Hours with the Mystics: A Contribution to the History of Religious OpinionVaughan, Robert Alfred
Religion
Hours with the Mystics: A Contribution to the History of Religious Opinion
Vaughan, Robert Alfred
Mysticism -- History
Note to page 90.
M. Simon has shown, with much acuteness, in what way the exigencies of
the system of Plotinus compelled him to have recourse to a new faculty,
distinct from reason. Plotinus perceived that Plato had not been true to
the consequences of his own dialectics. When he had reached the summit
of his logical abstraction,—had passed through definition after
definition, each more intangible than the last, on his way upward
towards the One, he arrived at last at a God who was above Being itself.
From this result he shrank, and so ceased to be consistent. How could
such a God be a God of Providence, such a shadow of a shade a creator?
Plato was not prepared, like Plotinus, to soar so completely above
experience and the practical as to accept the utmost consequences of his
logical process. So, that his God might be still the God of Providence,
he retained him within the sphere of reason, gave him Being, Thought,
Power, and called him the Demiurge. When Plotinus, like a true eclectic,
carried still farther his survey of what history afforded him, he found
Aristotle postulating a Deity so restricted by his own abstraction and
immutability as to render it impossible to associate with his nature the
idea of superintendence. It was feared that to represent God as the God
of Creation and of Providence would be to dualize him. And yet the world
did exist. How were the serene and remote Unity demanded by logic, and
that activity and contact with matter no less imperatively demanded for
God by experience, to be reconciled with each other? It is scarcely
necessary to observe that there was no real difficulty. The whole
problem was the result of the notion, so universal, concerning the evil
of matter, and of the wrong answer given by ancient philosophy to the
vexed question—Does the Supreme work τῷ εἶναι, or τῷ βούλεσθαι?
Philosophy maintained the former; the Christian Church the latter. To
remove this obstacle which philosophy had itself constructed, Plotinus
proposed his theory of these hypostases, in the Divine Nature. Above and
beyond a God such as that of Plato, he places another like that of
Aristotle, and above him a simple Unity, like the God of the Eleatics.
The last was the ultimatum of the process of logical simplification—a
something above being. But the hypothesis was destitute of proof—it was,
in fact, contrary to reason. Plotinus must therefore either surrender
his theory or bid farewell to reason. He chose the latter course. He
does not deny the important services of reason, but he professes to
transcend its limits. He calls in mysticism to substantiate, by the
doctrines of Illumination and Identity, his imaginary God. He affirms a
God beyond reason, and then a faculty beyond reason to discern that God
withal.
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