3

When it comes to dualism versus neoplatonist privation, are there actually any good arguments at all in favor of neoplatonist privation?

The argument for dualism seems obvious. It is known that some things cause pleasure and other things cause suffering. From these, we derive the existence of Good and Bad. They are thus of equal standing. Why should one of them be considered superior to the other? Why should we grant one existence, but not the other?

That is, dualism should be the standard position. It is up to the neoplatonists to provide proof that Good and Bad are not of equal standing.

But I cannot seem to find any convincing arguments for privation (a heck of a lot of bad ones, though). I mean, even the link above to the Stanford site mentions that the main reason philosopher's moved away from dualism to privation is because they liked the romantic thought of "one God". That's evidently a poor reason. (The Second main reason is that there's little empirical evidence for the cosmologic setup underlying Manichaean Dualism, but note that this argument does not hurt general dualism at all, since general dualism does not adobt the cosmology of the Manichaean dualism).

What are the good arguments in favor of privation?

Mauro ALLEGRANZA
  • 36,790
  • 3
  • 36
  • 80
Dooo
  • 61
  • 2
  • Agreed: there are no good arguments for it. The problem is... the problem of evil. No "reasonable" theory can account for the fact that a "good" God that is omnipotent and that is the creator of all has created the EVIL. Thus, philosophers tried to find some solution to the problem. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Oct 13 '17 at 08:42
  • There is no problem of evil when it's recognized that God brings about good in spite of and even by means of the sins of mankind. How could it be a problem that God who is good does good works? Everything is going exactly as predicted from Genesis onward. –  Oct 13 '17 at 09:35
  • @MauroALLEGRANZA The problem of evil is solved by the co-existence of an anti-God, who too is omnipotent and omniscient and represents pure evil. – Dooo Oct 13 '17 at 11:48
  • @PédeLeão That is a very poor argument indeed, since it does not explain why God's plan is so terrible as it evidently would be in that case. What, God really can't do good without inevitably causing so much unnecessary suffering and hunger? Must be a terrible god then. – Dooo Oct 13 '17 at 11:49
  • @Dooo. How do you figure it's unnecessary? It's a question of God's justice in response to the sinfulness of mankind. What you call a "terrible" plan is, in fact, a glorious plan that reveals the sublime nature of God's moral excellence. Only the arrogance of man prevents us from seeing it as such. –  Oct 13 '17 at 12:10
  • There's no such thing as "sinfulness" of mankind. Each person is an individual. Do you hold an innocent child accountable for the sins committed by others? Are you a psychopath? If this is the limit of your advancements, do not write to me. – Dooo Oct 13 '17 at 13:02
  • @Dooo. When man chooses to sin, he chooses pain and suffering for himself and his posterity. We are all to blame for the suffering of children. We are also heirs to the sinful nature of our fathers, so, in spite of what you say, there is such a thing as the sinfulness of mankind. –  Oct 13 '17 at 13:12
  • Can you make your question clearer. I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean to ask... are you asking, what is the argument for a privation account of evil? Moreover, as worded, it seems (perhaps this is my misreading) that the goal is also an account of the privation explanation of evil that convinces you -- which is problematic without being able to read your mind... – virmaior Oct 13 '17 at 14:58
  • Is not neo-Platonism the rejection of dualism, thus the rejection of the distinctions you're making (good/evil, suffering/pleasure)? Plotinus would reduce these distinctions to unity.as would mysticism generally. These distinctions would be conventional, not metaphysical. –  Jan 12 '18 at 12:31
  • I would say the Plotinus endorses non-dualism, which entirely transcends the ideas of Good and Bad. They are of equal standing because they are equally human judgements and not otherwise features of the world. Plotinus rejects dualism in all its forms so the question seems an odd one. –  Feb 11 '18 at 11:51
  • It sounds like you're saying that a form of consequentialist hedonism, valuing pleasantness (implying that causes of pleasure are good and causes of suffering are evil) should be the standard position. If you don't agree with neoplatonic values and ethics, neoplatonic privation isn't likely to be very appealing. – Greg S Jun 11 '18 at 09:47

5 Answers5

2

"But I cannot seem to find any convincing arguments for privation"

This is the argument that is tacitly behind all Socratic thought. Some "pleasures" are judged, by competent human beings, to be bad. For instance the pleasure of a coward fleeing in the face of the enemy, when he gets away. From this we can conceive the notion that one may be intellectually mistaken about what the good is, i.e., in the case that we believe ourselves to think pleasure is simply good. It turns out, deep down, that is not our opinion, we need someone like Socrates to exercise us and set the right idea before us. This kind of exercise suggests that knowledge, simply, is good, and so the privation, nescience, is bad.

At the risk of incurring the exceeding ire of those in-biased folk, I must, by duty, add, that this notion of God follows from the intellectual exercises. The difficulty being that we, to use an anachronistic term, the modern term, have "bounded rationality", and so must take a leap of faith at the final step to find the direction which knowledge, if possible would set us in, towards the fullness of the right way of life, the good. Frankly, all these ideas can still be seen to be guiding all human life, if one is trained in observing.

