There has been some controversy about whether or not in the 'Enneads' sensible matter is generated by a higher principle. If not, is sensible matter eternally self-subsisting? If so, what precisely is the manner of its generation? H.-R. Schwyzer argued that sensible matter is not generated because generation implies corruption. Kevin Corrigan, on the contrary, argued not only that sensible matter is generated but also that there are multiple generations of such matter. In this paper, the authors…
Read moreThere has been some controversy about whether or not in the 'Enneads' sensible matter is generated by a higher principle. If not, is sensible matter eternally self-subsisting? If so, what precisely is the manner of its generation? H.-R. Schwyzer argued that sensible matter is not generated because generation implies corruption. Kevin Corrigan, on the contrary, argued not only that sensible matter is generated but also that there are multiple generations of such matter. In this paper, the authors re-examine some key texts and conclude that a careful reading of the 'Enneads' indicates that neither Schwyzer's nor Corrigan's account is plausible. Rather, in the 'Enneads' both intelligible matter and sensible matter are generated by higher principles in the sense that both eternally depend on these higher principles for their existence but not insofar as they have a beginning in time. Moreover, there is exactly one generation of sensible matter rather than multiple generations.