Neoplatonic love : the metaphysics of Eros in Plotinus, Proclus and the Pseudo-Dionysius
This thesis examines the notion of Love (Eros) in key texts of the Neoplatonic philosophers Plotinus (204/5â270 C.E), Proclus (c.412â485 C.E.) and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (late 5th-early 6th cent.). In the first chapter I discuss Plotinusâ treatise devoted to Love (Enneads,III.5) and I attempt to show the ontological importance of Eros within the Plotinian system. For Plotinus for an entity (say Soul) to be/exist is to be erotic, i.e. be directed to the intelligible realm. Hence, one of the conclusions is that Love implies deficiency, and, thus, it takes place in a vertical scheme, where an inferior entity has eros for its higher progenitor. If this is so, then Proclus apparently diverges greatly from Plotinus, because in his Commentary on the First Alcibiades Proclus clearly states that inferior entities have reversive (/upwards) eros for their superiors, whereas the latter have providential (/downwards) eros for their inferiors. Thus, the project of my second chapter is to analyze Proclusâ position and show that in fact he does not diverge much from Plotinus; the former only explicates something that is already implicit in the latter. The first part of my discussion emphasizes the ethical
Vasilakis, Dimitrios
Neoplatonic love : the metaphysics of Eros in Plotinus, Proclus and the Pseudo-Dionysius. This thesis examines the notion of Love (Eros) in key texts of the Neoplatonic philosophers Plotinus (204/5â270 C.E), Proclus (c.412â485 C.E.) and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (late 5th-early 6th cent.). In the first chapter I discuss Plotinusâ treatise devoted to Love (Enneads,III.5) and I attempt to show the ontological importance of Eros within the Plotinian system. For Plotinus for an entity (say Soul) to be/exist is to be erotic, i.e. be directed to the intelligible realm. Hence, one of the conclusions is that Love implies deficiency, and, thus, it takes place in a vertical scheme, where an inferior entity has eros for its higher progenitor. If this is so, then Proclus apparently diverges greatly from Plotinus, because in his Commentary on the First Alcibiades Proclus clearly states that inferior entities have reversive (/upwards) eros for their superiors, whereas the latter have providential (/downwards) eros for their inferiors. Thus, the project of my second chapter is to analyze Proclusâ position and show that in fact he does not diverge much from Plotinus; the former only explicates something that is already implicit in the latter. The first part of my discussion emphasizes the ethical
love metaphysics eros plotinus pseudo dionysius examine notion love eros key texts philosopher plotinus pseudo dionysius first_discuss plotinus treatise devote love iii attempt_show ontological importance eros within system plotinus entity say soul exist erotic direct intelligible realm hence conclusion love implies deficiency thus take_place vertical scheme inferior entity eros high apparently diverge greatly plotinus commentary first clearly state inferior entity upwards eros superior whereas latter providential downwards eros inferior thus project second analyze position show fact diverge much plotinus former something already implicit latter first_part discussion emphasize ethical