Members-only podcast episode
Edward Butler on Proclus, Part II: On (the Metaphysics of) Polytheism and Monotheism
This is a special podcast episode for SHWEP members only
Already a member? Log in here to view this episode
The conversation turns to polytheism and monotheism; stimulated by Perl 2010, cited below, we discuss the degree to which the difference between the two positions might disappear at the highest levels of ‘ontology’. Butler argues for a position which, on the level of philosophic religion, stands fast for the polytheist position; the reasons he gives would have made sense to Proclus. We then swerve Socratically toward the problem of universals and particulars, and how the Platonic/ist One is an attempt to account for the existence of ‘ones’ at all levels.
Back to the problem of poly-mono, we then consider some working descriptions. Polytheism to Butler is a framework for the encounter of divinity as it truly presents itself to humans in the world; it is a demonstrably-better world-view than its perhaps more famous competitor. Monotheism, by contrast, is a complex historical effort to marshal diverse forces – intellectual, social, &c. – to propose that there is only one god worthy of worship and to make that a living reality. We flesh this out with some case studies – The Emperor and Proclus. It emerges that Edward sees the monotheist project as something which is not fully played out in the living monotheist religions, which I think opens the door to something I have wondered about quite a bit, namely that there are a lot of monotheists by identity-lable who are pretty polytheist in their actual outlook. Edward is having none of it. We then discuss monotheism some more, and I adduce that, by the terms we are discussing, Plotinus is a monotheist; he’s not having that either. I feel like here the conversation gets slightly disconnected, as I am just fishing for some useful heuristic tools for the study of the history of ideas without having a horse in the race, while Edward is engaging with these concepts as part of a lived cultural intervention on his part. Nevertheless, I learned a ton from the discussion, so hopefully others will as well.
We finish by discussing the apophatic digital intervention at the beginning of Part I.
Interview Bio:
Edward Butler is an expert on ancient Platonist philosophy and a philosopher of polytheism. He has written a number of crucial pieces on Proclus’ metaphysics, notably vis à vis the henads, and much more; his academia page is required reading for those interested in this and related topics. He maintains the blog henadology, which contains much that will interest those interested in polytheism more generally, as well as high-quality discussions of the Platonists, largely in that context. He is Director of the Center for Polytheism Studies, formerly the Center for Global Polytheist and Indigenous Traditions, a Thought Center at Indic Academy, and serves on the advisory board of the journal Oscillations: Non-Standard Experiments in Anthropology, the Social Sciences, and Cosmology.
Works Cited in this Episode:
Primary:
Proclus, Elements of Theology Prop. 133, trans. E. R. Dodds. Proclus: The Elements of Theology. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1963: ‘Every god is a beneficent henad or a unifying excellence, and has this substantive character qua god; but the primal God is the Good unqualified and Unity unqualified (ὁ μὲν πρώτιστος ἁπλῶς τἀγαθὸν καὶ ἁπλῶς ἕν), whilst each of those posterior to him (μετὰ τὸν πρῶτον) is a particular excellence and a particular henad …. For not all the gods together may be matched with the One, so far does it overpass the divine multitude.’
Secondary:
Edward Butler. Plotinian Henadology. Kronos, 5:143-59, 2016.
Eric D. Perl. Neither One nor Many: God and the Gods in Plotinus, Proclus, and Aquinas. Dionysius, 28:167-91, 2010. We quote pp. 190 and 191.
Recommended Reading:
Edward Butler on the Metaphysics of Polytheism and Monotheism Recommended Reading
Paul McRandle
June 16, 2024
A fascinating discussion all the way through. And I found that point of disagreement regarding Plotinus led to some useful clarifications on a topic I couldn’t even begin to bumble through.
Jacob Eddinger-Smith
June 18, 2024
Defining the One as Principle of Individuation would certainly refute the common notion of Plato as a philosopher who devalues haecceity in favor of quiddity — because the most essential of essences would be none other than haecceity itself. Wonderfully inspired and provocative stuff–but since Prof Butler apparently does differ from Plato in preferring the written word as vehicle, I will go and read some of his writings before responding further
Jacob Eddinger-Smith
June 19, 2024
To clarify I mean defining it _strictly_ (?) as P.o.I. without a quasi-phenomenological aspect… I’ll go apophatic now before I dig a deeper hole. Also, yes, supra-essential, although I won’t pretend to know what that means!
Jacob Eddinger-Smith
June 19, 2024
And not so much in opposition to other treatments of the One but rather to general notions of the Form of the Good (which is where in all this?) as highest principle
Earl Fontainelle
June 23, 2024
Dear Jacob, most of these are for Doctor Butler, but I can answer this one. The Form of the Good has been silently transferred (definitely by Plotinus, but by earlier thinkers as well in a difficult-to-trace-precisely lineage) from Form of Good to just the Good, which is interchangeable with the One. In fact, One/Good is a better way to ‘name’ Plotinus’ first principle. We could even say One/Good/Beautiful if we want to gather his three favourite quasi-names under one rubric, thus incorporating notions for the Republic, the Symposium, and a lot of oral teaching on the one and dyad.
Jacob Eddinger-Smith
June 24, 2024
Thanks for the reply! I suppose I had always assumed that to be the case, but at this point we’ve certainly ventured past any simplest-positivity–still, it checks out! Thanks again
Jacob Eddinger-Smith
June 18, 2024
I will observe generally that it’s interesting that among the guests, Dr Butler finds the Existential Plato in the One, while Prof Layne seemed to see it in the Indefinite Dyad. I’ll stick to a polytheistic methodology and assume they’re both right.
Jacob Eddinger-Smith
June 21, 2024
I wonder what Dr Butler thinks of Peter Brown’s idea that the site of the sacred shifted in some important dimension from the temple to the holy man in later antiquity. And what about the holy men themselves, whose ranks include Jesus, Mohammed, and (earlier and elsewhere) the Buddha. How are these “holy men” connected to the monotheistic or otherwise totalizing systems which take inspiration from them?