The levels of being in Plotinus and Ibn Arabi

Neoplatonism is regarded as the last great system of Ancient Greek philosophy, and its founder, Plotinus, profoundly influenced not only his own era but also the intellectual landscape of later centuries. With this approach, philosophy shifted its focus from individual virtues to metaphysical topics such as being, God, and the soul. Plotinus's philosophy is shaped not only by reason but also by intuition and mystical experience. His original model of emanation, which proceeds from the One through Intellect (Nous), Soul, and finally to Matter, offers an explanation of how the universe derives from a single source. Ibn Arabi, on the other hand, is one of the most prominent figures in Islamic thought, notable for both his mystical and philosophical contributions. He also considers the universe to consist of a layered ontological order; however, in his view, true being belongs solely to God. The visible world is nothing but the manifestations (tajalli) of Him at different levels. Although there are some similarities between Ibn Arabi's thought and that of Plotinus in this respect, Ibn Arabi's emphasis on the Divine Will and the conscious act of creation marks a significant distinction. The purpose of this study is to comparatively examine the conceptions of the degrees of existence in the philosophies of Plotinus and Ibn Arabi. Both thinkers explain being through a hierarchical structure beginning with a transcendent source. However, there are key differences in how these levels function and what ontological significance they bear. The thesis addresses each thinker's metaphysical system separately and then analyzes the similarities and differences at each level. Special attention is given to the parallels between concepts such as the One and La-taayyün (non-delimited Being), or Nous (Intellect) and A'yān al-thābita (immutable archetypes), in order to determine whether the resemblance between their ideas is merely superficial or structurally substantial. The importance of this comparison lies in its ability to reveal how these two distinct thinkers construct an ontology based on their understanding of being. The study aims to provide a meaningful contribution by examining how these major metaphysical systems respond to similar questions and where they converge or diverge in their use of key concepts.