/lit/ - Literature

>>18376469
Monism is definitely untrue, and Platonism and strict monism don't cohere obviously. That's the whole point of the Parmenides dialogue. There is however no Platonism without God. God is the measure of all things. The Form of the Good. Hence Dionysius ascribing the name "The Good" of God. This is both a biblical name (Mk. 10:18) and a Platonic philosophical name.
>>18376578
Nailed it.
>>18376473
>>18376487
Dyre has an absolutely dogshit reading of metaphysics. Dionysius believed in absolute divine simplicity has the first chapters of the Divine Names totally run afoul of what Dyre says about the names we predicate of God and the Godhead. Dyre says that they signify the energies of God, Dionysius on the other hand says that it's literal blasphemy to say that they don't refer entirely to the essential Godhead entirely.
>>18376529
This too, Dyre's entire schtick is shallow anti-Catholic polemics where he just perpetually interrupts his interlocuter. Very disingenuous man.
>>18376591
Ok good!
>>18376433
You realise that half this thread is Christian, just not pseud level nonsense like this. Get off youtube, go read Dionysius, St. Augustine, Eriugena, St. Maximus, Eriugena, Ficino etc.,

Just take your pick and explore for your own sake.
>>18376607
Based
>>18376330
One common Plotinian criticism of Proclus, which I think also stands very firm and is applicable to Damascius too is this: conceptual distinctions are not necessarily ontological distinctions. The example we might make is Being and Life. Pic related.

This is also Plotinus' critique of the Aristotelian categories - not all of them are as irreducible as Aristotle made it out to be.

The critique as applied to Damasicus would be that the One as somehow distinct from its ineffability is just to consider the same thing from a different aspect and then separate them when they are not really separate. Granted, this case is far harder to make against Damascius than it is against Aristotle.

>>18377263
Yup, assume the conclusion and a premise and you never actually end up proving anything, but only asserting. Also presup is protestant why on earth do convertodox retards use it? Has Dyre just not shed his Calvinism properly yet or something?
>>18376573
>hardly rigorous philosophical expositions
What. Read Parmenides and try again.