the Difference in Ontological Levels in Porphyry and Iamblichus Approach

Although the Neoplatonic school has been called as the last link and legacy of the chain of Hellenistic philosophical tradition, the combined and unifying characteristic of this philosophical school on the one hand, and the diversity of theoretical and practical tendencies and orientations within it on the other hand, raises a range of questions in the field of conceptual unity between Those trends are imposed on the researchers. Among the first questions, aside from the question related to the type and style of reading of the members of this school from the systems of Plato and Aristotle, it goes back to the ontological view of the philosophers of this philosophical tradition, which, although undoubtedly a reflection of the views of its founder - Plotinus - in the Enneads and especially the theory hypostasis. This article analyzes and compares the levels of existence among two early Neoplatonists - Porphyry , the student of Plotinus, and Iamblichus, the student of Porphyry - and their degree of affinity and loyalty to the basic structure of Neoplatonism's Ontology, and shows that with Iamblichus, there is a kind of fundamental rotation of the type of integration with the elements. Mystery and priesthood emerged in this system and were finally rebuilt in the framework of Proclus' school and his influential writings.