Brief Notes on Various Topics -- 62

1 September 2025

Brief Notes on Various Topics – 62

1.  Porphyry and Spinoza

There seems to be a renewed interest in Porphyry; I say this because of recent publication of some of his works by University publishers.  Some of these are scholarly studies of particular works, or essays on Porphyry’s role in the Classical World during his lifetime.  Just a month or so ago David Litwa published an edition of Porphyry’s Against the Christians containing the remaining fragments found in various sources.  Later this year I believe there will be published an edition of Porphyry’s Letter to Anebo that includes the material found in On the Mysteries by Iamblichus, and quotes from Eusebius and others, including some Latin sources.  I find this encouraging.

I see Porphyry as someone who had to carefully negotiate the radical changes that were taking place in the classical world and which threatened his scholarly activity.  The first was the rise of Christianity which Porphyry was strongly critical of.  Porphyry’s book, Against the Christians was condemned by three Christian Roman Emperors who consigned it to the flames.  We only have quoted portions of the book remaining.

The second hostile group were the theurgists, represented by Iamblichus.  Details vary about the relationship between the two; some say Iamblichus was a student of Porphyry, others suggest that their relationship was different than that, perhaps something like two University Professors who reside at different Universities.  But the point is that just as Porphyry took issue with the Christians, Porphyry also took issue with the theurgists and the misinterpretation of Platonism that they were advocating for (similar to the criticism Plotinus had of Gnosticism). 

I see Porphyry as kind of surrounded by those whose vision of philosophy, spirituality, and ultimate nature, differed from his own.  Both the Christians and Iamblichus were openly irritated with Porphyry for different reasons, but, on the other hand, the differences focused on the same topics such as the nature of purification.

The comparison that came to my mind was Spinoza who also faced displeasure from multiple sources.  In the case of Spinoza the hostility came from both the Jewish and Christian communities; one of the results of this hostility is that Spinoza did not publish his magnum opus, Ethics, during his life because his approach and philosophy had already engendered controversy.

There is another area of similarity between Porphyry and Spinoza; both were pioneers in historical textual criticism.  It was Porphyry who first suggested, on the basis of text critical analysis, that the Book of Daniel was written much later than was thought.  Claims like this made the religious communities of Porphyry’s time angry.  More than 1,000 years later, Spinoza would also use text critical procedures on the Bible and ran into similar trouble because of this.  (As an aside, these similarities make me wonder if Porphyry might have taken rebirth as Spinoza.)

Clashes with religious authorities is a regular occurrence in the history of philosophy going all the way back to Socrates.  I think that this teaches us something profound about the nature of the transcendent and how difficult it is for people to incorporate the transcendent into their lives.

2.  Stephen Batchelor’s Latest Book

A friend of mine sent me a copy of Stephen Batchelor’s latest book, Buddha, Socrates, and Us.  Batchelor has been writing books about Buddhism for many decades; probably since the 1970’s.  My friend thought I would be interested in this particular book because Batchelor’s purpose in the book is to compare the teachings of the Buddha with the teachings of Socrates.  As Batchelor puts it in his ‘Prologue’ he wanted to view Socrates through a Buddhist lens and at the same time view the Buddha through a Socratic lens.  Because I have a long history of Buddhist practice and study my friend thought I would be interested in reading about another Westerner who has found nourishment in Greek philosophy after a long encounter with Buddhism.

It is surprising to me, but there seem to be more than a few people who have taken this journey from Buddhism to Western philosophy; usually to ancient Greek philosophy, most often Plato but sometimes to Stoicism, or the Presocratics.  And my friend is right, it does feel validating to see that others have also made this kind of journey.

I have been familiar with Batchelor for a long time.  My favorite book of his is The Faith to Doubt which is about Korean Soen (Zen) Buddhism.  I think it is the best introduction to that Korean tradition in English.

On the other hand, I have gone a very different direction than Batchelor has.  Batchelor is one of the founders of the movement called ‘Secular Buddhism’ which has become widespread in the West.  Batchelor argues that a completely secular version of Buddhism is closer to what the Buddha actually taught than the Buddhism taught in various traditions today; and Batchelor likes to present the Buddha as someone who was only interested in ethics rather than transcendence.  This is very appealing to a secular society but is a view of Buddhism that I find troublesome both for Buddhism and the West.

What Batchelor rejects is the possibility of transcendence (and in Buddhism that means rejecting Nirvana).  In terms of his understanding of Socrates, this means presenting Socrates as nothing more than a teacher of ethics (like the Buddha image he has constructed) and arguing that the teachings of Socrates has no metaphysical component.  He therefore considers Plato’s metaphysical writings as a distortion of the teachings of Socrates rather than a continuation and unpacking of what Socrates taught.

I see this way of looking at Socrates (and the Buddha) as yet another manifestation of the anti-metaphysical views so prevalent in our society at this time.  The anti-metaphysical bias is so widespread that it is difficult for people to step away from this bias (which they don’t see as a bias) and take a look at it. 

