Plotino – Tratado 27,2 (IV, 3, 2) — Alma e Alma-do-Mundo: ser da mesma espécie não significa ser uma parte

2. Con respecto a esto hemos de responder lo siguiente: admiten (quienes así hablan) que las almas individuales son homogéneas con las del universo, mostrando que alcanzan los mismos objetos y que son de su mismo linaje, lo que equivale a negar que sean partes de él. Mejor podríamos decir que la misma alma es un alma única y, a la vez, cada una de las almas. En este caso, la hacemos depender de un principio que, sin referirse a ningún otro ser, ni al mundo ni a ninguna otra cosa, (produce) lo que hay de animado en el mundo y en cualquier otro ser. Justamente, debe afirmarse que la totalidad del alma no es el alma de algo determinado, siendo como es una sustancia, sino que estas almas de algo que es determinado lo son precisamente por accidente.

Tal vez convenga explicar de modo más claro qué es lo que entendemos por el término parte. Podemos entender el término como parte del cuerpo, sea éste homogéneo o heterogéneo, pero hemos de señalar que, cuando se habla de partes homogéneas de los cuerpos, se dice relación a la masa y no a la naturaleza de los cuerpos. Así ocurre con la blancura: la blancura de una parte de la leche no es una parte de la blancura de toda la leche; es, en efecto, la blancura de esa parte, sin que ello quiera decir que sea una parte de la blancura de la leche, porque la blancura no tiene en absoluto ni magnitud ni cantidad; quede esto en claro. Cuando empleamos el término “parte” sin referirlo a los cuerpos, puede ocurrir una de dos: o que lo refiramos a los números, diciendo, por ejemplo, que dos es una parte de diez, y entendiendo la cuestión con números abstractos, o que pensemos el término como parte del círculo o de la línea, o incluso como parte de una ciencia. Tengamos en cuenta que en lo concerniente a las unidades y a las figuras geométricas, así como en lo tocante a los cuerpos, el todo se presenta disminuido y reducido a partes, siendo naturalmente cada parte más pequeña que el todo. Se trata en realidad de cantidades, que no son la cantidad en sí, por lo cual resultan susceptibles de aumento o disminución. Ahora bien, no puede decirse lo mismo del término parte referido al alma, porque el alma no es una cantidad. No puede decirse, valga la expresión, que la totalidad del alma es una década y que un alma cualquiera es una unidad. Muchas cosas absurdas se seguirían de aquí, pues considerando que la década no es una unidad, o bien cada una de las unidades de que está compuesta sería un alma, o el alma de que se habla sería un compuesto de cosas inanimadas. Se ha concedido, sin, embargo, que las partes del alma universal son homogéneas con el todo y hemos de afirmar ahora, en el caso de la cantidad continua, que no es necesario que las partes sean como el todo, y así, por ejemplo, que las partes de un círculo o de un cuadrado hayan de ser círculos o cuadrados; tampoco en el supuesto de que las partes sean semejantes al todo podrá decirse verdaderamente que todas las partes le son semejantes, porque, por ejemplo, en un triángulo no son todas ellas triángulos, sino alguna otra cosa. Y, no obstante, admiten, como decimos, que el alma es homogénea con sus partes.

En el caso de la línea, cualquiera de sus partes ha de ser naturalmente una línea, pero habrá diferencia de magnitud entre la parte y el todo. Si esta diferencia de magnitud se aplicase también a la relación entre el alma particular y el alma total, haríamos del alma, sin duda alguna, una cantidad y un cuerpo, ya que vendría a tener, como tal alma, diferencias de cantidad. Pero suponíamos, ciertamente, que todas las almas eran semejantes y completas, y parece claro, además, que el alma universal no se divide a la manera de una magnitud. Ni aun nuestros adversarios1 aceptarían que el alma universal se desgarra en partes, porque con ello destruirían el alma, que ya no sería más que un nombre si nunca fue realmente un todo. Ocurriría aquí como si repartiésemos vino en muchas ánforas y dijésemos luego que la parte dé vino que hay en cada ánfora es una parte de la totalidad del vino.

¿Entendemos el término “parte” como cuando hablamos del teorema de una ciencia y lo consideramos parte de ésta? Pero la ciencia no lo es menos, a pesar de esta división, con la que tan sólo se enuncia y actualiza cada una de sus partes. Cada teorema contiene, en efecto, en potencia la totalidad de la ciencia, pero no por ello deja de existir ésta. Si aconteciese así con el alma universal y las demás almas particulares, el alma universal, de la cual las otras son partes, no sería el alma de algo determinado, sino que existiría en sí misma; pero no sería entonces el alma del mundo, sino una cierta alma también de carácter particular. Las almas todas, si son de la misma especie, podrán ser partes de un alma única. Pero, ¿cómo una de ellas iba a ser el alma del mundo y las otras, en cambio, partes de él?

II. Voici ce qu’il faut répondre à de pareilles assertions. D’abord, en posant que les âmes sont conformes (ὁμοειδῆ) parce qu’elles atteignent les mêmes choses, et en les rapportant à un seul et même genre, on nie implicitement qu’elles soient des parties [de l’Âme universelle]. On aurait plus de raison de dire que l’Âme universelle est une et identique, et que chaque âme est universelle [c’est-à-dire est conforme à l’Âme universelle, parce qu’elle en possède toutes les puissances ¹]. Or, si l’on admet que l’Âme universelle est une, on la ramène à être autre chose [que les âmes particulières], c’est-à-dire à être un principe qui, n’appartenant en propre ni à celui-ci ni à celui-là, ni à aucun individu, ni au monde, ni à quoi que ce soit, fait lui-même tout ce que fait le monde ainsi que tout être vivant. Il convient en effet que l’Âme universelle n’appartienne pas à tel ou tel être, puisqu’elle est une essence; qu’au contraire il y ait une Âme qui n’appartienne en propre absolument à aucun être, et que les âmes particulières appartiennent seules à des êtres particuliers.

Mais il faut expliquer plus clairement dans quel sens on prend ici le mot parties.

D’abord, il ne peut s’agir de parties d’un corps, qu’il soit homogène ou hétérogène ; et nous ne ferons qu’une observation sur ce point, c’est que, pour les corps homogènes, quand on parle de parties, on n’envisage que la masse et non la forme (εἶδος). Prenons pour exemple la blancheur. La blancheur d’une partie de lait n’est pas une partie de la blancheur de tout le lait existant; c’est la blancheur d’une partie et non une partie de la blancheur : car, prise en général, la blancheur n’a ni grandeur ni quantité. C’est avec ces restrictions seulement qu’on peut dire qu’il y a des parties dans les formes propres aux choses corporelles.

Ensuite, lorsqu’il s’agit de choses incorporelles, le mot partie s’entend en plusieurs sens : ainsi l’on dit, en parlant de nombres, que deux est une partie de dix (il ne s’agit ici que de nombres abstraits) ; on dit aussi qu’une certaine étendue est une partie de cercle, ou de ligne ; on dit enfin qu’une notion est une partie de la science.

Pour les nombres et les figures géométriques, comme pour les corps, il est évident que le tout est nécessairement diminué par sa division en parties, et que chaque partie est plus petite que le tout. Ayant pour essence d’être des quantités déterminées, mais non la quantité en soi, ces choses doivent être susceptibles d’augmentation et de diminution ². Ce n’est certes pas dans ce sens que l’on peut entendre parties en parlant de l’Âme. Car l’Âme n’est pas une quantité comme une dizaine, qui forme un tout divisible en unités; autrement, il s’ensuivrait une foule d’absurdités, puisqu’une dizaine n’est pas une unité véritable : il faudrait alors ou que chacune des unités fût âme, ou que l’Âme même résultât d’une somme d’unités inanimées.

D’ailleurs, ceux que nous combattons ont accordé que toute partie de l’Âme universelle est conforme au tout [§ 1]; or, dans les quantités continues, il n’est nullement nécessaire que la partie soit semblable au tout : ainsi, dans le cercle et le quadrilatère [les parties ne sont pas des cercles ou des quadrilatères] ; toutes les parties de l’objet divisé (sur lequel on prend une partie) ne sont même pas semblables entre elles, mais varient de mille manières, comme les divers triangles dont se composerai un seul triangle. Ceux que nous combattons admettent encore que l’Âme universelle est composée de parties conformes au tout. Or, dans une ligne, une partie peut bien aussi être une ligne, et alors elle diffère du tout en grandeur. Mais quand il s’agit de l’âme, si la différence de la partie au tout consistait dans une différence de grandeur, l’Âme serait une grandeur et un corps: car ce serait alors en tant qu’Âme qu’elle se différencierait par sa quantité ; mais comment cela se pourrait-il puisqu’on suppose toutes les âmes semblables et universelles ³? Il est évident que l’Âme ne peut davantage se diviser comme les grandeurs, et nos adversaires eux-mêmes n’admettraient pas que l’Âme universelle se divise ainsi en parties : car ce serait détruire l’Âme universelle et la réduire à n’être plus qu’un vain nom (si l’on peut dire toutefois que, dans ce système, il y avait auparavant une Âme universelle ; ce serait faire d’elle un tout semblable à du vin qu’on distribue dans plusieurs amphores, en disant que la partie de vin contenue dans chacune d’elles est une portion du tout ⁴.

Le mot parties doit-il donc être entendu [relativement à l’Âme] dans le sens où l’on dit qu’une proposition est une partie de la science totale ? Dans ce cas, la science totale n’en reste pas moins la même [quand elle est divisée], et sa division n’est que la production et l’acte (οἷον προφπρᾶς καὶ ἐνεργείας ἑκάστου οὔσης) de chacune des choses qu’elle comprend : ici, chaque proposition contient en puissance la science totale, et la science totale [malgré sa division] reste entière. — Si tel est le rapport de l’Âme universelle avec les autres âmes, l’Âme universelle, dont les parties sont telles, n’appartiendra à aucun être particulier, mais existera en elle-même. Elle ne sera donc plus l’Âme du monde. Cette dernière elle-même prendra rang au nombre des âmes regardées comme des parties. Toutes les âmes étant conformes entre elles seront au même titre parties de l’Âme qui est une et identique. Alors pourquoi telle âme est-elle l’Âme du monde, et telle autre l’âme d’une des parties du monde? [On ne l’explique pas.]

CONFORMITY TO THE UNIVERSAL SOUL IMPLIES THAT THEY ARE NOT PARTS OF HER.

2. Consider the following answers. To begin with, the assertion that souls conform (to each other), because they attain the same objects, and the reduction of them to a single kind, implicitly denies that they are parts (of the universal Soul). We might better say that the universal Soul is one and identical, and that each soul is universal (that is, that she conforms to the universal Soul, because she possesses all the latter’s powers). Now, assertion of the unity of the universal Soul defines her as being something different (from individual souls); namely, a principle which, specially belonging neither to one nor the other, neither to an individual, nor to a world, nor to anything else, itself carries out what is carried out by the world and every living being. It is right enough to say that the universal Soul does not belong to any individual being, inasmuch as she is (pure) being; it is right enough that there should be a Soul which is not owned by any being, and that only individual souls should belong to individual beings.

LIMITATIONS TO THE USE OF THE TERM “PARTS,” IN PHYSICAL THINGS.

But we shall have to explain more clearly the sense in which the word “parts” must here be taken. To begin with, there is here no question of parts of a body, whether homogeneous or heterogeneous. We shall make but a single observation, namely, that when treating of homogeneous bodies, parts refer to mass, and not to form. For instance, take whiteness. The whiteness of one part of the milk, is not a part of the whiteness of all the milk in existence; it is the whiteness of a part, and not the part of whiteness; for, taken in general, whiteness has neither size nor quantity. Only with these restrictions can we say that there are parts in the forms suitable to corporeal things.

WHEN APPLIED TO INCORPOREAL THINGS, “PARTS” HAVE DIFFERENT SENSES.

Further, treating of incorporeal things, “parts” is taken in several senses. Speaking of numbers, we may say that two is a part of ten (referring exclusively to abstract numbers). We may also say that a certain extension is a part of a circle or line. Further, a notion is said to be a part of science.

SUCH MATHEMATICAL SENSES CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE SOUL.

When dealing with numbers and geometrical figures, as well as with bodies, it is evident that the whole is necessarily diminished by its division into parts, and that each part is smaller than the whole. Rightly, these things should be susceptible to increase or diminution, as their nature is that of definite quantities, not quantity in itself. It is surely not in this sense that, when referring to the soul, we speak of quantities. The soul is not a quantity such as a “dozen,” which forms a whole divisible into unities; otherwise, we would end in a host of absurdities, since a group of ten is not a genuine unity. Either each one of the unities would have to be soul, or the Soul herself result from a sum of inanimate unities.

ACTUAL DIVISION INTO PARTS WOULD BE TANTAMOUNT TO A DENIAL OF THE WHOLE.

Besides, our opponents have granted that every part of the universal Soul conforms to the whole. Now, in continuous quantities, it is by no means necessary that the part should resemble the whole. Thus, in the circle and the quadrilateral (the parts are not circles or quadrilaterals). All the parts of the divided object (from which a part is taken) are not even similar to each other, but vary in manifold ways, such as the different triangles of which a single triangle might be composed. Our opponents also acknowledge that the universal Soul is composed of parts that conform to the whole. Now, in a line, one part might also be a line, while differing from the whole in magnitude. But when we speak of the soul, if the difference of the part from the whole consisted in a difference of size, the soul would be a magnitude and a body; for then she would differentiate in quantity by psychic characteristics. But this would be impossible if all souls be considered similar and universal. It is evident that the soul cannot, like magnitudes, be further divided; and even our opponents would not claim that the universal Soul is thus divided into parts. This would amount to destroying the universal Soul, and reducing her to a mere name, if indeed in this system a prior universal (Soul) can at all be said to exist. This would place her in the position of wine, which might be distributed in several jars, saying that the part of the wine contained in each of them is a portion of the whole.

NOR IS THE SOUL A PART IN THE SENSE THAT ONE PROPOSITION IS A PART OF A SCIENCE.

Nor should we (apply to the soul) the word “part” in the sense that some single proposition is a part of the total science. In this case the total science does not remain any less the same (when it is divided), and its division is only as it were the production and actualization of each of its component parts. Here each proposition potentially contains the total science, and (in spite of its division), the total science remains whole.

THE DIFFERENCE OF FUNCTIONS OF THE WORLD-SOUL AND INDIVIDUAL SOULS MAKES ENTIRE DIVISION BETWEEN THEM IMPOSSIBLE.

If such be the relation of the universal Soul to the other souls, the universal Soul, whose parts are such, will not belong to any particular being, but will subsist in herself. No longer will she be the soul of the world. She will even rank with the number of souls considered parts. As all souls would conform to each other, they would, on the same grounds, be parts of the Soul that is single and identical. Then it would be inexplicable that some one soul should be Soul of the world, while some other soul should be one of the parts of the world.

II. In answer to these things, therefore, in the first place it must be said, that those who admit souls to be of a similar species, because it is granted that they come into contact with the same things, and ascribe to them a common genus, exclude them from ranking as parts of one soul, and will rather make one and the same soul, and each to be every soul. But making one soul, they will also suspend it from something else, which no longer being something pertaining to this thing or that, but neither belonging to the world, or to any other thing, will effect the very same thing, as is effected by [the life] of the world, and of any animated being whatever. For it rightly happens that not every soul is something belonging to another thing, since soul is an essence; but that there should be a certain soul which is wholly exempt from a subordinate nature; and that such souls as belong to something else, are from accident at certain times connected with that which is inferior to themselves. Perhaps, however, it is necessary to show more clearly how a part in such souls is to be considered. Part, therefore, belonging to bodies, whether the body is of the same or of a different species, must be dismissed observing thus much alone, that when part is asserted of bodies consisting of similar parts, the part is according to bulk, and not according to form; such for instance as whiteness. For the whiteness which is in a part of milk, is not a part of the whiteness of all the milk ; but it is the whiteness indeed of a part, and not a part of the whiteness. For whiteness is entirely without magnitude, and is void of quantity. This, therefore, thus subsists. When, however, in things which are not bodies we speak of a part, we either assume it in such a way as in numbers, as when we say that two is a part of ten ; (but let this be considered as asserted in mere numbers alone) or as when we speak of the part of a circle and a line; or as a theorem is a part of science. In monads and figures, indeed, it is necessary in the same manner as in bodies, that the whole should be diminished, by a division into parts, and that the several parts should be less than the wholes [of which they are the parts]. For being quantities, and having their existence in quantity, and also not being the same quantity, they necessarily become greater and less. A part, therefore, cannot after this manner be asserted of soul. For it is not quantity in such a way as the decad is the whole, but the monad a part of the decad. Many other absurdities also will happen [from admitting that the soul is quantity] ; nor are ten things one certain thing. Either, likewise, each of the monads will be soul, or soul will consist of all inanimate things. Besides, the part of the whole soul is admitted to be of the same kind with the whole; but it is not necessary in continued quantity, that the part should be such as the whole. Thus, for instance, the parts of a circle are not of the same species with the circle, nor the parts of a triangle with the triangle; at least, all the parts in these, in which a part may be assumed, are not similar [to the whole]. For all the parts of a triangle are not triangles; [and so in other figures] but there will be a difference between the form of some of the parts and that of the whole. Soul, however, is acknowledged to be of a similar form. In a line, likewise, a part of it is still a line, but here also there is a difference in magnitude. But in soul if the difference between that soul which is partial, and that which ranks as a whole, should be considered as a difference in magnitude, soul would be a certain quantity and a body; since in this case, it would receive the difference so far as it is souL from quantity. All souls, however, are admitted to be similar and wholes. It appears, likewise, that neither is soul divided after the same manner as magnitudes ; nor do even our opponents admit that the whole of the soul can be divided into parts; since if this were the case, the whole would be destroyed. And unless the first soul was every soul, it would be a name alone; just as if it should be said, when wine is distributed into many amphorae, that the portion of it in each amphora, is a part of the whole wine. Shall we say, therefore, that part is to be assumed in the soul, in the same manner as a theorem is a part of science ? the whole science, indeed, nevertheless remaining; but the separation into parts, being as it were the utterance and energy of each. In a thing of this kind, however, each possesses the whole science in capacity, but the whole nevertheless continues to be the whole. If, therefore, a part in the whole soul and other souls is to be thus assumed, the whole soul, of which things of this kind are parts, will not be the soul of a certain thing, but will itself subsist from itself. Neither, therefore, will it be the soul of the world, but will be a certain soul, and will rank among those that are of a partial nature: hence all the parts being of a similar species, are the parts of one soul. But how is one the soul of the world, and another the soul of a part of the world ?

2. To this our first answer is that to place certain things under one identical class – by admitting an identical range of operation – is to make them of one common species, and puts an end to all mention of part; the reasonable conclusion would be, on the contrary, that there is one identical soul, every separate manifestation being that soul complete.

Our opponents after first admitting the unity go on to make our soul dependent on something else, something in which we have no longer the soul of this or that, even of the universe, but a soul of nowhere, a soul belonging neither to the kosmos, nor to anything else, and yet vested with all the function inherent to the kosmic soul and to that of every ensouled thing.

The soul considered as an entirety cannot be a soul of any one given thing – since it is an Essence [a divine Real-Being] – or, at least, there must be a soul which is not exclusively the soul of any particular thing, and those attached to particulars must so belong merely in some mode of accident.

In such questions as this it is important to clarify the significance of “part.”

Part, as understood of body – uniform or varied – need not detain us; it is enough to indicate that, when part is mentioned in respect of things whose members are alike, it refers to mass and not to ideal-form [specific idea]: take for example, whiteness: the whiteness in a portion of milk is not a part of the whiteness of milk in general: we have the whiteness of a portion not a portion of whiteness; for whiteness is utterly without magnitude; has nothing whatever to do with quantity.

That is all we need say with regard to part in material things; but part in the unembodied may be taken in various ways. We may think of it in the sense familiar in numbers, “two” a part of the standard “ten” – in abstract numbers of course – or as we think of a segment of a circle, or line [abstractly considered], or, again, of a section or branch of knowledge.

In the case of the units of reckoning and of geometrical figure, exactly as in that of corporeal masses, partition must diminish the total; the part must be less than the whole; for these are things of quantity, and have their being as things of quantity; and – since they are not the ideal-form Quantity – they are subject to increase and decrease.

Now in such a sense as this, part cannot be affirmed of the soul.

The soul is not a thing of quantity; we are not to conceive of the All-Soul as some standard ten with particular souls as its constituent units.

Such a conception would entail many absurdities:

The Ten could not be [essentially] a unity [the Soul would be an aggregation, not a self-standing Real-Being] and, further – unless every one of the single constituents were itself an All-Soul – the All-Soul would be formed of non-souls.

Again, it is admitted that the particular soul – this “part of the All-Soul – is of one ideal-form with it, but this does not entail the relation of part to whole, since in objects formed of continuous parts there is nothing inevitably making any portion uniform with the total: take, for example, the parts of a circle or square; we may divide it in different ways so as to get our part; a triangle need not be divided into triangles; all sorts of different figures are possible: yet an absolute uniformity is admitted to reign throughout soul.

In a line, no doubt, the part is inevitably a line; but even here there is a necessary difference in size; and if, in the case of the soul we similarly called upon magnitude as the distinction between constituents and collective soul, then soul, thus classed by magnitude becomes quantitative, and is simply body.

But it is admitted that all souls are alike and are entireties; clearly, soul is not subject to part in the sense in which magnitudes are: our opponents themselves would not consent to the notion of the All-Soul being whittled down into fragments, yet this is what they would be doing, annulling the All-Soul – if any collective soul existed at all – making it a mere piece of terminology, thinking of it like wine separated into many portions, each portion, in its jar, being described as a portion of the total thing, wine.

Next there is the conception of the individual soul as a part in the sense in which we speak of some single proposition as a part of the science entire.

The theorem is separate, but the science stands as one undivided thing, the expression and summed efficiency [energy] of each constituent notion: this is partition without severance; each item potentially includes the whole science, which itself remains an unbroken total.

Is this the appropriate parallel?

No; in such a relationship the All-Soul, of which the particular souls are to be a part, would not be the soul of any definite thing, but an entity standing aloof; that means that it would not even be the soul of the Kosmos; it would, in fact, be, itself, one of those partial souls; thus all alike would be partial and of one nature; and, at that, there would be no reason for making any such distinction.