Within the history of Western philosophy, the period from the 1st century BC to the 5th century AD could be divided into two broad lines, the first of ecletic orientation and the second one that takes care of the religious aspirations of the Empire.
Although divisions are often forced because both ecleticism and religiosity are very present over the centuries, it could be observed that the former is clearer at the beginning, while towards the end, the latter is clearly imposed.
Generally speaking, philosophy acquires typically Roman characteristics: it becomes more practical, life and action oriented. Eclecticism is also a Roman trait, although on the other hand, the exhaustion of disputes between different schools begins to become evident. It could be said that the Roman seeks what unites, promotes assimilation and values the “universal consent of all men”.
From Antiochus of Ashkelon (68 BC), he abandons skepticism since he claims that it is possible to tune the truth through the coincidence of the opinions of the great philosophers, which translates into an obvious eclecticism.
In addition to publishing and commenting on Aristotle's work, he assimilated the various doctrines developed by stoicism. The last members of the Lyceum continued in the same line or were absorbed by neoplatonism
The most influential school in Rome characterized by its cosmopolitism and its doctrine of the rational order of the universe, which formed an ideological basis useful to the Empire.
The Stoics adopted some of their doctrines to the new cotnexto: the “sage” became not only a sober and autarchic man but someone who does not despise political action or inbervention.
In the middle stoicism stand out figures such as Panetius of Rhodes, who was the master of Cicero and Posidonius who exerted a great influence on Roman thought. Posidonius appears the religious orientation that will slowly be imposed: between the Supreme Divinity and man is situated a hierarchy of inferirous gods and demons that allow us to conceive the Universe as a continuous and hierarchical whole.
(Seneca, Musonius Ruphus, Epikeus, Marcus Aurelius)
They are not systematic or theoretical authors but practical moralists who recommend sobriety, submission to destiny, universal benevolence, worship and obedience of God:
“ Love humanity, follow God” Marcus Aurelius
While he should have been quite influential, his attacks on official religion, the new Oriental cults and the idea of “universal faltality” were very persecuted.
The religious concerns of the moment are absrbated by this philosophical line producing a resurgence of Platonism and Pythagorism. In this way, rationalism and mysticism converge in philosophical reflection. The purely theoretical and independent “sage” in the face of society and the world, mutates into a mystic-contemplative “sage” who accepts his dependence (re-link = religion) on the Transcendent Divinity.
Neoplatonism was founded by Plotinus, in fact, this thinker presents his teaching as a commentary to Plato's works, however, it will go beyond that. Plotinus, more mystical than philosopher, starts from the mystical contemplation of God whom he calls “One” and then tries, using Platonism, to shed light on the ecstasy of contemplation. “ The spirit has the recklessness to separate in some form from the One.” Plotinus.
The “One” is absolutely transcendent because it is beyond being and subtance and therefore also beyond death and science. It is also infeffable and incomprehensible. Plotinus begins what would later be called “negative theology”: nothing can be known about “One”, nor anything can be preached about him: neither being, nor thought, nor substance, nor will, nor action.
Everything comes from the “One” pot uns emanation that does not alter the “One” (it is unalterable). But the “emanation” is not a creation in the strict sense (at least not in the Christian sense) nor does it refer to a pure patheism because the One is not the Whole.
The first emanation of the One is Intelligence, which is no longer a perfect unit but a dyad since it distinguishes between subject and object. He knows the One and knows himself, so he can know all things but not in one idea but in a multiplicity of ideas. The platonic influence is clearly visible. Even Plotinus compares it to the Platonic Demiurge (although he also remembers the god of Aristotle who is “thought of thought”)
The Soul of the World emanates from intelligence and is a bridge between the intelligible and the sensitive world. While he knows the ideas of intelligence (which is not the One), on the other, it contains the reasons for all things. From it come all souls and all forms of sentient beings. Stoic influence is noticed: she governs the corporeal world as Providence. It is conceived as a huge animal in which all living beings possess a soul and the whole is animated by the soul of the world that is harmonious and beautiful.
One = Light is opposed to Matter = Darkness. Matter is the opposite of the One. But illuminated by form, it is the substrate of all corporeal beings (influence of the Aristotelian hilemorphist theory).
For Plotinus, matter is the principle of evil (orphan and Pythagorical influence) without it becoming despised by the corporeal world. Because this one, thanks to the form and Soul of the world, is a good thing as a whole.