Gonçalo Mabunda
  • 383
  • 1
  • 6
  • Nice! Thus knowledge becomes crucial in understanding good and evil. I would just say that for Plotinus this view of good and evil comes from experience and understanding, not from intellectual exercises. We don't need this 'leap of faith' if we have the knowledge but only if we don't. Not arguing just commenting. For a convincing argument as requested by the OP one would have to study the perennial philosophy and see how its metaphysics is coupled to its ethics. . . . –  Jun 12 '18 at 18:41
1

I'm not sure that this need be a discussion of good and evil. This comes from (a good entry in) the SEP.

"...Therefore, it is wrong to see the One as a principle of oneness or goodness, in the sense in which these are intelligible attributes. The name ‘One’ is least inappropriate because it best suggests absolute simplicity."

Plotinus was a student of Indian and Persian philosophy and his philosophy is 'non-dualism'. Good and evil would be human judgements. This is the philosophy of the Gospel of Thomas, where Jesus has the words 'Sin, as such, does not exist'. We see the same claim in Buddhism where suffering, as such, would not exist. Or in the Tao Teh Ching, where we are told 'Because right and wrong were invented the Way was injured'.

It may look like theism sometimes and at others atheism and this is because it is a subtle doctrine that breaks down all categories of thought. All distinctions and divisions would be unreal in the sense that they are reducible. This would apply to good/evil no less than existence/nonexistence or One/Many.

Personally I feel that Plotinus is streets ahead of Plato and he takes us into an area of philosophy rarely studied by university philosophers and that due to its subtlety and profundity takes a lot of getting to know. The good news is that because Plotinus is trustworthy (imho) we can study any nondual writings from the Upanishads to the Tao Te Ching and onwards to modern writers like Rupert Spira to help get a handle on his philosophy.

If it is theism then it is the theism of the Christian doctrine of Divine Simplicity and of A Course in Miracles, not the objective theism endorsed by those who see God as separate from ourselves. If there is a God, or if we want to use this word, then God is me and you. This is view of Erwin Schrodinger, so it is even possible to learn something about Plotinus' view from reading Schrodinger.

I'm reluctant to answer the question about privation directly without a clear definition for 'privation', but the question about dualism is easily dealt with. Non-dualism is a rejection of any possible form of dualism.

0

For the class of evil that consists of bad things done deliberately by sentient beings then the main argument is free will. The logic being that, although what god created was good, that goodness included free will which left open the door for us to act evilly.

Where this doesn't work is if you include natural acts as evil. For example: disease, tsunamis etc. With these, it's effectively impossible to use a free will argument but there can still be considerable suffering. In other words, there are evil consequences without direct evil intent.

Now, if you're ok with your god having a bit of righteous anger in their armoury, then you can partially reconcile the natural disaster scenario with the concept of divine retribution. Some people used their free will to do bad things so god punishes them.

What's left then is the suffering of the innocents. One may, possibly, be able to justify an abused child as being because of the free will of the abuser but the toddler lying in agony with a flesh eating disease? Not so much.

The only justification I have heard for the latter is that we were born into sin so there's no such thing as an innocent. I, personally, find this argument abhorrent but YMMV.

Also, personally, I don't buy the free will causing suffering in others argument either. Free will doesn't mean we can do anything (I can't jump to the moon) so why aren't we prevented from causing suffering?

Whether these are convincing for you or not is, of course, up to you. For me, it's very hard to get past the suffering of the innocents problem. I have never seen anything that satisfactorily reconciles this with the accepted traits of the Christian god. I continue to look.

Alex
  • 1,828
  • 8
  • 11
  • The only truly innocent human being was Jesus Christ, and we crucified Him. We need a huge dose of humility and recognize that we are not just incapable of standing in judgement of God, we are also grossly unworthy. –  Oct 13 '17 at 12:20
  • @PédeLeão The funny thing is that we are indeed capable of standing in judgement of god. It would be nice if he wasn't judged in absentia but you can't have everything. I don't doubt for a moment that I'm unworthy though. – Alex Oct 13 '17 at 14:26
  • @Alex. I meant capable in the sense of having adequate knowledge at our disposal to make a fair judgement. –  Oct 13 '17 at 14:34
  • @PédeLeão That's the sense I meant too. Oh, and you have made that judgement. You've judged God worthy of worship. Unless you're saying that you're, in some sense, forced to worship which would be an interesting, and extraordinary, claim. What you're really saying is that I'm not capable of making a judgement that's different from yours. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Just don't be surprised that not everyone agrees with it. – Alex Oct 13 '17 at 15:26
  • @Alex. Repentance and faith make us more capable of recognizing God as worthy of worship. But you're correct in the sense that I cannot fully recognize the fullness of His goodness. However, sinful man cannot accuse God of wrongdoing without accusing himself and bringing condemnation upon his own head. –  Oct 13 '17 at 16:19
  • @PédeLeão Indeed. My thesis though, and it really isn't an accusation, is that, if there is a god then god is either unable or unwilling to prevent suffering. I most definitely condemn myself to the same failings. But then again, I don't expect to be worshiped and would question anyone who would want to. – Alex Oct 13 '17 at 16:30
  • @Alex. As I said, it's a question of justice. God would be unjust to prevent suffering when it is the just recompense for man's sin. We choose to sin, and the consequence is suffering. Man's guilt and God's glory. It's also a question of longsuffering and mercy. One day all accounts will be settled, but that day is put off for the sake of those who will come to repentance. –  Oct 13 '17 at 16:54
  • @PédeLeão Like I said in my answer, I find that abhorrent. If I expounded the view that others should suffer for my glory I would expect to be vilified and rightly so. I genuinely hope, for your sake, you're mistaken about your god. – Alex Oct 13 '17 at 16:56
  • @ "...that others should suffer for my glory..." That's not what I said. God will be glorified for His moral excellence and justice. The guilt for the suffering belongs to the sinful. –  Oct 13 '17 at 18:07
  • Christ's crucifixion was the greatest sacrifice imaginable to alleviate the suffering of which man has brought upon himself. God has, does and will continue to alleviate suffering for which He bears no blame. However, you "vilify" him for not doing enough, but, in so doing, don't you vilify yourself for your contribution to suffering and your failure to alleviate it when you could? Shouldn't your abhorrence of God reflect right back on you? –  Oct 15 '17 at 11:38
  • @PédeLeão I think you misunderstand me. I don't abhor your god. I can't because I am certain that teh Christian god doesn't exist. Suffering of innocents is conclusive proof of this. Now, one or more supernatural beings may exist (or have existed), with lesser attributes, I genuinely don't know. And no, you can't compare me to god as I don't claim omnipotence and ominscience. If I did, and I didn't make use of them, then I would expect you, and everyone else, to vilify me as an abhorrent, selfish person. I would. – Alex Oct 16 '17 at 08:57
  • And God will judge sinners for the suffering they bring to this world, so not only do you not have "conclusive proof," you don't even have any premises to base an argument upon. –  Oct 16 '17 at 13:43
  • @PédeLeão How do you explain "the toddler lying in agony with a flesh eating disease" from the answer? Is your thesis that they suffer because of their guilt at being born into sin or something else? If it's the former then why them? Why not my children too as they were also born to sin in the same way? And let's keep the focus on those who suffer. If your god is a vindictive, retributive god then the issue of suffering is moot. It's an omnipotent, benevolent god i.e. the Christian god that I question. – Alex Oct 16 '17 at 14:35
  • Man's sin has brought suffering to the world, and God will judge sinners. I am in no position to say more than that. However, I do know that it would be arrogant to accuse God when we're the ones responsible. –  Oct 16 '17 at 14:43
  • @PédeLeão Like I said in the answer, I've yet to find anyone that can satisfactorily deal with the problem of the suffering of the innocents. Will keep looking. – Alex Oct 16 '17 at 15:04
  • No human being could ever satisfy what you're looking for. Theologians have often considered it irreverence to speculate about God's intentions. I believe God has left us with this very question for us to decide whether we will trust in His goodness or arrogate ourselves as if we were in some position to pass judgement. –  Oct 16 '17 at 15:42
0

Up until Plotinus, Platonists and Aristotelians alike regarded the First Cause or Principle of everything as a kind of Intellect (Aristotle's Unmoved Mover who also thinks itself, or the Middle Platonic concepts of Nous, wherein the Forms reside as eternal thoughts).

Plotinus incorporated this idea in his system, of course, but argued that it could not be the First Cause on the basis that Intellect entails duality, and therefore requires a more fundamental principle of Unity to account for its existence (hence, the Neoplatonic 'One', beyond Nous). So Neoplatonists would reject Dualism on the basis that duality (even the minimal duality implied by Intellect) demands a more fundamental more unified principle for its existence. So the disagreement with Dualism is at a much more fundamental level than accounting for evil.

The privation theory then comes out of the need to account for the phenomena of evil (which, for Neoplatonists is always closely related to imperfection/incompletion) within the framework of their monism.

Mark Andrews
  • 6,240
  • 5
  • 22
  • 40
Allen Anderson
  • 1
  • 1
0

In a nutshell, the arguments for evil as privation are dependent on prior metaphysical commitments (monism) that are not neutral. The argument a Neoplatonist would have to give for privation, would be in two parts: first, she would aim to argue for monism over dualism (e.g., Treatise V.3 in the Enneads "On the cognitive hypostases and what is beyond"). Secondly, she would aim to show why, given monism, evil is best accounted for as privation (e.g., Treatise I.8 "On what are and whence come evils").

Allen Anderson
  • 1
  • 1