|
| |
The Enneads of Plotinus on Ethics and Virtue
Neoplatonic ethics… as derived from divine intelligence
and put forth in the Enneads
(1st edition - November 2005) by A.O. Kime
 for information on
'renting' this article, see Rent-a-Article
“As speech is the echo of the thought in the Soul, so thought in the
Soul is an echo from elsewhere: that is to say, as the uttered thought is an
image of the soul-thought, so the soul-thought images a thought above itself
and is the interpreter of the higher sphere.” Plotinus (V1.2.3 - Enneads)
In analyzing Plotinus' six ancient Neoplatonic Enneads, more particularly
how Plotinus contends virtue and ethics manifest
themselves, whether voluntarily, inherently or by some other means, one is
compelled to first see if the Enneads are theoretically sound. After all,
before referring to his works one must have confidence in the model
of the universe Plotinus created (his basis). So, does the model put
forth by Plotinus theoretically square? Within his framework, it does. While
that is a qualified 'yes', that's because of the particular 'senses' and
'essences' involved. Metaphysical theories can do no more than make logical its
advocated premises and that, most often, effectively amounts to defining an
object drawn on a blank sheet of paper when it is the blank sheet in need of
defining. At any rate, not only were the premises within the Enneads
exceptionally well-reasoned but Plotinus had help... he was, to some extent,
divinely enlightened.
While Plotinus put forth good epistemological arguments for his
model, unfortunately, although through no fault of his own, his tri-management
model of the universe simply cannot be described much clearer than the (1) The
One [God], (2) Intelligence and (3) Soul… at least not in English. While it
gives one a vague idea their essence, man has not the vocabulary to describe
Universal Existents as they ethereally exist… languages are simply not up to the
task. Not until one can describe the smell of a flower or the sound of a
saxophone can progress be seen. Nor can happiness yet be described. Nonetheless,
despite having no ethereally descript model; the arguments of Plotinus appear
essentially correct.
Yet, how can his arguments appear correct without confidence his model is
ethereally accurate? While ethereal distinctions are ineffable in precise
terms, even after having been conceived, Plotinus did the next best thing,
the only thing possible… recognize and then address the effective differences.
And they are, amazingly, distinctions almost anyone spiritually inclined would
recognize. However, any attempt to go beyond the scope of effective differences,
one can only hope to point out plausible differences to the extent languages allow...
hence his 'model'. His model however, while it represents these effective
distinctions (as in 'executive management'), it is not as important as the
distinctions themselves. Nor would errors in his model necessarily alter
them... as in 'all roads lead to Rome'. While the ancient mystics interminably
complained about language deficiencies, that they can often create understanding
rather than assist it, some philosophers were (are) of the conviction enough
verbiage can overcome that problem. While the degree of success would depend on
the terminology, on the same token excessive verbiage increases the odds of an
inappropriate word... one sure to skew the perception. It also depends on how
deep they are trying to delve... words can only go so far.
To the extent Plotinus intended that his tri-management model be taken
literally… he qualified his contentions in a couple of ways:
"In asserting that Being is not a unity, we do not mean to imply
a definite number of existences; the number may well be infinite: we
mean simply that it is many as well as one, that it is, so to speak, a
diversified unity, a plurality in unity." (V6.1.2)
"Perhaps, however, it must be utterly denied that unity is even
the cause of other things; they should be considered rather as its parts
or elements- if the terms may be allowed,- their totality constituting
a single entity which our thinking divides. All unity though it be, it
goes by a wonderful power out into everything; it appears as many
and becomes many when there is a motion; the fecundity of its nature
causes the One to be no longer one, and we, displaying what we call
its parts, consider them each as a unity and make them into
"genera," unaware of our failure to see the whole at once. We
display it, then, in parts, though, unable to restrain their natural
tendency to coalesce, we bring these parts together again, resign them
to the whole and allow them to become a unity, or rather to be a
unity." (V6.2.3)
Although, to a great extent, ineffability is due to a lack of knowledge
about the subject… similarly would be the case of humans trying to describe
an ocean without ever having seen one. For the bizarre, the proper words
probably wouldn't yet exist. At any rate, while not singling out any particular
philosopher, but in regards to philosophy in general, we should always remain
leery of metaphysical theories... especially when the basis is established by
the same person who does the reconciling. Only if others are able to do so might
those theories have merit. Plato once said, in effect, that myth can exhibit
factors consistent with reality. In the case of the soul however, this concept
pre-dates Plotinus, Plato and even Socrates... going back to the days of Orpheus
and Pythagoras. However, for the purpose of addressing virtue (ethics), the
manifestations (distinctions) Plotinus described are enough to work with. Even if
all the other of his contentions are wrong (concerning his model)... the essences,
to the extent Plotinus could effectively describe them, are still there.
