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

Re: [neoplatonism] Re: Porphyry and the "Telescoping" of the Hypostases

Expand Messages
  • John Dilon
    ... Oh yes, undoubtedly Plotinus would have done that. As for Origen, his comments could have come in his work ŒThe King the Sole Creator¹, but no evidence
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 23, 2008
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com <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
      > Second ‹
      >> > and that is what Proclus is objecting to in the In Parm. passage.
      > Everyone
      >> > 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
      >
      >
      >

      Oh yes, undoubtedly Plotinus would have done that. As for Origen, his
      comments could have come in his work ŒThe 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
      mystery! John


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.