What do you think?
Rate this book
The Enneads
The Enneads by Plotinus is a work which is central to the history of philosophy in late antiquity. This volume is the first complete edition of the Enneads in English for over seventy-five years, and also includes Porphyry's Life of Plotinus. Led by Lloyd P. Gerson, a team of experts present up-to-date translations which are based on the best available text, the editio minor of Henry and Schwyzer and its corrections. The translations are consistent in their vocabulary, making the volume ideal for the study of Plotinus' philosophical arguments. They also offer extensive annotation to assist the reader, together with cross-references and citations which will enable users more easily to navigate the texts. This monumental edition will be invaluable for scholars of Plotinus with or without ancient Greek, as well as for students of the Platonic tradition.
768 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 250
About the author
Plotinus
416 books330 followersEgyptian-born Roman philosopher Plotinus and his successors in the 3rd century at Alexandria founded and developed Neoplatonism, a philosophical system, which, based on Platonism with elements of mysticism and some Judaic and Christian concepts, posits a single source from which all existence emanates and with which one mystically can unite an individual soul;
The Enneads
collects his writings.
Saint Thomas Aquinas combined elements of this system and other philosophy within a context of Christian thought.
People widely consider this major of the ancient world alongside Ammonius Saccas, his teacher.
He influenced in late antiquity. Much of our biographical information about Plotinus comes from preface of Porphyry to his edition. His metaphysical writings inspired centuries of pagan, Islamic, and Gnostic metaphysicians and mystics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus
Saint Thomas Aquinas combined elements of this system and other philosophy within a context of Christian thought.
People widely consider this major of the ancient world alongside Ammonius Saccas, his teacher.
He influenced in late antiquity. Much of our biographical information about Plotinus comes from preface of Porphyry to his edition. His metaphysical writings inspired centuries of pagan, Islamic, and Gnostic metaphysicians and mystics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 116 reviews
July 10, 2017
I suppose, once again, I will prove my Platonist sympathies by reviewing this book so positively. It's not that I am always in agreement with Plotinus (I'll follow this up below), but this is such an influential and foundational work of Philosophy and Neo-Platonism that I really can't give it a lower review in all fairness. I also was engaged in the book from beginning to end.
This is a dense work. It's the full unabridged Enneads published by Digireads. I had already read the Essential Plotinus, which was a very sparse selection of the Enneads. I am incredibly glad that I did not let the reading of that very insufficient sampling be my only foray into Plotinus. Just to give an idea of how meager that sampling was, let me list by Ennead and treatise what was found in the Essential Plotinus: I, 2; I, 3; I, 6; III, 8; IV, 3; IV, 8; V, 1; V, 2; V, 9; VI, 9. There are six Enneads, each containing nine treatises, in the complete Enneads. Elmer O'Brien did not include any treatises from the second Ennead and barely touched Enneads 3 and 6. There are many treatises in here that are equally, if not more, thought provoking and engaging, e.g. II, 6; III, 2; III, 7, III, 9; IV, 4; V, 1; V, 3-6; VI, 2; VI, 6; VI, 7--are some that I've marked for re-reading. All of the above prove beyond any doubt the merits of Plotinus.
The one thing I was struck by was Plotinus discussions of Being. There is much here that was later explored by the German Idealists; given my penchant for that school of philosophy, I was surprised and intrigued by how many parallels exist between Plotinus and Hegel and Schelling, but even with Kant and Fichte to some degree. The first treatise where this starts to become evident is treatise 6 of the second Ennead, entitled Quality and Form-Idea. Thankfully, the translators included in brackets the Greek original for Plotinus' terms for kinds of Being, e.g. "to on" and "e ousia", translated here as "being" and "reality", respectively. In various places throughout the Enneads, the way Plotinus uses these terms, parallels Schelling's and Hegel's use of the German terms "Seyen" and "Seyende". There are some differences, but the parallels are close enough to say without question that Plotinus was working within the same lines of thought. He discusses passivity and activity within these concepts of being, which is a notable feature of Schelling's work. Mind is also important for Plotinus as it was for Hegel's work. Here, presumably, the word translated as "Intellectual-principle" is most likely the Greek "nous", but, unfortunately, the underlying Greek term is not cited here. To say that Plotinus foreshadowed all later Idealism would be an understatement I think.
There are plenty of things I disagree with Plotinus about. Like most Platonists going back to Plato himself, Plotinus believed in the transmigration of souls (i.e. reincarnation)--one of the concepts Plato most likely took from the Pythagoreans. I won't get into my issues with that doctrine here. He also has a vacillating view regarding matter. He argues that all evil stems from matter (yet opposes the gnostics on related issues, ironically enough) but also believes that the supra-lunar world has some more divine and "pure" form of matter. He never really explains why sub-lunar and supra-lunar forms of hyle differ. One is left to speculate that the supra-lunar forms consist of less matter and more mind. Still, it is curious that the luminaries wind up taking part in less matter and earthly forms in more. What exactly initiated that cosmic lottery is not explored. If the luminaries are, say, 3/4 mind and 1/4 matter, they are still 1/4 evil. They are still evil to some degree. Some actions of these divine luminaries must be questionable if that is the case. He also believes in an eternal universe. I reject that idea for the absurdities that result.
The above brings up my other issue: Plotinus, like the gnostics, utterly trivializes the nature of evil. How matter can display overt willful evil seems to contradict the Platonic notion of the passivity and inert nature of matter. Once again, one is left to speculate that because in Platonism no being is willfully evil, they are only evil by ignorance or by obstruction; matter seems to function more as an ignorance inducing, and good obstructing, hindrance. But using this as an explanation for the nature of willful evil, which certainly exists (counter to Platonist doctrine), can only be said to be a poor explanation. Plotinus' pantheism is somewhat ambiguous. He always keeps an aspect of divinity transcendent, so not all aspects of divinity are embodied in the cosmos. I don't feel the need to comment on that aspect of his philosophy.
I don't want to make this review too long. The point of all my reviews is to provide my thoughts on the book I've read and I've done that. The complete Enneads is highly recommended. The history of Philosophy in general, and Platonism and Idealism in particular, are indebted in varying degrees to Plotinus.
This is a dense work. It's the full unabridged Enneads published by Digireads. I had already read the Essential Plotinus, which was a very sparse selection of the Enneads. I am incredibly glad that I did not let the reading of that very insufficient sampling be my only foray into Plotinus. Just to give an idea of how meager that sampling was, let me list by Ennead and treatise what was found in the Essential Plotinus: I, 2; I, 3; I, 6; III, 8; IV, 3; IV, 8; V, 1; V, 2; V, 9; VI, 9. There are six Enneads, each containing nine treatises, in the complete Enneads. Elmer O'Brien did not include any treatises from the second Ennead and barely touched Enneads 3 and 6. There are many treatises in here that are equally, if not more, thought provoking and engaging, e.g. II, 6; III, 2; III, 7, III, 9; IV, 4; V, 1; V, 3-6; VI, 2; VI, 6; VI, 7--are some that I've marked for re-reading. All of the above prove beyond any doubt the merits of Plotinus.
The one thing I was struck by was Plotinus discussions of Being. There is much here that was later explored by the German Idealists; given my penchant for that school of philosophy, I was surprised and intrigued by how many parallels exist between Plotinus and Hegel and Schelling, but even with Kant and Fichte to some degree. The first treatise where this starts to become evident is treatise 6 of the second Ennead, entitled Quality and Form-Idea. Thankfully, the translators included in brackets the Greek original for Plotinus' terms for kinds of Being, e.g. "to on" and "e ousia", translated here as "being" and "reality", respectively. In various places throughout the Enneads, the way Plotinus uses these terms, parallels Schelling's and Hegel's use of the German terms "Seyen" and "Seyende". There are some differences, but the parallels are close enough to say without question that Plotinus was working within the same lines of thought. He discusses passivity and activity within these concepts of being, which is a notable feature of Schelling's work. Mind is also important for Plotinus as it was for Hegel's work. Here, presumably, the word translated as "Intellectual-principle" is most likely the Greek "nous", but, unfortunately, the underlying Greek term is not cited here. To say that Plotinus foreshadowed all later Idealism would be an understatement I think.
There are plenty of things I disagree with Plotinus about. Like most Platonists going back to Plato himself, Plotinus believed in the transmigration of souls (i.e. reincarnation)--one of the concepts Plato most likely took from the Pythagoreans. I won't get into my issues with that doctrine here. He also has a vacillating view regarding matter. He argues that all evil stems from matter (yet opposes the gnostics on related issues, ironically enough) but also believes that the supra-lunar world has some more divine and "pure" form of matter. He never really explains why sub-lunar and supra-lunar forms of hyle differ. One is left to speculate that the supra-lunar forms consist of less matter and more mind. Still, it is curious that the luminaries wind up taking part in less matter and earthly forms in more. What exactly initiated that cosmic lottery is not explored. If the luminaries are, say, 3/4 mind and 1/4 matter, they are still 1/4 evil. They are still evil to some degree. Some actions of these divine luminaries must be questionable if that is the case. He also believes in an eternal universe. I reject that idea for the absurdities that result.
The above brings up my other issue: Plotinus, like the gnostics, utterly trivializes the nature of evil. How matter can display overt willful evil seems to contradict the Platonic notion of the passivity and inert nature of matter. Once again, one is left to speculate that because in Platonism no being is willfully evil, they are only evil by ignorance or by obstruction; matter seems to function more as an ignorance inducing, and good obstructing, hindrance. But using this as an explanation for the nature of willful evil, which certainly exists (counter to Platonist doctrine), can only be said to be a poor explanation. Plotinus' pantheism is somewhat ambiguous. He always keeps an aspect of divinity transcendent, so not all aspects of divinity are embodied in the cosmos. I don't feel the need to comment on that aspect of his philosophy.
I don't want to make this review too long. The point of all my reviews is to provide my thoughts on the book I've read and I've done that. The complete Enneads is highly recommended. The history of Philosophy in general, and Platonism and Idealism in particular, are indebted in varying degrees to Plotinus.
July 15, 2018
I have chosen to perhaps write this review prematurely, before my thoughts settle and before I've reread certain parts of the text that I want to reread. But it is difficult to tell whether freshness or certainty is more beneficial for a review, and for now I choose the former.
I read this book because of my more mystic leanings and because Plotinus is referenced in the footnotes on just about every other page of my copy of Augustine's Confessions. I'm on a hunt for significant primary texts in the history of philosophy, and Plotinus seemed both interesting and influential.
The opening biographical chapter by Porphyry is entertaining. It seems that Plotinus was fond of nursing until he was eight. Most interesting to me, however, from this part is Porphyry's statement that, as opposed to caring about style, Plotinus' "one concern was for the idea" (7). Of course, I did not read this book in the Greek, so translation might have polished it, but I think a large part of my love for it is a result of its style.