But essences is all there could be, after all, the ethereal is physical
nothingness. And, perhaps without argument, essences are existents... just
like mental thoughts ethereally exist. To deny that is to say thoughts don't
exist. And, somehow, these universal essences have sensory attributes
although undoubtedly more dynamic than the six human senses. Assuredly too,
within etherealness there exists more than six. Plotinus was also aware
of the sensory dynamics as evidenced by this question...
“In what sense, then, do we assert this Unity, and how is it to be
adjusted to our mental processes?” (V6.9.8)
Virtue
In that Plotinus put forth his arguments on virtue in long running
dissertations, which includes civic virtue (ethics), as if entries into his
personal diary, as if in dialogue with himself (thinking out loud), each
thought leading to the next, every possible contingent investigated it seems,
many points are hard to reference since most of his statements are supported
by other arguments and often cannot intelligibly stand alone. Nonetheless, to
the extent possible, they were assimilated to help answer these four nagging
questions.
Is virtue more than just a human invention for the sake of a civilized society?
Is virtue an instrument of the soul or... freewill?
Is virtue in the likeness of God?
Is virtue a requirement for immortality?
According to Plotinus, virtue is an instrument of the individual soul… and
this is verifiable to the extent ‘soul’ can be considered a given. Today,
however, virtue is widely considered a matter of conscience and while conscience
is a modern term, its usage doesn't change anything… because almost everybody
can still sense that, whether it is called conscience or soul, it is
‘spiritually connected’. Yet, the term ‘conscience’ implies it belongs to the
body whereas ‘soul’ doesn’t. According to Plotinus however, it isn't quite that
simple. Plotinus explains the relationship between the soul and body as a
‘couplement’. That is to say… while the individual soul is in the image of the
‘Essential Soul’ (or Divine Soul… its perfect and eternal essence), through the
act of coalescing with the body produces ‘us’ (you, me). In other words, since
the Essential Soul is one thing, and the body another, this coalescing creates a
third entity (us)… thus a ‘couplement’ (also referred to as a ‘composite’ or
‘groupment’). This couplement is the essence of the individual and it is this
couplement which will stand in final judgment, not the Essential Soul (the
begetter). Note: In transcribing the Enneads into English, the 'Essential Soul'
is the transcriber's term but not one I particularly like.
Plotinus effectively said the individual soul received the instrument of virtue
from the Essential Soul. This Essential Soul could, I think, also be described
as being (or being within) a ‘common pool of subconsciousness’ which all humans
share. This explains, at least by another method, why the ideal forms of virtue
are identical throughout the world and equally appreciated. This could not be
possible if each human was left to their own devises to determine virtue.
Drawing from this ‘common pool’ is also what makes all humans act human. It is
the manifesto of our species. Virtue therefore is not a matter of freewill…
freewill is only in charge of its application. In this, a comparison to virtue
might be that while water is wet, eternally and consistently wet, it has no
control over what it wets.
“But if Soul [in man] and Essential Soul are one and the same, then
the Soul will be an Ideal-Form unreceptive of all those activities
which it imparts to another Kind but possessing within itself that
native Act of its own which Reason manifests.
If this be so, then, indeed, we may think of the Soul as an immortal-
if the immortal, the imperishable, must be impassive, giving out something
of itself but itself taking nothing from without except for what it
receives from the Existents prior to itself from which Existents,
in that they are the nobler, it cannot be sundered.
Now what could bring fear to a nature thus unreceptive of all the
outer? Fear demands feeling. Nor is there place for courage: courage
implies the presence of danger. And such desires as are satisfied
by the filling or voiding of the body, must be proper to something
very different from the Soul, to that only which admits of replenishment
and voidance.
And how could the Soul lend itself to any admixture? An essential
is not mixed. Or of the intrusion of anything alien? If it did, it
would be seeking the destruction of its own nature. Pain must be equally
far from it. And Grief- how or for what could it grieve? Whatever
possesses Existence is supremely free, dwelling, unchangeable, within
its own peculiar nature. And can any increase bring joy, where nothing,
not even anything good, can accrue? What such an Existent is, it is
unchangeably.
Thus assuredly Sense-Perception, Discursive-Reasoning; and all our
ordinary mentation are foreign to the Soul: for sensation is a receiving-
whether of an Ideal-Form or of an impassive body- and reasoning and
all ordinary mental action deal with sensation.” (V1.1.2)
Plotinus did not address this but virtuous deeds (ethics) are often a prudent
matter. It is vital to business that management be ethical… a few missteps could
spell doom for a company. Dishonesty is also social suicide.
In this respect, virtue is not attached to self-serving acts… not in the strict
sense of the word. Virtue, true virtue, are those good deeds for which nothing in
return is expected. It is the unseen good deeds... like a lost wallet returned to
the owner (absolute integrity). It is the sincerity in one's spoken words. Virtue
is also kindness, respectfulness, graciousness and the three theological virtues
are faith, hope and charity. Reigning supreme
perhaps are the four heralded 'natural virtues' of (1) justice, (2) prudence,
(3) temperance and (4) fortitude. These four are sometimes called 'cardinal
virtues'. Something very important is missing from these popularized virtues
however... honor. Honor, the most magnificent trait of all, which, I believe,
even glows in the dark, is deserving of being the first of these so-called
'natural virtues'. Five natural virtues then, not four, is hereby suggested.
“Is Likeness, then, attained, perhaps, not by these virtues of
the social order but by those greater qualities known by the same
general name? And if so do the Civic Virtues give us no help at all?
It is against reason, utterly to deny Likeness by these while
admitting it by the greater: tradition at least recognizes certain men
of the civic excellence as divine, and we must believe that these
too had in some sort attained Likeness: on both levels there is virtue
for us, though not the same virtue.
Now, if it be admitted that Likeness is possible, though by a
varying use of different virtues and though the civic virtues do not
suffice, there is no reason why we should not, by virtues peculiar
to our state, attain Likeness to a model in which virtue has no place.
But is that conceivable?
When warmth comes in to make anything warm, must there needs be
something to warm the source of the warmth?
If a fire is to warm something else, must there be a fire to
warm that fire?
Against the first illustration it may be retorted that the
source of the warmth does already contain warmth, not by an infusion
but as an essential phase of its nature, so that, if the analogy is to
hold, the argument would make Virtue something communicated to the
Soul but an essential constituent of the Principle from which the Soul
attaining Likeness absorbs it.
Against the illustration drawn from the fire, it may be urged that
the analogy would make that Principle identical with virtue, whereas
we hold it to be something higher.
