/lit/ - Literature

>>16061881
Based, but where does Sin come into this?

>>16061953
Sin is not real.

>>16061962
>Converting to a heresy to justify your gay pornography addiction

>>16061953
anything that works against your innate
>desire the participation of it.
which is to work against God's conversion of all things towards him as the Good.
Aka Privation. To proceed farther than Necessity wills.

>>16061953
Sin is a state of being, not a compilation of evil deeds. Actions that move you farther away from divinity take you into a state of sin.
Evil is a material condition. Like rust that grows on metal. Thus the love of money is the root of all evil. We should store our wealth on other shores, for a man who has dedicated his life to earthly wealth has already received his reward.

>>16062001
>t. christcuck

>>16061881
>dude it's unknowable
Deep. Basically mental masturbation.

>>16063731
no it's paradoxical
that the cause is the end
yet you're already with him
meaning the same thing is three different things
that's why it's ineffable

how can I engage with this idea

>>16063731
>>16063854
>let us not attempt to count the intelligible on our fingers, nor corrupt it with our distinct ideas, but let us concentrate all thoughts simultaneously, and closing our eyes, open up the one great eye of the soul, by which nothing differentiated is visible, (although it is not the One itself in reality that becomes visible with this eye, but only the Unified, nor is this the Unifi ed that is opposed to the differentiated, but that which also contains the differentiated) and look there with this kind of eye, even if from afar and, as it were, from the outer limits, nevertheless, let us see the intelligible, except that what will appear in us, if one can put it this way, is the simplicity of it, and the plurality of it, and the completeness of it. The intelligible is one, many, and all, to explicate its single nature with three aspects.
And yet how are the one and the many a single nature? Because the “many” are the indefinite power of the One. And how is it One and all? Because “the all” is an activity of the One that embraces all things. But the word “activity” must not be said in the sense of the extension of the power into something outside the One]nor a power that is an extension of the subsistence remaining within, but again, it is meant in the way that we speak of three instead of one. For there is no one name that can be adequate for the clarification of those realities, as we have often given ample evidence. {the anteceding 400 pages}
Is it the case, then, that these realities are undifferentiated? And how might one more easily venture an explanation about them? For we say that there are three principles in succession to each other, father and power and paternal intellect. But in truth, they are not one or three, but it is necessary for them to be revealed by us through these names and concepts, since we lack ones that are appropriate for them, or rather, in our eagerness for clarifications that in no way are appropriate. For just as we call the One both many and all things, and father and power and paternal intellect, and again limit and unlimited and mixed, so we call it monad and indefinite dyad and the triad composed from both of these. And just as was the case with those names, so with these, by purifying our conceptions insofar as possible, we subject them to a strict accounting and they fall short when we fit them to the realities themselves. Therefore, let the intellective triad be called, to the extent that it is possible to call it anything, a triad, in the sense of, “the one of the triad,” with that triad apparently composed from the three first principles. But concerning that unity we could not make progress by continuing to speak.

>>16063884
>>16063959
And how, indeed, could it be known, if it is One alone? If [we mean] that the knowledge offers itself as an opposing reality, the One is not knowable, nor yet is the One knowable by means of spurious reasoning in the manner that has been written about [by Plato], that is, in the way that we know matter, even though matter does not possess the character of being an intelligible object. The knowable is a particular form, that is, one of the real beings, whereas matter is not being and formless. As we come to an understanding of the curved by means of the straight line, they say, so we intuit the unknowable by obtaining clues from the knowable. Nevertheless, this does constitute a mode of knowing.
>So then, the One as well is knowable to the extent that it does not abide while knowledge advances, but instead it appears from far off as something knowable and grants familiarity with itself. And to the extent that the knower advances toward the One, it is not the case, as with other relationships between knower and known, that what approaches the One comes to know it better. In fact, the opposite occurs; it that is, what advances knows the One less, since knowledge is dissolved by the One into unknowing. And this is reasonable, since knowledge demands differentiation, as I said above, but differentiation as it approaches the One collapses into unity, so that knowledge disappears into unknowing. Perhaps this is what Plato intends by his analogy. We attempt to look at the sun for the first time and when we are far away, at least, we succeed. But the closer we approach the less we see it. And at last we see neither sun nor other things, since we have completely become the light itself, instead of an enlightened eye.

>>16061881
>For all things abide in, proceed from, and are converted to the one.
that would entail that the One is changing, which contradicts divine simplicity. Hence if the One exists, it is not the cause of the world.

>>16064057
>contradicts divine simplicity
Yes. Exactly.
>>16064017
>>16063959>
>Hence if the Ineffable* exists, it is not the cause of the world.
yes that's a logical conclusion
The monad is the cause of individuality—exits beyond all things
The Dyad is the cause of uniqueness (multiplicity)—exists before all things, is perhaps pure Matter itself, Rhea
The Mixed is the cause of Unity/Harmony begetting Being (an aspect of himself), that everything is One and Many, ala Plato's Parmenides, Sophist, and Philebus.
The Ineffable is the conclusion of applying the logic of divine simplicity unto the fact that the cause of unity "cannot" be the cause of plurality, supposedly. Basic bitch Monism leads to radical Gnosticism (there's no purpose, for one, doing doesn't exist, illusion itself becomes illusion everything, that aren't, are all the same thing; every direction isn't merely every other direction, rather, direction itself doesn't exist, good and evil cease to be).
The One is not the Ineffable, but the Ineffable is not not the One. (intentional double not)

Read Parmenides, Sophist, and Philebus, and take them to heart and you will struggle like Plotinus up all the way to Damascius were even the via negativa has to be negated.

>>16064270
>The monad is the cause of individuality—exits beyond all things
so it is the monad or the one who like proclus says in the first proposition of his EoT that all things partake of, are (in some respect) the one because if not all things would be composed of infinite things and infinite things as well ad infinitum and nothing would be.

now what is the difference between the One, Monad and henad?

>>16064270
>The monad is the cause of individuality—exits beyond all things
Father, unknowable, deus absconditus
>The Dyad is the cause of uniqueness (multiplicity)
Father and Son. With the dyadic nature each Person becomes what it is in relation to the Other.
>The Mixed is the cause of Unity/Harmony
Holy Spirit, effecting the unitive Love of the Trinity.
>The Ineffable
Godhead, Ousia.
>The One is not the Ineffable, but the Ineffable is not not the One.
Three are One and One is Three.

>>16064270
one has to understand that when the neoplatonists talk abouyt multiplicity and simplicity, they mean Absolutely, autistically, the slightest tiny sliver of difference leads to these conclusions, ANY literally ANY FORM of not absolute true monistic simplicity leads to these paradoxes. And to affirm that is to enter true Nihilism. But likewise to den the One and affirm absolute multiplicity also leads to nihilism through everything being infinitely infinite (as in that everything contradicts the law of noncontradiction infinitely), since things need to be One in order to be at all, but that requires 'the One'.
Like a fourth of the dialogues are contentions against Monism, whether that all is at Rest or always Moving. One has to affirm both.

>Proclus

HA

Read Heidegger

>>16064421
Why?

>>16064363
Every henad is a monad, as in, an 'individuality', something unique. Proclus called every god a henad, but likewise "the one of the soul" and every soul is a henad (your root individuality). But Damascius called only the three primary Arches as Henads: the Limit/THE Monad; and the Unlimited/Indefinite Dyad; and the Mixed/One-Being. The last of which is and isn't the One, existing in-between and touching both Essence and Super-essentiality, and also inbetween the Limit and Unlimited being both yet not composed by them (unless referring to him as Nous/Plotinus' Intellect), in his own way being the One the most, and this is who we most of all also call 'God'. They are each a "different" aspects of 'The One', but they are each the One through different 'dialectical ascents', each logical ascent is equally rational thus one has to affirm all three simultaneously.
Plotinus touches on this in how he says that the One is the Potency/Power of all things, aka Damascius Dyad, but then in another tractate he says the One is "pure act" of stuff like in the pic related in >>16064397

Using this <picture< you can see how the circles overlap, "pre-essential demiurgos" is the One-Being, it is the One 'turning upon himself' thus becoming different yet in the same act uniting with himself. Both Remaining and Proceeding and Returning as One. Being (Monad)-Life(Dyad)-Intellect (Mixed/God/Eros/Beauty, as the whole Triad itself).

