Brief Notes on Various Topics -- 22

1 May 2024

Brief Notes on Various Topics – 22

1.  In my last Brief Notes post, Number 21, I suggested that translators might want to place the antecedent noun where a pronoun is used.  I suggested that it might make at least some passages clearer.  Right after posting this I came across an example of what I am suggesting in Ennead VI.1, translated by A. H. Armstrong:

“But we [Platonists] must investigate how the numbers in and by themselves are substances . . . “ (page 25 of the translation)

The placement of the word ‘Platonists’ in square brackets was done by Armstrong to clarify the sentence by instantiating the noun to which the pronoun, ‘we,’ refers.  I take it that Armstrong felt a need to do this because the preceding argument and discussion has Plotinus referring to Stoics and Peripatetics immediately prior to this statement.  The pronoun ‘we’ is ambiguous because ‘we’ could mean everyone involved in the discussion, philosophers in general, or it could mean a particular group, like Platonists, as it does in this case.

Armstrong uses the procedure of leaving the pronoun but then adding in brackets the implied referent, Platonists.  Armstrong could have written, “But Platonists must investigate how the numbers in and by themselves are substances . . . “  But this would be taking it one step further and translating the pronoun in an indirect way.

It was nice to stumble upon this example of what I was suggesting; it makes me feel that I’m not so far out on a limb regarding this issue.

2.  Platonism begins in dialogue.  It has been an ongoing observation of mine that, in general, people do not know how to have a dialogue or discussion.  I think this is more of an obstacle to accessing Platonism than people seem to consider.  I have noticed a number of common difficulties that keep people from having actual conversations.  First is frequent interruption.  This is very common.  You might be talking to someone about an idea or view, and right in the middle of your sentence the person you are talking with counters with an objection, even before you have finished your thought.  It feels like being tripped.  You can observe this with some interviewers on social media who do not hesitate to interrupt even when there is no point in doing so.

Second is what I have come to refer to as the ‘document dump.’  This happens when someone responds to a question or a view contrary to their own by going on at great length, listing point after point, using up an inordinate amount of time.  This undermines the possibility of dialogue or conversation.  It also makes it almost impossible to respond because if you respond to one point, and then the conversation continues from there, the overall impression is that you have not answered most of the points being raised; that is a primary reason for the use of this strategy.

I don’t think it is necessary to list all of the methods of subverting dialogue; most of them are well-known.  But in conclusion, I have grown to appreciate how rare it is to have a genuine dialogue over philosophical issues and how nourishing it is when such a discussion happens.

3.  I’m agnostic about the idea of the ‘unwritten teachings’ of Plato.  I’m agnostic about it in terms of if they existed at all and if they did exist, how important they were.  I’m not against the idea of orally transmitted teachings because that seems to have been common in Greek spirituality at that time; I’m thinking in particular of the mystery traditions with which Platonism had some affinity.  On the other hand, I think the references that are cited for this idea are not completely convincing.  I think the idea of unwritten teachings, and the status of those teachings, remains an open question.

4.  In my last post of Brief Notes, Number 21, I said that I am not convinced that Plato was a Pagan.  I want to clarify that I don’t think Plato was an atheist with regard to the gods; I think Plato accepted their reality.  The question is whether or not the gods are in some sense ultimate reality and I see Platonism as arguing for an ultimate reality that transcends the gods just as it transcends all material manifestations.  Here I am talking about the gods as popularly conceived in poems, plays, and songs, and in the writings of theologians like Hesiod.  Ultimate reality, the One, is far beyond the gods in that sense.

5.  I have begun reading Plotinus’s Ennead VI.  Ennead VI begins with three long essays (VI.1, VI.2, and VI.3) focused on the basic categories of existence.  In the background of the discussion is Aristotle’s Categories.  The Categories had a big influence on Classical philosophy and continues to have a significant influence on how Western culture views existence.  But there were alternative categorical systems, such as those of the Stoics; and Plotinus himself offers his own, different, categorical structure.  (Ultimately, it was Aristotle’s categories which would win out.  This was partly due to Porphyry’s commentary on Aristotle’s Categories which was translated by Boethius into Latin and was one of the few works of Aristotle available to Europe prior to the reintroduction of Aristotle’s corpus centuries later.)

It is intriguing to me how much attention this very short work of Aristotle received.  There were lots of commentaries written on the Categories in the Classical period.  My feeling is that there is a felt need to come to terms with the almost overwhelming sensory impressions that the world offers us, moment by moment.  Categorical analyses are ways of dealing with this flood of sensory stimulation by simplifying the structure of these impressions.  I also think that in at least some cases, philosophical issues can be resolved, or at least better understood, by understanding a dispute as a categorical confusion rather than a metaphysical confusion.

I have previously said that one of the functions of wisdom is to make clear distinctions.  On a metaphysical level wisdom distinguishes between that which is eternal and that which is ephemeral.  But on a material level, distinctions focus on categorical differences among sensory experiences.  This is an important task for the philosopher and for that reason it makes sense to me that Plotinus would spend considerable energy on this topic.