I mentioned that I have mystic leanings, and as one might imagine this leads me to prefer Plato to Aristotle, and Plotinus, perhaps taking this aspect of Plato even further than Plato, was quite agreeable to me. The most enjoyable parts to me were his discussions of the contemplative life, found throughout the work but especially at the very end. A passage from nearer the beginning:
"Murders, death in all its guises, the reduction and sacking of cities, all must be to us just such spectacle as the changing scenes of a play; all is but the varied incident of a plot, costume on and off, acted grief and lament. For on earth, in all the succession of life, it is not the Soul within but the Shadow outside of the authentic man, that grieves and complains and acts out the plot on this world stage which men have dotted with stages of their own constructing ... Those incapable of thinking gravely read gravity into frivolities which correspond to their own frivolous nature ... we cannot take laments as proof that anything is wrong; children cry and whimper where there is nothing wrong" (III.2.15, 194-195).
A long passage but a good one. What has led me away from literary studies lately has been its lack of purpose for life. It is enjoyable to unlock new methods to analyze a poem, but this does not affect my perception of things that I think matter more, such as real life. Thus, part of my interest in philosophy is a determination to flesh out my own beliefs about reality. Plotinus' mystic philosophy is just what I am looking for: it seems to grow distant, at times, from the practical, but ultimately I view it as a push toward a certain approach to life, culminating in VI.9. All of the ideas leading to that point do in fact lead to it. His philosophy necessitates - if it's correct - a certain style of living. And he has not abandoned the eudaimonic goal. "But there is a third order," he writes in V.9.1, "those godlike men who, in their mightier power, in the keeness [sic] of their sight, have clear vision of the splendour above and rise to it from among the cloud and fog of earth and hold firmly to that other world, looking beyond all here, delighted in the place of reality, their native land, like a man returning after long wanderings to the pleasant ways of his own countries" (499). He goes on to discuss the necessary attributes of such a person in V.9.2. This is a philosophy of life, and I view his other metaphysical discussions as a method to attain this lifestyle. And I believe it is correct. As I believe, and have always believed, this world is something of a mess, and not very pleasant, and Plotinus seems to believe this too, but he gives a large dose of hope, an escape from this realm in this life.
I could quote all of VI.9 if I'm not careful, but to wrap up this review, I will restrain myself to a single much shorter quote: "'Not to be told, not to be written': in our writing and telling we are but urging towards it: out of discussion we call to vision: to those desiring to see, we point the path; our teaching is of the road and the travelling; the seeing must be the very act of one that has made this choice" (VI.9.4, 701-702). This plainly states that a view and way of life is his goal.
I regret not discussing in detail his less directly practical ideas, which are very interesting, but I think other reviewers have done so, and this is my review, and therefore I review what I mainly took from the text which, as the above quote states, would have likely pleased Plotinus. I guess this makes me a Plotinian.
I recommend this book to anyone. It helps to have read some Plato first, but everybody should read Plato anyway, so my recommendation stands. This translation was clear, and the edition is nice, including multiple translations of tricky passages and helpful/pretty appendices. I plan on eventually working through the Loeb multi-volume edition as well.
I read this book because of my more mystic leanings and because Plotinus is referenced in the footnotes on just about every other page of my copy of Augustine's Confessions. I'm on a hunt for significant primary texts in the history of philosophy, and Plotinus seemed both interesting and influential.
The opening biographical chapter by Porphyry is entertaining. It seems that Plotinus was fond of nursing until he was eight. Most interesting to me, however, from this part is Porphyry's statement that, as opposed to caring about style, Plotinus' "one concern was for the idea" (7). Of course, I did not read this book in the Greek, so translation might have polished it, but I think a large part of my love for it is a result of its style.
I mentioned that I have mystic leanings, and as one might imagine this leads me to prefer Plato to Aristotle, and Plotinus, perhaps taking this aspect of Plato even further than Plato, was quite agreeable to me. The most enjoyable parts to me were his discussions of the contemplative life, found throughout the work but especially at the very end. A passage from nearer the beginning:
"Murders, death in all its guises, the reduction and sacking of cities, all must be to us just such spectacle as the changing scenes of a play; all is but the varied incident of a plot, costume on and off, acted grief and lament. For on earth, in all the succession of life, it is not the Soul within but the Shadow outside of the authentic man, that grieves and complains and acts out the plot on this world stage which men have dotted with stages of their own constructing ... Those incapable of thinking gravely read gravity into frivolities which correspond to their own frivolous nature ... we cannot take laments as proof that anything is wrong; children cry and whimper where there is nothing wrong" (III.2.15, 194-195).
A long passage but a good one. What has led me away from literary studies lately has been its lack of purpose for life. It is enjoyable to unlock new methods to analyze a poem, but this does not affect my perception of things that I think matter more, such as real life. Thus, part of my interest in philosophy is a determination to flesh out my own beliefs about reality. Plotinus' mystic philosophy is just what I am looking for: it seems to grow distant, at times, from the practical, but ultimately I view it as a push toward a certain approach to life, culminating in VI.9. All of the ideas leading to that point do in fact lead to it. His philosophy necessitates - if it's correct - a certain style of living. And he has not abandoned the eudaimonic goal. "But there is a third order," he writes in V.9.1, "those godlike men who, in their mightier power, in the keeness [sic] of their sight, have clear vision of the splendour above and rise to it from among the cloud and fog of earth and hold firmly to that other world, looking beyond all here, delighted in the place of reality, their native land, like a man returning after long wanderings to the pleasant ways of his own countries" (499). He goes on to discuss the necessary attributes of such a person in V.9.2. This is a philosophy of life, and I view his other metaphysical discussions as a method to attain this lifestyle. And I believe it is correct. As I believe, and have always believed, this world is something of a mess, and not very pleasant, and Plotinus seems to believe this too, but he gives a large dose of hope, an escape from this realm in this life.
I could quote all of VI.9 if I'm not careful, but to wrap up this review, I will restrain myself to a single much shorter quote: "'Not to be told, not to be written': in our writing and telling we are but urging towards it: out of discussion we call to vision: to those desiring to see, we point the path; our teaching is of the road and the travelling; the seeing must be the very act of one that has made this choice" (VI.9.4, 701-702). This plainly states that a view and way of life is his goal.
I regret not discussing in detail his less directly practical ideas, which are very interesting, but I think other reviewers have done so, and this is my review, and therefore I review what I mainly took from the text which, as the above quote states, would have likely pleased Plotinus. I guess this makes me a Plotinian.
I recommend this book to anyone. It helps to have read some Plato first, but everybody should read Plato anyway, so my recommendation stands. This translation was clear, and the edition is nice, including multiple translations of tricky passages and helpful/pretty appendices. I plan on eventually working through the Loeb multi-volume edition as well.
October 30, 2010
Plotinus is my favourite philosopher. He was hugely influential on the Church Fathers who lived after him. They often considered him an honourary Christian, though Plotinus never actually participated in that group, but was very much a "pagan" philosopher in the "pagan" Roman society of his day. He and Origen had the same philosophy teacher (Ammonius Sacchas), but Origen was about 15 years older than Plotinus, so they probably did not study with him at the same time. If you are up for a mental challenge, and want to explore life, the universe, and everything, read this.
June 25, 2020
the soul is a meteor / a blossom of light / burned by harsh skies. so influential it is the skeleton key to Christian thought and Renaissance Painting, a primary text alike the Timaeus, the Vedas, the Nikayas (which all happen to rhyme), and an indispensable guide to the mystic on how to become One with the Void. scaling up the Ennead of Parmenides 8+1 affirmative/negative to eventually reach the Top, an ineffable meta-principle. the circle of emanation and return is the ultimate story of the stuttering of the One, recoils of shots in the War in Heaven that sparked between the logos and the void that took place before the Fiat Lux, the war was not fought with missiles and spears but axioms of being, propositions and proofs in the vacuum. and God won through reflexion: in the Nothing only the tautology of identity is self-supporting. the One is the ultimate meta-tautology, Atum masturbating ouroborically, a self-study in henosis. the main concepts are the arborescent hierarchy of the One-Being-Intellect triad. this fractalizes and is responsible for spirit's descent into matter which one must eventually escape by tracing back up the emanationist ladder one has tragically fell down from. oneness is goodness because individuation commits an object to being an intelligible unity. there can be no distinction between inside and outside within the One, being and center as a dimensionless point, God's being is his centrality and yet also this flickering as its own emanationist contraction and expansion in all its quasi-gnostic contours with theses like the badness of Nature but doesn't quite reach finality. finality as gnosis cannot be voiced or even thematized, yet even a deeper truth is the apophatic non-conceptualization of a negative/unknowable God is yet another capture mechanism, the inclusion of its own negation within the meta-logic in the Game with Being as an internal production of the One, that black hole brain structure you see from time to time: the Demiurge is a donut. the annular repetition of the torus coinciding and retroactively refuting yet clarifying Campbell's monomyth: the Hero's Journey is really an immanentized Spirit's journey. somewhere Plotinus says that the Odyssey is the eternal story of the Journey of the Spirit. spirit always has a story to tell precisely because it's there to tell it, because its being and its telling are one and the same. the One's overflow is the jouissance that fissions into Two. there is no room for a positive Evil in Plotinus only privations just as the monists before him, the Nous for him is Good. the Gnostic co-opts it as the origin of Evil, determination: the Demiurge. the je ne sais quoi, things best left unsaid, the black square as an art piece, or better, a black Sphere. man as a creator is himself co-operating in demiurgy, his art and ornament distractions or reminders to re-member your true Self, like how re-membering the limbs of Osiris is akin to restructuring the estranged Self. Plotinus thought the world-soul was something like a star that radiates Light (internality) everywhere and "adheres" only in that substance given to adhere to it and this mutual relation between ground and issue became the principle of non-contradiction. the One neither is one, nor is. the hierarchy of Spirit is the only hierarchy climbed by its recognition: it is hierarchy as such, of which all others participate in only formally. the chain of being as it should be. symbols speak in rhizomatic bursts of signification. there will come a time you'll read in color. the One overflows because it overflows, yet this statement seems more like an evasion than anything else and perhaps even neoplatonism is yet another root in this meta-intellectual fingertrap of the Demiurge, which is the God creating this material world easily demonized to a being of affect, terror, sense and horror. one question resounds and echoes after all the mysticalization: why did the One plunge himself into nescience?
he who is self-luminous is his own shadow
he who is self-luminous is his own shadow
June 13, 2008
One of the most important and influential philosophers ever in my opinion. Don't get tangled up in the introduction for too long, once you get into the thick of it, you will need to drink a coffee and then call someone who cares! Big foundational ideas that shaped Western civilization.
March 5, 2011
A heavy reliance on Plato’s Timaeus and Parmenides results in Plotinus being classified as one of the first Neoplatonists by the many or an advocate of orthodox Platonism by the few. Either way, Plato had an impact.
Plotinus’ reliance on the more mystical, and perhaps the most ambiguous (Parmenides), Platonic works cues the reader to Plotinus’ style. Though this point is debatable, he strikes me much more of a mystic than a philosopher. To those who have given any thought to purpose in our being, it doesn’t take long to come to the realization that using solely rational thought fails to provide the longed for answers. Therefore there is always a leap to some value. To God, to gods, to truth, to experience. Plotinus at least doesn’t attempt to cloak his irrationality in the doublespeak endemic to philosophy. For Plotinus, the Sage finds answers through introspection after whittling away the illusions of life through the dialectic. This introspection yields a vision of the One from which Intelligence emanates and which thereby reflects upon the One through its own emanations which we view as the Soul. Or something close to this. The six Enneads take up just over 700 pages so I’m leaving a few things out.
At times, many times, a tedious read. Plotinus meanders, sometimes poetically but oftentimes randomly, as he constructs an internally consistent worldview that is reminiscent of Buddhism. Goodness is gauged by the distance one is from unity with the One. The One is beyond rational thought and is beyond Activity and Rest in its august Repose. Soul is not described as a personal attachment to the body, but an essence that surrounds us and fragments to the individual. Like a noise that is exists outside of ourselves but is heard by each or light that divides in a prism. In a rather intriguing sleight of hand to Aristotle’s prime mover hypothesis, Plotinus takes the One and its reflective emanation, Intelligence, and takes them outside of Time making Time a measurement for activity of the Soul. (III. 7, Time and Eternity) The One is beyond time and even Being, therefore to question who made the One is to miss the point that the unthinking, unbeing One is beyond creation. It is only through the unintended emanation of Intelligence that the question can even be posed by us.
The plethora of hyphenated proper nouns (i.e. the All-Soul, Real-Beings, Reason-Principle, etc) along with the infrequent definitions provided to terms gives the book an overall feel of a third century New Age cult handbook, but there are some good things buried within if you have the fortitude to dig them out.
Plotinus’ reliance on the more mystical, and perhaps the most ambiguous (Parmenides), Platonic works cues the reader to Plotinus’ style. Though this point is debatable, he strikes me much more of a mystic than a philosopher. To those who have given any thought to purpose in our being, it doesn’t take long to come to the realization that using solely rational thought fails to provide the longed for answers. Therefore there is always a leap to some value. To God, to gods, to truth, to experience. Plotinus at least doesn’t attempt to cloak his irrationality in the doublespeak endemic to philosophy. For Plotinus, the Sage finds answers through introspection after whittling away the illusions of life through the dialectic. This introspection yields a vision of the One from which Intelligence emanates and which thereby reflects upon the One through its own emanations which we view as the Soul. Or something close to this. The six Enneads take up just over 700 pages so I’m leaving a few things out.
At times, many times, a tedious read. Plotinus meanders, sometimes poetically but oftentimes randomly, as he constructs an internally consistent worldview that is reminiscent of Buddhism. Goodness is gauged by the distance one is from unity with the One. The One is beyond rational thought and is beyond Activity and Rest in its august Repose. Soul is not described as a personal attachment to the body, but an essence that surrounds us and fragments to the individual. Like a noise that is exists outside of ourselves but is heard by each or light that divides in a prism. In a rather intriguing sleight of hand to Aristotle’s prime mover hypothesis, Plotinus takes the One and its reflective emanation, Intelligence, and takes them outside of Time making Time a measurement for activity of the Soul. (III. 7, Time and Eternity) The One is beyond time and even Being, therefore to question who made the One is to miss the point that the unthinking, unbeing One is beyond creation. It is only through the unintended emanation of Intelligence that the question can even be posed by us.
The plethora of hyphenated proper nouns (i.e. the All-Soul, Real-Beings, Reason-Principle, etc) along with the infrequent definitions provided to terms gives the book an overall feel of a third century New Age cult handbook, but there are some good things buried within if you have the fortitude to dig them out.
March 20, 2017
Beautiful.
Whenever Plotinus mentioned beauty, its categories and how he saw it. As oppose to Aristotle which emphasized the idea of the soul, something was missing in his writing which I cannot quite grasp. Perhaps it was because he was to analytical and didn't use enough showing language. Plotinus on the other hand, had a similar message filled with idealism. He presented Morality and empathy, these modern concepts and mentioned that a person isn't able to really realize the struggle of virtue, only if he himself lives in it, or to what we would call today as empathy.
Moreover when he mentioned that some beauty can be a part of a bigger thing. For example a Comedian would appreciate the comedy of Richard Pryor; where's a regular person is wouldn't see the beauty. His example was of the Older gentleman seeing himself in a young man.
On Personal immortality is the ability for an individual in philosophical terms to live on for a prolonged period. A person needs to believe and be part of the category of immortality and fit every criterion, which is found in Abrahamic religions, and many others. An Athiest or non-believer wouldn't fulfill personal immortality because he's a non-believer. We're already immortal. For example, if I decide to take the mystic approach Plotinus drives; individuals and souls have always been continuous and on until they stop existing in our relative universe. Why should we assume another a medium of oblivion exists.
Unlike Aristotle which rejects the idea, Plotinus presents the concept of the soul carrying on, given its fulfilling a particular purpose He gives different parts of the individual and love.
Whenever Plotinus mentioned beauty, its categories and how he saw it. As oppose to Aristotle which emphasized the idea of the soul, something was missing in his writing which I cannot quite grasp. Perhaps it was because he was to analytical and didn't use enough showing language. Plotinus on the other hand, had a similar message filled with idealism. He presented Morality and empathy, these modern concepts and mentioned that a person isn't able to really realize the struggle of virtue, only if he himself lives in it, or to what we would call today as empathy.
Moreover when he mentioned that some beauty can be a part of a bigger thing. For example a Comedian would appreciate the comedy of Richard Pryor; where's a regular person is wouldn't see the beauty. His example was of the Older gentleman seeing himself in a young man.
On Personal immortality is the ability for an individual in philosophical terms to live on for a prolonged period. A person needs to believe and be part of the category of immortality and fit every criterion, which is found in Abrahamic religions, and many others. An Athiest or non-believer wouldn't fulfill personal immortality because he's a non-believer. We're already immortal. For example, if I decide to take the mystic approach Plotinus drives; individuals and souls have always been continuous and on until they stop existing in our relative universe. Why should we assume another a medium of oblivion exists.
Unlike Aristotle which rejects the idea, Plotinus presents the concept of the soul carrying on, given its fulfilling a particular purpose He gives different parts of the individual and love.
July 30, 2019
Plotinus says in this work the goal is not to become a good man but to become a god.
I love that about this and know it’s not meant in an egoistic way. For even Buddha is in agreement:
“Virtuous and devout men go to “heaven” - but a different path is taken by the Awakened Ones.”
[Dhammapada 126]
This man, Plotinus, was born possibly even a little before 200 AD and was purported to be close to those at the very root of esoteric, primordial Christianity; as well as riding the zeitgeist on the verge (as one of it’s fountainheads) of the Neo-Platonist Reconquista Movement.
Ammonius the Sack Bearer was claimed to be the one who initiated Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Plotinus here, later Longinus who taught Odenathus and his queen, young Poryphry later and a few others, into many mysteries - as it was said he was affiliated with the original gnostic 12 disciples’ adepts per Clement - see Rodney Collin and Lady Hahn who mention a few sources for this too. So much for Plotinus’ possible influences then.
Now Plotinus shows in this work the lower part of the soul is in coalescence with the senses and thought and goes whither such does (hypnos=undergnos).
But the upper is imperturbable and uses the biological machine as it’s instrument it need not be identified with at all - anymore than a craftsman need feel always the vibration in his tools in order to operate them; nor need he always use the same tools, he says.
As the Upanishads teach, we belong essentially to a third world of man of Direct Consciousness that can be equally Self Remembered in it’s dream or walking around state suddenly, and which is not contingent to either state once self awareness is dis covered, the Nous or Gnos awakened in the Astral Consciousness behind and before both.
For consciousness is principally centered and seated in the Lingha Sharira or Astral Body which is the most important and real soul to become cleansed (as Eliphas Levi and Theosophy speak of) and lucid. Such is a finer materia, and denser materiality like brains and bodies arise from its effluvium, moving out from immaterial consciousness in the astral, not the other way around in the links. Such clearing, disengaging from hypnos, cleansing of the lower soul bringing it up into the upper where the astral resides when this increases; this comes about principally by increasing direct consciousness as Plotinus shows.
He shows mind as consciousness and somewhat as a miner and the brain mined inside by it, and the mountain ratiocination of thoughts in us mined by it, the sort of 'in' in the word in-tellect (- tell meaning a hill and extension). Mind, intellect, intelligence then is not the briney brain or material; or psychic or akashic rolls of memories chiefly, but asleep in all such until 3rd state self consciousness arises centered in the astral self and upper unhypnotized soul.
Plotinus speaks of this experience and of his most important moments in his life being where he experienced this Nous beyond the abode body, such enlightenment, a few times. It is the most important secret and clarified main goal in Buddhism the Tathagata’s paths all lead to; and all Primordial Shamanic and Religious texts point toward such as paramount.
Forget saving the anima psyche (lower psychology) in life with a little “L” with all manner of psycho-analysis and religion - save the astral body while one has time, the extraction of the upper soul. Otherwise, even as it is exoterically written in the Old Testament by such as Solomon: “the Spirit returns to God and the body returns to the dust and what is left?”
Such is the liet motif in Plotinus too, easily missed by most re viewers. It is really key to so much.
As my spiritual godfather once told me, concerning even exoteric Christianities doctrines: “people forget the most important event was the Transfiguration. The Resurrection - however you take such to mean - was just an after effect of that.”
Now before him Pythagoras and after him Iamblichus also both made this distinction - as Plotinus does - between the upper (more unconditioned and conscious) and lower (more animus/psyche/passion filled) sides/siddhe’s of the entire soul - in its full undeveloped to developed spectrum. And they made clear, of the same, which to go toward. But Pythagoras said it was forbidden to reveal the border secrets of the way from the phenomenal world of becoming to the unconditioned world of noumena and spirit except to his students. So Plotinus is invaluable then as a revealer here in this work.
It is also mentioned a bit by the mystics in the early Christian Church in the writings of the Philokalia and in Old Egyptian Temple Writings as well; these distinctions and the goal.
So it is a great thing Plotinus made all this more clear and really so many things about the Cosmoses, Consciousness and the Highest good as well he also made wide open for us to ruminate in and act on.
The Enneads, which also means ninefold - more so than any other modern, and almost any other ancient, Philosophical work - are more ordered, lucid, compact, crystalline and clear. I think that is what one might enjoy most about reading it if you decide to. It is a great work.
It betrays every marking of an Olympian and Heroic - Highly and Well Ordered - Soul. Such writings we have come down to us from him are a rare treasury.
“I’m so sick and tired of trying to change your mind when it’s so easy to disconnect mine:
High(er) Time, High Times. I feel fine.”
- High Times, Elliott Smith
“Lifting the mask from a local clown,
feeling down like him
Seeing the light in a station bar
traveling far in sin
Sailing downstairs to the northern nine,
watching the shine of his shoes
Hearing the trials of the people there,
who's to care if they lose?
Take a look, you may see me on the ground
For I am the para site of this town
Dancing a jig in a church with chimes,
a sign of the times today
Hearing no bell from a steeple tall,
people all in dismay
Falling so far on a silver spoon,
making the moon for fun
Changing a robe [the Lingha Sharira] for a size too small,
people all get hung
Take a look, you might see me coming through
For I am the para site
who travels two-by-two:
I'm lifting the mask from a local clown,
feeling down like him
And I'm seeing the light in a station bar
traveling far in sin
And I'm sailing downstairs to the northern nine, watching the shine of his shoes
And hearing the trials of the people there,
who's to care if they lose?
Take a look, you might see me on the ground
For I am the para site of this town
Take a look, you may see me in the dirt
For I am the para site who hangs
from your skirt [outer abode body]”
- Para Site by Nick Drake
(a friend of Ayers, Pentangle and other Gurdjieffians carrying on the Neo-Platonist and *Esoteric* Christian’s Mysteries in his day)
I love that about this and know it’s not meant in an egoistic way. For even Buddha is in agreement:
“Virtuous and devout men go to “heaven” - but a different path is taken by the Awakened Ones.”
[Dhammapada 126]
This man, Plotinus, was born possibly even a little before 200 AD and was purported to be close to those at the very root of esoteric, primordial Christianity; as well as riding the zeitgeist on the verge (as one of it’s fountainheads) of the Neo-Platonist Reconquista Movement.
Ammonius the Sack Bearer was claimed to be the one who initiated Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Plotinus here, later Longinus who taught Odenathus and his queen, young Poryphry later and a few others, into many mysteries - as it was said he was affiliated with the original gnostic 12 disciples’ adepts per Clement - see Rodney Collin and Lady Hahn who mention a few sources for this too. So much for Plotinus’ possible influences then.
Now Plotinus shows in this work the lower part of the soul is in coalescence with the senses and thought and goes whither such does (hypnos=undergnos).
But the upper is imperturbable and uses the biological machine as it’s instrument it need not be identified with at all - anymore than a craftsman need feel always the vibration in his tools in order to operate them; nor need he always use the same tools, he says.
As the Upanishads teach, we belong essentially to a third world of man of Direct Consciousness that can be equally Self Remembered in it’s dream or walking around state suddenly, and which is not contingent to either state once self awareness is dis covered, the Nous or Gnos awakened in the Astral Consciousness behind and before both.
For consciousness is principally centered and seated in the Lingha Sharira or Astral Body which is the most important and real soul to become cleansed (as Eliphas Levi and Theosophy speak of) and lucid. Such is a finer materia, and denser materiality like brains and bodies arise from its effluvium, moving out from immaterial consciousness in the astral, not the other way around in the links. Such clearing, disengaging from hypnos, cleansing of the lower soul bringing it up into the upper where the astral resides when this increases; this comes about principally by increasing direct consciousness as Plotinus shows.
He shows mind as consciousness and somewhat as a miner and the brain mined inside by it, and the mountain ratiocination of thoughts in us mined by it, the sort of 'in' in the word in-tellect (- tell meaning a hill and extension). Mind, intellect, intelligence then is not the briney brain or material; or psychic or akashic rolls of memories chiefly, but asleep in all such until 3rd state self consciousness arises centered in the astral self and upper unhypnotized soul.
Plotinus speaks of this experience and of his most important moments in his life being where he experienced this Nous beyond the abode body, such enlightenment, a few times. It is the most important secret and clarified main goal in Buddhism the Tathagata’s paths all lead to; and all Primordial Shamanic and Religious texts point toward such as paramount.
Forget saving the anima psyche (lower psychology) in life with a little “L” with all manner of psycho-analysis and religion - save the astral body while one has time, the extraction of the upper soul. Otherwise, even as it is exoterically written in the Old Testament by such as Solomon: “the Spirit returns to God and the body returns to the dust and what is left?”
Such is the liet motif in Plotinus too, easily missed by most re viewers. It is really key to so much.
As my spiritual godfather once told me, concerning even exoteric Christianities doctrines: “people forget the most important event was the Transfiguration. The Resurrection - however you take such to mean - was just an after effect of that.”
Now before him Pythagoras and after him Iamblichus also both made this distinction - as Plotinus does - between the upper (more unconditioned and conscious) and lower (more animus/psyche/passion filled) sides/siddhe’s of the entire soul - in its full undeveloped to developed spectrum. And they made clear, of the same, which to go toward. But Pythagoras said it was forbidden to reveal the border secrets of the way from the phenomenal world of becoming to the unconditioned world of noumena and spirit except to his students. So Plotinus is invaluable then as a revealer here in this work.
It is also mentioned a bit by the mystics in the early Christian Church in the writings of the Philokalia and in Old Egyptian Temple Writings as well; these distinctions and the goal.
So it is a great thing Plotinus made all this more clear and really so many things about the Cosmoses, Consciousness and the Highest good as well he also made wide open for us to ruminate in and act on.
The Enneads, which also means ninefold - more so than any other modern, and almost any other ancient, Philosophical work - are more ordered, lucid, compact, crystalline and clear. I think that is what one might enjoy most about reading it if you decide to. It is a great work.
It betrays every marking of an Olympian and Heroic - Highly and Well Ordered - Soul. Such writings we have come down to us from him are a rare treasury.
“I’m so sick and tired of trying to change your mind when it’s so easy to disconnect mine:
High(er) Time, High Times. I feel fine.”
- High Times, Elliott Smith
“Lifting the mask from a local clown,
feeling down like him
Seeing the light in a station bar
traveling far in sin
Sailing downstairs to the northern nine,
watching the shine of his shoes
Hearing the trials of the people there,
who's to care if they lose?
Take a look, you may see me on the ground
For I am the para site of this town
Dancing a jig in a church with chimes,
a sign of the times today
Hearing no bell from a steeple tall,
people all in dismay
Falling so far on a silver spoon,
making the moon for fun
Changing a robe [the Lingha Sharira] for a size too small,
people all get hung
Take a look, you might see me coming through
For I am the para site
who travels two-by-two:
I'm lifting the mask from a local clown,
feeling down like him
And I'm seeing the light in a station bar
traveling far in sin
And I'm sailing downstairs to the northern nine, watching the shine of his shoes
And hearing the trials of the people there,
who's to care if they lose?
Take a look, you might see me on the ground
For I am the para site of this town
Take a look, you may see me in the dirt
For I am the para site who hangs
from your skirt [outer abode body]”
- Para Site by Nick Drake
(a friend of Ayers, Pentangle and other Gurdjieffians carrying on the Neo-Platonist and *Esoteric* Christian’s Mysteries in his day)
August 4, 2017
It's an arcane book but a good workout for the mind. Affords a rich glimpse of Greek thought; to hear Plotinus explaining his universe in his simple and direct voice is as vital in its way as anything by Plato/Aristotle, Homer, or the various Greek myths you've probably read. If none of the Greek writing you're familiar with seems convincing or relevant; check out Plotinus. There are some spell-binding passages in this dissertation of his.
Plotinus has a sober, dry, matter-of-fact delivery; he alternates between question-and-answer style and more simple itemization. The flow of words is tight and dense and blocky. But what emerges (even from the passages of near-gibberish) is that he is an honest writer and not afraid to admit when his knowledge falls short.
But he is at at least writing in the Christian world and so when he talks about 'evil' he treats it with a dimension that the Socratic schools before him, lack; (and in their lack, seem remote and unfamiliar to us).
Plotinus uses a large lexicon of opaque terms which are marvelous in showing how ancient schools of philosophy debated about metaphysical topics. You can tell by the way he keeps combing out the same strand of thought time and time again, (yet rarely the same way twice) and the words themselves are quite plain: one which recurs often is 'Magnitude'. This means little to us today, but concepts like these were crucial to Plotinus, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Empedocles, Anaximander, and all these other joes. Magnitude, Quantity, Attribute. No end of reliance on these ideas.
Plotinus is naturally confronting a wide array of contradictory arguments from thinkers in other Schools and so he darts hummingbird-like, to-and-fro; over many hedges. It gets utterly incomprehensible at times; but that's because he's anatomizing abstract concepts which are meaningful to the other Greeks he was debating with, (not to us). 'The One' or 'entities', 'elements' or 'The First', 'the Primary'.
Still, his writers show a huge talent and it is enjoyable for this alone. Various topics: how the soul migrate to heaven (if at all); how does the soul arrive in newborns (if at all); do the stars truly affect anything; what is Matter; what is Beauty; what is Mind. What is the Self; what is Judgment. What is destiny and fate.
One thing I admire about this cryptic sage is that he is unafraid to advance his statements. He faces challenges squarely and stoutly. Refreshing!
Plotinus has a sober, dry, matter-of-fact delivery; he alternates between question-and-answer style and more simple itemization. The flow of words is tight and dense and blocky. But what emerges (even from the passages of near-gibberish) is that he is an honest writer and not afraid to admit when his knowledge falls short.
But he is at at least writing in the Christian world and so when he talks about 'evil' he treats it with a dimension that the Socratic schools before him, lack; (and in their lack, seem remote and unfamiliar to us).
Plotinus uses a large lexicon of opaque terms which are marvelous in showing how ancient schools of philosophy debated about metaphysical topics. You can tell by the way he keeps combing out the same strand of thought time and time again, (yet rarely the same way twice) and the words themselves are quite plain: one which recurs often is 'Magnitude'. This means little to us today, but concepts like these were crucial to Plotinus, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Empedocles, Anaximander, and all these other joes. Magnitude, Quantity, Attribute. No end of reliance on these ideas.
Plotinus is naturally confronting a wide array of contradictory arguments from thinkers in other Schools and so he darts hummingbird-like, to-and-fro; over many hedges. It gets utterly incomprehensible at times; but that's because he's anatomizing abstract concepts which are meaningful to the other Greeks he was debating with, (not to us). 'The One' or 'entities', 'elements' or 'The First', 'the Primary'.
Still, his writers show a huge talent and it is enjoyable for this alone. Various topics: how the soul migrate to heaven (if at all); how does the soul arrive in newborns (if at all); do the stars truly affect anything; what is Matter; what is Beauty; what is Mind. What is the Self; what is Judgment. What is destiny and fate.
One thing I admire about this cryptic sage is that he is unafraid to advance his statements. He faces challenges squarely and stoutly. Refreshing!
June 2, 2025
Cleaning up my library, had the wrong version.
Upwards and onwards, towards the one!
One of the few books that I believe can literally trigger a religious experience, if you are lucky and prepared. Takes you along towards the Ultimate.
Upwards and onwards, towards the one!
One of the few books that I believe can literally trigger a religious experience, if you are lucky and prepared. Takes you along towards the Ultimate.
January 3, 2008
Pro: interesting.
Con: if you didn't like Plato's Parmenides, run away fast.
Con: if you didn't like Plato's Parmenides, run away fast.
read-in-part
April 2, 2025I annotated next to Plotinus' description of the sensible world "hello Shadesmar" and I'm very proud of that because it's such a nice little snapshot of my reading tastes these days.
February 27, 2021
I never thought I’d give a book 1 star because I reserve 1 star reviews for books that I believe make you worse off for reading them. This one deserves it. Maybe one day I’ll revise to a 2-star rating to reflect the historical importance...
I’ve been going through a solid 12-month philosophical journey and read Plato, Aristotle, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, and some more modern writers like Tolstoy or (yes, blasphemy) Ray Dalio. Reading Plotinus was supposed to close the chapter on Ancient philosophy which so far had been an absolute treasure trove of wisdom and applicable philosophies for life.
Plotinus is where humanity went wrong. It’s a dogmatic text that tries to cram reality into a made-up theory which clearly doesn’t work (demonstrated by Plotinus contradicting himself). Going the mystic/religious route rather than continuing the exploration of “good living” and inquiries on the meaning of life and how this world is built through scientific work and dialectic, is exactly why the Middle Ages happened and wasted centuries of human lives.
Plotinus bases his thinking on Plato and even sometimes the stoics, and then breaks everything they built by taking them literally and making everything about a mystic creator whom we should aspire to rejoin. It’s the easy solution to complex problems, but complex problems can’t be solved by easy solutions and a rule-book made up by one guy in his attic. We might never really figure it out, and we’ll probably realise that that’s part of the fun. So... please don’t shut down the scientific method and proper dialectic?
The Greeks and Romans didn’t take the gods too seriously, and they made some serious progress in thinking. I’ve been quoting and using their concepts constantly, and this stuff is 2000 years old! Plotinus just had to spoil the party... it’s unusable and almost unreadable mystic BS. If it wasn’t so old I’d call it “New Age”. Have I mentioned it’s poorly written, a chore to read and often contradictory from one tractate to the next...?
I’m going back to my stoics and the OGs Plato and Aristotle and I’ll try to forget I ever read this.
I’ve been going through a solid 12-month philosophical journey and read Plato, Aristotle, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, and some more modern writers like Tolstoy or (yes, blasphemy) Ray Dalio. Reading Plotinus was supposed to close the chapter on Ancient philosophy which so far had been an absolute treasure trove of wisdom and applicable philosophies for life.
Plotinus is where humanity went wrong. It’s a dogmatic text that tries to cram reality into a made-up theory which clearly doesn’t work (demonstrated by Plotinus contradicting himself). Going the mystic/religious route rather than continuing the exploration of “good living” and inquiries on the meaning of life and how this world is built through scientific work and dialectic, is exactly why the Middle Ages happened and wasted centuries of human lives.
Plotinus bases his thinking on Plato and even sometimes the stoics, and then breaks everything they built by taking them literally and making everything about a mystic creator whom we should aspire to rejoin. It’s the easy solution to complex problems, but complex problems can’t be solved by easy solutions and a rule-book made up by one guy in his attic. We might never really figure it out, and we’ll probably realise that that’s part of the fun. So... please don’t shut down the scientific method and proper dialectic?
The Greeks and Romans didn’t take the gods too seriously, and they made some serious progress in thinking. I’ve been quoting and using their concepts constantly, and this stuff is 2000 years old! Plotinus just had to spoil the party... it’s unusable and almost unreadable mystic BS. If it wasn’t so old I’d call it “New Age”. Have I mentioned it’s poorly written, a chore to read and often contradictory from one tractate to the next...?
I’m going back to my stoics and the OGs Plato and Aristotle and I’ll try to forget I ever read this.
February 28, 2015
If there was ever a work that would require a lifetime of reading and rereading it would be "The Enneads". Every passage can become a basis for treatise and many in fact have. I have combined its reading with multiple commentaries on it and some available lectures that try to expound the main ideas and concepts of the work.
Would be going back and forth in this work for many years to come trying to untangle the many levels of meaning and interpretations of core ideas.
Would be going back and forth in this work for many years to come trying to untangle the many levels of meaning and interpretations of core ideas.
January 1, 2019
This was an utter diarrhea of words in which the author drones on and on about philosophical concepts with the passion of a bored professor and often the intelligence of an orangutan. His abuse of syllogism through sophistry is truly painful to read in places.
March 2, 2022
Odd amount of pregnancy allegories.
January 12, 2025
It's the best translation that I read. Very interesting. The connection between this book and Israq's philosophy and Zoroastrian beliefs is fascinating.
August 2, 2021
Plotinus and his Neoplatonic school exerted a deep and lasting influence on the philosophical, religious, and, importantly, mystical traditions of the Western and Near-Eastern worlds for over a thousand years. In fact, it would probably not be an overstatement to say that the work of Plotinus and his followers acts as the wellspring of the Western mystical and theological tradition, both in the Christian and Islamic worlds. For instance, Christian theologians attempting to characterize God’s nature through a method of “negative theology” reflected Plotinus’s argument that the ultimate divine principle was incapable of being circumscribed by any predicate, while Islamic philosophers often appropriated Neoplatonic notions of “emanation” to explain the apparent contradiction between a wholly transcendent God and the self-evident reality of the corporeal world.
Regardless, Plotinus’s contributions remain obscure relative to the other ancients, which probably shouldn’t be surprising given the hyper-materialist and positivist tenor of contemporary thought. While ancient thinkers like Aristotle, Socrates, and even Plato can be spun as admirable anticipators of the modern secular and scientific methods (however misleading this caricature can be), Plotinus is not susceptible to such an interpretation. In a sense, Plotinus’s Enneads is the summation and most radical statement of the idealist strain of ancient Greek thought --- for Plotinus, the physical world we inhabit is the terminal point and most faint expression of an enigmatic principle he refers to as the “One,” the infinitely powerful, transcendent, undivided, and supremely aloof ultimate principle.
The One is perhaps the main innovation Plotinus contributes to Greek thought. While Plato hinted at such a concept in dialogues like The Republic and Parmenides as a means of grappling with the transcendence of the Forms and their underlying unity, readers of Plato will recognize that it is generally not a central element of Plato’s system (if his dialogues can even be interpreted as advocating for a systemic philosophy). In contrast, Plotinus appropriates the concept and exalts it as the transcendent source of all “expressed principles.” While contemporary readers might see an obvious analogue to the Christian God in the One, this would be a mistaken impression, and the Neoplatonists were strongly critical of Christian division of the Godhead into the Trinity as well as their tendency to impart human characteristics like wrath, love, and even awareness to the ultimate principle. Neoplatonists like Plotinus saw the One as utterly impassive, self-sufficient, and simple; to imply that it experienced any concern with, or awareness of, the foibles of mortals introduced an unacceptable division of its simplicity. Plotinus relegated the act of creation to the mere third principle: Soul, a concept roughly analogous to Plato’s Demiurge, or the divine intelligence which shaped matter according to the transcendent Forms.
As alienating, even Lovecraftian, as the One may seem to a West accustomed to the notion of a personal deity, Plotinus’s account is suffused with a wonder and joy at the magnificence of the One and its emanations, and this acts as the inspiration for some of the Ennead’s most engrossing images. Often, he depicts a corporeal world whose order and beauty exist as a sort of divine efflorescence exuded by an inexhaustible source, and in this way, the One sustains reality through a sort of beneficent (albeit disinterested) outflowing.
There is a great deal to say about The Enneads, which is hopefully the case for any book pushing 900 pages in length. However, I would like to remark on the frequent criticism that this book embraces a sort of uncritical mysticism over genuine philosophical argument. Setting aside the unfortunate fact that mysticism has become a sort of hand-waving pejorative for any point of view that rejects or challenges scientific modernity, the fact of the matter is that The Enneads is a series of hard-nosed analytical philosophical treatises written squarely in the Greek philosophical tradition. Starting from a small number of initial premises, Plotinus constructs an internally coherent systematic philosophy that accounts for human psychology, motion, the cosmos, and their relationship to the Hypostases of Intellect and Soul via the mechanisms of emanation and return.
His account is mystical insofar as it attempts to address the lofty philosophical problems related to Being and its first principles, but this is generally the goal of all metaphysics carried out within the Greek tradition. At times, Plotinus does reject dialectical reason as a means of truly experiencing the One in favor of ecstatic union, but this is consistent with his overall characterization of the One and its relationship with Being and the corporeal world. How could the reasoning of a finite and imperfect intellect encompass the divine unity of the One? Reasoning itself implies division between subject and object, thesis and antithesis, problem and solution, but none of these polarities can be predicated of the One, according to Plotinus. For Plotinus, reasoning can only carry us so far towards the ultimate truth, and in my view, this expresses an important point about the nature of human reasoning. While contemporary science and scholarly methods rightly emphasize a sort of exhaustive articulation of problems through clear documentation and agreed-upon systems of symbolic languages, the cosmos and human experience within it are largely inexplicable in their totality, and growing towards truth means acknowledging that our accounts of things, as persuasive and well-argued as they might be, must inevitably fall short.
I found Plotinus’s depiction of a universe teeming with life, suffused with a divine and beneficent order, and emanating from a sublime and mysterious fountainhead that is simultaneously different yet immediately present to human subjectivity to be an engrossing and rewarding corrective to our dystopian and cynical age. This pivotal text is well worth a read (though a read-through is a tall order for most) for those interested in Platonism, the history of philosophy, and the origins of Western mystic and religious thought. Also, I urge you to purchase the Gerson version of the Enneads; without its extensive footnoting, clarifying notes, and its up-to-date translation, I’m afraid this difficult text would be rendered almost completely unintelligible.
Regardless, Plotinus’s contributions remain obscure relative to the other ancients, which probably shouldn’t be surprising given the hyper-materialist and positivist tenor of contemporary thought. While ancient thinkers like Aristotle, Socrates, and even Plato can be spun as admirable anticipators of the modern secular and scientific methods (however misleading this caricature can be), Plotinus is not susceptible to such an interpretation. In a sense, Plotinus’s Enneads is the summation and most radical statement of the idealist strain of ancient Greek thought --- for Plotinus, the physical world we inhabit is the terminal point and most faint expression of an enigmatic principle he refers to as the “One,” the infinitely powerful, transcendent, undivided, and supremely aloof ultimate principle.
The One is perhaps the main innovation Plotinus contributes to Greek thought. While Plato hinted at such a concept in dialogues like The Republic and Parmenides as a means of grappling with the transcendence of the Forms and their underlying unity, readers of Plato will recognize that it is generally not a central element of Plato’s system (if his dialogues can even be interpreted as advocating for a systemic philosophy). In contrast, Plotinus appropriates the concept and exalts it as the transcendent source of all “expressed principles.” While contemporary readers might see an obvious analogue to the Christian God in the One, this would be a mistaken impression, and the Neoplatonists were strongly critical of Christian division of the Godhead into the Trinity as well as their tendency to impart human characteristics like wrath, love, and even awareness to the ultimate principle. Neoplatonists like Plotinus saw the One as utterly impassive, self-sufficient, and simple; to imply that it experienced any concern with, or awareness of, the foibles of mortals introduced an unacceptable division of its simplicity. Plotinus relegated the act of creation to the mere third principle: Soul, a concept roughly analogous to Plato’s Demiurge, or the divine intelligence which shaped matter according to the transcendent Forms.
