After reading the thoughts of Plotinus, it seems to me that he has in essence followed Plato when it comes to ideas on beauty. In particular, I think about when he refers to divinity and beauty as existing outside of the physical realm and going toward some sort of ideal. He deviates from the Platonian structure of aesthetics as he states that beauty does not solely rely on the principle of balance and measure. He refers to the beauty in things that can't be measured like color, or intellect (pg. 142). With this train of thought, the beauty of imitations that Plato dismissed as unimportant take on a new significance in defining what beauty is.

Plotinus relates the beauty of all things, both material and immaterial, to the idea of a divine beauty. He feels that the beauty that is found in anything has some property of divine beauty. The soul, having seen this beauty, recognizes it and is, therefore, attracted to the essence of beauty reflected in the world (pg.144). In reference to the artist, this makes created art, if it is an extension of the artist's idea, closer to beauty than nature itself. He elaborates on this point when he considers symbols and art. Art has an important function as it can be used to symbolize the beauty of nature, clarify it, and in some sense, reflect divine beauty.

In this discussion of the importance of symbols in conveying beauty in art, Plotinus praises the Egyptians for using symbols as their form of language. In Egyptian hieroglyphs each concept has its own symbol and this transcends the limitations of written language which can be fragmented and lose unity and meaning. The theory may sound fine as symbols do generally mesh together better as a whole, but I think a symbol gains and loses its sense of beauty in both historical and cultural contexts. Initially, to understand a symbol of beauty in artworks, the viewer has to understand what the symbol means. This understanding of symbols comes from the society in which it is based and the cultural meanings of certain forms. For instance, a symbol of beauty within Greek society could have no meaning or represent ugliness for Egyptians. Symbols also change over time in their meanings. For instance, certain symbols associated with Satanism today were originally used as symbols of God. A symbol that originally stood for beauty and good has changed to be associated with evil and ugliness as Plotinus divided these concepts. Therefore, symbols can be just as convoluted and fragmented as written language; a point Plotinus didn't consider.

The other point that can deconstruct what Plotinus outlines as beauty and how earthly beauty reflects and can point toward beauty. He says that beauty must be found within and that only those who see with a total clarity of the soul can experience beauty for what it truly is (pg.153). Nature, and art all reflect true beauty, yet beauty is something that has to be sought out internally. If beauty is internal, why use external forces as signposts leading toward beauty? Nature, as an external force, could be omitted as a reflection of divine beauty. Art, on the other hand, could be turned toward an internal type of making. Physical art, like painting, could not be a reflection of beauty as an external object would exist. Instead, art would have to be produced internally, whereby everyone becomes an artist in searching for divine beauty. Hence, Plato's idea of balance and measure is shattered, as the concept transcends the form and becomes the closest to beauty earthly existence can attain.

I find Plotinus contradicts himself when it comes to explaining where divine beauty can be found. In the beginning of his writings, Plotinus refers to beauty as some divine power that is external which is similar to Plato (pg.142). Later, he says that beauty is internal and that there is no standard of measure for beauty (pg.153). If beauty is recognized internally, how can one know if they have attained true beauty? With an internal evaluation of what is beautiful, objectivity is impossible and beauty becomes a deeply personal experience. Does that destroy the unity of true beauty? Without a standard, what defines true beauty? Maybe beauty should rely on the individual and have no universal ideal that dictates true beauty.