Neoplatonism And The Hegelianism Of James Doull1

More documents

Recommendations

Info

D.G. MACISAAC: NEOPLATONISM AND THE HEGELIANISM OF JAMES DOULLOne, and the entire content of its thought is about the One, but it rests in the One throughthat in it which is above thinking.What this analysis of the structure of thinking in Neoplatonism shows, even if theNeoplatonists themselves could not have described it in these terms, is that the dichotomyof apophatic and kataphatic which we are presented with is a false one. It is for thisreason that Porphyry thought he could call the first principle einai and still think of it asOne, and for this reason Proclus can hold that the One itself escapes all thought and allnames, and yet still write massive volumes about it. In Neoplatonism the One is not itselfa movement of thought, but rather the ground of thought. It does not and cannot containwithin itself the moments of consciousness, and so cannot be a sort of Nous/Being whicheventually turns into Spirit. But neither is the One a simple null-point, as over against anendless historical contingency, as the Heideggerian inspired henologies might seek toproduce. Rather, the multiplicities which emerge from the One, as activities of thinking,are not contained within the principle, but they are all about the principle. They arejoined to it as the end point is joined to the beginning, and as such are images which pointthe soul beyond itself back to its origin.The Neoplatonic logic of the one over the many also allows them to have aplausible account of how philosophy can have a history. This is not an account whichthey themselves gave, but it follows from their principles, and comes to light only in theface of the mutually opposed historiographies of Hegel and Heidegger. What allows ahistory of philosophy in Neoplatonic terms is our second point, the distinction betweenNous and dianoia as atemporal and temporal mind. For Proclus, as for all otherNeoplatonists, the proximate object of discursive reason, of philosophy, is Nous, not theOne. It is only Nous which has the One as its proximate ground for thought. Thecombination of freedom and necessity which Hegel sees both in the development of themoments of consciousness in itself and in history, for Neoplatonism belongs properlywithin Nous. But because it is atemporal, there is no need to find the moments of Nousunfolding in history as they do in itself. The emergence of Nous from the One is anabsolutely free unfolding, and so the freedom of thought which Hegel sees as the truth ofthought is present in Neoplatonism. The One does not precontain the megista genê.Rather, the megista genê, and the determinations of the other two orders of Nous, are thefree, unplanned, expression of the thinking activity of Nous. They are the thinkingactivity of Nous, and the contents of Nous are in this radical sense what actually emerged.In itself this is a free activity. However, the thinking of Nous is also the necessaryfoundation of philosophical thinking, because for us it is necessary. Nous is grounded inthe One, and in turn is the ground of dianoia. The Ideas in Nous do not change, and sothey constitute the necessary object of a philosophical thinking which since Plato andAristotle has understood this object to be unchanging and universal. Nous, as theatemporal ground of philosophical thinking constitutes a total system of livingdeterminations, an order in the cosmos which we attempt to grasp in thinking. This grasptakes place through philosophy, through dianoia.Philosophy takes place in time, through contingent human beings, and thereforehas a history. Philosophy is the discursive attempt to articulate to ourselves, in non-V12
D.G. MACISAAC: NEOPLATONISM AND THE HEGELIANISM OF JAMES DOULLnoetic terms, the ordered content of Nous. As such it requires that there be a Nous, withan internal articulation, in order to be carried out. For this reason the undifferentiatedBeing of Heidegger cannot ground a metaphysics. The immediate relation of historicalthinking to a One would also be only vanishing moments, and so historicity. But therelation of philosophy to Nous is that in Nous it finds an ordered, unchanging cosmos ofForms, which it unfolds, and whose necessity and constancy give a unity to thephilosophical project. It is for this reason that philosophy has a history, but is not ahistoricity. But the modern mistake is to think that philosophical thinking has thenecessity and completion which only belongs to the noetic.As we saw in our analysis of remaining, procession, and return, philosophy as areturn upon Nous is not a vanishing moment. What we articulate in philosophy is in factabout Nous. But also what we articulate is not already contained in Nous. So the historyof philosophy is, quite literally, the history of what we have thought about the order ofthe cosmos. But there is no necessary order within the history of philosophy itself.Rather, it comes to be through a succession of contingent thinkers, all of whom areunfolding one or another aspect of the noetic principle. This activity has a history,because in principle it can never be complete, but contrary to the Hegelian idea, there isno end to this history. The desire for completion or an end to the history of philosophy isa mistaken desire to assimilate the moment of returning to its origin in the remaining.And because philosophy is not Nous but has Nous as its object and ground, it does notturn Being into a set of static and dead categories as Heidegger thought. Rather, there isalways more to be thought about Nous.If these tentative points about Neoplatonism are correct, then we might find inNeoplatonism resources for a philosophy which lies between Hegel and Heidegger, onewhich can take into account contingency and history in philosophical thinking, but doesnot do this by destroying its own possibility. Further, I hope it is apparent from this thatthe Neoplatonic principle is not best understood as a moment on the way to Hegelianism.There is more in it than a movement towards a principle in which the emergentdeterminations are already present. Rather, the Neoplatonic One is the principle of thefree self-determination of the intelligible, which itself is the ground of history.I would like to make one final point. For Proclus we are essentially souls, but weare also grounded in Nous and the One. I have tried to set out in this paper what hemeans by this. The implication of this is that philosophy is not the highest approach todivinity. It is needed, because to turn the eye of our soul towards our principles is toengage in the activity of thinking about them, and that is philosophy. But if thinking isabout principles, and not identical with principles, then at the end of our philosophicalactivity we must come to an affective rest in those principles. It is to try to get us to dothis that Plotinus wrote in the manner in which he did. In his Enneads, which present thelimits of the discursive activity of philosophy so clearly, he tries to turn his readers’ soulstowards Nous such that they may cease to philosophise and become Nous itself. 21 AndVI21 See for example, Enn.V.8.13
Page 3 and 4: D.G. MACISAAC: NEOPLATONISM AND THE
Page 14: D.G. MACISAAC: NEOPLATONISM AND THE

Neoplatonism And The Hegelianism Of James Doull1

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?