As alienating, even Lovecraftian, as the One may seem to a West accustomed to the notion of a personal deity, Plotinus’s account is suffused with a wonder and joy at the magnificence of the One and its emanations, and this acts as the inspiration for some of the Ennead’s most engrossing images. Often, he depicts a corporeal world whose order and beauty exist as a sort of divine efflorescence exuded by an inexhaustible source, and in this way, the One sustains reality through a sort of beneficent (albeit disinterested) outflowing.
There is a great deal to say about The Enneads, which is hopefully the case for any book pushing 900 pages in length. However, I would like to remark on the frequent criticism that this book embraces a sort of uncritical mysticism over genuine philosophical argument. Setting aside the unfortunate fact that mysticism has become a sort of hand-waving pejorative for any point of view that rejects or challenges scientific modernity, the fact of the matter is that The Enneads is a series of hard-nosed analytical philosophical treatises written squarely in the Greek philosophical tradition. Starting from a small number of initial premises, Plotinus constructs an internally coherent systematic philosophy that accounts for human psychology, motion, the cosmos, and their relationship to the Hypostases of Intellect and Soul via the mechanisms of emanation and return.
His account is mystical insofar as it attempts to address the lofty philosophical problems related to Being and its first principles, but this is generally the goal of all metaphysics carried out within the Greek tradition. At times, Plotinus does reject dialectical reason as a means of truly experiencing the One in favor of ecstatic union, but this is consistent with his overall characterization of the One and its relationship with Being and the corporeal world. How could the reasoning of a finite and imperfect intellect encompass the divine unity of the One? Reasoning itself implies division between subject and object, thesis and antithesis, problem and solution, but none of these polarities can be predicated of the One, according to Plotinus. For Plotinus, reasoning can only carry us so far towards the ultimate truth, and in my view, this expresses an important point about the nature of human reasoning. While contemporary science and scholarly methods rightly emphasize a sort of exhaustive articulation of problems through clear documentation and agreed-upon systems of symbolic languages, the cosmos and human experience within it are largely inexplicable in their totality, and growing towards truth means acknowledging that our accounts of things, as persuasive and well-argued as they might be, must inevitably fall short.
I found Plotinus’s depiction of a universe teeming with life, suffused with a divine and beneficent order, and emanating from a sublime and mysterious fountainhead that is simultaneously different yet immediately present to human subjectivity to be an engrossing and rewarding corrective to our dystopian and cynical age. This pivotal text is well worth a read (though a read-through is a tall order for most) for those interested in Platonism, the history of philosophy, and the origins of Western mystic and religious thought. Also, I urge you to purchase the Gerson version of the Enneads; without its extensive footnoting, clarifying notes, and its up-to-date translation, I’m afraid this difficult text would be rendered almost completely unintelligible.
March 7, 2009
The essense of mystic thought of all times. Grandeur of Logos and Ecstasy. This is an abridged edition, for a first contact with Plotinus's masterpiece. His thought of course isn't accesible easily. One shouldn't have the illusion that reading only one time a translation of the Enneads, in English, will understand the complicated and at the same time simple in its architecture Plotinian system of thought. If someone tries to be absorbed in the text, probably he will be disappointed. If again tries to read indirectly, and believes he understands the skeleton of Plotinus's thought, probably he will leave somehow or other with empty hands. Only with the combination of both, maybe, at the end, will comprehend something of his thought.
May 30, 2017
The peak of pagan philosophy; like a cathedral in thought. You can immediately see why so many Church Fathers adopted Plotinian themes (though adapted for Trinitarian theology, of course).
One curious thing about Plotinus is that you keep expecting him (or at least I kept expecting him) to refer to a revelation as the source of his system ... I found myself thinking, "wait, how does Plotinus know this?" It seems that he almost treats all previous thought as scripture, and then sets himself the very challenging hermeneutic task of making it all align, somehow (even passages in Plato and Aristotle that are literally not reconcilable).
One curious thing about Plotinus is that you keep expecting him (or at least I kept expecting him) to refer to a revelation as the source of his system ... I found myself thinking, "wait, how does Plotinus know this?" It seems that he almost treats all previous thought as scripture, and then sets himself the very challenging hermeneutic task of making it all align, somehow (even passages in Plato and Aristotle that are literally not reconcilable).
November 3, 2021
Platonism as a hierarchy of Matter, Soul, Intellect, the One. Surprisingly interesting (esp. I.1-4, III.2-3, III.5.9, V.3.10, VI.8).
January 27, 2022
900 pages of mostly nonsense, only to be read for historical context.
August 14, 2026
افلوطين | التاسوعات
كتاب: فلسفة
عدد الصفحات: ٧٢١
بعد أكثر من سنة من قراءة الكتاب، ومع أنني ما زلت أحتاج إلى قراءته مرة أخرى، انتهيت أخيرا من "التاسوعات" لأفلوطين، في أكثر من 700 صفحة من الفلسفة والميتافيزيقا.
وهذه مراجعة أحاول فيها تلخيص أهم أفكار أفلوطين وفلسفته، من تصوره للإله والواحد، إلى العقل والنفس والعالم والمادة، وصولا إلى الإنسان والشر وطريق العودة إلى الواحد.
التاسوعات ليس كتاب بالمعنى المعتاد، وإنما هو مجموعة من كتابات أفلوطين جمعها تلميذه فرفوريوس ورتبها في ستة أقسام، كل قسم منها يضم تسع رسائل. لكن رغم اختلاف موضوعات هذه الرسائل، هناك فكرة كبيرة تربط فلسفة أفلوطين كلها: كيف صدر الكثرة عن الواحد، وكيف أصبح الإنسان جزءا من هذا العالم، وكيف يمكن للنفس أن تعود مرة أخرى إلى أصلها.
وأظن أن أفضل طريقة لفهم أفلوطين هي أن نبدأ من الأعلى، من الإله أو (الواحد)، ثم ننزل معه درجة درجة حتى نصل إلى العالم المادي والإنسان.
١ _ الواحد
في قمة فلسفة أفلوطين يوجد (الواحد)، وهو المبدأ الأول لكل شيء. لكنه ليس إله بالمعنى المعتاد الذي يمكن أن نصفه بصفات محددة أو نتخيله ككائن موجود بين الموجودات.
الواحد عند أفلوطين فوق الوجود نفسه، وفوق العقل، ولذلك لا يمكن أن نصف ماهيته وصفا حقيقيا. حتى عندما نقول عنه (الخير) أو (الواحد) فنحن نحاول الاقتراب منه بالكلام، لا أن نعطيه وصفا كاملا.
والسبب أن أي شيء نصفه بصفات متعددة يصبح مركبا منها، بينما الواحد مطلق البساطة ولا يحتوي على تركيب أو تعدد.
ولهذا نجد عند أفلوطين نوعا من الكلام السلبي عن الإله: لا نقول ما هو الواحد بقدر ما نقول ما ليس هو. ليس جسما، وليس عقلا، وليس نفسا، وليس شيئا من الأشياء التي نعرفها.
والواحد ليس «شيئا» من الأشياء، بل هو الأصل الذي تعتمد عليه كل الأشياء.
٢ - كيف يصدر العالم عن الواحد؟
هنا تظهر أهم فكرة في فلسفة أفلوطين: الفيض أو الصدور.
لكن كلمة (الفيض) ممكن تجعل الفكرة تبدو كأن الواحد قرر في لحظة معينة أن يصنع العالم، وهذا ليس المقصود. أفلوطين لا يتحدث عن خلق زمني حدث في لحظة، ولا عن إله يفكر ثم يتخذ قرارا. المقصود علاقة اعتماد وجودي: الموجودات الأدنى تعتمد في وجودها على ما هو أعلى منها.
يمكن تخيل الأمر بصورة تقريبية مثل الضوء الذي يصدر عن الشمس دون أن تنقص الشمس منه.
ومن الواحد يصدر أول مبدأ بعده: العقل، أو Nous.
ثم من العقل تصدر النفس.
ثم من النفس يظهر العالم الطبيعي والمادي.
وبالتالي يمكن اختصار البناء كله هكذا:
الواحد < العقل < النفس < العالم المادي
وهذه هي البنية الأساسية لفلسفة أفلوطين.
٣- العقل
العقل هو أول ما يصدر عن الواحد.
وهنا نصل إلى مستوى الوجود العقلي، حيث توجد (المثل) أو الصور العقلية التي عرفناها عند أفلاطون.
لكن العقل عند أفلوطين ليس مجرد آلة تفكير عند الإنسان. هو مستوى من الوجود يحتوي عالم المثل، وفيه يكون الفكر وموضوع الفكر متحدين.
فالعقل يعرف المثل، لكنه في الوقت نفسه هو عالم المثل نفسه. لذلك فالعقل عند أفلوطين يمثل الوحدة التي أصبحت فيها الكثرة موجودة، بعكس الواحد الذي لا يحتوي على أي تعدد.
ولهذا يمكن القول إننا كلما نزلنا من الواحد إلى العقل، بدأ التعدد يظهر.
الواحد: وحدة مطلقة.
العقل: وحدة تحتوي الكثرة.
ثم النفس: مستوى أدنى، تتحرك فيه الكثرة أكثر.
٤- النفس
بعد العقل تأتي النفس.
والنفس عند أفلوطين ليست مجرد نفس الإنسان الفردية، بل هناك النفس الكلية أو نفس العالم، وهي التي تجعل العالم حيا ومنظما.
وهنا يبدأ الانتقال من العالم العقلي إلى العالم المحسوس.
النفس تنظر إلى العالم العقلي من فوق، وفي الوقت نفسه تتجه إلى العالم المادي من أسفل، ولذلك لها وظيفة مزدوجة: تتصل بالعقل، وتمنح العالم المحسوس الحياة والنظام.
ومن هنا يصبح العالم عند أفلوطين ليس مجرد مادة ميتة، وإنما عالم حي تحكمه النفس والنظام.
٥_ العالم المادي
وهنا قد يحدث سوء فهم لفلسفة أفلوطين.
هو لا يقول إن العالم المادي شر مطلق، ولا يرى أن وجود الجسد والعالم المحسوس خطأ في حد ذاته.
العالم المحسوس عنده صورة أو انعكاس للعالم العقلي، ولذلك فيه قدر من الجمال والنظام والخير.
لكن المشكلة أن المادة هي أدنى درجات الوجود؛ لأنها خالية في ذاتها من الصورة والتحديد.
فكلما ابتعدنا عن الأصل، قل مقدار الوحدة والصورة والخير، حتى نصل إلى المادة.
ولهذا ترتبط المادة عند أفلوطين بالشر، لكن ليس بمعنى أن هناك (مادة شرير) لها إرادة مستقلة.