This is all obviously heavily trunctated.

>>16064270
>Yes. Exactly.
So aren't you going to elaborate? I got really excited that someone agreed with me but you didn't say anything else and you left me blueballed

>>16064609
the other posts i tagged are me, that's the response

>>16064619
I don't know what your position is exactly but the reason I made that point is in order to support naturalism. If God is not the cause of the world I can dismiss cosmological arguments of the classical theist variant.

>>16064662
>naturalism
leads to nihilism
my position is triple paradoxicality, call it nonsense, because if soething is the cause of literally EVERYTHINGthen itself cannot be anything, nor can it not be also each thing and only each thing, nor can't it not be all things together and no things at all, logic itself is posterior to 'that', thatness isn't even refering to it, yet nonetheless I speak...
>Well, understand the soul in the same way: When it focuses on something illuminated by truth and what is, it understands, knows, and apparently possesses understanding, but when it focuses on what is mixed with obscurity, on what comes to be and passes away, it opines and is dimmed, changes its opinions this way and that, and seems bereft of understanding.
It does seem that way.
>So that what gives truth to the things known and the power to know to the knower is the form of the good. And though it is the cause of knowledge and truth, it is also an object of knowledge.11 Both knowledge and truth are beautiful things, but the good is other and more beautiful than they. In the visible realm, light and sight are rightly considered sunlike, but it is wrong to think that they are the sun, so here it is right to think of knowledge and truth as goodlike but wrong to think that either of them is the good—for the good is yet more prized.
>This is an INCONCEIVABLY beautiful thing you’re talking about, if it provides both knowledge and truth and is superior to them in beauty. You surely don’t think that a thing like that could be pleasure.
>HUSH!

>>16064733
>leads to nihilism
it depends on your definition of nihilism.
I still don't understand what your position is but I don't think the One exists, or Goodness and Beauty. So that's my position.

>>16064826
if the one doesn't exist >>16064363 (proclus elements of theology)
>But if you take the One belonging to true Beings, their ‘principle and source’ and power, are we to lose faith and suppose it to be nothing? In fact, it is none of the things whose source it is, yet is the sort of thing which, because nothing can be predicated of it, not Existence, not Substantiality, not Life, is a thing beyond them. And if you grasp it after removing Existence from it,you will be amazed. Cast yourself towards it and encounter it taking rest within it; unite your thought with it more and more by knowing it through immediate contact with it and by beholding its greatness through what comes after it and is caused by it.

>>16063959
>>16064017

Previously:

>>>/lit/thread/S14042894#p14043482
>I don't think there is any reason to assume that anyone is implicitly opposite or parallel to God, by any means, least of all by freedom. The "positive" Monad, that is not a Monad by negation of anything and everything else, but is so despite allowing anything and everything else, I think, is not merely a source of Ontological incontinence, but implicitly lets things be Monads themselves, so that in allowing them true freedom to distinguish themselves from it, it also puts them on a Teleological collision course with itself whereby the more they Self-identify the more they want to Self-identity, i. e. the more they infer, observe, want THE Monad. Being saved and being free are one and the same: "That mystery is I, and I am that mystery" and so on and so forth.

>>16064932
So I would actually argue that Proclus' account here makes the One incoherent.
>In fact, it is none of the things whose source it is, yet is the sort of thing which, because nothing can be predicated of it, not Existence, not Substantiality, not Life, is a thing beyond them
It makes no sense to talk of something that literally nothing can be predicated to it. Now it is perfectly coherent to say that there is something that we don't know what it is (there are presumably plenty of things we haven't yet discovered), but at least the predicate of existence needs to apply to it. You can't speak of something that doesn't exist, because then the phrase "The One" does not refer to anything. It's like putting a string of random syllabes together like dedererdedada, it has no intelligible content. In order to speak of "something" you have to say that it exists.

>>16065061
again that's one definition of one of the Henads
And Naturalism leads to Monism.

>>16061881
This literally made no sense.

>>16065007
that's not me if that is what you're implying

>>16065141

I know. It's me.

