← Home
Select Works of Plotinus · 414 of 752 · tr. Thomas Taylor

Select Works, Section 391

Section 8 8. D. (12) Soul belongs, then, to another Nature: What is this? Is it something which, while distinct from body, still belongs to it, for example a harmony or accord? The Pythagorean school holds this view thinking that the soul is, with some difference, comparable to the accord in the strings of a lyre. When the lyre is strung a certain condition is produced upon the strings, and this is known as accord: in the same way our body is formed of distinct constituents brought together, and the blend produces at once life and that soul which is the condition existing upon the bodily total. That this opinion is untenable has already been shown at length. The soul is a prior [to body], the accord is a secondary to the lyre. Soul rules, guides and often combats the body; as an accord of body it could not do these things. Soul is a real being, accord is not. That due blending [or accord] of the corporeal materials which constitute our frame would be simply health. Each separate part of the body, entering as a distinct entity into the total, would require a distinct soul [its own accord or note], so that there would be many souls to each person. Weightiest of all; before this soul there would have to be another soul to bring about the accord as, in the case of the musical instrument, there is the musician who produces the accord upon the strings by his own possession of the principle on which he tunes them: neither musical strings nor human bodies could put themselves in tune. Briefly, the soulless is treated as ensouled, the unordered becomes orderly by accident, and instead of order being due to soul, soul itself owes its substantial existence to order- which is self-caused. Neither in the sphere of the partial, nor in that of Wholes could this be true. The soul, therefore, is not a harmony or accord.
Related passages · 4 parallels
christian_mysticism|The Life and Doctrines of Jacob Boehme|Chapter 11 (part 7)
48.) "The soul and the Word are not one or one being. The soul is born from the centre of nature, from the essences, and belongs to the body, for she issues from the essences of the body, and attracts to herself the body; but the Word is f…”
Both passages discuss the relationship between the soul and a higher, divine principle. Plotinus argues that the soul is not merely a harmony or accord of the body but a prior, real being that guides and rules the body. Similarly, the second passage distinguishes between the soul and the Word, describing how the Word penetrates and illumines the soul without transforming it, highlighting the soul's connection to the body and the Word's connection to divinity.
platonism|Plato: Phaedo|Section 1q
Then reflect, Cebes: is not the conclusion of the whole matter this?-that the soul is in the very likeness of the divine, and immortal, and intelligible, and uniform, and indissoluble, and unchangeable; and the body is in the very likeness…”
Both passages discuss the nature of the soul and its relationship to the body, emphasizing the soul's superiority and independence from the corporeal. They both argue for the soul's immortality and purity, contrasting it with the body's mortality and impermanence.
platonism|Plato: Phaedo|Section 1z
Having, as I am convinced, rightly accepted this conclusion, and on sufficient grounds, I must, as I suppose, cease to argue or allow others to argue that the soul is a harmony. Let me put the matter, Simmias, he said, in another point of…”
Both passages discuss the nature of the soul and argue against the Pythagorean view that the soul is a harmony or accord. They explore the implications of this view and conclude that the soul is not a harmony.
platonism|Plato: Phaedo|Section 1{
For example, when the body is hot and thirsty, does not the soul incline us against drinking? and when the body is hungry, against eating? And this is only one instance out of ten thousand of the opposition of the soul to the things of th…”
Both passages discuss the nature of the soul and its relationship to the body, arguing against the idea that the soul is merely a harmony or accord of the body. They both emphasize the soul's ability to guide and control the body, rather than being passively influenced by it.