25) Plotinus & Neo-Platonism

This is a video lecture from PHI 251, History of Ancient Philosophy. This course is taught at the University of North Carolina Greensboro.
If you are interested in more courses (including through our online degree program) please check out the following websites:
philosophy.uncg.edu/
philosophy.uncg.edu/academic-...
online.uncg.edu/
In this session: our somewhat wandering (perhaps by necessity?) discussion of Plotnius, whose attempts to elaborate on and interpret Plato's work situates him as a boundary figure who closes the Ancient period of philosophy, and initiates a subsequent "Medieval" period whose focus is dominated by intersections between metaphysical and theological questions.

[@TheMusicalStylingsofBrentBunn]

I had a wonderful time with this series. Thank you for giving this out for free ✌

[@dianeodify]

Thank you. I've read Plotinus but couldn't see why the Renaissance guys became so excited about him - until now. You make it new - and even exciting. If this is "not bad" then I really look forward to the rest.

[@ispeakyouspeak]

I wish I would have such a clear and excellent professor like you. Such an amazing introduction to the concept, situating it historically, succintly explaining what is Plotinus all about and then profoundly going to the different perceptions he had on the One. Fantastic

[@flora4045]

This was so helpful for my philosophy of Metaphysics class. Thank you Adam, your teaching is brilliant!!

[@geezy218]

Very good lecture. The idea of the one began to make sense when I heard about the concept of the aether and potentiality. Everything comes from the aether, everything is in it ( unity ). It is the very definition of potential. It is not yet something but it has the potential to become so because it is everything. Scientists of the 1800s thought the aether was neccesary. Funny how science at that time came to the same conclusion as metaphysics. You also made very good points about 2 things 1. The physical world is like a shadow/privation. You have the source ( the good ) and a lack of that source. A shadow is simply a privation of light, cold is a privation of heat. evil is a privation of the good, black is a privation of colours, etc... It could be said that matter is a lack of the forms. Some sort of imperfect image. 2. you said something about " I saw it.. not with my eyes but in my mind ". This implies a different kind of seeing but not with your eyes. It raises the question of who or what is seeing and how. I know it is not a subject people like to talk about but many people experienced unity while being on psychedelics. Some claim to have experienced " death ", getting rid of the ego.

[@forevertemporary1760]

The aether is making a comeback in sciences

[@dissatisfiedphilosophy]

you mean the khora right? The connection of khora and One was done by Deleuze i believe

[@UncleBuckDallas]

Really appreciate you posting this lecture. I am sadly unable to find much good material online about Plotinus’ thought, and my philosophy courses begin and end with the enlightenment period. It does not hurt that you are a professor in North Carolina, as I am an NC native as well! Godspeed.

[@seanp.kilroy6833]

I feel fortunate to be auditing professor Rosenfeld’s class

[@hannaha4046]

loved this, really good watch

[@chesstempi1570]

Thanks for this lecture!

[@odiyadenis3967]

Thank you very much sir. I have loved and learnt a lot from your lectures. Do you also have classes for medieval philosophers?

[@tatsumakisempyukaku]

Haha. You’re like the new Dr Arthur Holmes from Wheaton college. Do you have a lecture on Edmund husserl?

[@PhilosopherMuse]

Not bad Adam! I've posted a number of commentaries on my channel that may compliment your lecture. Passages below to help affirm your thought at 1:03:30 "The Good is the cause of being and of intelligence, it is a light in respect of the beings that are seen and the Intelligence that sees them... it produces thought by shedding its light on the beings and on Intelligence." VI.7.16. "In short, thought, being the thought of good, is beneath Him, and consequently does not belong to Him. I say: "does not belong to Him," not denying that the Good can be thought (for this, I admit); but because thought could not exist in the Good; otherwise, the Good and that which is beneath it-namely, the thought of Good-would fuse." - VI.7.40.

[@adamrosenfeld9384]

Thanks for the encouragement! This is the first time I've taught Plotinus, and I'll admit that I found it a challenge.

[@NapoleonDynamite69]

@@adamrosenfeld9384 very complex lecture thank you so much man.

[@inqubusta]

Great Lecture!

[@glof2553]

Great lecturer

[@careforbunniesnot6075]

Definitely a bit too scattered but still a very good lecture. It would be amazing to listen to after you have done it a dozen more times. : ] Very open minded. Noteworthy, its 6 books of 9 treatises each = 54.

[@canisronis2753]

most excellent!

[@SK-le1gm]

TAO ☯️ is The One. YANG ⚫️ is Intellect. - that which can be articulated. YIN ⚪️ is Soul. - that which can’t be articulated.

[@NapoleonDynamite69]

Sounds like just a simple explanation for a complex thing.

[@MrMarktrumble]

Thank you

[@quayscenes]

So diamonds are not forever???

[@crimsonking2177]

Plotinus was a genius. I never understood mysticism and the talk of God until I encountered psychedelic substances. While it is possible to have a mystical experience by diligently practising meditation, yoga and other breathing techniques, the quickest way is definitely to use a compound like LSD or psilocybin. Once you have had the experience, you will understand why it cannot be talked about, and any attempt to do so tends to sound like vague, metaphysical hippie mumbo jumbo. But there is a good reason for this. During the experience one transcends the subject-object divide (for which it becomes quite clear that it doesn't actually exist but is merely a human concept), meaning there is no difference between anything anymore (most importantly "self" and "other") and EVERYTHING, the whole of reality ("The One", "The Absolute", "The Infinite", "God"...) is DIRECTLY experienced all at the same time. It is a spontaneous recognition, an "Aha-Moment", where all of a sudden the nature of reality becomes perfectly obvious in a very visceral way. I have yet to meet a person who did not immediately recognize that they were encountering The One (fittingly, most people react to the experience by saying things like "Oh my God!" or "Holy Shit!"). It is an experience of infinite love, bliss and beauty and nothing like anything one can experience in ordinary consciousness. Since all language assumes a difference between subject and object, there is no way of explaining the mystical experience with words. Words are by definition restricted to mean a certain thing and not another thing. There can be no definition for The Absolute, because it is the only thing that exists and therefore cannot be defined in relationship to something else. Every definition is itself a part of the whole, but never the whole. That's why in negative theology or the Eastern neti neti method, one tries to convey what The Absolute is not by making statements about what it IS (because all of these statements must necessarily be false), but rather what it is NOT. Whatever definition you give for the Absolute, whatever you imagine it to be is not IT. The One is unlimited and can only be experienced directly and cannot be grasped by the very limited rational human mind. Most people have never had such an experience and would probably deny that something like that even exists, or at least reject it as subjective, unscientific and hallucinatory. This is not the case. Anybody can verify it for themselves by the aforementioned methods if they are curious enough. I can recommend a buckload of literature if anyone is interested in diving deeper into the fascinating topics of mysticism and nonduality.

[@androu4]

I would love some recommendations on this literature!

[@TheGuiltsOfUs]

KRISHNA IS REAL

[@VVeltanschauung187]

Agreed. The highlights of his philosophy is that he reconciles Plato with Aristotle.

[@QED_]

@@androu4 Rupert Spira is one well known exponent of nonduality: kzbin.info/www/bejne/o4KcoKCunJl8f6M

[@blacksabbath6227]

This is just delusion

[@Barklord]

6 parts, 9 treatises in each.

[@MrTeenStyle]

passwords: knowledge, wisdom, love

[@seanlittle20]

I can’t believe these positive reviews. He is enthusiastic and knowledgeable but scattered and unfocused, as he jumped from topic to topic without clarifying. Free association is not the same as teaching. I think you drank too much coffee. If you want to learn Plotinus, check out Pierre Grimes.

[@athenassigil5820]

Sulla was not an emperor( he was the first consul),nor were there any emperors until Augustus. Very excellent video, otherwise.

[@iceblinkmender]

The Tao that can be spoken of is not the true Tao.

[@RekzaFS]

Getting dizzy from all this camera movement. Next time place the camera further back in the room.

[@danh5637]

Platonism seems to be based on Kabbalah. In Kabbalah you have the idea that you “reveal a portion and conceal two” and the whole teaching is very contradictory like you mention of Plotinus. And it’s basically done this way because you have to synthesise the truth in yourself and reveal it yourself. As you say the one or in Kabbalah Einsof is ineffable. You can only vaguely point in the direction and explain but a person has to do the work and arrive at the sensation beyond words themselves. I think they are basically one and the same thing but I would argue Kabbalah is much more detailed and precise with exact terminology for emanations, states and forms. And importantly a method of how to climb back up and reach soul.

[@crimsonking2177]

Platonism, especially the Neoplatonism of Plotinus is indeed very similar to mystical teachings like the Kaballah, Sufism, Advaita Vedanta etc., but I don't think it is "based" on Kaballah. What all the mystic traditions share in common is the claim that the Absolute can only be directly experienced and never be grasped with the limited rational mind. This mystical experience is in fact the basis of all religion.

[@gerontodon]

@@crimsonking2177 I agree, and to the extent that they can be summed up in words, I think all these esoteric systems are basically idealistic. I think Kabbalah developed from Neoplatonism if anything, but it might be more detailed.

[@VVeltanschauung187]

Platonism was a thing way before Kabbalah

[@TheGuiltsOfUs]

It is Kabbalah that is based upon platonism - not the other way around

[@UncleBuckDallas]

I would have to second the comment that Platonism is likely the antecedent of Kabbalah; at least in the popular sense of the sephirotic tree. Perhaps there exists a perennial thread tying these two schools of thought together, though they have some distinct differences in view of matter and materiality, and in other key respects.

[@TheGuiltsOfUs]

Krishna is the One

[@andreiadetavora8471]

We are ALL the ONE