The Enneads: Abridged Edition (Penguin Classics)

Absurdly good. Amazing intro. The story of the translator's obsession with Plotinus and lifelong work makes this volume feel and read that much more satisfying. I'm so glad I chose this one.

A materialist's nightmare.

I had heard of Plotinus' "Enneads" for years and always thought they'd be too obtuse to understand. This seemed to be the opinion of references to it. But, I finally ordered the book, which came in good condition. I was pulled through the reading but had to do it in stages. The world explored by Plotinus is glorious, multilayered and has none of the limiting of "modernity." There are wide open spaces in his exploration of the nature of matter for it is a simple, very basic question only a child would ask. His answers to his sefl-put questions are valuable in that the answers restore a sense of the innate majesty of the universe.

Plotinus was the greatest Platonist philosopher of the ancient Platonist school and also arguably the greatest thinker between the decline of ancient Greek Philosophy (and the schools of Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics and the Epicureans) and St Augustine. Plotinus though unfortunately has until fairly recently been neglected by mainstream philosophy, primarily because of the hostility of contemporary 'scientific' thought to the phenomenon known as mysticism. Mysticism is a complex term and not really suited to the study of what once might have been called 'mystical', i.e. transcending the ordinary, discursive rational modes of understanding. Maybe new terms need to be found. Unfortunately Plotinus and his great works of speculative thought have been characterised as 'mystical' and Plotinus himself has been called a 'mystic.' There is no doubt a careful reading of Plotinus's writings contain movingly beautiful descriptions of what might be called 'mystical' experience, as scholars have noted. But the difference with Plotinus is he tries to establish his system, as all great philosophers do, on appeal to reason and argument. This is clearest in his polemics against the ancient 'Gnostics', religious sects that claimed insight into reality based on secret rituals and visionary experiences, akin perhaps to Theosophy in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Any reader of Plotinus will quickly see Plotinus has little time for such nonsense, or at least he considers it unimportant to using your brain to work things out. The Enneads are actually a series of lecture notes or seminar papers delivered by Plotinus to a small school of Neo-Platonic philosophers, arranged and edited by his student Porphyry. Unfortunately Porphyry arranged the Enneads according to Platonic numerology resulting in a confusing and unsystematic arrangement of Plotinus's ideas. The Penguin translation is very dated (based on McKenna) and also abridged, and certainly not as good as Armstrong's much better Loeb translation. This edition is relatively affordable but the cumbersome terminology and stiff translation given by McKenna mask the beauty of Plotinus's prose. Despite these problems this edition is relatively accessible and the introductory essays are very helpful. This book remains a good place to start for students of Plotinus.

What an amazing book......as I am not a scholar per say this is a book I have read slowly and carefully and will probably take many years to grasp and fathom the thinking of such an amazing mind…but I am enjoying the treads of his thinking so far……. if you want to read Plotinus don’t expect it to be a cracking good read…..it isn’t…. it is a book for those who want deep philosophy and theology.

Plotinus' interpretation of Plato was very influential on Christian theologians, including Augustine. He was indirectly influenced by Philo of Alexandria, the Hellenist Jewish philosopher. This edition includes Porphyry's Life of Plotinus.

