This is an attempted introduction to the extremely complex philosophy of 5th century Greco-Roman Neo-Platonist Proclus. I say “attempted” since large portions of Radek Chlup's book are almost as difficult as Proclus' own writings. Other chapters, thankfully, are somewhat easier to digest. Chlup frequently compares Proclus to three other Neo-Platonists: Plotinus, Porphyry and Iamblichus. Emperor Julian the Apostate makes a brief guest appearance. The author seems to be sympathetic to the Neo-Platonist project, but ultimately admits that it was doomed to failure for complex social and political reason. Indeed, Chlup extensively discusses the socio-political dimensions of Neo-Platonism, which may rub some readers the wrong way (i.e. those who see Neo-Platonism simply as an expression of Timeless Truth).
Here are some of (many) takeaways from “Proclus: An Introduction”. In contrast to Plotinus, Proclus didn't believe that humans could reach union with the One. Indeed, humans can't really leave their designated ontological level. Despite this, Proclus did have a positive view of mysticism. The higher levels constantly send down spiritual energies to the lower ones, making it possible for humans to connect with the divine. Mystical experiences are experienced in our souls only, but they are made possible by an outflow of the divine. Also, all things on the physical level carry a divine signature, a kind of type or archetype. Through them, the “henads” (the supreme gods) providentially control everything on Earth. Magicians and theurgists can use their knowledge of the divine signatures in plants, gem stones or animals to get concrete results by attracting divine energies through ritual.
While the physical level is the lowest, Proclus has a more positive view of it than Plotinus, who in most of his writings regards matter as evil. Since the world is under the providential control of the henads and is constantly imbued with divine energy, matter cannot really be thought of as evil. This also makes Proclus positive towards the traditional civic cults of Greco-Roman religion, while Plotinus had an indifferent attitude towards them, and Porphyry was downright hostile. Chlup believes that Proclean theurgy resembled magic, and that the circle around Proclus experimented with new ritual forms as a way to rejuvenate the dying Hellenistic-polytheistic traditions. And while Plotinus was mostly detached from the everyday world of politics, Proclus apparently took an active part in the civic life of Athens, his hometown during a large part of his life.
As usual in Platonism, the weakest part of Proclus' system is his view of evil. There can be no devil in the Proclean system, and hardly even a fall. Instead, evil is the result of sheer imperfection, is under the complete control of the henads, and is really a way to perfect the good. People who suffer evil do so because they in some sense deserve it, and should see it as a learning experience. Evil may even be “good” for the evil person, in the sense that he will eventually suffer the punishment and thereby perhaps become a better person. (To see the absurdity of this position, apply it to the Nazis and their victims during the Holocaust.) More interesting is the Proclean insight that evil is spiritual, not material. This is in keeping with Proclus' relatively positive view of matter.
My impression is that Proclus' system was very “scholastic”, trying to unite all Greco-Roman religious and mythological ideas into one grand system, which explains everything in metaphysical categories. The complexity of the system is almost notorious, with Proclus making finer and finer distinctions between different ontological levels of reality. He then tried to fit in all divine principles and beings at different levels in the hierarchy. Thus, there is a heptad of intellective gods, four triads of hypercosmic gods, four triads of hypercosmic-encosmic gods, nine sublunary gods, etc. There is also the Intelligeble-intellective Intellect in three modalities!
Chlup cannot help pointing out (as many have done before him) that there is a certain similarity between the Proclean cosmos and that of the imperial bureaucracy of the East Roman (Byzantine) Empire, just as there is a similarity between Middle Platonism and the “free” cities of the Early Roman Empire, the Middle Platonist God being less interested in micro-managing the lower levels. Yet, the point of Proclus wasn't to passively obey the providential power of the (Christian!) emperor in Constantinople – quite the contrary, it was to actively try and save Hellenic culture. Hence, the attempts to create a system that would give the Hellenic cults (including civic religion and perhaps even folk religion in the form of magic) a cosmic significance. Of course, by the 5th century it was “too little too late”, Julian the Apostate having failed to resurrect paganism already a century earlier.
Despite everything, Proclus' philosophy *did* survive the triumph of Christianity. In a Christianized and altered form, Proclean ideas were spread through the medium of Pseudo-Dionysius. They were also studied in their own right in the Byzantine Empire, for instance by Michael Psellus and the Georgian philosopher Ioane Petritsi. Both Plotinus and Proclus were studied by “the Arabs” (as the author calls the Muslims), often in the garb of Aristotle. During the Renaissance, Ficino studied Proclus. During the 19th century, Schelling and Hegel were inspired by seemingly “dialectical” aspects of the Proclean system. The British Romantics also studied him, through the translations of Thomas Taylor. The author also believes that some form of Neo-Platonism is the actual house religion of many liberal Catholics post-Vaticanum II. It would be interesting to know if Proclus plays a role in the Neo-Pagan revival, although I suspect he is too scholastic and difficult for most modern pagans!
With that I close my observations on the philosophy of Proklos ho Diadokhos.
No comments:
Post a Comment