Página inicial > Antiguidade > Neoplatonismo (245-529 dC) > Plotino (204-270 dC) – Tratados Enéadas > Plotino - Tratado 24,1 (V, 6, 1) — O pensamento na alma e o pensamento no (...)

ENÉADAS

Plotino - Tratado 24,1 (V, 6, 1) — O pensamento na alma e o pensamento no Intelecto

Enéada V, 6, 1

terça-feira 18 de janeiro de 2022, por Cardoso de Castro

    

Capítulo 1: O pensamento   na alma   e o pensamento no Intelecto

  • 1-5: Distinção da intelecção de si e da intelecção de outra coisa
  • 5-14: O que se intelige é ao mesmo tempo um e dois  
  • 15-24: Imagem da dupla luz que ilustra o pensamento na alma e o pensamento no Intelecto
    

Míguez

1. Es posible pensar   otra cosa, y es posible también pensarse a sí mismo  , lo que hace en mayor grado escapar   a la dualidad. En el primer caso, se querría igualmente pensarse a sí mismo, pero ello es menos posible. Se posee lo que ve, pero como algo diferente de sí. El ser   que se ve a sí mismo no se encuentra separado de su esencia, sino que, por estar unido a sí mismo, se ve también a sí mismo. Ambos forman un solo y mismo ser. Este ser piensa con mayor razón, porque posee lo que piensa, y, a la vez, piensa primitivamente, porque conviene que el ser que piensa y sea uno sea igualmente dos. Si no fuese uno, el ser pensante sería diferente del ser pensado; no sería ya el ser pensante primitivo, puesto que recibiría su pensamiento de otro ser, con lo que el ser que piensa no le pertenecería como algo propio y no sería, por tanto, él mismo. Y, si le perteneciese como algo propio y fuese él mismo, para realzar así su pensamiento, ambos compondrían un solo ser. Conviene, por tanto, que el ser pensante y el ser pensado sean una sola y misma cosa. Por otra parte, si este ser fuese uno y no dos, no tendría realmente en qué pensar y no sería ya un ser pensante. Debe, pues, ser a la vez simple y no simple.

Mejor será, sin embargo, para comprender esto mismo, partir del alma   y remontarnos hacia arriba. Porque, entonces, dividiríamos fácilmente el ser y advertiríamos también fácilmente la dualidad. Supongamos, en tal sentido, una doble luz, con el alma situada en un lugar inferior   y el objeto inteligible de ella en una región mucho más pura; supongamos de inmediato que la luz que ve es igual a la luz que es vista. Es claro, entonces, que no podremos separarlas ni marcar diferencia entre ellas, con lo cual tendremos que afirmar que las dos luces son una sola luz. Se da, no obstante, el acto de pensar, porque existen dos luces, aunque a visión nos ofrezca solamente una de ellas. Así hemos de aprehender el ser pensante y el ser pensado. Habremos hecho con nuestro razonamiento que los dos seres se conviertan en uno, pero inversamente, de ese ser uno saldrá la dualidad, porque piensa precisamente desdoblándose, y mejor aún, es dos porque piensa, y es uno porque se piensa a sí mismo.

Bréhier

1. On peut penser autre chose ; on peut aussi se penser soi-même, ce qui fait échapper davantage à la dualité. Dans le premier cas, on voudrait, aussi se penser soi-même ; mais l’on n’en est pas capable ; on a bien en soi l’objet de sa vision, mais c’est un objet différent de soi. L’être qui se voit lui-même n’est pas séparé de son essence, et, parce qu’il est uni à lui-même, il se voit lui-même ; lui et son objet font un seul être. Il pense au sens fort, parce qu’il possède ce qu’il pense ; il pense, au sens primitif du terme, parce que l’être qui pense doit être à la fois un et deux. S’il n’était pas un, l’être pensant serait différent de l’être pensé ; il ne serait pas l’être pensant de premier rang, puisqu’il tiendrait sa pensée d’un autre être, et puisque l’être qu’il pense ne lui appartiendrait pas et ne serait pas lui-même ; s’il lui appartenait et si c’était lui-même, les deux ne feraient qu’un ; il faut donc bien que être pensant et être pensé ne fassent qu’un. D’autre part, s’il était un et non pas deux, il n’aurait rien à penser et ne serait pas un être pensant. Il faut donc à la fois qu’il soit simple et qu’il ne soit pas simple.

