What do you think?
Neoplatonism
'Wallis's book has all the virtues which one could require in a popular account of a difficult, ancient, or unfamiliar kind of philosophy. It is as clear as the subject matter admits, genuinely comprehensive, well documented ... and very well balanced.' A.H. Armstrong, Classical Review
Paperback
First published December 31, 1972
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
April 21, 2021
Pretty Deep
19 April 2021
I guess I might have bit off a little bit more than I can chew when it comes to this book. It is pretty intense, and as the author suggests at the beginning, he warns that he writes from the position that the reader has an understanding of Neo-platonism already, and while I have read some works in that regard, I can’t necessarily say that I am an expert, or even have an understanding of the subject. As such, you can say that I got pretty lost as I was reading this book, and it isn’t one that I really wanted to spend too much time trying to understand. You could say that while I’m interested in ancient philosophy, this book went way deeper than I was comfortable with.
Mind you, my understanding of Neo-platonism is that it is a philosophy that emerged during the later part of the Roman Empire, and not surprisingly it found itself in conflict with Christianity. While there were a number of prominent figures in the movement, such as Porphyry and Plotinus, it wasn’t as widespread as some of the other philosophies, and it didn’t take off in the same way. I got the feeling that while it did make its rounds, it wasn’t able to overtake Christianity, which was growing rapidly at the time. Then again, the thing with Christianity was that it appealed to the lower classes, where as Neo-platonism was more something that the intellectuals picked up.
What interests me with the topic is the focus that the followers have on the Timeaus. Yeah, the book that we moderns simply think of as the book that talks about Atlantis, the Neo-platonists looked at it in a completely different light. I suspect that it has something to do with Plato setting the stage by talking about Atlantis, and then moving on into what is in effect a scientific text. Mind you, it isn’t as if it was a major scientific text either, since the likes of Galen, Ptolemy, and Lucretius, were much more prolific, and their writings lasted for a great deal longer.
The thing with Neo-platonism is that it is a pretty spiritual philosophy, in the sense that it explores Plato’s theory of forms, and the desire to come to understand the real as opposed to the shadowy world in which we live. It is the concept that the spirit is actually the reality, and everything we see is just a reflection of that reality. In a way, this can easily be seen when we look at Plato’s parable of The Cave.
Anyway, it might be better if I refer you to the Wikipedia article since I got pretty lost pretty quickly, but then again maybe that has something to do with me getting older, or it could have more to do with the fact that it is no doubt the type of book that sits in a university library that is really only utilised by PhD students, or by students who happen to be studying Ancient Philosophy, of which I am neither. However, I’m not going to trash the book, because it certainly does serve its purpose, however where I’m concerned, it is probably only good for leaving on your coffee table, or on the bookshelf in your living room, just to show off to guests.
Mind you, it was interesting to note that a lot of early Islamic thought was shaped by the writings of the Neo-platonists, but then again the Islamic countries, after the fall of the Roman Empire, have become the centre of learning. Remember, a lot of modern mathematical concepts actually came out of the Middle East. The problem was that a lot of this learning was lost when the Mongols invaded. Fortunately, it did eventually find its way to Western Europe through Constantinople.
19 April 2021
I guess I might have bit off a little bit more than I can chew when it comes to this book. It is pretty intense, and as the author suggests at the beginning, he warns that he writes from the position that the reader has an understanding of Neo-platonism already, and while I have read some works in that regard, I can’t necessarily say that I am an expert, or even have an understanding of the subject. As such, you can say that I got pretty lost as I was reading this book, and it isn’t one that I really wanted to spend too much time trying to understand. You could say that while I’m interested in ancient philosophy, this book went way deeper than I was comfortable with.
Mind you, my understanding of Neo-platonism is that it is a philosophy that emerged during the later part of the Roman Empire, and not surprisingly it found itself in conflict with Christianity. While there were a number of prominent figures in the movement, such as Porphyry and Plotinus, it wasn’t as widespread as some of the other philosophies, and it didn’t take off in the same way. I got the feeling that while it did make its rounds, it wasn’t able to overtake Christianity, which was growing rapidly at the time. Then again, the thing with Christianity was that it appealed to the lower classes, where as Neo-platonism was more something that the intellectuals picked up.
What interests me with the topic is the focus that the followers have on the Timeaus. Yeah, the book that we moderns simply think of as the book that talks about Atlantis, the Neo-platonists looked at it in a completely different light. I suspect that it has something to do with Plato setting the stage by talking about Atlantis, and then moving on into what is in effect a scientific text. Mind you, it isn’t as if it was a major scientific text either, since the likes of Galen, Ptolemy, and Lucretius, were much more prolific, and their writings lasted for a great deal longer.
The thing with Neo-platonism is that it is a pretty spiritual philosophy, in the sense that it explores Plato’s theory of forms, and the desire to come to understand the real as opposed to the shadowy world in which we live. It is the concept that the spirit is actually the reality, and everything we see is just a reflection of that reality. In a way, this can easily be seen when we look at Plato’s parable of The Cave.
Anyway, it might be better if I refer you to the Wikipedia article since I got pretty lost pretty quickly, but then again maybe that has something to do with me getting older, or it could have more to do with the fact that it is no doubt the type of book that sits in a university library that is really only utilised by PhD students, or by students who happen to be studying Ancient Philosophy, of which I am neither. However, I’m not going to trash the book, because it certainly does serve its purpose, however where I’m concerned, it is probably only good for leaving on your coffee table, or on the bookshelf in your living room, just to show off to guests.
Mind you, it was interesting to note that a lot of early Islamic thought was shaped by the writings of the Neo-platonists, but then again the Islamic countries, after the fall of the Roman Empire, have become the centre of learning. Remember, a lot of modern mathematical concepts actually came out of the Middle East. The problem was that a lot of this learning was lost when the Mongols invaded. Fortunately, it did eventually find its way to Western Europe through Constantinople.
Read
March 23, 2026Only read sections, so do not feel justified in giving a proper, full review. What I read was quite informative.
October 7, 2026
Neoplatonism was a syncretic, mystical, philosophical tradition active from around the 3rd to 6th centuries, after which some of its schools converted to Christianity while others, like the Academy at Athens, were closed by Emperor Justinian in 529. It is based on the written and unwritten doctrines of Plato, and its practitioners wrote books and extensive commentaries attempting to build a philosophical system – focused on metaphysics and ethics and very much ignoring politics – based on a reconciliation of Plato, Aristotle, and other ancient sources of wisdom. If you thought the Platonic ideas of the Forms or his theory of learning thru metempsychosis were wacky, the Neoplatonic thinkers say: hold my beer, and pass the psylocibin.
Neoplatonism (a modern term, they would have just thought of themselves as Platonists) was the successor to the Greek philosophical tradition which began with the pre-Socratics in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey). It influenced early Christian thinkers and was foundational to much of Medieval European thought, and presumably influenced Byzantine and Muslim philosophy to some extent, tho I’m pretty ignorant on those fronts. More recently, some Renaissance thinkers as well as the occasional mystically-minded intellectual of today take a page from Neoplatonists like Proclus, Plotinus, and Porphyry. My undergraduate Classics professor, thankfully not a Neoplatonist, was still pretty chuffed about having discovered an otherwise unknown fragment of Porphyry from a 10th century manuscript in the Bodleian Library. They’re not widely read, but still important to the history of thought. In writing an introductory book on Neoplatonism, R. T. Wallis faces a number of challenges.
First, the philosophical system is bonkers, and reads like a metaphysically-minded video game lore codex. There are multiple realities, which can be accessed in multiple ways, with intermediate worlds and gods and demi-gods and sacred texts that run the gamut from Aristotle to actual works of divine revelation, all of which need to be syncretized in a way that makes them compatible and univocal. Wallis is willing to give credit where it is due to the Neoplatonic philosophers, but he thankfully doesn’t lose sight of how high on their own supply they were. It is also a mystical philosophical tradition, insofar as the goal was to attain a personal communion with the One, the highest form of being, through philosophical study or, if you were an idiot commoner, you could try to get close through the magic of theurgy.
Second, Neoplatonism thrived during late antiquity, a time that is mostly skipped over by the general reader. In the west, everything blurs together in a pile of rapacious Roman emperors, while in the east history gets so complicated we literally take the word Byzantine from the empire to talk about stuff that’s too hard to follow. For part of this period, the most popular religion in the world was Manichaeism, a syncretism of Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Buddhism, and more. None of its sacred texts survive and it is now largely forgotten. A lot of table-setting needs to be done to situate Neoplatonism in its context, which Wallis unfortunately foregoes, keeping the book at a brief, but impenetrably dense, 178 pages without counting the critical apparatus.
Lastly, Neoplatonism is grounded in earlier philosophical thought, but it is very much its own thing. Moreso than many other philosophical movements, Neoplatonic thinkers insisted that they were not coming up with new ideas, but merely interpreting the doctrines of Plato and those who followed him. In a sentence which could apply to nearly all of their doctrines, Wallis writes: “By this means [he] endeavours to reconcile Plato’s conflicting statements” (78). Wallis is charitable in his interpretation of this approach: “in an age dominated by authorities, it was only on this basis that genuinely original thought was possible” (23). Regardless, readers need to be familiar with the ideas of Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, and to a lesser extent Epicureans and Skeptics, and the Gnostic mystics. But in many cases, Neoplatonic philosophers aren’t going to mean the same thing by the same words as their sources! And because so much of Neoplatonism is a gloss on earlier thinkers, much of their writings aren’t in standalone book form, but are commentaries on Plato, Aristotle, and others.
Wallis’ book is decently-written, but it is missing important context and is structured confusingly. His second chapter is “The Sources of Neoplatonism” which for other philosophical traditions may make sense to put early, but for this one only leads to confusion as we’re introduced to Platonic or Stoic sources for ideas that haven’t been introduced or explained yet. There’s not even a tenth of the preparation required for stuff like: “Of the theory of Forms Albinus accepts a common Middle Platonic interpretation first found, among extant authors, in Philo of Alexandria, which makes the Forms the thoughts of God, and thus partially anticipates Plotinus’ combination, in his Second Hypostasis, of Plato’s Forms with Aristotle’s Intelligence. The Supreme Deity Albinus describes as ordering the World-soul by arousing it to contemplate his own perfection; like most other Middle Platonists, he denies that Matter and the World-soul are produced by God, but he anticipates Neoplatonism in denying that the world had a temporal beginning” (30-31). An explanation of key terms is absolutely a requirement, which Wallis ignores.
Maybe, maybe, in a philosophical system that made sense you could get away with throwing that out there by way of background for your thinkers without going into what those terms meant, but there’s no way to reconstruct what this means from all the specific, and frequently overlapping, terminology. Take a guess at what you think the Second Hypostasis is! It isn’t until a quarter of the way through the book until we get a sentence that starts with “The fundamental principles of Neoplatonism…” (48), which really needs to go at the beginning. The first chapter, “The Aims of Neoplatonism”, needed to be twice as long in order to explain these concepts, rather than briefly naming them.
The chapters on the major Neoplatonic thinkers cover biographical facts, style, and primarily their doctrines. Wallis sets out to elucidate this metaphysical system on its own terms. For better or for worse, anything else is background information or gestures towards the role or function or explanation of such a convoluted system within its social and political context. He doesn’t read Neoplatonism symptomatically, which I personally think is one of the few valid ways to approach the mystical mess of philosophy and magic. These doctrines are dense and confusing, and Wallis makes a heroic attempt at sorting through them, but he can only do so much to avoid making his own exegesis dense and confusing as well. He is, at least, upfront about the challenges he faces. On the Alexandrian school of Neoplatonists, he writes that their work is “dry and pedantic in the extreme” and that the “complexity of their conceptual scheme […] assumed nightmare proportions” (140).
Like early Christian thinkers, Neoplatonists are attempting to rationalize a disparate set of texts from incompatible sources who often oppose each other. They differ in two major respects: Plato and Aristotle aren’t anywhere near as wildly different as, say, the Pentateuch, the Gospels, and the Epistles of Paul. They also are much, much more rational than early Christian thinkers – not in the sense of right-thinking, but in the sense of obsessively working through a dialectic. Early Christian thinkers were content to hand-wave away some discrepancies that arose from claiming that hundreds of years of contradictory statements were all the Word of God. Plotinus and his successors didn’t let up in their efforts to reconcile the irreconcilable, and came to much stranger conclusions because of it.
As a creative exercise, Neoplatonism has value. Its metaphysics puts the world-building of contemporary genre writers and modern-day mystics to shame. Take, as an example, the theory of Matter expounded by the early Neoplatonist Plotinus: “his Matter is not an independently existing principle, but the point at which the outflow of reality from the One fades away into utter darkness. Matter’s evil is thus not a positive force (though Plotinus sometimes speaks as though it were); it is rather an utter sterility, or ‘poverty’ which communicates its own deficiency to the bodies based on it and thus becomes the source of all the sensible world’s imperfections…” (50). Matter doesn’t exist, it’s just the terminal point of reality emanating from a mystical and true Oneness, and is therefore evil not in a malicious sense, but rather because it is the point at which reality is always disintegrating, the furthest from the Good! Instead of ripping off Tolkien again, fantasy writers could draw from this well instead.
