Why I Don't use the Word 'Neoplatonism'

16 January 2023

Why I Don’t Use the Word ‘Neoplatonism’

Recently, on Youtube, I have seen an increased number of uploads, by a variety of youtubers, on the topic of Platonism.  Most of these are focused on Plotinus and what I call ‘Late Classical’ Platonism.  The posts cover a variety of topics such as Plotinus’s relation to Gnosticism, Mysticism, Kabbalah, Theurgy, and contemporary philosophical concerns such as the coherence of materialism.

Uniformly these posts use the word ‘Neoplatonism’ in their presentations and refer to Plotinus as the ‘founder’ or ‘starting point for’ Neoplatonism.  Some of these posts have been coordinated by groups of youtubers and some of these posts are done by individuals.  A small number of youtubers in this group mention in passing that the designation ‘Neoplatonism’ is a modern one, not one that, for example, Plotinus ever used, but then continue to use this designation throughout the rest of their video.

For some reason, I had the idea that the word ‘Neoplatonism’ was falling out of use.  Perhaps that is simply because I am not in touch with academic usage and I just got that impression by relating with other non-academic Platonists.  I’m not sure.  Personally, and many others agree with me, I think the designation is misleading and should be abandoned.  When I want to refer to Platonists of a particular time I tend to use designations that refer to that time period; for example I will use ‘Late Classical Platonism’ or ‘Late Classical Philosophy’.  Here are my reasons:

1.  Plotinus never thinks of himself as anything but a Platonist and never suggests that he is in some way bringing a new understanding of Platonism to the world.  This is also true of people like Porphyry and Maximus of Tyre, as well as other less well-known Platonists from the Late Classical period.  I think the use of the term ‘Neoplatonism’ misrepresents Plotinus et al, because ‘Neoplatonism’ implies that what these philosophers are doing is something new and, by implication, not found in Plato himself; in other words an innovation.  But even those who use the term admit that they did not conceive of themselves in that way.  I think we should defer to their own understanding of themselves and that it is a kind of hubris to impose upon them, especially Plotinus, a name or designation that they could only regard as a misunderstanding of their own purpose and project.

2.  It isn’t only that they (Plotinus, Porphyry, et al) didn’t think of themselves as anything other than Platonists.  No one else thought of them as anything other than Platonists either.  For example, Augustine thought of Plotinus as a Platonist and representative of the Platonic tradition.  And this was also true of Marsillio Ficino who lived in the 15^th century. 

3.  In fact the word ‘Neoplatonism’ is a modern term, coming into usage in the early 19^th century.  In the Wikipedia article on Neoplatonism it says, “Neoplatonism is a modern term.  The term Neoplatonism has a double function as a historical category.  On the one hand it differentiates the philosophical doctrines of Plotinus and his successors from those of Plato.  On the other hand, the term makes an assumption about the novelty of Plotinus’s interpretation of Plato. . . The term Neoplatonism implies that Plotinus’s interpretation of Plato was so distinct from those of his predecessors that it should be thought to introduce a new period in the history of Platonism.  Some contemporary scholars have, however, taken issue with this assumption . . . “

4.  I would like to suggest that the issue at hand is mysticism.  Plotinus is known as a mystic, a contemplative.  But modernity does not like to think of Plato as a mystic, or as primarily a mystic.  In modernity Plato is understood as a proto-analytic philosopher in those dialogues where standard meanings of ideas like holiness are subjected to Socratic examination; or Plato is understood to be a political philosopher and looked at from this view The Republic is understood to be a political treatise; or Plato is understood to be an a specialist in ethics, specifically virtue ethics, etc. 

The mystical elements in Plato’s philosophy are either reinterpreted so that they are not seen as mystical, or they are marginalized as backwards relics from a bygone era.  In this way Plato and Plotinus are distinguished from each other.  Plato has in his philosophy elements of what would become modernism, according to this view, but Plotinus does not.

5.  The traditional view is that Plato was a mystic; that is how the Classical World viewed him, as well as many subsequent centuries of commentators.  And that is why the Classical World did not distinguish between Plato and Plotinus as to their affiliation; Plotinus was a disciple, or spokesman for Platonism, rooted in the Platonic tradition and heritage and dedicated to bringing that heritage, in an undistorted manner, to his students. 

6.  ‘Neoplatonism’ brings with it too many distortions of the Platonic tradition to be useful.  It is a distorting lens rather than a clarifying category.  As mentioned before in this blog, Platonism can best be understood as a spiritual tradition rather than a philosophy as modernists understand philosophy.  This understanding of Platonism as a spiritual tradition is gaining some traction, particularly since the works of Pierre Hadot have appeared.  But it seems to be still a minority view. 

I would like to see a return to this view of Platonism as a spiritual, or even a religious, tradition.  One small step in a return to this understanding is to reject the idea of ‘Neoplatonism’ and all that it implies.