Daria Dugina, former
researcher of Political Philosophy at Moscow State University, during
the 16th International Conference “The Universe of Platonic
Thought” in St. Petersburg on August 28-30, 2018, gave a valuable
talk on the historical-philosophical-metaphysical aspects of
Neoplatonism, specialy on Proclus vision and understanding of the order of the manifestation or the ascent to the higher realms of the Cosmos, with a new focus in the relation
of homology between the political and the philosophic and spiritual, until now not so much studied and enlightened with such a deep and broad hermeneutic, explaining so well the different levels of reality, with the priority of the primordial one of paradigms and ideas.
Let us read our beloved Daria Dugina Platonova, a martyr for the truth, justice, wisdom, multipolarity.----- And I am publishing the article in this portuguese blog, from the translation by Lorenzo Maria Pacini, on the 15 december, 2024, birthday of Daria Dugina, in homage to Daria and his parents and Russia...
«Political philosophy has always been denied full
recognition, focusing on analyzing the metaphysical aspects of
Neoplatonism. Neoplatonic concepts such as “permanence” (μονή),
“emanation” (πρόοδος), “return” (ὲπιστροφή),
etc. were treated in historical-philosophical works separately from
the sphere of the Political [1]. Thus, the Political was
interpreted only as a stage of ascent toward the Good, embedded in
the rigid hierarchical model of Neoplatonic philosophical thought,
but not as an independent pole of the philosophical model.
This view of the Neoplatonic philosophical heritage
seems insufficient to us. We would like to take the example of
Proclus' works to show that in Neoplatonism the Political is
interpreted as an important and independent phenomenon embedded in a
general philosophical, metaphysical, ontological, epistemological,
and cosmological context.
While in classical Platonism and in Plato himself
political philosophy is explicitly expressed (dialogues “State”,
“Politics”, “Laws”, etc.), in Neoplatonism and especially in
Proclus we can judge the [political] philosophy only indirectly and
mainly in commentaries on Plato's dialogues. This is also due to the
political-religious context of the society in which the later
Neoplatonists, including Proclus himself, operated.
At present, the political ideas of the Neo-Platonists
have not been sufficiently studied, and, moreover, the very fact of
the existence of Neo-Platonic political philosophy (at least in the
late Greek Neo-Platonists) has not been proven and is not the subject
of scientific and historical-philosophical research. However,
Neoplatonic systems of political philosophy were widely developed in
the Islamic context (from al-Farabi to Shiite political gnosis [2]),
and Christian Neoplatonism in the versions of Western authors (in
particular, Blessed Augustine [3]) largely influenced the
political culture of medieval Europe.
At present, the topic is underdeveloped. In Russian
there are practically no research works devoted specifically to
Proclus' political philosophy. Among foreign sources, the only
specialized studies are “Platonopolis” by Dominic O'Meara, the
English specialist in Neoplatonic philosophy [4],
“Founding Platonopolis: Platonic Polytheism in Eusebius, Porphyry
and Jamblich [5], separate chapters in “Proclus.
Neoplatonic Philosophy and Science” [6] and comments by
A.-J. Festugiere to French translations of Proclus' major works,
especially the five-volume “Commentaries on Timaeus” [7]
and the three-volume “Commentaries on the State” [8].
Proclus Diado (412-485 CE) was one of the most
important thinkers of late antiquity, a philosopher whose works
express all the main Platonic ideas developed over many centuries.
His writings combine religious Platonism with metaphysical Platonism;
to some extent he is a synthesis of all previous Platonism-both
classical (Plato, Academia), “middle” (described in J. Dillon
[9]), and Neoplatonism (Plotinus, Porphyry, Jamblicus).
Proclus was probably the third scholar of the Athenian school of
Neoplatonism (after Plutarch of Athens and Syrianus, Proclus'
teacher), which existed until 529 (until its closure by emperor
Justinian, who issued edicts against pagans, Jews, Arians and
numerous sects, and denounced the teaching of the Christian
Platonist, Origen [185-253]).
Proclus' philosophical hermeneutics is an absolutely
unique event in the history of the philosophy of late antiquity.
Proclus' works represent the culmination of the exegetical tradition
of Neoplatonism. His commentaries start from Plato's original works
but take into account the development of his ideas, including the
criticisms of Aristotle and the Stoic philosophers, in the most
detailed way. Added to this was the tradition of Middle Platonism, in
which special emphasis was placed on religious theistic issues [10]
(Numenius, Philo of Alexandria). Plotinus introduced the
thematization of the Apophatic into exegesis. Porphyry drew attention
to the doctrine of political virtues and virtues that appeal to the
mind. Jamblicus [11] introduced a differentiation in the
Plotinian hierarchy of the basic ontological and eidetic series
represented by gods, angels, demons, heroes, etc. If in Plotinus we
see the main triad of the Elements - the Unity, Mind and Soul, in
James the multi-stage eidetic series separating people from the World
Soul and the speculative realms of Mind. Jamblicus also belongs to the
practice of commenting on Plato's dialogues in esoteric terms.
For an accurate reconstruction of Proclus' political
philosophy, it is necessary to pay attention to the political and
religious context in which he operated.
Politically, Proclus' era is very eventful: the
philosopher witnesses the destruction of the western frontiers of the
Roman Empire, great migrations of peoples, the invasion of the Huns,
the fall of Rome, first at the hands of the Visigoths (410), then at
the hands of the Vandals (455), and the end of the Western Empire
(476). One of Proclus' chosen visitors to the school, Anthemius, a
patrician of Byzantium, took an active part in political activities.
Proclus (according to the traditional rules of
interpretation of Plato's dialogues) begins his commentary on the State and Timaeus with an introduction in which he defines the topic
(σκοπός) or intention (πρόθεσις) of the dialogue;
describes its composition (οἷκονομία), genre or style
(είδος, χαρακτήρος), and the circumstances under which
the dialogue took place: the topography, the time, the participants
in the dialogue.
In determining the topic of the dialogue, Proclus
points out the existence in the philosophical tradition of analysis
of Plato's Republic of different points of view [12]:
some are inclined to
see the subject of the dialogue as a study of the concept of
justice, and if a consideration of the political regime or the soul
is added to the conversation about justice, this is only one example
to better clarify the essence of the concept of justice;
others see the analysis of political regimes as
the object of the dialogue, while the consideration of justice
issues, in their view, in the first book is only an introduction to
the further study of the Political.
We thus encounter some difficulty in defining the
object of the dialogue: does the dialogue aim to describe the
manifestation of justice in the political sphere or in the mental
sphere?
Proclus believes that these two definitions of the
subject of dialogue are incomplete and argues that both goals of
dialogue writing share a common paradigm. “For what justice is in
the psyche, justice is the same in a well-governed state” he says
[13]. In defining the main topic of the dialogue Proclus
notes that “the intention [of the dialogue] is to [consider] the
political regime, then [consider] justice. It cannot be said that the
main purpose of the dialogue is exclusively to try to define justice
or exclusively to describe the best political regime [14].
Having admitted that the political and justice are interconnected, we
will note that in the dialogue there is also a detailed consideration
of the manifestation of justice in the sphere of the mental. Justice
and the state are not independent phenomena. Justice is manifested at
both the political and the psychic (or cosmic) level.
Once this fact is established, the next question
arises: which is more primary-the soul (ψυχή) or the state
(πολιτεία)? Is there a hierarchical relationship between the
two entities?
The answer to this question is found in the dialogue The State [15] when Plato introduces the hypothesis
of homology (ὁμολογία) of soul and state, the sphere of the
mental and the political. This forces us to think carefully about
what is meant by homology in Plato and the Neoplatonists who
continued his tradition. In the later New Age philosophy, the (real)
paradigm is mostly a thing or object, and ontology and epistemology
are hierarchically constructed: for objectivists (empiricists,
realists, positivists, materialists) knowledge will be understood as
a reflection of external reality, for subjectivists (idealists)
reality will be interpreted as a projection of consciousness. This
dualism will be the basis for all kinds of relations in the field of
ontology and epistemology. But to apply such a method (objectivist or
subjectivist) to Neoplatonism would be anachronistic: here neither
the state nor the soul nor their concepts are primary. In Plato and
the Neoplatonists the primary ontology is endowed with ideas,
paradigms, while the mind and soul and the sphere of the political
and cosmic represent reflections or copies, icons, results of eikasia
(εικασία). Consequently, in the face of the exemplar, any kind
of copy: whether political, mental, or cosmic, possesses an equal
nature, an equal degree of distance from the exemplar. They are not
seen through comparison with the other, but through comparison with
their eidetic prototype.
The answer to the question about the primacy of the
Political over the psychic or vice versa then becomes clear: it is
not the Political that copies the psychic or vice versa, but they are
homologous to each other in their secondness to a common image/eidos.
The recognition of such homology is the basis of
Proclus' hermeneutic method. For him, state, world, mind, nature,
theology and theurgy represent eidetic chains of manifestations of
ideas. Therefore, what is true of justice in the realm of the
Political (e.g., hierarchical organization, the placement of
philosopher-guardians at the head of the state, etc.) concerns at the
same time the organization of theology-the hierarchy of gods,
daimons, souls, etc. The existence of a model (paradigm, idea)
ensures that all orders of copies have a unified structure. It is
this that makes it possible to safely deduce Proclus' political
philosophy from his vast legacy, in which actual politics is given
little space. Proclus implies the Political in the same way as Plato,
but unlike the latter he makes the Political the main theme much less
frequently. Nevertheless, any interpretation of Plato's concepts by
Proclus almost always implicitly contains analogies in the area of
the Political.
General homology, however, does not negate the fact
that there is some hierarchy among the copies themselves. The
question of the hierarchy of copies among themselves has been
approached differently by different commentators on Plato. For some,
closer to the paradigm, the model is the phenomenon of the soul, for
others the phenomenon of the state level, and for still others the
cosmic level. The construction of this hierarchy is the space for
freedom in interpreting and hierarchizing the virtues. Thus, for
example, in Marin [16] Proclus' own life is presented as an ascent up
a hierarchical ladder of virtues: from the natural, moral, and social
to the divine (theurgical) and even higher, unnamed, through the
purifying and speculative. The political virtues are usually
considered intermediate.
From the fragment we quoted above, in which Proclus
discusses the topic of the dialogue on the state, we can see his
desire to emphasize that the hierarchy of interpretations is always
secondary to the basic ontological and epistemological structure of
Platonism as a contemplative method. Thus, the construction of a
system of hierarchies in the course of interpretations and
commentaries turns out to be secondary to the construction of a
general metaphysical topology reflecting the relationship between
exemplar and copies. And even if Proclus himself, in the course of
the development of his commentary, pays situatively more attention to
mental, contemplative, theurgical, and theological interpretations,
this, by no means, means that political interpretation is excluded or
of secondary importance. Perhaps in other politico-religious
circumstances, which we discussed in the first part of our paper,
describing the political situation of Proclus' time in the context of
Christian society, Proclus could have focused more on political
hermeneutics without violating the general structure and fidelity to
Platonic methodology. But, in this situation, he was forced to talk
about politics in less detail.
Proclus' interpretation of the State dialogue,
where Plato's theme is the optimal organization of the state (polis),
represents a semantic polyphony, a polyphony that implicitly contains
whole chains of new homologies. Each element of the dialogue
interpreted by Proclus, from the perspective of psychology or
cosmology, corresponds to a political equivalent, sometimes
explicitly, sometimes only implicitly. Thus, the commentaries on
Plato's dialogue, thematizing precisely “polytheia”, do not
represent for Proclus a change from the usual register of
consideration of ontological and theological dimensions in most of
his other commentaries. By virtue of his homology, Proclus can always
act according to circumstances and freely complete his hermeneutical
scheme, deploying it in any direction.»
So work creatively with the body, mind, soul and spirit, but don't leave the society and the political aspect just for the ambitious and corrupt politicians and warmongers. Fight for the Truth at all levels!
N
otes: [1] Karl Schmitt's term to emphasize that it is not a technical organization of the process of government and power, but a metaphysical phenomenon with its own internal metaphysical structure, an autonomous ontology and “theology”, from which C. Schmitt's formula “political theology” originated. See Schmitt C. “Der Begriff des Politischen”. Text of 1932 with a paper and three corollaries. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1963; Schmitt C. Political theology. Canon Press-C, 2000.
[2] Corbin Henri. “History of Islamic philosophy” Progress-Tradition, 2010.
[3] Mayorov G.G. “The formation of medieval philosophy (Latin patristics)”. Mysl, 1979; “Augustine. On the city of God”, Harvest, M.: Astra, 2000.
[4] O'Meara D. J. “Platonopolis. Platonic political philosophy in late antiquity”, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003.
[5] Schott J. M. “Founding Platonopolis: The Platonic Politeía in Eusebius, Porphyry, and Iamblichus” Journal of Early Christian Studies, 2003.
[6] Siorvanes Lucas. “Proclus. Neoplatonic philosophy and science”, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 1996.
[7] Proclus. "Commentaries on Time". Tome 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Tr. André-Jean Festugière. Paris : J. Vrin-CNRS, 1967-1969.
[8] Proclus. "Commentaries on the Republic". Tome 1, Livres 1-3 ; tr. André-Jean Festugière. Paris : J. Vrin-CNRS, 1970. Idem. Commentaries on the Republic. Volume 2, Livres 4-9 ; tr. André-Jean Festugière. Paris : J. Vrin-CNRS, 1970; Idem. Commentaries on the Republic. Tome 3, Livre 10 ; tr. André-Jean Festugière. Paris : J. Vrin-CNRS, 1970.
[9] Dillon J. The Middle Platonists of 80 B.C. - 220 A.D.. St. Petersburg. Aletheia, 2002.
[10] In the ethical teaching of the Middle Platonists the central idea proclaimed is the goal of being assimilated into the divine.
[11] Jamblichus also systematizes the method of commentary on Plato's dialogues, introducing the division into different types of interpretation: ethical, logical, cosmological, physical, and theological. It is his method of commentary that will form the basis of Proclus'. He distinguished the twelve Platonic dialogues into two cycles (the so-called “Cane of Jamblicus”): the first cycle included dialogues on ethical, logical and physical problems, the second - the more complex Platonic dialogues, which were studied in the Neoplatonic schools in the last stages of education (“Timaeus”, “Parmenides” - dialogues related to theological and cosmological problems). Jamblicus's influence on the Athenian school of Neoplatonism is extremely great.
[12] Proclus. "Commentary on the Republic". Trad. par A.J. Festugière. Op. cit. pagg. 23-27.
[13] Proclus. "Commentary on the Republic". Trad. par A.J. Festugière. Op. cit. pag. 27.
[14] Proclus. "Commentary on the Republic". Trad. par A.J. Festugière. Op. cit. pag. 26.
[15] Plato “The State” Works in four volumes. Volume 3. Part 1. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg University Press; Oleg Abyshko Publishing, 2007.
[16] Marin “Proclus, or on happiness”, “Diogenes of Laertes. On the life, doctrines and sayings of the famous philosophers” Thought, 1986. С. 441-454. |
May Daria Dugina Platonova be in the realm of the higher philosophers, saints and masters, and inspire us, blessed by the Divine Being and his celestial spirits!
|