Neoplatonism is also interesting to read about as part of the history of thought and philosophy, and as a key player in the late struggle of the legacy of pagan antiquity with the new salvation cults, in particular Christianity. Christian philosophy in the middle-ages makes more sense when you take Neoplatonism as part of its background. And as much as some of even my favorite polemicists like to blame Christianity for the death of classical civilization, the fact is that by the time Damascius, the last head of the Athenian Academy originally founded by Plato himself, attempted to move to Persia to convince the king Chosroes to accept the increasingly persecuted philosophers, the intellectual legacy of the Platonists, Peripatetics, and Stoics was not in great shape.
If you’re not familiar with the philosophical background of Neoplatonism, this book is a struggle, altho sometimes an interesting and worthwhile one. The modern academic study of Neoplatonism is still young, and there are likely still texts sitting in medieval libraries that have yet to be discovered, edited, and studied. Maybe in our generation we’ll get a scholar who does the heroic work of summarizing the doctrines that held sway for several centuries, and also explain them in their context, in a way that the general reader can understand. Until then, Wallis’ book is simultaneously a truly heroic effort to make sense of an often insensible and chaotic corpus, while still being confusing and headache-inducing.
Neoplatonism (a modern term, they would have just thought of themselves as Platonists) was the successor to the Greek philosophical tradition which began with the pre-Socratics in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey). It influenced early Christian thinkers and was foundational to much of Medieval European thought, and presumably influenced Byzantine and Muslim philosophy to some extent, tho I’m pretty ignorant on those fronts. More recently, some Renaissance thinkers as well as the occasional mystically-minded intellectual of today take a page from Neoplatonists like Proclus, Plotinus, and Porphyry. My undergraduate Classics professor, thankfully not a Neoplatonist, was still pretty chuffed about having discovered an otherwise unknown fragment of Porphyry from a 10th century manuscript in the Bodleian Library. They’re not widely read, but still important to the history of thought. In writing an introductory book on Neoplatonism, R. T. Wallis faces a number of challenges.
First, the philosophical system is bonkers, and reads like a metaphysically-minded video game lore codex. There are multiple realities, which can be accessed in multiple ways, with intermediate worlds and gods and demi-gods and sacred texts that run the gamut from Aristotle to actual works of divine revelation, all of which need to be syncretized in a way that makes them compatible and univocal. Wallis is willing to give credit where it is due to the Neoplatonic philosophers, but he thankfully doesn’t lose sight of how high on their own supply they were. It is also a mystical philosophical tradition, insofar as the goal was to attain a personal communion with the One, the highest form of being, through philosophical study or, if you were an idiot commoner, you could try to get close through the magic of theurgy.
Second, Neoplatonism thrived during late antiquity, a time that is mostly skipped over by the general reader. In the west, everything blurs together in a pile of rapacious Roman emperors, while in the east history gets so complicated we literally take the word Byzantine from the empire to talk about stuff that’s too hard to follow. For part of this period, the most popular religion in the world was Manichaeism, a syncretism of Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Buddhism, and more. None of its sacred texts survive and it is now largely forgotten. A lot of table-setting needs to be done to situate Neoplatonism in its context, which Wallis unfortunately foregoes, keeping the book at a brief, but impenetrably dense, 178 pages without counting the critical apparatus.
Lastly, Neoplatonism is grounded in earlier philosophical thought, but it is very much its own thing. Moreso than many other philosophical movements, Neoplatonic thinkers insisted that they were not coming up with new ideas, but merely interpreting the doctrines of Plato and those who followed him. In a sentence which could apply to nearly all of their doctrines, Wallis writes: “By this means [he] endeavours to reconcile Plato’s conflicting statements” (78). Wallis is charitable in his interpretation of this approach: “in an age dominated by authorities, it was only on this basis that genuinely original thought was possible” (23). Regardless, readers need to be familiar with the ideas of Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, and to a lesser extent Epicureans and Skeptics, and the Gnostic mystics. But in many cases, Neoplatonic philosophers aren’t going to mean the same thing by the same words as their sources! And because so much of Neoplatonism is a gloss on earlier thinkers, much of their writings aren’t in standalone book form, but are commentaries on Plato, Aristotle, and others.
Wallis’ book is decently-written, but it is missing important context and is structured confusingly. His second chapter is “The Sources of Neoplatonism” which for other philosophical traditions may make sense to put early, but for this one only leads to confusion as we’re introduced to Platonic or Stoic sources for ideas that haven’t been introduced or explained yet. There’s not even a tenth of the preparation required for stuff like: “Of the theory of Forms Albinus accepts a common Middle Platonic interpretation first found, among extant authors, in Philo of Alexandria, which makes the Forms the thoughts of God, and thus partially anticipates Plotinus’ combination, in his Second Hypostasis, of Plato’s Forms with Aristotle’s Intelligence. The Supreme Deity Albinus describes as ordering the World-soul by arousing it to contemplate his own perfection; like most other Middle Platonists, he denies that Matter and the World-soul are produced by God, but he anticipates Neoplatonism in denying that the world had a temporal beginning” (30-31). An explanation of key terms is absolutely a requirement, which Wallis ignores.
Maybe, maybe, in a philosophical system that made sense you could get away with throwing that out there by way of background for your thinkers without going into what those terms meant, but there’s no way to reconstruct what this means from all the specific, and frequently overlapping, terminology. Take a guess at what you think the Second Hypostasis is! It isn’t until a quarter of the way through the book until we get a sentence that starts with “The fundamental principles of Neoplatonism…” (48), which really needs to go at the beginning. The first chapter, “The Aims of Neoplatonism”, needed to be twice as long in order to explain these concepts, rather than briefly naming them.
The chapters on the major Neoplatonic thinkers cover biographical facts, style, and primarily their doctrines. Wallis sets out to elucidate this metaphysical system on its own terms. For better or for worse, anything else is background information or gestures towards the role or function or explanation of such a convoluted system within its social and political context. He doesn’t read Neoplatonism symptomatically, which I personally think is one of the few valid ways to approach the mystical mess of philosophy and magic. These doctrines are dense and confusing, and Wallis makes a heroic attempt at sorting through them, but he can only do so much to avoid making his own exegesis dense and confusing as well. He is, at least, upfront about the challenges he faces. On the Alexandrian school of Neoplatonists, he writes that their work is “dry and pedantic in the extreme” and that the “complexity of their conceptual scheme […] assumed nightmare proportions” (140).
Like early Christian thinkers, Neoplatonists are attempting to rationalize a disparate set of texts from incompatible sources who often oppose each other. They differ in two major respects: Plato and Aristotle aren’t anywhere near as wildly different as, say, the Pentateuch, the Gospels, and the Epistles of Paul. They also are much, much more rational than early Christian thinkers – not in the sense of right-thinking, but in the sense of obsessively working through a dialectic. Early Christian thinkers were content to hand-wave away some discrepancies that arose from claiming that hundreds of years of contradictory statements were all the Word of God. Plotinus and his successors didn’t let up in their efforts to reconcile the irreconcilable, and came to much stranger conclusions because of it.
As a creative exercise, Neoplatonism has value. Its metaphysics puts the world-building of contemporary genre writers and modern-day mystics to shame. Take, as an example, the theory of Matter expounded by the early Neoplatonist Plotinus: “his Matter is not an independently existing principle, but the point at which the outflow of reality from the One fades away into utter darkness. Matter’s evil is thus not a positive force (though Plotinus sometimes speaks as though it were); it is rather an utter sterility, or ‘poverty’ which communicates its own deficiency to the bodies based on it and thus becomes the source of all the sensible world’s imperfections…” (50). Matter doesn’t exist, it’s just the terminal point of reality emanating from a mystical and true Oneness, and is therefore evil not in a malicious sense, but rather because it is the point at which reality is always disintegrating, the furthest from the Good! Instead of ripping off Tolkien again, fantasy writers could draw from this well instead.
Neoplatonism is also interesting to read about as part of the history of thought and philosophy, and as a key player in the late struggle of the legacy of pagan antiquity with the new salvation cults, in particular Christianity. Christian philosophy in the middle-ages makes more sense when you take Neoplatonism as part of its background. And as much as some of even my favorite polemicists like to blame Christianity for the death of classical civilization, the fact is that by the time Damascius, the last head of the Athenian Academy originally founded by Plato himself, attempted to move to Persia to convince the king Chosroes to accept the increasingly persecuted philosophers, the intellectual legacy of the Platonists, Peripatetics, and Stoics was not in great shape.
If you’re not familiar with the philosophical background of Neoplatonism, this book is a struggle, altho sometimes an interesting and worthwhile one. The modern academic study of Neoplatonism is still young, and there are likely still texts sitting in medieval libraries that have yet to be discovered, edited, and studied. Maybe in our generation we’ll get a scholar who does the heroic work of summarizing the doctrines that held sway for several centuries, and also explain them in their context, in a way that the general reader can understand. Until then, Wallis’ book is simultaneously a truly heroic effort to make sense of an often insensible and chaotic corpus, while still being confusing and headache-inducing.
June 26, 2013
In a field of highly specialized monographs, this little book is a lifeline for the novice. Wallis sketches a clear overview and lays the foundation for further study.
July 10, 2018
Read up to and including Plotinus. Loved the treatment this author gives, very thorough. Learned about the connection with Origen thanks to this book as well as Numenius.
Read
June 3, 2026The only use for this book is as a giant bibliography if you want a survey of a wide range of views, who held them, and what the works are in which they expressed those views. Otherwise this historical approach is horrible for understanding this tradition from the inside, which is a crucial piece of the puzzle. I recommend Lloyd Gerson's work to see what sense there is to these views.
I did not like the mainstream paradigm held by the author that is so trite and groundless, the "spiritual not religious" view. I don't care if it was cutting edge in the early seventies - I know what agenda it's part of. His only difference with it is that he seems to recognize a place for philosophy and reason in that vague hand-me-down, fashionable, thoughtless "spiritual not religious + science is effing awesome" view. This view caused him to misunderstand Christianity a bit as overly irrational and to mock the Neoplatonists once in a while for being overly rational. Of course the point being both have to be wrong and there couldn't possibly be a balance within either or between them, since he believes in the Modern world as having progressed beyond all this, on the whole, while having things to learn from the past (otherwise what is his motive in his work??). It is not at all clear whether his hasty exposition of the triads and deductions from the principles is what made it look ridiculous or whether they were ridiculous and over-systematized. I am willing to admit it was an over-systematization, but his poor exposition as a historian without care for the philosophy does not make this clear. The tone was mostly even tempered and aloof. But I'm surprised Gerson wrote the foreword to this and said it's accurate, because I think Wallis represents an anti-Platonic tendency. He wants to extract the insights for psychology and theology, and leave the 'real thought' for science and 'real philosophy' probably construed as the handmaid of science, i.e. naturalism. I don't care if he held an anti-reductionist view (nor should anyone care too much about de Chardin, or Heidegger, or Jordan Peterson or Vervaeke or McGilchrist), this is not rationally defensible without the whole of Platonism. I'm just losing patience with even the 'spiritual' compromises with naturalist scientism. The only way they get away with their compromise is by being ambiguous and obscure on some points (among nominalism, skepticism, materialism, mechanism, relativism), while taking a mixed stance on others.
The only Neoplatonist view he clearly articulated was a basic framework that leads from matter to the One, in other words how the senses, coming as they do from various spatial sources, are unified, and how the immaterial soul is postulated to explain this; then the thinking of the soul moves from one object of focus to another, but the whole system of thoughts and it being thought up all at once (pre-cognized) must be somewhere and this is the intelligible realm and Intelligence / nous (identified with Aristotle's pure act or unmoved mover usually by NP's and with the Demiurge of the Timaeus). There were some obscurities at this level. Then the author sort of fails to explain why the One is posited, and that's because the subject/object distinction is still at this Intellectual level. He remarks that infinity, beginning with Plotinus, comes to replace finitude as the concept for perfection. So the finite system of thought and its timelessly being beheld in thinking is the Intelligence/Intelligible, but this unity and difference (plurality of thoughts but also sub/ob distinction) must be explained by a further unity, the One, which Iamblichus helpfully clarified should not be seen as the opposite of plurality. I would say this is best called Ineffable. I would not place the Ineffable above the One like Iamblichus. The Ineffable is beyond all these, taken in the right sense of 'beyond': goodness, being, identity AND difference, one (since it is unquantifiable Infinity, not finite) and many (since it is One), etc.
Wallis thinks the agreement on this in Dionysius the Areopagite is a mistake. It's not. Even if it's true that there isn't enough Christocentrism in Dionysius, that is made up for in Maximus who did not have anything to *revise* in the Platonism in Dionysius. There may have been only minor differences, but almost all the points Wallis brought up as dividing Christian from pagan Neoplatonism + Platonism in general were not true, except for those points brought up by Synesius. But concerning the difference between Platonism in general and Christianity (subtracting paganism) as Proclus showed, the One could care for the world not just know it; as Augustine showed, the world had to begin in time relative to its own clock, but there was no time *for God* at which creation began. The only remaining points are about the resurrection of the body (and the incarnation I would add) and the pre-existence of the soul. That's not a lot of difference between where the pure (non-Pagan) philosophy went and Christianity. We should see Christianity as a philosophy. And Plato and Aristotle anticipated this philosophy the most. Philosophy IS Platonism (a basic set of anti-sophist, and now we would say anti-naturalist commitments), the tradition started by Plato, partaken in by Aristotle. So Christianity is a refinement of this basic Platonic set of commitments to objective truth, values, knowledge, natures, purposes. The Pagan version is a different refinement in a different direction. It is only the naturalist Modern worldview that breaks with philosophy, using it's own tools self-destructively. May the Modern world end, for good, in peace. May philosophy (love for Sophia, a name for Christ), a commitment to objective truth, goodness, purpose, knowledge, natures and a sense for the immaterial hierarchy, return.
I did not like the mainstream paradigm held by the author that is so trite and groundless, the "spiritual not religious" view. I don't care if it was cutting edge in the early seventies - I know what agenda it's part of. His only difference with it is that he seems to recognize a place for philosophy and reason in that vague hand-me-down, fashionable, thoughtless "spiritual not religious + science is effing awesome" view. This view caused him to misunderstand Christianity a bit as overly irrational and to mock the Neoplatonists once in a while for being overly rational. Of course the point being both have to be wrong and there couldn't possibly be a balance within either or between them, since he believes in the Modern world as having progressed beyond all this, on the whole, while having things to learn from the past (otherwise what is his motive in his work??). It is not at all clear whether his hasty exposition of the triads and deductions from the principles is what made it look ridiculous or whether they were ridiculous and over-systematized. I am willing to admit it was an over-systematization, but his poor exposition as a historian without care for the philosophy does not make this clear. The tone was mostly even tempered and aloof. But I'm surprised Gerson wrote the foreword to this and said it's accurate, because I think Wallis represents an anti-Platonic tendency. He wants to extract the insights for psychology and theology, and leave the 'real thought' for science and 'real philosophy' probably construed as the handmaid of science, i.e. naturalism. I don't care if he held an anti-reductionist view (nor should anyone care too much about de Chardin, or Heidegger, or Jordan Peterson or Vervaeke or McGilchrist), this is not rationally defensible without the whole of Platonism. I'm just losing patience with even the 'spiritual' compromises with naturalist scientism. The only way they get away with their compromise is by being ambiguous and obscure on some points (among nominalism, skepticism, materialism, mechanism, relativism), while taking a mixed stance on others.
The only Neoplatonist view he clearly articulated was a basic framework that leads from matter to the One, in other words how the senses, coming as they do from various spatial sources, are unified, and how the immaterial soul is postulated to explain this; then the thinking of the soul moves from one object of focus to another, but the whole system of thoughts and it being thought up all at once (pre-cognized) must be somewhere and this is the intelligible realm and Intelligence / nous (identified with Aristotle's pure act or unmoved mover usually by NP's and with the Demiurge of the Timaeus). There were some obscurities at this level. Then the author sort of fails to explain why the One is posited, and that's because the subject/object distinction is still at this Intellectual level. He remarks that infinity, beginning with Plotinus, comes to replace finitude as the concept for perfection. So the finite system of thought and its timelessly being beheld in thinking is the Intelligence/Intelligible, but this unity and difference (plurality of thoughts but also sub/ob distinction) must be explained by a further unity, the One, which Iamblichus helpfully clarified should not be seen as the opposite of plurality. I would say this is best called Ineffable. I would not place the Ineffable above the One like Iamblichus. The Ineffable is beyond all these, taken in the right sense of 'beyond': goodness, being, identity AND difference, one (since it is unquantifiable Infinity, not finite) and many (since it is One), etc.
Wallis thinks the agreement on this in Dionysius the Areopagite is a mistake. It's not. Even if it's true that there isn't enough Christocentrism in Dionysius, that is made up for in Maximus who did not have anything to *revise* in the Platonism in Dionysius. There may have been only minor differences, but almost all the points Wallis brought up as dividing Christian from pagan Neoplatonism + Platonism in general were not true, except for those points brought up by Synesius. But concerning the difference between Platonism in general and Christianity (subtracting paganism) as Proclus showed, the One could care for the world not just know it; as Augustine showed, the world had to begin in time relative to its own clock, but there was no time *for God* at which creation began. The only remaining points are about the resurrection of the body (and the incarnation I would add) and the pre-existence of the soul. That's not a lot of difference between where the pure (non-Pagan) philosophy went and Christianity. We should see Christianity as a philosophy. And Plato and Aristotle anticipated this philosophy the most. Philosophy IS Platonism (a basic set of anti-sophist, and now we would say anti-naturalist commitments), the tradition started by Plato, partaken in by Aristotle. So Christianity is a refinement of this basic Platonic set of commitments to objective truth, values, knowledge, natures, purposes. The Pagan version is a different refinement in a different direction. It is only the naturalist Modern worldview that breaks with philosophy, using it's own tools self-destructively. May the Modern world end, for good, in peace. May philosophy (love for Sophia, a name for Christ), a commitment to objective truth, goodness, purpose, knowledge, natures and a sense for the immaterial hierarchy, return.
March 17, 2021
"...the Neoplatonists' style was not such as to attract those trained in philology and literature, while their difficulty obscured (and still tends to obscure) their intellectual merits." — I think I am one of those philological types mentioned here, who are not attracted by the abstractions and endless categorising of philosophy. Nevertheless, through their metaphysics and its theological implications, the Neoplatonists truly open the mind to new worlds. Wallis sums up the value of Neoplatonism thus:
Caveat lector: Wallis assumes a basic familiarity with key philosophical terms, and in a work of less than 200 pages he is forced to rush through some extremely complicated ideas; but he remains an excellent overview of Neoplatonism, tracing its origins, developments, and later influence.
"The dilemma of reason’s place in the spiritual life is, as we have seen, an acute and insoluble one; too rigid a conceptual system leads to ossification, too little rationality to chaos, both in theology and in the individual mind. This dilemma was posed with particular force by the Neoplatonists' historical situation; and whatever criticisms may be made on individual points, their basic reaction was unquestionably a sound one, and a sign of the general sanity and Hellenic moderation of their approach. Their successes and failures have therefore much to teach us in our own spiritual search; for it is on our own success or failure in attaining a due balance that the future of our civilization depends."
Caveat lector: Wallis assumes a basic familiarity with key philosophical terms, and in a work of less than 200 pages he is forced to rush through some extremely complicated ideas; but he remains an excellent overview of Neoplatonism, tracing its origins, developments, and later influence.
January 27, 2025
Although this text was written for those schooled in the famous Greek philosophers, I learned enough to to understand the the threads of Greek philosophy emerged in Egyptial Alexandria, and the three monothesistic religions of the world. I also understand that the church domination in the medieval world did not extinguish scholarly thought.
I sought out a historical review of neoplatonism, because the Council at Niocene decided that the works of Plato would not be part of a tome to marry with the Gospels, instead the Torah ws the chosen partner.
Now to read some of the naeoplatonic texts themselves.
I sought out a historical review of neoplatonism, because the Council at Niocene decided that the works of Plato would not be part of a tome to marry with the Gospels, instead the Torah ws the chosen partner.
Now to read some of the naeoplatonic texts themselves.
February 7, 2021
This book isn't for beginners just getting into philosophy. The author assumes you have intermediate knowledge of Greek concepts.
A bit dry, the book gives a biography on the movements without Neoplatonism and shows the differences between the schools that emerged after Plotinus.
The last chapter is really the most interesting in which Wallis traces Neoplatonic influences, not just through the Eastern and Western middle ages, but also up thru modern philosophy and Hegel.
A bit dry, the book gives a biography on the movements without Neoplatonism and shows the differences between the schools that emerged after Plotinus.
The last chapter is really the most interesting in which Wallis traces Neoplatonic influences, not just through the Eastern and Western middle ages, but also up thru modern philosophy and Hegel.
February 22, 2026
Very difficult but think I got at least something out of it. If nothing else, a beginning familiarity with the ideas and characters.
Will definitely be an important area to understand more fully as its influence on later theological, philosophical, and scientific theories/people is large
Will definitely be an important area to understand more fully as its influence on later theological, philosophical, and scientific theories/people is large
February 27, 2026
I’ve been looking for a book like this for a long time. Great historical overview of Neoplatonism and the Neoplatonists.
July 25, 2026
Very good intro to neoplatonism, writing style not the most enjoyable but a must read on the topic
April 21, 2017
Superb review of neoplatonism that holds a very high scholarly standard. While I still need to actually read the Enneads (and other important works in the tradition), I now have a great overview and some understanding of the extant divergences between the various thinkers of the school. Highly recommended as an entry point, but beware that it is quite heavy. The language and disposition are as adroit as they can be in a work of this type, but it's still a work meant for scholars - so for those unaccustomed to the language of academic English and philosophy, it might be a bit intimidating.
May 27, 2025
This book is turgid, dense, and incomprehensible - and I say this as someone who actually studied Hellenistic and Koine Greek!
I wish the author spent more time explaining the worldview and cosmology of the Neoplatonists. I was lost in the first chapter because there's hardly any explanation of what any of these terms or concepts mean.
I wish the author spent more time explaining the worldview and cosmology of the Neoplatonists. I was lost in the first chapter because there's hardly any explanation of what any of these terms or concepts mean.
October 29, 2010
A very good and readable book - an introduction really - but informed.
see also http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
see also http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
January 12, 2026
My favorite teacher gave me this book
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews