| dc.description.abstract | The present doctoral dissertation consists of a systematic study of a part of the history of Platonism. In particular, the work aims to analyse the concept of demiurgy as it is developed between the Middle and the Neoplatonism, comparing the thought of Numenius of Apamea and that of Plotinus. The dissertation is divided into three chapters and a general introduction. The introduction outlines some problematic aspects of the exegesis of the Timaeus in the history of Platonism. The first two chapters, respectively, deal with the thought and the doctrine of Numenius and Plotinus, while the third is devoted to a comparison between the two philosophers.
In the first chapter, the role Numenius plays within the Platonic tradition is first analysed, discussing the so-called Orientalism thesis while, secondly, the question of the monad/ dyad dualism is examined. Furthermore, the role of the exegesis of Plato’s dialogues, in particular of the Republic and the Timaeus and the nature of the first god and the demiurge are explored. Although within the theological hierarchy of Numenius the demiurge mainly occupies the role of the second god, the demiurgic nature nevertheless also characterises the third level of reality. The conclusion is that, for Numenius, the first god does not act as a demiurge, as totally inactive, while the second and third god constitute two distinct levels of reality which realize the demiurgy as a unitary process, as, respectively, a paradigmatic and efficient cause. This unity of demiurgic action justifies the definition of the second and third god as “one”.
The second chapter deals entirely with Plotinus instead. First, the so-called metaphorical exegesis of the Timaeus e the difficulties that emerge from the interpretation of the dialogue by Plotinus are analysed. Secondly, the Plotinian critic of the Gnostic conception of demiurge in examined. The bulk of the chapter is dedicated to the analysis of the concept of demiurgy based in the light of the three hypostases, starting with a quotation from Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus and the analysis of the theonym “Zeus”. Indeed, we investigate which of the three hypostases could be identified with the demiurge. In the thesis, it is demonstrated how the Plotinian One cannot be identified with the demiurge. In fact, it is explained that the Plotinian One cannot be the demiurge, in the light of its absolute transcendence. From a reading of the passages of the Enneads dedicated to demiurgy, it emerges that, for Plotinus, the demiurge is both the Intellect (paradigmatic function) and the Soul which, through Nature and the logoi, performs the cosmopoietic task of demiurgy. The analysis carried out seems to suggest that in Plotinus it is possible to speak of a double level of demiurgy.
The last chapter is instead devoted to a systematic comparison between Numenius and Plotinus. In primis, the notion of first principle is examined in both authors, and it is demonstrated how the Plotinian One is actually characterized by a radical transcendence compared to the first god of Numenius. In secundis, the study deals with chapter VI of treatise 33 of the Enneads, showing how, in the criticism of the Gnostics, it is possible to refer to a doctrine that could be traced back to thad of Numenius. Finally, comparative analysis is proposed between the two authors based on the concept demiurge in which it is concluded that the conception of the “double” demiurgy by Numenius may have had a decisive influence on that of Plotinus. [edited by Author] | it_IT |
