Página inicial > Antiguidade > Neoplatonismo (245-529 dC) > Plotino (204-270 dC) – Tratados Enéadas > Plotino - Tratado 38,19 (VI, 7, 19) — Em qual sentido o Bem é um objeto de (...)

ENÉADAS

Plotino - Tratado 38,19 (VI, 7, 19) — Em qual sentido o Bem é um objeto de desejo para a alma?

Enéada VI, 7, 19

domingo 27 de março de 2022, por Cardoso de Castro

Capítulos 15-30: O Intelecto e aquilo que está além dele: a natureza do Bem e as dificuldades que surgem ao redor dele.

  • Cap 15: O Intelecto e a vida inteligível não são senão uma imagem do Bem.
  • Cap 16-18: Em qual sentido o inteligível é uma imagem do Bem? Porque o Intelecto e as formas provêm do Bem.
  • Cap 19-20: Em qual sentido o Bem é um objeto de desejo para a alma?
  • Cap 21-23: A alma deseja o Intelecto que é uma imagem do Bem, e é nesta medida que ela tem acesso ao Bem.
  • Cap 24-25, 16: As dificuldades concernindo a definição do Bem como objeto de desejo da alma.
  • Cap 25, 16-18: O Bem não é tal porque é objeto de desejo.
  • Cap 25, 18-32: O Bem é o que se encontra no topo do real.
  • Cap 26: O Bem não é objeto de desejo porque é uma fonte de prazer.
  • Cap 27: O Bem é, para cada realidade, o que vem antes dela; eis o que explica que para o Bem supremo, que nada tem antes dele, não existe qualquer bem.
  • Cap 28: Pode haver um bem para a matéria?
  • Cap 29-30: O Bem procura uma forma de prazer que corresponde à mistura de prazer e inteligência da qual fala Platão no Filebo  .

Míguez

19. ¿Dejaremos al deseo y al alma la resolución de la .cuestión y, confiando en la impresión del alma, diremos que el bien es lo deseable? ¿No nos preguntaremos ya por qué el alma desea? 1 Pues si ofrecemos precisiones sobre la esencia de cada ser, ¿es justo que abandonemos el bien al deseo? Veríamos cosas mucho más absurdas. En primer lugar, el Bien sería algo atribuible, y luego ya es sabido que muchos seres desean cosas diferentes. ¿Cómo podríamos juzgar, ateniéndonos sólo al deseo, si una cosa es mejor que otra? Posiblemente no llegaríamos a determinar cuál es mejor, ignorando como ignoramos lo que es el bien.

¿Hemos de acudir entonces a una definición del bien que se base en la virtud de los seres? Quizá llegaríamos así a una idea y a una razón precisas, con lo cual nuestro caminar sería plenamente adecuado. Mas, una vez llegados ahí, ¿qué diríamos al preguntársenos por la bondad de ios seres en sí mismos? Porque en los seres inferiores, según parece, reconocemos una determinada naturaleza, aunque no poseída de toda su pureza; pero en el mundo inteligible ese conocimiento no guarda relación en primera instancia con las cosas inferiores. De modo que allí donde no se da el mal, o al menos donde todo lo que es mejor lo es por sí mismo, nuestra incertidumbre sube de punto. ¿No nos ocurre esto por inquirir un por qué, o, lo que es lo mismo, porque siendo los seres inteligibles buenos por sí mismos, nos embaraza la cuestión de su esencia? Aunque admitiésemos que la causa del bien es muy otra, nuestra perplejidad sería análoga ya que nuestro razonamiento no puede llegar al mundo inteligible. De todos modos, no dejemos la cuestión y veamos si se advierte más claridad por otro camino.

Bouillet

XIX. Remettrons-nous au désir de l’âme le discernement du Bien (71)? Si nous nous fions à cette affection de l’âme, nous déclarerons que ce qui est désirable pour elle est le bien, mais nous ne chercherons pas pourquoi le bien est désiré. Ainsi, tandis que nous expliquons par des démonstrations quelle est l’essence de chaque chose, nous irions pour la détermination du bien nous en remettre au désir ! Mais une pareille marche nous conduirait à plusieurs absurdités. D’abord, de cette manière, le bien ne serait qu’un attribut. Ensuite, notre âme a plusieurs désirs, et ceux-ci ont des objets différents : comment discernerions-nous parle désir lequel de ces objets est meilleur? On ne saurait discerner ce qui est meilleur sans connaître le bien.

Ferons-nous consister le bien dans la vertu propre à chaque être (72)? Alors, en suivant une marche rigoureuse, nous ramènerions le bien à être une forme et une raison. Mais, arrivés là, que répondrons-nous si l’on nous demande à quel titre ces choses elles-mêmes sont des biens? Dans les choses imparfaites, il semble facile de distinguer le bien, quoiqu’il n’y soit pas pur; mais, dans les choses intelligibles, nous ne discernerons pas d’abord le bien en les comparant aux choses inférieures. Comme il n’y a là-haut aucun mal, et que les choses excellentes existent en elles-mêmes, nous nous trouverons embarrassés. Nous ne le sommes peut-être que parce que nous cherchons la raison d’être [du bien], tandis que, les intelligibles étant des biens par eux-mêmes, la raison d’être est ici identique à la quiddité (73). Si nous disons qu’il y aune autre cause [du bien], Dieu lui-même, comme la raison ne nous y a pas encore conduits, nous n’aurons pas résolu la question. Nous ne pouvons cependant reculer, et nous devons chercher à arriver par une autre voie à quelque chose de satisfaisant.

Guthrie

GOOD CANNOT BE A DESIRE OF THE SOUL.

19. Shall the decision of what is good be entrusted to the desire of the soul? If we are to trust this affection of the soul, we shall be declaring that whatever is desirable for her is good; but we would not be seeking why the Good is desired. Thus, while we use demonstrations to explain the nature of every entity, we would be trusting to desire for the determination of the Good. Such a proceeding would land us in several absurdities. First, the Good would only be an attribute. Then, since our soul has several desires, and each of the latter has different objects, we would not be able to decide which of these objects would be the best, according to desire. It would be impossible to decide what would be better before we know what is good.

NO NEED TO SEEK THE CAUSE OF GOOD AS IN THE INTELLIGIBLE THE CAUSE COINCIDES WITH THE NATURE.

Shall we then define the good as the virtue characteristic of each being (as say the Stoics)? In this case, by strictly following (the course of dialectics) we would reduce the Good to being a form and a reason. But, having arrived there, what should we answer if we were asked on what grounds these things themselves are good? In imperfect things, it seems easy to distinguish the good, even though it be not pure; but in intelligible things we may not immediately succeed in discovering the Good by comparison with the inferior things. As there is no evil on high (in the intelligible world), and as excellent things exist in themselves, we find ourselves embarrassed. Perhaps we are embarrassed only because we seek the cause (”whyness”) (of the good), whereas the cause (”whyness”) is here identical with the nature (”whatness”), as intelligible entities are good in themselves. Nor would we have solved the problem if we were to assign some other cause (of the Good), such as the divinity, to which our reason has not yet forced us to repair. However, we cannot retire, and we must seek to arrive by some other road to something satisfactory.

MacKenna

19. Are we to rest all on pursuit and on the soul? Is it enough to put faith in the soul’s choice and call that good which the soul pursues, never asking ourselves the motive of its choice? We marshal demonstration as to the nature of everything else; is the good to be dismissed as choice?

Several absurdities would be entailed. The good becomes a mere attribute of things; objects of pursuit are many and different so that mere choice gives no assurance that the thing chosen is the best; in fact, we cannot know the best until we know the good.

Are we to determine the good by the respective values of things?

This is to make Idea and Reason-Principle the test: all very well; but arrived at these, what explanation have we to give as to why Idea and Reason-Principle themselves are good? In the lower, we recognise goodness - in its less perfect form - by comparison with what is poorer still; we are without a standard There where no evil exists, the Bests holding the field alone. Reason demands to know what constitutes goodness; those principles are good in their own nature and we are left in perplexity because cause and fact are identical: and even though we should state a cause, the doubt still remains until our reason claims its rights There. But we need not abandon the search; another path may lead to the light.