5 October 2026: Brief Notes on Various Topics - 109

5 October 2026: Brief Notes on Various Topics – 109

1.  Applying Plotinus’s ‘Against the Gnostics’ to Other Traditions

I have previously posted that my overall view of the situation of Platonism in the third and four centuries C.E.  That view is that Platonism was being squeezed from multiple sides; or you could say Platonism was between a rock and a hard place.  From one side Platonism was being absorbed and reconfigured by Christianity.  From another side Platonism was being used by Theurgy to reconfigure Platonism extensively so that Platonism could be thought of as conforming to Theurgic perspectives.  In this post I want to expand a bit on that view.

I think it is helpful to note that two branches of Christianity were involved in reconfiguring Platonism.   The first branch was Orthodox Christianity represented by Augustine and others who were committed to what we today think of as Christian Orthodoxy.  The second branch was Gnosticism.  At the time that Plotinus was teaching Gnosticism seems to have been fairly widespread, enough so that Plotinus wrote Ennead II.9 which is titled ‘Against the Gnostics.’ 

What these three teachings (Gnosticism, Orthodox Christianity, and Theurgy) had in common was that all of them viewed philosophy in general, and Platonism specifically, as deficient.  I mean by deficient that philosophy by itself could not elevate a student to an ultimate realization, could not lift a student to the transcendental, lacked crucial insights for entrance into the ineffable source of all things.  Although these three teachings disagreed with each other on many topics, they were united in their understanding of the insufficiency of philosophy to elevate the soul to ultimacy. 

For Orthodox Christianity it was the lack of Jesus that was primarily responsible for what Orthodox Christianity viewed, and still views, as the insufficiency of philosophy.  For Gnosticism it was the lack of access to secret, or initiation based, knowledge that made philosophy insufficient.  For Theurgy it was the lack of understanding the gods and their taxonomy, as well as the efficacious rituals that provided understanding and contact with the gods, that made philosophy secondary and insufficient.  (There are many additional differences between the four traditions (Orthodox Christianity, Gnosticism, Theurgy, and Platonism or Philosophy; this summary isn’t meant to be complete.  For example, there are differences in the way these traditions understand the soul that also impact the issue of sufficiency.  Perhaps I will make a post on that specific difference in the future.)

What I want to suggest, and this is the primary reason for this post, is that Ennead II.9, ‘Against the Gnostics’ applies to all three of these traditions that are critical of philosophy and Platonism.  I mean that the arguments presented by Plotinus that are critical of Gnosticism in many cases apply not just to Gnosticism, but also to Orthodox Christianity and Theurgy as well. 

To pick one example, Plotinus criticizes the Gnostic tendency to elaborate multiple realms and entities, a complexity that Plotinus sees as unnecessary and subversive to Platonism.  But this is also true of Orthodox Christianity with its angels, seraphim, and so forth.  And it is also true of Theurgy with its taxonomy of various kinds of gods functioning in much the same way.

This is speculative, but I wonder if Porphyry saw this, the way the arguments in ‘Against the Gnostics’ applies also to Orthodox Christianity and Theurgy.  And perhaps, after seeing this, Porphyry saw it as an opening to write a critique of Christianity which we now know as ‘Against the Christians.’  Following this logic, Porphyry’s work ‘On Abstinence’ was a kind of ‘Against the Theurgists’. 

Look at the situation for Platonism in the third and fourth centuries from the perspective of a traditional, or contemplative (what Gerson would call an Orthodox) Platonist.  From this perspective, the three non-Platonic approaches (Orthodoxy, Gnosticism, and Theurgy) all rely on arbitrary add-ons rather than completions of Platonism.  They are disruptive of the Platonist tradition, or subversive, or transgressive to it.  And ‘Against the Gnostics’ is the antidote to this kind of subversion.

Part of the add-ons consisted of additional texts beyond those that were significant for Platonism itself.  For Orthodox Christians it was the Bible and the Church Fathers that were central to their tradition.  These texts were used to critique what they viewed as the limited range of Platonism (see Eriugena’s Periphyseon or The Divisions of Nature as an example).  The Gnostics had their own scriptures which they considered authoritative beyond other Christian scriptures and philosophical works.  For the Theurgists it seems to have been the Hermetica and the Chaldean Oracles that functioned as authoritative sources for their Theurgic program.  For example, Iamblichus opens his work On the Mysteries by referring to Hermes and how the ‘ancestors’ of these teachings dedicated their writings to Hermes, a likely reference to the works of the Hermetic tradition.  In other words, Iamblichus is giving prominence to the works of the Hermetic tradition in the way that Orthodox Christians give prominence to Biblical teachings as well as the teachings of the Church Fathers.  What this means is that prominence is not given to the Dialogues of Plato or other works of the Platonic tradition.  That’s their choice, of course; I’m not saying it’s wrong to do that.  If you are a Christian, you would, of course, give prominence to the central works of Christianity.  What I am suggesting, and which I think has been overlooked, is that Theurgy at that time was doing the same thing, engaging in the same displacement.

Another way of looking at this historical situation is to engage in an overview of Platonism prior to this time.  If we start with Plotinus and then look backwards in time, it is noteworthy that Plotinus considers Platonism in its contemplative teachings to be completely sufficient for a full realization of the Absolute, the Good and the One.  Plotinus even describes his own experiences of such realization.  And this is accomplished entirely within the teachings laid out by Plato, and sustained through the centuries.  There is no sense of insufficiency towards Plato’s teaching in Plotinus.

When I say ‘sustained through the centuries’ I am thinking of works like the Orations of Maximus of Tyre, of the Handbook by Alcinous, and so forth.  All of these works regard philosophy as salvific and not requiring additional add-ons to bring Platonism to completion.  Many of these works, like Maximus’s Orations, speak directly of the contemplative basis of the Platonic tradition (in other words contemplation in Platonism isn’t something that Plotinus made up; contemplation is found in Plato’s Dialogues such as the ‘Symposium’ and ‘Phaedrus’ and ‘The Republic’ and ‘Phaedo’ and so forth.) 

The situation today differs from that of the third and fourth centuries.  Though the four traditions discussed above have their differences and disagreements, one thing all four share is a view to the transcendent.  That is no longer true today.  The default position today is materialism, reductionism, and similar views.  I don’t think ‘Against the Gnostics’ would be effective in countering the contemporary situation.  Instead, I think there are other resources in the Platonic tradition that I would point to.  The first example would be Plato’s Phaedo, in particular the passage where Socrates relates his biography and his early interest in Anaxagoras.  Ultimately Socrates pulls away from Anaxagoras and the kind of teachings Anaxagoras offered. 

The second example is Book X of ‘The Laws’ which deals with, among other things, atheism as it manifested in the Athens of Plato’s time.  But even though that was long ago, the analysis of atheism, and by implication materialism, is remarkably pertinent and applicable today.

People haven’t changed much.  If you look at people from a traditional philosophical perspective, human beings are subject to the same flaws that are discussed in Ancient Philosophy; I think that is one of the reasons that traditions like Stoicism have made a significant comeback (and, interestingly, Epicureanism seems to be making its first tentative steps at establishing itself as a present option.)  Perhaps this kind of turning that is taking place towards Ancient Philosophy will stimulate a growing interest in Platonism; I don’t see that this has happened yet, but I am optimistic.

2.  Aphorisms

An oak tree has a better chance of ascending to the Good and the One, of experiencing the presence of eternity, than a human being.

Following Plato himself, Plotinus is the pinnacle of the Platonic tradition.

I prefer Platonic writers like Plutarch (when he’s writing about Platonism), Alcinous, and Maximus to Iamblichus.

I suspect that The Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius has more to offer a student of Platonism than The Elements of Theology by Proclus.

Asceticism is the nectar that nourishes wisdom.

If I were to confine my reading of Plato’s Dialogues to a single one, it would be ‘Phaedo.’

Purification can be as difficult as removing a stubborn stain or as simple as washing one’s hands.

The path of Platonism might take ten thousand rebirths to reach completion; maybe more.

Each time we perceive the beauty of a sunrise we are taking a step on the path to the transcendental, to the Good and the One.

I’ve been thinking that I tend to take a more horizontal view of Platonist spirituality than the metaphor of Platonist ascent might be comfortable with.

People tend to think of asceticism as grim and grumpy, but in the writings of ascetics a common theme is the joy they feel at living a life of asceses, a life of renunciation.

Spiritual practice resembles setting a dining table for an honored guest but you don’t know exactly when the guest will arrive.

Some flowers can bloom in the desert and Platonism can bloom in the midst of modernity.

The Good and the One are a distant mountain that is not far away.