Porphyry was one of the notable Neo-Platonists. Indeed, he was the immediate successor to Plotinus. I have now read most of the philosophically important works that still survive of his. I don't think Porphyry was all that original. He seems to have stuck pretty close to what was taught by Plotinus. I would hate to sum him up as a second rate Plotinus, but he lacks a lot of the profundity and originality of his teacher. There are some exceptions (I follow this up below), but not many. One must acknowledge that Plotinus was at least somewhat dependent on Numenius--if we take seriously some of his detractors, and compare what survives of Numenius. I think it could hardly be denied to Plotinus his overall originality though.

Porphyry's treatise on abstinence from meat is what heads up this collection. It's an interesting work. Porphyry does have a tendency to go off on tangents--sometimes irrelevant and occasionally semi-relevant; some of the irrelevant tangents are interesting though and give us further insight into his philosophy; so it is probably good that he didn't stay entirely on topic. I've been a pescetarian for almost 20 years; 2 of those a complete vegetarian, so I don't take issue with the subject and agree with it to a large degree. It is a bit puzzling that a philosopher who was concerned enough about the treatment of animals, wrote a treatise to alleviate their suffering, while also composing a treatise that contributed to the suffering of a human community that was violently opposed at the time. Like I said in my review to his Letter to Marcella, Porphyry was a bit of a hypocrite.

The second treatise is devoted to the philosophic/allegorical interpretation of a passage in Homer regarding the cave of the Nymphs. This is an interesting work to a degree as well. It contains some intriguing anecdotes regarding mythical and zodiacal lore and arcana. One can note some traces of the preceding in alchemical tradition. I could detect some corresponding elements in Boehme. Thomas Taylor adds an appendix where he gives his own interpretation of Homer.

With "Auxiliaries to The Perception of Intelligible Natures" (also referred to as the "Sentences" or "Sententiae"), the last work (which I read first), Porphyry indicates his merits as a philosopher in his own right to some degree. He hasn't solved the problems that face the Neo-Platonists in their approach to evil, but he does provide a more nuanced position in regards to it.

He basically makes the problem of evil a problem of composition and not a problem with matter qua matter. Porphyry places soul (psuche) in between the intelligible realm and the realm of matter. Soul can either rise to the intellectual realm, or sink into the realm of matter. Soul, in this scheme, is composite. It combines tendencies of upward and downward drives. This seems to be in contrast to Plato's view in the Timaeus, where there is an evil soul and a good soul. Plotinus, as far as I could tell in the Enneads, does not attribute to soul any negative duplicity. Porphyry, apparently, wants to hold on to Plotinus' views regarding the purity of the cosmic soul, so he places this duplicity in the individual soul. The preceding relates in some way to the degradation that exists between the sub-lunar and supra-lunar cosmos.

Porphyry retains the view that the intelligible realm is One, static and free from evil; and that matter is transient, dyadic and the source of evil in some manner. Matter essentially has no being (Greek: to on), so how soul can be a composite between non-being and being is not explained. One is left to assume that there is a distinction between non-being and non-existence in Neo-Platonist thought, but this is not addressed in the early sources directly. Porphyry attributes to passion the drive that sends the soul sinking into the material realm. The problem is that now evil no longer is found in matter but desire becomes the culprit, more or less. Desire can only exist in an entity that possesses mind and will, so instead of freeing the intelligible realm from any implication of evil, he really does the opposite. Soul is a composite of minds driven by disparate motivations. Soul is driven by a desire for the pseudo-being of matter, while also retaining some memory and desire for the intelligible realm.

Porphyry is worth reading if one is interested in Platonism and Neo-Platonism. I don't think he was all that original and where he was original, I'm not sure his Neo-Platonic views are valid; but he is one of the important links leading up to Proclus. ( )