>>16065061
>It makes no sense to talk of something that literally nothing can be predicated to it.
You do it all the time, everyone does, whenever anything is addressed to/as reality.
There is a difference between something that does not exist (even though this would open a very interesting discussion and perhaps Meinong has dealt with it in a rather rigorous way) and something prior, above, existence (whatever you understand by it).
>”the one” wouldnt refer to anything
Yes exactly! It cant be defined like a cat, a stone.
This is called apophaticism, anon.

>>16065159
>There is a difference between something that does not exist (even though this would open a very interesting discussion and perhaps Meinong has dealt with it in a rather rigorous way) and something prior, above, existence (whatever you understand by it).
My point is that the notion of "something prior, above, existence" is unintelligible. In other for words to refer to something, at least existence has to be predicated to it, otherwise we are speaking gibberish.
>You do it all the time, everyone does, whenever anything is addressed to/as reality.
Name one example outside theology or metaphysics

>>16065189
>unintelligible
yes the One is above the Forms (intelligibles as the later platonists would call)

>Name one example
what do you think reality is? do you think reality is passive of being apprehended discursively?

>>16065061
also, the main reason why I got into neoplatonism was because the uncertainty principle and standard quantum mechanics (fuck many worlds hypothesis), that something is completly itself here and not there, yet that over there is this thing too but the instantiations themeslves are completely and totally only themselves they are only themselves yet the same, and also yet neither but 'they will be'; multiply this by infinity. This is the superposition.

The Foundation of reality, as current science has to appeal, is wrought with paradox and reifications of the Aether, (quantum field), aka neo-monism. Incoherence is the heart of the world.
But monism, like absolute claims of either/or, absolutist platitudes
>that man is i and i am that man
from >>16065007
>>>>/lit/thread/S14042894#p14043482
It is incoherent, or rather incomplete, it isn't wrong, merely halved.

It is my son who shall live,
he whom I begot in my identity,
for he has learned how to enliven the one in the egg, in the respective womb.
as mankind, that emerged from my eye
(the eye) that I sent forth when I was alone
with the Waters, in inertness,
not finding a place in which I could stand or sit,
before Heliopolis had been founded, in which I could exist;
before the Lotus had been tied together, on which I could sit
before I had made Nut so she could be over my head and Geb could
marry her;
before the first Corps was born,
before the two original Enneads had developed and started existing with me."
Then said Atum to the Waters:
"I am floating, very weary,
the natives inert.
It is my son Life, who lifts up my heart, that will enliven my heart
when he has drawn together these very weary limbs of mine."

Loneliness is evil, if the One is Love transcendently, and love is need... and the One as the Good is all meaning and beauty and all lovely things, the object of every desire... then through otherness and difference, and ultimately strife there is the capacity for love, and God has never willed to the lonely nothingness of absolute monism, therefore he is alone and we suspend ourselves away from her. Loneliness-Monad, Curiosity-Indefinity, and Selflessness-Harmony.
The One is self-sufficient because he eternally Emanates, he doesn't emanate because he's self-sufficient.

>>16065281
>yes the One is above the Forms (intelligibles as the later platonists would call)
My point is simple. In order to use a word, it needs to have intelligible content. Otherwise using the phrase "The One" is like using the phrase ejnerjifneiofneo.
>what do you think reality is? do you think reality is passive of being apprehended discursively?
You mentioned Meinong so I am assuming you are familiar with analytic philosophy. Can we please try to keep faithful to the spirit of that tradition by being as clear as possible? I have no way of knowing what are you referring to without providing context.

>>16065345
>also, the main reason why I got into neoplatonism was because the uncertainty principle and standard quantum mechanics (fuck many worlds hypothesis), that something is completly itself here and not there, yet that over there is this thing too but the instantiations themeslves are completely and totally only themselves they are only themselves yet the same, and also yet neither but 'they will be'; multiply this by infinity. This is the superposition.
>
>The Foundation of reality, as current science has to appeal, is wrought with paradox and reifications of the Aether, (quantum field), aka neo-monism. Incoherence is the heart of the world.
>But monism, like absolute claims of either/or, absolutist platitudes
No you got it all wrong. Quantum mechanics merely replaces the deterministic model of causation with a deterministic one. That's it, there is no paradox. Quantum Mechanics has nothing to do with any of this gibberish.

