_The first book-length philosophical study on the Presocratic influences in Plotinus’ Enneads._.

Dans la discussion qui se poursuit parmi les spécialistes plotiniens sur les Formes d’individus, l’âme non descendue et le moi, la notion d’individualité est d’habitude considérée comme acquise. Le but de cet article est de montrer que Plotin soumet cette notion à une vérification rigoureuse. Dans le monde intelligible, l’individualité n’est pas incompatible avec l’universalité, car chaque individu intelligible est « un-et-multiple », exactement comme l’Intellect universel lui-même. Cette compréhension plutôt platonicienne, anti-aristotélicienne, permet à Plotin d’expliquer l’immortalité personnelle – soit (...) la persistance de l’âme de Socrate en tant que telle après la mort – en situant le principium individuationis des âmes dans l’Intellect lui-même. Nos vrais mois, ou âmes individuelles non descendues, qui restent toujours dans l’intelligible et qui ont une connaissance totalement noétique, sont unies entre elles, avec les Formes et l’Intellect comme une totalité, tout en conservant leur individualité totale ; Plotin suggère même qu’elles soient des Formes. Rien ne prouve que Plotin distingue clairement les Formes des âmes non descendues, comme le prétendent certains savants. L’individualité empirique, qui exclut strictement l’unité avec les autres et avec le tout, est une forme insuffisante d’individualité qui appartient au monde sensible ; ses critères, ou plutôt ses limitations, ne sont pas valables pour la vraie individualité intelligible, ni pour le vrai moi.Qu’est-ce qu’un individu? In the ongoing discussion among Plotinian scholars on Forms of individuals, the undescended soul and the Self, the notion of individuality is usually taken for granted. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that Plotinus subjects this notion to a thorough revision. In the intelligible world, individuality is not incompatible with universality, because each intelligible individual is a One-Many just as the universal Intellect itself. This distinctly Platonic, anti-Aristotelian understanding of individuality enables Plotinus to account for personal immortality – i.e. the persistence of Socrates’ soul as Socrates’ soul after death – by locating the principium individuationis of the souls in Intellect itself. Our true selves or individual undescended souls, which always remain in the intelligible and have full noetic cognition, are one with each other as well as with the Forms and with Intellect as a whole while preserving their full individuality ; Plotinus even suggests that they are Forms themselves. There is no evidence that Plotinus sharply distinguished Forms from undescended souls, as some scholars have maintained. Empirical individuality, which strictly excludes unity with the others and the whole, is a deficient form of individuality that belongs to the sensible world ; its criteria, or rather its limitations, are not valid for true, intelligible individuality or for the true self. (shrink)

This paper argues that the duality of phantasia consists not in its being divided between two faculties, but in its being the meeting point of two representations. First it is argued that Plotinus’ theory, according to which the representation is a judgement, rests on his reading of Theaetetus 184c–187a and its criticism in De Anima III, 2–3. Second, it is argued that the ‘image’ in which the Plotinian representation consists follows the perceptual judgement instead of preceding it. Third, it is (...) argued that there is neither a sub-sensitive faculty of phantasia nor a sub-sensitive representation. Then, the exteriority of the objects of representation with respect to the soul is discussed. Finally, an interpretation is proposed concerning the necessity for Plotinus to posit two representations of the same object. (shrink)

In this paper, I investigate the foundations of Plotinus’ innovative theory that prime matter is unaffectable. I begin by showing that Plotinus’ main arguments for this thesis (in Ennead 3.6) all rely upon the controversial assumption that the properties prime matter underlies are not properties of prime matter itself. It is then argued that prime matter’s privation of sensible qualities has its conceptual basis in an idiosyncratic understanding of form-matter composition generally, and its primary doctrinal basis in Aristotle’s critical reports (...) on the Platonists’ substratum in Physics 1.9. While Plotinus finds Platonic authority for unaffectible matter in the Receptacle passage of the Timaeus, it is Aristotle’s testimony that provides the crucial impetus for reading that text in this way. On this basis, Plotinus develops a Platonist conception of form’s inherence in matter with distinctively non-Aristotelian features. (shrink)

The thesis offers a reconstruction of Plotinus' reading of the Theaetetus, and it presents an account of his epistemology that rests on that reading. It aims to show that Plotinus reads the Theaetetus as containing two anti-sceptical arguments. The first argument is an answer to radical scepticism, namely, to the thesis that nothing is apprehensible and judgement must be suspended on all matters. The second argument is an answer to a more moderate form of scepticism, which does not endorse a (...) universal suspension of judgement, but maintains nonetheless that scientific knowledge is unattainable. (shrink)