الشر عنده مرتبط بالنقص والحرمان من الصورة والخير، ويظهر أخلاقيا عندما تتجه النفس إلى الأدنى وتنسى أصلها الأعلى.
٦- هل العالم شر؟
لا.
وهذه نقطة أرى أنها مهمة جدا في فهم أفلوطين.
هو يختلف هنا عن التصورات التي ترى العالم المادي سجنا أو خطأ صنعه إله شرير.
العالم في ذاته حسن بقدر ما يمكن أن يكون عليه عالم مادي. نقصه يأتي من كونه ماديا، وليس لأنه خلق بطريقة فاسدة.
فالعالم المحسوس بالنسبة له صورة أقل من العالم العقلي، لكنه يظل صورة له.
وكأن الجمال الموجود في العالم المادي يدل على أصل أعلى منه.
٧- الإنسان
الإنسان عند أفلوطين يعيش بين عالمين.
جسده ينتمي إلى العالم المحسوس، لكن نفسه ليست محصورة في الجسد.
وهنا تبدأ المشكلة الإنسانية: النفس يمكن أن تنظر إلى أعلى، إلى العقل والخير والواحد، ويمكن أيضا أن تنشغل بالعالم المادي ورغبات الجسد.
ولهذا فالإنسان في فلسفة أفلوطين ليس مجرد جسد يفكر، وإنما هو نفس لها أصل أعلى من العالم المادي.
وأهم شيء في الإنسان هو أن يكتشف هذا الأصل الموجود فيه.
٨- لماذا نشعر بالغربة إذن؟
لأن النفس يمكن أن تنشغل بما هو أدنى منها.
فتتعلق بالجسد، وباللذات، وبالأشياء الخارجية، وبالرغبات، وتنسى حقيقتها.
وهنا تصبح حياة الإنسان نوعا من الابتعاد عن الأصل.
لكن العودة ليست بالهرب من العالم أو تدمير الجسد، وإنما بإعادة ترتيب النفس: أن تتوقف عن جعل الأشياء المادية غايتها النهائية، وأن تتجه إلى ما هو أعلى.
٩- الشر
الشر عند أفلوطين ليس قوة مساوية للخير.
لا يوجد عنده مبدآن متصارعان، أحدهما للخير والآخر للشر.
الخير هو الأصل، والشر هو النقص والحرمان والابتعاد عن الخير.
وهذا يفسر أيضا لماذا لا يعتبر أفلوطين الشر شيئا قائما بذاته.
كلما ابتعدنا عن الواحد تقل الوحدة والكمال، ويزداد النقص، حتى نصل إلى المادة التي تمثل أدنى درجات الوجود.
وفي الإنسان يظهر الشر بصورة أوضح عندما تجعل النفس الأشياء الأدنى غايتها، بدلا من أن تتجه إلى أصلها.
١٠- طريق العودة
إذا كان كل شيء قد صدر من الواحد، فهناك أيضا حركة عكسية: العودة.
وهذه من أهم الأفكار في فلسفة أفلوطين.
الوجود كله يمكن فهمه في حركة:
الواحد < العقل < النفس < العالم
ثم بالنسبة للإنسان:
العالم < النفس < العقل < الواحد
فالإنسان يستطيع أن يبدأ رحلة الصعود من الأشياء الخارجية إلى نفسه، ومن نفسه إلى العقل، ثم إلى ما هو فوق العقل.
وهذه ليست رحلة مكانية، فلا نصعد إلى مكان موجود في السماء، وإنما هي رحلة داخلية وتحرر من التعلق بالأدنى.
١١- الفضيلة والتطهر
لذلك تصبح الفلسفة عند أفلوطين ليست مجرد معرفة نظرية.
إذا كنت أريد أن أعرف حقيقتي، فلا يكفي أن أعرف معلومات عن النفس والعقل والواحد، بل يجب أن تتغير حياتي نفسها.
الفضائل تساعد النفس على التحرر من سيطرة الشهوات والأهواء، وعلى استعادة ترتيبها الداخلي.
فالإنسان كلما أصبح أقل عبودية للأشياء الخارجية، أصبح أكثر قدرة على التوجه إلى الداخل وإلى ما هو أعلى.
١٢- التأمل
بعد التطهر يأتي التأمل.
والتأمل عند أفلوطين ليس مجرد التفكير في فكرة فلسفية، وإنما هو أرقى نشاط للنفس، لأنه يجعلها تتجه إلى الحقيقة العقلية بدلا من أن تبقى مشتتة في العالم المحسوس.
العقل نفسه يقوم على التأمل، والنفس ترتفع عندما تصبح حياتها أقرب إلى هذا المستوى.
ولهذا فإن المعرفة الحقيقية عند أفلوطين ليست معرفة خارجية فقط، وإنما نوع من العودة إلى الذات.
١٣- الاتحاد بالواحد
وهنا تصل فلسفة أفلوطين إلى أكثر نقاطها غرابة وعمقا.
الغاية الأخيرة ليست أن نعرف الواحد كما نعرف أي موضوع آخر، لأن الواحد فوق العقل والتفكير والتقسيم.
الغاية هي نوع من الاتحاد أو الحضور المباشر، وهو ما يصفه أفلوطين أحيانا بلغة التجربة الصوفية.
في هذه اللحظة لا يعود الإنسان واقفا أمام الواحد كشيء يعرف شيئا آخر، بل يحدث تجاوز لهذه الثنائية نفسها.
ولهذا يصعب وصف التجربة بالكلمات، لأن اللغة والعقل يعملان من خلال التمييز، بينما الواحد عند أفلوطين سابق على كل تمييز.
وهنا أشعر أن فلسفة أفلوطين كلها تتحرك في دائرة واحدة:
كل شيء يصدر من الواحد، ثم تبحث النفس عن طريق العودة إليه.
وهذا يجعل "التاسوعات" في النهاية ليست مجرد نظرية عن أصل العالم، وإنما محاولة
للإجابة عن سؤال إنساني جدا:
إذا كنت قد جئت من أين؟ فما حقيقتي؟ وإلى أين ينبغي أن أعود؟
وأكثر شيء أعجبني في أفلوطين أن فلسفته، رغم تعقيدها الشديد، لا تنتهي عند بناء نظام ميتافيزيقي عن الكون وإنما تعود في النهاية إلى الإنسان نفسه: إلى النفس، ورغباتها، وتشتتها، ومحاولتها أن تتذكر أصلها.
الخلاصة
يمكن تلخيص عالم أفلوطين ببساطة بالشكل ده:
الواحد
⬇️
العقل والمثل
⬇️
النفس الكلية
⬇️
العالم المحسوس
⬇️
المادة
ثم يبدأ طريق الإنسان في الاتجاه المعاكس:
الجسد والعالم الخارجي
⬇️
النفس
⬇️
العقل
⬇️
الواحد
وكأن الوجود كله حركة صدور وعودة: من الوحدة إلى الكثرة، ثم من الكثرة إلى البحث عن الوحدة من جديد.
في الختام دي مش مجرد مراجعة، دي تلخيص واسع لأهم أفكار أفلوطين في التاسوعات بشكل مبسط، وحاولت اكون دقيق انا بكتب ليا فترة على اجزاء مش من النهاردة فيارب ما اكون غلطت، والتلخيص يخليك تاخد صورة شاملة عن فلسفته، وكأنك قرأت الكتاب تقريبا.
🤎 🤎
كتاب: فلسفة
عدد الصفحات: ٧٢١
بعد أكثر من سنة من قراءة الكتاب، ومع أنني ما زلت أحتاج إلى قراءته مرة أخرى، انتهيت أخيرا من "التاسوعات" لأفلوطين، في أكثر من 700 صفحة من الفلسفة والميتافيزيقا.
وهذه مراجعة أحاول فيها تلخيص أهم أفكار أفلوطين وفلسفته، من تصوره للإله والواحد، إلى العقل والنفس والعالم والمادة، وصولا إلى الإنسان والشر وطريق العودة إلى الواحد.
التاسوعات ليس كتاب بالمعنى المعتاد، وإنما هو مجموعة من كتابات أفلوطين جمعها تلميذه فرفوريوس ورتبها في ستة أقسام، كل قسم منها يضم تسع رسائل. لكن رغم اختلاف موضوعات هذه الرسائل، هناك فكرة كبيرة تربط فلسفة أفلوطين كلها: كيف صدر الكثرة عن الواحد، وكيف أصبح الإنسان جزءا من هذا العالم، وكيف يمكن للنفس أن تعود مرة أخرى إلى أصلها.
وأظن أن أفضل طريقة لفهم أفلوطين هي أن نبدأ من الأعلى، من الإله أو (الواحد)، ثم ننزل معه درجة درجة حتى نصل إلى العالم المادي والإنسان.
١ _ الواحد
في قمة فلسفة أفلوطين يوجد (الواحد)، وهو المبدأ الأول لكل شيء. لكنه ليس إله بالمعنى المعتاد الذي يمكن أن نصفه بصفات محددة أو نتخيله ككائن موجود بين الموجودات.
الواحد عند أفلوطين فوق الوجود نفسه، وفوق العقل، ولذلك لا يمكن أن نصف ماهيته وصفا حقيقيا. حتى عندما نقول عنه (الخير) أو (الواحد) فنحن نحاول الاقتراب منه بالكلام، لا أن نعطيه وصفا كاملا.
والسبب أن أي شيء نصفه بصفات متعددة يصبح مركبا منها، بينما الواحد مطلق البساطة ولا يحتوي على تركيب أو تعدد.
ولهذا نجد عند أفلوطين نوعا من الكلام السلبي عن الإله: لا نقول ما هو الواحد بقدر ما نقول ما ليس هو. ليس جسما، وليس عقلا، وليس نفسا، وليس شيئا من الأشياء التي نعرفها.
والواحد ليس «شيئا» من الأشياء، بل هو الأصل الذي تعتمد عليه كل الأشياء.
٢ - كيف يصدر العالم عن الواحد؟
هنا تظهر أهم فكرة في فلسفة أفلوطين: الفيض أو الصدور.
لكن كلمة (الفيض) ممكن تجعل الفكرة تبدو كأن الواحد قرر في لحظة معينة أن يصنع العالم، وهذا ليس المقصود. أفلوطين لا يتحدث عن خلق زمني حدث في لحظة، ولا عن إله يفكر ثم يتخذ قرارا. المقصود علاقة اعتماد وجودي: الموجودات الأدنى تعتمد في وجودها على ما هو أعلى منها.
يمكن تخيل الأمر بصورة تقريبية مثل الضوء الذي يصدر عن الشمس دون أن تنقص الشمس منه.
ومن الواحد يصدر أول مبدأ بعده: العقل، أو Nous.
ثم من العقل تصدر النفس.
ثم من النفس يظهر العالم الطبيعي والمادي.
وبالتالي يمكن اختصار البناء كله هكذا:
الواحد < العقل < النفس < العالم المادي
وهذه هي البنية الأساسية لفلسفة أفلوطين.