The objection would be valid if what the soul takes in were one
and the same with the source, but in fact virtue is one thing, the
source of virtue quite another. The material house is not identical
with the house conceived in the intellect, and yet stands in its
likeness: the material house has distribution and order while the pure
idea is not constituted by any such elements; distribution, order,
symmetry are not parts of an idea.” (V1.2.1)
In summary then, freewill is the activator of virtue; it also determines just
how virtuous to be in our daily affairs… while, inherently, knowing full-well
the range and extent possible. Within the next quote below Plotinus states:
"-but inevitably experiences and actions are forced upon it by its
governance: these it has not planned for, yet when they do arise it will watch
still for its sovereignty calling these also to judgement."... this seems
to acknowledge (somewhat) that in light of the physical realities humans
must content with, freewill must choose the most prudent course of action. He
stopped short of addressing the details however, the everyday realities, so
perhaps the following should be added... that there are often prudent reasons
to restrain virtue, to hold it back… even though prudent reasoning may risk one’s
spiritual well-being. Is there a risk? It is a judgment call humans must make
and it seems purposefully intended to define one’s character.
Acts of virtue, graciousness for example, cannot always mirror the
Divine… not just because it is not always prudent, but also because no such
conditions exist in the ethereal in which to compare. Bedeviling virtue are
the earthly things such as peril. pain and hunger. Whether a moral dilemma
or a misguided social perception... is stealing food to avoid starvation
really a crime? There are also evil people one must avoid... and while shunning
them may seem a wicked act in itself, it nonetheless is often prudent. With
prudence often being in charge of survival, it must, at times, overrule
virtue. Wisdom should not be left out of the judicial equation. As a general
rule, Plotinus may not have agreed prudence should overrule virtue however. He
would have agreed, I think, that whether a person is a virtuous person is a
judgment call. It also seems the weightiest testimony would be those good
deeds a person does anonymously. So too, unscrupulousness when nobody is
looking... except, that is, one's seeing-eye conscience is always looking.
Still, as commonly said of the devilish…"'they know better". They
know better because it is inherently ingrained.
So, in the end, who judges the quality of our lifetime judgments? Plotinus
answered this question in various ways but these two paragraphs may best
explain...
"Virtue and Intellectual-Principle are sovereign and must be
held the sole foundation of our self-disposal and freedom; both then are
free; Intellectual-Principle is self-confined: Virtue, in its government
of the soul which it seeks to lift into goodness, would wish to be free;
in so far as it does so it is free and confers
freedom; but inevitably experiences and actions are forced upon it
by its governance: these it has not planned for, yet when they do
arise it will watch still for its sovereignty calling these also to
judgement. Virtue does not follow upon occurrences as a saver of the
emperilled; at its discretion it sacrifices a man; it may decree the
jettison of life, means, children, country even; it looks to its own
high aim and not to the safeguarding of anything lower. Thus our
freedom of act, our self-disposal, must be referred not to the
doing, not to the external thing done but to the inner activity, to
the Intellection, to virtue's own vision." (V6.8.6)
"We can scarcely suppose this understanding faculty to be
unaware that it has understanding; that it takes cognisance of things
external; that in its judgements it decides by the rules and standards
within itself held directly from the Intellectual-Principle; that
there is something higher than itself, something which, moreover, it
has no need to seek but fully possesses. What can we conceive to
escape the self-knowledge of a principle which admittedly knows the
place it holds and the work it has to do? It affirms that it springs
from Intellectual-Principle whose second and image it is, that it
holds all within itself, the universe of things, engraved, so to
say, upon it as all is held There by the eternal engraver. Aware so
far of itself, can it be supposed to halt at that? Are we to suppose
that all we can do is to apply a distinct power of our nature and come
thus to awareness of that Intellectual-Principle as aware of itself?
Or may we not appropriate that principle- which belongs to us as we to
it- and thus attain to awareness, at once, of it and of ourselves?
Yes: this is the necessary way if we are to experience the
self-knowledge vested in the Intellectual-Principle. And a man becomes
Intellectual-Principle when, ignoring all other phases of his being,
he sees through that only and sees only that and so knows himself by
means of the self- in other words attains the self-knowledge which the
Intellectual-Principle possesses." (V5.3.4)
If it can be said that the 'subconscious mind'
(scientific term) is same thing as the 'soul' (spiritual term), then it can be
said one's own subconscious mind hands down the final verdict. Yes, having
memorized everything, our very own subconscious mind will be that which will
either save or condemn us. While capable of being either a savior or traitor
(tattletale), it is otherwise completely neutral and acts according to the
facts... it is called justice. It is the perfect system. Plotinus explains
that humans have the capacity to be in the likeness of God, and what that
entails emanates from the Essential Soul to the individual soul, and such
information is always available to freewill. As said, circumstantial difficulties
can often make striving to be virtuous difficult, and especially troublesome
knowing virtue is the proper path. While this demonstrates virtue is in the
hands of humans, it is also exclusively a human possession. Plotinus states
it doesn't exist in the realm of the Divine in the same way since the realm
has no need for its application... therefore it only exists there as an ideal.
Yet, there seems a statement that virtue is in the hands of humans... it is
godlike. Perhaps it is testimony to the fact. Seemingly an omnipotent possession,
humans being in charge of virtue seems like something from Greek
mythology. It is characteristic of a titan... isn't it? After all, virtue is
powerful stuff... capable of altering lives and social landscapes at will. Let's
play with that. According to Greek mythology, Prometheus, who is considered the
benefactor of mankind, stole fire from heaven in order to give to man to make
him godlike. Prometheus also stole skills from Hephaestus and Athena to give man.
May we dare say virtue was one of these? Of course then (it could be said)... by
the very act of having been stolen, earthly virtue became corrupt. According to
Greek mythology the powerful titans have departed, but not so mythical is that
the vestiges of their legendary power seem instilled in humans.
Purification
While purification is an awful sounding term, reminiscent of the days of the
Spanish Inquisition, it is necessary nonetheless. Today, except within those
countries where the obtuseness of religious fundamentalism still exists,
thankfully it is now a voluntary process. In essence, it is one's vow to discard
their bad habits. However, the act of cleansing has no value as Plotinus
explains…
“If before the impurity entered there was Goodness, the Goodness suffices;
but even so, not the act of cleansing but the cleansed thing that
emerges will be The Good. And it remains to establish what this emergent
is.
It can scarcely prove to be The Good: The Absolute Good cannot be thought to
have taken up its abode with Evil. We can think of it only as something of the
nature of good but paying a double allegiance and unable to rest in the
Authentic Good.” (V1.2.4)
—
“But was not the Soul possessed of all this always, or had it forgotten?
What it now sees, it certainly always possessed, but as lying away
in the dark, not as acting within it: to dispel the darkness, and
thus come to knowledge of its inner content, it must thrust towards
the light.” (V1.2.4)
—
“It will hold itself above all passions and affections.
Necessary pleasures and all the activity of the senses it will employ only
for medicament and assuagement lest its work be impeded. Pain it may combat,
but, failing the cure, it will bear meekly and ease it by refusing assent
to it. All passionate action it will check: the suppression will be
complete if that be possible, but at worst the Soul will never itself
take fire but will keep the involuntary and uncontrolled outside its
precincts and rare and weak at that. The Soul has nothing to dread,
though no doubt the involuntary has some power here too: fear therefore
must cease, except so far as it is purely monitory. What desire there
may be can never be for the vile; even the food and drink necessary
for restoration will lie outside of the Soul's attention, and not
less the sexual appetite: or if such desire there must be, it will
turn upon the actual needs of the nature and be entirely under control;
or if any uncontrolled motion takes place, it will reach no further
than the imagination, be no more than a fleeting fancy.
The Soul itself will be inviolately free and will be working to set
the irrational part of the nature above all attack, or if that may
not be, then at least to preserve it from violent assault, so that
any wound it takes may be slight and be healed at once by virtue of
the Soul's presence, just as a man living next door to a Sage would
profit by the neighbourhood, either in becoming wise and good himself
or, for sheer shame, never venturing any act which the nobler mind
would disapprove.
There will be no battling in the Soul: the mere intervention of Reason
is enough: the lower nature will stand in such awe of Reason that
for any slightest movement it has made it will grieve, and censure
its own weakness, in not having kept low and still in the presence
of its lord.
In all this there is no sin- there is only matter of discipline-
but our concern is not merely to be sinless but to be God.” (V1.2.5-6)
Immortality
While Plotinus dwells on the 'likeness to God' aspect and exactly why
immortality is possible, and while he doesn't preach, he makes it perfectly
clear one's earthly character determines their position (situation) in the
hereafter. And, according to him, all souls have a hereafter. He is also
daringly specific as to the conditions in the afterlife, more-so in the 4th
Ennead, tractates 4-5-7 (54 pages). He is also a believer in reincarnation and
that all living things have a soul... including vegetation. I remain skeptical
on much of this however... because it seems he logically deduced his contentions.
About the afterlife anyway, his words aren't those of someone spiritually
inspired. At that depth, I would trust more a vision. The following are two
examples of his thoughts...
"What, then, will be the Soul's discourse, what its memories in the
Intellectual Realm, when at last it has won its way to that Essence?"
(V4.4.1)
—
"A further consideration is that if every soul is to be held dissoluble
the universe must long since have ceased to be: if it is pretended that one kind
of soul, our own for example, is mortal, and another, that of the All, let us
suppose, is immortal, we demand to know the reason of the difference alleged.
Each is a principle of motion, each is self-living, each touches the same
sphere by the same tentacles, each has intellection of the celestial order and
of the super-celestial, each is seeking to win to what has essential being, each
is moving upwards to the primal source.
Again: the soul's understanding of the Absolute Forms by means of the
visions stored up in it is effected within itself; such perception is
reminiscence; the soul then must have its being before embodiment, and drawing
on an eternal science, must itself be eternal." (V4.7.12)
Whether or not memory is retained in the afterlife Plotinus also addresses and,
to some extent, the sensing capabilities of the
spiritual soul. While fascinating, immortality is really another subject.
So, now in possession of fire and virtue... what other stolen godlike things
does man possess?
A.O. Kime
These incredible books by A.O. Kime are available here!
~ purchase through Amazon, Barnes & Noble or Authorhouse ~
 |
Wisdom from the Golden Ages!
As the ancients did, learn how to discover the secrets of life... |
 |
The real story of the Stone Age!
Learn we didn't evolve from an ape nor crawled from the sea...
|
Ask your bookstore for titles by A.O.
Kime
~ America's finest metaphysician and philosopher ~
click here to read some of his great articles
Don't forget
to check out our featured Guest Authors
This website and contents are explained in our Introduction
>TOP
>HOME
... the place of smoke signals from
the spirit world
| |
A.O. Kime
articles
—AGRICULTURE
Biocontrols
Bio-oddities
DDT ban
Family farmers
Family farms
Farm socialism
Kansas Settlement
—ANTIQUITY
American cavemen
Ancient history
Ancient pyramids
Caveman facts
Caveman story
Cavemen-cultural
Charles Darwin
Cumbemayo
Evolution
Kennewick Man
Montezuma Castle
Neanderthals
Pre-Clovis cultures
Shoofly Village ruins
Stone Age history
Stone Age timelines
Stone Age tools
—METAPHYSICAL
Bodhisattva
Death
Divine
intelligence
Dreams
Enlightenment
Ethics
Guardian angels
Hope
Imagination
Immortality
Instincts
Land (the)
Matrix (real)
Metaphysics
Mnemosyne
Muse
Phenomena
Plotinus
Poetry
Polytheism
Semantics
Sixth sense
Spiritual soul
Spirit world
Subconscious mind
Suicide
Supernatural
—SOCIOPOLITICAL
19th Century
Arrogance
Civil wars
Civilization
Coolness
Economic injustices
Establishment
Foreign policies
Freedom
Globalization
Grand Jury
Herodotus
Int'l Criminal Court
Majority rule
Megalomania
Politesse
Proposition 203
Power lust
Rule of law
Sovereign immunity
Tobacco taxation
War criminals
World wars
|
METAPHYSICS·
ANCIENT HISTORY· SOCIOPOLITICAL ISSUES· AGRICULTURE· DIRECTORIES
