demiurge

5/5/2015 Demiurge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge 1/12

DemiurgeFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the Platonic, Neopythagorean, Middle Platonic, and Neoplatonic schools of philosophy, the demiurge(/dmird/) is an artisan-like figure responsible for the fashioning and maintenance of the physicaluniverse. The term was subsequently adopted by the Gnostics. Although a fashioner, the demiurge is notnecessarily the same as the creator figure in the familiar monotheistic sense, because both the demiurgeitself plus the material from which the demiurge fashions the universe are considered either uncreated andeternal, or the product of some other being, depending on the system.

The word "demiurge" is an English word from a Latinized form of the Greek , dmiourgos,literally "public worker", and which was originally a common noun meaning "craftsman" or "artisan", butgradually it came to mean "producer" and eventually "creator". The philosophical usage and the proper nounderive from Plato's Timaeus, written c.360 BC, in which the demiurge is presented as the creator of theuniverse. This is accordingly the definition of the demiurge in the Platonic (c.31090 BC) and MiddlePlatonic (c.90 BC 300 AD) philosophical traditions. In the various branches of the Neoplatonic school(third century onwards), the demiurge is the fashioner of the real, perceptible world after the model of theIdeas, but (in most Neoplatonic systems) is still not itself "the One". In the arch-dualist ideology of thevarious Gnostic systems, the material universe is evil, while the non-material world is good. Accordingly,the demiurge is malevolent, as linked to the material world.

Contents1 Platonism and Neoplatonism

1.1 Middle Platonism1.2 Neoplatonism

1.2.1 Henology1.2.2 Iamblichus

2 Gnosticism2.1 Mythos2.2 Angels2.3 Yaldabaoth

2.3.1 Names2.4 Marcion2.5 Valentinus2.6 The devil2.7 Cathars

3 Neoplatonism and Gnosticism3.1 Plotinus

4 See also5 References6 External links

Platonism and Neoplatonism



Plato, as the speaker Timaeus, refers to the Demiurge frequently in the Socratic dialogue Timaeus, c.360BC. The main character refers to the Demiurge as the entity who "fashioned and shaped" the material world.Timaeus describes the Demiurge as unreservedly benevolent, and hence desirous of a world as good aspossible. The world remains imperfect, however, because the Demiurge created the world out of a chaotic,indeterminate non-being. Plato's work Timaeus is a philosophical reconciliation of Hesiod's cosmology inhis Theogony, syncretically reconciling Hesiod to Homer.[1][2][3]

Middle Platonism

In Numenius's Neo-Pythagorean and Middle Platonist cosmogony, the Demiurge is second God as the nousor thought of intelligibles and sensibles.[4]

Neoplatonism

Plotinus and the later Platonists worked to clarify the Demiurge. To Plotinus, the second emanationrepresents an uncreated second cause (see Pythagoras' Dyad). Plotinus sought to reconcile Aristotle'senergeia with Plato's Demiurge,[5] which, as Demiurge and mind (nous), is a critical component in theontological construct of human consciousness used to explain and clarify substance theory within Platonicrealism (also called idealism). In order to reconcile Aristotelian with Platonian philosophy,[5] Plotinusmetaphorically identified the demiurge (or nous) within the pantheon of the Greek Gods as Zeus (Dyeus).[6]

Henology

The first and highest aspect of God is described by Plato as the One, the source, or the Monad. This is theGood above the Demiurge, and manifests through the work of the Demiurge. The Monad emanated thedemiurge or Nous (consciousness) from its "indeterminate" vitality due to the monad being so abundant thatit overflowed back onto itself, causing self-reflection.[7] This self-reflection of the indeterminate vitality wasreferred to by Plotinus as the "Demiurge" or creator. The second principle is organization in its reflection ofthe nonsentient force or dynamis, also called the one or the Monad. The dyad is energeia emanated by theone that is then the work, process or activity called nous, Demiurge, mind, consciousness that organizes theindeterminate vitality into the experience called the material world, universe, cosmos. Plotinus alsoelucidates the equation of matter with nothing or non-being in his Enneads[8] which more correctly is toexpress the concept of idealism or that there is not anything or anywhere outside of the "mind" or nous (c.f.pantheism).

Plotinus' form of Platonic idealism is to treat the Demiurge, nous as the contemplative faculty (ergon)within man which orders the force (dynamis) into conscious reality.[9] In this he claimed to reveal Plato'strue meaning, a doctrine he learned from Platonic tradition that did not appear outside the academy or inPlato's text. This tradition of creator God as nous (the manifestation of consciousness), can be validated inthe works of pre-Plotinus philosophers such as Numenius, as well as a connection between Hebrew andPlatonic cosmology (see also Philo).[10]

The Demiurge of Neoplatonism is the Nous (mind of God), and is one of the three ordering principles:

Arche (Gr. "beginning") - the source of all things,Logos (Gr. "word") - the underlying order that is hidden beneath appearances,



Harmonia (Gr. "harmony") - numerical ratios in mathematics.

Before Numenius of Apamea and Plotinus' Enneads, no Platonic works ontologically clarified the Demiurgefrom the allegory in Plato's Timaeus. The idea of Demiurge was, however, addressed before Plotinus in theworks of Christian writer Justin Martyr who built his understanding of the Demiurge on the works ofNumenius.

Iamblichus

Later, the Neoplatonist Iamblichus changed the role of the "One", effectively altering the role of theDemiurge as second cause or dyad, which was one of the reasons that Iamblichus and his teacher Porphyrycame into conflict.

The figure of the Demiurge emerges in the theoretic of Iamblichus, which conjoins the transcendent,incommunicable One, or Source. Here, at the summit of this system, the Source and Demiurge (materialrealm) coexist via the process of henosis.[11] Iamblichus describes the One as a monad whose first principleor emanation is intellect (nous), while among "the many" that follow it there's a second, super-existent"One" that is the producer of intellect or soul (psyche).

The "One" is further separated into spheres of intelligence; the first and superior sphere is objects ofthought, while the latter sphere is the domain of thought. Thus, a triad is formed of the intelligible nous, theintellective nous, and the psyche in order to reconcile further the various Hellenistic philosophical schools ofAristotle's actus and potentia of the unmoved mover and Plato's Demiurge.

Then within this intellectual triad Iamblichus assigns the third rank to the Demiurge, identifying it with theperfect or Divine nous with the intellectual triad being promoted to a hebdomad (pure intellect).

In the theoretic of Plotinus, nous produces nature through intellectual mediation, thus the intellectualizinggods are followed with a triad of psychic gods.

GnosticismGnosticism presents a distinction between the highest, unknowable God and the demiurgic creator of thematerial. Several systems of Gnostic thought present the Demiurge as antagonistic to the will of theSupreme Being: his act of creation occurs in unconscious semblance of the divine model, and thus isfundamentally flawed, or else is formed with the malevolent intention of entrapping aspects of the divine inmateriality. Thus, in such systems, the Demiurge acts as a solution to (or, at least possibly, the problem orcause that gives rise to) the problem of evil.

In some forms of Christian Gnosticism, the Demiurge is the "jealous God" of the Old Testament.

Mythos

One Gnostic mythos describes the declination of aspects of the divine into human form. Sophia (Greek:, lit. wisdom), the Demiurges mother a partial aspect of the divine Pleroma or Fullness, desiredto create something apart from the divine totality, without the receipt of divine assent. In this act of separate



creation, she gave birth to the monstrous Demiurge and, being ashamed of her deed, wrapped him in a cloudand created a throne for him to be within it. The Demiurge, isolated, did not behold his mother, nor anyoneelse, concluded that only he himself existed, being ignorant of the superior levels of reality.

The Demiurge, having received a portion of power from his mother, sets about a work of creation inunconscious imitation of the superior Pleromatic realm: He frames the seven heavens, as well as all materialand animal things, according to forms furnished by his mother; working however blindly, and ignorant evenof the existence of the mother who is the source of all his energy. He is blind to all that is spiritual, but he isking over the other two provinces. The word dmiourgos properly describes his relation to the material; heis the father of that which is animal like himself.[12]

Thus Sophias power becomes enclosed within the material forms of humanity, themselves entrapped withinthe material universe: the goal of Gnostic movements was typically the awakening of this spark, whichpermitted a return by the subject to the superior, non-material realities which were its primal source.