>>16065381
*it merely replaces the deterministic model of causation with an indeterministic one

>>16065393
>the superposition goes against my presuppositions of coherence and therefore must be wrong
>T. Seething scientismists for 90 years

>>16065353
>Otherwise using the phrase "The One" is like using the phrase ejnerjifneiofneo.
As I said before, this is what apophatic language entails. It is the rupture of language itself in order to step up to what is beyond it. And yes you could call it 'ejnerjifneiofneo', but One has a symbolic image (what we said from Proclus before).

>Can we please try to keep faithful to the spirit of that tradition by being as clear as possible?
I just asked you what you think reality is, if reality can be analyzed and defined, put in rational schema. Now, if you can't do it, I think you are progressing.

>>16065415
You can adopt whatever philosophical position you like, but right now you are misinterpreting what physics actually says. You have literally not clue what are you talking about. Don't take my word for it, just go and read a non-popularizer book about Quantum Mechanics. I am being completely honest to you, you don't understand what the science says.

>>16065393
Anyway, without the one and the forms, there's no object-identity, especially not identity over time, aka objects do not objectivity exists this includes the enclosed thing that presuposedly is 'My Self' and everyone else's self, since these are objects, and objects don't exist without Platonism, nothing now exists. This is what I mean by Naturalism leading to nihilism, all the things of the world are only intersubjectvely agreed upon to be where the delimitations of that and this is made. I can conjure any combinations of area of spacetime and call it a thing, doesn't make it real, nor is my sense of sense objective. Naturalism leads to radical monism, no not even that, since the whole too is a object of opinion, from where comes the unity of the infinitely divisible spacetime, why should it be 'one' universe? We (who?) can argue, whatever that means, that we can't deny ourselves but surrender onto faith that I am distinct and now we put FAITH in our axioms of thought, behold your god.

>>16065480
touché
https://youtu.be/lZ3bPUKo5zc?list=PLUl4u3cNGP61-9PEhRognw5vryrSEVLPr

OP where do I start with neiplatonic monism? I've read Plato but not within this context. Are there secondary sources that act as a primer or do I have to dive in balls first into first sources like Plotinus?

>>16065543
Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic Phlosophy

>>16065543
First Alcibiades

>>16065442
>As I said before, this is what apophatic language entails. It is the As I said before, this is what apophatic language entails. It is the rupture of language itself in order to step up to what is beyond it. And yes you could call it 'ejnerjifneiofneo', but One has a symbolic image (what we said from Proclus before).
I don't know what is so hard to understand. If a word has no intelligible meaning, that word cannot be used for enacting communication. It is not "the rupture of language itself in order to step up to what is beyond it". You are just speaking gibberish. Apophatic language doesn't have to be gibberish like the quote from Proclus above. The notion of divine symplicity uses apophatic language, but is not gibberish (not necessarily, at any rate.)
>I just asked you what you think reality is, if reality can be analyzed and defined, put in rational schema. Now, if you can't do it, I think you are progressing.
Of course I can, at least a certain part of reality. Now there may exist parts of reality we don't understand. That's a perfectly sensible thing to say. But to say that there is "something" that the predicate of existence does not apply to it is complete gibberish. You are basically saying that there is something that we cannot understand, yet right now you are talking about it, which is a performative contradiction. But if you say that although we don't know what it is, we can at least say that it exists, you can escape the contradiction.

>>16065589
Have you read any apophatic theology? Mystical Theology by Dionysius? I fear for your health in reading it.

>If a word has no intelligible meaning, that word cannot be used for enacting communication.
What is intelligible in any word if not its image of what is not visible? God? Reality? Being? Nothingness? Matter? Go on, I'm curious about what is intelligible in these words.

>at least a certain part of reality
Yes that which is passive of being apprehended rationally, like my typing this reply to you.

>You are basically saying that there is something that we cannot understand, yet right now you are talking about it, which is a performative contradiction.
Talking about something is not defining it. When I say it is above existence I am talking about it but not defining. Is this really difficult to understand?

Anyway, I think this is just a matter of being or not being accorded with apophaticism. This is clearly not for you, just move on (and never in your life touch any christian apophatic, zen, advaita, buddhist, platonic text).

>>16065589
How does the absolutely Same/Likeness produce if production is Difference/Unlikeness? Is difference different from difference?
If Sameness is absolutely Same it is absolutely different from difference and thus also different by being different from difference, but then it is isn't the Same except it is the only way it can be Absolutely Same aka Simple, unless you say it is the same as Difference yet Difference being difference is different from Sameness; Difference is the only one that affirms itself by being different from itself it is more itself loopinglydoo.
This is alike a single paragraph of Proclus commentary on the Parmenides, or Plato's Parmenides itself.

you are very naive my child
THIS ISN'T EVEN MY FINAL FORM

>>16065525
I can't watch the video right now but I will tell you this. "Scientism" is the position that all knowledge is scientific knowledge. If science could show that there are exceptions to the principle of non contradiction that wouldn't be incompatible with scientism. But at any rate science doesn't show that. (Nonetheless Scientism is indeed false, but the reason for that has nothing to do with quantum physics)
As far as I can tell your mistake is to look at Shrodinger's cat thought experiment and infe from the fact that we don't know whether the cat is alive before we open the box to the conclusion that the cat is simultaneously dead and alive before we open the box. There is nothing in the science itself that supports this idealist interpretation.

>>16065818
>There is nothing in the science itself that supports this idealist interpretation.
>im-fucking-plying not
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser

>>16065159
Yet thereis nothing prior to this which is prior to existence? Yet all existence is due to it? Then how is it due it it? A change? By what? Is it self-changing?

>>16065281
Whereof you cannot speak thereof you must remain silent.

>>16065671
>Talking about something is not defining it. When I say it is above existence I am talking about it but not defining. Is this really difficult to understand?
I never said anything about "definitions". For people who actually bother to read my post, what I said is that in order to talk about something the word you are using needs to have meaning.
>Have you read any apophatic theology? Mystical Theology by Dionysius? I fear for your health in reading it.
The problem is not with apophatic theology per se, but with the kind of apophatic theology on steroids you are subscribing to.
The problem in a nutshell is this: If you talk about "God", that shows that you know at least something about what the concept "God" means. Now if you want to say that God's nature is unintelligible to us, you can get around this difficulty by saying that, although you don't know any positive qualities of God, you can say that God exists, so in this sense you know something about him. But if you don't even ascribe the predicate of existence to God, your concept of God doesn't have either any positive features, nor does it include the fact that it exists. But then what does the word God means? It is devoid of meaning. Yet you are using the word to refer to something, so it can't be meaningless. Do you get what the problem is?

>>16066234
>doesn't have either any positive features, nor does it include the fact that it exists.
you don't even know what APOPHATIC means. just go read about it, anon.

>>16066222
what caused uncaused causes, if all changes how an unchanging cause caused change, etc... a little more and you understand that we are not dealing with discursivity here.

Proclus ripped off Dionysius.

>>16064733
Is Lloyd Gerson a reliable authority on neoplatonism? He says Plotinus doesn't mean that the One is beyond being, only that it has no parts. He seems like he's bring Plotinus closer to Aquinas.

>>16066037
From your own link:
>While delayed-choice experiments have confirmed the seeming ability of measurements made on photons in the present to alter events occurring in the past, this requires a non-standard view of quantum mechanics. If a photon in flight is interpreted as being in a so-called "superposition of states", i.e. if it is interpreted as something that has the potentiality to manifest as a particle or wave, but during its time in flight is neither, then there is no time paradox. This is the standard view, and recent experiments have supported it.

>>16066363
where does he say that? if it's in his 'Plotinus' book or in the 'cambridge companion to plotinus', then I think he himself thinks tey are outdated, he's even making/editing a New Companion to Plotinus

>>16066342
>Proclus ripped off Dionysius.
I guess Plato also ripped of Dionysius since Proclus saiid nothing 'Dionysian' that Plato didn't also say.

