The Metaphysics of Eros in Plotinus, Proclus and the Pseudo-Dionysius
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This electronic thesis or dissertation has been downloaded from the King’s Research Portal at https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/ Neoplatonic Love The Metaphysics of Eros in Plotinus, Proclus and the Pseudo-Dionysius Vasilakis, Dimitrios Awarding institution: King's College London The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without proper acknowledgement. END USER LICENCE AGREEMENT Unless another licence is stated on the immediately following page this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ You are free to copy, distribute and transmit the work Under the following conditions: Attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Non Commercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes. No Derivative Works - You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. Any of these conditions can be waived if you receive permission from the author. Your fair dealings and other rights are in no way affected by the above. Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 30. Sep. 2021 This electronic thesis or dissertation has been downloaded from the King’s Research Portal at https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/ Title: Neoplatonic Love: The Metaphysics of Eros in Plotinus, Proclus and the Pseudo-Dionysius Author: Dimitrios Vasilakis The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without proper acknowledgement. END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ You are free to: Share: to copy, distribute and transmit the work Under the following conditions: Attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Non Commercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes. No Derivative Works - You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. Any of these conditions can be waived if you receive permission from the author. Your fair dealings and other rights are in no way affected by the above. Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Dimitrios A. Vasilakis Neoplatonic Love: The Metaphysics of Eros in Plotinus, Proclus and the Pseudo-Dionysius PhD Thesis in Philosophy Primary Supervisor: Professor Peter Adamson King’s College London July 2014 Abstract This thesis examines the notion of Love (Eros) in key texts of the Neoplatonic philosophers Plotinus (204/5–270 C.E), Proclus (c.412–485 C.E.) and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (late 5th-early 6th cent.). In the first chapter I discuss Plotinus’ treatise devoted to Love (Enneads,III.5) and I attempt to show the ontological importance of Eros within the Plotinian system. For Plotinus for an entity (say Soul) to be/exist is to be erotic, i.e. be directed to the intelligible realm. Hence, one of the conclusions is that Love implies deficiency, and, thus, it takes place in a vertical scheme, where an inferior entity has eros for its higher progenitor. If this is so, then Proclus apparently diverges greatly from Plotinus, because in his Commentary on the First Alcibiades Proclus clearly states that inferior entities have reversive (/upwards) eros for their superiors, whereas the latter have providential (/downwards) eros for their inferiors. Thus, the project of my second chapter is to analyze Proclus’ position and show that in fact he does not diverge much from Plotinus; the former only explicates something that is already implicit in the latter. The first part of my discussion emphasizes the ethical aspect, whereas the second deals with the metaphysical aspect. Finally, in the third chapter I examine pseudo-Dionysius’ treatment of God as Eros in his work On the Divine Names. One motivation was the verdict of a number of old scholars that the Areopagite is a 2 plagiarizer of Proclus. Still, the examination of Eros is a characteristic case, where one can ascertain Dionysius’ similarities and divergences from Proclus. Supported by recent literature, we can suggest that Dionysius uses more of a Proclean language (cf. providential and reversive eros), rather than Proclean positions, owing to ontological presuppositions that differentiate the Neoplatonic philosopher from the Church Father. Proclus forms the bridge between pagan Neoplatonism (Plotinus) and Christian philosophy (pseudo- Dionysius). 3 To my father 4 CONTENTS Introduction…………………………………………………………………….7 1. Plotinus and Enneads III.5.[50]: “On Love”……………………………...13 1.1. The ontological status of Soul’s Eros………………………......13 1.1.1. Synopsis of III.5………………………………………...13 1.1.2. The main issue………………………………………….16 1.1.3. Eros and Myth………………………………………….21 1.1.4. Eros and Vision………………………………………...33 1.1.5. Eros and Tragedy………………………………………40 1.1.6. Eros and vision, again…………………………………48 1.2. Potential objections and answers………………………………53 1.2.1. Unity of theme…………………………………………53 1.2.2. On daimonology……………………………………….57 1.2.3. A daimonic counter-objection from within III.5?.......62 1.2.4. Eros and Soul: who is first? ………………………......64 1.3. Nous and Eros……………………………………………………69 1.4. Conclusions………………………………………………………78 2. Proclus on the First Alcibiades…………………………………………......91 2.1. Providential and Reversive eros: Proclus versus Plotinus?.....94 5 2.1.1. From Alcibiades’ reversive eros to Socratic love…...94 2.1.2. From eros to the Demiurge and the statesman…….104 2.1.3. From Platonic eros to Aristotelian friendship………114 2.1.4. Limiting the scope: from eros to providential eros…123 2.1.5. Qualifying love: from manic eros to undefiled eros..136 2.2. Locating Eros in the intelligible hierarchy…………………….155 2.2.1. Divine Eros and its function…………………………..155 2.2.2. Eros as a mediator……………………………………...167 2.2.3. After Eros……………………………………………….173 2.2.4. Before Eros……………………………………………...179 2.2.5. Eros and Friendship……………………………………192 3. Pseudo-Dionysius and the Divine Names………………………………..........200 3.1. Divine Eros and its function…………………………………….206 3.1.1. God and Eros: causally or existentially?......................207 3.1.2. After God: Eros by participation………………….......228 3.2. The Christianization of Eros? …………………………………..240 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….255 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………..........258 6 INTRODUCTION Nowadays many people talk about Platonic Love; in this thesis I present how the Neoplatonists understood it. Given that Eros plays a central role in Plato’s thought,1 it is not surprising that the same is true for Neoplatonic philosophy. My treatment attempts to show this significance. I will be focusing on three key figures: Plotinus, the acknowledged founder of Neoplatonism, Proclus, a great systematizer of Platonic philosophy, and pseudo-Dionysius, who has affinities with Neoplatonism even if (in my view at least) he is fundamentally a Christian thinker. By juxtaposing Dionysius the Areopagite with the two earlier Neoplatonists, I will be able to explore the question of how Platonic love interacted with Christian love and how ancient Greek and pagan conceptions of eros survived in the Christian and especially Byzantine tradition, of which Dionysius is a cornerstone. Love has of course attracted attention not only in contemporary systematic philosophy,2 but also in the field of the history of philosophy.3 There have been several studies examining love 1 Apart from works to be referred to in the following chapters two classic studies about Platonic love are Robin [1933] and Gould [1963], while for more recently see Price [1989], pp.1-102 and 207-235. See also O’Connell [1981], esp. pp.11-17, Halperin [1985], Rhodes [2003] and the introductory piece by Κάλφας [2008]. Platonic love is related to death by Maraguianou [1990],pp.3-26 and 49-69, and compared to Freud by Χριστοδουλίδη-Μαζαράκη [1983] and Santas [1988], as well as Kahn [1987],pp.95-102, from a wider perspective. 2 See for instance the relevant entry and its Bibliography in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP). 3 See May [2011], Rist [1964], Osborne [1994] and Düsing [2009]. 7 INTRODUCTION especially in Plotinus,4 but also in Proclus5 and in the pseudo- Dionysius.6 There have been also some short treatments which make a comparison between them.7 However, to my knowledge there do not 4 On the one hand, there are studies which examine specifically Enn.III.5: Wolters [1984], Dillon [1969] and Smith [2007]. On the other hand, there are discussions with wider scope in Plotinus’ metaphysics: Lacrosse [1994], Pigler [2002], Δαμάσκος [2003] and Rist [1964],pp.56-112. See also Romano [1984], Kelessidou-Galanos [1972],pp.98-100 and Ucciani [1998], each of them with more specific focus. 5 See Τερέζης [2002]. Prof. P. Hoffmann has informed me that the subject of D’Andres [2010] is very close to the thematic of my Proclus-chapter. (This PhD thesis, written under the supervision of A. Longo, has private on-line access and I have not examined it.) What is more, M. Martijn has told me that she intends to turn a lecture of her entitled “The Demon Lover. Inspired love in Proclus’ In Alc.” (read at the 9th ISNS 2011 Conference in Atlanta and at the International Conference “Ἀρχαί: Proclus Diadochus of Constantinople and his Abrahamic Interpreters”, Istanbul, Dec.