 |
GetTextbooks.co.uk
Compare Prices & Save up to 90% |
|
|
|
| Login | Sign up | My Wish List |
 | | The Cambridge Companion to Plotinus (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy) by Lloyd P. Gerson (Editor) ISBN-10: 9780521470933 ISBN-10: 0-521-47093-5 ISBN-13: 9780521470933 ISBN-13: 978-0-521-47093-3 Hardcover 1996-08-13 Cambridge University Press Find Lowest Price |
Editorials | ||
Product Description Plotinus is the greatest philosopher in the 700 year period between Aristotle and Augustine. He thought of himself as a disciple of Plato, but in his efforts to defend Platonism against Aristotelians, Stoics, and others, he actually produced a reinvigorated version of Platonism that later came to be known as "Neoplatonism". In this volume, sixteen leading scholars introduce and explain the many facets of Plotinus' complex system. They place Plotinus in the history of ancient philosophy while showing how he was a founder of medieval philosophy. | ||
Book Description Plotinus is the greatest philosopher in the 700 year period between Aristotle and Augustine. In this volume, sixteen leading scholars introduce and explain the many facets of his complex system. They place Plotinus in the history of ancient philosophy while showing how he was a founder of medieval philosophy. | ||
Reviews | ||
Cambridge Companion to Plotinus (CCP) I have purchased and read much of the book. On the one hand the CCP will be, in my opinion, a difficult read for those that have little understanding of the philosophical intricacies and arguments that Aristotle, Plato and the presocratics presented, and that Plotinus was rebutting, reformulating or reappraising. On the other hand the fine scholarship makes it an important contribution to understanding the philosophy of Plotinus. Professor John Bussanich's article "Plotinus's Metaphysic's of the One" comes close, I fancy, to formulating the axiom of mysticism itself. A bitter grumble here: as Plotinus made no mention of Christianity (Rist, 394), why devote an article about such a possibility in the CCP at this level of scholarship? Hmmm. In the Introductory essay Professor L. Gerson remarks "Some important topics are only touched on...aesthetics and mysticism, for instance" (p.2). I am a little confused. Readers, such as myself, that have invested several years in understanding the drive behind the genesis of Plotinus' Enneads, will find this remark frowningly odd. Plotinus is not Quine. You cannot sanitize Plotinus by omitting discussion on the purpose of his entire philosophy, I opine. The book is an exciting treasure to those already knee-deep in Plotinan studies. Lots of grist for the mill! I deeply respect the world-class quality of the scholarship in the book. As I do not read Plotinian articles written by Christian scholars nor articles by scholars funded by Institutionalized Religions,some essays in the book remain unread. I am glad I own the book. I got my money's worth. | ||
Useful, but not for a first look at Plotinus. I can't help agreeing with the previous reviewer. There is a uneven quality to the material in this book. It isn't that helpful - unless you are already familiar with Plotinus, whereas the aim of this series had been to provide a handy introduction. I also agree that - brief though it may be, John Dillon's introduction to the Penguin Mckenna trans. succeeds in saying far more to make Plotinus comprehensible. For example, Dominic J. O'Meara's material in Chapter 3 - 'The Hierarchical Ordering of Reality in Plotinus' - begins with a quote from Darwin " Never use the words higher and lower" - noting that Plotinus never referred to his system of philosophy as a 'hierarchy' at all, pointing out that this notion was added by later commentators. He then seeks to explicate the problem, by inviting readers to 'pick out terminology which Plotinus himself uses explicitly in order to formulate a structuring of things to which we would tend to refer as "hierarchical. . ." - hopefully, as a starting point to begin reformulating the position in Plotinus' own terms. But why not circumvent the problem by ignoring later commentaries, assumptions, sticking with Plotinus' terms from the outset? Blumenthal's material (Chapter 4) - On Soul and Intellect' begins with rather patronising advice: "Readers of the Companion who have arrived at this chapter should be well aware that Platonus was a Platonist " - much as if we might have taken Plotinus for a Druid or Hindu. No doubt, Blumenthal was thinking of the serious consequences of projecting post 18th c. notions of 'Intellect' etc. - into Plotinus. This distinction could have been made, without making the book look like a 'Plotinus for Dummies' publication. You would have to be pretty dense - failing to recognise that Plotinus was a Platonist, after reading the Introduction and reaching page 82 of the book. Again, I had qualms about Sara Rappe's contribution in Chapter 10 - 'Self-knowledge and Subjectivity in the Enneads,' largely because it begins by suggesting that Plotinus anticipated Descartes' view of subjectivity. To be fair, Rappe begins by noting convergences, but then moves on to qualify the divergences involved. All the same, I think the gap between Plotinus and Descartes is far too wide to suggest that the former anticipated the latter. All it says, really, is that philosophers of the European Enlightenment were heirs to a philosophical tradition which had its beginnings in ancient Greece. But Descartes was thinking in 'Latin' derivatives of Greek philosophical terms, and in that sense, his notion of 'subjectivity' was undoubtedly different. Why not stick with Plotinus? - if the aim was to introduce his philosophy? One of my chief reasons for reading Plotinus - and enjoying it, is that he doesn't sound like Descartes. John Dillon's piece (Chapt. 13) was worth reading - 'An Ethic for the Late Antique Sage,' engaging precisely because Dillon stayed with the primary sources. Again, the piece by Georges Leroux (Chapter 12) was interesting, because he discussed what is ostensibly a very modern topic (human freedom),without projecting 18th c philosophical assumptions into the matter. I dare say that all the papers in this book have relevance, but to my mind, there could have been better focus on Plotinus. I agree with the previous reviewer, who averred that it is often easier to read Plotinus - directly, than it is to digest some of these essays. | ||
Rough going If you are an expert in philosophy (or becoming one), this book may be a good value for you. For a modest price, you get access to 16 experts on Plotinus. However, it was very difficult reading for me, with some of the essays nearly impenetrable. The back cover of the book says it was an aim of the Cambridge Companion series to "dispel the intimidation such readers [ non-specialists] feel when faced with the work of a difficult and challenging thinker". Could have fooled me since The Enneads seem easier going than this collection. Nor did I find these collection the "most convenient and accessible guide to Plotinus currently available". The opposite seems closer to the truth. The introductory essays presented by the editor John Dillon in Penguin's abridged publication of Stephen McKenna's translation of The Enneads were vastly more readable for me. Avoid the mistake I made of reading this book first: what you may lack in context even if you read Plotinus cold, Plotinus will more than make up for by his sweeping vision and attentiveness to clear explanation. If not, you might try the Karl Jaspers book on the great philosphers that includes a big section on Plotinus. I wouldn't not recommend this book, because it does provide a great deal of context (e.g. on Plotinus's place within Platonism and his debt to Aristotle and the Stoics), the essayists are indeed top scholars, and the price is excellent. Even if you find one or two of the essayists you really benefit from and read more of them in the future, this book will have served as a good sampler. But be careful thinking that because you are very smart or very interested in Plotinus that this book is worth your time: you may find, like I am finding, that it serves mostly as a reminder of the twisty passages of academia. | ||