Angels

Psalms 82:1 (http://tools.wmflabs.org/bibleversefinder/?book=Psalms&verse=82:1&src=!) describes aplurality of gods (elhim), which an older version in the Septuagint calls the assembly of the gods,although it does not indicate that these gods were co-actors in creation. Philo had inferred from theexpression, "Let us make man," of Genesis that God had used other beings as assistants in the creation ofman, and he explains in this way why man is capable of vice as well as virtue, ascribing the origin of thelatter to God, of the former to His helpers in the work of creation.[13]

The earliest Gnostic sects ascribe the work of creation to angels, some of them using the same passage inGenesis.[14] So Irenaeus tells[15] of the system of Simon Magus,[16] of the system of Menander,[17] of thesystem of Saturninus, in which the number of these angels is reckoned as seven, and[18] of the system ofCarpocrates. In the report of the system of Basilides,[19] we are told that our world was made by the angelswho occupy the lowest heaven; but special mention is made of their chief, who is said to have been the Godof the Jews, to have led that people out of the land of Egypt, and to have given them their law. Theprophecies are ascribed not to the chief but to the other world-making angels.

The Latin translation, confirmed by Hippolytus,[20] makes Irenaeus state that according to Cerinthus (whoshows Ebionite influence), creation was made by a power quite separate from the Supreme God andignorant of Him. Theodoret,[21] who here copies Irenaeus, turns this into the plural number powers, and soEpiphanius[22] represents Cerinthus as agreeing with Carpocrates in the doctrine that the world was made byangels.

Yaldabaoth

In the Ophite and Sethian systems, which have many affinities with that last mentioned, the making of theworld is ascribed to a company of seven archons, whose names are given, but their chief, Yaldabaoth(also known as "Yaltabaoth" or "Ialdabaoth") comes into still greater prominence.

In the Apocryphon of John c.120-180 AD, the Demiurge arrogantly declares that he has made the world byhimself:



A lion-faced deity foundon a Gnostic gem inBernard de MontfauconsLantiquit explique etreprsente en figuresmay be a depiction of theDemiurge.

Now the archon (ruler) who is weak has three names. The first name is Yaltabaoth, the secondis Saklas (fool), and the third is Samael. And he is impious in his arrogance which is in him.For he said, "I am God and there is no other God beside me," for he is ignorant of his strength,the place from which he had come.[23]

He is Demiurge and maker of man, but as a ray of light from above enters thebody of man and gives him a soul, Yaldabaoth is filled with envy; he tries tolimit man's knowledge by forbidding him the fruit of knowledge in paradise. Atthe consummation of all things all light will return to the Pleroma. ButYaldabaoth, the Demiurge, with the material world, will be cast into the lowerdepths.

Yaldabaoth is frequently called "the Lion-faced", leontoeides, with the body ofa serpent. We are told also[24] that the Demiurge is of a fiery nature, the wordsof Moses being applied to him, the Lord our God is a burning and consumingfire, a text which Hippolytus claims was also used by Simon.[25]

In Pistis Sophia Yaldabaoth has already sunk from his high estate and resides inChaos, where, with his forty-nine demons, he tortures wicked souls in boilingrivers of pitch, and with other punishments (pp.257, 382). He is an archon withthe face of a lion, half flame and half darkness.

Under the name of Nebro (rebel), Yaldabaoth is called an angel in theapocryphal Gospel of Judas. He is first mentioned in The Cosmos, Chaos, and the Underworld as one ofthe twelve angels to come into being [to] rule over chaos and the [underworld]. He comes from heaven,his face flashed with fire and whose appearance was defiled with blood. Nebro creates six angels inaddition to the angel Saklas to be his assistants. These six in turn create another twelve angels with eachone receiving a portion in the heavens.

Names

The most probable derivation of the name Yaldabaoth was that given by Johann Karl Ludwig Gieseler,Son of Chaos, from Hebrew yalda bahut, . However, Gilles Quispel notes:

Gershom Scholem, the third genius in this field, more specifically the genius of precision, hastaught us that some of us were wrong when they believed that Jaldabaoth means son of chaos,because the Aramaic word bahutha in the sense of chaos only existed in the imagination of theauthor of a well-known dictionary. This is a pity because this name would suit the demiurgerisen from chaos to a nicety. And perhaps the author of the Untitled Document did not knowAramaic and also supposed as we did once, that baoth had something to do with tohuwabohu,one of the few Hebrew words that everybody knows. ... It would seem then that the Orphicview of the demiurge was integrated into Jewish Gnosticism even before the redaction of themyth contained in the original Apocryphon of John. ... Phanes is represented with the mask ofa lions head on his breast, while from his sides the heads of a ram and a buck are buddingforth: his body is encircled by a snake. This type was accepted by the Mithras mysteries, to



Drawing of theleontocephaline foundat the Mithraeum of C.Valerius Heracles andsons, dedicated 190 ADat Ostia Antica, Italy(CIMRM 312).

indicate Aion, the new year, and Mithras, whose numerical value is 365. Sometimes he is alsoidentified with Jao Adonai, the creator of the Hebrews. His hieratic attitude indicates Egyptianorigin. The same is true of the monstrous figure with the head of a lion, which symbolisesTime, Chronos, in Mithraism; Alexandrian origin of this type is probable.[26]

Samael literally means Blind God or God of the Blind in Aramaic (Syriac sma-el). This being isconsidered not only blind, or ignorant of its own origins, but may in addition be evil; its name is also foundin Judaica as the Angel of Death and in Christian demonology. This leads to a further comparison withSatan. Another alternative title for the Demiurge, Saklas, is Aramaic for fool (Syriac skla the foolishone).

The angelic name "Ariel" (meaning "the lion of God" in Hebrew)[27] has also been used to refer to theDemiurge, and is called his "perfect" name;[28] in some Gnostic lore, Ariel has been called an ancient ororiginal name for Ialdabaoth.[29] The name has also been inscribed on amulets as"Ariel Ialdabaoth",[30][31] and the figure of the archon inscribed with"Aariel".[32]

Marcion

According to Marcion, the title God was given to the Demiurge, who was to besharply distinguished from the higher Good God. The former was dkaios,severely just, the latter agaths, or loving-kind; the former was the "god of thisworld" (2Corinthians 4:4 (http://tools.wmflabs.org/bibleversefinder/?book=2%20Corinthians&verse=4:4&src=!)), the God of the Old Testament, thelatter the true God of the New Testament. Christ, though in reality the Son of theGood God, pretended to be the Messiah of the Demiurge, the better to spread thetruth concerning His heavenly Father. The true believer in Christ entered intoGod's kingdom, the unbeliever remained forever the slave of the Demiurge.

Valentinus

It is in the system of Valentinus that the name Dmiourgos is used, which occursnowhere in Irenaeus except in connection with the Valentinian system; we mayreasonably conclude that it was Valentinus who adopted from Platonism the useof this word. When it is employed by other Gnostics either it is not used in atechnical sense, or its use has been borrowed from Valentinus. But it is only thename that can be said to be specially Valentinian; the personage intended by itcorresponds more or less closely with the Yaldabaoth of the Ophites, the greatArchon of Basilides, the Elohim of Justinus, etc.

The Valentinian theory elaborates that from Achamoth (he kta sopha or lowerwisdom) three kinds of substance take their origin, the spiritual (pneumatiko),the animal (psychiko) and the material (hyliko). The Demiurge belongs to the



second kind, as he was the offspring of a union of Achamoth with matter.[33] And as Achamoth herself wasonly the daughter of Sopha the last of the thirty Aeons, the Demiurge was distant by many emanations fromthe Propatr, or Supreme God.

In creating this world out of Chaos the Demiurge was unconsciously influenced for good; and the universe,to the surprise even of its Maker, became almost perfect. The Demiurge regretted even its slightimperfection, and as he thought himself the Supreme God, he attempted to remedy this by sending aMessiah. To this Messiah, however, was actually united Jesus the Saviour, Who redeemed men. These areeither hyliko, or pneumatiko.

The first, or material men, will return to the grossness of matter and finally be consumed by fire; the second,or animal men, together with the Demiurge, will enter a middle state, neither Pleroma nor hyle; the purelyspiritual men will be completely freed from the influence of the Demiurge and together with the Saviour andAchamoth, his spouse, will enter the Pleroma divested of body (hyle) and soul (psych).[34] In this mostcommon form of Gnosticism the Demiurge had an inferior though not intrinsically evil function in theuniverse as the head of the animal, or psychic world.

The devil

Opinions on the devil, and his relationship to the Demiurge, varied. The Ophites held that he and hisdemons constantly oppose and thwart the human race, as it was on their account the devil was cast downinto this world.[35] According to one variant of the Valentinian system, the Demiurge is besides the maker,out of the appropriate substance, of an order of spiritual beings, the devil, the prince of this world, and hisangels. But the devil, as being a spirit of wickedness, is able to recognise the higher spiritual world, ofwhich his maker the Demiurge, who is only animal, has no real knowledge. The devil resides in this lowerworld, of which he is the prince, the Demiurge in the heavens; his mother Sophia in the middle region,above the heavens and below the Pleroma.[36]

The Valentinian Heracleon[37] interpreted the devil as the principle of evil, that of hyle (matter). As hewrites in his commentary on John 4:21 (http://tools.wmflabs.org/bibleversefinder/?book=John&verse=4:21&src=!),

The mountain represents the Devil, or his world, since the Devil was one part of the whole ofmatter, but the world is the total mountain of evil, a deserted dwelling place of beasts, to whichall who lived before the law and all Gentiles render worship. But Jerusalem represents thecreation or the Creator whom the Jews worship. ... You then who are spiritual should worshipneither the creation nor the Craftsman, but the Father of Truth.

This vilification of the creator was held to be inimical to Christianity by the early fathers of the church. Inrefuting the beliefs of the gnostics, Irenaeus stated that "Plato is proved to be more religious than these men,for he allowed that the same God was both just and good, having power over all things, and himselfexecuting judgment."[38]

Cathars



Wikisource has originaltext related to this article:

Against the Gnostics;or, Against Those thatAffirm the Creator ofthe Cosmos and theCosmos Itself to be Evil

Catharism apparently inherited their idea of Satan as the creator of the evil world from Gnosticism. Quispelwrites,

There is a direct link between ancient Gnosticism and Catharism. The Cathars held that thecreator of the world, Satanael, had usurped the name of God, but that he had subsequently beenunmasked and told that he was not really God.[39]

Neoplatonism and GnosticismGnosticism attributed falsehood or evil to the concept of Demiurgeor creator, though in some Gnostic traditions the creator is from afallen, ignorant, or lesserrather than evilperspective, such as thatof Valentinius.

Plotinus

The Neoplatonic philosopher Plotinus addressed within his worksGnosticism's conception of the Demiurge, which he saw as un-Hellenic and blasphemous to the Demiurgeor creator of Plato. Plotinus is noted as the founder of Neoplatonism (along with his teacher AmmoniusSaccas).[40] In the ninth tractate of the second of his Enneads, Plotinus criticizes his opponents for theirappropriation of ideas from Plato:

From Plato come their punishments, their rivers of the underworld and the changing from bodyto body; as for the plurality they assert in the Intellectual Realmthe Authentic Existent, theIntellectual-Principle, the Second Creator and the Soulall this is taken over from theTimaeus.

Ennead 2.9.vi; emphasis added from A.H. Armstrong's introduction to Ennead 2.9

Of note here is the remark concerning the second hypostasis or Creator and third hypostasis or World Soul.Plotinus criticizes his opponents for all the novelties through which they seek to establish a philosophy oftheir own which, he declares, have been picked up outside of the truth;[41] they attempt to conceal ratherthan admit their indebtedness to ancient philosophy, which they have corrupted by their extraneous andmisguided embellishments. Thus their understanding of the Demiurge is similarly flawed in comparison toPlatos original intentions.

Whereas Plato's Demiurge is good wishing good on his creation, Gnosticism contends that the Demiurge isnot only the originator of evil but is evil as well. Hence the title of Plotinus' refutation: "Against Those ThatAffirm the Creator of the Kosmos and the Kosmos Itself to be Evil" (generally quoted as "Against theGnostics"). Plotinus argues of the disconnect or great barrier that is created between the nous or mind'snoumenon (see Heraclitus) and the material world (phenomenon) by believing the material world is evil.



The majority of scholars tend[42] to understand Plotinus' opponents as being a Gnostic sectcertainly(specifically Sethian), several such groups were present in Alexandria and elsewhere about theMediterranean during Plotinus' lifetime. Plotinus specifically points to the Gnostic doctrine of Sophia andher emission of the Demiurge.

Though the former understanding certainly enjoys the greatest popularity, the identification of Plotinusopponents as Gnostic is not without some contention. Christos Evangeliou has contended[43] that Plotinusopponents might be better described as simply Christian Gnostics, arguing that several of Plotinuscriticisms are as applicable to orthodox Christian doctrine as well. Also, considering the evidence from thetime, Evangeliou thought the definition of the term Gnostics was unclear. Of note here is that whilePlotinus' student Porphyry names Christianity specifically in Porphyry's own works, and Plotinus is to havebeen a known associate of the Christian Origen, none of Plotinus' works mention Christ or Christianitywhereas Plotinus specifically addresses his target in the Enneads as the Gnostics.

A.H. Armstrong identified the so-called "Gnostics" that Plotinus was attacking as Jewish and Pagan, in hisintroduction to the tract in his translation of the Enneads. Armstrong alluding to Gnosticism being aHellenic philosophical heresy of sorts, which later engaged Christianity and Neoplatonism.[44][45]

John D. Turner, professor of religious studies at the University of Nebraska and famed translator and editorof the Nag Hammadi library, stated[46] that the text Plotinus and his students read was Sethian Gnosticism,which predates Christianity. It appears that Plotinus attempted to clarify how the philosophers of theacademy had not arrived at the same conclusions (such as dystheism or misotheism for the creator God as ananswer to the problem of evil) as the targets of his criticism.

Emil Cioran also wrote his "Le mauvais dmiurge (The Evil Demiurge)", published in 1969, influenced byGnosticism and Schopenhauerian interpretation of Platonic ontology, as well as that of Plotinus.

See alsoAlbinus (philosopher)GnosticismEmil CioranMara (demon)MayasuraNarasimha

ReferencesNotes

1. Fontenrose, Joseph (1974). Python: A Study of Delphic Myth and Its Origin (http://books.google.com/books?id=h56ansk4SyQC&pg=PA226). Biblo & Tannen Publishers. p.226. ISBN978-0-8196-0285-5.

2. Sallis, John (1999). Chorology: On Beginning in Plato's Timaeus (http://books.google.com/books?id=gS_9aQ5mYKgC&pg=PA86). Indiana University Press. p.86. ISBN0-253-21308-8.

3. Keightley, Thomas (1838). The mythology of ancient Greece and Italy (http://books.google.com/books?id=lWAEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=theogony+timaeus). Oxford University. p.44.



4. Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans: a brief history By Charles H. Kahn ISBN 0-87220-575-4 ISBN 978-0872205758 [1] (http://books.google.com/books?id=5vi10r5k5eEC&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=pythagoras+demiurge&source=bl&ots=0Jl2ac33A9&sig=zsgGE2Gz560K6dqAEuUO5geZL_Q&hl=en&ei=PRwSTcwdwYGUB_GCpKoM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=pythagoras%20demiurge&f=false)

5. Karamanolis, George (2006). Plato and Aristotle in Agreement?: Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus toPorphyry. Oxford University Press. p.240. ISBN0-19-926456-2.

6. 10. The ordering principle is twofold; there is a principle known as the Demiurge, and there is the Soul of the All;the appellation "Zeus" is sometimes applied to the Demiurge and sometimes to the principle conducting theuniverse.[2] (http://books.google.com/books?id=A7JIrgjkW6IC&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=plotinus+demiurge+is+Zeus&source=bl&ots=t7S_6PiDjS&sig=zR659DPwtciETa4N5bvwm-gJk0I&hl=en&ei=K47RTOnkM4XGlQe6xo2qDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false)

7. Wallis, Richard T.; Bregman, Jay, eds. (1992). Neoplatonism and Gnosticism (http://books.google.com/?id=WSbrLPup7wYC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=Anti-Gnostic+Polemic+Francisco+Garcia+Bazan+translated+from+Spanish+by+Winifred+T.+Slater+Nous+as+a+%22Second+God%22+According+to+Plotinus+In+Enneads#PPA55,M1). International Society for NeoplatonicStudies. SUNY Press. ISBN978-0-7914-1337-1.

8. "Matter is therefore a non-existent"; Plotinus, Ennead 2, Tractate 4 Section 16.9. Schopenhauer wrote of this Neoplatonist philosopher: "With Plotinus there even appears, probably for the first

time in Western philosophy, idealism that had long been current in the East even at that time, for it taught(Enneads, iii, lib. vii, c.10) that the soul has made the world by stepping from eternity into time, with theexplanation: "For there is for this universe no other place than the soul or mind" (neque est alter hujus universilocus quam anima), indeed the ideality of time is expressed in the words: "We should not accept time outside thesoul or mind" (oportet autem nequaquam extra animam tempus accipere)." (Parerga and Paralipomena, VolumeI, "Fragments for the History of Philosophy", 7) Similarly, professor Ludwig Noir wrote: "For the first time inWestern philosophy we find idealism proper in Plotinus (Enneads, iii, 7, 10), where he says, "The only space orplace of the world is the soul", and "Time must not be assumed to exist outside the soul". [5] It is worth noting,however, that like Plato but unlike Schopenhauer and other modern philosophers, Plotinus does not worry aboutwhether or how we can get beyond our ideas in order to know external objects.

10. Numenius of Apamea was reported to have asked, What else is Plato than Moses speaking Greek? Fr. 8 DesPlaces.

11. See Theurgy, Iamblichus and henosis (http://www.theandros.com/iamblichus.html).12. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 5, 1. (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103105.htm)13. "It is on this account that Moses says, at the creation of man alone that God said, 'Let us make man,' which

expression shows an assumption of other beings to himself as assistants, in order that God, the governor of allthings, might have all the blameless intentions and actions of man, when he does right attributed to him; and thathis other assistants might bear the imputation of his contrary actions." Philo, On the Creation, XXIV.(http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book1.html)

14. Justin, Dial. cum Tryph. c. 67.15. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 23, 1.16. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 23, 5.17. Irenaeus, i. 24, 1.18. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 25.19. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 24, 4.20. Hippolytus, Ref. vii. 33.21. Theodoret, Haer. Fab. ii. 3.22. Epiphanius, Panarion, 28.23. Apocryphon of John, translation by Frederik Wisse in The Nag Hammadi Library. Accessed online at

gnosis.org (http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn.html)24. Hipp. Ref. vi. 32, p.191.25. Hipp. Ref. vi. 9.26. Quispel, Gilles (2008). Van Oort, Johannes, ed. Gnostica, Judaica, Catholica: Collected Essays of Gilles

Quispel. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV. p.64. ISBN978-90-04-13945-9.27. Scholem, Gershom (1965). Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition. Jewish

Theological Seminary of America. p.72.28. Robert McLachlan Wilson (1976). Nag Hammadi and gnosis: Papers read at the First International Congress of

Coptology. BRILL. pp.2123. "Therefore his esoteric name is Jaldabaoth, whereas the perfect call him Ariel,because he has the appearance of a lion."

29. Gustav Davidson (1994). A dictionary of angels: including the fallen angels. Scrollhouse. p.54.



30. David M Gwynn (2010). Religious diversity in late antiquity. BRILL. p.448.31. Campbell Bonner (1949). "An Amulet of the Ophite Gnostics". The American School of Classical Studies at

Athens, Hesperia Supplements, Vol. 8. pp.4346.32. Gilles Quispel, R. van den Broek, Maarten Jozef Vermaseren (1981). Studies in gnosticism and hellenistic

religions. BRILL. pp.4041.33. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 5. (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103105.htm)34. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 6. (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103106.htm)35. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 30, 8. (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103130.htm)36. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 5, 4. (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103105.htm)37. Heracleon, Frag. 20. (http://www.gnosis.org/library/fragh.htm)38. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, iii. 25. (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103325.htm)39. Quispel, Gilles and Van Oort, Johannes (2008), p. 143.40. Neoplatonism (http://www.unl.edu/classics/faculty/turner/triadaft.htm).41. "For, in sum, a part of their doctrine comes from Plato; all the novelties through which they seek to establish a

philosophy of their own have been picked up outside of the truth." Plotinus "Against the Gnostics", Ennead II, 9,6. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/plotenn/enn161.htm)

42. Plotinus, Arthur Hilary Armstrong (trans.) (1966). Plotinus: Enneads II (Loeb Classical Library ed.). HarvardUniversity Press. "From this point to the end of ch. 12 Plotinus is attacking a Gnostic myth known to us best atpresent in the form it took in the system of Valentinus. The Mother, Sophia-Achamoth, produced as a result ofthe complicated sequence of events which followed the fall of the higher Sophia, and her offspring the Demiurge,the inferier and ignorant maker of the material universe, are Valentinian figures; cp. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses1.4 and 5. Valentinius had been in Rome, and there is nothing improbable in the presence of Valentinians there inthe time of Plotinus. But the evidence in the Life ch. 16 suggests that the Gnostics in Plotinus's circle belongedrather to the older group called Sethians or Archontics, related to the Ophites or Barbelognostics: they probablycalled themselves simply 'Gnostics.' Gnostic sects borrowed freely from each other, and it is likely thatValentinius took some of his ideas about Sophia from older Gnostic sources, and that his ideas in turn influencedother Gnostics."

43. Evangeliou, "Plotinus's Anti-Gnostic Polemic and Porphyry's Against the Christians", in Wallis & Bregman, p.111. (http://books.google.com/books?id=WSbrLPup7wYC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=Plotinus%27s+Anti-Gnostic+Polemic+and+Porphyry%27s+Against+the+Christians%22+Christos+Evangeliou&source=bl&ots=rSBVKFe8VD&sig=3MNVVSq8bDZs4koa-yMP6PaNT-Q&hl=en&ei=jR4hTIK_AsP48AbV_shl&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Plotinus%27s%20Anti-Gnostic%20Polemic%20and%20Porphyry%27s%20Against%20the%20Christians%22%20Christos%20Evangeliou&f=false)

44. From "Introduction to Against the Gnostics", Plotinus' Enneads as translated by A.H. Armstrong, pp. 2202:"The treatise as it stands in the Enneads is a most powerful protest on behalf of Hellenic philosophy against theun-Hellenic heresy (as it was from the Platonist as well as the orthodox Christian point of view) of Gnosticism.There were Gnostics among Plotinus's own friends, whom he had not succeeded in converting (Enneads ch. 10 ofthis treatise) and he and his pupils devoted considerable time and energy to anti-Gnostic controversy (Life ofPlotinus ch. 16). He obviously considered Gnosticism an extremely dangerous influence, likely to pervert theminds even of members of his own circle. It is impossible to attempt to give an account of Gnosticism here. Byfar the best discussion of what the particular group of Gnostics Plotinus knew believed is M. Puech's admirablecontribution to Entretiens Hardt V (Les Sources de Plotin). But it is important for the understanding of thistreatise to be clear about the reasons why Plotinus disliked them so intensely and thought their influence soharmful."



Sources

This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain:Herbermann, Charles,ed. (1913). "Demiurge". Catholic Encyclopedia. Robert Appleton Company.This article incorporates text from the entry Demiurgus (http://books.google.com/books?id=Lf8ZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA804) in A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects andDoctrines by William Smith and Henry Wace (1877), a publication now in the public domain.

External linksDark Mirrors of Heaven: Gnostic Cosmogony (http://www.timelessmyths.com/mirrors/gnostic.php)

Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Demiurge". Encyclopdia Britannica (11th ed.). CambridgeUniversity Press.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demiurge&oldid=660988523"

Categories: Creator deities Demons in Gnosticism Gnostic deities Platonic deities Dualistic godsConceptions of God Anti-Gnosticism Names of God in Gnosticism Social classes of ancient Athens

This page was last modified on 5 May 2015, at 18:57.Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms mayapply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is aregistered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

45. Armstrong, pp. 2202: "Short statement of the doctrine of the three hypostasis, the One, Intellect and Soul; therecannot be more or fewer than these three. Criticism of the attempts to multiply the hypostasis, and especially ofthe idea of two intellects, one which thinks and that other which thinks that it thinks. (ch. 1). The true doctrine ofSoul (ch. 2). The law of necessary procession and the eternity of the universe (ch.3). Attack on the Gnosticdoctrine of the making of the universe by a fallen soul, and on their despising of the universe and the heavenlybodies (chs. 4-5). The senseless jargon of the Gnostics, their plagiarism from and perversion of Plato, and theirinsolent arrogance (ch. 6). The true doctrine about Universal Soul and the goodness of the universe which itforms and rules (chs. 7-8). Refutation of objections from the inequalities and injustices of human life (ch. 9).Ridiculous arrogance of the Gnostics who refuse to acknowledge the hierarchy of created gods and spirits andsay that they alone are sons of God and superior to the heavens (ch. 9). The absurdities of the Gnostic doctrine ofthe fall of "Wisdom" (Sophia) and of the generation and activities of the Demiurge, maker of the visible universe(chs. 10-12). False and melodramatic Gnostic teaching about the cosmic spheres and their influence (ch. 13). Theblasphemous falsity of the Gnostic claim to control the higher powers by magic and the absurdity of their claimto cure diseases by casting out demons (ch. 14). The false other-worldliness of the Gnostics leads to immorality(ch. 15). The true Platonic other-worldliness, which love and venerates the material universe in all its goodnessand beauty as the most perfect possible image of the intelligible, contracted at length with the false, Gnostic,other-worldliness which hates and despises the material universe and its beauties (chs. 16-18)."

46. Turner, "Gnosticism and Platonism", in Wallis & Bregman.

demiurge

Documents

platos demiurge

word demiurge

demiurge fashions

nonmaterial world

platos timaeus

perceptible world

material universe

demiurgefrom wikipedia