Themes and Variations

18 December 2022

Themes and Variations

I have been reading The Selected Writings of Pierre Hadot: Philosophy as Practice, a collection of previously unpublished (at least in English) essays by Hadot which I think are of interest to contemporary Platonists and Stoics.  In the following quote Hadot starts by naming a number of European scholars, whose names I don’t recognize, and their assumption that classical philosophers like Plato tasked themselves with creating systems in the way that Leibniz, Descartes, Hegel, et al, created philosophical systems.  Hadot takes issue with this view:

“I think this is where the fundamental problem of interpretation of ancient philosophical authors arises.  Did the ancients consider the essential task of philosophy to be the production of written texts presenting a conceptual system?

“First of all, was writing books the principal task of the ancient philosopher?  Victor Goldschmidt seems to have accepted this supposition, when he formulates the postulate upon which the structural method rests.  ‘The structural method,’ he says, ‘places the emphasis incontestably on the written work, as the unique testimony wherein philosophical thought is manifested.’  Apparently, this sentence states something self-evident.  For how, after all, could we know the thought of the ancient philosophers except through their writings?

“However, it seems to me that the error here consists precisely in approaching ancient philosophical writing on the model of the modern philosophical writing.  First of all, these two types of writing are generally very different.  As the linguist Antoine Meillet has written: ‘the impression of slowness that the literary works of antiquity present is due to the fact that they were made for spoken reading.’  One could say that ancient writing has always a more or less oral dimension.  Ancient philosophical writing was particularly tied to orality; it was always tied, in one way or another, to spoken practices, whether because, as in Plato’s and many of the ancient dialogues, philosophical writing tried to give the illusion to the reader that they were participating in a spoken event, or whether because, more generally, the written texts were always intended to be read publicly.  The text was not written as an end in itself.  It was only a point of material support for speech destined to become speech once again, like the modern audio cassette or record, which function as an intermediary between two events: the recording and its replaying.  The spatial simultaneity of the modern written philosophical work is opposed to the temporal succession of ancient speech, delivered through writing.  Modern philosophical writing resembles an architectural monument, in which all the parts coexist: one can go from one to the other to verify their coherence.  By contrast, the ancient philosophical work is more like a musical performance which proceeds by themes and variations.”

(Pierre Hadot, The Selected Writings of Pierre Hadot: Philosophy as Practice, translated by Matthew Sharpe and Federica Testa, Bloomsbury Academic, New York, 2020, pages 56 and 57, ISBN: 9781474272995)

1.  Hadot’s suggestion that writing was not the primary focus of ancient philosophy is an intriguing one.  Socrates and Ammonias Saccas, the teacher of Plotinus, are two examples of philosophers who did not seem to be concerned with leaving behind a written legacy. 

2.  A good example of the oral nature of Platonism is the Orations of Maximus of Tyre, which appear to be set pieces that he would read at various occasions; rather like a theatrical soliloquy. 

3.  According to Porphyry’s biography of Plotinus, Plotinus did not write essays until Plotinus was 49.  Plotinus continued writing from then on until his death; that means Plotinus wrote philosophy for the last 16 years of his life, though he taught for longer than that. 

4.  Along the theme of ancient philosophy being primarily an oral tradition, here is a description of Plotinus’s interaction with students at the school in Rome:

“When he [Plotinus] was speaking his intellect visibly lit up his face: there was always a charm about his appearance, but at these times he was still more attractive to look at: he sweated gently, and kindliness shone out from him, and in answering questions he made clear both his benevolence to the questioner and his intellectual vigour.  Once I, Porphyry, went on asking him for three days about the soul’s connection with the body, and he kept on explaining to me.  A man called Thaumasius came in who was interested in general statements and said that he wanted to hear Plotinus speaking the manner of a set treatise, but could not stand Porphyry’s questions and answers.  Plotinus said, ‘But if when Porphyry asks questions we do not solve his difficulties we shall not be able to say anything at all to put into the treatise.’”

(Porphyry, The Life of Plotinus and Ennead I, translated by A. H. Armstrong, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1966, page 39, ISBN: 9780674994843)

This may indicate that the Enneads have their origin in questions from the students of Plotinus.  Perhaps the Enneads whose topic is the soul owe their origin to this 3-day question and answer marathon.

5.  But Plato did write, and he was a master writer.  There exists a group of scholars who argue that Plato had an ‘oral teaching’, perhaps a kind of esoteric teaching, a teaching that was only offered teacher to student, and that this teaching is central to understanding Platonism.  Other scholars disagree with this interpretation.  I wonder if Hadot has something like this in mind when Hadot interacts with Plato’s writings? 

Hadot argues that the dialogues of Plato read like the record of conversations and in that sense retain a strong connection to orality.  I have read, though I don’t recall the original source at this time, that Plato, before deciding to follow the path of philosophy, wanted to write plays.  Many of the dialogues have a theatrical quality to them; good examples are Phaedo and Symposium.  On the other hand, the literary quality of Plato’s writings would seem to indicate that Plato had at least some interest in putting his thought down on paper.

6.  On the other hand, Plato’s writings exhibit the idea that ancient philosophy was written in a way that resembles that of ‘themes and variations’ found in music.  A good example of this is the topic of beauty.  Two of the dialogues of Plato, Symposium and Phaedrus have beauty as a central focus.  And references to beauty, and closely related topics, are found elsewhere.  Plotinus continues with this way of unpacking the meaning of beauty, writing two Enneads, I.6 and V.8 on beauty, but with numerous digressions about beauty found in other Enneads.  Readers find the same theme and variation approach with discussions about the virtues, forms, hypostases, soul, etc. 

7.  Hadot is suggesting that the primary purpose of ancient philosophy was not the production of texts, or of systems.  What, then, was the primary purpose of ancient philosophy?  In the case of Platonism the primary purpose is to guide practitioners to the transcendental, The Good, The One, The Beautiful, to that which is eternal.  The writings of the Platonic tradition, looked at from this perspective, are guidance that a living teacher needs to unpack and apply for a student to comprehend and internalize.  This makes sense to me.  Understanding non-sensory dimensions of existence is subtle and is easily misunderstood; a good guide will help a student in this kind of awareness in many ways.  More subtle still is that which is beyond all sensation and at the same time the source of all sensory experience.  It is very easy to misunderstand what is meant by The One (I’m speaking from personal experience).  Having a good teacher and guide to this most subtle of understandings is a great good fortune.

8.  In closing I would say, though, that personally I have found the writings of Plato and Plotinus to be a type of living presence, very much like having a living guide.  Understanding these writings as guides requires patience, and bit of plain old endurance, as the reader struggles with new ideas and new ways of living.  But such patience is rewarded by insight, wisdom, and a clear vision of the path that leads to the eternal.