Editing Plotinus (section)

=== Plotinus and the Gnostics ===
{{See also|Neoplatonism and Gnosticism}}
{{original research|section|date=April 2020}}

At least two modern conferences within Hellenic philosophy fields of study have been held in order to address what Plotinus stated in his tract ''Against the Gnostics'' and to whom he was addressing it, in order to separate and clarify the events and persons involved in the origin of the term "Gnostic". From the dialogue, it appears that the word had an origin in the Platonic and Hellenistic tradition long before the group calling themselves "Gnostics"—or the group covered under the modern term "Gnosticism"—ever appeared. It would seem that this shift from Platonic to Gnostic usage has led many people to confusion. The strategy of sectarians taking [[Greek language|Greek]] terms from philosophical contexts and re-applying them to religious contexts was popular in [[Christianity]], the [[Cult of Isis]] and other ancient religious contexts including [[Hermetica|Hermetic]] ones (see [[Alexander of Abonutichus]] for an example).

According to A. H. Armstrong, Plotinus and the [[neoplatonism|neoplatonists]] viewed Gnosticism{{clarify|date=October 2019}} as a form of heresy or [[sectarian]]ism to the [[Pythagoreanism|Pythagorean]] and [[Platonism|Platonic]] philosophy of the Mediterranean and Middle East.{{refn|group=note|From Introduction to Against the Gnostics in Plotinus' Enneads as translated by A. H. Armstrong, pp. 220–222:<br />The treatise as it stands in the ''[[Enneads]]'' is a most powerful protest on behalf of [[Ancient Greece|Hellenic]] philosophy against the un-Hellenic [[heresy]] (as it was from the Platonist as well as the orthodox Christian point of view) of Gnosticism. There were Gnostics among Plotinus's own friends, whom he had not succeeded in converting (Enneads ch.10 of this treatise) and he and his pupils devoted considerable time and energy to anti-Gnostic controversy (Life of Plotinus ch.16). He obviously considered Gnosticism an extremely dangerous influence, likely to pervert the minds even of members of his own circle. It is impossible to attempt to give an account of Gnosticism here. By far the best discussion of what the particular group of Gnostics Plotinus knew believed is M. Puech's admirable contribution to Entretiens Hardt V (Les Sourcesde Plotin). But it is important for the understanding of this treatise to be clear about the reasons why Plotinus disliked them so intensely and thought their influence so harmful.}} Also according to Armstrong, Plotinus accused them of using senseless jargon and being overly dramatic and insolent in their distortion of Plato's ontology."{{refn|group=note|From Introduction to Against the Gnostics in Plotinus' Enneads as translated by A. H. Armstrong, pp. 220–222:<br />Short statement of the doctrine of the three hypostasis, the One, Intellect and Soul; there cannot be more or fewer than these three.<br />
1. Criticism of the attempts to multiply the hypostasis, and especially of the idea of two intellects, one which thinks and that other which thinks that it thinks. (Against the Gnostics, Enneads ch. 1). The true doctrine of Soul (ch. 2).<br />
2. The law of necessary procession and the eternity of the universe (ch. 3).<br />
– Attack on the Gnostic doctrine of the making of the universe by a fallen soul, and on their despising of the universe and the heavenly bodies (chs. 4–5).<br />
– The sense-less jargon of the Gnostics, their plagiarism from and perversion of Plato, and their insolent arrogance (ch. 6).<br />
3. The true doctrine about Universal Soul and the goodness of the universe which it forms and rules (chs. 7–8).<br />
4. Refutation of objections from the inequalities and injustices of human life (ch. 9).<br />
5. Ridiculous arrogance of the Gnostics who refuse to acknowledge the hierarchy of created gods and spirits and say that they alone are sons of God and superior to the heavens (ch. 9).<br />
6. The absurdities of the Gnostic doctrine of the fall of "Wisdom" (Sophia) and of the generation and activities of the Demiurge, maker of the visible universe (chs. 10–12).<br />
7. False and melodramatic Gnostic teaching about the cosmic spheres and their influence (ch. 13).<br />
8. The blasphemous falsity of the Gnostic claim to control the higher powers by magic and the absurdity of their claim to cure diseases by casting out demons (ch. 14).<br />
9. The false other-worldliness of the Gnostics leads to immorality (ch. 15).<br />
10. The true Platonic other-worldliness, which loves and venerates the material universe in all its goodness and beauty as the most perfect possible image of the intelligible, contracted at length with the false, Gnostic, other-worldliness which hates and despises the material universe and its beauties (chs. 16–18).<br />A. H. Armstrong, Introduction to Against the Gnostics in Plotinus' Enneads, pages 220–222}}
Armstrong argues that Plotinus attacks his opponents as untraditional, irrational and immoral{{refn|group=note|From Introduction to Against the Gnostics in Plotinus' Enneads as translated by A. H. Armstrong, pp. 220–222:<br />
The teaching of the Gnostics seems to him untraditional, irrational and immoral. They despise and revile the ancient Platonic teaching and claim to have a new and superior wisdom of their own: but in fact anything that is true in their teaching comes from Plato, and all they have done themselves is to add senseless complications and pervert the true traditional doctrine into a melodramatic, superstitious fantasy designed to feed their own delusions of grandeur. They reject the only true way of salvation through wisdom and virtue, the slow patient study of truth and pursuit of perfection by men who respect the wisdom of the ancients and that know their place in the universe. Pages 220–222}}{{refn|group=note|Introduction to Against the Gnostics in Plotinus' Enneads as translated by A. H. Armstrong, pp. 220–222:<br /> 9. The false other-worldliness of the Gnostics leads to immorality (Enneads ch. 15).}} and arrogant.{{refn|group=note|Introduction to Against the Gnostics in Plotinus' Enneads as translated by A. H. Armstrong, pp. 220–222:<br />Ridiculous arrogance of the Gnostics who refuse to acknowledge the hierarchy of created gods and spirits and say that they alone are sons of God and superior to the heavens (Enneads ch. 9)}} Armstrong believed that Plotinus also attacks them as elitist and blasphemous to Plato for the Gnostics despising the material world and its maker.{{refn|group=note|They claim to be a privileged caste of beings, in whom alone God is interested, and who are saved not by their own efforts but by some dramatic and arbitrary divine proceeding; and this, Plotinus says, leads to immorality. Worst of all, they despise and hate the material universe and deny its goodness and the goodness of its maker. This for a Platonist is utter blasphemy, and all the worse because it obviously derives to some extent from the sharply other-worldly side of Plato's own teaching (e.g. in the ''[[Phaedo]]''). At this point in his attack Plotinus comes very close in some ways to the orthodox Christian opponents of Gnosticism, who also insist that this world is the good work of God in his goodness. But, here as on the question of salvation, the doctrine which Plotinus is defending is as sharply opposed on other ways to orthodox Christianity as to Gnosticism: for he maintains not only the goodness of the material universe but also its eternity and its divinity. The idea that the universe could have a beginning and end is inseparably connected in his mind with the idea that the divine action in making it is arbitrary and irrational. And to deny the divinity (though a subordinate and dependent divinity) of the World-Soul, and of those noblest of embodied living beings the heavenly bodies, seems to him both blasphemous and unreasonable. Pages 220–222}}

For decades, Armstrong's was the only translation available of Plotinus. For this reason, his claims were authoritative. However, a modern translation by Lloyd P. Gerson doesn't necessarily support all of Armstrong's views. Unlike Armstrong, Gerson didn't find Plotinus to be so vitriolic against the Gnostics.<ref name="gerson">{{cite book |title=Plotinus: The Enneads |date=2017 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=9781107001770 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PCw2yAEACAAJ |language=en}}</ref> According to Gerson:
{{quote|As Plotinus himself tells us, at the time of this treatise’s composition some of his friends were ‘attached’ to Gnostic doctrine, and he believed that this attachment was harmful. So he sets out here a number of objections and corrections. Some of these are directed at very specific tenets of Gnosticism, e.g. the introduction of a ‘new earth’ or a principle of ‘Wisdom’, but the general thrust of this treatise has a much broader scope. The Gnostics are very critical of the sensible universe and its contents, and as a Platonist, Plotinus must share this critical attitude to some extent. But here he makes his case that the proper understanding of the highest principles and emanation forces us to respect the sensible world as the best possible imitation of the intelligible world.}}

Plotinus seems to direct his attacks at a very specific sect of Gnostics, most notably a sect of Gnostics that held anti-polytheistic and anti-daemon views, and that preached salvation was possible without struggle.<ref name="gerson" /> At one point, Plotinus makes clear that his major grudge is the way Gnostics 'misused' Plato's teachings, and not their own teachings themselves:
{{quote|There are no hard feelings if they tell us in which respects they intend to disagree with Plato [...] Rather, whatever strikes them as their own distinct views in comparison with the Greeks’, these views – as well as the views that contradict them – should be forthrightly set out on their own in a considerate and philosophical manner.}}

The neoplatonic movement (though Plotinus would have simply referred to himself as a philosopher of Plato) seems to be motivated by the desire of Plotinus to revive the pagan philosophical tradition.{{refn|group=note|"... as Plotinus had endeavored to revive the religious spirit of paganism".<ref>''A Biographical History of Philosophy'', by George Henry Lewes Published 1892, G. Routledge & Sons, LTD, p. 294</ref>}} Plotinus was not claiming to innovate with the ''Enneads'', but to clarify aspects of the works of Plato that he considered misrepresented or misunderstood.<ref name="Stanford1" /> Plotinus does not claim to be an innovator, but rather a communicator of a tradition.<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-dionysius-areopagite/ Pseudo-Dionysius] in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</ref> Plotinus referred to tradition as a way to interpret Plato's intentions. Because the teachings of Plato were for members of the academy rather than the general public, it was easy for outsiders to misunderstand Plato's meaning. However, Plotinus attempted to clarify how the philosophers of the academy had not arrived at the same conclusions (such as [[misotheism]] or [[Eutheism and dystheism|dystheism]] of the creator God as an answer to the [[problem of evil]]<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Sheppard |first=Anne |last2=Dillon |first2=John |date=2024-07-18 |title=Badness, Plotinus on Evil |url=https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/ress-2024-0008 |journal=Review of Ecumenical Studies |language=en |volume=16 |issue=1 |pages=114–120 |doi=10.2478/ress-2024-0008|url-access=subscription }}</ref>) as the targets of his criticism.