٣- العقل
العقل هو أول ما يصدر عن الواحد.
وهنا نصل إلى مستوى الوجود العقلي، حيث توجد (المثل) أو الصور العقلية التي عرفناها عند أفلاطون.
لكن العقل عند أفلوطين ليس مجرد آلة تفكير عند الإنسان. هو مستوى من الوجود يحتوي عالم المثل، وفيه يكون الفكر وموضوع الفكر متحدين.
فالعقل يعرف المثل، لكنه في الوقت نفسه هو عالم المثل نفسه. لذلك فالعقل عند أفلوطين يمثل الوحدة التي أصبحت فيها الكثرة موجودة، بعكس الواحد الذي لا يحتوي على أي تعدد.
ولهذا يمكن القول إننا كلما نزلنا من الواحد إلى العقل، بدأ التعدد يظهر.
الواحد: وحدة مطلقة.
العقل: وحدة تحتوي الكثرة.
ثم النفس: مستوى أدنى، تتحرك فيه الكثرة أكثر.
٤- النفس
بعد العقل تأتي النفس.
والنفس عند أفلوطين ليست مجرد نفس الإنسان الفردية، بل هناك النفس الكلية أو نفس العالم، وهي التي تجعل العالم حيا ومنظما.
وهنا يبدأ الانتقال من العالم العقلي إلى العالم المحسوس.
النفس تنظر إلى العالم العقلي من فوق، وفي الوقت نفسه تتجه إلى العالم المادي من أسفل، ولذلك لها وظيفة مزدوجة: تتصل بالعقل، وتمنح العالم المحسوس الحياة والنظام.
ومن هنا يصبح العالم عند أفلوطين ليس مجرد مادة ميتة، وإنما عالم حي تحكمه النفس والنظام.
٥_ العالم المادي
وهنا قد يحدث سوء فهم لفلسفة أفلوطين.
هو لا يقول إن العالم المادي شر مطلق، ولا يرى أن وجود الجسد والعالم المحسوس خطأ في حد ذاته.
العالم المحسوس عنده صورة أو انعكاس للعالم العقلي، ولذلك فيه قدر من الجمال والنظام والخير.
لكن المشكلة أن المادة هي أدنى درجات الوجود؛ لأنها خالية في ذاتها من الصورة والتحديد.
فكلما ابتعدنا عن الأصل، قل مقدار الوحدة والصورة والخير، حتى نصل إلى المادة.
ولهذا ترتبط المادة عند أفلوطين بالشر، لكن ليس بمعنى أن هناك (مادة شرير) لها إرادة مستقلة.
الشر عنده مرتبط بالنقص والحرمان من الصورة والخير، ويظهر أخلاقيا عندما تتجه النفس إلى الأدنى وتنسى أصلها الأعلى.
٦- هل العالم شر؟
لا.
وهذه نقطة أرى أنها مهمة جدا في فهم أفلوطين.
هو يختلف هنا عن التصورات التي ترى العالم المادي سجنا أو خطأ صنعه إله شرير.
العالم في ذاته حسن بقدر ما يمكن أن يكون عليه عالم مادي. نقصه يأتي من كونه ماديا، وليس لأنه خلق بطريقة فاسدة.
فالعالم المحسوس بالنسبة له صورة أقل من العالم العقلي، لكنه يظل صورة له.
وكأن الجمال الموجود في العالم المادي يدل على أصل أعلى منه.
٧- الإنسان
الإنسان عند أفلوطين يعيش بين عالمين.
جسده ينتمي إلى العالم المحسوس، لكن نفسه ليست محصورة في الجسد.
وهنا تبدأ المشكلة الإنسانية: النفس يمكن أن تنظر إلى أعلى، إلى العقل والخير والواحد، ويمكن أيضا أن تنشغل بالعالم المادي ورغبات الجسد.
ولهذا فالإنسان في فلسفة أفلوطين ليس مجرد جسد يفكر، وإنما هو نفس لها أصل أعلى من العالم المادي.
وأهم شيء في الإنسان هو أن يكتشف هذا الأصل الموجود فيه.
٨- لماذا نشعر بالغربة إذن؟
لأن النفس يمكن أن تنشغل بما هو أدنى منها.
فتتعلق بالجسد، وباللذات، وبالأشياء الخارجية، وبالرغبات، وتنسى حقيقتها.
وهنا تصبح حياة الإنسان نوعا من الابتعاد عن الأصل.
لكن العودة ليست بالهرب من العالم أو تدمير الجسد، وإنما بإعادة ترتيب النفس: أن تتوقف عن جعل الأشياء المادية غايتها النهائية، وأن تتجه إلى ما هو أعلى.
٩- الشر
الشر عند أفلوطين ليس قوة مساوية للخير.
لا يوجد عنده مبدآن متصارعان، أحدهما للخير والآخر للشر.
الخير هو الأصل، والشر هو النقص والحرمان والابتعاد عن الخير.
وهذا يفسر أيضا لماذا لا يعتبر أفلوطين الشر شيئا قائما بذاته.
كلما ابتعدنا عن الواحد تقل الوحدة والكمال، ويزداد النقص، حتى نصل إلى المادة التي تمثل أدنى درجات الوجود.
وفي الإنسان يظهر الشر بصورة أوضح عندما تجعل النفس الأشياء الأدنى غايتها، بدلا من أن تتجه إلى أصلها.
١٠- طريق العودة
إذا كان كل شيء قد صدر من الواحد، فهناك أيضا حركة عكسية: العودة.
وهذه من أهم الأفكار في فلسفة أفلوطين.
الوجود كله يمكن فهمه في حركة:
الواحد < العقل < النفس < العالم
ثم بالنسبة للإنسان:
العالم < النفس < العقل < الواحد
فالإنسان يستطيع أن يبدأ رحلة الصعود من الأشياء الخارجية إلى نفسه، ومن نفسه إلى العقل، ثم إلى ما هو فوق العقل.
وهذه ليست رحلة مكانية، فلا نصعد إلى مكان موجود في السماء، وإنما هي رحلة داخلية وتحرر من التعلق بالأدنى.
١١- الفضيلة والتطهر
لذلك تصبح الفلسفة عند أفلوطين ليست مجرد معرفة نظرية.
إذا كنت أريد أن أعرف حقيقتي، فلا يكفي أن أعرف معلومات عن النفس والعقل والواحد، بل يجب أن تتغير حياتي نفسها.
الفضائل تساعد النفس على التحرر من سيطرة الشهوات والأهواء، وعلى استعادة ترتيبها الداخلي.
فالإنسان كلما أصبح أقل عبودية للأشياء الخارجية، أصبح أكثر قدرة على التوجه إلى الداخل وإلى ما هو أعلى.
١٢- التأمل
بعد التطهر يأتي التأمل.
والتأمل عند أفلوطين ليس مجرد التفكير في فكرة فلسفية، وإنما هو أرقى نشاط للنفس، لأنه يجعلها تتجه إلى الحقيقة العقلية بدلا من أن تبقى مشتتة في العالم المحسوس.
العقل نفسه يقوم على التأمل، والنفس ترتفع عندما تصبح حياتها أقرب إلى هذا المستوى.
ولهذا فإن المعرفة الحقيقية عند أفلوطين ليست معرفة خارجية فقط، وإنما نوع من العودة إلى الذات.
١٣- الاتحاد بالواحد
وهنا تصل فلسفة أفلوطين إلى أكثر نقاطها غرابة وعمقا.
الغاية الأخيرة ليست أن نعرف الواحد كما نعرف أي موضوع آخر، لأن الواحد فوق العقل والتفكير والتقسيم.
الغاية هي نوع من الاتحاد أو الحضور المباشر، وهو ما يصفه أفلوطين أحيانا بلغة التجربة الصوفية.
في هذه اللحظة لا يعود الإنسان واقفا أمام الواحد كشيء يعرف شيئا آخر، بل يحدث تجاوز لهذه الثنائية نفسها.
ولهذا يصعب وصف التجربة بالكلمات، لأن اللغة والعقل يعملان من خلال التمييز، بينما الواحد عند أفلوطين سابق على كل تمييز.
وهنا أشعر أن فلسفة أفلوطين كلها تتحرك في دائرة واحدة:
كل شيء يصدر من الواحد، ثم تبحث النفس عن طريق العودة إليه.
وهذا يجعل "التاسوعات" في النهاية ليست مجرد نظرية عن أصل العالم، وإنما محاولة
للإجابة عن سؤال إنساني جدا:
إذا كنت قد جئت من أين؟ فما حقيقتي؟ وإلى أين ينبغي أن أعود؟
وأكثر شيء أعجبني في أفلوطين أن فلسفته، رغم تعقيدها الشديد، لا تنتهي عند بناء نظام ميتافيزيقي عن الكون وإنما تعود في النهاية إلى الإنسان نفسه: إلى النفس، ورغباتها، وتشتتها، ومحاولتها أن تتذكر أصلها.
الخلاصة
يمكن تلخيص عالم أفلوطين ببساطة بالشكل ده:
الواحد
⬇️
العقل والمثل
⬇️
النفس الكلية
⬇️
العالم المحسوس
⬇️
المادة
ثم يبدأ طريق الإنسان في الاتجاه المعاكس:
الجسد والعالم الخارجي
⬇️
النفس
⬇️
العقل
⬇️
الواحد
وكأن الوجود كله حركة صدور وعودة: من الوحدة إلى الكثرة، ثم من الكثرة إلى البحث عن الوحدة من جديد.
في الختام دي مش مجرد مراجعة، دي تلخيص واسع لأهم أفكار أفلوطين في التاسوعات بشكل مبسط، وحاولت اكون دقيق انا بكتب ليا فترة على اجزاء مش من النهاردة فيارب ما اكون غلطت، والتلخيص يخليك تاخد صورة شاملة عن فلسفته، وكأنك قرأت الكتاب تقريبا.
🤎 🤎
October 28, 2026
Plotinus was a serious metaphysician, that's for sure.
Read
August 5, 2025Hard to follow
May 15, 2024
The treatises on Beauty are one of the highest points.
But St. Gregory Palamas and St. Paul are right: external knowledge does not lead one to God.
Discursive knowledge can lead us only so far: it can lead to some truths, but these truths are not salvific.
What must be sought is interior recollection of the Intellect, and the fulfilment of the divine commandments of Christ.
But St. Gregory Palamas and St. Paul are right: external knowledge does not lead one to God.
Discursive knowledge can lead us only so far: it can lead to some truths, but these truths are not salvific.
What must be sought is interior recollection of the Intellect, and the fulfilment of the divine commandments of Christ.
January 26, 2013
Invoking the Tyler Cowen rule: if it isn't worth the effort, put it down. A few parts in the First Ennead sparked thought, but he lost me in the Second/Third. Too much mysticism for my taste anymore.
August 23, 2007
One of the most important of the great world mystics.
May 29, 2022
What a chore. Wait until the NeoPlatonists learn about evolution though.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 116 reviews