How to talk about The One

At the end of class, we reached a problem: How do we talk about The One? If the truth is non-representational, then is nearly impossible to form propositions that adequately represent it. So how do we talk about about. By calling it "The One," we are affirming some things. It is a being at the very least, although turns out to be Being, is undivided (thus one), and Plotinus argues, the cause of all other things. Now calling something the cause of other things is different than saying it is good. Calling something good supposes that it is composed of different parts, good being one (color might be another, body and soul would seem to also naturally be on this list. Denying something about it is also different. I deny that The One is composed, so is one. Yet Plotinus talks about The One, and says more than what has just been outlined. But how?

This question, I think can be answered by the Neo-Platonist Pseudo-Dionysius. Although Dionysius was a Christian, he was familiar with both Plotinus and Proclus. He came up with a theory to talk about God by using super immanent predication. First we affirm something of God like wise (or The One). Next we deny that of God (because He is not wise like us). Next we affirm that God is super-wise. Now I know that last one sounds silly, but the point is clear: if we talk about The One, it cannot be in the same way we talk about ourselves, we must talk by analogy. Clearly we must be able to talk about The One if we are to teach to others or even think about it, and the 2nd proposition of Dionysius theory gets around the critique of discoursive reasoning, because we do deny that The One is composed, but we also affirm something about it.

The Philosophy of Eclecticism

To me the philosophy of Eclecticism seems like a cop-out. I find it hard to believe that all philosophies, as different as they might be, can be tied into one— forced together in some sort of “natural” way, gathered, sewn together— without being downsized. I feel as if Eclectics are just little the middle person in the argument who agrees with both sides, saying that both arguments are right in some way, just so that they won’t have to think to hard about solving the problem. I know that this school of thinking developed because there were no new philosophies coming out and everything was falling into repetition, but I would rather repetition than submission. I believe that it would be better to continue being Epicureans, Stoics, Pythagorean, Aristotelian, etc. than just abandoning logic and metaphysics, putting everything into a big bowl, mixing it up, and saying “this is what I believe!” There is no reason or sense in substituting one set of logical foundations for another; this leaves philosophy shallow and weak. This philosophy can also be interpreted as weak because of its lack of a purpose. Yes, it unified the philosophies but what ultimate question was it trying to solve? Or was it just trying to make everyone from Rome to Greece happy (appeasement of the masses)? I honestly don’t know but hope to find out. Some of the theories presented by this philosophy, especially those on the soul, seem to have some worth and seem to be very complicated to understand (I have come to learn that the more complicated the theory that the better the concept turns out to be in the end) so this philosophy seems worthy of further investigation. I just hope that I can understand the explanation of the soul given by Plotinus because I think that that would be something interesting topic to talk over with a stranger on the streetcar when there is a delay.