Neoplatonism is a version ofPlatonicphilosophy that emerged in the 3rd century AD against the background ofHellenistic philosophy andreligion.[1][note 1][note 2] The term does not encapsulate a set of ideas as much as a series of thinkers. Among the common ideas it maintains ismonism, the doctrine that all of reality can be derived from a single principle, "the One".[2]
Neoplatonism had an enduring influence on the subsequent history of Western philosophy and religion. In theMiddle Ages, Neoplatonic ideas were studied and discussed byChristian,Jewish, andMuslim thinkers.[5] In the Islamic cultural sphere, Neoplatonic texts were available in Arabic and Persian translations, and notable philosophers such asal-Farabi,Solomon ibn Gabirol (Avicebron),Avicenna (Ibn Sina), andMaimonides incorporated Neoplatonic elements into their own thinking.[6]
Neoplatonism is a modern term.[note 1] The termneoplatonism has a double function as a historical category. On the one hand, it differentiates the philosophical doctrines of Plotinus and his successors from those of the historicalPlato. On the other, the term makes an assumption about the novelty of Plotinus's interpretation of Plato. In the nearly six centuries from Plato's time to Plotinus', there had been an uninterrupted tradition of interpreting Plato which had begun withAristotle and with the immediate successors ofPlato's Academy and continued on through a period ofPlatonism which is now referred to asmiddle Platonism. The termneoplatonism implies that Plotinus' interpretation of Plato was so distinct from those of his predecessors that it should be thought to introduce a new period in the history of Platonism. Some contemporary scholars, however, have taken issue with this assumption and have doubted thatneoplatonism constitutes a useful label. They claim that merely marginal differences separate Plotinus' teachings from those of his immediate predecessors. As a pupil of philosopherAmmonius Saccas, Plotinus used the knowledge of his teacher and predecessors in order to inspire the next generation.[10]
Whether neoplatonism is a meaningful or useful historical category is itself a central question concerning the history of the interpretation of Plato. For much of the history of Platonism, it was commonly accepted that the doctrines of the neoplatonists were essentially the same as those of Plato. The Renaissance neoplatonistMarsilio Ficino, for instance, thought that the neoplatonic interpretation of Plato was an authentic and accurate representation of Plato's philosophy.[11] Although it is unclear precisely when scholars began to disassociate the philosophy of the historical Plato from the philosophy of his neoplatonic interpreters, they had clearly begun to do so at least as early as the first decade of the nineteenth century. Contemporary scholars often identify the German theologianFriedrich Schleiermacher as an early thinker who took Plato's philosophy to be separate from that of his neoplatonic interpreters. However, others have argued that the differentiation of Plato from neoplatonism was the result of a protracted historical development that preceded Schleiermacher's scholarly work on Plato.[12]
Neoplatonism started withPlotinus in the 3rd century AD.[1][note 2] Three distinct phases in classical neoplatonism after Plotinus can be distinguished: the work of his studentPorphyry; that ofIamblichus and his school in Syria; and the period in the 5th and 6th centuries, when the Academies inAlexandria andAthens flourished.[4]
Neoplatonism synthesized ideas from various philosophical and religious cultural spheres. The most important forerunners from Greek philosophy were theMiddle Platonists, such asPlutarch, and theNeopythagoreans, especiallyNumenius of Apamea.Philo, a Hellenized Jew, translatedJudaism into terms ofStoic, Platonic, and Neopythagorean elements, and held that God is "supra rational" and can be reached only through "ecstasy". Philo also held that theoracles of God supply the material of moral and religious knowledge. The earliestChristian philosophers, such asJustin Martyr andAthenagoras of Athens, who attempted to connect Christianity with Platonism, and the ChristianGnostics ofAlexandria, especiallyValentinus and the followers ofBasilides, also mirrored elements of Neoplatonism,[14]
Both Christians (seeEusebius,Jerome, andOrigen) and Pagans (see Porphyry and Plotinus) claimed him a teacher and founder of the neoplatonic system.[18] Porphyry stated inOn the One School of Plato and Aristotle, that Ammonius' view was that the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle were in harmony. Eusebius and Jerome claimed him as a Christian until his death, whereas Porphyry claimed he had renounced Christianity and embraced pagan philosophy.
Plotinus taught that there is a supreme, totally transcendent "One", containing no division, multiplicity, nor distinction; likewise, it is beyond all categories of being and non-being. The concept of "being" is derived by us from the objects of human experience and is an attribute of such objects, but the infinite, transcendent One is beyond all such objects and, therefore, is beyond the concepts which we can derive from them. The One "cannot be any existing thing" and cannot be merely the sum of all such things (compare the Stoic doctrine of disbelief in non-material existence) but "is prior to all existents".
Porphyry (c. 233 – c. 309) wrote widely on astrology, religion, philosophy, and musical theory. He produced a biography of his teacher, Plotinus. He is important in the history of mathematics because of his commentary onEuclid's Elements, which Pappus used when he wrote his own commentary. Porphyry is also known as an opponent of Christianity and as a defender ofpaganism; of hisAdversus Christianos (Against the Christians) in 15 books, only fragments remain. He famously said, "The gods have proclaimed Christ to have been most pious, but the Christians are a confused and vicious sect."
After Plotinus (around 205–270) and his student Porphyry (around 232–309), Aristotle's (non-biological) works entered thecurriculum ofPlatonic thought. Porphyry's introduction (Isagoge) to Aristotle'sCategoria was important as an introduction tologic, and the study of Aristotle became an introduction to the study of Plato in the late Platonism ofAthens andAlexandria. The commentaries of this group seek to harmonise Plato, Aristotle, and, often, theStoics.[20] Some works of neoplatonism were attributed to Plato or Aristotle.De Mundo, for instance, is thought not to be the work of a 'pseudo-Aristotle' though this remains debatable.[21]
Proclus Lycaeus (February 8, 412 – April 17, 485) was a Greek neoplatonist philosopher, one of the last major Greek philosophers (seeDamascius). He set forth one of the most elaborate, complex, and fully developed neoplatonic systems, providing also an allegorical way of reading the dialogues of Plato. The particular characteristic of Proclus' system is his insertion of a level of individual ones, calledhenads, between the One itself and the divine Intellect, which is the second principle. Thehenads are beyond being, like the One itself, but they stand at the head of chains of causation (seirai ortaxeis) and in some manner give to these chains their particular character. They are also identified with the traditional Greek gods, so onehenad might beApollo and be the cause of all things apollonian, while another might beHelios and be the cause of all sunny things. Thehenads serve both to protect the One itself from any hint of multiplicity and to draw up the rest of the universe towards the One, by being a connecting, intermediate stage between absolute unity and determinate multiplicity. In the Middle Ages most Plotinus' insights will be presented as authored by Proclus.
TheEnneads of Plotinus are the primary and classical document of neoplatonism. As a form ofmysticism, it contains theoretical and practical parts. The theoretical parts deal with the high origin of the humansoul, showing how it has departed from its first estate. The practical parts show the way by which the soul may again return to the Eternal and Supreme.[14] The system can be divided between the invisible world and the phenomenal world, the former containing thetranscendent,absolute One from whichemanates an eternal, perfect, essence (nous, or intellect), which, in turn, produces theworld-soul.
For Plotinus, the first principle of reality is "the One", an utterly simple, ineffable, beyond being and non-being, unknowable subsistence which is both the creative source of theUniverse[23] and theteleological end of all existing things. Although, properly speaking, there is no name appropriate for the first principle, the most adequate names are "the One" or "the Good". The One is so simple that it cannot even be said to exist or to be a being. Rather, the creative principle of all things isbeyond being, a notion which is derived from Book VI of theRepublic,[24] when, in the course of his famousanalogy of the Sun, Plato says that the Good is beyond being (ἐπέκεινα τῆς οὐσίας) in power and dignity.[25] In Plotinus' model of reality, the One is the cause of the rest of reality, which takes the form of two subsequent "hypostases" or substances:Nous and Soul (psyché). Although neoplatonists after Plotinus adhered to his cosmological scheme in its most general outline, later developments in the tradition also departed substantively from Plotinus' teachings in regards to significant philosophical issues, such as the nature of evil.
From the Oneemanated different levels of lesser realities known as "Hypostases." At the highest level of reality exists "the One" from which emanates the Nous or the mind. It is the first principle after the One and contains all knowledge in a unified form. It is both the knower, the known, and the act of knowing, embodying a complete unity. The Platonic realm of the Forms is contained within the Nous and acts as the archetype of the sensible world. From the Nous emanates a lesser reality known as the Soul, which receives information from the Nous and actualizes it. This act of "actualization" is the same as the creation of the sensible world, the realm of multiplicity, time, and space. This sensible realm is an imperfect copy of the Nous and the Platonic realm of the Forms. The process of Emanation is beyond temporality as time does not exist in the One, the Nous, or the Soul, but only in the sensible world. Despite their distinctions, these four realities are all part of the same unified reality unfolding within the One.
The original Being initially emanates, or throws out, thenous (νοῦς), which is a perfect image of the One and the archetype of all existing things. It is simultaneously both being and thought, idea and ideal world. As image, thenous corresponds perfectly to the One, but as derivative, it is entirely different. What Plotinus understands by thenous is the highest sphere accessible to the humanmind,[14] while also being pureintellect itself.Nous is the most critical component ofidealism, Neoplatonism being a pure form of idealism.[note 3] Thedemiurge (thenous) is the energy, orergon (does the work), which manifests or organises the material world intoperceivability.
The image and product of the motionless nous is theworld-soul, which, according to Plotinus, is immaterial like thenous. Its relation to thenous is the same as that of thenous to the One. It stands between thenous and the phenomenal world, and it is permeated and illuminated by the former, but it is also in contact with the latter. Thenous/spirit is indivisible; the world-soul may preserve its unity and remain in thenous, but, at the same time, it has the power of uniting with the corporeal world and thus being disintegrated. It therefore occupies an intermediate position. As a single world-soul, it belongs in essence and destination to the intelligible world; but it also embraces innumerable individual souls; and these can either allow themselves to be informed by thenous, or turn aside from the nous and choose the phenomenal world and lose themselves in the realm of the senses and the finite.[14]
The soul, as a moving essence, generates the corporeal or phenomenal world. This world ought to be so pervaded by the soul that its various parts should remain in perfect harmony. Plotinus is no dualist in the sense of certain sects, such as the Gnostics; in contrast, he admires the beauty and splendour of the world. So long as idea governs matter, or the soul governs the body, the world is fair and good. It is an image – though a shadowy image – of the upper world, and the degrees of better and worse in it are essential to the harmony of the whole. But, in the actual phenomenal world, unity and harmony are replaced by strife or discord; the result is a conflict, abecoming and vanishing, an illusive existence. And the reason for this state of things is that bodies rest on a substratum of matter. Matter is the indeterminate: that with no qualities. If destitute of form and idea, it is evil; as capable of form, it is neutral.[14] Evil here is understood as a parasite, having no-existence of its own (parahypostasis), an unavoidable outcome of the Universe, having an "other" necessity, as a harmonizing factor.[28]
Later neoplatonic philosophers, especially Iamblichus, added hundreds of intermediate beings such asgods,angels,demons, and other beings as mediators between the One and humanity. The neoplatonist gods are omni-perfect beings and do not display the usual amoral behaviour associated with their representations in the myths.
The One: God, The Good. Transcendent and ineffable.
The Hypercosmic Gods: those that make Essence, Life, and Soul
Neoplatonists did not believe in an independent existence ofevil. They compared it to darkness, which does not exist in itself but only as the absence of light. So, too, evil is simply the absence of good. Things are good insofar as they exist; they are evil only insofar as they are imperfect, lacking some good which they should have.
Neoplatonists believed human perfection and happiness were attainable in this world, without awaiting anafterlife. Perfection and happiness—seen as synonymous—could be achieved through philosophicalcontemplation.
All people return to the One, from which they emanated.[29][30][31]
The neoplatonists believed in the pre-existence, andimmortality of the soul.[32][33] The human soul consists of a lower irrational soul and a higher rational soul (mind), both of which can be regarded as different powers of the one soul. It was widely held that the soul possesses a "vehicle" (okhêma),[34] accounting for the human soul's immortality and allowing for its return to the One after death.[35] After bodily death, the soul takes up a level in theafterlife corresponding with the level at which it lived during its earthly life.[36][37] The neoplatonists believed in the principle ofreincarnation. Although the most pure and holy souls would dwell in the highest regions, the impure soul would undergo a purification,[33] before descending again,[38] to be reincarnated into a new body, perhaps into animal form.[39] Plotinus believed that a soul may be reincarnated into another human or even a different sort of animal. However, Porphyry maintained, instead, that human souls were only reincarnated into other humans.[40] A soul which has returned to the One achieves union with the cosmic universal soul[41] and does not descend again; at least, not in this world period.[38]
Certain central tenets of neoplatonism served as a philosophical interim for theChristiantheologianAugustine of Hippo on his journey fromdualisticManichaeism to Christianity.[42] As a Manichaen, Augustine had held that evil has substantial being and that God is made of matter; when he became a neoplatonist, he changed his views on these things. As a neoplatonist, and later a Christian, Augustine believed that evil is a privation of good[43] and that God is not material.[44] When writing his treatise 'On True Religion', even several years after his baptism in 387 CE, Augustine'sChristianity was still tempered by neoplatonism.
The termlogos was interpreted variously in neoplatonism. Plotinus refers toThales[45] in interpretinglogos as the principle of meditation, the interrelationship between thehypostases[46] (Soul, Spirit (nous) and the 'One').St. John introduces a relation betweenLogos and the Son,Christ,[47] whereasPaul calls it 'Son', 'Image', and 'Form'.[47][48][49]Victorinus subsequently differentiated the Logos interior to God from the Logos related to the world by creation and salvation.[47] For Augustine, the Logos "took on flesh" in Christ, in whom the Logos was present as in no other man.[50][51][52] He strongly influencedearly medieval Christian philosophy.[53]
Some early Christians, influenced by neoplatonism, identified the neoplatonic One, or God, withYahweh. The most influential of these would beOrigen, the pupil of Ammonius Saccas; and the sixth-century author known asPseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, whose works were translated byJohn Scotus in the ninth century for the West. Both authors had a lasting influence onEastern Orthodox andWestern Christianity, and the development of contemplative and mystical practices and theology.
Neoplatonism also had links with Gnosticism, which Plotinus rebuked in his ninth tractate of the secondEnneads: "Against Those That Affirm The Creator of The Cosmos and The Cosmos Itself to Be Evil" (generally known as "Against The Gnostics").
Because their belief was grounded in Platonic thought, the neoplatonists rejected Gnosticism's vilification of Plato'sdemiurge, the creator of the material world or cosmos discussed in theTimaeus. Neoplatonism has been referred to as orthodox Platonic philosophy by scholars likeJohn D. Turner; this reference may be due, in part, to Plotinus' attempt to refute certain interpretations of Platonic philosophy, through his Enneads. Plotinus believed the followers of Gnosticism had corrupted the original teachings of Plato and often argued against likes of Valentinus who, according to Plotinus, had given rise to doctrines ofdogmatic theology with ideas such as that the Spirit of Christ was brought forth by a conscious god after the fall fromPleroma. According to Plotinus, The One is not a conscious god with intent, nor agodhead, nor a conditioned existing entity of any kind, but is rather a requisite principle of totality which is also the source of ultimate wisdom.[54]
After thePlatonic Academy was destroyed in the first century BC, philosophers continued to teachPlatonism, but it was not until the early 5th century (c. 410) that a revived academy (which had no connection with the original Academy) was established inAthens by some leading neoplatonists.[55] It persisted until 529 AD when it was finally closed byJustinian I because of activepaganism of its professors. Other schools continued inConstantinople,Antioch,Alexandria andGaza which were the centers of Justinian's empire.[56][57][58]
After the closure of the neoplatonic academy, neoplatonic and/or secular philosophical studies continued in publicly funded schools in Alexandria and Gaza. In the early seventh century, the neoplatonistStephanus of Alexandria brought this Alexandrian tradition to Constantinople, where it would remain influential, albeit as a form of secular education.[57] The university maintained an active philosophical tradition of Platonism andAristotelianism, with the former being the longest unbroken Platonic school, running for close to two millennia until the fifteenth century[57]
Michael Psellos (1018–1078), a Byzantine monk, writer, philosopher, politician and historian, wrote many philosophical treatises, such asDe omnifaria doctrina. He wrote most of his philosophy during his time as a court politician at Constantinople in the 1030s and 1040s.
The major reason for the prominence of neoplatonic influences in the historicalMuslim world was availability of neoplatonic texts: Arabic translations and paraphrases of neoplatonic works were readily available to Islamic scholars greatly due to the availability of the Greek copies, in part, becauseMuslims conquered some of the more important centres of the Byzantine Christian civilization in Egypt and Syria.[citation needed]
Various Persian and Arabic scholars, includingAvicenna (Ibn Sina),Ibn Arabi,al-Kindi,al-Farabi, andal-Himsi, adapted neoplatonism to conform to the monotheistic constraints of Islam.[59] The translations of the works which extrapolate the tenets of God in neoplatonism present no major modification from their original Greek sources, showing the doctrinal shift towardsmonotheism.[60] Islamic neoplatonism adapted the concepts ofthe One and theFirst Principle to Islamic theology, attributing the First Principle to God.[61] God is a transcendent being, omnipresent and inalterable to the effects of creation.[60] Islamic philosophers used the framework of Islamic mysticism in their interpretation of Neoplatonic writings and concepts.[note 4]
This sectionneeds expansion. You can help byadding to it.(September 2024)
The works of Pseudo-Dionysius were primarily instrumental in the flowering of westernmedieval mysticism, most notably the German mysticMeister Eckhart (c. 1260 – c. 1328).
Neoplatonism also influencedLatin scholasticism, for example through the reception and translation of Neoplatonic conception byEriugena. Aquinas, for example, have some Neoplatonic elements in his philosophical conceptions that he adapts within an Aristotelian vocabulary.
"Of all the students of Greek in Renaissance Italy, the best-known are the neoplatonists who studied in and around Florence" (Hole). Neoplatonism was not just a revival of Plato's ideas, it is all based on Plotinus' created synthesis, which incorporated the works and teachings of Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, and other Greek philosophers.
The Renaissance in Italy was the revival of classic antiquity, and this started at the fall of the Byzantine empire, who were considered the "librarians of the world", because of their great collection of classical manuscripts and the number of humanist scholars that resided in Constantinople (Hole).
Neoplatonism in the Renaissance combined the ideas of Christianity and a new awareness of the writings of Plato.
Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499) was "chiefly responsible for packaging and presenting Plato to the Renaissance" (Hole). In 1462, Cosimo I de' Medici, patron of arts, who had an interest in humanism and Platonism, provided Ficino with all 36 of Plato's dialogues in Greek for him to translate. Between 1462 and 1469, Ficino translated these works into Latin, making them widely accessible, as only a minority of people could read Greek. And, between 1484 and 1492, he translated the works of Plotinus, making them available for the first time to the West.
Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463–1494) was another neoplatonist during the Italian Renaissance. He could speak and write Latin and Greek, and had knowledge on Hebrew and Arabic. The pope banned his works because they were viewed as heretical – unlike Ficino, who managed to stay on the right side of the church.
The efforts of Ficino and Pico to introduce neoplatonic andHermetic doctrines into the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church has recently been evaluated in terms of an attempted "Hermetic Reformation".[63]
Notable modern neoplatonists includeThomas Taylor, "the English Platonist", who wrote extensively on Platonism and translated almost the entire Platonic and Plotinian corpora into English, and the Belgian writerSuzanne Lilar.
The science fiction writerPhilip K. Dick identified as a neoplatonist and explored related mystical experiences and religious concepts in his theoretical work, compiled inThe Exegesis of Philip K. Dick.[66]
Julius Evola incorporated Neoplatonic metaphysics into his vision ofRoman pagan revival, aligning with his Traditionalist critique of modernity.Arturo Reghini, an Italian esotericist and collaborator of Evola, also promoted Neoplatonic ideas in his efforts to reviveancient Roman religion.[67]
^abThe term first appeared in 1827.[8] According to theStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The term 'neoplatonism' is an invention of early 19th century European scholarship and indicates the penchant of historians for dividing 'periods' in history. In this case, the term was intended to indicate thatPlotinus initiated a new phase in the development of the Platonic tradition."[9]
^abPauliina Remes: "'Neoplatonism' refers to a school of thought that began in approximately 245 CE, when a man called Plotinus moved [to] the capital of the Roman Empire [and] began teaching his interpretation of Plato's philosophy. Out of the association of people in Rome [...] emerged a school of philosophy that displays enough originality to be considered a new phase of Platonism".[13]
^Schopenhauer wrote of this neoplatonist philosopher: "With Plotinus there even appears, probably for the first time inWestern philosophy,idealism that had long been current in theEast even at that time, for it taught (Enneads, iii, lib. vii, c.10) that thesoul has made theworld by stepping frometernity intotime, with the explanation: 'For there is for thisuniverse no other place than the soul ormind' (neque est alter hujus universi locus quam anima), indeed the ideality of time is expressed in the words: 'We should not accept time outside the soul or mind' (oportet autem nequaquam extra animam tempus accipere)."[26]
Similarly, professor Ludwig Noiré wrote: "For the first time in Western philosophy we find idealism proper in Plotinus (Enneads, iii, 7, 10), where he says, "The only space or place of the world is the soul," and "Time must not be assumed to exist outside the soul."[27] It is worth noting, however, that, like Plato, but unlike Schopenhauer and other modern philosophers, Plotinus does not worry about whether or how we can get beyond our ideas in order to know external objects.
^Morewedge: "The greatest cluster of neoplatonic themes is found in religious mystical writings, which in fact transform purely orthodox doctrines such as creation into doctrines such asemanationism, which allow for a better framework for the expression of neoplatonic themes and the emergence of the mystical themes of the ascent and mystical union."[62]
^Wildberg, Christian (2021),"Neoplatonism", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.),The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved2021-11-08
^Brenk, Frederick (January 2016)."Pagan Monotheism and Pagan Cult"."Theism" and Related Categories in the Study of Ancient Religions. SCS/AIA Annual Meeting. Vol. 75.Philadelphia:Society for Classical Studies (University of Pennsylvania).Archived from the original on 6 May 2017. Retrieved14 October 2020.Historical authors generally refer to "the divine" (to theion) or "the supernatural" (to daimonion) rather than simply "God." [...] TheStoics, believed in a God identifiable with thelogos orhegemonikon (reason or leading principle) of the universe and downgraded thetraditional gods, who even disappear during the conflagration (ekpyrosis). Yet, the Stoics apparently did not practice a cult to this God.Middle and Later Platonists, who spoke of a supreme God, in philosophical discourse, generally speak of this God, not the gods, as responsible for the creation and providence of the universe. They, too, however, do not seem to have directly practiced a religious cult to their God.
^Dodds, E.R. "The Parmenides of Plato and the Origin of the Neoplatonic 'One'".The Classical Quarterly, Jul–Oct 1928, vol. 22, p. 136
^Richard T. Wallis and Jay Bregman (1992), SUNY Press, page 173.
^Plotinus, iv. 7, "On the immortality of the Soul."
^abGlen Warren Bowersock, Peter Brown, Peter Robert Lamont Brown, Oleg Grabar, 1999,Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World, page 40. Harvard University Press.
^See Plato'sTimaeus, 41d, 44e, 69c, for the origin of this idea.
^Paul S. MacDonald, 2003,History of the Concept of Mind: Speculations About Soul, Mind and Spirit from Homer to Hume, page 122. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
^Andrew Smith, 1974,Porphyry's Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition: A Study in Post-Plotinian Neoplatonism, page 43. Springer.
^abAndrew Smith, 1974,Porphyry's Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition: A Study in Post-Plotinian Neoplatonism, page 58. Springer.
^"Whether human souls could be reborn into animals seems to have become quite a problematical topic to the later neoplatonists." – Andrew Smith, (1987),Porphyrian Studies since 1913, ANRW II 36, 2.
^Remes, Pauliina,Neoplatonism (University of California Press, 2008), p. 119.
^James A. Arieti,Philosophy in the Ancient World: An Introduction, page 336. Rowman & Littlefield
^Notopoulos, James A. (1936). "Shelley and Thomas Taylor".Proceedings of the Modern Language Association of America.51 (2):502–517.doi:10.2307/458067.JSTOR458067.S2CID163842278.
^Giudice, Christian.Occult Imperium: Arturo Reghini, Roman Traditionalism, and the Anti-Modern Reaction in Fascist Italy. Oxford University Press, 2022. ISBN 978-0197610244.
Addey, Crystal. 2014. Divination and Theurgy in Neoplatonism: Oracles of the Gods. Farnham; Burlington : Ashgate.
Blumenthal, Henry J., and E. G. Clark, eds. 1993.The Divine Iamblichus: Philosopher and Man of Gods. Proceedings of a Conference held at the University of Liverpool on 23–26 September 1990. Bristol, UK: Bristol Classical Press.
Catana, Leo 2013. "The Origin of the Division between Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism."Apeiron: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science 46: 2: 166–200.
Chiaradonna, Riccardo (2023).Ontology in early Neoplatonism: Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus. Berlin: De Gruyter.ISBN9783110997514.
Chiaradonna, Riccardo and Franco Trabattoni eds. 2009.Physics and Philosophy of Nature in Greek Neoplatonism: Proceedings of the European Science Foundation Exploratory Workshop, Il Ciocco, Castelvecchio Pascoli, 22–24 June 2006. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
Chlup, Radek. 2012.Proclus: An Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Dillon, John M. and Lloyd P. Gerson eds. 2004.Neoplatonic Philosophy. Introductory Readings. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.
Gersh, Stephen. 2012. "The First Principles of Latin Neoplatonism: Augustine, Macrobius, Boethius."Vivarium 50.2: 113–138.
Gerson, Lloyd P. ed. 1996.The Cambridge Companion to Plotinus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gertz, Sebastian R. P. 2011.Death and Immortality in Late Neoplatonism: Studies on the Ancient Commentaries on Plato's Phaedo. Leiden: Brill.
Hadot, Ilsetraut. 2015. "Athenian and Alexandrian Neoplatonism and the Harmonization of Aristotle and Plato." Translated by Michael Chase. Leiden; Boston: Brill.
Hartmann, Udo (2018).Der spätantike Philosoph. Die Lebenswelten der paganen Gelehrten und ihre hagiographische Ausgestaltung in den Philosophenviten von Porphyrios bis Damaskios (in German). 3 volumes. Bonn: Habelt,ISBN978-3-7749-4172-4
Herkert, Felix (2023).Körperlichkeit im theurgischen Neuplatonismus: Immanente Pforten zur Transzendenz. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter.ISBN9783111246017.
O’Meara, Dominic J. 1993.Plotinus: An Introduction to the Enneads. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Rangos, Spyridon. 2000. "Proclus and Artemis: On the Relevance of Neoplatonism to the Modern Study of Ancient Religion."Kernos 13: 47–84.
Remes, P. 2008.Neoplatonism. Stocksfield, UK: Acumen.
Remes, Pauliina and Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla eds. 2014.The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism, New York: Routledge.
Smith, Andrew. 1974.Porphyry's Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition: A Study in Post-Plotinian Neoplatonism. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Whittaker, Thomas. 1901.The Neo-Platonists: A Study in the History of Hellenism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![[icon]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aWiki_letter_w_cropped.svg)
