and school inspired mainly by Plato, which arose in Alexandria toward the end of the 2nd century A.D.

SUMMARY:

I. History and developments

II. Philosophical significance

I. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENTS

Among the philosophers from whom the historical premises of N. derive is Posidonius of Apamea, considered the greatest representative of syncretism before Plotinus, and Numenius of Apamea should be added, who sought to link the plurality of Platonic Ideas to the plurality of gods. The influence of the Gnostic current, which aimed at a rational elaboration of knowledge of God, emphasizing His obscure transcendence, must not be neglected.

The founder of N. is commonly regarded as Ammonius Saccas, to whom is attributed the attempt to reconcile the religious currents of the Eastern world with Christianity and with Greek philosophy, according to the Hellenistic formula. Disciples of Ammonius were a Platonic Origen (though his existence was contested by Cadiou) and Cassius Longinus, who particularly emphasized a new aesthetics linked to the renewed use of Platonic Ideas. The greatest representative and systematizer of the Neoplatonic current, however, remains Plotinus, to whom belongs not so much the synthetic capacity of an eclecticism as was claimed, but rather the living originality of the philosopher, beyond mere membership in a particular school.

To understand his period, one must turn to the often fragmentary and analytical exposition, even if apparently coordinated, given in the Enneads, the highest expression and code of authentic N. The very manner in which Plotinus expresses his thought explains, at least in part, how he could give rise to schools and currents that depend on him and yet differ from him. What in the master’s doctrine is essentially coordinated in a laborious but realized synthesis often assumes in his disciples and followers the meaning of an inspiration toward new and sometimes subsequent developments. This can already be seen in the Neoplatonic schools of antiquity, among which the School of Syria, headed by Iamblichus, where one notes the introduction of new hypostases that complicate the three (the One, Intellect, Soul: "Evo, Noùc, Fuyh") in which, according to Plotinus, the Absolute is expressed. The attempt to understand the relationship between the Absolute and the world is further shifted by the intervention of intermediaries reminiscent of Gnostic doctrines, which Plotinus had instead firmly opposed.

The Athenian School, represented above all by Proclus, has been historically understood as the ideal continuation of the Syrian School and at the same time more directly linked to the Academy; it had in fact already begun before Proclus with Plutarch of Athens and was represented, after Proclus, above all by Damascius and Simplicius. Proclus insists on the dialectical significance of the relationship between the hypostases and between them and the world. Logic and metaphysics tend to identify with each other. Thus the motif (only partially explicit in Plotinus) according to which the Absolute posits itself, then goes forth from itself, and finally returns to itself (μονή, πρόοδος, ἐπιστροφή) becomes fundamental. Proclus’ triadism will be further elaborated and will significantly influence the thought of certain medieval philosophers.

To the Syrian and Athenian Schools, which had a more pronounced philosophical-metaphysical character, two others must be added. One, the School of Pergamon (which may find in Aedesius the link with the Syrian School), has a more distinctly religious character and is to be traced back to the effort to defend pagan traditions in the face of the development of Christianity. A typical representative of this school in the 4th century is the emperor Julian the Apostate. Among the disciples of Aedesius are to be remembered Chrysanthius, Priscus, and Eusebius. The other school, essentially of an erudite type, is the so-called Alexandrian School, which rather set aside the metaphysical and religious syncretistic aspects of the Athenian School and of the preceding Neoplatonic schools, devoting itself to the commentary on classical philosophers (including Aristotle) and to more properly scientific inquiry. Christian authors also belong to it (Synesius of Cyrene, Hierocles of Alexandria), while others were influenced by II. If the study of the schools indicated does not exhaust N. as part of Greek philosophy, it nevertheless provides a useful framework for grouping its representatives.

As regards the influence of N. on Christian thought (v. PLATONISM), it should be noted that N. (through which Plato was often studied) occupies a notable place, besides in Augustine, in all Greek patristics (Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor) and acts upon it especially through certain theses proper to it (God, Providence, the supersensible and divine of which the sensible world is an image, the spirituality of the soul and its superiority over the body, the illumination of the soul by God, the immortality of the soul, and the idea of a possible otherworldly sanction). It is clear that the N. of the Fathers differs in some respects from the more ancient N. Nevertheless, its importance remains. Even Eusebius of Caesarea (Praeparatio evangelica, IV, xi) cites certain Neoplatonists who would have prepared the preaching of the Gospel, among them Porphyry, Numenius, Plotinus, and Plutarch (v.). Reminiscences of Plotinus are also found in Cyril of Alexandria, as well as in Gregory Nazianzen and Basil.

However one may historically situate the thought of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (and while keeping in mind C. Pera’s thesis on the matter, which places him close to the Cappadocian Fathers), the fact remains that through him one of the most important channels was established for the transmission of Neoplatonic doctrines to the Middle Ages, especially with the *De divinis nominibus*. It is well known, moreover, that the Middle Ages often failed to assign with true precision works of Neoplatonic inspiration. This is the case with the *Theologia Aristotelis* (pseudo), which is directly influenced by Plotinus’ theses, and with the work *De Causis*, falsely regarded as Peripatetic. Platonism entered Scholasticism both through St. Augustine and through authors of Neoplatonic inspiration. Among these are Apuleius of Madaura, with the *Asclepius* attributed to him, and the Hermetic writings (in which Neoplatonic influence is mingled with Neopagan elements), cited especially for their speculations on the nature of God and His relationship to the world; also Macrobius with his commentary on the *Somnium Scipionis*; and Calcidius, who is of notable importance for having oriented the Middle Ages toward Plato’s intellectualistic psychology rather than toward Aristotle’s “entelechy.” It was in the same period—when Aristotle’s works beyond the *Organon* came into contact with the West, particularly in the 12th century—that translations of Neoplatonic or Neoplatonically inspired works were introduced (cf. C. Baeumer, *La filosofia europea e il medioevo*, trans. it., Milan 1945, pp. 39–40). In 1268 William of Moerbeke published his Latin translation of Proclus’ *Elementa theologiae*. Among works more directly oriented toward Neoplatonism, special mention must be made of John Scotus Eriugena’s *De divisione naturae* (v.). Closely aligned with the Neoplatonic trend are the figures of the School of Chartres, Bernard and Thierry, and others; among these, Bène (v.) and David of Dinant (v.) leaned toward a pantheistic conception. Their derivation is more directly connected to Scotus Eriugena. A broader study of medieval mysticism—especially speculative mysticism—and its relationship to Neoplatonism would merit a more extensive examination than historians of philosophy have hitherto undertaken.

The aspect of Neoplatonism in the Renaissance is different. Neoplatonic influence becomes prevalent, not only in such well-known figures as George Gemistus Plethon, Cardinal Bessarion, Pico della Mirandola, and Marsilio Ficino, but also—and above all—in those who found in Neoplatonism both inspiration and a speculative framework. Among these, Niccolò Cusano occupies a special place, in whom Neoplatonism constitutes the core around which his philosophical system is organized. Indeed, one might say that while in him Neoplatonism is joined to an effort at rethinking that seeks, in part successfully, to remain faithful to the fundamental theses of Christian theodicy, the position is reversed in other Renaissance philosophers (notably Giordano Bruno), who effectively represent a pagan humanism that dissolves and critiques the classical philosophy of the Middle Ages.

It is certainly possible to speak of Neoplatonism present in more modern currents of thought; but here the possibility of a broader framework that goes beyond mere influences and noteworthy observations is lost, and it is not permissible to say that Neoplatonism has acted in its entirety, but rather only in certain of its aspects. Thus one has been able to speak of the presence of Neoplatonic elements in German Idealism (Schelling) or in contemporary philosophers.

II. PHILOSOPHICAL SIGNIFICANCE

A characteristic of Neoplatonism, though differently in Plotinus and in the Neoplatonic schools of the Hellenistic world, is the emanationist approach, which understands reality as a necessary derivation from the Absolute. The bond uniting the Absolute and the world is more or less profound. At times Neoplatonism exhibits a tendency toward the unity of the real, resulting in an orientation toward monism; at other times, dualistic tendencies persist in Neoplatonism, due especially to the conception of matter as not entirely reducible to the world of spirit; or else the Absolute is centralized in a Supreme Principle, separated from all other reality, so as to be essentially alien to II. It must be noted that Neoplatonism takes a position on all the major problems of philosophy: of man, of the cosmos and of freedom, of ethics and of religion. With regard to the religious problem, it has sometimes been claimed that the essential and almost exclusive motive of Neoplatonism is to be found here. Certainly the problem of the Absolute is the speculative center of Neoplatonism; yet it is not accurate to say that religious interest almost replaces the more properly theoretical one. This could occur only in certain trends and currents that do not adequately express the true philosophical meaning of Neoplatonism. In it, rather, there is the confidence that arises from a theoretical foundation of the relationship between the Absolute, the world, and man. Philosophy leads to religion, is integrated into it, and thus religious experience (v.) does not replace philosophy but rather constitutes its spiritual culmination. Theurgy, magic, and the renewed Gnosticism that has sometimes been linked to Neoplatonism are rather a degenerate and spurious appendage. The most authentic and original Neoplatonism, represented by Plotinus, strives to maintain unity not only between the world and the Absolute, between human life and the One from which it depends, but also between philosophy and religion, between knowledge and life, between contemplation and action. Neoplatonism, moreover, intends to provide man with a path to be followed that is realized through philosophical speculation and, at the same time, through an ascetic reform of life, in that solidarity. It is in these fundamental motifs that the characteristic and unity of Neoplatonism are to be sought, beyond the particular determinations and sometimes contaminations of Hellenistic Neoplatonic currents.

III. RELATIONS BETWEEN N. AND CHRISTIANITY. — Historically, the relations between Neoplatonism and Christianity have manifested themselves, as indicated above, first and foremost in the philosophical and theological speculation of the Patristic era. This must not be understood as a dependence of Patristic theology on Neoplatonism in its properly dogmatic content. Rather, Neoplatonism contributed to providing the foundations of a philosophy with a Platonic orientation that was substantially in accord with Christianity.

Alongside a Neoplatonism that sought to reinvigorate paganism, there appears a Neoplatonism that provides various and complex rational elements for theological speculation on revealed data. It may well be asked, moreover, whether Christianity in turn exercised an influence on Neoplatonism, and in particular on Plotinus. The latter remains far from a definitive resolution of this question.

The most authentic Neoplatonism recognizes the transcendence of the Absolute, placing it above all reality. The Absolute, on the other hand, cannot be reduced to a single aspect; indeed, Neoplatonism insists on finding various stages in the process that links the Absolute to other realities that belong to it and, indirectly, to the world. Thus arises the problem of the relationship between the “hypostases” that constitute the Absolute and the world with the Absolute itself.

Christianity established a clear distinction between God and the world, between God’s operations ad extra concerning creatures and His activity ad intra in which His eternal life is expressed, in the unity of nature and in the Trinity of Persons. For Christianity, the Trinity is God Himself, whereas in Neoplatonism the hypostases are the fruit of a necessity-freedom of God.

As for the relationship between the Absolute and the world, the Greek Neoplatonism lacks the concept of creation (v.). This would be introduced only through Christian philosophers and thinkers. Primitive Neoplatonism is pantheistic (v. PANTEISMO): God does not freely create the world; not only is there a necessary communion between the world and God (the world cannot exist without God), but God cannot exist without the world. In Plotinus’ Neoplatonism, there is an oscillation between an emanatist monism (v. EMANATISMO), in which the freedom of creation is abolished, and a dualism (v.) linked to the existence of matter.

Nevertheless, the conception of the divine unity of the world lent itself to a development in a Christian sense. St. Augustine and Pseudo-Dionysius developed the theme of the *itinerarium* by which one may ascend through successive degrees from the external to the internal and thence to the Absolute. It is on this theme that Neoplatonic philosophy most properly meets the mystical conception, which undoubtedly constitutes a significant aspect of Neoplatonism. Faced with the reality that surrounds him, man perceives its fragile transience; he is thus led to transcend the world toward a Reality that can be attained not only logically but in a further experience, the fruit of intuitive knowledge. There is, therefore, a “mysticism” connected to the human inability to express the Absolute in sensible and meaningful language. It culminates in the ineffable encounter with God, ecstasy (v.).

The mysticism of Neoplatonism is intellectualist and only subordinately experimental. It is personal and rigorously limited in time and space. Christian mysticism differs from it in its content, which is tied to Revelation, in the manner in which it is realized, and in its constant presupposition of the mediation of Christ, the Word of God made man. Not without reason has Neoplatonism been able to give rise rather to expressions of religiosity than to a true and proper religion.

From this point of view, Neoplatonism is distinctly eclectic and imposed a broad demand for correction and integration by Christian philosophers, theologians, and mystics who drew inspiration from II. Its divergences from Christianity were historically imposed and clearly manifested in St. Augustine. At a certain point in his spiritual journey, St. Augustine was not so much concerned with “Christianizing” Neoplatonism as with setting aside what in it was insufficient and contrary to Christian doctrine—namely, both the rationalism and naturalism often implicit in Neoplatonism and its irrationalistic aspects and motifs. Nevertheless, the resolute affirmation of the primacy of contemplation over action (already present in Greek philosophy but more typically explicit in Neoplatonism), the decisive valorization and centrality of the reality of God in His transcendence, are among the most valid and enduring motifs of Neoplatonism, together with the question it posed—and did not fully resolve—of the relationship between the Absolute and the world, between God and man.