Systematization

You know, I'm really starting to think that the systematization of a worldview or philosophical system is a deeply flawed goal.

Let's suppose Plotinus is right and the Intellect is unitary. Then no possible systematization can exist: everything happens all at once, together, in a harmonious chorus. Here in the mirror-world of matter, of course, all-at-once is not possible: the harmony is broken, disparate, disjoint. Formulating a system out of it doesn't squish it all back together: rather, it only applies an order to it. One-thing-after-another is not the same as all-at-once, no matter how much you squint and turn your head.

Consequently, trying to formulate a system out of a mystical vision is to miss the point. Plotinus himself says that rationalism can only take you so far: the final leap is, and must be, beyond reason; this is because reason is the power of the soul, but we already live in the world of soul—to move beyond, to the world of Intellect, requires the transcendence of reason and the use of intuition. To put it another way, Euclid could formalize mathematics because mathematics exists within the soul; but philosophy—at least, philosophy in the sense Plotinus considers it—transcends soul and exists within the Intellect. To formalize philosophy is to try to use a system to prove itself, which both Plotinus and Gödel demonstrate to be impossible.

I haven't hazarded Proclus yet—I still intend to, and reserve the right to reconsider my evaluation when I do—but I am wary of treating his work as a touchstone or as a goal to be attained, like every modern commentator on Neoplatonism, from Thomas Taylor on, seems to. The Elements of Theology may yet be a useful didactic device, but the goal mustn't be anything so crass as a system: it is only, at best, a finger pointing at the moon. Focus on the moon, not the finger!