BMCR 2009.02.37, Response: Ousager on Stamatellos on Remes

Ousager on Stamatellos on Pauliina Remes, Plotinus on Self: The
Philosophy of the 'We'.   Response to BMCR 2009.01.06


Response by Asger Ousager ([email protected])
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this response, see
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2009/2009-02-37.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/02/20090237.html
-------------------------------

I regret to report that Stamatellos, the reviewer of Remes' 287-page
book Plotinus on Self: The Philosophy of the 'We', conceals the fact
that the approach of her book is fundamentally outdated from the start.
Remes and her reviewer totally neglect a highly essential -- and
evident -- element of Plotinian selfhood. They hereby disregard "Stand
der Forschung", as this element was previously referred in, e.g.,
O'Daly's pioneering 121-page book "Plotinus' philosophy of the self"
(1973) and has been the subject for exhaustive investigation in my book
of 397 pages, "Plotinus on Selfhood, Freedom and Politics" (Aarhus
University Press, 2004).

Her book states that according to Plotinus, there are two selfhoods,
the corporeal and the rational. According to my book, on the other
hand, these two selfhoods are demonstrably not essential to Plotinus.
On the contrary, to Plotinus, the supra-rational Self of the One is
paramount to any other selfhood. In the human soul, aspiring to
absolute unification, this essential third element most fortunately
happens to be represented -- and not just the rational and corporeal
selves. In my book, I present that utterly significant point of
Plotinian selfhood in context with its far-reaching consequences for
both inner and outer freedom. In his review in Ancient Philosophy
(2006), for instance, Dr. Barrie Fleet from the University of Cambridge
certainly recognises this prominent feature of my "ambitious" book.

Whereas Remes sporadically refers to the book by her examiner O'Daly
and uncritically refers to the survey book by her supervisor Sorabji,
Self (2006), she does not mention my book at all, although she knows
both my points of view and me perfectly well as a fellow research
student from King's College London (1998-2001). I cannot help finding
this un-academic silencing by both Remes and the reviewer of BMCR both
peculiar and appalling. Reading only their texts, anyone genuinely
interested in Plotinian selfhood will remain just as basically
misguided as they are.