One thing that is forever getting me in trouble (or at least looked down upon) is mentioning neoPlatonism in connection with either Heidegger or Peirce. (Mentioning Derrida positively doesn't help either) It's unfortunate since I think the neoPlatonists get a fairly bad and undeserved rap. Certainly few will fully agree with all the positions and arguments Plotinus takes. But then that's largely true of any philosophy. Yet I think because of its association with mysticism, religion and general shoddy thinking neoPlatonism is inherently looked down upon.
It didn't used to be so.
The Cambridge Platonists in the 17th and early 18th century were basically neoPlatonists. Likewise many of the German transcendentalists such as Schelling and even Hegel have strong neoPlatonic influences. The American transcendentalists such as Emerson most explicitly were self-declared neoPlatonists. I think the modern distaste is because of the success of science and the unfortunate anti-materialism of most of these neoPlatonists that verged into a kind of extreme idealism opposed to materialism. While there were debates between idealists and realists (typically materialists) in the early 20th century, the very form of idealism had shifted away from Platonism. One might even see Husserl's quasi-Platonism as a kind of "last gasp" of the movement.
Today it is rare to find philosophers who even read Plato, let alone the main neoPlatonists, after their sophomore year. Unless, of course, they are focused in on ancient philosophy.
This is unfortunate as I think there is a lot valuable in the neoPlatonists. Yet, at the same time, one must acknowledge that there is a wide variety of views cast under the rubric of "neoPlatonism." Just as the term "postmodern" encompasses a wide variety of often incompatible views, so too does neoPlatonism. Indeed when both Hegel and the late Berkeley are compared as neoPlatonists, we know a lot of diversity is possible. One should also note that Spinoza and Leibniz have also been considered as being at least similar to neoPlatonism.
I want to address this issue of neoPlatonism in a series of posts, both to explain why I think it is valuable, but also to show how it is helpful when considering Heidegger, Derrida and Peirce. However at the same time one must note the differences from Plato. Yet in doing this one ought also note that while Plotinus, the "first" neoPlatonist, considered himself merely explicating Plato there is a lot of self-deception in this. The reaction against the Stoics and the Aristotileans along with the evolution of Platonism means that a lot of Plotinus' views are unique. Further it is often the interplay of Aristotle and Plato that makes Plotinus so interesting. This "interplay" can be found in later figures such as Acquinas who was interpreting a largely neoPlatonic influenced tradition in light of texts of Aristotle (and texts perhaps more neoPlatonic and falsely attributed to Aristotle) Likewise at the dawn of the modern era the Renaissance provided once again Plato and Platonists to critique the largely Aristotilean tradition of the day.
When we turn to Heidegger, we find this same phenomena going on. It is widely known that Heidegger is perhaps more influenced by Aristotle than any other philosopher. Yet he did his thesis on the meanings of Being in Duns Scotus, when there was still a lot of Platonic influence. Likewise Husserl, who created the Phenomenology Heidegger reacted to, can be seen to have many Platonic elements to his thought. Out of this mixture of medieval philosophy, Aristotle, and Husserl we really have conditions akin to that syncretism that brought Plotinus to rework Plato.
To understand Heidegger's "Platonism" one should turn first to his discussion of Plato's allegory of the cave. I'll not repeat the allegory since most of us are at least vaguely familiar with it. It is important to note, however, that for Heidegger, the four stages of the cave must be seen together. Truth, as Heidegger sees it, doesn't consist in forever dwelling in a world of light. Rather it is dwelling in darkness (the cave) while knowing of the world of light. Now where Heidegger parts company with Plato is over the ideas. For Plato this is the light and the ideas become more real than the beings in the cave (the shadows). To Heidegger one must note the function of the light which lets the beings become accessible. Yet it is the beings, not the light, which is real. Plato makes the mistake not only of reifying the light (treating it as a being) but then denying all other beings.
If it is the light that is real, then truth becomes a property of this light and not the beings illuminated. Heidegger famously sees truth in beings, that is their unveiling themselves to us.
So there is this rather significant difference (that may carry over into a difference with Plotinus)
The second error that Plato makes, according to Heidegger, is misunderstanding darkness or concealment. To Heidegger concealment is as much a part of Being as is unconcealment. For Plato, given his metaphor of light, there is no concealment. The metaphor is of seeing and thus a pure seeing. Further because Plato treats the light as a thing, the very act that light does: of concealing and unconcealing beings, is lost.
Thus springs from the primacy of idea and ideas over alethea a transformation of the essence of truth. Truth becomes orthotes, correctness of perception and expression. ("Plato's Doctrine of Truth", 42, as quoted in Heidegger: Through Phenomenology to Thought, William Richardson, 308)
While one can and I think should view Heidegger through a neoPlatonic lens, it is important to realize this fundamental difference. Indeed one can consider Heidegger's entire project an attempt to avoid this error of Plato and the implications it has had for the entire history of philosophy.
Next I'll try to get a grip on how Heidegger discusses Being and attempt to demystify it both in a Heideggarian and neoPlatonic context.
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble