Phalangists
Phalangists. Lebanese Christian political party and militia. The name Phalangists (Phalange and Phalange party are variations of the same term) is both a translation from Arabic and a small distortion, coming from phalanx. The correct name would have been Lebanese Kateeb Social Democratic Party.
In November of 1936, the Phalange party was founded by Pierre Gemayel who was inspired by the Nazi Youth Movement that he had seen in Hitler’s Germany.
In 1949, the discovery of a Syrian plot to merge Lebanon with Syria stirred up anxiety and nationalism in Lebanon, giving the Phalange party many new members. In the 1958 Civil War, the Phalangists supported President Camille Chamoun.
In 1968, the Phalange Party cooperated with the parties of Chamoun and Raymond Edde, and garnered 9 out of the 99 seats in the parliament. In 1975, the Lebanese Civil War began. The Phalangists had 20,000 members and their own little army. They were part of the umbrella organization Lebanese Front.
In 1976, the Phalangists supported Syrian intervention in the conflict, as they were losing ground to the Muslim troops. In 1980, the Phalange destroyed the militia of the National Liberal Party of Chamoun, which was another member of the Lebanese Front.
In 1982, the Phalangists cooperated with Israel, in planning an attack on Lebanon. On June 6, 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon from its southern border, and its forces started advancing north, reaching Beirut in short time. In September, the Phalangists became the strongest party in Lebanon, thanks to the aid of Israel. On September 13, 1982, Bashir Gemayel was killed a few days before he was to be sworn in as president of Lebanon. On September 16, as a way of retaliating for the killing of Gemayel, the Phalange militia received help from the Israeli army to close off the Palestinian quarters of Sabra and Chatila. Then a campaign of killing 2,000 Palestinian civilians over the next three days. This stands as one of the most dramatic moments from the sixteen year long civil war. On September 21, 1982, Bashir’s brother, Amin, also a Phalange member, was elected president.
In 1985, there was a break between the Phalange party and the Lebanese Front, and thereby reducing the Phalange importance. In September 1988, Gemayel stepped down as president, left the country and a weakened party.
In 1992, the Phalange party decided to boycott the general elections, as a protest against the continued presence of Syrian troops in Lebanaon. In December of 1992, the headquarters of the Phalange party were blown up.
The Phalange attracted Christian youths from the mountains northeast of Beirut as well Christian students in Beirut. The politics of the Phalange party was pro-Western, and they opposed any pan-Arabism. The Phalangists have shown an unusual amount of pragmatism in dealing with allies.
In the beginning of the Lebanese Civil War, the Phalangists cooperated with Syria, but from 1982 onward Israel became their most important ally. 1982 was also the year that the Phalangists performed the act for which they always will be remembered: the massacre of Sabra and Chatila. This was a retaliation for the murder of their leader Bashir Gemayel, and from this year the Phalange gradually lost its momentum and importance.
During the Lebanese Civil war, many Christian militias were formed who gained support from the north of Lebanon. These militias were staunchly right-wing, nationalist and anti-Palestinian with a majority of their members being Maronite. The Kataeb party was the most powerful of these militias at the time of the Lebanese Civil war. The party later went on to help found the right-wing Lebanese Forces militia in 1977 which played a large role within the Lebanese Civil war.
In September 1982, Bachir Gemayel was elected President of Lebanon by the National Assembly. He was assassinated less than a month later in an operation thought to have been arranged by Syrian intelligence and was in turn succeeded by his brother, Amine Gemayel. Bachir was thought to have been radical in his approach, and hinted at possible peace agreements with Israel while trying to expel all Palestinian refugees from Lebanon. In contrast, Amine was thought to have been much more moderate.
On September 16, 1982, Elie Hobeika led the massacre of between 328 and 3,500 Palestinian refugees in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, while the periphery of the camps were under the control of the Israeli Defense Forces.
After the death of Pierre Gemayel, in 1984, his successors Elie Karame and Amine Gemayel struggled to maintain influence over the actions of the Lebanese Army, which became virtually independent as Muslim recruits deserted and rebelled against the mostly Christian officer ranks. The Kataeb party began to decline, not playing a major role for the remainder of the war.
The party, lacking direction, broke down into several rival factions. Georges Saadeh took control of the Party from 1986 until his death in 1998. He took a moderate position toward the Syrian presence. Mounir Hajj became the president of the party in 1999, followed by a Karim Pakradouni in 2002. Amine Gemayel left Lebanon in 1988 after his mandate had ended, mainly to avoid a clash with Samir Geagea's Lebanese Forces and to avoid more Intra-Christian bloodshed. He returned in 2000 to oppose the Syrian role in Lebanon and to back his son's (Pierre's) parliamentary election campaign (which he won). His sons Pierre and Samy, had returned in 1997 and had been working on reorganizing the popular base of the party. However, his return was not welcomed by the established leadership of the party. To distinguish themselves from the official leadership, Gemayel's supporters started referring to themselves as "The Kataeb Base" or "The Kataeb Reform Movement". General consensus amongst Lebanese recognized Gemayel as the legitimate Leader of the party, not because of lineage but because of popular support.
In March 2005, after the Rafik Hariri assassination, the Kataeb took part in an anti-Syrian presence demonstration, commonly known as the Cedar Revolution. It also became a member of the March 14 Alliance, along with the Future Movement, Progressive Socialist Party, Lebanese Forces and other minor parties. The Kataeb won four seats in the June 2005 elections, three representing the Gemayel Leadership (Pierre Gemayel, Solange Gemayel and Antoine Ghanem) and one representing the official leadership of the Party. However, they formed one parliamentary bloc after a reconciliation that took place in 2005. This reconciliation was marketed as a gesture of good will from Pierre Amine Gemayel who deemed it was time to turn the page and give those who were unfaithful to the party principles a second chance. Practically, it was a way for Pakradouni and his men to leave the Party with as little humiliation as possible since the reconciliation deal stipulated the resignation of the entire political bureau after two years. This reconciliation saw Amine come back to the Party as Supreme President of the Party while Pakradouni stayed on as President. Samy Gemayel (Amine's second son) who had formed his own political ideas and identity at the time (much closer in principle and in manner to those of his uncle Bachir) was a very strong opposer of Pakradouni and his Syrian ties and thus was not a fan of this reconciliation. This drew Samy away from the party and prompted him to create a Think-Tank/Research-Center on Federalism named Loubnanouna (Our Lebanon).
In July 2005, the party participated in the Fouad Siniora Government, with Pierre Amine Gemayel as the minister of industry. Pierre played an important role in the reorganization and development of the party. His assassination in November 2006 was a major blow to the party. Syrian intelligence and "Fateh Al Islam" were accused of the assassination. With 14 March Alliance forces, the party supported the Lebanese government against Hezbollah.
In September 2007 another Kataeb member of parliament, Antoine Ghanem was assassinated in a car bombing. Solange Gemayel remained the party's only member of parliament, since Pierre Gemayel's seat was lost to the Free Patriotic Movement of Michel Aoun in a special election in August 2007.
Also, in 2007, Samy Gemayel and (most of) his Loubnanouna companions rejoined the Kataeb, prompting a renaissance in the party. Pierre's martyrdom played a major role in public appeal, coupled with Samy's political ideas and persona.
In the 2009 Global Parliamentary Elections, the Kataeb Party managed to win five seats: One in the Metn Caza, one in the Beirut-Caza, one in Zahle, one in the Aley Caza and another in the Tripoli Caza. The victories in Beirut-1 and Zahle as well as not allowing the opposition's list to win fully in Metn were major upsets to the General Aoun's FPM who is an ally of Iranian-backed Hezbollah. These victories enabled Samy Gemayel, Nadim Gemayel (son of slain President Bachir Gemayel), Elie Marouni, Fady el-Haber and Samer Saade to join Parliament. In the first Government of Prime Minister Saad Hariri, the Kataeb were assigned the Social Affairs portfolio.
Lebanese Kateeb Social Democratic Party see Phalangists.
Phalangists. Lebanese Christian political party and militia. The name Phalangists (Phalange and Phalange party are variations of the same term) is both a translation from Arabic and a small distortion, coming from phalanx. The correct name would have been Lebanese Kateeb Social Democratic Party.
In November of 1936, the Phalange party was founded by Pierre Gemayel who was inspired by the Nazi Youth Movement that he had seen in Hitler’s Germany.
In 1949, the discovery of a Syrian plot to merge Lebanon with Syria stirred up anxiety and nationalism in Lebanon, giving the Phalange party many new members. In the 1958 Civil War, the Phalangists supported President Camille Chamoun.
In 1968, the Phalange Party cooperated with the parties of Chamoun and Raymond Edde, and garnered 9 out of the 99 seats in the parliament. In 1975, the Lebanese Civil War began. The Phalangists had 20,000 members and their own little army. They were part of the umbrella organization Lebanese Front.
In 1976, the Phalangists supported Syrian intervention in the conflict, as they were losing ground to the Muslim troops. In 1980, the Phalange destroyed the militia of the National Liberal Party of Chamoun, which was another member of the Lebanese Front.
In 1982, the Phalangists cooperated with Israel, in planning an attack on Lebanon. On June 6, 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon from its southern border, and its forces started advancing north, reaching Beirut in short time. In September, the Phalangists became the strongest party in Lebanon, thanks to the aid of Israel. On September 13, 1982, Bashir Gemayel was killed a few days before he was to be sworn in as president of Lebanon. On September 16, as a way of retaliating for the killing of Gemayel, the Phalange militia received help from the Israeli army to close off the Palestinian quarters of Sabra and Chatila. Then a campaign of killing 2,000 Palestinian civilians over the next three days. This stands as one of the most dramatic moments from the sixteen year long civil war. On September 21, 1982, Bashir’s brother, Amin, also a Phalange member, was elected president.
In 1985, there was a break between the Phalange party and the Lebanese Front, and thereby reducing the Phalange importance. In September 1988, Gemayel stepped down as president, left the country and a weakened party.
In 1992, the Phalange party decided to boycott the general elections, as a protest against the continued presence of Syrian troops in Lebanaon. In December of 1992, the headquarters of the Phalange party were blown up.
The Phalange attracted Christian youths from the mountains northeast of Beirut as well Christian students in Beirut. The politics of the Phalange party was pro-Western, and they opposed any pan-Arabism. The Phalangists have shown an unusual amount of pragmatism in dealing with allies.
In the beginning of the Lebanese Civil War, the Phalangists cooperated with Syria, but from 1982 onward Israel became their most important ally. 1982 was also the year that the Phalangists performed the act for which they always will be remembered: the massacre of Sabra and Chatila. This was a retaliation for the murder of their leader Bashir Gemayel, and from this year the Phalange gradually lost its momentum and importance.
During the Lebanese Civil war, many Christian militias were formed who gained support from the north of Lebanon. These militias were staunchly right-wing, nationalist and anti-Palestinian with a majority of their members being Maronite. The Kataeb party was the most powerful of these militias at the time of the Lebanese Civil war. The party later went on to help found the right-wing Lebanese Forces militia in 1977 which played a large role within the Lebanese Civil war.
In September 1982, Bachir Gemayel was elected President of Lebanon by the National Assembly. He was assassinated less than a month later in an operation thought to have been arranged by Syrian intelligence and was in turn succeeded by his brother, Amine Gemayel. Bachir was thought to have been radical in his approach, and hinted at possible peace agreements with Israel while trying to expel all Palestinian refugees from Lebanon. In contrast, Amine was thought to have been much more moderate.
On September 16, 1982, Elie Hobeika led the massacre of between 328 and 3,500 Palestinian refugees in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, while the periphery of the camps were under the control of the Israeli Defense Forces.
After the death of Pierre Gemayel, in 1984, his successors Elie Karame and Amine Gemayel struggled to maintain influence over the actions of the Lebanese Army, which became virtually independent as Muslim recruits deserted and rebelled against the mostly Christian officer ranks. The Kataeb party began to decline, not playing a major role for the remainder of the war.
The party, lacking direction, broke down into several rival factions. Georges Saadeh took control of the Party from 1986 until his death in 1998. He took a moderate position toward the Syrian presence. Mounir Hajj became the president of the party in 1999, followed by a Karim Pakradouni in 2002. Amine Gemayel left Lebanon in 1988 after his mandate had ended, mainly to avoid a clash with Samir Geagea's Lebanese Forces and to avoid more Intra-Christian bloodshed. He returned in 2000 to oppose the Syrian role in Lebanon and to back his son's (Pierre's) parliamentary election campaign (which he won). His sons Pierre and Samy, had returned in 1997 and had been working on reorganizing the popular base of the party. However, his return was not welcomed by the established leadership of the party. To distinguish themselves from the official leadership, Gemayel's supporters started referring to themselves as "The Kataeb Base" or "The Kataeb Reform Movement". General consensus amongst Lebanese recognized Gemayel as the legitimate Leader of the party, not because of lineage but because of popular support.
In March 2005, after the Rafik Hariri assassination, the Kataeb took part in an anti-Syrian presence demonstration, commonly known as the Cedar Revolution. It also became a member of the March 14 Alliance, along with the Future Movement, Progressive Socialist Party, Lebanese Forces and other minor parties. The Kataeb won four seats in the June 2005 elections, three representing the Gemayel Leadership (Pierre Gemayel, Solange Gemayel and Antoine Ghanem) and one representing the official leadership of the Party. However, they formed one parliamentary bloc after a reconciliation that took place in 2005. This reconciliation was marketed as a gesture of good will from Pierre Amine Gemayel who deemed it was time to turn the page and give those who were unfaithful to the party principles a second chance. Practically, it was a way for Pakradouni and his men to leave the Party with as little humiliation as possible since the reconciliation deal stipulated the resignation of the entire political bureau after two years. This reconciliation saw Amine come back to the Party as Supreme President of the Party while Pakradouni stayed on as President. Samy Gemayel (Amine's second son) who had formed his own political ideas and identity at the time (much closer in principle and in manner to those of his uncle Bachir) was a very strong opposer of Pakradouni and his Syrian ties and thus was not a fan of this reconciliation. This drew Samy away from the party and prompted him to create a Think-Tank/Research-Center on Federalism named Loubnanouna (Our Lebanon).
In July 2005, the party participated in the Fouad Siniora Government, with Pierre Amine Gemayel as the minister of industry. Pierre played an important role in the reorganization and development of the party. His assassination in November 2006 was a major blow to the party. Syrian intelligence and "Fateh Al Islam" were accused of the assassination. With 14 March Alliance forces, the party supported the Lebanese government against Hezbollah.
In September 2007 another Kataeb member of parliament, Antoine Ghanem was assassinated in a car bombing. Solange Gemayel remained the party's only member of parliament, since Pierre Gemayel's seat was lost to the Free Patriotic Movement of Michel Aoun in a special election in August 2007.
Also, in 2007, Samy Gemayel and (most of) his Loubnanouna companions rejoined the Kataeb, prompting a renaissance in the party. Pierre's martyrdom played a major role in public appeal, coupled with Samy's political ideas and persona.
In the 2009 Global Parliamentary Elections, the Kataeb Party managed to win five seats: One in the Metn Caza, one in the Beirut-Caza, one in Zahle, one in the Aley Caza and another in the Tripoli Caza. The victories in Beirut-1 and Zahle as well as not allowing the opposition's list to win fully in Metn were major upsets to the General Aoun's FPM who is an ally of Iranian-backed Hezbollah. These victories enabled Samy Gemayel, Nadim Gemayel (son of slain President Bachir Gemayel), Elie Marouni, Fady el-Haber and Samer Saade to join Parliament. In the first Government of Prime Minister Saad Hariri, the Kataeb were assigned the Social Affairs portfolio.
Lebanese Kateeb Social Democratic Party see Phalangists.
Pharaoh
Pharaoh (Fir‘awn) (Fir'aun). Pharaoh is mentioned in the Qur’an and is seen in relation with the Prophet’s own mission, i.e., with the determined rejection of the divine message by the unbelievers who in the end are severely punished, while the believers are saved.
Fir'awn is Arabic for "pharaoh". The Qur'an tells the story of Musa and the Pharaoh also known as Fir'awn.
Fir'awn see Pharaoh
Fir'aun see Pharaoh
Pharaoh (Fir‘awn) (Fir'aun). Pharaoh is mentioned in the Qur’an and is seen in relation with the Prophet’s own mission, i.e., with the determined rejection of the divine message by the unbelievers who in the end are severely punished, while the believers are saved.
Fir'awn is Arabic for "pharaoh". The Qur'an tells the story of Musa and the Pharaoh also known as Fir'awn.
Fir'awn see Pharaoh
Fir'aun see Pharaoh
Pir
Pir. Term which is a title for a Sufi shaykh. A word of Persian origin meaning “old man,” the term piri (in Arabic, pir) has been taken up into Sufi discourse as a common title for a Sufi teacher, particularly in South Asia and neighboring areas. The pir is the revered elder who initiates disciples (murids) into a Sufi order. In popular practice, however, the term pir encompasses a complex and controversial array of social practices, relationships, and institutions that, though having their historical roots in Sufism, are regarded by some Muslims as distinct from it.
At certain periods in the history of Islam overt antagonism has existed between the modes of teaching and scholarship espoused by ‘ulama’ and by Sufis. Major religious scholars have worked actively to reconcile and synthesize the two approaches, which are often distinguished as the external (zahir) teachings of the Qur’an, and the inner (batin) teachings known throught the spiritual experiences of the Sufi master and spiritually transmitted from pir to disciple. In the modern period, reformist ‘ulama’ such as those at the highly influential Deobandi school, have also been pirs but have sought to eliminate from Sufi practice what they regard as popular superstitions. In reformist discourse, which is common among urban middle class Muslims today, the term piri-muridi is often used in a derogatory sense to characterize forms of popular practice that are deemed to violate the Qur’an and sunnah (practices of the Prophet) and to be typical of the uneducated. Reformists are highly critical of the pir who has no knowledge of Sufism as it is articulated in the literary Sufi tradition but rather derives his status and his ability to confer the blessing (barakah) of God on disciples merely through descent from a pious Sufi ancestor. The devotee of a pir may attribute supernatural powers to him and typically asks him to write amulets, cure diseases, and solve problems, often in return for a financial contribution to the pir or to the shrine to which he is attached. Reformist pirs, though retaining practices such as writing amulets for followers, place a heavy emphasis on shari‘a in their teachings and stress that, when selecting a pir, the potential disciple should focus exclusively on the piety of the pir and his knowledge of and adherence to shari‘a.
Pirs, their practices, and their links with shrines of past Sufis continue to be a focus of controversy, particularly in Pakistan, where the effort to articulate a relationship between Islam and the state is an ongoing struggle. Some of these hereditary pirs are major landholders and retain a considerable following, especially in rural areas, although direct control over the major shrines has been appropriated by the government. Pirs have played an influential role in contemporary Pakistani politics, frequently taking a stance in opposition to efforts at social and religious reform by political parties such as the Jama‘at-i Islami, who argue that the whole idea of a pir is against Islam and that all practices associated with pirs and shrines should be eliminated. Many concerned with modernization and development have also denounced popular belief in pirs, but even among the educated elite the search for a pir to be one’s spiritual guide and the publication of Sufi works appear to be widespread and even growing phenomena.
Pir is a title for a Sufi master equally used in the nath tradition. They are also referred to as a Hazrat or Shaikh, which is Arabic for Old Man. The title is often translated into English as "saint". In Sufism a Pir's role is to guide and instruct his disciples on the Sufi path. This is often done by general lessons (called Suhbas) and individual guidance. Other words that refer to a Pir include, Murshid (Arabic: meaning "guide" or "teacher"), Sheikh and Sarkar (Persian/Hindi/Urdu word meaning Master, Lord).
The path of Sufism starts when a student takes an oath of allegiance with a teacher called Bai'ath or Bay'ah (Arabic word meaning Transaction). After that, the student is called a Murid (Arabic word meaning committed one).
A Pir usually has authorizations to be a teacher for one (or more) Tariqahs (paths). A Tariqah may have more than one Pir at a time. A Pir is accorded that status by his Shaikh by way of Khilafat or Khilafah (Arabic word meaning succession). Khilafat is the process in which a Shaikh identifies one of his disciples as his successor (khalifah). A Pir can have more than one khalifah.
Old Man see Pir.
Shaykh see Pir.
Sheikh see Pir.
Hazrat see Pir.
Saint see Pir.
Sarkar see Pir.
Pir. Term which is a title for a Sufi shaykh. A word of Persian origin meaning “old man,” the term piri (in Arabic, pir) has been taken up into Sufi discourse as a common title for a Sufi teacher, particularly in South Asia and neighboring areas. The pir is the revered elder who initiates disciples (murids) into a Sufi order. In popular practice, however, the term pir encompasses a complex and controversial array of social practices, relationships, and institutions that, though having their historical roots in Sufism, are regarded by some Muslims as distinct from it.
At certain periods in the history of Islam overt antagonism has existed between the modes of teaching and scholarship espoused by ‘ulama’ and by Sufis. Major religious scholars have worked actively to reconcile and synthesize the two approaches, which are often distinguished as the external (zahir) teachings of the Qur’an, and the inner (batin) teachings known throught the spiritual experiences of the Sufi master and spiritually transmitted from pir to disciple. In the modern period, reformist ‘ulama’ such as those at the highly influential Deobandi school, have also been pirs but have sought to eliminate from Sufi practice what they regard as popular superstitions. In reformist discourse, which is common among urban middle class Muslims today, the term piri-muridi is often used in a derogatory sense to characterize forms of popular practice that are deemed to violate the Qur’an and sunnah (practices of the Prophet) and to be typical of the uneducated. Reformists are highly critical of the pir who has no knowledge of Sufism as it is articulated in the literary Sufi tradition but rather derives his status and his ability to confer the blessing (barakah) of God on disciples merely through descent from a pious Sufi ancestor. The devotee of a pir may attribute supernatural powers to him and typically asks him to write amulets, cure diseases, and solve problems, often in return for a financial contribution to the pir or to the shrine to which he is attached. Reformist pirs, though retaining practices such as writing amulets for followers, place a heavy emphasis on shari‘a in their teachings and stress that, when selecting a pir, the potential disciple should focus exclusively on the piety of the pir and his knowledge of and adherence to shari‘a.
Pirs, their practices, and their links with shrines of past Sufis continue to be a focus of controversy, particularly in Pakistan, where the effort to articulate a relationship between Islam and the state is an ongoing struggle. Some of these hereditary pirs are major landholders and retain a considerable following, especially in rural areas, although direct control over the major shrines has been appropriated by the government. Pirs have played an influential role in contemporary Pakistani politics, frequently taking a stance in opposition to efforts at social and religious reform by political parties such as the Jama‘at-i Islami, who argue that the whole idea of a pir is against Islam and that all practices associated with pirs and shrines should be eliminated. Many concerned with modernization and development have also denounced popular belief in pirs, but even among the educated elite the search for a pir to be one’s spiritual guide and the publication of Sufi works appear to be widespread and even growing phenomena.
Pir is a title for a Sufi master equally used in the nath tradition. They are also referred to as a Hazrat or Shaikh, which is Arabic for Old Man. The title is often translated into English as "saint". In Sufism a Pir's role is to guide and instruct his disciples on the Sufi path. This is often done by general lessons (called Suhbas) and individual guidance. Other words that refer to a Pir include, Murshid (Arabic: meaning "guide" or "teacher"), Sheikh and Sarkar (Persian/Hindi/Urdu word meaning Master, Lord).
The path of Sufism starts when a student takes an oath of allegiance with a teacher called Bai'ath or Bay'ah (Arabic word meaning Transaction). After that, the student is called a Murid (Arabic word meaning committed one).
A Pir usually has authorizations to be a teacher for one (or more) Tariqahs (paths). A Tariqah may have more than one Pir at a time. A Pir is accorded that status by his Shaikh by way of Khilafat or Khilafah (Arabic word meaning succession). Khilafat is the process in which a Shaikh identifies one of his disciples as his successor (khalifah). A Pir can have more than one khalifah.
Old Man see Pir.
Shaykh see Pir.
Sheikh see Pir.
Hazrat see Pir.
Saint see Pir.
Sarkar see Pir.
Piri Re’is ibn Hajji Mehmed
Piri Re’is ibn Hajji Mehmed (Piri Re'is) (d. 1553). Turkish mariner, cartographer and author. He learned the trade of seaman with his uncle, Kemal Re’is. After the latter’s death in 1510, he devoted himself to marine cartography and science of navigation. His fame rests on a world map of which only a part has survived. No less an achievement was his Book on Seafaring, which surpassed his Italian and Catalan models. Of another map of the world only a fragment has survived. Aside from writing and cartographical work between 1523 and 1529, Piri Re’is may have on occasion accompanied Khayr al-Din Barbarossa to North Africa. In 1547, he re-emerges as commander of the Ottoman fleet based at Suez. He carried out the re-conquest of Aden in 1549, but raised the siege of Portuguese-held Hormuz, withdrew to Basra and from there to Suez. This led to a death sentence which was carried out at Cairo.
Ibn Hajji Mehmed, Piri Re'is see Piri Re’is ibn Hajji Mehmed
Piri Re'is see Piri Re’is ibn Hajji Mehmed
Piri Re’is ibn Hajji Mehmed (Piri Re'is) (d. 1553). Turkish mariner, cartographer and author. He learned the trade of seaman with his uncle, Kemal Re’is. After the latter’s death in 1510, he devoted himself to marine cartography and science of navigation. His fame rests on a world map of which only a part has survived. No less an achievement was his Book on Seafaring, which surpassed his Italian and Catalan models. Of another map of the world only a fragment has survived. Aside from writing and cartographical work between 1523 and 1529, Piri Re’is may have on occasion accompanied Khayr al-Din Barbarossa to North Africa. In 1547, he re-emerges as commander of the Ottoman fleet based at Suez. He carried out the re-conquest of Aden in 1549, but raised the siege of Portuguese-held Hormuz, withdrew to Basra and from there to Suez. This led to a death sentence which was carried out at Cairo.
Ibn Hajji Mehmed, Piri Re'is see Piri Re’is ibn Hajji Mehmed
Piri Re'is see Piri Re’is ibn Hajji Mehmed
Pir Sultan Abdal
Pir Sultan Abdal (ca. 1480 – 1550) was a legendary Alevi poet, whose direct and clear language as well as the richness of his imagination and the beauty of his verses led him to become loved among the Turks. Pir Sultan Abdal reflected the social, cultural and religious life of the people. He was a humanist, and wrote about love, peace, death and God. He was also rebellious against authoritarian rule which led him into problems with the Ottoman establishment.
Pir Sultan Abdal's ethnic origin is unknown, however, it is widely accepted that he was of Turkish origin as his poetry was in the Turkish language and he originated from Sivas, which is mostly populated by ethnic Turks. Some researchers believe "Pir Sultan" was not just the one in Sivas, who rebelled against the state and was hanged for his religious convictions by Hizir Pasa's orders. Most of the information about him and his era we find in his verses, which reveal him as cultivated, well educated and intellectual.
Pir Sultan Abdal, was an Alevi, his early work is dedicated to lyrical and pastoral themes and to the gnostic approach he had adopted. He criticized some Ottoman governors, particularly, Hizir Pasha, who ruled the region.
Pir Sultan Abdal's verses and calls for the rights and freedoms of the peasant folk soon attracted a lot of support among the masses who supported these ideals. As a result, he was hung by Hizir Pasha.
Nevertheless, the tradition of Pir Sultan Abdal's poetry and his struggle have remained alive. His poetry was sung accompanied by the baglama, or saz, throughout the ages by folk singers. Today in modern Turkey the Baglama is one of the most loved instruments of the people and is extremely popular and widely used.
Many poets acquired his name to keep 'Pir Sultan's voice' alive. According to literary historians, there were at least six other poets bearing the same name.
Pir Sultan followed the traditional style of folk literature. The outstanding characteristic of his poems, the use of vernacular language, keen and clear style still prevail in folkloric poetry. He also had a great influence on the poets of modern Turkey in the republican era and is today a beloved figure.
Pir Sultan Abdal (ca. 1480 – 1550) was a legendary Alevi poet, whose direct and clear language as well as the richness of his imagination and the beauty of his verses led him to become loved among the Turks. Pir Sultan Abdal reflected the social, cultural and religious life of the people. He was a humanist, and wrote about love, peace, death and God. He was also rebellious against authoritarian rule which led him into problems with the Ottoman establishment.
Pir Sultan Abdal's ethnic origin is unknown, however, it is widely accepted that he was of Turkish origin as his poetry was in the Turkish language and he originated from Sivas, which is mostly populated by ethnic Turks. Some researchers believe "Pir Sultan" was not just the one in Sivas, who rebelled against the state and was hanged for his religious convictions by Hizir Pasa's orders. Most of the information about him and his era we find in his verses, which reveal him as cultivated, well educated and intellectual.
Pir Sultan Abdal, was an Alevi, his early work is dedicated to lyrical and pastoral themes and to the gnostic approach he had adopted. He criticized some Ottoman governors, particularly, Hizir Pasha, who ruled the region.
Pir Sultan Abdal's verses and calls for the rights and freedoms of the peasant folk soon attracted a lot of support among the masses who supported these ideals. As a result, he was hung by Hizir Pasha.
Nevertheless, the tradition of Pir Sultan Abdal's poetry and his struggle have remained alive. His poetry was sung accompanied by the baglama, or saz, throughout the ages by folk singers. Today in modern Turkey the Baglama is one of the most loved instruments of the people and is extremely popular and widely used.
Many poets acquired his name to keep 'Pir Sultan's voice' alive. According to literary historians, there were at least six other poets bearing the same name.
Pir Sultan followed the traditional style of folk literature. The outstanding characteristic of his poems, the use of vernacular language, keen and clear style still prevail in folkloric poetry. He also had a great influence on the poets of modern Turkey in the republican era and is today a beloved figure.
Piyale Pasha
Piyale Pasha (Piale Pasha) (Piali Baja) (Piyale Pasa) (c.1515-1578). Ottoman Grand Admiral. His greatest exploit at sea was the capture of the island of Jerba in 1560. His siege of Malta in 1565 failed.
Piyale Pasha was born in Viganj on the Pelješac peninsula. He was a Dalmatian/Croatian Ottoman admiral (Kaptan Pasha = fleet commander) between 1553 and 1567 and an Ottoman Vizier after 1568.
Piyale Pasha received his formal education at the Enderun (Imperial Academy) in modern-day Istanbul, Turkey. He graduated from the Enderun with the title of Kapıcıbaşı and was appointed Sanjak Bey (Province Governor) of Gallipoli.
Piyale Pasha was promoted to Bahriye Beylerbeyi (i.e. First Lord of Admiralty) and became Admiral-in-Chief of the Ottoman Fleet at the age of 39.
In 1554, he captured the islands of Elba and Corsica with a large fleet which included famous Ottoman admirals like Turgut Reis and Salih Reis. The following year Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent assigned him with the task of helping France against the Spaniards upon request by the mother of King Francois II. Piyale Pasha set sail on June 26, 1555. The Turkish fleet met the French fleet at Piombino and successfully repulsed a Spanish attack on France while conquering several Spanish fortresses on the Mediterranean Sea.
In June 1558, joined by Turgut Reis, Piyale Pasha sailed to the Strait of Messina and the two admirals captured Reggio Calabria. From there, they went to the Aeolian Islands and captured several of them, before landing at Amalfi, the Gulf of Salerno, and capturing Massa Lubrense, Cantone and Sorrento. They later landed at Torre del Greco, the coasts of Tuscany, and Piombino. In September 1558 they assaulted the coasts of Spain before capturing Minorca and inflicting particular damage on the island's ports.
This caused fear throughout the Mediterranean coasts of Spain, and King Philip II appealed to Pope Paul IV and his allies in Europe to bring an end to the rising Turkish threat. In 1560 King Philip II succeeded in organizing a Holy League between Spain, the Republic of Venice, the Republic of Genoa, the Papal States, the Duchy of Savoy and the Knights of Malta. The joint fleet was assembled at Messina and consisted of 54 galleys and 66 other types of vessels under the command of Giovanni Andrea Doria, nephew of the famous Genoese admiral Andrea Doria.
On March 12, 1560, the Holy League captured the island of Djerba which had a strategic location and could control the sea routes between Algiers and Tripoli. As a response, Suleiman the Magnificent sent an Ottoman fleet of 86 galleys and galliots under the command of Piyale Pasha, which arrived at Djerba on May 11, 1560 and destroyed the Christian fleet in a matter of hours at the Battle of Djerba. Giovanni Andrea Doria managed to escape with a small vessel, but the surviving Christians, now under the command of D. Alvaro de Sande, took refuge in the fort on the island of Djerba which they had constructed during the expedition. Piyale Pasha and Turgut Reis eventually forced the garrison to surrender and Piyale Pasha took 5,000 prisoners, including de Sande, to Istanbul, where he was met by joyous crowds. He married Sultana Gevher Han, daughter of Suleiman's son Selim II.
In 1563 Piyale Pasha captured Naples and the fortresses around the city on behalf of France, but after the Ottoman forces left the city the French could not hold on to these and the Spaniards eventually took them back.
In 1565 Piyale Pasha, together with the general Lala Mustafa Pasha and Turgut Reis, was charged by Suleiman to capture Malta, but the effort failed in the face of determined resistance by the Maltese Knights and cost the Ottoman fleet not only large numbers of casualties, but also the life of Turgut Reis.
In 1566, Piyale captured the island of Chios and brought an end to the Genoese presence in the Aegean Sea. He later landed on Puglia in Italy and captured several strategic fortresses.
In 1568, Piyale was promoted to Vizier, becoming the first admiral in Ottoman history to reach this rank.
In 1570, Piyale set sail for Cyprus, then a Venetian possession, with a large invasion force on board his ships. Having left Istanbul on May 15, 1570, the fleet arrived at Cyprus on July 1, 1570. On July 22 the Turks, under the command of Lala Mustafa (the Fifth Vizier, who had five years previously failed to capture Malta), commenced the siege of Nicosia, capturing the city on September 9. After capturing Pafos, Limassol and Larnaca in rapid succession, they surrounded Magosa (Famagusta), the final Venetian stronghold on the island, on September 18, 1570 and finally took it on August 1, 1571, completing the conquest of Cyprus.
After the defeat of the Turkish fleet under the command of Müezzinzade Ali Pasha at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, Piyale Pasha was called to take back the command of the Ottoman navy. The Ottomans managed to rebuild a fleet as large as that lost at Lepanto in less than a year, and Uluç Ali Reis reconquered Tunisia from Spain and their Hafsid vassals in 1574.
In 1573, Piyale Pasha once again landed on Puglia in Italy. This was his final naval expedition.
Piyale Pasha died on January 21, 1578 and is buried at the Piyale Pasha Mosque in Istanbul which he had built, under the direction of the architect Sinan, in his final years.
Several warships of the Turkish Navy have been named after him.
Piale Pasha see Piyale Pasha
Piali Baja see Piyale Pasha
Piyale Pasa see Piyale Pasha
Pasa, Piyale see Piyale Pasha
Baja, Piali see Piyale Pasha
Pasha, Piale see Piyale Pasha
Piyale Pasha (Piale Pasha) (Piali Baja) (Piyale Pasa) (c.1515-1578). Ottoman Grand Admiral. His greatest exploit at sea was the capture of the island of Jerba in 1560. His siege of Malta in 1565 failed.
Piyale Pasha was born in Viganj on the Pelješac peninsula. He was a Dalmatian/Croatian Ottoman admiral (Kaptan Pasha = fleet commander) between 1553 and 1567 and an Ottoman Vizier after 1568.
Piyale Pasha received his formal education at the Enderun (Imperial Academy) in modern-day Istanbul, Turkey. He graduated from the Enderun with the title of Kapıcıbaşı and was appointed Sanjak Bey (Province Governor) of Gallipoli.
Piyale Pasha was promoted to Bahriye Beylerbeyi (i.e. First Lord of Admiralty) and became Admiral-in-Chief of the Ottoman Fleet at the age of 39.
In 1554, he captured the islands of Elba and Corsica with a large fleet which included famous Ottoman admirals like Turgut Reis and Salih Reis. The following year Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent assigned him with the task of helping France against the Spaniards upon request by the mother of King Francois II. Piyale Pasha set sail on June 26, 1555. The Turkish fleet met the French fleet at Piombino and successfully repulsed a Spanish attack on France while conquering several Spanish fortresses on the Mediterranean Sea.
In June 1558, joined by Turgut Reis, Piyale Pasha sailed to the Strait of Messina and the two admirals captured Reggio Calabria. From there, they went to the Aeolian Islands and captured several of them, before landing at Amalfi, the Gulf of Salerno, and capturing Massa Lubrense, Cantone and Sorrento. They later landed at Torre del Greco, the coasts of Tuscany, and Piombino. In September 1558 they assaulted the coasts of Spain before capturing Minorca and inflicting particular damage on the island's ports.
This caused fear throughout the Mediterranean coasts of Spain, and King Philip II appealed to Pope Paul IV and his allies in Europe to bring an end to the rising Turkish threat. In 1560 King Philip II succeeded in organizing a Holy League between Spain, the Republic of Venice, the Republic of Genoa, the Papal States, the Duchy of Savoy and the Knights of Malta. The joint fleet was assembled at Messina and consisted of 54 galleys and 66 other types of vessels under the command of Giovanni Andrea Doria, nephew of the famous Genoese admiral Andrea Doria.
On March 12, 1560, the Holy League captured the island of Djerba which had a strategic location and could control the sea routes between Algiers and Tripoli. As a response, Suleiman the Magnificent sent an Ottoman fleet of 86 galleys and galliots under the command of Piyale Pasha, which arrived at Djerba on May 11, 1560 and destroyed the Christian fleet in a matter of hours at the Battle of Djerba. Giovanni Andrea Doria managed to escape with a small vessel, but the surviving Christians, now under the command of D. Alvaro de Sande, took refuge in the fort on the island of Djerba which they had constructed during the expedition. Piyale Pasha and Turgut Reis eventually forced the garrison to surrender and Piyale Pasha took 5,000 prisoners, including de Sande, to Istanbul, where he was met by joyous crowds. He married Sultana Gevher Han, daughter of Suleiman's son Selim II.
In 1563 Piyale Pasha captured Naples and the fortresses around the city on behalf of France, but after the Ottoman forces left the city the French could not hold on to these and the Spaniards eventually took them back.
In 1565 Piyale Pasha, together with the general Lala Mustafa Pasha and Turgut Reis, was charged by Suleiman to capture Malta, but the effort failed in the face of determined resistance by the Maltese Knights and cost the Ottoman fleet not only large numbers of casualties, but also the life of Turgut Reis.
In 1566, Piyale captured the island of Chios and brought an end to the Genoese presence in the Aegean Sea. He later landed on Puglia in Italy and captured several strategic fortresses.
In 1568, Piyale was promoted to Vizier, becoming the first admiral in Ottoman history to reach this rank.
In 1570, Piyale set sail for Cyprus, then a Venetian possession, with a large invasion force on board his ships. Having left Istanbul on May 15, 1570, the fleet arrived at Cyprus on July 1, 1570. On July 22 the Turks, under the command of Lala Mustafa (the Fifth Vizier, who had five years previously failed to capture Malta), commenced the siege of Nicosia, capturing the city on September 9. After capturing Pafos, Limassol and Larnaca in rapid succession, they surrounded Magosa (Famagusta), the final Venetian stronghold on the island, on September 18, 1570 and finally took it on August 1, 1571, completing the conquest of Cyprus.
After the defeat of the Turkish fleet under the command of Müezzinzade Ali Pasha at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, Piyale Pasha was called to take back the command of the Ottoman navy. The Ottomans managed to rebuild a fleet as large as that lost at Lepanto in less than a year, and Uluç Ali Reis reconquered Tunisia from Spain and their Hafsid vassals in 1574.
In 1573, Piyale Pasha once again landed on Puglia in Italy. This was his final naval expedition.
Piyale Pasha died on January 21, 1578 and is buried at the Piyale Pasha Mosque in Istanbul which he had built, under the direction of the architect Sinan, in his final years.
Several warships of the Turkish Navy have been named after him.
Piale Pasha see Piyale Pasha
Piali Baja see Piyale Pasha
Piyale Pasa see Piyale Pasha
Pasa, Piyale see Piyale Pasha
Baja, Piali see Piyale Pasha
Pasha, Piale see Piyale Pasha
Plato
Plato (Aflatun) (428/427 B.C.T., Athens, Greece – 348/347 B.C.T., Athens). Classical Greek philosopher, mathematician, writer of philosophical dialogues, and founder of the Academy in Athens, the first institution of higher learning in the Western world. Along with his mentor, Socrates (470 B.C.T. - 399 B.C.T.), and his student, Aristotle (384 B.C.T. - 322 B.C.T.), Plato helped to lay the foundations of Western philosophy and science. Plato was originally a student of Socrates, and was as much influenced by his thinking as by his apparently unjust execution.
Plato's sophistication as a writer is evident in his Socratic dialogues; thirty-six dialogues and thirteen letters have been ascribed to him. Plato's writings have been published in several fashions; this has led to several conventions regarding the naming and referencing of Plato's texts.
Plato's dialogues have been used to teach a range of subjects, including philosophy, logic, rhetoric and mathematics.
Most Arab thinkers subordinated Plato to Aristotle, but they were aware of a basic agreement between the two philosophers. Interpretations of Plato, untinged by Neoplatonism, found their way to the Arabic philosophers and were studied by them, but, in general, they looked at him through the eyes of his Neoplatonic interpreters: Plotinus, Porphyry, Procius and others. The mystical aspects of Platonism, or rather Neoplatonism, were emphasized by al-Suhrawardi al-Maqtul and the Sufis now became followers of Plato. He was also made the author of alchemical works.
Building on the demonstration by Socrates that those regarded as experts in ethical matters did not have the understanding necessary for a good human life, Plato introduced the idea that their mistakes were due to their not engaging properly with a class of entities he called forms, chief examples of which were Justice, Beauty, and Equality. Whereas other thinkers—and Plato himself in certain passages—used the term without any precise technical force, Plato in the course of his career came to devote specialized attention to these entities. As he conceived them, they were accessible not to the senses but to the mind alone, and they were the most important constituents of reality, underlying the existence of the sensible world and giving it what intelligibility it has. In metaphysics, Plato envisioned a systematic, rational treatment of the forms and their interrelations, starting with the most fundamental among them (the Good, or the One); in ethics and moral psychology he developed the view that the good life requires not just a certain kind of knowledge (as Socrates had suggested) but also habituation to healthy emotional responses and therefore harmony between the three parts of the soul (according to Plato, reason, spirit, and appetite). His works also contain discussions on aesthetics, political philosophy, theology, cosmology, epistemology, and the philosophy of language. His school fostered research not just in philosophy narrowly conceived but in a wide range of endeavors that today would be called mathematical or scientific.
The son of Ariston (his father) and Perictione (his mother), Plato was born in the year after the death of the great Athenian statesman Pericles. His brothers Glaucon and Adeimantus are portrayed as interlocutors in Plato’s masterpiece the Republic, and his half brother Antiphon figures in the Parmenides. Plato’s family was aristocratic and distinguished. His father’s side claimed descent from the god Poseidon, and his mother’s side was related to the lawgiver Solon (c. 630 B.C.T. – 560 B.C.T.). Less creditably, his mother’s close relatives Critias and Charmides were among the Thirty Tyrants who seized power in Athens and ruled briefly until the restoration of democracy in 403 B.C.T.
Plato as a young man was a member of the circle around Socrates. Since the latter wrote nothing, what is known of his characteristic activity of engaging his fellow citizens (and the occasional itinerant celebrity) in conversation derives wholly from the writings of others, most notably Plato himself. The works of Plato commonly referred to as “Socratic” represent the sort of thing the historical Socrates was doing. He would challenge men who supposedly had expertise about some facet of human excellence to give accounts of these matters—variously of courage, piety, and so on, or at times of the whole of “virtue”—and they typically failed to maintain their position. Resentment against Socrates grew, leading ultimately to his trial and execution on charges of impiety and corrupting the youth in 399 B.C.T. Plato was profoundly affected by both the life and the death of Socrates. The activity of the older man provided the starting point of Plato’s philosophizing. Moreover, if Plato’s Seventh Letter is to be believed (its authorship is disputed), the treatment of Socrates by both the oligarchy and the democracy made Plato wary of entering public life, as someone of his background would normally have done.
After the death of Socrates, Plato may have traveled extensively in Greece, Italy, and Egypt, though on such particulars the evidence is uncertain. The followers of Pythagoras (c. 580 B.C.T. – c. 500 B.C.T.) seem to have influenced his philosophical program (they are criticized in the Phaedo and the Republic but receive respectful mention in the Philebus). It is thought that his three trips to Syracuse in Sicily led to a deep personal attachment to Dion (408 B.C.T. – 354 B.C.T.), brother-in-law of Dionysius the Elder (430 B.C.T. – 367 B.C.T.), the tyrant of Syracuse. Plato, at Dion’s urging, apparently undertook to put into practice the ideal of the “philosopher-king” (described in the Republic) by educating Dionysius the Younger. The project was not a success, and in the ensuing instability Dion was murdered.
Plato’s Academy, founded in the 380s B.C.T., was the ultimate ancestor of the modern university (hence the English term academic); an influential center of research and learning, it attracted many men of outstanding ability. The great mathematicians Theaetetus (417 B.C.T. – 369 B.C.T.) and Eudoxus of Cnidus (c. 395 B.C.T. – c. 342 B.C.T.) were associated with it. Although Plato was not a research mathematician, he was aware of the results of those who were, and he made use of them in his own work. For 20 years, Aristotle was also a member of the Academy. He started his own school, the Lyceum, only after Plato’s death, when he was passed over as Plato’s successor at the Academy, probably because of his connections to the court of Macedonia.
In his earliest literary efforts, Plato tried to convey the spirit of Socrates's teaching by presenting accurate reports of the master's conversational interactions, for which these dialogues are our primary source of information. Early dialogues are typically devoted to investigation of a single issue, about which a conclusive result is rarely achieved. Thus, the Euqufrwn (Euthyphro) raises a significant doubt about whether morally right action can be defined in terms of divine approval by pointing out a significant dilemma about any appeal to authority in defence of moral judgments. The Apologhma (Apology) offers a description of the philosophical life as Socrates presented it in his own defense before the Athenian jury. The Kritwn (Crito) uses the circumstances of Socrates's imprisonment to ask whether an individual citizen is ever justified in refusing to obey the state.
Although they continue to use the talkative Socrates as a fictional character, Plato, in the middle dialogues of Plato, develops, expresses, and defends his own, more firmly established, conclusions about central philosophical issues. Beginning with the Menwn (Meno), for example, Plato not only reports the Socratic notion that no one knowingly does wrong, but also introduces the doctrine of recollection in an attempt to discover whether or not virtue can be taught. The Faidwn (Phaedo) continues development of Platonic notions by presenting the doctrine of the Forms in support of a series of arguments that claim to demonstrate the immortality of the human soul.
The masterpiece among the middle dialogues is Plato's Politeia (Republic). It begins with a Socratic conversation about the nature of justice but proceeds directly to an extended discussion of the virtues (Gk. areth [aretê]) of justice (Gk. dikaiwsunh [dikaiôsunê]), wisdom (Gk. sofia [sophía]), courage (Gk. andreia [andreia]), and moderation (Gk. swfrosunh [sophrosúnê]) as they appear both in individual human beings and in society as a whole. This plan for the ideal society or person requires detailed accounts of human knowledge and of the kind of educational program by which it may be achieved by men and women alike, captured in a powerful image of the possibilities for human life in the allegory of the cave. The dialogue concludes with a review of various forms of government, an explicit description of the ideal state, in which only philosophers are fit to rule, and an attempt to show that justice is better than injustice. Among the other dialogues of this period are Plato's treatments of human emotion in general and of love in particular in the FaidroV (Phaedrus) and Sumposion (Symposium).
Plato's later writings often modify or completely abandon the formal structure of dialogue. They include a critical examination of the theory of forms in ParmenidhV (Parmenides), an extended discussion of the problem of knowledge in QeaithtoV (Theaetetus), cosmological speculations in TimaioV (Timaeus), and an interminable treatment of government in the unfinished LegeiV (Laws).
Because Aristotle often discusses issues by contrasting his views with those of his teacher, it is easy to be impressed by the ways in which they diverge. Thus, whereas for Plato the crown of ethics is the good in general, or Goodness itself (the Good), for Aristotle it is the good for human beings; and whereas for Plato the genus to which a thing belongs possesses a greater reality than the thing itself, for Aristotle the opposite is true. Plato’s emphasis on the ideal, and Aristotle’s on the worldly, informs Raphael’s depiction of the two philosophers in the School of Athens (1508–11). But if one considers the two philosophers not just in relation to each other but in the context of the whole of Western philosophy, it is clear how much Aristotle’s program is continuous with that of his teacher. (Indeed, the painting may be said to represent this continuity by showing the two men conversing amicably.) In any case, the Academy did not impose a dogmatic orthodoxy and in fact seems to have fostered a spirit of independent inquiry. Only at a later time did the Academy take on a skeptical orientation.
Plato once delivered a public lecture, On the Good, in which he mystified his audience by announcing, “the Good is one.” He better gauged his readers in his dialogues, many of which are accessible, entertaining, and inviting. Although Plato is well known for his negative remarks about much great literature, in the Symposium he depicts literature and philosophy as the offspring of lovers, who gain a more lasting posterity than do parents of mortal children. His own literary and philosophical gifts ensure that a part of Plato will live on for as long as readers engage with his works.
Plato seems to have been more an icon and an inspiration than an authentic source for Islamic philosophers. So far as is known, the only works available to them in Arabic translation were the Laws, the Sophist, the Timaeus and the Republic. His name was often invoked as a sage and an exemplar of that wisdom available to humankind among the Greeks before the revelation of the Qur'an. This in itself could represent a kind of affront to orthodox Islam, which tended to view the human situation before the Qur'an's 'coming down' as one of pervasive ignorance (jahaliyya). However, the rise of humanist culture in Baghdad during the ninth and tenth centuries ad, which involved Syriac Christian translators, presupposed a gradual acceptance of Greek wisdom in which Plato figured paradigmatically, even though far fewer of his works were made available in translation than those of Aristotle.
Plato's influence on Islamic philosophy can be observed most clearly in ethics and political philosophy, given the works available to Islamic thinkers. However, his role lay more in creating an environment hospitable to philosophical reflection than in contributing to the formation of specific philosophical doctrines (where the influence of Aristotle was stronger). He was referred to as 'the sublime and divine Plato', no doubt because his writings seemed to lead one more directly than any other Greek philosopher to reflect on human actions in the light of transcendent goals. At this level of inspiration, collections of sayings attributed to Plato, notably on the adverse relation of knowledge to wealth and power, helped to set a stage on which philosophy could play a transformative role for Muslims seeking truth as they followed the 'straight path' laid out in the Qur'an. At the same time 'philosophy' so practiced could present itself as an encompassing way of life, so competing with observant Islam. Here a discussion inspired by Plato regarding the relative weight of logic and grammar is relevant, since Arabic had tended to legislate semantic conflicts by recourse to grammar, while Greek philosophical texts (themselves originating in another language) extolled logic as a norm for rational discourse, transcending the peculiarities of a single tongue and the grammar proper to it. This potential conflict came to the fore in considering the qualities required for a just ruler of a Muslim polity, specifically regarding the relative merits of 'prophecy' (the generic Islamic term for the deliverances of revelation) and philosophical reason.
The locus classicus for such considerations is Plato's Republic, which offered an ideal paradigm for a just ruler that was adopted in lieu of Aristotle's more legislative treatment in the Politics - the only text of Aristotle's not translated into Arabic. Al-Farabi's treatise on the 'perfect state' (al-Madina al-fadila (The Virtuous City)) presents a Neoplatonic version of Plato's Republic, one in which 'the Good' is transmuted into 'the First' in such manner that the ordering proper to cosmos and the microcosmic ideal polity emanates from the ever-fruitful One. Al-Farabi states unequivocally that philosophical reason outstrips prophecy as a requisite for the wise and just ruler, but the pattern established in his treatise was able to be adapted by those who weighed their relative merits otherwise. What was severely contested, however, was the relevance of Plato's ideal scenario (or its adaptation by al-Farabi) to the actual ruling of an Islamic polity. Rulers themselves took issue with it, speaking from experience, as did intellectuals (such as al-'Amiri) who assimilated Plato's lofty philosophical ideals to Sufi ascetic practices. For such as these, Plato's dictum that philosophers are prevented from attaining wisdom by the mores of the city in which they live spoke more directly to their experience.
Plato's teaching on the human soul as 'an incorporeal substance that moves the body' seemed to offer a philosophical teaching conducive to Islam, even though Ibn Sina's way of adopting this teaching would put 'philosophy' in conflict with Qur'anic faith in resurrection of the body. Ethical thinkers like Ibn Miskawayh adopted Plato's tripartite division of the soul, however, in elaborating an ethical teaching relating Islam to a wider humanist culture, relying on extant sayings which quoted Plato: "whoever rules his reason is called wise; whoever rules his anger is called courageous; and whoever rules his passion is called temperate." The influence of sayings of this sort would permit a wise ruler like Ibn al-'Amid to say that he considered himself a "member of the following [shi'a] of Plato, Socrates and Aristotle". In this manner, Plato contributed an anthropology to Islamic thought which could be used to elaborate the 'straight path' of the Qur'an as well as bring it into contact with a wider humanist civilization.
Aflatun see Plato
Plato (Aflatun) (428/427 B.C.T., Athens, Greece – 348/347 B.C.T., Athens). Classical Greek philosopher, mathematician, writer of philosophical dialogues, and founder of the Academy in Athens, the first institution of higher learning in the Western world. Along with his mentor, Socrates (470 B.C.T. - 399 B.C.T.), and his student, Aristotle (384 B.C.T. - 322 B.C.T.), Plato helped to lay the foundations of Western philosophy and science. Plato was originally a student of Socrates, and was as much influenced by his thinking as by his apparently unjust execution.
Plato's sophistication as a writer is evident in his Socratic dialogues; thirty-six dialogues and thirteen letters have been ascribed to him. Plato's writings have been published in several fashions; this has led to several conventions regarding the naming and referencing of Plato's texts.
Plato's dialogues have been used to teach a range of subjects, including philosophy, logic, rhetoric and mathematics.
Most Arab thinkers subordinated Plato to Aristotle, but they were aware of a basic agreement between the two philosophers. Interpretations of Plato, untinged by Neoplatonism, found their way to the Arabic philosophers and were studied by them, but, in general, they looked at him through the eyes of his Neoplatonic interpreters: Plotinus, Porphyry, Procius and others. The mystical aspects of Platonism, or rather Neoplatonism, were emphasized by al-Suhrawardi al-Maqtul and the Sufis now became followers of Plato. He was also made the author of alchemical works.
Building on the demonstration by Socrates that those regarded as experts in ethical matters did not have the understanding necessary for a good human life, Plato introduced the idea that their mistakes were due to their not engaging properly with a class of entities he called forms, chief examples of which were Justice, Beauty, and Equality. Whereas other thinkers—and Plato himself in certain passages—used the term without any precise technical force, Plato in the course of his career came to devote specialized attention to these entities. As he conceived them, they were accessible not to the senses but to the mind alone, and they were the most important constituents of reality, underlying the existence of the sensible world and giving it what intelligibility it has. In metaphysics, Plato envisioned a systematic, rational treatment of the forms and their interrelations, starting with the most fundamental among them (the Good, or the One); in ethics and moral psychology he developed the view that the good life requires not just a certain kind of knowledge (as Socrates had suggested) but also habituation to healthy emotional responses and therefore harmony between the three parts of the soul (according to Plato, reason, spirit, and appetite). His works also contain discussions on aesthetics, political philosophy, theology, cosmology, epistemology, and the philosophy of language. His school fostered research not just in philosophy narrowly conceived but in a wide range of endeavors that today would be called mathematical or scientific.
The son of Ariston (his father) and Perictione (his mother), Plato was born in the year after the death of the great Athenian statesman Pericles. His brothers Glaucon and Adeimantus are portrayed as interlocutors in Plato’s masterpiece the Republic, and his half brother Antiphon figures in the Parmenides. Plato’s family was aristocratic and distinguished. His father’s side claimed descent from the god Poseidon, and his mother’s side was related to the lawgiver Solon (c. 630 B.C.T. – 560 B.C.T.). Less creditably, his mother’s close relatives Critias and Charmides were among the Thirty Tyrants who seized power in Athens and ruled briefly until the restoration of democracy in 403 B.C.T.
Plato as a young man was a member of the circle around Socrates. Since the latter wrote nothing, what is known of his characteristic activity of engaging his fellow citizens (and the occasional itinerant celebrity) in conversation derives wholly from the writings of others, most notably Plato himself. The works of Plato commonly referred to as “Socratic” represent the sort of thing the historical Socrates was doing. He would challenge men who supposedly had expertise about some facet of human excellence to give accounts of these matters—variously of courage, piety, and so on, or at times of the whole of “virtue”—and they typically failed to maintain their position. Resentment against Socrates grew, leading ultimately to his trial and execution on charges of impiety and corrupting the youth in 399 B.C.T. Plato was profoundly affected by both the life and the death of Socrates. The activity of the older man provided the starting point of Plato’s philosophizing. Moreover, if Plato’s Seventh Letter is to be believed (its authorship is disputed), the treatment of Socrates by both the oligarchy and the democracy made Plato wary of entering public life, as someone of his background would normally have done.
After the death of Socrates, Plato may have traveled extensively in Greece, Italy, and Egypt, though on such particulars the evidence is uncertain. The followers of Pythagoras (c. 580 B.C.T. – c. 500 B.C.T.) seem to have influenced his philosophical program (they are criticized in the Phaedo and the Republic but receive respectful mention in the Philebus). It is thought that his three trips to Syracuse in Sicily led to a deep personal attachment to Dion (408 B.C.T. – 354 B.C.T.), brother-in-law of Dionysius the Elder (430 B.C.T. – 367 B.C.T.), the tyrant of Syracuse. Plato, at Dion’s urging, apparently undertook to put into practice the ideal of the “philosopher-king” (described in the Republic) by educating Dionysius the Younger. The project was not a success, and in the ensuing instability Dion was murdered.
Plato’s Academy, founded in the 380s B.C.T., was the ultimate ancestor of the modern university (hence the English term academic); an influential center of research and learning, it attracted many men of outstanding ability. The great mathematicians Theaetetus (417 B.C.T. – 369 B.C.T.) and Eudoxus of Cnidus (c. 395 B.C.T. – c. 342 B.C.T.) were associated with it. Although Plato was not a research mathematician, he was aware of the results of those who were, and he made use of them in his own work. For 20 years, Aristotle was also a member of the Academy. He started his own school, the Lyceum, only after Plato’s death, when he was passed over as Plato’s successor at the Academy, probably because of his connections to the court of Macedonia.
In his earliest literary efforts, Plato tried to convey the spirit of Socrates's teaching by presenting accurate reports of the master's conversational interactions, for which these dialogues are our primary source of information. Early dialogues are typically devoted to investigation of a single issue, about which a conclusive result is rarely achieved. Thus, the Euqufrwn (Euthyphro) raises a significant doubt about whether morally right action can be defined in terms of divine approval by pointing out a significant dilemma about any appeal to authority in defence of moral judgments. The Apologhma (Apology) offers a description of the philosophical life as Socrates presented it in his own defense before the Athenian jury. The Kritwn (Crito) uses the circumstances of Socrates's imprisonment to ask whether an individual citizen is ever justified in refusing to obey the state.
Although they continue to use the talkative Socrates as a fictional character, Plato, in the middle dialogues of Plato, develops, expresses, and defends his own, more firmly established, conclusions about central philosophical issues. Beginning with the Menwn (Meno), for example, Plato not only reports the Socratic notion that no one knowingly does wrong, but also introduces the doctrine of recollection in an attempt to discover whether or not virtue can be taught. The Faidwn (Phaedo) continues development of Platonic notions by presenting the doctrine of the Forms in support of a series of arguments that claim to demonstrate the immortality of the human soul.
The masterpiece among the middle dialogues is Plato's Politeia (Republic). It begins with a Socratic conversation about the nature of justice but proceeds directly to an extended discussion of the virtues (Gk. areth [aretê]) of justice (Gk. dikaiwsunh [dikaiôsunê]), wisdom (Gk. sofia [sophía]), courage (Gk. andreia [andreia]), and moderation (Gk. swfrosunh [sophrosúnê]) as they appear both in individual human beings and in society as a whole. This plan for the ideal society or person requires detailed accounts of human knowledge and of the kind of educational program by which it may be achieved by men and women alike, captured in a powerful image of the possibilities for human life in the allegory of the cave. The dialogue concludes with a review of various forms of government, an explicit description of the ideal state, in which only philosophers are fit to rule, and an attempt to show that justice is better than injustice. Among the other dialogues of this period are Plato's treatments of human emotion in general and of love in particular in the FaidroV (Phaedrus) and Sumposion (Symposium).
Plato's later writings often modify or completely abandon the formal structure of dialogue. They include a critical examination of the theory of forms in ParmenidhV (Parmenides), an extended discussion of the problem of knowledge in QeaithtoV (Theaetetus), cosmological speculations in TimaioV (Timaeus), and an interminable treatment of government in the unfinished LegeiV (Laws).
Because Aristotle often discusses issues by contrasting his views with those of his teacher, it is easy to be impressed by the ways in which they diverge. Thus, whereas for Plato the crown of ethics is the good in general, or Goodness itself (the Good), for Aristotle it is the good for human beings; and whereas for Plato the genus to which a thing belongs possesses a greater reality than the thing itself, for Aristotle the opposite is true. Plato’s emphasis on the ideal, and Aristotle’s on the worldly, informs Raphael’s depiction of the two philosophers in the School of Athens (1508–11). But if one considers the two philosophers not just in relation to each other but in the context of the whole of Western philosophy, it is clear how much Aristotle’s program is continuous with that of his teacher. (Indeed, the painting may be said to represent this continuity by showing the two men conversing amicably.) In any case, the Academy did not impose a dogmatic orthodoxy and in fact seems to have fostered a spirit of independent inquiry. Only at a later time did the Academy take on a skeptical orientation.
Plato once delivered a public lecture, On the Good, in which he mystified his audience by announcing, “the Good is one.” He better gauged his readers in his dialogues, many of which are accessible, entertaining, and inviting. Although Plato is well known for his negative remarks about much great literature, in the Symposium he depicts literature and philosophy as the offspring of lovers, who gain a more lasting posterity than do parents of mortal children. His own literary and philosophical gifts ensure that a part of Plato will live on for as long as readers engage with his works.
Plato seems to have been more an icon and an inspiration than an authentic source for Islamic philosophers. So far as is known, the only works available to them in Arabic translation were the Laws, the Sophist, the Timaeus and the Republic. His name was often invoked as a sage and an exemplar of that wisdom available to humankind among the Greeks before the revelation of the Qur'an. This in itself could represent a kind of affront to orthodox Islam, which tended to view the human situation before the Qur'an's 'coming down' as one of pervasive ignorance (jahaliyya). However, the rise of humanist culture in Baghdad during the ninth and tenth centuries ad, which involved Syriac Christian translators, presupposed a gradual acceptance of Greek wisdom in which Plato figured paradigmatically, even though far fewer of his works were made available in translation than those of Aristotle.
Plato's influence on Islamic philosophy can be observed most clearly in ethics and political philosophy, given the works available to Islamic thinkers. However, his role lay more in creating an environment hospitable to philosophical reflection than in contributing to the formation of specific philosophical doctrines (where the influence of Aristotle was stronger). He was referred to as 'the sublime and divine Plato', no doubt because his writings seemed to lead one more directly than any other Greek philosopher to reflect on human actions in the light of transcendent goals. At this level of inspiration, collections of sayings attributed to Plato, notably on the adverse relation of knowledge to wealth and power, helped to set a stage on which philosophy could play a transformative role for Muslims seeking truth as they followed the 'straight path' laid out in the Qur'an. At the same time 'philosophy' so practiced could present itself as an encompassing way of life, so competing with observant Islam. Here a discussion inspired by Plato regarding the relative weight of logic and grammar is relevant, since Arabic had tended to legislate semantic conflicts by recourse to grammar, while Greek philosophical texts (themselves originating in another language) extolled logic as a norm for rational discourse, transcending the peculiarities of a single tongue and the grammar proper to it. This potential conflict came to the fore in considering the qualities required for a just ruler of a Muslim polity, specifically regarding the relative merits of 'prophecy' (the generic Islamic term for the deliverances of revelation) and philosophical reason.
The locus classicus for such considerations is Plato's Republic, which offered an ideal paradigm for a just ruler that was adopted in lieu of Aristotle's more legislative treatment in the Politics - the only text of Aristotle's not translated into Arabic. Al-Farabi's treatise on the 'perfect state' (al-Madina al-fadila (The Virtuous City)) presents a Neoplatonic version of Plato's Republic, one in which 'the Good' is transmuted into 'the First' in such manner that the ordering proper to cosmos and the microcosmic ideal polity emanates from the ever-fruitful One. Al-Farabi states unequivocally that philosophical reason outstrips prophecy as a requisite for the wise and just ruler, but the pattern established in his treatise was able to be adapted by those who weighed their relative merits otherwise. What was severely contested, however, was the relevance of Plato's ideal scenario (or its adaptation by al-Farabi) to the actual ruling of an Islamic polity. Rulers themselves took issue with it, speaking from experience, as did intellectuals (such as al-'Amiri) who assimilated Plato's lofty philosophical ideals to Sufi ascetic practices. For such as these, Plato's dictum that philosophers are prevented from attaining wisdom by the mores of the city in which they live spoke more directly to their experience.
Plato's teaching on the human soul as 'an incorporeal substance that moves the body' seemed to offer a philosophical teaching conducive to Islam, even though Ibn Sina's way of adopting this teaching would put 'philosophy' in conflict with Qur'anic faith in resurrection of the body. Ethical thinkers like Ibn Miskawayh adopted Plato's tripartite division of the soul, however, in elaborating an ethical teaching relating Islam to a wider humanist culture, relying on extant sayings which quoted Plato: "whoever rules his reason is called wise; whoever rules his anger is called courageous; and whoever rules his passion is called temperate." The influence of sayings of this sort would permit a wise ruler like Ibn al-'Amid to say that he considered himself a "member of the following [shi'a] of Plato, Socrates and Aristotle". In this manner, Plato contributed an anthropology to Islamic thought which could be used to elaborate the 'straight path' of the Qur'an as well as bring it into contact with a wider humanist civilization.
Aflatun see Plato
Plotinus
Plotinus (al-Shaykh al-Yunami) (b. 205, Lyco - d. 270, Campania). Father of Neoplatonism, who deeply influenced the thought of the Islamic world, and who was known to the Arabs as “the Greek Shaykh.”
The only important source for the life of Plotinus is the biography that his disciple and editor Porphyry wrote as a preface to his edition of the writings of his master, the Enneads. Other ancient sources add almost no reliable information to what Porphyry relates. This must be mentioned because, though Porphyry’s Life of Plotinus is the best source available for the life of any ancient philosopher, it has some important deficiencies that must necessarily be reflected in any modern account of the life of Plotinus that does not use a great deal of creative imagination to fill in the gaps. The Life is the work of an honest, accurate, hero-worshipping, and serious-minded friend and admirer. Apart from a few fascinating scraps of information about the earlier parts of the life of Plotinus, Porphyry concentrates on the last six years, when he was with his master in Rome. Thus, a fairly complete picture is available only of the last six years of a man who died at the age of 65. It is the elderly Plotinus, as it is the elderly Socrates, who alone is known. Plotinus’s own writings contain no autobiographical information, and they can give no unintentional glimpses of his mind or character when he was young; they were all written in the last 15 years of his life. Nothing is known about his intellectual and spiritual development.
According to Porphyry, Plotinus never spoke about his parents, his race, or his country. Eunapius, a late 4th-century writer, and later authors wrote that his birthplace was Lyco, or Lycopolis, in Egypt, either the modern Asyūt in Upper Egypt or a small town in the Nile delta. Though this may be true, there is no real evidence in the Life or in his own writings to suggest that Plotinus had any special knowledge of or affinity with Egypt. The fact that he later studied philosophy in the great cosmopolitan city of Alexandria is not necessarily evidence that he was an Egyptian. His name is Latin in form, but, in the 3rd century of the Christian calendar, this gives no clue to his ethnic origins. All that can be said with reasonable certainty is that Greek was his normal language and that he had a Greek education. For all his originality, he remains Hellenic in his way of thinking and in his intellectual and religious loyalties.
In his 28th year—he seems to have been rather a late developer—Plotinus felt an impulse to study philosophy and thus went to Alexandria. He attended the lectures of the most eminent professors in Alexandria at the time, which reduced him to a state of complete depression. In the end, a friend who understood what he wanted took him to hear the self-taught philosopher Ammonius “Saccas.” When he had heard Ammonius speak, Plotinus said, “This is the man I was looking for,” and stayed with him for 11 years.
Ammonius is the most mysterious figure in ancient Western philosophy. He was, it seems, a lapsed Christian (yet even this is not quite certain), and the one or two extant remarks about his thought suggest a fairly commonplace sort of traditional Platonism. A philosopher who could attract such devotion from Plotinus and who may also have been the philosophical master of the great Christian theologian Origen must have had something more to offer his pupils, but what it was is not known. That Plotinus stayed with him for 11 years is in no way surprising. One did not enter an ancient philosophical school to take courses and obtain a degree but rather to join in what might well be a lifelong cooperative following of the way to truth, goodness, and the ultimate liberation of the spirit.
At the end of his time with Ammonius, Plotinus joined the expedition of the Roman emperor Gordian III against Persia (242–243), with the intention of trying to learn something at first hand about the philosophies of the Persians and Indians. The expedition came to a disastrous end in Mesopotamia, however, when Gordian was murdered by the soldiers and Philip the Arabian was proclaimed emperor. Plotinus escaped with difficulty and made his way back to Antioch. From there he went to Rome, where he settled at the age of 40. That a Greek philosopher, especially at this period, should be interested in Eastern thought is not extraordinary. Plotinus’s own thought shows some striking similarities to Indian philosophy, but he never actually made contact with Eastern sages because of the failure of the expedition. Though direct or indirect contact with Indians educated in their own religious-philosophical traditions may not have been impossible in 3rd-century Alexandria, the resemblances of the philosophy of Plotinus to Indian thought were more likely a natural development of the Greek tradition that he inherited. That Plotinus was able to join the expedition of the senatorial emperor Gordian, that he went to Rome (an unusual place for a philosopher to settle), and that Porphyry found him, 19 years later, at the center of a circle of friends and disciples—many of whom were members of the senatorial aristocracy—has been interpreted (probably erroneously) as meaning that he or his family had strong personal connections with Roman senators.
Whatever may have been the circumstances of Plotinus when he first came to Rome, by the time Porphyry made his acquaintance in 263 he was living in dignified and comfortable conditions, though maintaining a considerable degree of personal austerity. His reputation in society was excellent and earned by practical activity as well as by teaching. He acted as an arbitrator in disputes without ever being known to make an enemy, and many of his aristocratic friends, when they were approaching death, appointed him guardian of their children. “His house,” Porphyry says, “was full of young lads and maidens,” and he most conscientiously fulfilled his obligations under Roman law as their guardian, taking care of their education and their property. Like other great contemplatives, he had plenty of time for other people and could attend to their worries (sometimes quite trivial) without losing his inward concentration. He heard a boy’s lessons, found who had stolen a lady friend’s necklace, or noticed that Porphyry was in a state of depression and contemplating suicide and so sent him away for a change of scenery and companionship. “Present at once to himself and others” and “gentle and at the disposal of all who had any sort of acquaintance with him” are ways in which Porphyry described him. He was, it seems, a man who gave the impression of being in touch with the eternal without losing awareness of the earthly needs of his many friends.
His circle of friends was cosmopolitan, including men from the eastern half of the empire as well as Roman senators, their wives, and widows. Among those who venerated Plotinus, according to Porphyry, were the emperor Gallienus (r. 253–268) and his wife, Salonina, and this led Plotinus on one occasion to attempt practical activity on a larger scale. He asked the emperor to restore a ruined city in Campania and endow it with the surrounding land. The restored city was to be called Platonopolis, and its citizens were to live according to the laws and customs of Plato’s ideal states. Plotinus promised that he would go and live there himself with his friends. That a philosopher who shows in his writings such a total lack of interest in the political side of Plato’s thought and who preached withdrawal from public life should have made such a proposal is interesting. He may well have thought it his duty as a Platonic philosopher to attempt the foundation of a Platonic city, if opportunity offered—however personally disinclined he might have been to such activity. The emperor refused his request, and, in the political circumstances of the time, there was no chance of its being granted. Gallienus and the Senate were not on good terms. He had excluded members of the senatorial order from all military commands, and they took their revenge by successfully blackening his memory after his death. However much he might have respected Plotinus personally, the emperor would inevitably have regarded Platonopolis as a most undesirable senatorial stronghold and a center of intrigue against his authority.
The main activity of Plotinus, to which he devoted most of his time and energy, was his teaching and, after his first 10 years in Rome, his writing. There was nothing academic or highly organized about his “school,” though his method of teaching was rather scholastic. He would have passages read from commentaries on Plato or Aristotle by earlier philosophers and then expound his own views. The meetings, however, were friendly and informal, and Plotinus encouraged unlimited discussion. Difficulties, once raised, had to be discussed until they were solved. The school was a loose circle of friends and admirers with no corporate organization. It was for these friends that he wrote the treatises that Porphyry collected and arranged as the Enneads. Some, it seems from their complexity, were destined for an inner circle of his closest friends and philosophical collaborators, such as Porphyry, Amelius Gentilianus from Tuscany (the senior member of the school), and Eustochius, who was Plotinus’s physician and who may have produced another edition of his works, now lost.
Some stories in the Life, and some passages in the Enneads, give an idea of Plotinus’s attitude to the religions and superstitions of his intensely religious and superstitious age, an attitude that seems to have been unusually detached. Like all people of his time, he believed in magic and in the possibility of foretelling the future by the stars, though he attacked the more bizarre and immoral beliefs of the astrologers. His interest in the occult was philosophical rather than practical, and there is no definite evidence that he practiced magic. A person called Olympius was reported to have once tried to use magic against Plotinus, but he supposedly found that the malignant forces he had evoked were bouncing back from Plotinus to himself. Plotinus was once taken to the Temple of Isis for a conjuration of his guardian spirit; a god, Porphyry stated, appeared instead of an ordinary guardian angel but could not be questioned because of a mishandling of the conjuring process which broke the spell. What Plotinus himself thought of the proceedings is not known, but apparently he was not deeply interested.
His attitude toward the traditional pagan cults was one of respectful indifference. Amelius, his closest friend and coworker in philosophy, was a pious man, addicted to attendance at sacrifices. Plotinus refused to join him in his devotions but seems to have thought none the worse of him. Despite his rather aggressive piety, Amelius remained Plotinus’s friend and collaborator. Some members of Plotinus’s circle of friends were gnostics (heretical Christian dualists who emphasized esoteric salvatory knowledge), and they provoked him not only to write a vigorous attack on their beliefs but to organize a polemical campaign against them through the activities of Porphyry and Amelius. Plotinus’s reasons for detesting gnosticism also would have applied, to some extent, to orthodox Christianity—though there is no evidence that he knew anything about it or that he had any contact with the church in Rome. Gnosticism appeared to him to be a barbarous, melodramatic, irrational, immoral, un-Greek, and insanely arrogant superstition. Plotinus’s own religion, which he practiced and taught with calm intensity, was the quest for mystical union with the Good through the exercise of pure intelligence.
In his last years Plotinus, whose health had never been very good, suffered from a painful and repulsive sickness that Porphyry describes so imprecisely that one modern scholar has identified it as tuberculosis and another as a form of leprosy. This made his friends, as he noticed, avoid his company, and he retired to a country estate belonging to one of them in Campania and within a year died there (270). The circle of friends had already broken up. Plotinus himself had sent Porphyry away to Sicily to recover from his depression. Amelius was in Syria. Only his physician, Eustochius, arrived in time to be with Plotinus at the end. His last words were either “Try to bring back the god in you to the divine in the All” or “I am trying to bring back the divine in us to the divine in the All.” In either case, they express very simply the faith that he shared with all religious philosophers of late antiquity.
Neo-Platonism and the ideas of Plotinus influenced medieval Islam. The Sunni Abbasids fused Greek concepts into sponsored state texts, and Neo-Platonism found great influence amongst the Ismaili Shia and Persian philosophers as well, such as Muhammad al-Nasafi and Abu Yaqub Sijistani. By the 11th century, Neo-Platonism was adopted by the Fatimid state of Egypt, and taught by their da'i. Neo-Platonism was brought to the Fatimid court by Iraqi Hamid al-Din al-Kirmani, although his teachings differed from Nasafi and Sijistani, who were more aligned with the original teachings of Plotinus. The teachings of Kirmani in turn influenced philosophers such as Nasir Khusraw of Persia.
Shaykh al-Yunami, al- see Plotinus
The Greek Shaykh see Plotinus
Yunami, al-Shaykh al- see Plotinus
Plotinus (al-Shaykh al-Yunami) (b. 205, Lyco - d. 270, Campania). Father of Neoplatonism, who deeply influenced the thought of the Islamic world, and who was known to the Arabs as “the Greek Shaykh.”
The only important source for the life of Plotinus is the biography that his disciple and editor Porphyry wrote as a preface to his edition of the writings of his master, the Enneads. Other ancient sources add almost no reliable information to what Porphyry relates. This must be mentioned because, though Porphyry’s Life of Plotinus is the best source available for the life of any ancient philosopher, it has some important deficiencies that must necessarily be reflected in any modern account of the life of Plotinus that does not use a great deal of creative imagination to fill in the gaps. The Life is the work of an honest, accurate, hero-worshipping, and serious-minded friend and admirer. Apart from a few fascinating scraps of information about the earlier parts of the life of Plotinus, Porphyry concentrates on the last six years, when he was with his master in Rome. Thus, a fairly complete picture is available only of the last six years of a man who died at the age of 65. It is the elderly Plotinus, as it is the elderly Socrates, who alone is known. Plotinus’s own writings contain no autobiographical information, and they can give no unintentional glimpses of his mind or character when he was young; they were all written in the last 15 years of his life. Nothing is known about his intellectual and spiritual development.
According to Porphyry, Plotinus never spoke about his parents, his race, or his country. Eunapius, a late 4th-century writer, and later authors wrote that his birthplace was Lyco, or Lycopolis, in Egypt, either the modern Asyūt in Upper Egypt or a small town in the Nile delta. Though this may be true, there is no real evidence in the Life or in his own writings to suggest that Plotinus had any special knowledge of or affinity with Egypt. The fact that he later studied philosophy in the great cosmopolitan city of Alexandria is not necessarily evidence that he was an Egyptian. His name is Latin in form, but, in the 3rd century of the Christian calendar, this gives no clue to his ethnic origins. All that can be said with reasonable certainty is that Greek was his normal language and that he had a Greek education. For all his originality, he remains Hellenic in his way of thinking and in his intellectual and religious loyalties.
In his 28th year—he seems to have been rather a late developer—Plotinus felt an impulse to study philosophy and thus went to Alexandria. He attended the lectures of the most eminent professors in Alexandria at the time, which reduced him to a state of complete depression. In the end, a friend who understood what he wanted took him to hear the self-taught philosopher Ammonius “Saccas.” When he had heard Ammonius speak, Plotinus said, “This is the man I was looking for,” and stayed with him for 11 years.
Ammonius is the most mysterious figure in ancient Western philosophy. He was, it seems, a lapsed Christian (yet even this is not quite certain), and the one or two extant remarks about his thought suggest a fairly commonplace sort of traditional Platonism. A philosopher who could attract such devotion from Plotinus and who may also have been the philosophical master of the great Christian theologian Origen must have had something more to offer his pupils, but what it was is not known. That Plotinus stayed with him for 11 years is in no way surprising. One did not enter an ancient philosophical school to take courses and obtain a degree but rather to join in what might well be a lifelong cooperative following of the way to truth, goodness, and the ultimate liberation of the spirit.
At the end of his time with Ammonius, Plotinus joined the expedition of the Roman emperor Gordian III against Persia (242–243), with the intention of trying to learn something at first hand about the philosophies of the Persians and Indians. The expedition came to a disastrous end in Mesopotamia, however, when Gordian was murdered by the soldiers and Philip the Arabian was proclaimed emperor. Plotinus escaped with difficulty and made his way back to Antioch. From there he went to Rome, where he settled at the age of 40. That a Greek philosopher, especially at this period, should be interested in Eastern thought is not extraordinary. Plotinus’s own thought shows some striking similarities to Indian philosophy, but he never actually made contact with Eastern sages because of the failure of the expedition. Though direct or indirect contact with Indians educated in their own religious-philosophical traditions may not have been impossible in 3rd-century Alexandria, the resemblances of the philosophy of Plotinus to Indian thought were more likely a natural development of the Greek tradition that he inherited. That Plotinus was able to join the expedition of the senatorial emperor Gordian, that he went to Rome (an unusual place for a philosopher to settle), and that Porphyry found him, 19 years later, at the center of a circle of friends and disciples—many of whom were members of the senatorial aristocracy—has been interpreted (probably erroneously) as meaning that he or his family had strong personal connections with Roman senators.
Whatever may have been the circumstances of Plotinus when he first came to Rome, by the time Porphyry made his acquaintance in 263 he was living in dignified and comfortable conditions, though maintaining a considerable degree of personal austerity. His reputation in society was excellent and earned by practical activity as well as by teaching. He acted as an arbitrator in disputes without ever being known to make an enemy, and many of his aristocratic friends, when they were approaching death, appointed him guardian of their children. “His house,” Porphyry says, “was full of young lads and maidens,” and he most conscientiously fulfilled his obligations under Roman law as their guardian, taking care of their education and their property. Like other great contemplatives, he had plenty of time for other people and could attend to their worries (sometimes quite trivial) without losing his inward concentration. He heard a boy’s lessons, found who had stolen a lady friend’s necklace, or noticed that Porphyry was in a state of depression and contemplating suicide and so sent him away for a change of scenery and companionship. “Present at once to himself and others” and “gentle and at the disposal of all who had any sort of acquaintance with him” are ways in which Porphyry described him. He was, it seems, a man who gave the impression of being in touch with the eternal without losing awareness of the earthly needs of his many friends.
His circle of friends was cosmopolitan, including men from the eastern half of the empire as well as Roman senators, their wives, and widows. Among those who venerated Plotinus, according to Porphyry, were the emperor Gallienus (r. 253–268) and his wife, Salonina, and this led Plotinus on one occasion to attempt practical activity on a larger scale. He asked the emperor to restore a ruined city in Campania and endow it with the surrounding land. The restored city was to be called Platonopolis, and its citizens were to live according to the laws and customs of Plato’s ideal states. Plotinus promised that he would go and live there himself with his friends. That a philosopher who shows in his writings such a total lack of interest in the political side of Plato’s thought and who preached withdrawal from public life should have made such a proposal is interesting. He may well have thought it his duty as a Platonic philosopher to attempt the foundation of a Platonic city, if opportunity offered—however personally disinclined he might have been to such activity. The emperor refused his request, and, in the political circumstances of the time, there was no chance of its being granted. Gallienus and the Senate were not on good terms. He had excluded members of the senatorial order from all military commands, and they took their revenge by successfully blackening his memory after his death. However much he might have respected Plotinus personally, the emperor would inevitably have regarded Platonopolis as a most undesirable senatorial stronghold and a center of intrigue against his authority.
The main activity of Plotinus, to which he devoted most of his time and energy, was his teaching and, after his first 10 years in Rome, his writing. There was nothing academic or highly organized about his “school,” though his method of teaching was rather scholastic. He would have passages read from commentaries on Plato or Aristotle by earlier philosophers and then expound his own views. The meetings, however, were friendly and informal, and Plotinus encouraged unlimited discussion. Difficulties, once raised, had to be discussed until they were solved. The school was a loose circle of friends and admirers with no corporate organization. It was for these friends that he wrote the treatises that Porphyry collected and arranged as the Enneads. Some, it seems from their complexity, were destined for an inner circle of his closest friends and philosophical collaborators, such as Porphyry, Amelius Gentilianus from Tuscany (the senior member of the school), and Eustochius, who was Plotinus’s physician and who may have produced another edition of his works, now lost.
Some stories in the Life, and some passages in the Enneads, give an idea of Plotinus’s attitude to the religions and superstitions of his intensely religious and superstitious age, an attitude that seems to have been unusually detached. Like all people of his time, he believed in magic and in the possibility of foretelling the future by the stars, though he attacked the more bizarre and immoral beliefs of the astrologers. His interest in the occult was philosophical rather than practical, and there is no definite evidence that he practiced magic. A person called Olympius was reported to have once tried to use magic against Plotinus, but he supposedly found that the malignant forces he had evoked were bouncing back from Plotinus to himself. Plotinus was once taken to the Temple of Isis for a conjuration of his guardian spirit; a god, Porphyry stated, appeared instead of an ordinary guardian angel but could not be questioned because of a mishandling of the conjuring process which broke the spell. What Plotinus himself thought of the proceedings is not known, but apparently he was not deeply interested.
His attitude toward the traditional pagan cults was one of respectful indifference. Amelius, his closest friend and coworker in philosophy, was a pious man, addicted to attendance at sacrifices. Plotinus refused to join him in his devotions but seems to have thought none the worse of him. Despite his rather aggressive piety, Amelius remained Plotinus’s friend and collaborator. Some members of Plotinus’s circle of friends were gnostics (heretical Christian dualists who emphasized esoteric salvatory knowledge), and they provoked him not only to write a vigorous attack on their beliefs but to organize a polemical campaign against them through the activities of Porphyry and Amelius. Plotinus’s reasons for detesting gnosticism also would have applied, to some extent, to orthodox Christianity—though there is no evidence that he knew anything about it or that he had any contact with the church in Rome. Gnosticism appeared to him to be a barbarous, melodramatic, irrational, immoral, un-Greek, and insanely arrogant superstition. Plotinus’s own religion, which he practiced and taught with calm intensity, was the quest for mystical union with the Good through the exercise of pure intelligence.
In his last years Plotinus, whose health had never been very good, suffered from a painful and repulsive sickness that Porphyry describes so imprecisely that one modern scholar has identified it as tuberculosis and another as a form of leprosy. This made his friends, as he noticed, avoid his company, and he retired to a country estate belonging to one of them in Campania and within a year died there (270). The circle of friends had already broken up. Plotinus himself had sent Porphyry away to Sicily to recover from his depression. Amelius was in Syria. Only his physician, Eustochius, arrived in time to be with Plotinus at the end. His last words were either “Try to bring back the god in you to the divine in the All” or “I am trying to bring back the divine in us to the divine in the All.” In either case, they express very simply the faith that he shared with all religious philosophers of late antiquity.
Neo-Platonism and the ideas of Plotinus influenced medieval Islam. The Sunni Abbasids fused Greek concepts into sponsored state texts, and Neo-Platonism found great influence amongst the Ismaili Shia and Persian philosophers as well, such as Muhammad al-Nasafi and Abu Yaqub Sijistani. By the 11th century, Neo-Platonism was adopted by the Fatimid state of Egypt, and taught by their da'i. Neo-Platonism was brought to the Fatimid court by Iraqi Hamid al-Din al-Kirmani, although his teachings differed from Nasafi and Sijistani, who were more aligned with the original teachings of Plotinus. The teachings of Kirmani in turn influenced philosophers such as Nasir Khusraw of Persia.
Shaykh al-Yunami, al- see Plotinus
The Greek Shaykh see Plotinus
Yunami, al-Shaykh al- see Plotinus
No comments:
Post a Comment