NEOPLATONISM. – A philosophical movement and school inspired chiefly by Plato, which arose in Alexandria toward the end of the second century A.D.
SUMMARY:
I. History and developments
II. Philosophical significance
III. Relations between Neoplatonism and Christianity.I. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENTS
While it is relatively easy to identify the historical reasons that explain Neoplatonism as a continuation of doctrines connected with the Platonic Academy, the same cannot be said of the aspects that constitute the originality of Neoplatonism, distinguishing it from the philosophy of Plato. It is certain that various lines of thought converged in the formation of the Neoplatonic school or movement, including, besides Platonism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism, and several other philosophical tendencies present in the period in which Neoplatonism took shape (the end of the second century A.D.). The importance of Jewish thought in this genesis, represented above all by Philo, must not be forgotten. Among the philosophers from whom the historical premises of Neoplatonism derive is Posidonius of Apamea, regarded as the principal representative of syncretism before Plotinus; Numenios of Apamea must also be added, as he sought to link the plurality of Platonic ideas with the plurality of the gods. Nor should one overlook the influence of the Gnostic movement, which aimed at a rational elaboration of a knowledge of God, whose obscure transcendence it emphasized.Ammonius Saccas is commonly regarded as the founder of Neoplatonism; he is credited with the attempt to reconcile the religious currents of the Eastern world with Christianity and, at the same time, with Greek philosophy, in accordance with the Hellenistic formula. The disciples of Ammonius included a Platonist Origen (whose existence was nevertheless disputed by Cadiou) and Cassius Longinus, who gave particular prominence to a new aesthetics connected with the renewed use of Platonic ideas. The foremost representative and systematizer of the Neoplatonic movement, however, remains Plotinus, to whom should be attributed not so much the synthetic capacity of an eclectic, as has been maintained, but rather the philosopher’s vivid originality, beyond his simple affiliation with a particular school. To understand his period, one must turn to the often fragmentary and analytic, even if apparently coordinated, exposition provided by the Daneadi, the supreme expression and code of authentic Neoplatonism. The very manner in which Plotinus expressed his thought explains, at least in part, how he was able to give rise to schools and movements that both depend on him and differ from him. What in the master’s doctrine is essentially coordinated in a laborious but accomplished synthesis often assumes in his disciples and epigones the significance of an inspiration toward new and sometimes subsequent developments. This can already be seen in the ancient Neoplatonic schools, among which was the Syrian school, headed by Iamblichus, in which one can already observe the intersection of new hypotheses that complicate the three principles (the One, Intellect, Soul: 'Ev, Νοῦς, Ψυχή) in which, according to Plotinus, the Absolute is expressed. The attempt to understand the relationship between the Absolute and the world was shifted still further through the intervention of intermediaries recalling the Gnostic doctrines to which Plotinus, by contrast, had been decidedly opposed. The Athenian school, represented above all by Proclus, has historically been understood as the ideal continuation of the Syrian school and as being at the same time more directly connected with the Academy; in reality, it had already begun before Proclus with Plutarch of Athens and was represented after Proclus chiefly by Damascius and Simplicius. Proclus insists on the dialectical significance of the relationship among the hypotheses and between them and the world. Logic and metaphysics tend to coincide. Consequently, the principle (only partially explicit in Plotinus) according to which the Absolute posits itself, then proceeds out of itself, and finally returns to itself (μονή, πρόοδος, ἐπιστροφή) becomes fundamental. Proclus’s triadism would be further elaborated and would exert considerable influence on the thought of certain medieval philosophers.
To the schools of Syria and Athens, which were more properly philosophical and metaphysical in character, two others must be added. The first, the school of Pergamum (which may find in Aedesius the link connecting it with the Syrian school), was characterized by a more pronounced religious interest and must be understood as arising from the effort to defend pagan traditions in the face of the development of Christianity. The typical representative of this school in the fourth century was the emperor Julian the Apostate. Among the disciples of Aedesius, Chrysanthius, Priscus, and Eusebius should be remembered. The other school, essentially erudite in type, is that known as the Alexandrian school, which largely set aside the metaphysical and syncretistically religious aspects of the Athenian school and of the preceding Neoplatonic schools, devoting itself to commentary on the classical philosophers (including Aristotle) and at the same time to more properly scientific investigation. Christian authors also belonged to it (Synesius of Cyrene, Hierocles of Alexandria), while others were influenced by II. Although the study of the schools mentioned does not exhaust the Neoplatonism belonging to Greek philosophy, it nevertheless provides a useful framework for grouping its representatives.
With regard to the influence of Neoplatonism on Christian thought (v. PLATONISMO), it should be noted that Neoplatonism (through which Plato was often studied) occupies a significant place, not only in Augustine, but throughout Greek patrology (Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor), and that it exerted its influence chiefly through certain theses proper to it (God, Providence, the supersensible and the 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 Neoplatonism of the Fathers differs, even with regard to some of these theses, from the earlier Neoplatonism. Nevertheless, its importance remains. Eusebius of Caesarea (Praeparatio evangelica, IV, xi) also cites several Neoplatonists who are said to have prepared the preaching of the Gospel, among them Porphyry, Numenios, Plotinus, and Plutarch (v.). Reminiscences of Plotinus are also found in Cyril of Alexandria, as well as in Gregory Nazianzen and Basil.
However the thought of Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite may be situated historically (and while C. Pera’s thesis on the matter, which places him close to the Cappadocian Fathers, must be kept in mind), 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 through the De divinis nominibus. It is known, moreover, that the Middle Ages was often unable to determine with true accuracy the attribution of works inspired by Neoplatonism. Thus with regard to the (pseudo-) Theologia Aristotelis, which directly reflects the theses of Plotinus, and the work De Caustis, falsely regarded as Peripatetic. Platonism entered scholasticism both through St. Agostino and through authors of Neoplatonic inspiration. These include Apuleio di Madaura, with the Asclepio attributed to him, and the Hermetic writings (in which Neoplatonic influence is mingled with Neopythagorean influence), cited above all in connection with speculations on the nature of God and his relations with the world; also Macrobius, with his commentary on the Somnium Scipionis; and Chalcidius, who is of considerable importance for having directed the Middle Ages toward Plato’s intellectualist psychology rather than toward Aristotle’s “entelechy.” It was in the same period in which Aristotle’s writings beyond the Organon came into contact with the West—that is, particularly in the twelfth century—that the translation of Neoplatonic works or works inspired by Neoplatonism was introduced (cf. C. Baeumker, La filosofia europea e il medioevo, Italian trans., Milan 1945, pp. 39–40). In 1268 Guglielmo di Moerbecke published the Latin translation of Proclus’s Elementa theologiae. Among the works more directly oriented toward Neoplatonism, the De divisione naturae Scoto Eriugena (v.) should be remembered above all. The representatives of the school of Chartres, Bernardo and Teodorico and others, were close to the Neoplatonic tendency; among them, BEMA (v.) David di Dinant (v.) inclined toward the pantheistic conception. Their derivation is more directly connected with Scoto Eriugena. A broader study of medieval mysticism, especially speculative mysticism and its relations with Neoplatonism, would require a more extensive examination than historians of philosophy have so far managed to undertake.
The aspect of Neoplatonism in the Renaissance is different. Neoplatonic influence became predominant not only in the well-known examples of Giorgio Gemisto Pletone, Cardinal Bessarione, Pico della Mirandola, and Marsilio Ficino, but also, and above all, among those who found in Neoplatonism both their inspiration and their speculative framework. Among these, Niccolò Cusano occupies a place of his own, since Neoplatonism constitutes the nucleus around which his philosophical system is organized. Indeed, one may say that whereas in his case Neoplatonism is associated with an effort at rethinking which seeks—and succeeds in part—to remain faithful to the fundamental theses of Christian theodicy, the position is reversed in those other philosophers of the Renaissance (in particular Giordano Bruno), who effectively constitute a pagan humanism, dissolving and criticizing the classical philosophy of the Middle Ages.
It is certainly possible to speak of Neoplatonism as present in more modern tendencies of thought; but here one loses the possibility of an interpretive framework extending beyond influences and observations that are themselves highly noteworthy, and in which it cannot be said that Neoplatonism acted as a whole, but rather only in certain of its aspects. Thus it has been possible to speak of the presence of Neoplatonic elements in German idealism (Schelling) or in contemporary philosophers.
II. PHILOSOPHICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The most comprehensive interpretation of n. is theoretical-metaphysical. Its fundamental element is to be found in the way n. understands the Absolute in itself, in its existence and nature, and in its relations with the spiritual and physical world.A characteristic of n., although expressed differently in Plotino and in the Neoplatonic schools of the Hellenistic world, is the emanationist tendency that understands reality as a necessary derivation from the Absolute. The bond uniting the Absolute and the world is more or less profound. At times, the tendency toward the unity of reality prevails in n., resulting in an attitude oriented toward monism; at other times, dualistic tendencies persist in n., due chiefly to the conception of matter as not wholly reducible to the world of spirit; or else the Absolute is centralized in a Supreme Principle, separated from every other reality and thus essentially foreign to II. It should be noted that n. takes a position regarding all the major problems of philosophy: those of man, the cosmos and freedom, ethics and religion. With regard to the religious problem, it has sometimes been desired to identify in it the essential and almost exclusive motive of n. Certainly, the problem of the Absolute is the speculative center of n.; nevertheless, it is not correct to say that religious interest virtually replaces properly theoretical interest. This could occur only in particular tendencies and currents that do not adequately express the true philosophical significance of n. In n., rather, there is the confidence that arises from a theoretical foundation of the relationship between the Absolute, the world, and man. Philosophy introduces one to religion, is integrated into it, religious experience (v.) does not replace philosophy but rather constitutes its spiritual crowning. Theurgy, magic, and the renewed gnosis that was at times able to become associated with n. are instead a degenerate and spurious appendage of II. The most authentic and original n., represented by Plotino, strives to preserve unity not only, and not so much, between the world and the Absolute, between human life and the One on which it depends, but also between philosophy and religion, between knowledge and life, between contemplation and action. N., moreover, intends to provide man with a path to follow, realized through philosophical speculation and at the same time through an ascetic reform of life, in solidarity with II. In these fundamental motives one must seek the characteristic and unity of n., prior to the particular determinations and occasional contaminations of the Hellenistic Neoplatonic currents.
III. RELATIONS BETWEEN N. AND CHRISTIANITY. — Historically, the relations between n. and Christianity have unfolded, as indicated above, first of all in the philosophical and theological speculation of patristics. This should not be understood as a dependence of patristic theology on n. in its properly dogmatic content. Rather, n. contributed to providing the foundations for a philosophy of Platonic orientation that was substantially in agreement with Christianity.
Alongside an n. that sought to reinvigorate paganism, there thus emerged an n. that supplied diverse and complex rational elements for theological speculation on revealed data. It must also be asked whether Christianity, in turn, exerted an influence on n. and, in particular, on Plotinus. The latter question is still far from being resolved. The most authentic n. recognizes the transcendence of the Absolute, placing it above every reality. The Absolute, moreover, cannot be reduced to a single aspect; indeed, n. insists on finding different stages in the process that links the Absolute to other realities belonging to it and, indirectly, to the world. Thus arises the problem of the relation between the “hypostases” that constitute the Absolute, and of the world to 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 the Trinity of Persons. For Christianity, the Trinity is God himself, whereas in n. the hypostases are the product of a freedom-necessity of God. As for the relation between the Absolute and the world, creation (v.) is lacking in Greek n. It would be introduced only through Christian philosophers and thinkers. Primitive n. is pantheistic (v. PANTEISM): God does not freely create the world; not only is communion between the world and God necessary (the world cannot exist without God), but God cannot exist without the world. In Plotinus’s n. there is an oscillation between an emanationist monism (v. EMANATIONISM), in which the freedom of creation is abolished, dualism (v.) linked to the existence of matter.
Nevertheless, the conception of the divine unity of the world lent itself to a Christian interpretation. St. Augustine and Pseudo-Dionysius would develop the theme of the itinerarium, by which it is possible to attain the successive degrees leading ab exterioribus ad interiora and subsequently to the Absolute. It is on this theme that the philosophy of n. most properly meets the mystical conception, which undoubtedly constitutes a significant aspect of n. Before the reality surrounding him, man grasps its fragile transience; he is therefore led to transcend the world toward a Reality that may be reached not only logically, but through a further experience, the fruit of intuitive knowledge. There is therefore a “mysticism” connected with the human inability to express the Absolute through one’s own sensory and meaningful language. It culminates in the ineffable encounter with God, ecstasy (v.). The mysticism of n. is intellectualist and only secondarily experiential. It is personal and rigorously limited in time and space. Christian mysticism differs from it through its content, bound to Revelation, and through the manner in which it is realized, which constantly presupposes the mediation of Christ, the Word of God made man. Not without reason could n. give rise rather to expressions of religiosity than to religion proper.
From this point of view, n. is distinctly eclectic and required extensive correction and integration on the part of the Christian philosophers, theologians, and mystics who drew inspiration from II. Its divergences from Christianity historically imposed themselves and clearly manifested themselves in St. Augustine. At a certain point in his spiritual itinerary, St. Augustine was less concerned with “Christianizing” n. than with setting aside what in it was insufficient and at variance with Christian doctrine—namely, both the rationalism and naturalism often implicit in n. and its irrationalistic aspects and motives. Nevertheless, the resolute affirmation of the primacy of contemplation over action (already present in Greek philosophy but more typically explicit in n.), and the decisive recognition and centrality of the Reality of God in his Transcendence, are among the most valid and enduring motives of n., together with the question it raised, without fully resolving it, of the relation between the Absolute and the world, between God and man.
dans la formation de st. Augustin, Paris 1921; J. Danielou, Platonisme et théologie mystique, ibid. 1944; id., Origène, ibid. 1948. Specific studies: M. Jacquin, Le néoplat. de J. Scot., in Rev. des sciences philos. et théol., 1 (1907), pp. 674-85; C. Saunter, Der Neoplatonismus, seine Bedeutung f. die antike u. mittelalterl. Philos., in Philos. Jahrbuch, 23 (1911), pp. 183-95, 367-80, 469-86; C. Baumker, Der Plat. im Mittelalterl., Munich 1916; F. Cappuyns, Jean Scot Eriugène, Paris 1933; C. Pera, Denys le mystique et la théomachie, in Rev. des sc. philos. et théol., 25 (1936), pp. 45-75; M. dal Pra, Scoto Eriugena e il n. medievale, Milan 1941. On relations with modern thought: K. P. Hasse, Von Plotin zu Goethe, Leipzig 1909. V. also the individual authors.