Search Results
Abstract
The Comment gives corroborative support to Stróżyński’s thesis by using resources from I.6[1].7–9 and VI.5[23].1. The nature of the soul and its ascent to intellect and the One is clarified in I.6[1].7, as the soul’s ascent recaptures its own nature. It identifies not only with intellect, but directly with the One, needing only its own powers, making union with the One within one’s reach and common to all. A barrier to seeing this has been the 19th century description of mysticism as rare and incommunicable. I.6[1].8–9 add both a method of reading texts and the cosmos in ancient mystical fashion and a redefinition of light for seeing the One. In VI.5[23].1, Plotinus provides a fundamental sense of self that captures an ancient wisdom that identifies the self internally with the One not as totally other but as intimately immanent to the soul.
Abstract
Ennead IV 5[29] has been poorly served by translators and commentators, misreporting what Plotinus wrote and, with these mangled results, asserting that this part of his treatise on the “Problems about the Soul” is merely a disjointed series of doxographical fragments with little compelling contribution to make. More careful translation and analysis reveal something strikingly different and original. First, he gives a cogent critique of the theories of Plato and Aristotle concerning the body between and the role of daylight. Second, he substitutes his own account in terms of both sympathy and the principle of two acts, explaining vision both during the day as well as at night, notably deficient in previous accounts. Third, he derives some surprisingly original corollaries about the nature of light and the source of color.