PLOTINUS, PORPHYRY AND ARISTOTLE'S CATEGORIES 1 7 9
Third, it is regrettable that Porphyry's systematic commentary on the
Categories, as well as his extensive Commentaries on the Enneads, Plato's Dialogues and Aristotle's Physics and Metaphysics are lost. It is also unfor
tunate that his two treatises on Plato's and Aristotle's agreement are not extant. We cannot know how he conceived and how well he defended the synthesis of the two philosophies. From the success and influence which Porphyry's thesis had on the subsequent generations, it may be inferred that he had based it on sound arguments. It would not do to simply say that it was the assignment of different areas to each philosopher that helped Porphyry's reconciliatory efforts. Aristoteles logicus and Plato
tkeologus may serve well as a motto, but it cannot hold up under scrutiny.
For the question is that Aristotle had his "theology" which he calls πρώτη φιλοσοφία, and Plato had his "logic" which he calls διαλεκτική. However, the meager evidence from the extant Commentary as well as the Isagoge indicates that, in these works, Porphyry tried to avoid the difficult ques tions which might frustrate his conciliatory effort. He preferred not to touch upon the "very deep and difficult philosophical problems" for the sake of his students, he says.75 What would happen when the students
became mature philosophers was a different matter.
Fourth, it is beyond doubt that in many ways Porphyry appears to be more Aristotelian than his teacher, as our discussion has pointed out. His favorable attitude contrasts with Plotinus' unfavorable attitude, particu larly, towards Aristotle's categories. But it is equally true that Porphyry is essentially a Neoplatonist who does not want to be unfaithful to Plotinus. What is interesting about him is that he believed that he could also be an Aristotelian. He wanted to go one step further in the direction which Plotinus had taken by incorporating much of the Metaphysics in the
Enneads. Porphyry thought it important to repeat the effort with regard
to Categories. It is this effort, in my view, which to a certain extent liberated Porphyry from Plotinus' influence and gave him a distinct posi tion in the history of ideas as a contributor to the great Neoplatonic syn thesis of Platonism and Aristotelianism. For Porphyry, Aristotle's theory of categories can be taken as a guide in exploring this sensible world of becoming, while Plato and Plotinus may be reserved for the journey to the Other World.
Fifth, the careful reading of the Enneads (VI. 1-3, in particular), in con junction with the Vita and Porphyry's extant commentary and other
fragmentary works, reveal to us two men who were very different in terms of temperament and training. On the one hand, we see Plotinus, the self-assured master, the mortal who has reached the state of "being
Godlike," insofar as is possible to mortals. Had it not been for the per sistence, of the people around him (Vita 4), he would not have bothered to write anything down, whereas he would have been faithful to his teacher, Ammonius who, like Socrates, did not write anything. On the other hand, we have Porphyry, the quick-minded, the constantly ques tioning student who is eager to learn as much as he can from the great teacher. The picture of Porphyry at the School of Plotinus is in many respects similar to that of young Aristotle at the Academy of Plato. Owing to his excellent training, Porphyry is also an accomplished stylist, a lover of wisdom as well as words, a literary critic, a historian of ideas, a religious reformer, and a propagandist of the cause of Hellenism. It cannot be accidental, that this man was solely responsible for both Plotinus' fame and Aristotle's glory for the subsequent thousand years after his death, in spite of their differences. That the Enneads are readable and ordered is due to the labor of Porphyry and his editorial talent. That parts of Aristotle's Organon survived in the West during the long Dark Ages, we also owe to Porphyry's ability to make them "simple and easy" for Boethius to understand and translate.
Sixth, given that Porphyry was distinguished as an anti-Christian writer no less than he was as a commentator; that the character of Chris tianity at his time was overwhelmingly otherworldly and eschatological; that the advance of the new faith was considerable at the end of the third century,76 it would not seem unreasonable to suggest that his turn to
Aristotle may be explained as: (a) an attempt to differentiate the pagan Platonism from the Christian Platonism which was emerging at that time (e.g Origen); (b) an effort to unify all intellectual forces of the pagan world against the advance of irrationalism which, under the mask of a new faith, was undermining the Greco-Roman world from within; (c) a tactical movement which could provide him with the advantage of using the weapon of Aristotle's logic for his polemical purposes.77
Seventh, Porphyry's efforts to bring together Plotinus and Longinus, to harmonize Plato and Aristotle, to see in the same light of under standing all Ancient Greek philosophers, from the Presocratics to the Stoics may give the impression that he was constantly on the side of Love and had ostracized Strife from his Empedoclean world.78 Such an impres
sion would be incorrect. For Porphyry had a target for his polemical