>>16066397
my point with that wasn't about time but 'superpositioned entanglement', that two truly distinct photons are the same photon, or rather they share Being since it is impossible to affect on without affecting the other, even to such a degree that it seems to beak causality

>>16061881
Ah the great Looking Backwards, where the illiterate, thinking they are literate because they can read and write, scavenge in the oldest, most hipsterrific of works to dignify their opinionated ignorance.
After WWII we had a couple of generations of forward-looking dreamers, but now we have posing regressive, pretending to archaic and half-formed notions of refinement and profundity while actually stumbling themselves through the last four thousand years of ideas again as if it were all something new and exciting, grabbing the ugliest and oldest of bad ideas if they act as a licence to the prevailing meanness and larceny of the day.
Fuck you, fuck you in the face.

>>16066461
>inb4 he says that the photon is not yet in either position (aka in no position aka nonexistent), instead of affirming that it is equally only in each existing in two independent places simultaneously.

>>16066429
"For, of course, that the One is beyond ousia does not mean that it is beyond existence or being altogether. Suggestions to the contrary are just misunderstandings of Plotinus' so-called negative theology. What Plotinus rejects in reference to the One is language that implies limitedness or complexity."

Yes, it's from Gerson's Plotinus, not the companion. Why would he think this is outdated simply because he's making a new edition of a collection of Plotinus essays?

>>16066337
you don't even know what APOPHATIC means. just go read about it, anon.
Yes I do, and the point you are making me repeat ad nauseum is that your pure apophaticism is unintelligible gibberish. You are not even doing philosophy at this point, this is just mysticism.
Here is the problem: If a word means something that is not intelligible to the human mind, your concept is gibberish to us. It doesn't mean anything. If you want to talk about something, you need to actually tell us what the hell you are talking about.
Now you can talk about something of which you ascribe no other predicate other than existence. We know what it means to say that "there is a being that I will tell you nothing about, except that it exists". But you can't say that "I am talking about something, which I will tell you nothing about, and you can't even say that it exists". Because in that case, you are not providing me with any information. The words you are using need to refer to something I can understand, otherwise you might as well press random keys in your keyboard. Please tell me you can understand this point, it's really not hard to get.

>>16066490
Also, Gerson was taught by a Gilsonian Jesuit. Everything I've read so far by Gerson makes him out to be a Platonist highly sympathetic to Aquinas, and that's a good thing.

>>16066461
<that two truly distinct photons are the same photon
good thing quantum physics doesn't claim that

>>16066478
>>16066488
and pic related
this is the new main field of philosophy, the last 1200 years of philosophy has been nothing but the reinvention of the wheel that was Neoplatonism. There's literally nothing in philosophy of the past millennium that says ANYTHING not addressed or not already asserted by the Platonists.

>>16066234
>Do you get what the problem is?
>>16066234
>If you talk about "something", that shows that you know at least something about what the concept "something" means. Now if you want to say that a thing's nature is unintelligible to us, you can get around this difficulty by saying that, although you don't know any positive qualities of anything, you can say that things exist, so in this sense you know something about them. But if you don't even ascribe the predicate of existence to anything, your concept of existence doesn't have either any positive features, nor does it include the fact that it exists. But then what does the word 'something' mean? It is devoid of meaning. Yet you are using the word to refer to something, so it can't be meaningless.
See? You're having a fucken stroke, asshole.

>>16066525
>There's literally nothing in philosophy of the past millennium that says ANYTHING not addressed or not already asserted by the Platonists.
There's all your credibility erased in one sentence.

>>16066488
>inb4 he says that the photon is not yet in either position (aka in no position aka nonexistent), instead of affirming that it is equally only in each existing in two independent places simultaneously.
Plot twist: it exists in one of the two positions, we just don't know which one

>>16066529
when you don't understand the topic, you should stay silent

>>16066552
lol
>>16066529
and
>>16066509
basically say the same thing. Screeching "Shut up!" isn't helpful.

>>16066525
Which Gerson books have you read? I'm tempted to get From Plato to Platonism but they all look good.

>>16066575
They all look terrible and stop replying to yourself.

