{"id":26,"date":"2026-05-18T10:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-05-18T10:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/?p=26"},"modified":"2026-05-14T07:55:43","modified_gmt":"2026-05-14T07:55:43","slug":"all-soul-is-aphrodite-plotinian-psychology-as-thealogy-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/2026\/05\/18\/all-soul-is-aphrodite-plotinian-psychology-as-thealogy-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"‘All Soul is Aphrodite’: Plotinian Psychology as ‘Thealogy’, Part 2"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

This post is the second part in discussion of Plotinus\u2019 conception of the Soul as inseparable from his thealogy <\/em>(from Greek, thea<\/em>: “Goddess”) of Aphrodite. The first post surveyed scholarly attempts to track this psychology as thealogy<\/em>. This post will present an account of the omnipresence of Aphrodite in his system, from the Intelligible world to individual material bodies. Here, I am omitting an argument for a form of Aphrodite at the level of the first hypostasis, not because she is not present there, but because such an extended argument will be a component of a forthcoming conference paper to be presented at the 2026 Annual Conference of the Society for Asian and Comparative Philosophy.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The primary exploration of this thealogy is to be found in the exegetical treatise III.5 [50]. However, it should be noted that the basic premises of III.5 \u2013 Eros being joined to Soul, Aphrodite as Soul, the myths of Eros\u2019 origin being of theological significance for Plotinus \u2013 can already be observed in a much earlier treatise, 6.9 [9] 9.24-32. \u201cThe leading principle of Plotinus\u2019 exegesis [in III.5] is that \u2018all soul is Aphrodite\u2019 (\u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74 \u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03b7; VI.9.9.31)\u201d (Bertozzi 2021, 159).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When Plotinus begins his inquiry into Aphrodite (III.5.2.12), he immediately returns the speech of Pausanias (Symposium <\/em>180d-e). This allows him to deploy the hermeneutic distinction between the \u2018heavenly\u2019 (Ourania<\/em>) and \u2018pandemotic\u2019 (Pandemos<\/em>) forms of Aphrodite already established in the Platonic corpus. In doing so, he following an established path, seeking to harmonize differing theological accounts (cf. Theogony <\/em>188 for Aphrodite as daughter of Ouranos; Iliad <\/em>5:370; Odyssey <\/em>8:267 for Aphrodite as daughter of Zeus and Dione). Following this path, however, we shall see that Plotinus innovates in multiple ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is important to recognize that Plotinus speaks about Soul in three registers (IV.9.4.16-20). Firstly, an individual soul, which animates an individual body. Secondly, a soul which is present in all bodies and, therefore, has the entire cosmos as her body, which can be called the Soul of All (\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae, III.5.3.28) or the Soul of the Cosmos (cf. III.5.3.30; also translated \u2018world-soul\u2019; cf. Timaeus <\/em>34b-c). While these two registers of Soul are both associated with matter, and are therefore \u2018mixed\u2019 (III.5.3.37), the Soul properly speaking is immaterial (cf. IV.7). This Soul itself, the Soul as such, is the Soul as Hypostasis. This Soul is the (in)famous \u2018undescended\u2019 Soul, the \u201cbest part in us\u201d (\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, III.5.3.25),  which remains within the Intelligible world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s explore Plotinus\u2019 understanding that \u201cAll Soul is Aphrodite\u201d beginning from this most primary register of the Soul as hypostasis and, so to speak, work our way down to the individual Soul.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plotinus identifies, unambiguously, the hypostasis Soul with Aphrodite Ourania. He justifies this in two ways. Firstly, because her father is, in a way, Kronos. Taking the story of the birth of Aphrodite from the castration of Ouranos by Kronos in Theogony<\/em>, Plotinus sees Kronos and Ouranos as both her \u2018father.\u2019 Kalligas notes this double fatherhood of Aphrodite is more explicitly systematized in Proclus\u2019 Commentary on Plato\u2019s Cratylus<\/em> (Kalligas 2014, 513 on In Cra. <\/em>110.6-12). For Plotinus, Kronos as her father makes sense because he has previously interpreted Kronos as Nous on the basis of Plato\u2019s Cratylus <\/em>396b (cf. III.5.2.19-21). Secondly, he points out that because Aphrodite Ourania is \u201cmotherless\u201d (\u1f00\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1, III.5.2.17), she does not in any sense take part in matter, and is therefore fittingly identified with the undescended hypostasis. The implicit assumption for Plotinus, it appears, is the view widely held among ancient authors that, in conception, the mother functioned as a material cause while the father functioned as an efficient cause. While Plotinus is generally not exceptionally interested in Peripatetic biology, here he seems to assume his audience is familiar enough with this perspective that he does not need to spell out why being \u1f00\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1 means, allegorically, being immaterial. In another sense, however, Plotinus himself from an Aristotelian view which equivocates \u2018theology\u2019 with the study of the \u2018heavenly bodies\u2019, the planets and stars (cf. Festugiere 1947, 598). Concerning Aphrodite Ourania, he is careful to point out that she is not in the visible heaven, but that \u201cthat Soul is separate which primarily shines into<\/em><\/strong> heaven \u2026 however much we call the Soul \u2018heavenly\u2019 (\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff7 … \u03b5\u1f30 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, III.5.3.22-25; cf. Wolters 1972, 42-43).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plotinus moves on to identify Aphrodite Pandemos with the Soul of the Cosmos. A number of Plotinus\u2019 exegetical subtleties and innovations can be observed in this identification. Plotinus introduces her as an \u201cAphrodite, being of the cosmos, [who] is not only Soul nor simply Soul\u201d (\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bf\u1f56\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f21 \u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b1\u1f55\u03c4\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f01\u03bb\u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74 \u2026). These \u201cnot only\u201d and \u201cnot simply\u201d caveats refer to her being present to the cosmos as her body. Contrary to the \u201cmotherless\u201d Ourania, this Aphrodite is the daughter of Zeus and Dione, as recounted in, among other places, Homer and Sappho (\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6 \u0394\u03af\u03bf\u03c2; fr.1, v.2). Unlike Ourania, who is beyond marriages (cf. III.5.2.18-19), Pandemos as the Cosmic Soul has a husband, as is implied by the sense of sunous\u0113s <\/em>in III.5.8.20 (cf. Kalligas 2014, 529-530), who is, also, Zeus. In order to explain this, Plotinus makes reference to alternative theological accounts which identify Aphrodite and Hera (III.5.8.17-23; in a previous post, I have discussed the possible Orphic background to this account). Plotinus innovates in two important senses in this identification. Firstly, as Bertozzi argues convincingly, Plotinus reinterprets Aphrodite Pandemos without any negative moral judgement, contra Pausanias\u2019 speech (Bertozzi 2021, 159) and, in fact, enshrines her in a lofty position within the Platonic corpus (the world-soul of the Timaeus<\/em>). Secondly, Plotinus expands the scope of his exegetical project in III.5, by including not just citations taken from across the Platonic Dialogues, but also \u201cpriests and theologians\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plotinus continues in these innovations when he introduces a third register of Aphrodite into the binary hermeneutic of Pausanias. He writes that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u03bf\u1f34\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c7\u03c1\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f45\u03bb\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03c2, \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u1f1c\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1fe5\u03c5\u03b5\u03af\u03c2\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f45\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f11\u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt is necessary to think [there are] many Aphrodites in the whole [cosmos], being born in it alongside Eros as daimones<\/em>, flowing from the Aphrodite who is the whole [cosmos], in part many rising up from her\u2026(III.5.418-21, my translation).\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These many Aphrodites, then, refer to the myriad individual Souls which, while distinguished from the cosmic soul conceptually (cf. III.5.3.38), do not have a separate existence (cf. IV.9.5) from her. This is the force of the prepositional phrase \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9, not meaning \u2018part\u2019 in the sense of a whole being composed of parts, but in a spatial sense of a \u2018region\u2019 (cf. LSJ 499). Each individual soul being a region of the omnipresence of the Soul of the Cosmos puts a very new meaning to the name of Aphrodite Pandemos (\u2018of all demoi<\/em>\u2019; a demos<\/em> being a region or district of the city of Athens).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To conclude, this overview has demonstrated two important facts about Enneads <\/em>III.5 which many scholars have missed. First, that Plotinus\u2019 statement in VI.9.9 \u2013 \u201cAll Soul is Aphrodite\u201d \u2013 remains a definitive statement at the end of of the treatise (cf. III.5.9.29-33). Secondly, this thealogical <\/em>account of Aphrodite has demonstrated a form of Aphrodite at every level of Plotinus\u2019 metaphysical system:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. In Nous, as undescended Hypostasis Soul = Aphrodite Ourania<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. The Soul of the Cosmos, present to all matter as her body, Nature herself (cf. Bertozzi 2021, 166) = Aphrodite Pandemos<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Each Individual Soul, present to a particular body = Each of the Many, Daimonic Aphrodites<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    It remains to be demonstrated, in completing an account of Plotinus\u2019 thealogy <\/em>of Aphrodite, how she is even present at the level of the first hypostasis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    References<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Bertozzi, Alberto. (2021), Plotinus on Love: An Introduction to His Metaphysics through the Concept of Eros<\/em>. (Leiden: Brill).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Festugi\u00e8re, Andr\u00e9-Jean. (1949), \u201cPour l\u2019histore du mot \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u201d in La R\u00e9v\u00e9lation d\u2019Herm\u00e8s Trism\u00e9giste<\/em>. (Vol 2). (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Henry, Paul and Schwyzer, Hans-Rudolf (eds.) (1964), Plotini Opera<\/em>. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Vol. I<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Kalligas, Paul. (2014), The Enneads of Plotinus: A Commentary (Vol. 1)<\/em>. Fowden, Elizabeth Key and Pilavachi, Nicolas (Trs.) (Princeton: Princeton University Press).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Wolters, Albert Marten. (1972), Plotinus \u201cOn Eros\u201d: A Detailed Exegetical Study of Enneads III.5<\/em>. (Amsterdam: Filosofisch Instituut van de Vrije Universiteit).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    This post is the second part in discussion of Plotinus\u2019 conception of the Soul as inseparable from his thealogy (from Greek, thea: “Goddess”) of Aphrodite. The first post surveyed scholarly attempts to track this psychology as thealogy. This post will present an account of the omnipresence of Aphrodite in his system, from the Intelligible world…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"pagelayer_contact_templates":[],"_pagelayer_content":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[5,8,13,12,14],"class_list":["post-26","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-aphrodite","tag-myth","tag-plorinus","tag-polytheism","tag-theology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":33,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26\/revisions\/33"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}