Re: [neoplatonism] Re: Porphyry and the "Telescoping" of the Hypostases
>Oh yes, undoubtedly Plotinus would have done that. As for Origen, his
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> John Dilon <jmdillon@...> wrote:
>> > Dennis the thing about Porphyry, which distinguishes him from
> Origen (who
>> > declared that there was no subject of the first hypothesis), is
> that he
>> > accepts that the One (*ïn itself*) is the subject of the First, but
> that the
>> > One (*in relation to what follows it*) is also the subject of the
>> > and that is what Proclus is objecting to in the In Parm. passage.
>> > else took the subject of the Second to be Intellect. It is this
> subtlety of
>> > Porphyry¹s which allows Damascius to make his claim, I think. JMD
> Thanks, I see the distinction - Proclus in the Commentary there is
> concerned with the various interpretations of the hypotheses, so the
> passages there and the PT are not sharing the same focus really.
> His comments about Origen started me wondering who wrote the first
> formal commentary on the Parmenides, and who started this quest for
> identifying the hypotheses. I suppose however random Plotinus'
> comments on the subject would be, he still could have held a more
> formal live discussion on the topic that we no longer have access to
> beyond any echoes in the Enneads.
> Dennis Clark
comments could have come in his work The King the Sole Creator¹, but no
evidence of a formal commentary on the dialogue by him, or before Porphyry.
When the ontological interpretation of the second part arises is the real
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]