Página inicial > Antiguidade > Neoplatonismo (245-529 dC) > Plotino (204-270 dC) – Tratados Enéadas > Plotino - Tratado 38,28 (VI, 7, 28) — Pode haver um bem para a (...)

ENÉADAS

Plotino - Tratado 38,28 (VI, 7, 28) — Pode haver um bem para a matéria?

Enéada VI, 7, 28

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

28. Consideremos ahora lo que se deduce de nuestro razonamiento. Si el bien que sobreviene a un ser es en todas partes una forma, y si el bien para la materia consiste en recibir esta forma, ¿hemos de creer que de tener la materia algún deseo, necesariamente querría ser forma? Si esto fuese así, es claro que anhelaría su perdición, porque todo ser busca su propio bien. Quizá no trate ella de ser materia, sino simplemente ser; y en este caso, lo que quiere por la posesión de la forma es alejar de sí el mal. Mas, aun así, ¿cómo el mal podría tener el deseo del Bien? Ciertamente, no contamos con deseos en la materia y suponemos tan sólo en ella la sensación  ; y aun en tal caso, siempre que sea posible concedérselo sin privarla de su naturaleza material. Cuando la forma llega a la materia, cual si se tratase de un sueño del bien, queda colocada en un rango más alto. Si el mal es la materia, nada hay que objetar; pero si es otra cosa, como por ejemplo, el vicio, que pudiese tomar conciencia de sí, ¿no pensaríamos en verdad que es para él un bien esa inclinación suya hacia lo mejor? No es entonces el vicio el que verifica la elección, sino el sujeto viciado. Mas, si su ser se identifica con el mal, ¿cómo puede escoger el Bien? ¿Acaso podría el mal complacerse consigo mismo, si tuviese conciencia de su propio ser? ¿Cómo querríamos que fuese amado   lo que no es deseado? Porque es claro que no ponemos el bien de un ser en lo que le es propio; de eso ya se ha tratado anteriormente. Si, pues, en cualquier caso que consideremos, el Bien se identifica con la forma, y si la forma lo es en un grado mayor cuanto más nos dirigimos hacia lo alto (porque el alma   es más forma que la forma del cuerpo, y en ella hay una forma que Ja supera y otra todavía más alta que ésta, pues la inteligencia, por ejemplo, está por encima del alma), el Bien avanza en sentido contrario a la materia, como dándola de lado y despojándose de ella. En la medida de lo posible, eso hace cada ser, tendiendo siempre hacia lo más privado de la materia. Porque la naturaleza del Bien se aleja de toda materia, y mejor aún, no se ha encontrado nunca cerca de ella. Su refugio se encuentra en lo alto, en una realidad sin forma de la que proviene la forma primera. Pero volveremos sobre esto más adelante.

Bouillet

XXVIII. Voyons quelles sont les conséquences des principes que nous venons d’exposer. Si ce qu’un être reçoit en qualité de bien est partout une forme, si le bien de la mati  ère est une forme, la matière, en supposant qu’elle eût la faculté de vouloir, voudrait-elle être seulement une forme? Mais si elle le voulait, elle voudrait être détruite; [or elle ne saurait le vouloir : ] car tout être recherche son bien (98). Peut-être la matière ne souhaiterait-elle pas d’être matière, mais simplement d’être; possédant ainsi l’être, elle voudrait s’affranchir de ce qu’il y a de mauvais en elle. Mais comment ce qui est le mal [car telle est la nature de la matière (99)] pourrait-il avoir le désir du bien? Au reste, nous n’attribuons pas le désir à la matière même. C’était seulement pour le besoin de la discussion que par hypothèse nous accordions la sensibilité à la matière, si l’on peut toutefois l’accorder à la matière en lui conservant sa nature. Nous avons montré du moins que lorsque la forme est venue, comme un rêve du bien (100), s’unir à la matière, celle-ci s’est trouvée dans une meilleure condition.

Si la matière est le mal, nous venons de dire ce qui a lieu. Si la matière était autre chose, la méchanceté (101), par exemple, et que l’essence de la matière reçût la sensibilité, l’intimité avec ce qui est meilleur serait-elle encore le bien de la matière? — Mais ce n’était pas la méchanceté même de la matière qui choisissait le bien, c’était ce qui était devenu mauvais dans la matière. Si l’essence de la matière était identique au mal, comment la matière souhaiterait elle posséder ce bien? Est-ce que, si le mal avait le sentiment de lui-même, il s’aimerait? Mais comment ce qui n’est pas aimable serait-il aimé? Car nous avons établi que le bien ne consiste pas pour un être dans ce qui lui est propre. En voici assez sur ce point.

Mais si le bien est partout une forme, si, à mesure que l’on monte [dans l’échelle des êtres], il y a progression dans la forme (car l’âme est plus forme que la forme du corps ; il y a dans l’âme elle-même des formes graduées ; l’intelligence enfin est plus l’orme que l’âme), le bien suit évidemment une progression inverse de celle de la matière ; il se trouve dans ce qui est purifié et affranchi de la matière, et il s’y trouve en proportion même de la pureté ; il se trouve au plus haut degré dans ce qui s’est affranchi de la matière le plus qu’il est possible; enfin le Bien en soi, étant éloigné de toute matière, ou plutôt n’ayant jamais eu aucun point de contact avec elle, constitue une nature qui n’a aucune espèce de forme et de laquelle procède la première forme [l’Intelligence]. Mais nous traiterons ce point plus loin (102).

Guthrie

MATTER IS IMPROVED BY FORM, THE DREAM OF THE GOOD.

28. Let us consider the implications of the principles we have studied. If that which a being receives as good be everywhere a form, if the good of matter be a form, we might ask ourselves whether matter, granting it here the faculty of volition, would even wish to be a form? Such a wish would be tantamount to a wish to be destroyed. (But matter could not wish this), for every being seeks its own good. But perhaps matter might not wish to be matter, but simply to be essence; possessing which, matter would wish to free itself from all the evil within it. But how can that which is evil (for such is the nature of matter) desire the good? Besides, we are not attributing desire to matter itself. It was only to meet the exigencies of the discussion that we employed the hypothesis   which accorded sensibility to matter, if indeed it can be granted to matter without destroying its nature. We have at least shown that when form has come, as a dream of the Good, to unite itself to matter, the latter found itself in a better condition.

MATTER IS NOT WICKEDNESS, BUT NEUTRAL EVIL.

All we have said above goes   on the assumption that matter is the evil. But if it were something else, as, for instance, malice, and if the essence of matter were to receive sensation, would intimacy with what is better still be the good of matter? But if it were not the malice itself of matter which choose the good, it was what had become evil in matter. If the essence (of matter) were identical with evil, how could matter wish to possess this good? Would evil love itself, if it had self-consciousness  ? But how could that which is not lovable be loved? For we have demonstrated that a being’s good does not consist in that which is suitable to it. Enough about this, however.

THE GOOD IS A NATURE WHICH POSSESSES NO KIND OF FORM ITSELF.

But if the good be everywhere a form; if, in the measure that one rises (along the ladder of beings), there is a progression in the form — for the soul is more of a form than the form of the body; in the soul herself there are graduated forms, and intelligence is more of a form than the soul — the good follows a progression evidently inverse to that of matter; the Good exists in that which is purified and freed from matter, and exists there in proportion to its purity (from matter); so it exists in the highest degree in that which lays aside all materiality. Finally, the Good in itself, being entirely separated from all matter; or rather, never having had any contact with it, constitutes a nature which has no kind of form, and from which proceeds the first form (Intelligence). But of this more later.

MacKenna

28. Now to see what all this reasoning has established:

Universally, what approaches as a good is a Form; Matter itself contains this good which is Form: are we to conclude that, if Matter had will, it would desire to be Form unalloyed?

No: that would be desiring its own destruction, for the good seeks to subject everything to itself. But perhaps Matter would not wish to remain at its own level but would prefer to attain Being and, this acquired, to lay aside its evil.

If we are asked how the evil thing can have tendency towards the good, we answer that we have not attributed tendency to Matter; our argument needed the hypothesis of sensation in Matter - in so far as possible consistently with retention of its character - and we asserted that the entry of Form, that dream of the Good, must raise it to a nobler order. If then Matter is Evil, there is no more to be said; if it is something else - a wrong thing, let us say - then in the hypothesis that its essence acquire sensation would not the appropriate upon the next or higher plane   be its good, as in the other cases? But not what is evil in Matter would be the quester of good but that element in it [lowest Form] which in it is associated with evil.

But if Matter by very essence is evil how could it choose the good?

This question implies that if Evil were self-conscious it would admire itself: but how can the unadmirable be admired; and did we not discover that the good must be apt to the nature?

There that question may rest. But if universally the good is Form and the higher the ascent the more there is of Form-Soul more truly Form than body is and phases of soul progressively of higher Form and Intellectual-Principle standing as Form to soul collectively - then the Good advances by the opposite of Matter and, therefore, by a cleansing and casting away to the utmost possible at each stage: and the greatest good must be there where all that is of Matter has disappeared. The Principle of Good rejecting Matter entirely - or rather never having come near it at any point or in any way - must hold itself aloft with that Formless in which Primal   Form takes its origin. But we will return to this.