What is the process of separating soul from body?

Abstract

We have given some account of how Porphyry understands the embodiment of soul. We must now introduce the further complication of “philosophical” separation — the call to escape from the body — which is an idea of paramount importance in Platonism. Having discussed how body and soul come together and are related to each other we must now turn to see how the soul, whilst embodied, may yet act independently of body and break off its “relation” with body. The problem which presents itself here is the relationship between the two apparently contradictory ideas of embodiment and separation. Separation, as we shall see, does not necessarily refer to the moment of death but to a full separation of body and soul even during earthly life. This is termed “philosophical” separation, a term which equally must involve the concept of a “philosophical” union of body and soul or rather “fall” of soul into body. This, too, calls for examination. But what does philosophical separation of soul from body mean? What is its metaphysical basis? The call to separate soul from body seems to be the major ethical injunction which Porphyry lays upon us in his moral treatises. Is it a purely negative approach to life — an escape from the realities of this world and the foundation of a philosophy which can tell us nothing about how to live life here and now?

Keywords

• Material World
• Individual Body
• Lower Function
• Spiritual Life
• Double Nature

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

1. Aug. Civ. Dei X. 29 (Bidez fr. 10 p. 38*4), xii. 27 (Bidez fr. 11, 2 p. 41*2), xii. 12 (Bidez fr. 11, 3 p. 41*17), xiii. 19 (Bidez fr. 11, 5 p. 41*31). However one should recall Augustine’s own temperament and allow for the possibility of exaggeration. De Abst. i, 36 p. 112, especially lines 271 This represents an extreme version of ascetism. It is purely theoretical but Porphyry’s evident interest suggests that he had a disposition more prone to such extravagances than that of Plotinus.

   Google Scholar 

2. Life ch. 11, 1 if.

   Google Scholar 

3. His continuing contacts with Longinus (Life ch. 19), his association with Iamblichus (cf. Introduction n. 18) and his journey to the East (cf. Introduction n. 16). He may also have known Hierocles personally (cf. Bidez Vie de Porphyre, p. 105 n. 5). For his editorial activity, cf. Introduction p. xiv and xvii.

   Google Scholar 

4. cf. chap. nine p. 139.

   Google Scholar 

5. cf. vi. 4.15, 27f.

   Google Scholar 

6. See further below chap. five p. 75.

   Google Scholar 

7. iv. 8.1, if.; vi. 9.10, if. imply intermittent contemplation. iv. 3.12 suggests escape from the body.

   Google Scholar 

8. See below ch. Five p. 74, and comment.

   Google Scholar 

9. i. 4.10 should be taken in conjunction with chap 4 of the same treatise. See also below ch. Three, p. 431.

   Google Scholar 

10. See further p. 75 on action and contemplation.

    Google Scholar 

11. See below ch. Four, p. 65f.

    Google Scholar 

12. This passage is quoted by Plotinus in V 8.7, 4–5, vi 1.2, 9 (= Phaedr. 245c), cf. Sallustius xxi, Proel. In Tim. iii 296, 251.

    Google Scholar 

13. The same Platonic idea was used in Christian circles as early as Justin; cf. Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition, p. 16, “The appearances of God in the Old Testament refer to the son and cannot be the supreme Father since he is too far removed to have direct contact with this inferior realm and cannot have abandoned his universal care for the cosmos as a whole to become circumscribed by incarnation in one small corner of the world.” The argument is turned against the Christians by Celsus — cf. Contra Celsum iv. 36; vi 78.

    Google Scholar 

14. For τόλμα in Plotinus and Gnostic τόλμα, see the remarks of A. H. Armstrong Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy p. 2421.

    Google Scholar 

15. cf. iv. 3.17, where Plotinus makes disparaging remarks about individual souls and then compares their action with that of Nous. Necessity is at work but there is something defective in its operation in causing the externalising of hypostases. The idea of a gradual weakening in procession in Porph. Sent. xxviii p. 12, 15; xxxvii p. 33, 18; xiii.

    Google Scholar 

16. cf. iv. 8.4, 15 above; v. 3.3, 17.

    Google Scholar 

17. cf. Festugière Révélation III p. 77ff.

    Google Scholar 

18. See note 20 of this chapter, on weakening in procession and ch. One n. 2 on ῥοπή. The inclusion of “will· may also refer more to the inner spiritual ascent/ descent.

    Google Scholar 

19. W. Lang, Das Traumbuch des Synesios p. 65–66, Heidelberger Abhandlungen zur Philosophie und ihrer Geschichte, x. Tübingen, 1926.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. University College, Galway, Ireland

   Andrew Smith

Authors

1. Andrew Smith

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

© 1974 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Smith, A. (1974). Separation of Soul From Body. In: Porphyry’s Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1604-9_2

Download citation

• .RIS
• .ENW
• .BIB

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1604-9_2

• Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

• Print ISBN: 978-90-247-1653-1

• Online ISBN: 978-94-010-1604-9

• eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

What is the separation between body and soul?

What happens after death to soul?

What do you mean by the unity between the human body and soul?