"Philosophy doesn't go to philosophy d111111c11," 1md class="underline" crt11inly in j&1ClJUC11
Postscript
279
Maritain, who wrote: "Thomist metaphysics is called 'Scholastic' after its most severe trial. Scholastic pedagogy is its own worst enemy: it always has to triumph over its intimate adversary, the professor." Ever since I started doing philosophy, I've always believed that philosophy was a concrete act, which changed our perception of the world, and our life: not the construction of a system. It is a life, not a discourse.
M. C. Your own philosophical trajectory is rather remarkable. To begin with, in the 1950s, you wrote reviews of Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and Berdiaev. At the same time, you were making a name for yourself on the one hand in Latin Patristics and textual criticism, and on the other as a specialist on Plotin us. In 19 57, you presented a remarkable paper at the meeting of the Fondation Hardt devoted to Plotinus; this was followed, in 1 963 by your first book, Plotinus or the Simplicity of Vision.6 In 1 96 1 , in collaboration with Paul Henry, you had translated and given a copious commentary on the theological treatises of the Latin church Father Marius Victorious. The year 1 968 saw the publication of your monumental work Porphyre et Victorinus,1 in which you gave a critical edition, with translation and commentary, of a commentary on Plato's Parmenides, which you attributed for the first time to Porphyry of Tyre. But this wasn't all; the work contained a summa of Neoplatonic metaphysics, in which you covered the immensely complex, hierarchic conceptual constructions of post-Plotinian metaphysics. After you were named to the College de France, you devoted your attention mainly to the seemingly more simple philosophies of Stoicism and Epicureanism, as well as continuing your study of Plotinus.
Perhaps your career could be summed up as follows: beginning with the bone-dry discipline of textual criticism, you then moved on to master the ontological complexities of Neoplatonism; surely among the most complicated creations of the human spirit. Then, however, it's as if you had turned back, in a way, to your point of departure: from this point on, it's no longer the great speculative edifices which occupy your attention, but those philosophers who teach us how to live: Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, Lucretius, and, of course, your beloved Plotinus. Wouldn't you say that your own philosophical trajectory can serve as a paradigm for the "return to simplicity," the importance of which you have stressed in your teaching?
P.H. I'd be inclined to look at my intellectual and spiritual itinerary somewhat differently. From 1942 to 1946, I was only interested in metaphysics and in mysticism, in all their forms: Christian first and foremost, but also Arabic, Hindu, and Neoplatonist. It was my interest in mysticism that led me to Plotinus, and to the great Plotinian specialist Paul Henry. I went to see him in 1 946, so that he could guide me in my Plotinian studies. He was interested, above all, in the influence of Plotinus on St Augustine, and on Christianity in general; he had written a book on the subject entitled Plotin et / 'OcciJmt." He ndvised me to study Marius Victorious, in the belief that I
280
Postscript
would find, in the almost incomprehensible Latin of this ecclesiastical author, some translated fragments of Plotinus. He suggested that we edit the theological works of Victorious together, leaving the translation and the commentary up to me. Thus, he was the one who initiated me to textual criticism and philological studies; being a pure philosopher, I had had no preparation in either of these fields, and the only knowledge I had of Greek and Latin was what I had been taught by my secondary-school teachers.
All this was a long way from mysticism. I can say that I worked for twenty years on a subject that I had not chosen; I was interested in it, of course, but not fascinated by it. It was then that I learned how to read Latin manuscripts and, thanks to Paul Henry, how to prepare a critical edition. I also tried to understand, and explain as well as I could, the text of Victorious. My book Porphyre et Victorinus was the result of this exegetical work, and in it I showed that Victorious was the disciple of Porphyry rather than of Plotinus.
What attracted me in Wittgenstein - whom I first read around 1 960 was
-
the problem of mysticism, which he mentions in the last pages of the Tractalus. My reading of Wittgenstein was very stimulating for me, and it brought about my lasting interest in the question of "language games," which are, he tells us, "forms of life." These ideas had a great deal of influence on my subsequent studies of ancient philosophy.
I returned to the mysticism of Plotinus in 1963, when Georges and Angele de Radkowski asked me to write the little book entitled Plotin ou la simplicite du regard.
When, in 1 964, I was elected to the Fifth Section of the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes,9 my colleagues viewed me above all as the translator of Victorin us, and it was natural for me to have been elected to the chair of Latin Patristics. Among other factors, this explains how I came to publish an edition and translation of the Apologia David of Bishop Ambrose of Milan.10 I must confess, however, that Latin Patristics didn't really interest me. Fortunately, my colleagues agreed to change the title of my chair, which became
"Theologies and Mysticisms of Hellenistic Greece and of the End of Antiquity." Thus I was able to return to the mystical passages of Plotinus, on which I commented before my auditors for many years.
However, it was also at this time that my relationship with Plotinus began to become more complex, and that I arrived at my present position. On the one hand, I believe that this great author has yet to be explained in the detailed way he deserves, and that's why I have undertaken the translation with commentary of the totality of his works. Moreover, the phenomenon of mysticism, which is so striking in Plotinus, continues to intrigue me. Y ct, as I grow older, Plotinus speaks to me less and less, if I may say so I have
.
become considerably detached from him. From 1 970 on, I have felt very strongly that it was Epicurcnnism and Stoicism which could nouri11h the spiritual l i fe of men and women of our times, 1111 well 1111 my own . Tlllll w1111
Postscript
281
how I came to write my book on spiritual exercises. Indeed, here at the end of the century - and no one is more surprised at this than myself - we are witnessing an increasing interest in these two philosophies on the part of the reading public. This is a remarkable phenomenon, hard to explain.
To sum up my inner evolution, I would say the following: in 1 946, I naively believed that I, too, could relive the Plotinian mystical experience. But I later realized that this was an illusion. The conclusion of my book Plotinus already hinted that the idea of the "purely spiritual" is untenable. It is true that there is something ineffable in human existence, but this ineffable is within our very perception of the world, in the mystery of our existence and that of the cosmos. Still, it can lead to an experience which could be qualified as mystical.
M. C. What do the expressions "philosophy" and "living a philosophical life" signify for you?
P.H. For me, the word "philosophy" corresponds first of all to an historical phenomenon. In was the Greeks who created the word, probably in the sixth or fifth century BC, and it was Plato who gave it its strongest meaning: philo-sophia, "love of wisdom," the wisdom which one lacks. Since that time there has been an intellectual, spiritual, and social phenomenon, which has taken on a variety of forms, and which has been called philosophy. From this point of view, it is legitimate to ask whether there exists a "philosophy"