The philosophy of Neoplatonism. Philosophy of Neoplatonism Iamblichus

The philosophy of Neoplatonism. Philosophy of Neoplatonism Iamblichus - main ideas

Iamblichus (c. 280 - c. 330 AD) - representative of Neoplatonism, head of the Syrian school of Neoplatonists. A student of Porphyry, he significantly complicated Plotinus’ ideological and philosophical system of views with their subsequent mythologization and expansion of theurgic practice, as well as enlightening some of his teacher’s inconsistencies about knowability and unknowability.

He was the first to distinguish them terminologically from the first one with the help of emanation dialectics, elements of which were already present in his predecessors. He divided the only dam into two unique ones. Having raised the unique to the level of superiority of all being and all rational knowledge, Iamblichus himself introduced simply the one as the beginning of being and knowledge, making an attempt to build a bridge between the one and the mind, the one and the logos, between acquisition and being.

He acts similarly with the mind, into the problem of which he introduces life, dividing it into the conceivable and the thinking. The mind in Iamblichus appeared, on the one hand, as a being participating in intellectual life, and on the other hand, it itself is intellectual life. Formulating the third degree of mind, he again proved the merging of being and knowledge into one whole and indivisible. Triadic in Iamblichus there is a soul; he distinguished the souls of people and the souls of animals, emphasizing that the souls of people are connected with a speculative nature, inaccessible to animals. In practical life, he considered the main thing to be faith in the gods and communication with them.

Turning to mythology, Iamblichus counted about 360 gods, dividing them into supracosmic (associated with the mind and soul) and intracosmic (spiritualized, who act and preserve). In the interpretation of the gods he reached the point of depersonalizing them into logical categories, each of which was built triadic. By introducing the category of life, Iamblichus gave theurgic and mystical practice a regulatory focus. However, the introduction of the category of life did not yet provide a justification for theurgy. The latter required dialectization of the myth itself, which Sallust committed.

Sallust (mid-IV century) gave a definition of myth as a philosophical category. In his opinion, in myth, cognizable and unknowable being are combined into one indivisible whole with an ascent to the Neoplatonic unity, at the same time this whole indivisible being is a complete sensory-material cosmos. From the point of view of understanding myth as a unity of symbolism, the first and cosmologism, Sallust classified the gods as a logical system of unfolding being and knowledge (supracosmic, cosmic, gods that spiritualize the world, and gods that order the world), bringing the sensory-material cosmos into the sphere of their activity. This line of Neoplatonism on the connection of magical theurgy with the categorization of the dialectics of myth was continued by Plutarch of Athens, whose student Proclus completed the logical development of the system of ancient Neoplatonism and all ancient philosophy.

IAMBLICHUS (?????????) from Chalkis in Syria (c. 245/250 - c. 326 AD), Neoplatonist philosopher, founder Syrian school Neoplatonism; gave the Neoplatonic tradition a new direction of development, oriented towards greater religiosity; was strongly influenced Pythagoreanism And "Chaldean Oracles". LIFE. Ya. came from a noble family, his ancestors were the ancestor of the kings of Emesa Sampsigeram, who lived in the middle. 1st century BC e. (Strab. XVI2, 10), and Monim - supposedly the semi-legendary founder of Chalkis (Dillon 1987, b. 865), his family was among the richest and most prosperous in Plain Syria; the name itself 4???????? is a transcription of Syriac or Aramaic ya-mliku "he is the king". Ya's first teacher was a Pythagorean Anatoly, comrade and fellow student Porphyria by school Longina, then he studied with Porphyry himself in Rome. According to Eunapius (Eun. V. Soph. V, 1), at the school of Porphyry Ya. very soon succeeded so much that there was “not a single subject in which he did not surpass his teacher.” The only thing that Ya always lacked was Porfiry’s inherent beauty and lightness of style. His works not only did not encourage reading, but rather “turned away the reader and tormented his ears” (V. Soph. V, 3). It is possible that at some point there was a rupture between teacher and student, so that already in the 90s Ya. returned from Rome to Syria, where a philosophical circle began to form around him. After living for several years in Apamea, where a student of Plotinus Amelius After the death of his teacher, he transported an extensive library, he moved to Antioch and founded his own philosophical school in one of its suburbs, Daphne, where he taught until the end of his life (Jo. Malal. Chron. 312, 11). The most important element of school education Ya. makes worship, joint worship with students of pagan religious cults, which turns his school into a closed, self-sufficient institution, capable of resisting the growing strength of Christianity. Fame soon spreads about him as a divine man who enters into direct communication with gods and demons, he is credited with the gift of prophecy and the ability to perform miracles; they say that during prayer he rises into the air and spreads a bright radiance around him (Eun. V. Soph. V, 1, 7-9). Such rumor attracts numerous students to Ya, who hope, thanks to him, to join the ancient wisdom of the pagan mysteries. In the later Neoplatonic tradition, the epithet “divine” is firmly assigned to him. The most famous of his students were Sopater of Apamea, Aedesius from Cappadocia (who moved the school of J. from Daphne to Pergamum and became the so-called founder Pergamum school), Theodore of Asinsky and Dexippus. ESSAYS. It is almost impossible to establish the exact number and chronological order of Y.'s works. An attempt made by J. Dillon to build a chronology of Ya.’s work, based on the assumption of the growing influence of the “Chaldean Oracles” on him. (Dillon 1973), did not receive recognition. Nevertheless, the thematic division of Ya's work proposed by him into three periods - Pythagorean, Neoplatonic and Chaldean - is convenient to use for the purpose of systematizing both the surviving works and those known only by names of Ya's works. (Dillon 1987, b. 875-878). I. The compilation “Code of Pythagorean teachings” belongs to the Pythagorean period (???????? ??? ??????????? ????????) in 10 books, of which only the first four have reached us: 1) “On the Pythagorean Life”: a presentation of the semi-legendary biography of Pythagoras and the history of the Pythagorean union; 2) "Protreptic" (or "Exhortation to Philosophy"): a popular introduction to philosophy, accompanied by an interpretation of 39 Pythagorean sayings; 3) “On general mathematical science”: a discussion about the nature of number and the ability of numerical ratios to serve as a reflection of both the intelligible and sensory world; 4) “Commentary to Nicomachus’s “Introduction to Arithmetic””: a detailed paraphrase of the work, supplemented with excerpts from Pythagorean literature Nicomacheus from Gerasa. In books 5 and 6 “On Arithmetic in Physics” and “On Arithmetic in Ethics”, which are partially reconstructed from fragments preserved by Michael Psellus (O'Meara D. Pythagoras revived, p. 53-76), the basic principles of Pythagorean arithmetic set out in previous books apply to nature and society. The 7th book, “On Arithmetic in Theology,” contains reflections on the mystical meaning of the numbers of the first ten; excerpts from it were included in the compendium “Theologumen of Arithmetic” compiled by an unknown author, which was previously attributed to Ya himself. The last three books of the “Code” were devoted to Pythagorean geometry, music and astronomy. Thus, the entire work as a whole was a complete outline of the Pythagorean doctrine, designed to cover all the traditional parts of philosophy: ethics, physics and theology - and used the most general principles of mathematics as logic. An unsurvived commentary on Pythagoras’ “Golden Verses” can also be attributed to the same period. P. The Neoplatonic period includes: the treatise “On the Soul”, which is predominantly doxographic in nature (preserved in the form of excerpts in the “Anthology” of Stobaeus and, possibly, in the commentary on Aristotle’s “On the Soul” attributed to Simplicius); Commentaries on Plato's dialogues: Timaeus, Alcibiades I, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Sophist, Philebus and Parmenides, excerpts from which, scattered throughout the works of the Athenian and Alexandrian Neoplatonists, have been collected and published J. Dillon (Dillon 1973); commentaries on Aristotle's Categories, On Interpretation, Analytics I, Metaphysics, On Heaven and On the Soul (almost completely lost); and letters to students devoted to various issues: “On fate”, “On dialectics”, “On music”, “On raising children”, “On virtue”, “On like-mindedness”, “On prudence”, “On courage”, “ On Justice”, “On the Benefits of Marriage”, etc., also preserved by Stobey. III. Of the Chaldean, or theological, works of J., only one has reached us: “The answer of the teacher Abammon to the letter of Porphyry to Anebon and the resolution of the difficulties contained in it” in 10 books, better known under the name “On the Egyptian Mysteries” (De mysteriis), which was first assigned to this treatise by Marsilio Ficino in the Latin edition of 1497; This is one of Ya.’s early works, written during Porfiry’s lifetime. The treatise “On the Gods”, which served as material for Sallust’s book “On the Gods and the World” and for the 4th and 5th speeches of the imp. Julian, can be found in fragments in Stobaeus. The works “On Statues”, “On Symbols”, “Plato’s Theology” and an extensive commentary in 28 books. on the "Chaldean Oracles" under the title "The Most Perfect Chaldean Theology" are almost completely lost. PHILOSOPHY. Metaphysical principles. The basis of the philosophical teaching of Ya is determined by the classic Neoplatonist scheme of three supersensible hypostases: the One - Mind - Soul. Ya. owns a number of important innovations that made it possible to significantly rework the original Neoplatonic idea of supersensible reality: 1) the doctrine of the “two” Ones, designed to clarify the concept of the first principle in Neoplatonic metaphysics; 2) introduction of the terms “unshared” (?????????), "shared" (???????????) and “participating” (?,??????), describing the relationship of effects to the causes that generate them; 3) the doctrine of the “impenetrability” of different levels of reality to each other; 4) the law of the “middle term”, which explains the transition from one hypostasis to another and 5) the final formulation of the triadic scheme of Neoplatonism: stay - departure - return. According to Ya., in order for the first principle to generate everything, it must have nothing in common with what is generated, and since both existing and non-existent things come from the first principle, it cannot be compared with either one or the other. The First Principle cannot be grasped either by affirmation or by negation; it is completely incomprehensible not only to the human, but also to the divine mind. Ya himself prefers to call it “completely unspeakable” (????? ???????) and "ineffable" (?????????). Such a beginning cannot have as its first generation the divine Mind, as Plotinus and Porphyry believed. Since the Mind is the first multitude and the first number, its beginning must be something in all respects one and devoid of multiplicity. However, by calling the beginning of the Mind “one” and contrasting it with multiplicity, we thereby give it a certain definition and make it dependent on the consequences arising from it, which contradicts the absolute inexpressibility and incomparability of the original principle with anything (Damasc. De princip. I, 86, 3-87, 24). Therefore, according to Ya., beyond the limits of intelligible existence there are immediately two super-existent principles, which are called “two Ones” (see ZELLER III. 2, S. 688). The concept of “communion” (???????) first appears in Platonic philosophy to express the relationship between things and ideas: a thing acquires one or another property as a result of joining the corresponding idea, while the idea itself continues to exist separately from the thing, into which only a certain similarity and reflection of the ideal prototype falls. This reflection is sensually perceived, arising and dying and, unlike the transcendental idea, belongs to the thing as its immanent form. Ya., apparently, was the first to extend Plato’s theory of communion to any cause-and-effect relationship and proposed to describe the corresponding process in terms of: non-common - participatory - participatory. According to Ya., every original thing, tu. h. and each hypostasis exists in two ways: first on its own, as something “unparticipated”, and then as a “participant” in what is attached to it. In this case, the second way of being is a reflection and reflection of the first, so that each lower level of reality is connected with the higher one through similarity, since it contains in a general form that characteristic that at a higher level exists in an incomprehensible form. As a result, the number of basic levels of reality in the system of the Self doubles: in addition to the world Soul, which is located in the body of the cosmos and is “common” for the cosmos, the Self recognizes the existence of an absolutely incorporeal “non-communal” Soul, which not only does not belong to any body, but also does not enters into no relationship with him (Procl. In Tim. II, 105, 15). In the same way, the Mind is divided into two independent hypostases: the mind, which exists independently of the soul, and the mind, immanent to the world soul and individual souls (In Tim. ?, 252, 21). It is possible that Ya’s teaching about the “two” Ones was the result of his consistent application of the theory of communion with the original principle. T. arr., Ya. - unlike Plotinus and Porphyry, who always emphasized the direct presence of different levels of reality in each other - emphasized the transcendence of the higher level in relation to the lower one. The mind, in his opinion, acts in the soul not directly, but through its reflection - the immanent or “inclusive” mind. Likewise, the Soul cannot remain in the Mind and contemplate ideas directly: it sees only reflections of ideas in itself - logos. The same impenetrable boundaries exist within each individual hypostasis, for example, within the Soul between human, demonic and divine souls. Such closure of each thing within the boundaries of its own nature made the self-system strictly hierarchical and at the same time deprived it of unity. In order for the transition from one completely isolated hypostasis to another to be continuous, Ya was forced to introduce intermediary entities, the need for which he justified with the help of the so-called. the law of the middle term, which, according to some researchers, could have entered the metaphysics of Ya through the neo-Pythagorean tradition (Shaw 1995, p. 66). According to this law, things that are dissimilar to each other in two respects must be related to each other through some third thing (“middle term”), which in one respect would be identical to one of them, and in another respect to the other. Such a thing simultaneously connects and separates the extreme members, forming a triad with them. In “Theologumen of Arithmetic” (10, 10-11, 11) as an example of such a “middle” (?,????????) the number 2 is given, which is an intermediate step between the set, representable as 3, and the unity, representable as 1 (for more details, see Anatoly). Other examples of the mediation of extreme terms in Ya. are given by Proclus and Simplicius: this is the transition from the incommunicable Mind to the Soul through the mind, which is in the Soul and is one of the mental abilities (Procl. In Tim. II, 313, 15), or the transition from the incorporeal the unattached Soul through the soul of the world to the body of the cosmos (II, 240, 2-15) or the transition from eternity through intelligible time to physical time (Simpl. In Cat. 355, 11-17). System. The consistent application of the law on the middle term and the division of entities into non-integrable and communible entities led not only to an increase in the total number of hypostases, but also to a complication of the structure of each of them. Instead of a single divine Mind, which included the thinking and conceivable aspects, as was the case with Plotinus, Ya. has two independent levels of reality - the intelligible and thinking cosmos, each of which breaks down into further sublevels. Mind. Intelligible cosmos (?????? ??????) contains three members: being, life and mind, each of which in turn is also divided into three. Being (TO ael oV), as the first member and “head” of the intelligible triad as a whole, appears immediately after the One and represents the source of being of all things. Ya. also calls him “the one existing” (go b ov) and identifies with the “one” of Plato’s 2nd hypothesis "Parmenides" and the category of being in "Sophiste". In itself, this being is not yet intelligible, but it surpasses both ideas and the highest kinds of existence, approaching as closely as possible the simplicity and incomprehensibility of the original principle (Procl. In Tim. I, 230, 5-12). Perhaps Ya's decision to put being above mind is explained by the following consideration: in Parmenides, Plato proves that the object of thought must precede thought and be independent of it, otherwise either the thought itself will turn out to be a thought about nothing, or being will consist of only thoughts (Plat. Parm. 132bc). Nevertheless, perfect being cannot be devoid of either life or mind (Soph. 248e-249a), therefore these two categories form in the system of the Self the second and third members of the intelligible triad, with life corresponding to the origin of being from itself, and mind - his return to himself. Being that has returned to itself and contemplates itself is already alive and intelligible, therefore the mind, as the third member of the intelligible triad, turns out to be at the same time in the Self the world of ideas, that is, that Platonic “eternal living being, uniting in itself all other living beings according to individuals and genera,” according to which the Demiurge creates the visible Universe (Tim. 29c, 37d). Wanting to show that the triad “being - life - mind” was known to ancient philosophers, Ya. puts it in correspondence with various types of triads: Pythagorean (one - two - trinity), Plato (limit - infinite - mixed), Aristotelian (essence - possibility - reality) and Chaldean (father - strength - mind). Thinking space (?????? ??????) also breaks down in Ya. into three triads: the first of them represents the mind turned to the intelligible and abiding in itself, the second correlates with the principle of mental life, and the third with the creative energy of the mind directed outward (Procl. In Tim. I, 308, 23 -309, 6), which Ya. identifies with Plato’s Demiurge of the sensory cosmos. According to some sources, Ya. also divided the last triad into two triads and a monad, as a result of which the total number of entities belonging to the demiurgic level turned out to be equal to seven, which easily allowed the philosopher to correlate them with the seven-part Demiurge of the “Chaldean Oracles” (Damsc. De principle I, 237, 11). SOUL. J. develops HIS concept of the soul in polemics with previous Neoplatonists. If for Plotinus and his students Porphyry and Amelia the human soul in its highest, rational part is identical to the Mind and never descends into the realm of becoming, and there is no difference in essence between the souls of all beings inhabiting the cosmos, then Ya makes clear distinctions both in the sphere of Souls, and between Soul and Mind. According to Ya., the Soul is a self-sufficient (?????????) and a hypostasis completely different from the Mind, acting as a mediator between the corporeal and incorporeal, divisible and indivisible, eternal and transitory genera of existence. It can be defined as life emanating from the Mind, having received independent existence, or as “the fullness of logoi,” or as “an emanation of the genera of true being ... into being of a lower order” (Stob. 149, 32, 78-89). In the Soul itself, Ya distinguishes three levels. From a single “supramundane” or “non-communal” Soul, he produces two “communal” ones: the soul of the world and the one that unites the souls of individual living beings inhabiting the cosmos. In this case, the first acts in relation to the second and third as a generating monad. Not belonging to any body, the supermundane Soul is equally inherent in everything in the cosmos, equally animates everything and is equally distant from everything. That is why, according to Ya., Plato in Timaeus describes it as being simultaneously in the middle of the world and outside it (Procl. In Tim. II, 105, 15; 240, 2-15). In addition to the world soul, the intracosmic souls also include the souls of people and heavenly gods. The latter are considered by Ya as a middle term between the perfect integrity of the world soul and the disunited multitude of individual human souls: like the soul of the world, the heavenly gods have the perfection of speculation and never lose their purity, but like the souls of people, they revive and set in motion each one -the only celestial body (Iambl. De myst. V 2). Between the divine and human souls there are two more classes of intermediary souls: demons and heroes. The necessity of their existence is dictated by the fact that the essence, strength and action (????? - ??????? - ivkpyeia) The heavenly gods are in every way opposed to the essence, power and action of people. Ya characterizes the existence of the gods as “highest, excellent and completely perfect”, and human souls as “lower, insufficient and imperfect”; the former have the power to do “all things at once, immediately and uniformly,” while the power of the latter extends only to particular things at different points in time; the gods “give birth to everything and rule everything without any harm to themselves,” and the souls of people “tend to obey and turn to what they gave birth to and control” (De myst. I 7). The relationship of divine and human souls to the body is also different. If the gods are completely free from bodily limitations and are not confined to separate parts of the world, so that they can be associated with certain bodies only to the extent that they exercise their will in them, then the souls of people are dependent on their inherent organic bodies, since they embody a certain type of life, chosen by the soul even before its descent into the region of becoming (De myst. I 8-9). Since demons and heroes are called upon to ensure the continuity of the transition from one limit of the spiritual hierarchy to another, I endow them with characteristics that combine the properties of gods and people. He describes demons as “multiplied in unity” and “mixed unmixed with everything,” and heroes as being even closer to division, plurality, confusion and movement, but still maintaining unity, purity, stability and superiority over the rest (De myst .I 6). According to a more detailed scheme, between the gods and demons there are two more classes of intermediary souls - archangels and angels, and between heroes and people - sublunary and material archons (De myst. II 3). Believing that the soul of one class cannot pass into another, Ya. denied the theory accepted in early Neoplatonism metempsychosis. The class of divine souls itself was also divided into three. According to Proclus, Ya. identified in it 12 orders of heavenly gods, corresponding to 12 zodiacal constellations, 57 “planetary” or celestial gods and 114 gods acting in the field of formation (???????????? ?eoi), that is, below the sphere of the Moon (Procl. In Tim. III, 197, 8). Such an increase in the number of divine essences allowed Yanukovych to easily include all the gods of traditional pagan religions in his system. An example of how he interpreted the image of the Sun god in ancient Greek, Roman and Egyptian mythology can be found in the speech of the imp. Juliana"To King Helios." BODY AND MATTER. Ya in many ways changed the attitude of the Neoplatonists to bodily nature. The body for him is a natural and necessary stage on the path of the origin of all things from the beginning, and the space and time in which the life of the corporeal cosmos takes place are the last manifestations of those divine laws that determine the structure of supersensible reality. Yes, space (?????), defined by Aristotle as the boundary of the encompassing body, is for the Self only a special case of a more general relation of the encompassed to the encompassing, in which various supersensible hypostases are located to each other. Every hypostasis that is the cause of other hypostases embraces (????????) within itself its consequences, just as a whole embraces its parts, or as space embraces bodies. In this sense, the Soul, as the proximate cause of the corporeal cosmos, is for it an encompassing boundary and space; the space of the Soul itself is the Mind, and the space of the Mind is God, whom Ya also calls the space of all things in general (Simpl. In Cat. 363, 27-364, 1). In a similar way, physical time, which represents a successive change of moments of the past, present and future, arises because the categories “earlier” - “later” are already present in the supersensible reality, where they describe the ontological priority of higher hypostases in relation to lower ones. This self, which takes place in the sphere of the supersensible transition from ontologically earlier to later, is called “first” or “intelligible” time. Since such time is absolutely static, it is neither the life of the world Soul, as Plotinus thought, nor the measure and number of motion, as Aristotle believed, nor the rotation of the celestial sphere. Taken by itself, it is a principle of order, present in the form of an independent reality at the level of the Mind and extending its action to everything in space, including the chaotically moving stream of formation, which, thanks to its involvement in the intelligible world, is ordered by number and measure , i.e., takes the form of physical time (for more information about Iamblichus’ theory, see the corresponding section in Art. Time). The very matter of the physical cosmos is for Ya the last manifestation of the principle of uncertainty and multiplicity, which permeates all the floors of the cosmic building and originates directly from the “second” One. In De myst. VIII2, 11-13 Ya., describing its origin, writes that God produced matter simultaneously with being, as if separating the intelligible essence from the principle of materiality. In the mathematical treatises of Ya, matter symbolically appears in the form of a binary, since just as 2 in combination with 1 generates the entire set of natural numbers, so matter in combination with the defining and organizing force of the One generates the cosmos. As such, matter is not a source of evil, it is eternal and “life-giving” and is a necessary condition for the perfection of all things. It becomes evil only in the eyes of individual souls, who, having descended into the realm of formation and become overly attached to the body, fall under the power of the laws governing bodily nature, and, as a result, find themselves subject to suffering and death. For them, having forgotten that any partial existence arises for the benefit of the Whole, bodily life seems like a real punishment, since they can no longer properly perceive the emanations of the gods pouring out into the cosmos. Thus, they perceive the preserving and preserving emanations of the god Kronos as inertia and cold, and the motor energies of Ares as excessive and unbearable heat. J. compares