Mais il vaut mieux, pour bien saisir ce caractère de l’être qui pense, partir de l’âme et remonter. Supposons donc une double lumière, en bas l’âme, et dans une région plus pure, l’objet intelligible de l’âme. Supposons ensuite que la lumière   qui voit est égale à celle qui est vue. Nous ne pouvons plus alors les séparer ni les distinguer, et nous affirmerons que les deux lumières n’en font qu’une. Il y a acte de pensée, parce qu’il y a deux lumières ; mais l’on ne voit qu’une lumière.

Nous saisirons ainsi l’être pensant et l’être pensé ; les deux ne font qu’un, tel est le résultat de notre raisonnement ; Mais inversement de l’un sortent deux êtres, parce qu’il ne pense qu’en se dédoublant. Ou plutôt : il est deux, parce qu’il pense ; il est un parce qu’il se pense lui-même.

Bouillet

I. On peut ou penser un autre objet ou se penser soi-même. Ce qui se pense soi-même tombe moins dans la dualité [inhérente a la pensée]. Ce qui pense un autre objet approche moins de l’identité : car, s’il a en lui-même ce qu’il contemple, il en diffère néanmoins [par son essence]. Au contraire, le principe qui se pense lui-même n’est pas séparé par son essence de l’objet pensé : il se contemple lui-même parce qu’il est intimement uni à lui-même; le sujet pensant et l’objet pensé ne font en lui qu’un seul être. Il pense d’une manière supérieure, parce qu’il possède ce qu’il pense; il occupe enfin le premier rang comme principe pensant, parce que le principe pensant doit être à la fois unité et dualité. S’il n’était pas unité, il penserait un objet autre que lui-même; il ne serait plus le premier principe pensant. En effet, ce qui pense un objet autre que soi-même ne saurait être le premier principe pensant, puisqu’il ne pense pas comme appartenant à son essence l’objet de sa pensée, et que, par conséquent, il ne se pense pas soi-même. Si le principe pensant possède au contraire comme appartenant à son essence l’objet de sa pensée, alors les deux termes de la pensée [l’objet et le sujet] ne feront qu’un. Le principe pensant implique donc à la fois unité et dualité : car, s’il ne joint la dualité à l’unité, il n’aura rien à penser, par conséquent, il ne pensera pas. Il faut ainsi qu’eu même temps il soit simple et qu’il ne soit pas simple. On comprend mieux la nécessité de cette double condition quand on s’élève à l’intelligence en partant de l’âme, parce qu’il est plus facile d’y distinguer le sujet de l’objet et d’en saisir la dualité. Qu’on s’imagine deux lumières dont l’une, l’âme même, soit moins brillante, et l’autre, la partie intelligible de l’âme, soit plus pure; qu’on se représente ensuite la lumière qui voit égale à la lumière qui est vue : toutes deux n’ayant plus rien qui les distingue ne feront plus qu’une seule chose, qui pense en vertu de sa dualité et qui voit en vertu de son unité. Ici par la raison [qui est la faculté propre de l’âme] nous sommes passés de la dualité à l’unité. Mais l’intelligence en pensant passe de l’unité à la dualité : elle devient, ou plutôt elle est dualité, parce qu’elle pense, et elle pense parce qu’elle est unité.

Guthrie

BY THINKING, INTELLIGENCE PASSES FROM UNITY TO DUALITY.

1. One may think oneself, or some other object. What thinks itself falls least into the duality (inherent to thought). That which thinks some other object approaches identity less; for though it contain what it contemplates, it nevertheless differs therefrom (by its nature). On the contrary, the principle that thinks ; itself is not, by its nature, separated from the object thought. It contemplates itself, because it is intimately united to itself; the thinking subject, and the object thought form but a single being within it, or, it thus becomes two, while it is only one. It thinks in a superior manner, because it possesses what it thinks; it occupies the first rank as thinking principle, because the thinking principle must simultaneously be unity and duality. If it were not unity, it would think some object other than itself; it would no longer be the first thinking principle. Indeed, that which thinks an object other than itself could not be the first thinking principle, since it does not think the object of its thought as belonging to its essence; and, consequently, it does not think itself. If, on the contrary, the thinking principle possess the object, if it be thought as belonging to its "being’’ (or nature].then the two terms of the thought (the object and the subject), will be identical. The thinking principle, therefore, implies unity and duality simultaneously; for unless it join duality to unity, it will have nothing to think, and, consequently, it will not think. It must, therefore, be simple, and not simple simultaneously. We better understand the necessity of this double condition when, starting from the Soul, we rise to intelligence, for within the latter it is easier to distinguish the subject from the object, and to grasp its duality. We may imagine two lights of which the one, the soul herself, is less brilliant, and jrfe may then posit as equal the light that sees and the light that is seen. Both of them, having nothing further that distinguishes them, will form but a single thing, which thinks by virtue of its duality, and which sees by virtue of its unity. Here by reason (which is the characteristic faculty of the soul), we have passed from duality to unity. But, while thinking, intelligence passes from unity to duality; it becomes, or rather is, duality, because it thinks; and is one, because it thinks itself.

MacKenna

1. There is a principle having intellection of the external and another having self-intellection and thus further removed from duality.

Even the first mentioned is not without an effort towards the pure unity of which it is not so capable: it does actually contain its object, though as something other than itself.

In the self-intellective, there is not even this distinction of being: self-conversing, the subject is its own object, and thus takes the double form while remaining essentially a unity. The intellection is the more profound for this internal possession of the object.

This principle is the primally intellective since there can be no intellection without duality in unity. If there is no unity, perceiving principle and perceived object will be different, and the intellection, therefore, not primal  : a principle concerned with something external cannot be the primally intellective since it does not possess the object as integrally its own or as itself; if it does possess the object as itself - the condition of true intellection - the two are one. Thus [in order to primal intellection] there must be a unity in duality, while a pure unity with no counterbalancing duality can have no object for its intellection and ceases to be intellective: in other words the primally intellective must be at once simplex   and something else.

But the surest way of realizing that its nature demands this combination of unity and duality is to proceed upwards from the Soul, where the distinction can be made more dearly since the duality is exhibited more obviously.

We can imagine the Soul as a double light, a lesser corresponding to the soul proper, a purer representing its intellective phase; if now we suppose this intellective light equal to the light which is to be its object, we no longer distinguish between them; the two are recognised as one: we know, indeed, that there are two, but as we see them they have become one: this gives us the relation between the intellective subject and the object of intellection [in the duality and unity required by that primal intellection]: in our thought we have made the two into one; but on the other hand the one thing has become two, making itself into a duality at the moment of intellection, or, to be more exact, being dual by the fact of intellection and single by the fact that its intellectual object is itself.

Taylor

I. One kind of intelligence is the intellectual perception of another thing, but another is the perception of a thing by itself, or when a thing perceives itself; the latter of which flies in a greater degree from duplicity, or doubleness in intellection. But the former wishes also to avoid this diversity, but is less able to accomplish its wish. For it has indeed with itself that which it sees, but it is different from itself. That, however, which intellectually perceives itself, is not separated essentially from the object of its perception, but being co-existent with it sees itself. Both, therefore, become one being. Hence it perceives in a greater degree because it possesses that which it perceives. It is also primarily intellective, because that which perceives intellectually ought to be both one and two. For if it is not one, that which perceives will be one thing, and that which is intellectually perceived another. Hence it will not be primarily intellective, because in consequence of receiving the intellectual perception of another thing, it will not possess that which it perceives, as something belonging to itself; so that the thing perceived will not be the per-ceiver itself. Or if it should possess it as itself, in order that it may properly perceive intellectually, two things will be one. Hence it is necessary that both should be one. Or if there is indeed one thing, but again, this one does not consist of two things, it will not possess intelligence; so that neither will it perceive intellectually. Hence it is necessary that the nature which is intellective should be simple and at the same time not simple. He, however, who ascends from soul will in a greater degree apprehend -that an intellective nature is a thing of this kind. For here [i.e. in soul] it is easy to divide, and duplicity may here be easily perceived. If some one, therefore, should make a twofold light, soul, indeed, according to the less pure, but the intelligible of it according to the purer light, and afterwards should cause that which sees to be a light equal to that which is seen, not having any further occasion to separate by difference, — he who does this, will admit that these two are one. And this perceives intellectually, indeed, because it is two things; but it sees because it is now one thing. Thus, therefore, such a one will apprehend intellect and the intelligible. Hence we, by a reasoning process, have made two things from one. On the contrary, however, it is two things from one, because it intellectually perceives, making itself to be two; or rather being two because it intellectually perceives; and because it is one thing [being intellective].


Ver online : ENÉADAS V-VI (Gredos)