68. On Plotinus's Philosophy

Regarding Dr. O. Kiefers' comments: “Plotinus' Theory of the Soul” and “Plotinus' Idea of the Sage”

It is necessary to add something to the remarks of Dr. O. Kiefers in the two previous numbers of this journal. However, it should be explicitly noted that this is not meant as a criticism of the value of these comments. Anyone who has some knowledge of the nature of our knowledge respects the views of others, even if they have different thoughts to counter them. The following is therefore said with full respect for the esteemed author's views.

It is not possible to address all points. It is said that Eduard von Hartmann once again emphasized: “Consciousness is only a reflex of the unconscious mental activity in us, and a soul activity also takes place when the mirror of consciousness is shattered by physical disturbances! Plotinus' teaching about the soul is in complete contradiction to this. He assumes a complicated doctrine of transmigration similar to that of Plato and the Pythagoreans, and yet, according to his view, all self-consciousness and indeed all individuality of the human soul must naturally extinguish in the realm of the intelligible! In our opinion, such an assertion can only be made if one does not interpret the ideas of consciousness, self-consciousness and individuality in the sense of Plotinus. For Plotinus, as for anyone who has mystical experiences like him, personal human consciousness is indeed a kind of reflection of the true human essence in the earthly-material body. But this form of consciousness should not be confused with self-consciousness and individuality, which coincides with the latter within certain limits. It is precisely the self that is indestructible; and its entry into the earthly body reflects it for itself in the way we know it as personal human consciousness. In a mode of existence other than the earthly, the self will indeed become conscious in a different form; but it is to consider earthly consciousness the only possible form of consciousness when one says that self-consciousness and individuality would have to extinguish with death under the premises of Plotinus. No, they only change their form. After death they will take on the form that corresponds to the existence in which they will then find themselves.

It is also incorrect to say that the “pure soul” is not affected by what the “lower soul” does. Although the pure soul detaches itself from the lower soul, the former takes with it the experiences it has had with the latter. And these experiences depend on the organs, on the entire nature of this lower soul. Therefore, these experiences are decisive for the further destiny of the “pure soul”. A dualism can only be perceived here if one reads it into it oneself by explaining certain self-made ideas about the nature of the lower and higher soul in Plotinus' thought. Eduard von Hartmann does this too, who only recognizes one, the personal-human form of consciousness, and therefore considers all other mental activity to be unconscious. It is a long way from stating that one regards the 'lower' and 'higher' human soul as the two elements of man, as one is not a dualist by admitting that water is not a monon, but consists of hydrogen and oxygen. Must monism then demand that the unity lie entirely on the surface? Therefore, it is quite understandable that Plotinus demands of the wise man that he work in and with the world. “Consequently,” as Dr. Kiefer says, “Plotinus' thoughts would demand the opposite.” Oh no. The peace and bliss of the wise man lies higher than in external asceticism. He can develop a manifold activity in the world and thereby experience unity with the divine in higher worlds.