Alexandria and Her Schools: Four Lectures Delivered at the Philosophical Institution, EdinburghKingsley, Charles
Philosophy
Alexandria and Her Schools: Four Lectures Delivered at the Philosophical Institution, Edinburgh
Kingsley, Charles
Alexandrian school
But in the meanwhile we must look at another quarrel which arose between
the two twin schools of Alexandria. The Neoplatonists said that there is
a divine element in man. The Christian philosophers assented fervently,
and raised the old disagreeable question: “Is it in every man? In the
publicans and harlots as well as in the philosophers? We say that it
is.” And there again the Neoplatonist finds it over hard to assent to a
doctrine, equally contrary to outward appearance, and galling to
Pharisaic pride; and enters into a hundred honest self-puzzles and
self-contradictions, which seem to justify him at last in saying, No. It
is in the philosopher, who is ready by nature, as Plotinus has it, and as
it were furnished with wings, and not needing to sever himself from
matter like the rest, but disposed already to ascend to that which is
above. And in a degree too, it is in the “lover,” who, according to
Plotinus, has a certain innate recollection of beauty, and hovers round
it, and desires it, wherever he sees it. Him you may raise to the
apprehension of the one incorporeal Beauty, by teaching him to separate
beauty from the various objects in which it appears scattered and
divided. And it is even in the third class, the lowest of whom there is
hope, namely, the musical man, capable of being passively affected by
beauty, without having any active appetite for it; the sentimentalist, in
short, as we should call him nowadays.
But for the herd, Plotinus cannot say that there is anything divine in
them. And thus it gradually comes out in all Neoplatonist writings which
I have yet examined, that the Divine only exists in a man, in proportion
as he is conscious of its existence in him. From which spring two
conceptions of the Divine in man. First, is it a part of him, if it is
dependent for its existence on his consciousness of it? Or is it, as
Philo, Plutarch, Marcus Aurelius would have held, as the Christians held,
something independent of him, without him, a Logos or Word speaking to
his reason and conscience? With this question Plotinus grapples,
earnestly, shrewdly, fairly. If you wish to see how he does it, you
should read the fourth and fifth books of the sixth Ennead, especially if
you be lucky enough to light on a copy of that rare book, Taylor’s
faithful though crabbed translation.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account