Energeia in the Enneads of Plotinus: A Reaction to Plato and Aristotle

346 Pages·2017·12.74 MB·English

by  Curtis L. Hancock

LLooyyoollaa UUnniivveerrssiittyy CChhiiccaaggoo
LLooyyoollaa eeCCoommmmoonnss
Dissertations Theses and Dissertations
1984
EEnneerrggeeiiaa iinn tthhee EEnnnneeaaddss ooff PPlloottiinnuuss:: AA RReeaaccttiioonn ttoo PPllaattoo aanndd
AArriissttoottllee
Curtis L. Hancock
Loyola University Chicago
Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss
Part of the Classical Literature and Philology Commons
RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn
Hancock, Curtis L., "Energeia in the Enneads of Plotinus: A Reaction to Plato and Aristotle" (1984).
Dissertations. 2427.
https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/2427
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons.
It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more
information, please contact [email protected].
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
Copyright © 1984 Curtis L. Hancock
ENERGEIA IN THE ENNEADS OF PLOTINUS:
A REACTION TO PLATO AND ARISTOTLE
by
Curtis L. Hancock
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School
of Loyola University of Chicago in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
October
1984
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to deeply thank the members of my dissertation
committee, Leo Sweeney, S.J., David Hassel, S.J. and Dr. Francis
Catania. Their unfailing attention to the demands of this disser
tation encouraged me to labor through its most difficult sections.
I would like to especially express my gratitude to Fr. Sweeney who
was available twenty-four hours a day for consultation and support.
I must also thank a close friend, Roman T. Ciapalo, Assistant
Professor of Philosophy at Loras College, for his time and advice
during the writing of this dissertation.
I am grateful also for my dedicated typist Diana Robertson.
Lastly, I thank my beloved wife, Kathryn, who selflessly
endured and supported my long tenure in graduate school.
ii
VITA
Curtis Lynn Hancock was born in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on August
1, 1950, the son of John Daniel and Pauline Lois Hancock. He was educated
in the public schools of Oklahoma City. He attended John Adams Grammar
School, Franklin Roosevelt Junior High School and U. S. Grant High School.
Upon graduation from the last in 1968, he entered the University of
Oklahoma on an athletic scholarship. He graduated with a B. A. in
philosophy in 1972 and with an M. A. in philosophy in 1974.
In February of 1975 he enrolled in the Department of Philosophy of
Loyola University of Chicago. After one semester at Loyola he returned to
Oklahoma for personal reasons. He returned to Loyola in the Fall of 1977,
completing by 1980 his course work and candidacy exams for the Ph. D• •
He is the husband of Kathryn L. Hancock and is the father of two,
Jason (age 14) and Elizabeth (age 10). He has taught philosophy and
a variety of other subjects as an Instructor in Adult Education at the
University of Oklahoma. Presently, he teaches philosophy at Cardinal
Newman College, St. Louis, Missouri.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS • • • • • • • • • • ii
VITA • • • • • • • iii
INTRODUCTION • • 1
TEXT A • • • • • 16
TEXT B • • • • 48
TEXT C • • 91
TEXT D • • • • • • • 151
TEXT E • • • • • • 219
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS • 275
•
BIBLIOGRAPHY • • • • • • • 311
iv
INTRODUCTION
1t ,) /
Aristotle's neologism, tY6fJ'{~ta., which occurs in almost all his
writings, from the very earliest to the very latest,l appears often in
the writings of such Hellenistic philosophers as the Epicureax;is, the
Stoics and, especially, Plotinus.2 Our present study aims to discover
how the last named, who is the founder of the Neoplatonic school, accommo-
dates the Aristotelian doctrine of energeia to his own distinctive
metaphysics.
That this is a worthwhile project would seem evident given the
numerous instances of energeia in the Enneads. Indeed, Plotinus employs
the term more often than Aristotle himself .3 Nevertheless, it is worth
noting that at least one prominent scholar of Neopolatonism doubts the
significance of energeia in Plotinus' system. According to Philip Merlan
w.
lEnergeia appears as early as the Protrepticus {see D. Ross,
Fragmenta Selects Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955, fragment 14) and as
late as the Poetics, Politics and Rhetoric. For a helpful listing of the
instances of energeia in the works of Aristotle see G. A. Blair, "The
Meaning of 'Energeia' and 'Entelecheia' in Aristotle," International
Philosophical Quarterly, 7 (1967), p. 103.
2That energeia appears in the writings of these thinkers is con
firmed by consulting the following sources: (1) Glossarium Epicureum,
Hermannus Usener, ed. (Roma: Edizioni Dell'Ateneo e Bizzarri, 1977),
p • 255; (2) Stoicorum Veterum Fragments, J. von Arnim, ed. {Leipzig:
1903-1924; repr. Stuttgart, 1964), Vol. I, p. 50; (3) Lexicon Plotinianum,
J. H. Sleeman and G. Pollet, eds. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980), pp.
374-384.
3Aristotle uses energeia 537 times (according to Blair, "The Meaning
of 'Energeia' and 'Entelecheia' in Aristotle," p. 103) compared with
Plotinus' 768 times, which we record below.
1
2
in~ Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy,
"Plotinus does not have much use for either of the two concepts of
actuality and potentiality. ••4 Merlan bases this conclusion on the
assumption that, since the dynamis/energeia distinction originates out of
the peculiar demands of Aristotle' s philosophy of becoming and . matter,
it has little value in a philosophy developed mainly along Platonic lines.
While we may protest even here that such a view underestimates the
synthetic power of Plotinus' acute mind, we will withhold final judgment
on the extent of Plotinus' commi tJnent to energeia until our study is
complete. In other words, in examining how energeia is operative in
Plotinus, one of our chief aims will be to answer whether, contrary to
Merlan, energeia is a central doctrine in Plotinian metaphysics.5
In addition to testing the truth of Merlan's view, this study is
demanded in the face of the absence of any other thorough study on the
subject in Plotinus. This is confirmed by a survey of secondary litera-
ture on Plotinus. The three primary bibliographical sources, Bert Marien' s
"Bibliografia Critica degli Studi Plotiniani" (which records studies up
I I
to 1949), L'annee philologique and Bulletin Signaletique (both of which
list studies form 1949 to the present), disclose an absence of careful
studies of energeia in Plotinus.6 There has been no book primarily
4The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy,
A. H. Armstrong, ed.; Part I written by Merlan: "Greek Philosophy from
Plato to Plotinus"; see p. 49 for above quotation (Cambridge: University
Press, 1967).
5For the most part throughout this study I will merely transliterate
energeia. The preferred translation or translations of the term will be
clarified and emphasized in the final chapter of this book.
6Bert Marien, "Bibliografia Critica degli Studi Plotiniani," in V.
Cilento, Plotino Enneadi, Vol. 3, Part 2, pp. 391-622 (Bari: G. Laterza
3
devoted to energeia in Plotinus. Some books on other subjects have
touched on the topic in passing but insufficiently. Chapter four of
/
Rene Arnou' s 1921 study, Le desir de Dieu dans la philosophie de Plotin,7
gives a mere six pages to the issue, based on a small sampling of texts,
and fails to investigate whether the doctrine develops from Plotinus'
early to late treatises. Serious limitations are also apparent in Hans
Buchner' s 1940 volume, Plo tins Moglichkei tslehre. 8 Buchner provides no
separate chapter on energeia, offers no thorough study of the important
texts and mainly treats the subject only to illumine dynamis in Plotinus.
Only four articles merit attention. Two of them, one by G. Bruni,
"Note di polemica neoplatonica contro l'uso e 11 significato del termine
entelecheia, .. 9 published in 1960, and another by G. Verbeke, "Les cri-
/ I I
tiques de Plotin contra l'entelechisme d'Aristote: Essai d'interpretation
de l' Enneads, IV, 7, 8, 5, "10 published in 1971, are helpful but only of
peripheral importance. They only consider Plotinus' polemic against
Aristotle's doctrine of entelecheia, which (as we shall see in Text A)
Plotinus rejects, believing that it pertains only to Aristotle's theory
I
and Figli, 1949); L. Marouzeau, Juliette Ernst, et al (eds.), L'annee
philologique (Paris: '0Les Bejle Lettres," 1949 sqq:}; N. Dusoulier,
~al (eds.), Bulletin Signaletique, Section 519 (or 19 in some tomes):
"Philosophie, Science religieuses•• (Paris: Centre de Documents tion du
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1949 sqq.).
I
7Rene Arnou, Le desir de Dieu dans la philosophie de Plotin,
repr., 2nd ed. (Rome7 Presses de l'Universite Gregorienne, 1967).
8Hans Buchner, Plotins Moglichkeitslehre (Munchen: Pustet, 1970).
9G. Bruni, 0'Note di polemics neoplatonica contro l' uso e 11 signi
fica to del termine entelecheia," Giornale Cri tico dells Filosofia 39
(1960)' 205-236.
/_ /
lOG. Verbeke, 0'Les cri t~ques de Plotin contra l' entelechisme
d' Aris tote: Essai d' interpretation de l' Enneads, IV, 7, 8, 5," in
4
of soul and that it is in no way synonymous with, or even related to,
energeia. A third and very brief article, ·"La doctrine des deux actes
c.
dans la philosophie de Plotin,"11 published by Rutten in 1956, relies
·basically upon only two treatises (V, 4 and II, 5) and yet tries to give
a definitive statement about energeia with questionable results. For
example, Rutten seems to reduce energeia solely to activity and then
refuses to consider Plotinus as a monist. Finally, there is Andrew
Smith's intelligent article published in 1981, "Potentiality and the
Problem of Plurality in the Intelligible World." 12 This article is
accurate and carefully constructed. However, with its focus on dynamis
rather than energeia and with its brevity (eight pages) it does not di-
minish in any way the need for our study. None of these scholars provides
adequate information on energeia, but I will consult them (and of course
others) when relevant.
Before investigating energeia in Plotinus, let us first briefly
consider how various scholars interpret energeia in Artistotle. A survey
of secondary literature uncovers a prevailing opinion: energeia signifies
eidos, which is ousia in the most basic sense.13 The words of Joseph
Owens typify this interpretation: "'Entity' [ousia] and 'form' [eidos]
Philomathes: Studies and Essays in Memory of Philip Merlan (The Hague:
Martinus Nijhoff, 1971), pp. 194-222.
llc.
Rutten, "La doctrine des deux actes dans la philosophie de
Plotin," Revue Philosophique 146 (1956), 100-106.
12Andrew Smith, "Potentiality and the Problem of Plurality in the
Intelligible World," in Neoplatonism and Early Christian Thought: Essays
.!!!. Honor of !:._ !!.:.. Armstrong, R. A. Markus and H. J. Blumenthal, eds.
(London: Variorum Publications, 1981), pp. 99-107.
13Metaphysics Eta 3, 1043 a 29-1043 b 18; also Zeta 3, 1029 a 29-
30; Theta 8, 1049 b 5-1051 a 3. ·see ahead to Text A, . notes 15-21.
5
are equated. Act is prior in Entity or form because it is itself form;
potency is not form, but has form only through its act. "14 The remarks
c.
of H. Chen we may add for emphasis:
Since the form is 'that precisely in virtue of which a thing is
called a this,' it is itself determined as 'a this,' i.e., it is
actually 'a this.' Aristotle then goes a step beyond matter's being
potentially 'a this' and form's being actually 'a this,' to call the
former expressly 'potentiality' and the latter 'actuality,' in order
to stress their distinction.15
It is important to note that basic to this interpretation is the
view that prime matter is only passive dynamis and of itself powerless to
effect perfection, form or energeia. Prime matter can acquire form or
energeia only through the agency of another which already possesses form
or energeia. In other words, energeia is really distinct from prime
matter, and it is for this reason that "pure act" is altogether dissoci-
ated from matter.
2.f.
14Joseph Owens, ~Doctrine Being in~ Aristotelian Metaphys
ics, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1963),
p. 254. Owens says elsewhere in the same work that "the priority of
act assures the absolutely dominant role of form, for Aristotelian act
and form are understood to coincide" (p. 255).
15c. H. Chen, Sophia: The Science Aristotle Sought (New York and
Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1976')"7' p. 307. The following authors also
support Owens' and Chen's interpretation: Werner Jaeger, Aristoteles:
Grundlegung einer Geschichte seiner Entwicklung (Berlin: Weidmannsche
Buchhandlung, 1923), translated by K. Robinson as Aristotle: Fundamentals
..2f. 2.f.
~ History His Development (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1948), P•
220; Werner Marx, ~Meaning of Aristotle's Ontology (The Hague: Martinus
Nijhoff, 1954), p. 50; A. E. Taylor, Aristotle (New York: Dover Publica
cations, 1955), pp. 48-49; Josef Stallmach, Dynamis ~ Energeia: Unter
suchungen .!!!!. Werk ~ Aristoteles ~ Problemgeschichte ~ Moglichkeit
und Wirklichkeit (Meisenheim am Glan: Verlag Anton Hain, 1959), p. 50
sqq.;
Anfann Stigen, ~ Structure of Aristotle's Thought (Oslo: Univer
sitetsforlagets Trykningssentral, 1966), pp. 218-238; Giovanni Reale, Il
Concetta di Filosofia Prima e l 'Unita della Metafisica di Aristote'Ie
(Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 1967), translated by John R. Catan as The
Concept 2.f. First Philosophy ~~Unity 2!_ ~ Metaphysics of Aristotle
(Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press, 1979), p. 60 sqq.; A. Rosales, "Dynamis y
Energeia," Revista Venezolana de Filosofia. 1 (1973), 77-109; G. E. M.