← Home
Select Works of Plotinus · 77 of 752 · tr. Thomas Taylor

Select Works, Section 84

Section 9 9. But what approach have we to the knowing of Good and Evil? And first of the Evil of soul: Virtue, we may know by the Intellectual-Principle and by means of the philosophic habit; but Vice? A a ruler marks off straight from crooked, so Vice is known by its divergence from the line of Virtue. But are we able to affirm Vice by any vision we can have of it, or is there some other way of knowing it? Utter viciousness, certainly not by any vision, for it is utterly outside of bound and measure; this thing which is nowhere can be seized only by abstraction; but any degree of evil falling short of The Absolute is knowable by the extent of that falling short. We see partial wrong; from what is before us we divine that which is lacking to the entire form [or Kind] thus indicated; we see that the completed Kind would be the Indeterminate; by this process we are able to identify and affirm Evil. In the same way when we observe what we feel to be an ugly appearance in Matter- left there because the Reason-Principle has not become so completely the master as to cover over the unseemliness- we recognise Ugliness by the falling-short from Ideal-Form. But how can we identify what has never had any touch of Form? We utterly eliminate every kind of Form; and the object in which there is none whatever we call Matter: if we are to see Matter we must so completely abolish Form that we take shapelessness into our very selves. In fact it is another Intellectual-Principle, not the true, this which ventures a vision so uncongenial. To see darkness the eye withdraws from the light; it is striving to cease from seeing, therefore it abandons the light which would make the darkness invisible; away from the light its power is rather that of not-seeing than of seeing and this not-seeing is its nearest approach to seeing Darkness. So the Intellectual-Principle, in order to see its contrary [Matter], must leave its own light locked up within itself, and as it were go forth from itself into an outside realm, it must ignore its native brightness and submit itself to the very contradition of its being.
Themes
Logoscosmology

The divine reason, word, or ordering principle through which the universe was created; mediates between the transcendent God and the material world.

The passage references 'Reason-Principles' (Logoi) as the higher state of Forms compared to their material instantiation.

All passages →
Body As Obstacleanthropology

The material body viewed as a prison, tomb, or source of error that hinders spiritual knowledge and return.

[auto] The passage centrally debates and concludes that the 'pravity inherent in body' and Matter are the source of evil and unhappiness within us.

All passages →
Cosmic Dualismtheology

Ontological opposition between two primal principles (light/darkness, truth/lie, spirit/matter) as the fundamental structure of reality.

[auto] The text establishes an ontological opposition between Form (Reason/Good) and Matter (Evil/Deficiency) as the structure of reality.

All passages →
Emanation Hierarchycosmology

A chain of divine beings or principles flowing downward from a single transcendent source (the One or the Father), each level less perfect than the one above.

[auto] The distinction between Forms existing 'within themselves' versus those 'lodged in Matter' implies a hierarchical descent of reality from higher to lower.

All passages →
Evil As Privationtheology

Augustinian and Plotinian doctrine that evil has no positive being of its own but is a lack, distortion, or absence of the good — denying ontological dualism while preserving moral seriousness.

[auto] The passage explicitly defines Vice as 'ignorance and a lack of measure' and Matter as 'formlessness' opposing Form, aligning perfectly with the doctrine that evil is a deficiency rather than positive being.

All passages →
Related passages · 7 parallels
christian_mysticism|Pseudo-Dionysius: The Divine Names|Chapter 7, Section 1d
Furthermore, we must ask how it is that we know God when He cannot be perceived by the mind or the senses and is not a particular Being. Perhaps ‘tis true to say that we know not God by His Nature (for this is unknowable and beyond the rea…”
Both passages explore the concept of knowing the unknowable, whether it be Evil or God. They both employ the method of negation and abstraction to approach that which is beyond direct perception or comprehension.
christian_mysticism|The Life and Doctrines of Jacob Boehme|Chapter 3 (part 4)
The will cannot attain this light, and the more it desires for freedom the greater will be the attraction caused by the desire." ( Six Theosophical Points , i, 38.) "There must be au opposition, for the will desires not to be dark, and this…”
Both passages explore the concept of evil or darkness as a result of the interaction between form and matter, or desire and will. They both discuss how the desire for freedom or goodness is hindered by the very nature of the material or desirous state, leading to a state of anguish or corruption.
christian_mysticism|The Life and Doctrines of Jacob Boehme|Chapter 7 (part 10)
6.) God had ordered mankind not to eat from the fruits of the tree of temptation; but the devil thought of inducing them to disobey the command, and they were, moreover, p. 160 incited to do so by the spirit of the world, and by their own…”
Both passages explore the concept of evil and its origins, with Passage A focusing on the fall of man and the influence of the devil, while Passage B discusses the role of Matter in the manifestation of evil. Both texts delve into the corruption of pure states (celestial essence in Passage A, Reason-Principles in Passage B) through external influences (the devil and Matter, respectively).
christian_mysticism|The Life and Doctrines of Jacob Boehme|Chapter 14 (part 3)
"In so far as a person remains in a will foreign to his true nature, and does not want to be cured of it by entering into the holy Word, this foreign being will take substance in him and hold the celestial essence in subjection; so that the…”
Both passages explore the concept of evil as a corrupting influence. Plotinus attributes evil to Matter, which corrupts Forms, while Jakob Boehme describes evil as a perversion of the soul's will, leading to a corrupted essence. Both traditions see evil as a deviation from a pure or divine state.
hermeticism|Corpus Hermeticum 6: The All-Father|Section 1b
So then, Asclepius, the name alone of Good is found in men, the thing itself nowhere [in them], for this can never be. For no material body doth contain It - a thing bound on all sides by bad, by labors, pains, desires and passions, by err…”
Both passages explore the concept of evil and its relationship with matter and the divine. They share a mystical perspective on the corruption of pure forms or goodness when they interact with material reality, though they come from different philosophical and religious traditions.
hermeticism|Corpus Hermeticum 10: The Sermon on the Mount|Section 1c
For that the soul who hath no knowledge of the things that are, or knowledge of their nature, or of Good, is blinded by the body's passions and tossed about. This wretched soul, not knowing what she is, becomes the slave of bodies of stran…”
Both passages discuss the concept of evil and its relationship to matter and the soul. They explore how the soul can be corrupted or influenced by material existence, with Plotinus emphasizing the role of Matter as the source of evil and Hermes Trismegistus highlighting ignorance as the soul's vice.
renaissance_hermeticism|The Heroic Enthusiasts, Part I (Gli Eroici Furori)|Second Dialogueb
On the contrary, I mean that there is in these another species of foolishness and a worse. Cic. Who, then, is wise, if foolish is he who is content, and foolish he who is sad? Tans. He who is neither merry nor sad. Cic. Who? He who s…”
Both passages explore the concept of moderation and the avoidance of extremes, whether in emotional states or in the nature of evil. They both emphasize the importance of balance and the middle ground, though in different contexts—one in a dialogue about wisdom and emotional states, the other in a philosophical discussion about the nature of evil and matter.