this situation with the situation of a sick person, for whom the life-giving warmth of the Sun serves as a source of constant suffering (De myst. I 18; IV 8). Theurgy. Ya sees the salvation of the individual soul not in flight from everything material, but in changing the perspective of the view, allowing one to see one’s stay in the body as if from the point of view of the world soul - not as punishment, but as a divine service, allowing the beauty of the divine Mind to spread its effect right up to the final limits of the universe. For integral souls, such as the soul of the world and the souls of the heavenly gods, communication with matter is not harmful, since the bodies they control do not serve as a source of passions for them and do not interfere with their thinking. The whole enjoys eternal bliss and does not tolerate evil, therefore the task of the human soul is to restore the separateness and isolation of its existence in the unity of world life. However, she cannot complete this task on her own. I am convinced that since the individual soul descends completely into the sensory cosmos, it loses its direct connection with divine reality and can no longer, simply turning inward, find God in the center of its being, as Plotinus believed. For its salvation, the soul needs external influence (??????), coming from the gods themselves, and this help from above is granted to her as a result of the performance of certain rites and rituals, united by Ya. under the general name of “theurgy” (????????, from veoo?????, lit., “God’s work”). Theurgy involves both divine and human action, which meet each other in divination, sacrifice and prayer. Its main method is the use of various material objects - stones, metals, plants and animals - to attract the purifying and uplifting energies of one or another god into this world. According to Ya., these objects bear symbols (???????) and signs (?????????) the god who created them, which allows them, if certain conditions are met, to become perfect receptacles of the divine presence. I believed that such objects, sanctified by the divine presence, could help the soul enter into direct contact with the gods and, while still in a mortal body, achieve immortality and freedom from evil. At the same time, he did not consider dissolution to be the pinnacle of theurgic ascent. (????????) the soul in the divine, as Numenius thought, and not its complete identification with it, as Plotinus taught, but such participation in “the energies, thoughts and creations of God the Demiurge” (De myst. X 6), in which the soul itself always remains a soul and does not cross the boundaries that define its essence. The action of material symbols is not realized by the soul, therefore deifications (?????????) she achieves regardless of her intellectual efforts. From the point of view of Ya, what connects a person with the gods cannot be thinking, otherwise the connection with the heavenly world would fully depend on ourselves, and not on the gods, which is impossible (De myst. II 11). This position was usually regarded by historical science as a tribute to popular superstition and a departure from the rationalistic principles of Greek philosophy (Dodds 1970, p. 538). However, in a number of modern studies there has been a tendency to consider the theurgic Platonism of Ya. as an attempt to resolve some purely philosophical problems that arose within the framework of Plotinus’ system. According to G. Shaw and J. M. Lowry, Ya. sought to show that the rationalistic method of description that Plotinus uses when speaking about the One should not be taken either for the One itself, much less for a union with It, since this union surpasses all understanding . By introducing the distinction between “theology” as reasoning about the gods and “theurgy” as actual participation in them, Ya. may have wanted to more systematically develop the mystical side of Plotinus’ philosophy and prevent the identification of theoretical philosophy with reality itself, which was emerging among his followers (Shaw 1995, p. .97). Comment reform. Ya. carried out a reform of the Neoplatonic commentary, the essence of which was the requirement for unity of interpretation, when all parts of the text without exception should be interpreted in accordance with its “purpose” or “subject” (??????). For example, if the dialogue "Timaeus" defined as physical (???????) and its subject is a discussion about nature, then both the dramatic beginning of the dialogue, and the myth of Atlantis included in it, and the cosmological speech of Timaeus of Locris himself should have been interpreted in a natural philosophical vein (???????). Therefore, it was so important for the commentator to determine in advance the sole purpose of the essay, and it became customary to begin any commentary with a detailed clarification of it in the introduction. This exegetical rule was put forward by J. in contrast to the previously existing habit of separating the beginnings of Plato’s dialogues from their main part and interpreting them either in an ethical way (Porphyry), or in a historical way (Origen), or seeing in them simply a way to captivate the reader (Longinus). Nevertheless, if mathematical or metaphysical reasoning was encountered in a physical dialogue, Ya. advised not to neglect direct interpretation, remembering that different types of interpretation, as well as the objects corresponding to them, are related to each other by the principle of analogy. Thus, the direct mathematical meaning of a phrase can hide physical and theological content, since mathematical objects themselves (numbers and geometric figures) are, on the one hand, a reflection of divine ideas, and on the other, prototypes of physical reality. As a result, the task of the exegete comes down to the fact that, moving from one method of interpretation to another, consider the same phrase simultaneously from different points of view and identify its meaning at different levels of reality - natural, mental and divine. This practice allows one to discover multiple meanings at once in an authoritative text and reconcile the seemingly opposing opinions of previous commentators. Wanting to make it as easy as possible for the commentator to transition from ethical to physical and metaphysical interpretation, Ya. preferred to define the subject of the commented work as broadly as possible. Thus, the subject of the Phaedrus, according to him, is the doctrine of “all kinds of beauty” (???????????? ????? - Herrn. In Phaedr. 9, 10), by which we should understand not only sensual beauty, but also intelligible beauty. Ya. extended the same method to Aristotle’s works. According to Simplicius, he interpreted certain passages from the Categories in a metaphysical spirit, widely using the method of analogy (Simpl. In Cat. 2, 9-15). Thanks to J., the interpretation of authoritative texts was extracted from the captivity of chance and arbitrariness in which it remained among the middle Platonists and Porphyry. Having given him the rules and brought him into the system, Ya. told him the nature of the scientific method, which was subsequently adopted almost unchanged by the Athenian Neoplatonists: Sirian, Proclus, Hermias and Damascus, as well as some representatives of the Alexandrian school, for example Olympiodorus. J. also developed a canon of basic Platonic texts (the so-called “Canon of Iamblichus”), which later became mandatory for study in all philosophical schools of late Antiquity. This canon included 12 dialogues, which, in accordance with the traditional parts of philosophy, were divided into ethical, physical, logical and theological. The cycle “Alcibiades I” opened, in which the topic of self-knowledge as the beginning of philosophy was discussed; then came the ethical "Gorgias" and "Phaedo", the logical "Cratylus" and "Theaetetus", the physical "Sophist" and "Politician" and the theological "Symposium" and "Phaedrus". At the next stage, the student moved on to more complex dialogues - “Timaeus” and “Parmenides”, which Ya. considered the peaks of Plato’s philosophy: “Timaeus” - the peak of its physical part, and “Parmenides” - the theological. The training was completed by the dialogue “Philebus”, which talked about the good beyond all things. It is possible that reading Plato’s dialogues was originally conceived by Ya not only as an intellectual, but also as a spiritual exercise, each subsequent stage of which was supposed to include the previous one as its necessary condition (Hadot 1981, pp. 13-58). For example, in order to correctly understand Plato’s reasoning in the Phaedrus about the elevating role of erotic desire, the student first needed to become acquainted with the ascetic motives of the Phaedo and realize the detrimental nature of everything corporeal to the soul. The result of this ascent was a gradual spiritual transformation of the student, and all Plato's dialogues, despite their obvious divergence on some issues, turned out to be in agreement, or “symphony,” with each other. INFLUENCE. Ya's authority was extremely great among all subsequent Neoplatonist philosophers, starting from the 4th century. and up to the Renaissance. Direct students of Ya. they called him the savior of the Greek world and a universal benefactor, and imp. Julian considered him equal to Plato (Jul. Or. IV, 146a) and said that he would prefer to receive one letter from Ya rather than become the owner of all Lydia’s gold. Neoplatonists 5-6 centuries. (Sirian, Proclus, Damascus) attached much more importance to the teachings of J. than to the teachings of Plotinus and saw in him the founder of the direction of the Platonic tradition to which they themselves belonged. However, it is not possible to establish exactly which of the late Platonic concepts belong specifically to Ya. due to a lack of evidence. The exegetical method developed by Yaroslav survived for a long time, finding admirers, in particular, in the representatives of the Florentine Platonic Academy, Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Mirandola. Works: I. “Pythagorean period”: 1) Iamblichus, De Vita Pythagorica liber. Ed. L. Deubner. Lipsiae, 1937 (ed. with additions and correlations by U. Klein. Stuttg., 1975); Iamblichi De Vita Pythagorica. Ed. A. Nauck. Amst, 1965; Iamblichus., On the Pythagorean Life. Transi, with notes and introduction by G. Clark. Liverpool, 1989; Iamblichus. On the Pythagorean Way of Life. Text, tr. and notes by J. M. Dillon and J. Hershbell. Atlanta, 1991 (trad, franc, par L. Brisson et A. P. Segonds. P., 1996); Iamblichus. Life of Pythagoras. Per., up. Art. and comm. V. B. Chernigovsky. M., 1998; 2) Protrepticus. Ed. H. Pistelli. Lipsiae, 1888 (repr. Stuttg., 1967); Iamblichus. The Exhortation to Philosophy: Including the Letters of Iamblichus and Proclus Commentary on the Chaldean Oracles. Tr. by ansl. S. Neuville and T. Johnson. Grand Rapids (Mich.), 1988; 3) De communi mathem?tica scientia liber. Ed. N. Festa. Lipsiae, 1891 (ed. with additions and correlations by U. Klein. Stuttg., 1975); 4) In Nicomachi Arithmeticam Introductionem. Ed. H. Pistelli. Lipsiae, 1894 (ed. with additions and correlations by U. Klein. Stuttg., 1975); 5) Theologumena Arithmeticae. Ed. V. de Falco. Lipsiae, 1922; Iamblichus. The Theology of Arithmetic. Tr. by R. Waterfield. Grand Rapids (Mich.), 1988; Iamblichus. Theologumen of arithmetic. Per. and approx. V.V. Bibikhina, - LOSEV, IAE. Last centuries. Book 2. M., 2000, p. 480-508. I. “Neoplatonic period”: 6) Iamblichus. De Anima. Trad, par A. J. Festugi?re, - La R?v?lation d´Herm?s Trism?giste. T.III. Les doctrines de l´?me. P., 1953, p. 177-264, Iamblichus. De Anima. Text, transi, and comm. by J. M. Dillon. Leiden, 2002. III. "Chaldean period": 7) Iamblique. Les Myst?res d´Egypte. Texte et. et trad, par E. des Places. P., 1966; Iamblichus. On the Mysteries of the Egyptians, Chaldeans and Assyrians. Tr. by Th. Taylor. L., 18952; Index to "De Mysteriis liber". Ed. by G. Parthey. V., 1857, p. 294-328.; Iamblichus. De mysteriis. Text, tr. and notes by E. C Clark, J. M. Dillon et al. Atlanta, 2003; Iamblichus. About the Egyptian mysteries. Per. and rise Art. L. Yu. Lukomsky. M., 1995; About the Egyptian mysteries. Per. and comm. I. Yu. Melnikova. M., 2004. 8) Iamblichus. Answer of the teacher Abammon to Porfiry's letter to Anebon. Per. I. I. Makhankova, - Knowledge beyond science. Comp. I. T. Kasavin. M., 1996; Fragments: Jamblique de Chalcis: Ex?g?te et philosophe. Appendice: Testimona et Fragmenta exegetica. Coll. by V. D

NEOPLATONISM - a philosophical and mystical direction of ancient thought of the 3rd-6th centuries, connecting Eastern teachings with Greek philosophy; is a synthesis of Plato's ideas with the addition of logic and interpretations of Aristotle, which do not contradict Plato, Pythagoras and Orphism, the ideas of the Chaldean oracles and Egyptian religion.

The roots of some ideas (for example, the emanation of the spirit into matter and its return and merging with God (the Absolute) go back to Hindu philosophy. As a social movement, Neoplatonism existed in the form of separate schools: Alexandrian (Ammonius Saccas), Roman (Plotinus, Porphyry), Syrian ( Iamblichus), Pergamon (Edesus), Athenian (Sirian, Proclus).

The main philosophical content of Neoplatonism is the development of the dialectic of the Platonic Triad: One - Mind - Soul. Neoplatonism represents a hierarchy of being in descending and ascending stages: above everything there is an ineffable, super-existent One, the Good. It emanates into the Mind (Nus), where differentiation into an equal set of ideas occurs. The mind descends into the Soul (Psyche), where the sensory principle appears and hierarchies of demonic, human, astral, and animal beings are formed. Mental and sensory Cosmos are formed. Further emanation into matter is necessary for the development and improvement of souls, minds and their return to the One. The task of man is to overcome passions, lusts, vices and, through virtues, asceticism, theurgy, music, poetry, and creativity, strive to merge with the One. True union with the Divine Good can occur in a state of super- and insane ecstasy.

Neoplatonism was influenced by Stoicism with its teaching about the identity of the world First Principle (Fire) with the inner Self of man and about periodic fiery cataclysms that cleanse the Earth.

Neoplatonism recognizes the doctrine of the transmigration of souls (metempsychosis), the emanation of the Divine, spiritual hierarchies, and teaches the liberation of the soul from matter; eliminates from the Divine all elements of anthropomorphism and defines God as an unknowable, super-intelligent, super-worldly ineffable principle. Mysticism, refined logic and absolute ethics have always been in unity and went “hand in hand” into Neoplatonism.

The founder of Neoplatonism is Ammonius Saccas (d. 242), who did not leave a written statement of his teachings. The continuator and systematizer was Plotinus, who created a school in Rome (244).

Since 270, his student Porphyry continues to further develop Neoplatonism. Iamblichus, a student of Porphyry, founded the Syrian school and for the first time introduced the practice of theurgy into Neoplatonism. Iamblichus's work "On the Mysteries" combines mantics, theurgy and sacrifices. Iamblichus' student Edesus created the Pergamon school (4th century), focusing primarily on mythology and theurgy. Emperor Julian belonged to this school. Eunapius's work "Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists" contains important information about Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus and the inner circle of Emperor Julian. The Platonic school in Athens, through the rhetorician Longinus, maintains connections with Porphyry.

Subsequently, its leader became Sirin (5th century), who determined the range of texts of Neoplatonism: the works of Plato, the Pythagoreans, Homer, Orphic literature, and the “Chaldean Oracles.” His successor Proclus sums up the development of Platonism.

After the death of Proclus, the Athenian school was headed by Marinus and Isidore, who placed insight above theoretical research. The Alexandrian school is closely related to the Athenian school. Many of its philosophers studied with the Athenians. Plutarch has Hierocles, the author of commentaries on the “Golden Verses” of the Pythagoreans, Sirian has Hermias, Proclus has Ammonius.

In 529 AD e. Emperor Justinian banned the activities of philosophical schools. Platonism and Neoplatonism were anathematized at two Local Councils in Byzantium (1076, 1351). Meanwhile, Neoplatonism had a powerful - direct and indirect - influence on the formation of Christian doctrine and theism in general.

He had a meaningful influence on the entire European tradition, as well as on European, Arab, and Jewish philosophies. Hegel especially noted the importance of Neoplatonism for the history of philosophy: “in Neoplatonism, Greek philosophy reached full strength and highest development against the backdrop of the crisis of the Roman and entire ancient world.” In the 20th century Neoplatonism is a special subject of research and reinterpretation.

PROCLUS

PROCLUS, nicknamed Diadochos (“successor”) (412-485) - ancient Greek Platonist philosopher. Born in Constantinople. He studied in Alexandria and then in Athens with Plutarch of Athens and Sirian, whom he replaced as head of the Platonic Academy in 437. He died in Athens. A more complete picture of his life is given by the biography written by his student Marin, “Proclus, or About Happiness.”

He is considered the systematizer of school platonism; his literary and philosophical heritage covers several thousand pages. The main works of Proclus include his comments on Plato’s 12 dialogues, “Orphic Theology”, comments on Plotinus, an introduction to the philosophy of Aristotle, comments on Porphyry’s treatise “On the Five General Concepts”, “On Providence, Fate and What is in Us” ”, “On the Hypostases of Evil”, comments on Euclid’s “Elements”, “Principles of Physics”, “Fundamentals of Theology”, “Plato’s Theology”.

While traveling in Asia, I became acquainted with some Eastern teachings. He led the life of an ascetic, observing fasts according to the Egyptian religion and the cult of Cybele. He is also credited with the statement that the philosopher is called to be “a priest of the whole world.” Proclus is the most prominent representative of the Athenian school of Neoplatonism (along with the Roman: Plotinus, Porphyry, Amelius), Syrian (Iamblichus), and Proclus of Alexandria (commentators) and Pergamon (Julian, Sallust). Sometimes called the last scholar of the school.

If Plotinus was distinguished by a passionate desire to return to his true homeland, a striving beyond the boundaries of this world to its final source (so much so that he even felt disgust for his birth, ashamed of his own body and not wanting to remember either his parents or his place of birth), then in At the school of Proclus, religious practice, prayers to the sun, and rituals became a necessary component of the educational process itself.

The One is above all being, all essence and mind, not involved in anything; and is the potency of all being and all essence; and embraces everything, yet also gives birth. Hence the difficulties in interpreting Neoplatonic emanation. After all, the One is super-existent, super-essential and super-energetic.

It is absolutely identical with itself, transcendental and does not lose its temper. How can we attribute to him, the indefinable, an emanation (outflow), and a continuous one? Some authors, by the way, denied the doctrine of emanation already from Plotinus.

A.F. Losev also does not accept the understanding of emanation in a crudely material sense, interpreting it as a conceptual-logical, semantic process, thanks to which one can recognize both the infinite variety of things and the individuality of each (thus, emanation is also the principle of individualization), and the absolute indistinguishability of all things in the First One. Following the One, Proclus considers Numbers, “super-existent units.” They are higher than being, for they are the principle of being itself and its differentiation. They are also higher than thinking, since they act as the principle of all division and unification, without which thinking cannot take place. Number, thus occupying first place after the One, is a dismembering and unifying creative force.

The Sphere of Mind begins with existence as the first qualitative filling of numbers. Then comes the area of energy filling of being itself, which Proclus calls life. And life, comparing itself with itself, gives us actual thinking and knowledge. The sphere of mind is formed by three stages - being, life, knowledge. The world soul (the third hypostasis of Neoplatonism) is nothing more than the principle of the eternal formation of the Cosmos. Just as the Mind in Proclus is the unity of being and thinking, so the Soul is the unity of mind and body. The soul is used to explain the movement in the world, just as the Mind is used to explain the patterns of actions of the soul itself. Accordingly, intraworldly souls are the principles of the formation of individual bodies. Proclus speaks of different types of souls - divine, souls of the mind and mutable souls.

In general, the soul designates in Proclus the middle region between the indivisible mind and divisible bodies. He includes among the properties of the soul its incorporeality, immortality, its reflection in itself of all forms of the mind, its connection with that eternal body, for which it is the animating principle, etc. Proclus also talks about the circulation of souls and their hierarchy.

Ethics of Proclus. At the center here is the concept of “virtue” as that which reunites us with the gods, bringing us closer to the One. The school of Proclus distinguished between natural, moral, social and higher virtues, which included: purifying, speculative and god-creating (however, the latter were recognized as higher than the human lot). Marinus, a student of Proclus, listed among the natural virtues: innocence of all external senses, bodily strength, beauty, health. All of them, according to his testimony, were fully possessed by Proclus. Like others, going back to the god-creating virtues. Traditionally, justice occupied a special place among the ancient virtues. It was interpreted as a kind of “way of life that brings all parts of the soul to peace.” As for the problem of evil, the cause of the latter is seen by Proclus in man’s aversion from the higher, intelligible world, in attachment to the sensory. Hence the task of man is to turn away from the lower world and cognize the higher power of his soul. Proclus placed this power above even the mind, because it is capable of perceiving the first one. Therefore, Proclus called it “the color of our essence” and “that one thing in the soul that is better than the mind in it.” It can be identified with mystical enthusiasm, with sacred madness, leading us to merge with the Divine. Proclus recognized the transmigration of souls, although he denied the transmigration of human souls into the bodies of animals.

Proclus masterfully developed dialectics (of being and myth), theology and theosophy, theurgy, as well as unique aesthetics and ethics. Moreover, his ethical view is at the same time cosmological; After all, a person, Proclus declares, must be considered in the same way “as the entire cosmos, because a person is a small cosmos. Namely, he has a mind, a logos, a divine and mortal body, like the Universe.”

Happiness for Proclus consists of the happiness of the wise, but also of everyday well-being. It would be fair to emphasize in Proclus the living unity of “intellectuality and intimacy, in-depth logical thinking and unaccountable inspiration” (A.A. Taho-Godi). The philosophy of Proclus was enormously influential during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. A.F. Losev placed Proclus even higher than the founder of the school of Plotinus “in relation to the enormous analytical power of his mind, the great diversity of his interests in relation to the mastery of microscopic studies of the most abstract logical subject, as well as in relation to the most subtle philosophical and philological insight into the text of Plato.”

His followers can be considered Nicholas of Cusa, Pico della Mirandola, Ion Petritsi and others. Proclus considered Athena and Apollo his patrons, striving to combine and unite philosophical thinking and poetic vision, wisdom and art.

Table 1. Summary table of the history of ancient philosophy

Near the end of the ancient era, in contrast to the then widespread skepticism, a powerful philosophical movement arose that stubbornly insisted on the possibility of knowledge of the supersensible and focused on the development of the doctrine of the deity and his relationship to the world and man. Thinkers of this direction took the philosophy of Plato as a basis. Convinced of the truth of the bizarre constructions of Plato's brilliant fantasy, they built on them a new, original religious and philosophical system - Neoplatonism. Neoplatonism was based on theoretical and practical thoughts akin to Plato's teaching about ideas, but it absorbed influences from other theories of that time. The Neoplatonists compiled a system that captivated the imagination with a wealth of mystical views and symbols. It became a spiritual atmosphere that embraced the entire mental life of that century. In the profound ancient myths about Apollo the purifier, healer, intercessor and about Hercules, a man who became a god, under the cover of allegories, Neoplatonism sought teachings about the essence of the soul, about the relationship of the divine spirit to the human, in the old Eastern mysteries and symbols - great truths about the eternal, constantly the renewed life of the human soul. In the Chaldean oracles, in the theogonic poems and in the hymns of Orpheus, to which popular credulity gave great antiquity, the secret teachings of Greek and Eastern wisdom were found; they accepted fantastic books attributed to the Egyptian god or demigod, Hermes the Thrice-Great (Trismegistus), the father of all religious wisdom, all sciences and arts, as divine revelation. These books, translated into Greek in Alexandrian times or simply composed by Greek mystifiers, expounded religious and philosophical ideas in the style of the Alexandrian age, mystical teachings about God, the universe and the soul, astrological and magical fantasies.

Thus, Neoplatonism built a system of religious and philosophical syncretism that united basic Eastern and Greek fantastic ideas into a chaotic whole. It was something like an ideal pantheon; deities, myths and symbols of all peoples merged in this system, their meaning was interpreted by allegorical explanations in the spirit of Plato’s teaching about ideas. The strict, stoic doctrine of virtue and abstinence was exaggerated by the Neoplatonists in the taste of Eastern asceticism. Belief in spirits and miracles, the germs of which are found in Plutarch, is already very developed in Apuleius, and it soon reached the extreme fantastic. People of that century felt voluptuous admiration as they immersed themselves in mysticism. The former folk religion, which Neoplatonism ardently defended against Christianity, which was beginning to overcome it, received a spiritual character through the allegorical interpretation of its myths and dogmas. The Neoplatonic movement was manifested in its basic ideas by the deification of gifted people, who were considered the founders of holy life, a mixture of all forms of worship, an attraction to a mystical merger with the deity, achieved through asceticism and fantastic rituals, and contempt for practical life, which had become more or less unclean.

