Remarks on the Spoudaios in Plotinus Essay -- Ethics Philosophy Papers

Remarks on the Spoudaios in Plotinus Who is the Plotinian spoudaios and what is his function in the Enneads? This question turns out to be fundamental, especially when trying to make out an ethical dimension in Plotinus. Treatise I 4 [46] offers, concerning that question, not only the longest sustained discussion of the spoudaios, but also shows how highly problematic it is to figure out more precisely his characteristics. This is due to the terminological ambiguity with the term sophos, which is also the reason why the two terms are often considered synonymous by translators. It appears in I 4 that this ambiguity is closely related to the question of aisthesis. And this is also perhaps the main problematic point concerning the spoudaios: he is instituted by Plotinus as the paradigm of the ‘living man,’ but is still described as someone who has detached himself from the bounds of the sensible world. So this leads to several conclusions concerning the Plotinian conception of ethical implication. 1. status questionis Who is the plotinian spoudaios and what is his function in the Enneads? This question occurs especially in regard to treatise I 4 [46] which offers the longest sustained discussion of the spoudaios. The main problem which presents itself as regards the term spoudaios is its apparent terminological similarity with sophos. As most translations show, both terms seem to be taken as almost synonymous, the most problematic one being Brà ©hier's French translation of the Enneads where spoudaios and sophos figure as the wise (le sage). This has mainly to do with the tradition of the term of spoudaios, as will be shown further on. What I would like to show in this paper is that the function of the spoudaios has b... ...ry similar formulation in the pseudoplatonic Definitions: "spoudaios: o teleios agathos; ho echon ten autou areten "(415e). (10) Even though within the three Ethics the status of the spoudaios turns out not to be totally equivalent. It is not possible to discuss further this point, as it would lead to considerations which go beyond the purpose of this paper. (11) NE III, 1113a32-33. (12) H. v. Arnim, Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, Teubner, Stuttgart, 1964, vol. III. (13) In Philo, vol. IX, trad. Colson, p. 10-100. (14) Which is the Henry-Schwyzer version, while Armstrong and Brà ©hier read: "kan spoudaios e autarkes†¦" (15) Which is the classic argument since Aristotle, NE, I. 10. 1100a8 and 11. 1101a8. (16) All quotations are from Armstrongs translation, whereas I keep the Greek terms for spoudaios and sophos, so to avoid further ambiguities.