Exam is oral; you pick a random question.
The question might have a text we haven’t examined, but it will say who it’s from, and thus we should be able to extract the core doctrine of that philosopher.
We should have ~30-45 minutes to prepare. Prof. asks to come 15 minutes early (before assigned slot).
‘What does Protagoras mean by X,’ or ‘What is expressed here?’ ← is the third question.
‘Here is the text, comment on it’
First question → ‘Explain the term ‘anamnesis’ or reminiscence in Plato’
Second → ‘Compare Aristotle and Plato on the conditions of existence, on the soul, etc.’
The professor always tries to cover the whole course in the questions. If the first question is on Aristotle, the second won’t be.
Really not knowing the answer on one of the 3 questions will likely mean you are below passing/below average. If you know nothing on stoicism, but know Plato perfectly, and you get a question on both, you likely won’t pass. There’s a chance you pass, but almost certainly not a grade much higher than 10.
Neoplatonists
Philosophy has now become a way of life; in the hands of neo-platonists it really becomes a kind of spirituality. The point is to try and find ‘The Light,’ not some specific light, but the thing that illuminates everything.
Unification with the one is never going to be a kind of happiness within which you can stay.
‘Have you ever had a trip?’
‘You wonder, why couldn’t I stay there? But if you were to stay, you would simply die.’ This is not a state of happiness, this is an intermittent state of highest experience. Happiness is the happy of the life of the soul that succeeds in finding the perfect virtue, the one but last stage of rationality, of intellect, that you need to organize your life in a good way.
In these contexts, Plotinus often uses the word ‘we,’ some commentators say this is Plotinus’ invention of ‘the self.’
How do we speak of the continuous movement of emanation? Plotinus’ three stages are too rough.
Take Kant, for instance: he argues that we segment everything into the 12 analytical categories. Thus, there is no continuity within that framework, for now.
“The world is not french fries; it is the potato.”
Neoplatonism is a new genre, they are epigones, mostly commenting on Aristotle and Plato.
There’s a philosopher called Syrianus (coming from Syria), who has a commentary on the metaphysics of Aristotle, and he says “YOU, Aristotle, YOU are WRONG.”
Two main sacred texts in later Neoplatonism:
- Chaldean Oracles (written by father and son in 2nd century CE, father Julian and son Julian)
- Orphic Hymns → Mystic religious tradition that existed before even Plato, but that had a boom in the 2nd century CE (again, “it’s in the air”), and many-many texts are now again forged and antedated, there is again the same issue as with Pythagoreanism. This is a bunch of religious texts that leads Neoplatonists to religious practice. This is called Theurgy.
Therapeatheon → service of the gods. There is no word for religion in ancient Greek. What they’re talking about here (theurgy) is liturgy.
They kept metaphysics, ontology, and theology separate. So they’re still somehow polytheistic.
Iamblichus is the one who innovates most after Plotinus. He’s the one who distinguishes between the First (which is still ineffable), and the One which is lower than it, but not ineffable itself, as such.
Proclus introduces the spiraling movement.