Which is why I stated that though Plotinus was selective, he still had a degree of deference for him. No one said he didn't.
Sorry, perhaps there was a misunderstanding here.
I didn't intend to suggest that you said Plotinus had no respect for Plato, I can see clearly that you did. I was merely emphasising your point - not only did he have "a degree of deference", but he looked to Plato as the person he based his philosophy on.
As far as Plotinus regarded purely as a Platonist, I would only agree only so far as it takes into account Plontinus and his locus around the middle platonic tradition. The second-third centuries C.E. ushers a novel Platonic hermeneutic tradition, of course, in the form of Neo-Platonism. But there is more to it than that (i.e. rejection of theurgy, etc.) I would think if we really examined it more thoroughly. But do you really think Plontinus is faithfully carrying on the work of Plato?
I personally think Plotinus has obvious influence from elsewhere.
He is obviously familiar with the Peripatetics, Epicurians, Stoics and Gnsotics at least. What I meant is that Plotinus considers himself
to be faithfully carrying on the Platonic tradition. That is, I doubt Plotinus would have accepted the term "Neo-Plationist" but would rather consider himself simply as a faithful Platonist. What is found in his writings that are not explicitly found in Plato's works, he considered merely a development on inherent points that were already latent in Plato's works.
Timaeus? Maybe in his own mind and in his own way perhaps. More could be said on that I would think than a continuation of Platonism though.
Can you elaborate more on the rejection of "divine duality of principles" you mentioned here? I'm not sure I understand what you are referring to.
Yes indeed, this goes back to what was said above in that Plotinus is consciously trying to be a Platonist, pure and simple, or at least trying to be seen as such - even if we may disagree with that ourselves.
Ah, a Neophiliac (i've trademarked this term, btw
I'm not opposed to new things as such, but I don't subscribe to novelty for the sake of novelty. Or as Chesterton put it:-
"My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday."
However, all new ideas should be tested because of course we do not presume to know everything and there is still truths to be found.
It's just novelty for it's own sake that I dislike.
But you are quite right... Aristotle indeed did the same with Plato. One need only read the first few pages Aristotle's Metaphysics to figure on expanded theories and knowledge. In Metaphysics Alpha, he praises men like Hesiod for bascally thinking outside the box. Even in book Zeta 7-8 particularly emphasize Platonic misgivings on generation.
I'll certainly take your word for it, unfortunately I've only a small knowledge of Aristotle. I only own Rhetoric
and I haven't even began to digest most of their contents.
Amonnius Saccas is an interesting subject though, isn't he?
Absolutely. We may be attributing much to Plotinus that is not original to him, but rather derives from Ammonius or those before him. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing. But it wold be interesting to see how much was passed to Plotinus and what he developed himself.
He may have been influenced by Numenius. But that seems to be the root of the problem though. Numenicus was very secretive and I suppose that Amonnius Saccus inherited the will to not publish any writings. Neat thing is that Plotinus seems to be much like his teacher (can we call A. Saccus a mentor based on such little information?).
I think it's probably fair to call Ammonius the mentor of Plot.
It appears that he was't his first teacher, but Ammonius is the one that Plot. settled on after being dissatisfied with those he studied under previously.
Even Herennicus and Origen were intensely secretive as well. Thank god for Porphyry to break the silent cycle.
Yes, good old Porphyry
Again, I wonder if he added anything of his own and passed it off as Plotinus, reminiscent of the way that Plato presumably uses the character of Socrates as the vehicle for many of his own ideas.
Actually, I'm an empirically driven rationalist with nihilistic tendancies. LOL!
Well, we certainly have different perspectives on things, but that's what makes for good dialectic, afterall
In the interest of writing space and carpel tunnel syndrome, you would have to be more specific in terms of a want for elaboration on.
I know from others that carpel tunnel is a most painful ailment so I won't ask you to go on at length. I just wondered what you meant when you said that Plotinus could have developed the concept of Divine Hypostatis without reference to Plato's Theory of Forms (which I assume you reject?).
Sadly, you are probably right.
Well, not that sad. The last in the ancient world perhaps, but original thinkers have continued through Medieval times to the present day.
There may even be some on these forums, with some luck