Editing Demiurge (section)

====Plotinus' ''Against the Gnostics''====
{{Wikisource|1=Enneads/Against the Gnostics; or, Against Those that Affirm the Creator of the Cosmos and the Cosmos Itself to be Evil|2=Against the Gnostics; or, Against Those that Affirm the Creator of the Cosmos and the Cosmos Itself to be Evil}}
{{Main|Neoplatonism and Gnosticism}}
Gnosticism attributed falsehood or evil to the concept of the Demiurge or creator, though in some Gnostic traditions the creator is from a fallen, ignorant, or lesser—rather than evil—perspective, such as that of [[Valentinius]]. The Neoplatonic philosopher [[Plotinus]] addressed within his works Gnosticism's conception of the Demiurge, which he saw as un-[[Ancient Greece|Hellenic]] and blasphemous to the Demiurge or creator of Plato. Plotinus, along with his teacher [[Ammonius Saccas]], was the founder of [[Neoplatonism]].<ref>John D. Turner. [https://web.archive.org/web/20140816004048/http://www.unl.edu/classics/faculty/turner/triadaft.htm Neoplatonism].</ref> In the ninth [[Treatise|tractate]] of the second of his ''Enneads'', Plotinus criticizes his opponents for their appropriation of ideas from Plato:

{{Blockquote|From Plato come their punishments, their rivers of the underworld and the changing from body to body; as for the plurality they assert in the Intellectual Realm—the Authentic Existent, the Intellectual-Principle, ''the Second Creator and the Soul''—all this is taken over from the Timaeus.|Ennead 2.9.vi; emphasis added from [[A. H. Armstrong]]'s introduction to Ennead 2.9}}

Of note here is the remark concerning the second [[hypostasis (philosophy and religion)|hypostasis]] or Creator and third hypostasis or [[Anima mundi|World Soul]]. Plotinus criticizes his opponents for "all the novelties through which they seek to establish a philosophy of their own" which, he declares, "have been picked up outside of the truth";<ref name="sacred-texts">"For, in sum, a part of their doctrine comes from Plato; all the novelties through which they seek to establish a philosophy of their own have been picked up outside of the truth." Plotinus, "Against the Gnostics", [http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/plotenn/enn161.htm ''Ennead'' II, 9, 6.]</ref> they attempt to conceal rather than admit their indebtedness to ancient philosophy, which they have corrupted by their extraneous and misguided embellishments. Thus their understanding of the Demiurge is similarly flawed in comparison to Plato's original intentions.

Whereas Plato's Demiurge is good wishing good on his creation, Gnosticism contends that the Demiurge is not only the originator of evil but is evil as well. Hence the title of Plotinus' refutation: "Against Those That Affirm the Creator of the Kosmos and the Kosmos Itself to be Evil" (generally quoted as "Against the Gnostics"). Plotinus argues of the disconnect or great barrier that is created between the ''nous'' or mind's [[noumenon]] (see [[Heraclitus]]) and the material world ([[phenomenon]]) by believing the material world is evil.

The majority of scholars tend<ref>{{cite book|title=Plotinus: Enneads II|edition=Loeb Classical Library|author=Plotinus, Arthur Hilary Armstrong (trans.)|publisher=Harvard University Press|year=1966|quote=From this point to the end of ch. 12 Plotinus is attacking a Gnostic myth known to us best at present in the form it took in the system of Valentinus. The Mother, Sophia-Achamoth, produced as a result of the complicated sequence of events which followed the fall of the higher Sophia, and her offspring the Demiurge, the inferier and ignorant maker of the material universe, are Valentinian figures; cp. Irenaeus, ''[[On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis|Adversus haereses]]'' 1.4 and 5. Valentinius had been in Rome, and there is nothing improbable in the presence of Valentinians there in the time of Plotinus. But the evidence in the ''Life'' ch. 16 suggests that the Gnostics in Plotinus's circle belonged rather to the older group called Sethians or [[Archontics]], related to the [[Ophites]] or [[Barbelo]]gnostics: they probably called themselves simply 'Gnostics'. Gnostic sects borrowed freely from each other, and it is likely that Valentinius took some of his ideas about Sophia from older Gnostic sources, and that his ideas in turn influenced other Gnostics.}}</ref> to understand Plotinus' opponents as being a Gnostic sect—certainly (specifically [[Sethianism|Sethian]]), several such groups were present in [[Alexandria]] and elsewhere about the [[Mediterranean]] during Plotinus' lifetime. Plotinus specifically points to the Gnostic doctrine of Sophia and her emission of the Demiurge.

Though the former understanding certainly enjoys the greatest popularity, the identification of Plotinus' opponents as Gnostic is not without some contention. Christos Evangeliou has contended<ref>Evangeliou, "Plotinus's Anti-Gnostic Polemic and Porphyry's Against the Christians", in Wallis & Bregman, [https://books.google.com/books?id=WSbrLPup7wYC&dq=Plotinus%27s+Anti-Gnostic+Polemic+and+Porphyry%27s+Against+the+Christians%22+Christos+Evangeliou&pg=PA111 p. 111.]</ref> that Plotinus' opponents might be better described as simply "Christian Gnostics", arguing that several of Plotinus' criticisms are as applicable to orthodox Christian doctrine as well. Also, considering the evidence from the time, Evangeliou thought the definition of the term "Gnostics" was unclear. Of note here is that while Plotinus' student [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]] names [[Christianity]] specifically in Porphyry's own works, and Plotinus is to have been a known associate of the Christian [[Origen]], none of Plotinus' works mention Christ or Christianity—whereas Plotinus specifically addresses his target in the ''Enneads'' as the Gnostics.

[[A. H. Armstrong]] identified the so-called "Gnostics" that Plotinus was attacking as Jewish and Pagan, in his introduction to the tract in his translation of the ''Enneads''. Armstrong alluding to Gnosticism being a Hellenic philosophical heresy of sorts, which later engaged Christianity and Neoplatonism.<ref>From "Introduction to Against the Gnostics", Plotinus' ''Enneads'' as translated by A. H. Armstrong, pp. 220–222: "The treatise as it stands in the Enneads is a most powerful protest on behalf of 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 Sources de 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."</ref><ref>Armstrong, pp. 220–22: "Short statement of the doctrine of the three hypostasis, the One, Intellect and Soul; there cannot be more or fewer than these three. 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. (ch. 1). The true doctrine of Soul (ch. 2). The law of necessary procession and the eternity of the universe (ch.3). 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). The senseless jargon of the Gnostics, their plagiarism from and perversion of Plato, and their insolent arrogance (ch. 6). The true doctrine about Universal Soul and the goodness of the universe which it forms and rules (chs. 7–8). Refutation of objections from the inequalities and injustices of human life (ch. 9). 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). 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). False and melodramatic Gnostic teaching about the cosmic spheres and their influence (ch. 13). 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). The false other-worldliness of the Gnostics leads to immorality (ch. 15). The true Platonic other-worldliness, which love 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)."</ref>

[[John D. Turner]], professor of religious studies at the University of Nebraska, and famed translator and editor of the [[Nag Hammadi library]], stated<ref>Turner, "Gnosticism and Platonism", in Wallis & Bregman.</ref> that the text Plotinus and his students read was Sethian Gnosticism, which predates Christianity. It appears that Plotinus attempted to clarify how the philosophers of the academy had not arrived at the same conclusions (such as [[dystheism]] or [[misotheism]] for the creator God as an answer to the [[problem of evil]]) as the targets of his criticism.