Chapter 8 Femininity in Porphyry’s On Abstinence
In: Women and the Female in NeoplatonismSearch for other papers by Miira Tuominen in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Abstract
At first sight, an ideal philosopher emerging from Porphyry’s argument in his On Abstinence, seems like the epitome of a man of reason: exemplifying detachment from the body almost to the point of punishment and living a life of intellect free from affections of the soul and the body, i.e., emotions and to an extent even sense-perceptions. One might expect that this view of an ideal philosophical life is combined with a theory of femininity being inferior to masculinity. However, I shall argue that although Porphyry analyzes female and male principles as opposites in the treatise, the female principle is not portrayed as being inferior to the male one. Moreover, although there is a striking difference between the attitude one should take toward bodies of different kinds, protectiveness of harmless animals and even plants combined with almost pathological austerity towards one’s own body, this is not due to inexplainable hostility towards the symbolical feminine (the body) as such. Rather, the difference derives from the ethical core of Porphyry’s argument. It is embodiment that puts us in the precarious position in which we need to use animate creatures for nourishment. Although it is possible to refrain from eating meat, we have to use plants and their lives to preserve our own.