Founder of Neoplatonism – Ammonius Saccas

The syncretic philosophy of the Neoplatonists arose in Alexandria, where Greek systems and Eastern religious speculation, Judaism and Christianity came into contact and partly mixed. Neoplatonists considered the founder of their doctrine Ammonia Saccasa(or Sakka, Zakka, died ca. 248). He was a native of Alexandria, the son of Christian parents, raised in Christianity. After acquiring mental independence, he became a follower of pagan philosophy and compiled an eclectic system for himself from a combination of the teachings of Plato, Pythagoreans, Aristotle with eastern religious and philosophical ideas. Having thus united heterogeneous pagan views into one fantastic theosophy, Ammonius Saccas orally presented it to a small circle of inquisitive and gifted students. For a long time it remained a secret teaching, communicated only to a select few. Ammonius did not put it in writing: no works remain from him. But his great student Plotinus (205-270), a native of the Egyptian city of Lycopolis, became for the founder of Neoplatonism what Plato was for Socrates. Plotinus made his teaching public; but it has changed greatly, passing through the rich imagination of the interpreter.

Neoplatonism Dam

In 244, Plotinus moved to Rome and became one of the famous lecturers there. Thanks to Plotinus’ 26-year activity in the capital of the empire, many people became enthusiastic followers of Neoplatonism and its ascetic morality, renounced worldly vanity, and indulged in asceticism. Combining strict asceticism with the Greek bright mood of the soul, Plotinus led an abstinent life, avoided sensual pleasures, and did not eat meat. Neoplatonism spread even in court circles. His zealous followers were Emperor Gallienus and his wife, the most noble nobles and aristocrats. After the death of Plotinus, his closest student became the disseminator of Neoplatonism Porfiry(233-305), Syrian from Tire (real name - Malchus). Porfiry wrote a biography of his mentor and put in order his works, which Plotinus, who had poor command of the Hellenic language, did not give careful treatment to.

The greatest philosopher of Neoplatonism, Plotinus with his students

The works of Plotinus comprise six “nine books” (Enneads). They are clearly influenced by the Jewish religious philosophy of Philo and Egyptian mythological symbolism. Plotinus's system is imbued with romantic mysticism. He believes in the appearance of gods and spirits to people, accurately describes different categories of spirits, believes in divination, promotes mysteries and witchcraft, which, in his opinion, is based on sympathy, connecting all objects in the world. Neoplatonism Plotinus calls for raising the soul, purified by asceticism from sensuality, to such a height where it acquires the ability to “contemplate the deity”, to mysteriously unite with God in rapturous love. Through the mouth of Plotinus, Neoplatonism asserts that the thinking spirit of man is only an outflow of God, that the universe has a living soul, which, like the human individual, longs to return to God.

Head of a statue from the Roman harbor of Ostia. Presumably - a portrait of the Neoplatonist Plotinus

Truth (identical to good) for Plotinus is not a postulate of thinking, as in Plato, but the source of everything that exists, accepted by faith that does not allow any doubt. Neoplatonism tried to bring contemplation to such an exaltation in which a person feels the divine nature within himself. Thus, the Neoplatonists opened up a path for human thinking that Western peoples had not entered before, becoming the predecessors of Christian philosophers. He posed the question that became the supreme question of their thinking. In Neoplatonic theology, all the threads of ancient Greek philosophy were connected: the mind (“nous”) of Anaxagoras, the single unchanging being of Parmenides, the eternal primitive unit of the Pythagoreans, the ideas of good of Socrates and Plato, the motionless reason of Aristotle, which moves everything, the divine nature of the Stoics. For Plotinus, all these principles are moments and active forces in the divine triad.

Iamblichus - main ideas

His students Amelius and Theodore tried to develop Plotinus’ idea of the spiritual triad. This made the system of Neoplatonism even more mystical than before. Porfiry's student went even further Iamblichus(c. 245 - 325), a native of the Kelesyrian city of Chalkis, the true founder of philosophical syncretism. Plotinus and Porphyry considered the highest triumph, the goal of philosophical aspiration, to be the contemplation of God through ecstasy, the mystical union of the sage’s soul, purified by self-deepening and asceticism, with God in blissful moments of delight. Iamblichus, a student of Porphyry, combined the sensual ideas of Eastern mysticism and the demonology of contemporary superstition with Platonic idealism and the Pythagorean mystical theory of numbers, and from this mixture developed the Neoplatonic doctrine of the continuous intervention of spirits in human life. The basis of his ideas was fantasy, similar to witchcraft and based on theurgic symbolism. Iamblichus divided the gods, angels, and various spirits into classes, taught the means of summoning them and forcing them to serve the will of the caster. These means were symbols, prayers, spells, consecrations, and various other rites of sorcery. A part of Iamblichus’s treatise “On the Pythagorean Life” has reached us; a treatise “On the Egyptian Mysteries” has reached us, attributed to, but perhaps not belonging to, him. Numerous students, the most important of whom were Sopater of Apamepa, Aedesius of Cappadocia, Priscus of Thesprotia, supported and spread the basic ideas of Iamblichus, sometimes being persecuted by Christian emperors. Julian the Apostate warmly patronized this theurgy. After the death of this last pagan emperor, her followers, exhausted by the grief of disappointment, were suppressed by persecution. Julian's contemporary Eunapius described in pompous language the life of the “divine” Iamblichus, with complete faith in all his fantastic thoughts and in his miracles.

Longinus

Of the students of Ammonius Saccas, the most famous after Plotinus is Longinus (b. c. 213 - d. 273), who earned great fame for his learning, courageous character and nobility of soul. He was a man of bright mind, a diligent researcher of truth, and therefore could not remain an adherent of vague Neoplatonism for long. But, having rejected Neoplatonism, he did not join any other of the then dominant philosophical schools. Longinus strengthened his mind by studying Plato and other great thinkers, expanded his concepts by traveling, lived for some time in Athens as a teacher, after which he devoted himself to political activity, but did not abandon his academic studies. He wrote many essays. Before us there is only one treatise by Longinus - “On the Sublime”. The language of this treatise is pure, the presentation is lively, and in terms of content it is such a wonderful work that one must regret the destruction of Longinus’s other works. He subsequently became an advisor Queen Zenobia of Palmyra, was executed Emperor Aurelian for his devotion to her and accepted death with the courage and calmness of a hero and sage.

Neoplatonist Proclus

The last phase of the development of Neoplatonism represents the activity Prokla(412-485). This thinker, who lived in Athens in the 5th century, was the last support of declining paganism, the rituals of which he could perform at home only in secret. For his loyalty to the ancient religion, Proclus was subjected to slander and persecution. He was a very educated man. His comments on Plato's dialogues show that Proclus had a wide range of knowledge; he had poetic talent. And yet, a person with such qualities, moreover, who lived in Athens, in the center of the classical world, in the spirit of all Neoplatonists, engages in fantastic constructions, clings to ancient myths and rituals in order to quench the thirst of his soul, believes the idle talk of charlatans who covered their absurd inventions with the names of famous philosophers. This pitiful spectacle testifies to the mental impotence of decrepit paganism. Reading Proclus, we do not know whether to respect his spiritual attachment to ancient legends and national deities, or to laugh at the stupidity of fantasy with which this educated man of a noble soul and impeccable life painstakingly builds from rotten materials the building of Neoplatonic theosophy on the basis of Eastern demonology and other mystical nonsense, builds a pantheon of pagan dogmas and philosophies on sand and swamp mud.

Proclus' students Isidore of Damascus and Simplicius were the last preachers of pagan philosophy. Justinian ordered their auditoriums to be closed. These Neoplatonists retired to Persia, hoping to find there the promised land of their fantasies. But, having been deceived in their expectations, they returned to their homeland and lived out their lives there in obscurity, not disturbed by anyone, but with destroyed hopes, with doubt in their souls. Neoplatonism died out. However, some of his ideas had a profound influence on the development of theosophy that survived him.

→ Philosophy of Neoplatonism

The main religious and philosophical movements of late antiquity include Neoplatonism. In view of the extreme importance of this movement for the formation of Christian philosophy, and then history, both in the Middle East (Christian and Muslim) and in the European West, we will consider here some aspects of Neoplatonism.

Neoplatonic philosophy cannot be unconditionally attributed to religious and philosophical movements, similar to the teachings of and. In these teachings, the philosophical content was inferior to the religious and mythological, and was presented in the form of disparate categories and concepts. Neoplatonism is system of late antique idealism, which included many provisions and images of ancient (later Middle Eastern) religious and mythological teachings and legends. In general, the philosophical content in Neoplatonism prevails over the religious.

Plotinus (c. 203-270)

The founder of the Neoplatonic school (c. 203-270) in his "Enneadach" systematized objective idealism Plato. But he also based his teaching on some ideas Aristotle. Overcoming naturalism and materialism, Plotinus borrowed, however, some ideas of the Stoics. As a result, Plotinus created a comprehensive objective-idealistic system, which had a colossal influence on the subsequent development of philosophical thought.

Source of being, Plotinus saw everything that exists in the world in a supernatural principle, which he called United(to hen). This idealistic abstraction was presented by Plotinus as a pure and simple unity, completely excluding any multiplicity. The One cannot be represented either as thought, or as spirit, or as will, because they all contain opposites. Therefore it unknowable, is inaccessible to both sensory and mental definitions. One - absolute, which does not depend on anything, while all other existence depends on it - directly or indirectly. At the same time, the One is impersonal, it is radically different from the personal extranatural god Philo, as well as from all monotheistic religions.

The radicality of this difference is most powerfully manifested in the relations that exist between the One and the heavenly and, even more so, the earthly world standing below it. These relations are by no means volitional, such as, for example, the relations of the Christian and any other monotheistic god, who creates everything that is lower than him. One The dam does not create, but radiates from itself all other being with the need for a natural process. Such radiation constitutes the famous Neoplatonist doctrine of emanation.

Process of emanation least of all should be represented as a process of a natural philosophical nature (although the Neoplatonists widely used light images to illustrate it). This is, first of all, a process of objective-idealistic “reverse development” - from more general and perfect to less general and perfect. At the same time, in this process there is a continuous multiplication of being (as well as its degradation).

One constitutes the initial, first hypostasis (substance) of being. Its second hypostasis (and, therefore, the first stage of emanation) is world mind(noys), in which there is a bifurcation into subject, since the world mind thinks one thing, and an object- the world mind itself, the thinking intelligentsia, the spiritual essence standing below it. A similar intelligentsia, the third hypostasis of spiritual being, is world soul(he toy kosmou psuhe). It contains the entire world of ideas (eidos), generic and species forms, outside and without which the emergence of any individual, corporeal, sensually concrete objects representing an extremely plural existence is impossible. But the last stage of degradation of the absolutely spiritual first unity is formed by matter, which the idealist interprets as “non-existence”, “darkness”, a negative condition for the formation of things. In this objective-idealistic picture, a large place is occupied by science of space, animated and directed by the world soul.

However, the problem of space interests Plotin not in itself, but in connection with the understanding of the highest purpose of man. His anthropology is idealistic, since it is associated with the belief in the existence of immortal souls that formed the bodies of people in the process of emanation. Pythagorean-Platonic doctrine of posthumous transmigration of souls from one body to another continued to play a primary role in Neoplatonic anthropology. Tasks of man (philosopher), according to Plotinus, are to put an end to this stream of reincarnation and ensure that his soul, fulfilling its true purpose, returns to its original source - to the world soul, the world mind and, ultimately, to the divine primal unity. If the process of emanation constitutes a downward path and is a consistent degradation of the ideal first unity, then the exact opposite path is contained in the soul’s desire to return to the first unity.

Epistemological concept Dam based purely on speculative interpretation of knowledge. It occupies a large place in the system mathematics And dialectics. The latter is interpreted primarily as the art of generalization, which consists in constantly seeing unity in plurality, which are the basic definitions of being. This purely speculative art comprehends quite adequately how reality, in the process of emanation from a single one, becomes increasingly multiple (knowledge moves in the opposite direction). However, the highest tension of cognitive efforts leaves rational-dialectical paths that do not allow one to comprehend absolute unity.

Such comprehension is possible only in rare moments of cognitive frenzy, or ecstasy, when the immortal and incorporeal soul breaks all bodily bonds and, as if by supernatural intuitive coverage of all spheres of existence, breaks through to unity with the primordial unity that gave birth to it. This teaching of Plotinus contains its main mystical component. The unity of subject and object is achieved through mystical intuition, which is divorced from the rational-logical sphere and even opposed to it.

Neoplatonism, founded by Plotinus, became the most influential movement in late antique philosophy. This direction expressed the ideological beliefs of the intellectual elite of the empire. At the same time, it became the theoretical basis on the basis of which the centuries-old religious and mythological ideas of the Greco-Roman (and then the Middle Eastern) world were comprehended.

By the middle of the 4th century, the activity of Epicurean Garden in Athens finally came to a standstill, and the provisions of Epicureanism became the object of fierce religious-idealistic criticism. Stoicism as a holistic movement also virtually ceased to exist by this time. Neoplatonism became the philosophical doctrine within the framework of which dying antiquity summed up its ideological results.

Porphyry (c. 232-304)

This explains the hostile attitude of Neoplatonism towards Christianity, which manifested itself with great force in the student and successor of Plotinus, the Syrian. Porphyria(c. 232-304), the main logician of this direction. But in this context, he is interesting for his work “Against Christians” (in 15 books), in which, perhaps for the first time, the Bible (especially the Old Testament) - the main document of Christianity - was subjected to theoretical criticism. Fierce attacks by Christian writers against this work led in 448 to the emperors decreeing the burning of the latter (only minor fragments of Porphyry’s work were preserved in polemical works directed against it).

Head of the Syrian school of Neoplatonism, student of Porphyry Iamblichus(c. 280-330), multiplying Plotinus’s hypostases of existence, brought them in every possible way closer to the images of ancient and Middle Eastern gods. Paying primary attention to religious rites, mantika and theurgy, he was already embarking on the path of replacing philosophy with mythology.

One of his followers was Emperor Julian(331-363). Having deprived Christianity of the benefits of the dominant religion, and Christians of the right to teach secular sciences (but by no means persecuting them), Julian attempted to restore “pagan” polytheism. The theoretical basis for such a restoration was Neoplatonism, but not so much in the abstract, speculative form given to it by Plotinus, but in the form of an allegorical interpretation of ancient mythology, the path of which Iamblichus had already embarked on. Julian’s ideological aspirations were most powerfully manifested in the speech he wrote “On the Mother of the Gods” and the hymn to “King Helios,” who personified both the life-giving power of nature and the autocratic power of the emperor, whom the author conceived as the main intermediary link between the intelligible and sensory worlds.

Like Porfiry, Julian also wrote a polemical work “Against Christians” (in three books), which was later destroyed by the church. Having revealed a number of contradictions and inconsistencies in the Old and New Testaments, Julian compared here the creation of the world by the demiurge in Plato’s Timaeus and the creation of it by Yahweh at the beginning of the Old Testament, giving decisive preference to the first concept. Yahweh, according to Julian, was viewed as a limited national-Jewish god, who was far from a true single deity. Also revealing the inconsistency of the basic Christian idea of Jesus Christ as a being who combined divine and human nature, the philosopher accused Christians of atheism, since, in his opinion, there can be no direct connection between God and man, and therefore it is impossible to deify a mortal man.

But if Neoplatonism as a philosophical doctrine did not need Christianity, then the ideologists of Christianity needed a number of provisions of Neoplatonic philosophy, especially after the Council of Nicea, when the difficult task of systematizing complex Christian doctrine arose. In the IV and V centuries. There was a complex process of its interaction with Neoplatonism. During these centuries it took shape early Christian philosophy, which is usually called patristics(from Latin patres - fathers, meaning “churches”).

References: