If the Plotinian and later Neoplatonic ontologies can be categorised as power-structuralist ontologies, what is distinctive of Neoplatonic power structuralism compared, on one hand, to other ancient power structuralist ontologies and, on the other, to contemporary accounts of power metaphysics? Further, what is distinctive of the power structuralism of specific Neoplatonic philosophers/ How is power structuralism elaborated in their writings? How do they explain the role of powers in the material objects’ coming into being? What do their accounts share in common? What is that differentiates their approaches?

The project endeavours to investigate these and other relevant questions, focusing on the four major figures of Neoplatonism, Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Proclus, but also on lesser Neoplatonists and on Christian thinkers influenced by Neoplatonism, such as the Cappadocian Fathers, Gregory of Nyssa, Synesius of Cyrene etc.

Further Reading:

Brisson, Luc and Dillon, John. M., eds. 2005. Sentences. Porphyre; études d'introduction, texte grec et traduction française, commentaire par l'Unité propre de recherche no. 76 du Centre national de la recherche scientifique; travaux édités sous la responsabilité de Luc Brisson; avec une traduction anglaise de John Dillon. Paris: Vrin.
Chiaradonna, Riccardo. 1996. “L’interpretazione della sostanza in Porfirio.” Elenchos 17:55–94.
Dillon, John. 1997. The Great Tradition: Further Studies in the Development of Platonism and Early Christianity. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate.
Edwards, Mark. 1990. “Porphyry and the intelligible triad.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 110:14–25.
Emilsson, Eyjólfur. 2011. Porphyry. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Edited by Edward N. Zalta. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.
Evangeliou, Christos. 1988. Aristotle’s Categories and Porphyry. Leiden: Brill.
Gerson, Lloyd P., ed. 1999. The Cambridge Companion to Plotinus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
----- ed. 2010. The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hadot, Pierre. 1968. Porphyre et Victorinus. 2 vols. Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes.
Johnson, Aaron P. 2013. Religion and Identity in Porphyry of Tyre. The Limits of Hellenism in Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kalligas, Paul. 2014. The Enneads of Plotinus: A commentary. Vol. 1. Translated by Elisabeth Key Fowden and Nicolas Pivalachi. Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Karamanolis, George E. 2006. Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Karamanolis, George E. and Sheppard, Anne, eds. 2007. Studies on Porphyry. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Supplement 98. London: Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, Univ. of London.
Lloyd, A. C. 1990. The anatomy of Neoplatonism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rutten, Christian. 1956. “La doctrine des deux actes dans la philosophie de Plotin.” RPhilos 146: 100 – 106.
Smith, Andrew. 1974. Porphyry’s Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition. Martinus Nijhoff: The Hague, Netherlands.
----- 2011. Plotinus, Porphyry and Iamblichus. Philosophy and Religion in Neoplatonism. Farhnam: Ashgate Variorum.
Tanaseanu-Döbler, Ilinca. 2013. Theurgy in Late Antiquity. The Invention of a Ritual Tradition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Wallis, R. T. 1995. Neoplatonism (with a Foreword and Bibliography by L.P. Gerson). London: Bristol Classical Press. 2nd ed.
Zambon, Marco. 2002. Porphyre et le moyen-platonisme. Paris: Vrin.