Absolute Realism ~ A Journal of Philosophy 📄

[A Fellow Lighter]

Chapter 3: The Crisis and Expansion of Reality Itself

SECTION 7

Neo-Platonism — the Synthesis of Greek and Eastern Traditions 

Neoplatonism is a philosophical system that emerged in the 3rd century CE, building upon the teachings of Plato and integrating elements from various traditions, including Aristotelianism, Stoicism, and Eastern philosophies. It represents a significant development in the history of Western thought, aiming to provide a comprehensive understanding of the universe, the nature of reality, and the human soul's place within it. The central Neo-Platonic philosophers, beginning with Plotinus, sought to provide a detailed account of the cosmos — explaining its origin, its unfolding or development, and its eventual end.

Core Principles of Neoplatonism

At the heart of Neoplatonism lies the concept of a single, ultimate source of all existence, often referred to as "the One" or "the Good." This principle is characterized by absolute simplicity and transcendence, existing beyond all categories of being and non-being. From the One emanates the rest of reality in a hierarchical order:

1. The One (The Good): The highest, ineffable source of all existence, beyond comprehension and description.
2. Nous (Divine Mind or Intellect): The first emanation from the One, representing divine intelligence and containing the perfect forms or archetypes of all things.
3. World Soul: Emanating from the Nous, the World Soul is the animating principle of the universe, giving rise to individual souls and the material world.
4. Material World: The lowest level of reality, where forms are instantiated in matter, often seen as a shadow or imitation of the higher, intelligible realms.

This hierarchical structure explains the process of creation and the relationship between the immaterial and material aspects of the universe.

The Human Soul and Its Ascent

Neoplatonism places significant emphasis on the human soul's journey. According to this philosophy, souls originate from the higher, intelligible realm but become entangled in the material world. The ultimate goal of human life is to achieve henosis, or union with the One, which involves a process of purification and intellectual contemplation. By transcending the distractions of the material world and turning inward, individuals can ascend through the levels of reality, reconnecting with their divine source.

Bridging the Western and Eastern Conceptual Divide

One of the most significant ways in which Neoplatonism contributes to the expansion of the concept of reality itself is through its synthesis of Western philosophical traditions with Eastern mystical thought. This blending of traditions does not merely merge two different systems, but it redefines and expands the scope of reality to encompass both rational, structured forms of understanding and mystical, experiential paths to ultimate knowledge.

In its synthesis, Neoplatonism takes the Greek rationality of Plato, which emphasized the existence of a hierarchical system of being with the Forms at its core, and integrates it with Eastern philosophies, particularly the mystical traditions of Hinduism and Buddhism, where the ultimate goal is the union of the individual soul with the divine. This fusion is not just an intellectual exercise but a transformation of the way reality is understood.

The synthesis of Eastern and Western thought further expands the concept of reality by integrating experiential and mystical paths with rational, intellectual structures. Eastern traditions, such as those found in Hinduism and Buddhism, emphasize a direct, personal connection with the divine and the journey of the soul toward ultimate unity. In Hinduism, for instance, the idea of moksha (liberation) represents the soul’s return to the ultimate reality — Brahman. Similarly, Buddhism teaches the transcendence of the individual self to achieve union with nirvana, a state beyond ordinary perception.

Neoplatonism takes this mystical ascent and blends it with Greek philosophy’s focus on the intellectual pursuit of the good and the true. Plotinus, for example, speaks of an ascent of the soul that begins in the material world and progresses through intellectual contemplation of the Forms, culminating in an intuitive union with the One. This ascent mirrors the Eastern idea of the soul's return to the divine, but within a framework that also values intellectual discipline and philosophical reasoning.

In this way, Neoplatonism expands the scope of reality by merging rational knowledge with mystical experience and by framing the journey of the soul in both philosophical and spiritual terms. The integration of intellectual and mystical elements allows the concept of reality to be larger and more inclusive — not simply an intellectual exercise about what is real, but also a spiritual practice of becoming one with reality itself.

Expanding the Concept of Knowledge and the Divine

The integration of these traditions also expands our understanding of knowledge and the divine. Where earlier Greek thought, particularly in the work of Plato, focused on the intellectual ascent to the Forms (ideal, unchanging truths), Neoplatonism places greater emphasis on the unity between the intellect and the mystical. By combining Plato’s rationalism with Eastern mysticism, Neoplatonism argues that the true knowledge of reality comes not only through intellectual analysis and reasoning, but through direct experience with the divine, a knowledge that transcends both the material world and rational thought.

This expansion of the concept of knowledge is seen in how Neoplatonists view the process of illumination — a term frequently used in mystical traditions. In Neoplatonism, the philosopher must undergo a direct mystical union with the divine, which allows them to perceive reality in its purest form, bypassing the limitations of sensory perception and rational thought.

By introducing this dual approach to knowledge, Neoplatonism suggests that reality itself is best understood not as something to be studied externally, but as a personal and transcendent experience, one that transcends the mere intellectual grasp of reality and embraces a deeper, spiritual understanding.

