Plotinus and Augustine

This is a break in the usual blog entries to bring part two of the Islam and the West series, still focusing first on the development of ‘the West.’ For part one, go to Paul and Rome, and for more info click the “Islam and the West Series” link under “Pages.”

The Roman Empire was perhaps the most vibrant and successful multicultural cosmopolitan society in history. For centuries it managed to foster peaceful trade and relations between many peoples within the Empire, tolerating diversity. In the third century Plotinus (204-270), one of the most important philosophers for the Western tradition, lived and wrote, though many have never heard of him.

In the post Faith, Philosophy and the Modern Age I noted that current religious traditions emerged from what Karl Jaspers called the Axial Age, when human thought took a great leap forward in contemplating the meaning of the individual in the world. Plotinus lived just after that epoch ended, in Rome, the one place where one could learn and read of Plato, early Christian thought, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and other philosophical traditions. In some ways he transcends what we now see as the boundaries of Eastern and Western philosophy, unifying these ‘axial age’ traditions into a brand of philosophy called neo-Platonism.

Since getting deep into his philosophy would take pages of work, and I’m not a philosopher or an expert, I’ll summarize. Plotinus believed that the transcendent essence of the universe is “the One,” from which our world emanates. The One is not a creator, and in some sense is all that is, since for Plotinus the material world is an illusion, a lower order reflection of the One. The One has no real attributes; even attributing ‘existence’ to it lessens it. It does not think, is beyond our comprehension, and represents truth, the Platonic ideal. Our goal in life is spiritual connection to The One, achieving that by recognizing that as part of the World Soul, we need to connect to the true essence of reality through virtue. The material world is illusionary and a trap – we get ensnared in it and lose ourselves, unable to find happiness because we are distancing ourselves from our true connection to the One.

The pure spiritualism of this philosophy appealed to a playboy turned Christian, Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430). Augustine’s neo-Platonist Christianity creates the basis for what the Church would become, and therefore western culture in general. Augustine’s most powerful book Confessions is, in essence, a love story. He tells of how he was lost in what Plotinus would call the world of material illusions, seeking meaning and release in alcohol, sex, power and violence, until he fell in love. His lover was none other than Jesus Christ and the Christian God. Suddenly his old life was meaningless, he saw it had been empty and futile, dooming him to despair because any pleasure and gain derived from the material world was fleeting and transient. Only the love of God could provide eternal happiness and real satisfaction. For example, Augustine would tell of how in his days of wealth and power he’d look down on the hapless drunk, feeling superior. But, he noted, the drunk was better off than he was. The drunk would wake up the next day and know alcohol had not made him happy, Augustine would keep on believing that power and wealth was the key to success in life.

The power of Augustine’s writings set up the basis for Christian theology, as his neo-Platonism would overtake the numerous other competing theological views of the early Christian world. The notion of the Trinty, for instance, is a Platonic tripartite division of reality. The One from Plotinus was replaced by “God,” and instead of us being natural emanations from The One, we are creations of God. Instead of a kind of unity with the One as our ultimate essence and that to which we aspire in experience, we are separate from God, and aspire to a true love relationship with God. Augustine maintains the other worldly idealism of Plotinus, evident in his rejection of worldly goods and honors as a means towards happiness. Only a deep and abiding love relationship with God – Augustine defines it as ‘falling in love,’ – can bring happiness, everything else fades away and offers only a short term illusion of satisfaction.

This Platonic view of Christianity created for the early Christian church the capacity to survive the fall of the Roman Empire. Followers of Augustine would leave the vulgar world of every day life for well protected monasteries high in the hills, preserving knowledge, books, and information from destruction, keeping alive in their faith and practice the essence of Roman civilization. If not for Augustine and the early Christian church the West might have been lost forever as Rome collapsed. Even though Rome fell, Christianity would survive, and the barbarian hordes who destroyed Rome would take it as their faith, allowing the early Church to define European customs and traditions.

Following Augustine, these customs and traditions were built on an other-worldly view on the meaning of life. Thus the desire for progress was put aside in favor of stability and tradition. To us in the modern world this represents the dark ages, a time where for centuries Europe was backwards and stagnant. Yet given the violence and breakdown of civilization at the time, it probably was the one way that western civilization could be saved.

One issue for the next blog in this series (probably in a week or so — most blog entries aren’t part of this series) is the question of war. Christians before Augustine were generally pacifists, and Augustine’s other worldliness suggests pacifism – if this world is truly meaningless, then killing to preserve life is irrational, life in this world isn’t worth breaking God’s commandment not to kill. Augustine himself would be the one to tackle that issue.

Part One: Rome and Paul (May 31st)
Part Three: Just and Unjust Wars (June 15)
Part Four: Muhammad and Arabia (June 22)

  1. #1 by Ron C. de Weijze on June 7, 2008 - 09:24

    Rome wasn’t multicultural, it was monocultural and still in a rather disrespectful way towards other cultures. Instead of pampering them with accommodation, their countries were occupied and the people enslaved, to speed up the assimilation process. The surest way to survive it, was to become Roman asap.

    What Plotinus referred to as The One, is what the Romans printed on their coins: “the son of God”, meaning their emperor. You are skipping the most important transition in early christianity, the year AD 0. The main reason of the crucifixion was that Jesus had left room for the interpretation that he was the son of God and not Caesar.

    This transition in one way was extremely subtle, but in another way very expressive, not only in the enslaving of the occupied people but also in the crucifixions (upside down as Peter wanted, for he did not want to go like his master). August realized that christianity was about the survival of the soul and the unimportance of the body, so obviously applicable to his lifestyle.

    The transition was not from a monoculture to a neo Platonian Plotinian multicultural humanistic view but from a different understanding of western culture: the replacement of an Old Testament revengeful God (still in islam) to a New Testament not at all revengeful God. The god of the desert tribe was replaced by a universal God who holds all cultures dear, not in your multicultural sense but each with its historical-geographical home ground.

  2. #2 by scotterb on June 7, 2008 - 12:12

    I have to disagree with you here. Everything I’m reading on Rome shows it to be multicultural and diverse, they couldn’t have survived if they’d just enslaved all other peoples. But if you have a source you can point me to which supports your position, I’ll consider it. Also, given the violent nature of Christian history, which includes inquisitions, crusades, ‘convert or die’ massacres, corruption and the like, I think western culture had a much more complex and difficult transition than you seem to suggest.

  3. #3 by Ron C. de Weijze on June 8, 2008 - 00:24

    “Social Theory: Its Origins, History, and Contemporary Relevance”, Daniel W. Rossides, 1998, page 9

    “These positions about the nature of society and personal identity have appeared again and again in Western history, including today. Faced with diversity and change, Americans are responding to them in ways that the ancient Greeks and Romans would recognize. For example, conservative Republicans respond to social diversity and conflict by stressing abstract morality, abstract family values, school prayer, and uniculturalism. Liberal Democrats respond by stressing the economic basis of family values and morality and by preaching toleration and multiculturalism. But it is not at all clear that either is doing social theory, that is, is either one asking, is it possible to manage diversity, conflict, and social problems within American institutions?”,+History,+and+Contemporary+&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=sAZrQNxrnO&sig=ZovQwPwx81ZG56R-an_yYDQp7pg#PRA1-PA9,M1

  4. #4 by scotterb on June 9, 2008 - 12:58

    Yes, I think the debates now are not new, and in many ways resemble debates at the time of Rome. It’s true that social theory requires more than just choosing one over the other, it requires thinking about the way societies operate, both institutionally and culturally/politically. That’s why we live in very interesting times!

  5. #5 by John Uebersax on May 16, 2009 - 13:41

    Besides St. Augustine, Platonic and Neoplatonic ideas influenced the thinking of many Church Fathers, especially in the Eastern Roman empire. Islamic philosophy was also strongly influenced by Plotinus.

    Greek philosophy — Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Stoicism, and Neoplatonism — is a shared basis on which Christian, Islamic, and Jewish philosophy and theology are heavily dependent. It supplies an important means of dialog and exchange among the Abrahamic religions.

  6. #6 by Doug Gibson on April 13, 2010 - 15:44

    Scoterb is right, saying ‘I have to disagree with you here. Everything I’m reading on Rome shows it to be multicultural and diverse, they couldn’t have survived if they’d just enslaved all other peoples.’
    My Art History professor taught us (giving us tons of readings on ancient Rome for context of its art and architecture)saying that Rome made the offer of citizenship attractive, by offering to build theaters, roads, aquaducts, etc. They only annexed countries by force that refused these amenities. It’s like, ‘let me build you a spa or you’re going to get one whether you like it or not.’ In contrast, full Greek citizenship was racially based. Rome began selling citizenship, offering it with the perks.

  1. Paul and Rome « World in Motion
  2. Just and Unjust wars « World in Motion
  3. Pascal’s wager « World in Motion

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: