library

The Divergent Uses of Greek Philosophical Terms By Platonic Philosophy and Modern Psychology: Two Illustrations

As was the case with Socrates, the daimon of Plotinus, the great third century Platonic philosopher-mystic, was a close companion and guide. Porphyry, one of Plotinus' disciples, recorded that:

"From birth Plotinus had something more than did others. An Egyptian priest who had come to Rome and made his acquaintance through a friend wanted to give an exhibition of his wisdom and asked Plotinus to come see his own attending daimon evoked. Plotinus having readily consented, the evocation took place in the temple of Isis, for the Egyptian said that this was the only pure place in Rome. When the daimon was summoned before their very eyes, a god came who was not of the order of daimons and the Egyptian said: 'Blessed are you who have a god for a daimon and not a companion of a lower order!'. . ."

Plotinus thus had as a companion one of the more divine daimons, and he kept his divine eye continuously raised towards this companion." ⁽¹⁰⁾

While it has been observed that daimon is a vague word in the long history of Greek literature and culture from before Homer well into the early centuries of Christianity, ⁽¹¹⁾ it was given much clearer and exact expression by philosophers in the Platonic tradition. Thus Apuleius defined daimons as follows:

"Indeed, to comprehend them in a definition, daimons are in the class of living beings, rational in nature, passive ⁽¹²⁾ in soul, aerial in body and eternal in time. Of these five properties which I have mentioned, the first three belong to us as well as them, the fourth is peculiar to them, and the last they have in common with the immortal gods." ⁽¹³⁾

Daimons were generally understood to be beings hierarchically posterior to the gods and prior to heroes and men.⁽¹⁴⁾

The Pythagoreans exhorted one to:

"Honor first the immortal gods, in the order established by custom. Revere the oath. Pay reverence next to the benevolent heroes and the daimons of the underworld." ⁽¹⁵⁾

For a Platonist, the daimon was a protector and guide, acting not from without, but from within. This interior guidance and aid could bring about a great illumination and upliftment to one who was receptive to it. As Proclus wrote:

"It must be said that Socrates primarily in his own discursive reason and in his knowledge of reality benefited from the inspiration of his daimon, who awakened him to divine love; and secondarily, that even concerning the things of life it restored and regulated his providential care for those less perfect; and, as far as the daimon's own activity is concerned, that he received the light proceeding from it not only in his discursive reason or in his opinionative power, but in his subtle body, ⁽¹⁶⁾ the daimonic illumination spreading suddenly through every part of his life and then moving sense perception itself. For it is evident that although the activity of the daimon is the same, reason benefits from it in one way, imagination in another, and sense perception in another, and each of the elements which constitute us is affected and moved by the daimon in a distinct way. Therefore the voice did not act on Socrates from without, as an impression, but from within, the inspiration, having traversed his whole soul and penetrated as far as the organs of sense perception, finally became a voice, discerned by the consciousness rather than by sense perception; for such are the illuminations of good daimons and of the gods." ⁽¹⁷⁾

The conception of psyche or soul is also quite different in modern philosophy and Platonic philosophy. For Jung, the psyche is "the totality of all psychic processes, conscious as well as unconscious". ⁽¹⁸⁾ In fact, Jung made a distinction between soul and psyche:

"By soul, on the other hand, I understand a clearly demarcated functional complex that can best be described as a 'personality'." ⁽¹⁹⁾

While, as it has been pointed out, ⁽²⁰⁾ Jung's use of Greek terminology was intended to delineate the area of interest for analytical psychology, rather than philosophy, no true Platonic philosopher could accept this interpretation of psyche as representing the reality which the word should convey. To the Platonist, psyche or soul is not a compendium of processes, but the substanding principle (hypostasis) ⁽²¹⁾ which allows psychic processes to occur. It is not a personality, but the principle which substands personality.

blank