A Neoplatonist interpretation of post-christian vitalism
Sat, 25 Jan 2025
Philosophy, Ethics, Opinion
========================================================
A phenomenon I have seen going around the internet is so-called
post-Christian vitalism [1]. PCR is based on Nietzschian moral
philosophy, specifically the `master-mentality' towards ethics.
I believe this view is incredibly misguided, and will argue so
from a Neoplatonist [2] perspective.
Let us begin by exploring Nietzsche's master-morality and the
specific interpretations of the post-christian vitalists.
Nietzsche distinguishes between two types of morality,
master-morality and slave-morality. Master morality -- he
asserts -- is the classical form of morality, where virtuous and
noble were interchangeable terms. Masters are courageous and
follow their own agenda, like Odysseus. Slave-morality instead
celebrates weakness by promoting `virtues' such as humility and
charity. Slave morality originated from... well slaves, and
non-nobles generally to give themselves some access to the
morality which the nobility had. Indeed, slave-moralists assert
that their form of morality is the only one, and that the
masters such as Odysseus are not virtuous at all.
Post-christian vitalises then claim [3] to embrace Nietzsche's
master morality, becoming Nietzsche an super-humans and driving
froth progress in humanity. They asserts that all current-day
slave moralists are simply still under the thumb of Christian
propaganda, something which they have rid themselves of (hence
the post-christian part of the name).
Now, I think that this approach is fundamentally misguided and
indeed that it does not stand up to historical scrutiny. I might
write about this some day, but today, I instead want to asses
the PCV position from a Neoplatonic perspective. The reason this
is of interest to me is because Plotinus and Porphyry assert
that the sage indeed has no care for others. Neither does the
One for that fact [5].
This certainly seems to lend credence to the post-christian
vitalist, though, upon closer inspection, we will see that this
is not the case. Neoplatonic ethics -- much like nearly all
ancient ethics -- is built upon virtues. The four prime virtues
are Courage, Wisdom, Prudence, and Justice. For a person
starting out on their ethical journey, these virtues exist in
the ordinary (civic) sense. As one processes however, these
virtues take on a different character and become the
intellectual (cathartic) virtues.
> At the cathartic level, it is wise to ``refrain from opining
> with the body'', observing through intelligible means
> rather than sensory ones. This eliminates the blindness
> which sensory knowledge is inherently accompanied by.
> Cathartic courage is the soul being turned away from the
> concerns of the body, such as pain, fear, and discomfort,
> but also death. Prudence, is the presence of desires
> exclusively directed by psychic considerations, as opposed
> to bodily impulses. And finally Justice, still guarantees
> the cooperation of the virtues, in this case allowing the
> rule of reason and intellect without opposition [7].
As the practitioner turns away from concerns of the physical
world, naturally they turn away from the suffering of others.
They regard their body with a form of indifference, and do
likewise for the bodies of others. Where the post-christian
vitalist is mistaken though is the order of operations. They see
that the noble sage has no regard for others (in the
traditional sense) and takes this to be first step. They mistake
an accident of the goal to be the means of achieving said goal.
Furthermore, while the sage has no regard for others, this
dispassion is not the same as a complete lack of care. Indeed,
the sage is said to give to others without taking away from
himself [8]. Plotinus (by all accounts a Neoplatonic sage) is
said to have taken care over the education of the young people
in his community, whist also housing several widows and orphans.
What the sage lacks is merely a passionate interest in the
affairs of others, but he does not lack other directedness
altogether[9].
[1]: I should point out here that this term is mostly applied by
opponents of this view, but I have not been able to find a
better term, so this is the one I am sticking with.
[2]: When I say `Neoplatonist' in this post, I specifically
refer to Plotinus and Porphyry and to a lesser extent
Plato's Phaedo (which I take to be the progenitor of
Neoplatonic thought.
[3]: I say `claim' here for the simple reason that I sincerely
doubt that anyone ACTUALLY thinks and acts this way. Sure,
there are plenty of people who chart their own course and
care little about the needs or sufferings of others, but I
do not think that these people -- rationally -- believe
their behaviour to be moral. Scott Alexander wrote a nice
post about this just a few days ago [4].
[5]: ``The One'' the absolutely ontologically prior principle in
Neoplatonic philosophy. ``The sage'' is the person who
spends their life in pursuit of The One in a semi mystical
way [6].
[6]: I say semi-mystical because the term `mystic' is incredibly
loaded. I wont go in to this now, but I have a paper
which may be published int he next year or two which
addresses this topic.
[7]: This section is a direct quote from my master's
dissertation, as I cannot currently be bothered re-writing
it. The information contained therein is based upon
Porphyry's `sentences'.
[8]: This is a paraphrase based on Plotinus' statements in the
Enneads about The One and the attitude the sage has towards
his body.
[9]: The argument is clearly underdeveloped in this formulation,
and while I would love to expand on it here, a blog post is
simply not the right place. As mentioned, I have an article
which may be published over the next few years on these
topics. In its current form, the work is about 80
single-spaces pages, much too long for a post I would say.
I will of course update this blog if i ever do manage to
get this work published. For the impatient, I recommend
Pauliina Remes' work in the field. A good introduction is
`Plotinus’ Ethics of Disinterested Interest'.
All of my writing and software projects are available free of
charge under CC-BY unless stated otherwise. I do not accept
monetary donations, but if my work has brought you value I ask
you to donate to a charitable cause or high-impact fund,
organisation, business, institute, or individual driving moral
progress.
For more information about making a moral impact, search for
``giving what we can'', ``give well'', or ``effective altruism''.