In a way, metaphysics is unable to defend itself from this bias against metaphysics because metaphysics begins with transcendental intuitions and the anti-metaphysical stance rejects the idea of the transcendental as well as the idea of meaningful intuitions.  The best defense of metaphysics is to simply proceed with a metaphysically grounded philosophy; a famous example of that is Whitehead in the early 20^th century.  Another aspect of such a defense is to reconnect with the source texts of the metaphysical tradition which means reconnecting with the Dialogues of Plato.  This provides the insights, intuitions, and nourishment for our soul and for a life based on the first things of metaphysics, of transcendental reality, of the presence of eternity.

3.  Porphyry’s Sentences

Continuing with the Sentences of Porphyry, here is Sentence 8:

That which nature binds, nature also dissolves: and that which the soul binds, the soul likewise dissolves.  Nature, indeed, bound the body to the soul; but the soul binds herself to the body.  Nature, therefore, liberates the body from the soul; but the soul liberates herself from the body.  (Thomas Taylor)

What nature has bound, Nature also looses; and what the soul has bound, that it also looses.  Now Nature bound the body to the soul, but the soul bound itself to the body.  Nature, accordingly, looses the body from the soul; but the soul looses itself from the body.  (Thomas Davidson)

Nature releases what nature has bound.  The soul releases what the sou has bound.  Nature binds the body to the soul, but it is the soul herself that has bound herself to the body.  It, therefore, belongs to nature to detach the body from the soul, while it is the soul herself that detaches herself from the body.  (Kenneth Guthrie)

What nature has bound, nature dissolves, and what the soul has bound, it can dissolve; thus, nature has bound the body to the soul, and the soul has bound itself to the body.

Thus, nature separates the body from the soul, and the soul separates from the body.  (Isaak Samarskyi)

3.1  This sentence is focused on the relationship between the soul and body and more specifically on how they are connected to each other and how they separate from each other.  This is an important discussion in Platonism, going back to Phaedo, because in that dialogue Socrates talks about separating the soul from the body as the primary task of philosophers.  It is through separating the soul from the body that we can attain the experience of non-material realities both noetic and transcendental.

3.2  I read the word ‘nature’ in this sentence as meaning that which is ‘material’, the realm of nature is the material realm.  The binding and unbinding (or dissolving) that takes place in nature is, in my reading, the becoming and begoning of things.  Things appear (are bound) and things disappear (are unbound or dissolved).  This is the process of cyclic existence.

3.3  The soul binds us to non-material realities by making us aware of their presence and beauty.  The soul dissolves this binding, or connection, when it is distracted by material realities, or becomes forgetful of non-material realities.

It is like being bound to daily or weekly routines, but then one day we forget one of those routines; and it surprises us how our commitment to that routine has dissolved.

3.4  Porphyry expresses the idea that nature and the soul both participate in binding themselves to each other.  I think this helps us understand why separating the soul from the body is a difficult task because both soul and body are, in a sense, responsible for what feels like a union of the two. 

If one understands nature as consisting of ephemeral things, and understands the soul as the presence of eternity, then what is being suggested is that the ephemeral and the eternal are bound together and that both eternity and ephemeral nature participate in the process that binds them.  I think ephemeral things are bound to the eternal because there is an innate desire to escape our ephemeral nature.  The eternal is bound to the ephemeral because of the everywhere and everywhen nature of the soul; in other words, the soul doesn’t make a conscious decision to be bound to the ephemeral, the soul is bound to the ephemeral due to what it means to be eternal.

3.5  Nature liberates the body from the soul when it realizes that the soul is the presence of eternity for it is the eternal that all living beings long for.  The soul liberates herself from the body when she realizes that the body is an add-on to eternity.

4.  AI’s Gaps in the Past

The other day I decided to ask several AI sites what are the essential books about metaphysics in the Western Philosophical tradition?  Each of the sites came up with about ten books.  Aristotle’s Metaphysics came up, of course; usually at the head of the list.  Plotinus was not on any of the lists.  Augustine appears.  Boethius does not.

What I spotted right away, is a long gap after Augustine and, sometimes, Aquinas.  The next books to appear are early modern works such as Descartes and Spinoza.  However, the Cambridge Platonists do not appear who were highly critical of Descartes and Spinoza. 

The medieval period is not really represented.  And the selection of modern works is tilted toward works critical of metaphysics as opposed to those works that participate in the tradition.  For example, Whitehead’s Process and Reality does not appear, but Heidegger’s Being and Time does.

This does not surprise me; I was kind of expecting it but hoping I was wrong.  I’m confident that online AI searches are simply reflecting the way metaphysics is treated in institutions of higher learning today.  It is one of the most prominent features of modernity that it views itself as more advanced than the past.  In the case of metaphysics, some ancient works get on the list because their historical influence is so pervasive they cannot be ignored.  But when those are listed, modernity quickly moves on to modernity which is the only period that is really important in academic settings today.

I’m not complaining; rather I think there is something to be learned by Platonists in this kind of situation.  And that is that if we are going to pursue a philosophical life as Plato offers, and as Plotinus illuminates, we will have to rely on each other to do so.  It is unlikely that such a pursuit will be encouraged by the dominant institutions of learning at this time.  I don’t find this discouraging.

5.  It is very difficult to extricate one’s self from the violence, hatred, ignorance, and injustice that permeates the experience of being human.  Platonism offers us guidance for finding a way out of being trapped in this situation.  It is not easy to follow this guidance but it is worthwhile.