1 December 2025
Brief Notes on Various Topics – 75
1. This marks the 75th post in the ‘Brief Notes’ series. I feel a bit celebratory about it. When I started this blog most of what I posted were longer posts about specific topics, unpacking my understanding of the Platonist tradition. Gradually the ‘Brief Notes’ format took over; I think that is because I find it a congenial way of expressing myself. As I have mentioned before, this blog is more like a diary with a focus on Platonism than it is a technical treatise or analysis. I find myself satisfied with this approach; I think it is more ‘conversational’ in tone and more open to new discoveries as I pursue the Path of Platonism.
2. The Council of Florence
From 1438 to 1445 a Council was held in Florence, Italy. The purpose of the Council was to heal the rift between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The Council actually started the year before in Ferrara but was moved to Florence for, I have read, financial reasons.
David Horan, who released his translation of the Dialogues of Plato in 2024 or 2025, gave a talk in which he reviewed the Council and the significant role the Council played in bringing back to Europe the Platonic Corpus. The works of Plato were brought to Florence by an Orthodox Christian known as Gemistos Plethon. Plethon was a very controversial Philosopher and theologian who held many Pagan views (as he understood Paganism). He was Greek and I think he was able to thread his way through opposition to his controversies by appealing to a kind of Hellenism that was rooted in Greek thought and culture. I’m not sure how, but Plethon was invited to the Council and Plethon showed up with a copy of the Dialogues. According to Horan, Plethon gave a stunning and impassioned talk about Plato which appears to have had a big impact on his audience. One person in his audience was Cosimo de Medici. (I have read alternative versions of this history who have the view that Medici was not in actual attendance but in some manner learned of the talk given by Plethon.) One of the results of these events is that the copy of the Dialogues that Plethon brought with him to the Council was left in Florence when the Council ended. Cosimo de Medici used this copy as the basis for setting up a kind of Platonic Academy that would be the home of Ficino who would translate the Dialogues into Latin and from there would spread throughout Europe.
Horan pointed out that the goal of the Council of Florence was not met; the Orthodox and Catholic Christian Churches did not overcome their differences and other, less significant issues, were not resolved either. Although a document between those present who were Orthodox and those who were Catholic which could have formed a basis for reconciliation, it was never taken to heart by those in power on either side and for that reason had no effect.
Horan pointed out that the spread of Platonism into Europe was not on the Council’s agenda. Nevertheless, that was the significant result. This means that the stated human aim of the Council was not brought to fruition, but a completely unstated purpose was brought to fruition; that of bringing the Dialogues of Plato back to Western Europe.
Horan does not quite say explicitly that there was a divine hand working at the Council, but what I took away from Horan’s lecture, particularly the part focusing on the Council, is that this is a good example of Providence at work. It is my view that the Dialogues of Plato are intimately connected with the fully transcendental, with eternity and for this reason it does not surprise me that episodes like the one Horan spoke of happen, now and then, in the history of Platonism.
3. Translations
There is an often-quoted Italian proverb that goes “traduttore, traditore.” It means something like “translator, traitor,” indicating that all translations in some way betray the work they are translating.
I have gradually come to a different perspective on this issue. I see translations as commentaries on the original rather than betrayals of the original.
4. Historical Drift
I was reading a book about Julian the Apostate that stated that Julian was not familiar with Plotinus. I did some online research to see if this was an accurate assessment and what I found is that Julian is not known to have quoted Plotinus, nor does he seem to be aware of distinguishing features of Plotinus as a Platonist. This means that when Julian refers to himself as a Platonist Julian is making this assertion based on his reading of the works of Iamblichus and, in addition, the Chaldean Oracles (which appear to have occupied a significant place in Julian’s understanding), and other theurgical sources. This has helped me to understand why Julian places such a strong emphasis on theurgy and why he engaged in animal sacrifices with such gruesome enthusiasm. It does not appear that Julian had any countervailing sources at hand.
I think this is a good example of how history unfolds in such a way as to alter intellectual and spiritual traditions. Though there is an historical connection between Orthodox Platonism and Theurgic Platonism, this is a causal connection, not an intellectual connection because the intellectual connection has been severed. When I say there is a causal connection I mean that we can map out the significant Platonists and their writings and we can understand how there is this kind of causal connection up to Julian. But by the time Platonism reaches Julian it is a deformed Platonism that was available.
Think of it this way; think of something like a Rose Society. It starts out with a focus on roses and its members and significant leaders all share that focus. Over time, though, some members shift the focus of the group to other plants; first to other flowers, then to other types of plants like trees, and so forth. After a long time passes, someone who connects with this society may have no idea that the original purpose of the group was to further the cultivation of, and our knowledge of, roses and spend all their time studying and cultivating birch trees thinking that this is completely in sync with the rose society that they know. There is a causal connection between the original rose society and the transformed rose society that focuses on birch trees, but the intellectual (and I’m using intellectual in broad terms, not just in the sense of isolated ideas) link has been broken. This break doesn’t happen dramatically; in some cases it may be barely noticeable at first. But over time the transformation is complete.
5. Regarding the Soul
I’ve become more aware that my thinking about the soul in some ways diverges from what I find in traditional Platonic literature. I view the soul as the presence of eternity in the ephemeral individual. And I see this eternity as the presence of the Good and the One in the ephemeral individual. I see it this way because I regard the Good and the One as eternity as such; in contrast noetic realities are eternal through their closeness, metaphysically, to the Good and the One.
Because of this perspective on the soul, I don’t think of the soul as divisible into parts; in contrast the idea of a tripartite soul is spoken of in traditional Platonism. I understand the soul as unchanging and also as unmoved by the seductions of sensory existence.
I transfer the divisions of the soul to mind (usually referred to as ‘intellect’). I think of mind as the presence of the noetic in the ephemeral individual because mind is the capacity for differentiation and it is in the noetic that differentiation first happens (metaphysically ‘happens’). It is mind that is divided into various functions, pulled in various directions, and this happens because of the mind’s innate capacity for differentiation and categorization. In other words, it is not the soul that is pulled this way and that, it is the mind.
The soul is quiet, undemanding of attention; that is why the mind often overlooks it. In addition the soul is not accessible by the senses; I mean that the soul has no color, no observable body that weighs a particular amount, the soul makes no sound, has no scent, and so forth. The soul is quiet because the Good and the One are quiet, silent, and completely uninterested in displays designed to draw attention to it.
The soul, because it is immaterial, permeates the cosmos but appears to individuals as divided; that is to say that the mind understands, or experiences, the soul as divided and divisible. How does the soul manifest in this way? Metaphors are very helpful in responding to this question. The appearance of the individual soul resembles moonlight glowing in ten thousand different bodies of water; in ponds, lakes, rivers, and bowls. The source of all these appearances is the moon. Without the moon these appearances would not happen. Each appearance looks like an individual, isolated appearance. Each appearance looks like the light of the moon has fully descended into the pond, or the lake, or the river, or the bowl. That is a misunderstanding; the light of the moon is present at its source and in each of the lights’ appearances which are fragments of the source of the light.
There are many metaphors that can be used to illuminate the way the soul is simultaneously here, in the material realm, and There, in the transcendental realm of the Good and the One. For example, the light of the sun appears in countless rooms in this world. The light of the sun simultaneously comes from the sun and is the sun.
When the mind, attracted by the peace and serenity of the light of the soul, turns to the soul, then the mind can use its capacity for differentiation to begin the spiritual ascent to the Good and the One. When the mind uses its capacity for differentiation to follow the soul to its source, that is Wisdom; I mean Philosophical Wisdom, or you could say Transcendent Wisdom, meaning Wisdom that guides us to the transcendental Good and the transcendental One.
The mind is for the most part preoccupied with caring for the body and responding to the demands of the body. In contrast with the soul, the body is loud and wants a lot of attention. But at times the mind steps back from the body and catches a glimpse of the soul, a glimpse of the presence of eternity. This can be an occasion for the mind to change its priorities from caring for the body to caring for, and following the soul to its source.
To be honest, I’m not sure at this point how this view of the soul, and the soul’s relationships with mind and body, aligns with the views presented in the Dialogues and the Enneads. There are some differences. But there are also similarities, or overlaps. The most important is that this view supports the Platonist practices of renunciation and spiritual ascent.
I expect to revise this analysis in the future; but I have personally found it helpful in my own Platonic practice. Perhaps others will as well.
