Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

6182Re: [neoplatonism] Does every human being have a unique Form?

Expand Messages
  • david.gallagher70
    Jan 17, 2014
    • 0 Attachment
      The following comes to mind:

           In general, then, it must be accepted that everything, whatever it is, which is predicated of something else came to it from something else or is the active actuality of the thing of which it is predicated.  And if it is of such a kind as not to be sometimes present and sometimes not, but to be always with that thing, if that thing is substance, it also is substance, and what it is predicated of is no more substance than it is; but if one does not grant it substance, at least it belongs to the real beings and exists.  And if that thing could be thought of without its actual activity, that activity could none the less be simultaneous to it, but ranked later by us in our thought.  But if it cannot be thought except along with what is predicated of it, as “man” cannot be thought without the “one”, it is either not posterior to but co-existent with it, or prior to it, so that the thing may exist through the activity; but we maintain that the one and number are prior.  Enneads, VI.6.10


      See also III.4.6, from whence:


           He would not have been a good man if he had the guardian spirit as a partner in his own activity.  For intellect is active in the good man.  He is, then, himself a spirit or on the level of a spirit, and his guardian spirit is God.  Is it, then, above the intellect?  If that which is above intellect is his guardian spirit, why, then, is he not a man of noble goodness from the beginning? 


      And so forth as follows in the chapter.


      David Gallagher

      In a message dated 1/17/2014 12:40:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, john.uebersax@... writes:

      1. Do any Neoplatonists explicitly suggest that each human being has his or her own Platonic Form?
      2. Would such a Form be identical to a One of that individual human being?
      3. If each human being has an undescended part of the soul, would this be at the ontological level of Soul, or could it actually be Intellect? Or One?
      One implication of the last question is that if the undescended soul corresponds to what is commonly known as a 'guardian angel', and if the latter is not itself at the level of One,  then both ones empirical personality and ones guardian angel have a common One, i.e., something ontologically prior to both.
      John Uebersax
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic