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 erupt to be fundamental, especially when trying to make away an ethical property in Plotinus. Treatise I 4 46 offers, concerning that question, not only the longest preserve news of the spoudaios, but in any case 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 think 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 set forth as someone who has detached himself from the bounds of the sensible world. So this leads to several(prenominal) conclusions concerning the Plotinian concepti on of ethical implication.1. status questionisWho 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 analogy with sophos. As most translations show, both terms seem to be taken as almost synonymous, the most problematic one being Brhiers 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 manifestation in the pseudoplatonic Definitions spoudaios o teleios agathos ho echon ten autou areten (415e). (10) Even though at heart the three Ethics the status of the spoudaios turns out not to be tout ensemble equivale nt. 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 Brhier realise 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 prevent the Greek terms for spoudaios and sophos, so to avoid further ambiguities.