[A Fellow Lighter]

Chapter 4: The Problem of the External World 

INTRODUCTION 

The question of the external world has perplexed philosophers for centuries, and it arises not just as an abstract concept but as something deeply connected to our everyday experience. The plain man, for example, often takes the world around him for granted, perceiving objects directly through his senses. When he looks at a tree, touches it, or hears the rustle of its leaves, he assumes that he is directly aware of the external world in all its physical reality. The thing is immediately known, or so it seems.

However, this view falters when we take a moment to reflect on the nature of perception. We quickly notice that what we perceive through our senses can be deceptive. A blind man doesn't see the world as others do, a colorblind man may misinterpret colors, and an individual suffering from a hallucination perceives things that do not exist in the material world. These examples suggest that there is a distinction between the thing itself and the idea or perception we have of it. Perception, in this sense, seems to be a representation of the world, not the world itself.

But here lies the tension: Even while acknowledging that perception can be misleading, we continue to operate as though we directly know the world. We touch, smell, taste, and see, and the immediate experience feels undeniably real. However, to reconcile this with the awareness that our senses can be tricked, one must ask: Can we know the external world directly, or are we always inferring its existence from our mental representations?

This problem deepens when we bring in modern scientific understandings, such as the atomic theory, which describes the world not as it appears to us but in terms of microscopic particles and forces far beyond our immediate perception. This scientific worldview seems to conflict with our direct sensory experience, raising a profound question: What, then, is the "external world" that we think we know?

The question grows even more complicated when we consider that, if the external world is something we infer through ideas and not directly perceive, can we really claim to know it at all? How much of what we experience is truly "external," and how much of it is a construct of our own minds? Is the external world a fact, or is it a concept, something shaped by our perceptions, our cognition, and our understanding?

This is the crux of the problem of the external world. It is not merely an issue of whether the world exists independently of us, but a deeper inquiry into the very nature of reality as we experience it. Are we dealing with something objective and external, or something subjective and conceptual? The task, then, is not simply to resolve the question of existence, but to probe the very foundation of what we consider "real."

[A Fellow Lighter]

Chapter 4: The Problem of the External World 

SECTION 1 

The Psychologist and the External World

The problem of the external world begins with a simple, yet profound, distinction: the distinction between ideas and things. The common man, engaged in the everyday tasks of life, assumes that what s/he perceives through one's senses is an accurate reflection of the external world. S/he looks at a tree, feels the texture of its bark, and listens to the rustling of its leaves. In these moments, s/he experiences the world directly. Yet, when we pause to think more deeply, we realize that this seemingly straightforward belief is built upon the idea that our perception of the world is not simply a mirror of reality, but a mental representation shaped by our senses.

This notion becomes especially pressing when we consider the work of psychologists, who describe how the mind constructs our knowledge of the world. Through sensory organs and nervous systems, the body transmits information about the external world to the brain, where it is processed and turned into mental images. In this model, the “thing itself” exists outside of us, but what we know of it is always mediated by our senses, which act as messengers. The tree we see is not the tree itself but a mental image — a representation of the external object. The key distinction here is between the mind's image and the reality it is supposed to represent.

But this distinction introduces a subtle, insidious doubt. If our knowledge of the world is dependent on these images, can we truly claim to know the external world at all? The psychologist helps sharpen this question, acknowledging the unavoidable separation between the thing as it is and the image we perceive. After all, in cases of hallucination or sensory distortion, we may experience a reality that isn't there, which serves as a reminder that our mental images are not always reliable representations of the external world. The mind can be deceived, and these deceptions raise critical questions: Are we ever directly in touch with the world, or do we only ever know it through the lens of our mental images?

Moreover, the psychologist is quick to point out that this separation is not merely theoretical. When we examine mental images and sensations, they seem to emerge only after a sensory event — an impulse traveling along the nerves to the brain. But how can we know the nature of the object that caused the sensation if we cannot access the thing directly? All we have are images, representations of something beyond us, and this creates a chasm between our perceptions and the things themselves. When an image seems to correspond to an external thing, we assume the thing is there. When an image is erroneous, such as in the case of hallucinations, we infer that the object is absent.

This process of inference is critical to the psychologist’s framework, and yet it brings us back to an uncomfortable paradox. How can we be sure that the external world exists at all if we never experience it directly? The very assumptions that the psychologist makes about the world — such as the existence of sense organs, the brain, and nerves — are based on an external world that cannot be known directly but only inferred. The sciences provide detailed descriptions of the body's mechanics, but these descriptions still rely on the unexamined assumption that an external world exists and that it causes the sensations we experience.

Thus, the psychologist's theory, despite its rigor and scientific grounding, still leaves us with the problem of the external world. While the ordinary man might trust the reliability of his senses, the psychologist, through his analysis of ideas and things, exposes the limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of the world around us. And it is here that the critical question arises: How can we be certain that an external world exists when all we ever know are the images it creates in our minds?

In the face of these doubts, the psychologist’s distinction between ideas and things challenges our most basic assumptions about reality. To move forward and resolve this uncertainty, we must delve deeper into the metaphysical aspects of our experience, examining the very foundations of what we claim to know about the world beyond our perceptions. This investigation will reveal not only the complexity of the problem but also its significance in the larger philosophical pursuit of understanding the external world.