before you read this review, realize that i need to do a lot more study on the aneads before i really know what i am talking about. much of what i write here is based on my own speculations on the subject of soul. plotinus seeks to delve into conflicting views on the nature of reality and being. he studied in the library at alexandria and i know that he did favour certain approaches over others, as rightfully he should. it seems to me that the age old question of whether we are animated by a supersoul like the fingers on a glove, or whether we are discrete individual souls comes up. this interests me very much. my own view is that if we seek union with the super soul that all is then this we shall achieve. like wise if we seek an independent discrete enlightenment then this we shall find. what one seeks for creates what one finds. seeking is a process of creating. one should be careful about what one wants because what one wants is what one will look for and what one looks for one will find. (jesus "seek and ye shall find"). so we are all creating our own unique reality. plotinus was unique, there has never been another plotinus, but then so too is joe bloggs! i am one, you are one, discrete and unique. some will say that what is just is... whatever you say about God or reality (gods creation) falls short of the mark, statements may be helpful, but only on a practical level. this helpfulness is what makes them true in a practical sense, but the opposite approach too will be just as fruitful at another time or period. reality just is. so, some will say that all is relative, as with anything you can answer yes and no... there will always be two sides to any argument. however at a given time one approach may be favourable over another. i have two hands, both are equally hands and this is their symetry... however my right hand i favour to use more often than my left hand. this is asymetry within symetry. there will always be two sides, equal (water), and yet one hand will always be favoured over the other (fire). and so even within equality we find degrees of perfection. water states (the ultimate leveller) that all is equally important. yes. fire states that there are degrees of perfection. this can be seen as the cross with a vertical (fire) and a horizontal (water). degrees or layers of perfection over and against equality. to me there is really only one supreme truth and that is true love. and God is this love. i dont think it really matters whether you believe this or not, what matters is that i must try to practice this in my daily life. intellectual knowledge is not important, nor is ignorance, what matters is truth, and love is truth. the one love that unites all is the one truth and yet we can separate truth from love and say that truth is the 'understanding' that leads to love, or is a product of love (and as was already said, truth is love, two natures, one person). [c. 3 months later...] i am ploughing my way through the first tractate "the animate and the man". plotinus believes in a pure self that animates the body. he admits that individual/discrete self is at the same time part of the shared/essential self, (sometimes known as paramatman or the monad). the ideal self is what he calls the divine. this view is paralleled by that found in hinduism. the neo-platon Origen was found heretical in his teaching (by the church). Plotinus asks questions such as whether the soul/self is affected by the experiences of the body. he clearly says 'no'. the soul remains pure and unaffected by experience and bodily desires, fears, etc etc etc (the affections/experiences of the body). my own view is that only truth can modify soul material and in so doing creates spirit. he asks whether the soul is outside or interwoven with the body and draws no firm conclusion on this, he does however assert that whether interwoven or separate... that it is not affected by the body. this must be so since he sees the self as 'ideal' in the platonic sense. he sees the intellect as ideal too. logos (intellect) is pure and comes from the pure 'self', not from the body. he believes the soul and body act in partnership, but that it is the soul that remains perfect and unaffected by the body. he therefore concludes that childhood is inferior to adulthood since it is in later life that we start to use the higher/soul tool of intellect. (treat this paragraph with care... this needs more study) The fourth Anead is on the soul, and here, Plotinus the father of Neoplatonism makes it clear that his views parallel quite closely with those of hinduism. one All-soul animates all other souls. this ideal (see platonic ideals) is for want of a better word 'God'. at once all souls are individual and yet part of the All-soul. the all soul is both within and beyond the universe. all things are expressions of the all-soul. it must be said that the 'i', which 'is' is an impermanent form of being and cannot in my opinion be considered to be the ground of being. the ground of being would seem to be 'this', or consciousness. i think that 'this' is a attribute of God, not the truest nature of God, which is love. the true ground of being is love, from which comes truth/perception, from which comes being/consciousness. i do not think that God is the All unless one views all things through the eye of love. i do think that all things subsist and have their being through the one true God, even those things that are evil. i am happy to agree with the hindu brother who sees 'love' as the groud of being, even the ground on which 'this', the self 'I' and also the 'soul' rest. an intersting after-thought is that the neoplatonic 'all soul' is implied in ancient, roman, greek, egyptian and hindu theology. the idea at all gods are emanations of the 'ideal', that each god expresses certain qualities of the 'ideal', or the 'one' true God. but surely are not all things emanent from God if seen through the mirror of love? just as we, these gods express sometimes fickle and unloving characteristics. i do not doublt that these Gods are created by the one true god, and that they serve a noble purpose. my respects to all those that read this. though being one in love, all things. there is still a significant separation between God and us! there is no doubt that nature is the handi-work of the one true god, but at the same time is mixed with evil, nature is ambiguous. christians explain this mixture as a result of the fall, and some may find this metaphor helpful. i do. evil exists in the world because mankind in Adam made the wrong choice, and this is important. i do not deny that union with brahman may be possible, only that union with this super self/I is not the ultimate union as that of with the one true God, unless Truth Himself represents himself to the seeker as 'Brahman', the label is not important, it is what the label represents that is significant. according to some hindus, brahman-atman is tainted (a-moral), the one true God is pure... choose your mystical path, confront your mystical goal. a-moral or moral, tainted or perfect. choose for you must. there are of course those sensible minded hindus who will agree with me whole-heartedly on this matter... of course God is pure. the question arises... was plotinus writing about the soul (essence) or the self (I) ? the soul or essence may be permanent and unchanging, though i doubt this, i think soul is affected by environment. i also think that soul only becomes permanent when interwoven with spirit/Truth. the one thing that would seem not to be changing is 'mind' or consciousness ('this'), if 'this'/mind is plato's 'intellect' then it may well be permanent and unchanging, possessed of all things and possessing all things through God and as an aspect of God. i suspect though that the common respect for 'reason' is not the 'circle' of plato's mind, and this is since every argument has a conclusion. it is linear and not circular. every argument is with beggining, middle and conclusion (as mentioned by arisotle in 'de anima'). a circle is infinite, having no beginning nor ending, but infinite. is plato/aristotle's 'intellect' the soul, (it certainly may be perception/Truth and consciousness/being), though i doubt it is the ordinary soul, and this is because many individualites have no intellect, this being the case not everyone or thing has a soul. therefore we are not talking about a universal 'all' or 'world' soul. i believe that most things do have a soul, including inanimate objects such as stones and mountains may. clearly both of these men believed 'intellect' to be soul, but was it not surely 'mind' they were referring to. this is something i am working on myself at the moment and so can give no firm conclusion on the matter. But, and if 'perception'/'consciousness' was to plato his logos, or intellect, then i believe he was mistaken in assuming it to be the ultimate principle, which is love alone. aristotle talks of soul as 'the first principle' in De Anima. if however perception (Truth) + consciousness (Being) is a part of God "the mind of God is as the mind of man", then we all have in us a part of God (as consciousness)... but we all also have dark material (sin) within us. as i say, this is something i am working on. 'reason' is not intellect ('perception'+'consciousness') for plato, since reason is not possessed by all (nor is it circular)? even though it may well be that intellect resides in the soul. but not in every case. essence is soul and intellect is certainly an aspect of mind, which most of us have. must work on this. [working on these things...] it seems to me that consciousness (being(what is)/this/life) is at the root of soul ('essence' which exists in order to 'be' ie 'existence', to exist, but is not in itself existence, being.). i think soul is not life, rather that 'truth' is life. soul exists in order for the person or thing to exist, to be. if mind 'perception' is truth, then it must be 'life'(since truth and life are one person, two attributes of). being or consciousness emerges from truth/life, as colours emerge from light. we can ascribe this to two parts of jesus's nature, him who is 'life' and the way and the 'truth'. self ('I') functions in order to provide 'position'/placement, i kind of wonder whether its like an anchor of sorts, anchored in the soul and being. the 'i' weaves the raw material of the soul, which in turn weaves the body. but in truth, without truth there is only the semblance of life. so we talk of both the sanctity of death as well as the sanctity of life. though if we are honest with ourselves we see that we do not always treat life as sacred. and how can being (consciousness) be?... 'Truth' and how can truth be? 'Virtue'. and how can virtue be? 'Simplicity'. virtue cannot exist without 'simplicity', simple food, clothing, housing, life-style. etc etc etc. without virtue, there cannot be truth. simple. but that is practical. when i speak of 'truth'. i speak of he who is truth. for it is by virtue of 'he' that being is being. and what is the purpose of 'life' (being). the purpose of life is 'transcendence'. to transcend. how can it become transcendent? through 'love' (exactly. precisely. perfectly so). love is 'the great guide'. The way, the truth and the life. Love himself. that two may become one in unity. what is 'transcendence'?... 'perfection'. from what does perfection come (its origin, teacher and master)? 'love'. And what is love?... 'kindness'. an ontological change is needed in the human race and other races. this change will not come about through people who are snow-flakes, though we may help a little. it will come through 'truth'/understanding. this is since being itself is an emanation through truth. truth is the origin of being and as such is the only thing able to modify and adjust it (being) towards transcendence. christians say that 'the truth' (jesus) is the word of God. the understanding we all require to change our being is an understanding of 'kindness'(love) and then an understanding of true love/loving kindness. which must not only be for ourselves but also toward all. love is the root of truth. without loving kindness one will not come to understand ones neighbour. ontology/being is rooted in truth/understanding and understanding is rooted in love/kindness and love is rooted in loving-kindness (true love). this is the only thing that can change the ontology of the human race. understanding that engenders love. may all who read these words be blessed and turned to the one true God who is true love (loving-kindness). and his love is made manifest in his son, the lord jesus christ, the second person of the trinity. love, snow-flake... (i hope there will be more). ps. still working on this. tc ***

The source book for much of the ancient Greek interpretation of the Egyptian mysteries. Schwaller de Lubitz must have been very familiar with this work and the Hermetica as he analyzed the mystic architecture of the Temple at Luxor.

Excelente eu recomendo.

The book arrived in a terrible state, as if it had been in a dumpster.

星二つは本の評価と言うより私の無能力の証。新興宗教の教えを読んでいるようで、あまりというかほとんど理解できませんでした。英訳のでき不出来はよくわかりませんが、英訳者の報われない人生が一番印象に残りました。プロティノスはルネサンスのプラトニズム等後世の思想に大きな影響を与えたと聞いていますが、素人の悲しさ故、神秘的雰囲気を除くとなにがなにんだか・・・・

The written teachings of the Greek philospher Plotinus (204/5-270), were gathered into 6 books of 9 chapters (treatises) each, by Porphyry (234-305), his student. Indeed, the term 'Ennead' is Greek and means a 'collection of 9 things'. Porphyry arranged the 56 chapters into what he considered to be a logical and coherent representation of the essence of Plotinian thought. Plotinus was, of course, a lineage descendent of the philosophical school of Plato (429-347BCE), and is viewed by many as a reviver of this system of thought. In this respect, Plotinus is often referred to as 'neo-Platonist' philosopher. The paperback (1991) edition is brought up to date by John Dillon, and contains 558 numbered pages, and is separated into the following sections: Stephen Mackenna: A Biographical Sketch - John Dillon (based on ER Dodds memoir). Extracts from the Explanatory Matter in the First Edition - Mackenna's Original. The Place of Plotinus in the History of Thought - By Paul Henry. Plotinus: An Introduction - By John Dillon. Porphyry: On the Life of Plotinus and the Arrangement of His Work - Mackenna. Preface: By John Dillon. 1st Ennead: Contains Treatises 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 & 9. 2nd Ennead: Contains Treatises 3, 4 & 9. 3rd Ennead: Contains Treatises 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8. 4th Ennead: Contains Treatises 3, 4 & 8. 5th Ennead: Contains Treatises 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 & 9. 6th Ennead: Contains Treatises 4, 5, 7, 8 & 9. Appendix I: The Chronological Order of the Tractates. Appendix II: Index of Platonic References. Stephen Mackenna (1872-1935) translated the entire Enneads after encountering the text whilst covering the Russian Revolution in St Petersburg in 1905, for the New York World newspaper. Interestingly, Mackenna was not a professional academic, and yet he produced a translation of a Classical Greek text that is considered an important work of English translation literature. This is despite the fact that John Dillon, in his Preface, informs the reader that Mackenna's translation is dated, orotund, fuzzy in places, but seldom incorrect. Dillon also points out that Mackenna's use of English in this translation is considerably better than Plotinus' use of Greek in the original! It is important to note that Mackenna's original translation used the 1883 text of Richard Volkmann (Teubner, Leipzig), and was extensively compared with the extant translations of the time. Dillon points out that today, there exists better source material to work from, which is a testimony to Mackenna's achievement. This is an abridged edition that does not contain all of Mackenna's translation. Dillon feels that he has ommitted material that is repeated throughout the Enneads themselves, and that in doing so, he is assisting the general reader to gain the essential meaning without the need for saying things more than once. A classic translation, that although meandering in places, has a sense of antiquity about it.

Plotinus is the man who started thinking i na different way about how the universe might be organised. Although he details some god-like attributes to The One, his phraseology and concepts do make you that the universe could not have come into existence in some sort of bootstrap process.