P O R P H Y R Y And the Platonic-Aristotelian Tradition by Charles J. Rappé M.A.,Ph.D. Erstgutachter: Prof. Dr. Friedrich A. Uehlein Zweitgutachter: Prof. Dr. Gunter Figal Vorsitzender des Promotionsausschusses des Gemeinsamen Ausschusses der Philosophischen Fakultäten I-IV: Prof. Dr. Anz Datum der Fachprüfung im Promotionsfach: 18.11.2002 Table of Contents Preface------------------------------------------6 Introduction-------------------------------------7 Notes-------------------------------------------16 Chapter One: Porphyry and the Early Hellenic Culture---------19 1. Epistle to Anebo-----------------------------19 2. On the Cave of the Nymphs--------------------22 3. The Life of Pythagoras/ Introduction---------35 3.a. A Pythagorean Canon------------------------38 3.b. Orphism, the Mystery Religion--------------41 3.c. Porphyry’s Pythagoras----------------------42 4. Concluding Remarks---------------------------45 Notes----------------------------------------46 Chapter Two: Plato’s Relation and Contribution to Porphyry---52 Introduction------------------------------------52 1. Plato’s Doctrine of the Soul-----------------53 1.1. The Theory of Ideas------------------------53 1.1.a. Some Clarification of the Word Idea------55 1.2. The One and the Indefinite Dyad------------57 1.3. Was Plato’s Viewpoint Dualistic?-----------65 1.4. Knowledge through Dialectics---------------67 2 1.5. On the Nature of the Soul------------------69 1.5.a. Truth/Knowledge Connatural to Soul-------70 1.5.a.1. Knowledge as Catharsis-----------------73 1.5.a.2. The Philosopher Daemon-----------------75 1.5.b. Man as Soul------------------------------81 1.5.b.1. The Origin and Essence of Psyche-------83 1.5.b.2. Dualism in Man?------------------------89 1.5.c. The World Soul---------------------------94 1.5.c.1. The Belief in the individual soul------98 1.5.c.2. Is Plato the Founder of Acosmism?------99 2. The Transition to Middle Platonism and its Concept of Soul/ Introduction-----------100 2.1. Albinus’ Doctrine of the Soul-------------106 2.2. Numenius and Psyche-----------------------107 3. The Soul according to Porphyry / Introduction--------------------------------109 3.1. Soul’s Relation to the Body---------------110 3.1.a. To Gaurus, on the Way the Embryo Receives the Soul-----------------------116 3.2. Soul and its Elements---------------------121 3.3. The Soul’s Uncoupling from Body-----------123 3.4. From Psyche to Nous-----------------------125 4. Concluding Remarks--------------------------128 Notes------------------------------------------130 Chapter Three: Porphyry and Aristotle-------------------------141 Introduction-----------------------------------141 1. Commentaries on Aristotle’s Logic-----------145 A. Isagoge----------------------------------145 3 B. On Aristotle Categories------------------151 C. Modern Ramifications of UPR, universale post rem----------------------157 2. Simplicius’ Fragments and Testimony: concerning Porphyry’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics—------------------------159 A. Hellenic Philosophy of Nature------------160 B. Porphyry’s Commentary--------------------163 3. Concluding Remarks--------------------------166 Notes---------------------------------------167 Chapter Four: Porphyry and Plotinus--------------------------171 Introduction-----------------------------------171 1. Porphyry in the School of Plotinus----------172 2. Main Similarities and Differences between Porphyry and Plotinus-----------------------175 Notes---------------------------------------178 Chapter Five: Porphyry’s Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides----180 Introduction-----------------------------------180 1. Preliminary Context-------------------------181 1.a. The Hypotheses of the Parmenides----------181 1.b. Ontological Difference: in light of the Sophist-------------------182 4 1.c. The Neoplatonic Interpretation of the Hypotheses-------------------------184 2. Synoptic Analysis of Porphyry’s Commentary Fragments------------------------185 3. The One simply One--------------------------189 3.1. Negative and Positive Theology------------189 3.2. The One as Pure Indeterminate Being-------190 3.2.1. The Will of the One---------------------191 3.2.2. The Twofold Status of Intelligence------193 3.2.3. Neoplatonic Triad-----------------------197 4. The One which is: Determinate Being---------201 Notes---------------------------------------203 Afterword--------------------------------------208 Notes---------------------------------------210 Addenda----------------------------------------211 Proclus’ Parmenides Commentary-----------------211 Notes------------------------------------------217 Bibliography-----------------------------------218 5 Preface I would like to express first of all my gratitude to my doctoral advisor, Prof. Friedrich A. Uehlein. It is appropriate for me to say that this study owes much to his subtle and lucid suggestions. In the following we shall endeavor to enhance Porphyry’s contribution to Neoplatonism by examining his position vis-à-vis a number of thinkers both prior and immediately subsequent to him in the hope of complementing recent studies which in my opinion have polished his hitherto lackluster role as an original philosopher in this current of thought. The reasons for dedicating such an enquiry are stated in the introduction. The Greek terms tÕ Ôn, ei\\nai are respectively rendered into English as being and Being. Where specifically indicated, translations here are my own, (CR). Unless otherwise stated quotations from Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus are drawn from: a) The Dialogues of Plato, translated by B. Jowett, Oxford 1892, b) The Basic works of Aristotle, ed. by R. Mckeon, New York 1941, c) Plotinus, The Enneads, translated by S. MacKenna, Oxford 1969. A key to the name symbols is contained by the respective author/work in the bibliography. C.J.Rappé Freiburg i.Br. 6 Introduction OÙkoàn e„ ›teron meVn ¹ oÙs…a, ›teron deV tÕ ›n, oÜte tù ›n tÕ ›n tÁj oÙs…aj ›teron oÜte tù oÙs…a ei\nai ¹ oÙs…a toà ˜nÕj ¥llo, ¢ll¦ tù ˜tšrJ te kaˆ ¥llJ ›tera ¢ll»lwn- If Being and the One be two different things, it is not because the One is One that it is other than Being; nor because Being is Being that it is other than the One; but they differ from one another in virtue of otherness and difference-(1) It can be surely affirmed that the above passage is representative of a continuous line of thought beginning with Plato and still echoing its fateful possibilities of interpretation to anyone doing any serious philosophy. The alternative to this Platonic theory in classical Greek doctrine where the One basically transcends Being (™pškeina tÁj oÙs…aj) (2) is Aristotle’s ontology in which we find the primacy of Being and the forgetfulness of the metaphysical One of his teacher with its due implications for western thought, “But since there is something which moves while itself unmoved, existing actually, this can in no way be otherwise than as it is (…). The first mover, then, exists of necessity, and in so far as it exists by necessity, its mode of being is good, and it is in this sense a first principle“(3). Therefore primary Being is ¢rc», or first principle of the Aristotelian eternal cosmos and 7 the science, episteme, which investigates being qua being, tÕ ×n Î Ôn, together with the relations of non-being and becoming is metaphysics, or Prèth filosof…a (4). With these preliminary concepts which epitomize previous schools of thought (5), Aristotle discusses other known categories such as one, many, the same, like and unlike (6). a) A Paradigm of a multifaceted Outlook Porphyry was born in Tyre, a town and ancient Phoenician seaport on the coast of Lebanon 233/4 and died in Rome 305. Until recently he was known in the history of philosophy as a polymath, disciple and editor of Plotinus. In 1913 J. Bidez wrote the first comprehensive study on Porphyry. His portrait of the man is not so flattering but nevertheless it stuck for a while. “Porphyry…is one of those people whose extreme easiness to assimilate someone else’s ideas diminishes greatly any originality. If one wanted to describe him with expressions used for a contemporary writer he would say of him that he had the vivid and quick mind of an excellent journalist, a swift pen, sharp scissors and that he put these tools in turn at the service indeed of the gullibility and superstition of oriental cults, the scientific and literary critique of Longinus, and finally the religiousness of Plotinus. In what we have left of his writings, there is not a single thought, an image, of which it can be affirmed that it was his own. Not only did he contradict himself as he got older and discovered new thinkers and places, but also during the most beautiful and prolific period of his life, as he was under the influence of Plotinus, he was not even capable of setting up (between the various aspects of his intelligence) rapid and complete links so as to put an end to discrepancies and let harmony rule” (7). 8 As we shall see this judgement does not render justice to our philosopher. b) Literary and Philosophical Works In addition to his commentaries on Plato and Aristotle (8), his most influential work remains Isagoge, or an introduction to Aristotle’s Categories. This book became the basis for the teaching of logic throughout the Middle Ages and it was responsible for the dispute over universals beginning with Boethius, who translated it into Latin, down to Abelard (8a). Porphyry was also an important reference point for Renaissance Platonists. Ficino, for instance, translated him together with Plotinus. Although not much survives of his sizable output, indirectly it has been possible to reconstruct certain works from writers whom he influenced such as Victorinus and Augustine. In fact from the church father’s City of God fragments have been obtained (from Wolff in 1856 and Bidez in 1913) allegedly from his Philosophia ex Oraculis haurienda and De Regressu Animae, respectively (8b). Andrew Smith (9) cites Dörrie’s extractions of Porphyry’s Symmikta Zetemata from Nemesius’ De Natura Hominis. The outcome seems to reshape Bidez’ above conclusions, that he was an unimaginative thinker, since Porphyry is here making use of Stoic terminology in talking about Neoplatonic arguments on the correlation between body and soul in a manner not dealt with in Plotinus’ Enneads. Smith brings on a more interesting aspect when mentioning Hadot’s attribution to Porphyry of an anonymous Neoplatonic commentary on Plato’s Parmenides. Here a new relationship of the One and Being emerges. Hadot’s findings were first published in 1961 and later discussed in the “Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique“, sponsored by the Hardt Foundation of 9