>>16066490
the companion is a guide to Plato, the reason why he probably thinks his two books on Plotinus from the 90s are outdated (one proof being that he's literally replacing one of them) is because he hadn't yet formulated his harmony between Aristotle and Plato, Gerson started out as a Aristotelian but has now gone full on hardcore anti-naturalist Platonism.
But yes, the One only lacks 'existence' to Plotinus in such a way as it is absolutely unlike everything posterior to it. Since no platonist thought the one was 'nonexistent', per se. It is 'beyond being' not non-being, even if one can call both of these 'voids' lacking all familiar delimitation. Yet we use terms as One and Beyond, and first Cause, and 'the good' symbolically, since all these terms merely point towards something to a certain extent.
But not just that, it isn't just apophatic because we say so, like he christian god that has no real ontological reason why it is ineffable, it just 'is'; the main reason why the One is ineffable is because it is paradoxical.

show me something original

>>16066623
meant for
>>16066537
those aren't introductory, they presuppose you've read all of Plato and Aristotle

>>16066631
>>16066575
uuuuuh, second sentence was for your question about gerson, those ook are next level complex. But you should probabl go chronologically, they are "free" following the secret sticky link

>>16066617
It was from this book, which I don't believe is The Companion to Plotinus.

Have you studied under Gerson?

>>16066649
I have the pdfs but these are books I think will benefit from a physical read. I've read a handful of his essays and really liked them. The one on Plotinus' creationism made me think.

>>16066538
>it exists in one of the two positions, we just don't know which one
that has been scientifically disproven, there are literally macroscopic examples of it, photosynthesis is one of them
https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/quantum-photosynthesis/

>>16066572
at least update your meme folder grandpa

>>16066683
>quantum photosynthesis
i think you are bullshitting me hard

>>16066617
>like he christian god that has no real ontological reason why it is ineffable, it just 'is'; the main reason why the One is ineffable is because it is paradoxical.
dude can you just stop attacking christian apophaticism freely when we have discussed about it many times?
One is Three and Three are One, relational apophaticism in the Hypostases. How is the Trinity not apophatic par excellence and ineffable? lol (i dont want to discuss this again)

>>16066651
>It was from this book, which I don't believe is The Companion to Plotinus.
I haven't read that one, but since that type of sentence doesn't occur in his later books... it's also probably because of the Greek, To On and Onta and Einai.
>>16066716
no, literally
https://www.pnas.org/content/107/29/12766

>>16066757
Not him but I'll plead to him to never stop attacking Christianity, the bane of Neoplatonism.

>>16066757
God is the Father who's the Monarch of the trinity. I don't care about any protestant or pseudo-protestant-catholic formulations, the trinity isn't tri-personal or social or egalitarian. There's only One Arche THROUGH the son and spirit not WITH hem, except poetically

>>16066762
I don't know enough physics or biology to understand what the abstract says, is this about indeterminism at the macroscopic level? That can't be right, it would violate classical mechanics.

>>16066617
Naturalism is still right though

>>16066617
>But not just that, it isn't just apophatic because we say so, like he christian god that has no real ontological reason why it is ineffable, it just 'is'; the main reason why the One is ineffable is because it is paradoxical.
wait but it does, it's because of divine simplicity

>>16066771
especially when they say shit like >>16066342
bait was taken
>>16066787
For anyone's information.
https://beaubranson.com/monarchyofthefather/
Only this original theology of all the church fathers can make the father ontologically Apophathic, where the Son practically identical IN FUNCTION to Plotinus Nous in relation to the Father and the One, that being the Image of the latter. "Image of the invisible god."
>when you know more christian theology than 9X% of Christians
>>16066815
>it would violate classical mechanics.
YEES!
>>16066827
sure, but then you have to embrace moral and epistemic relativism, "might is right-ism" and shit

>>16066771
the fulfillment of Neoplatonism*
(what Iamblichus understood and tried to do with platonism itself - I don't mean Iamblichus was a christian, but he knew platonism to be incomplete and needed a complete religious consciousness of the numen),

>>16066787
Yes, From, Through, In.

>>16066838
is the father identical with the divine nature?

>>16066842
BUT THE SON IS LITERALLY THE LOGOS, WISDOM OF THE FATHER.
There is only Father when there is Son.

>>16066848
>From
polytheism

>>16066842
>sure, but then you have to embrace moral and epistemic relativism, "might is right-ism" and shit
So what, that's all you have? Make me tremble with your glorious neoplatonic rhetoric. "The consequences of naturalism make me unhappy" is not a very powerful argument.

>>16066852
According to whom, trinitarian theology is very controversial among Christians. Lately I was listening to Rob Koons explain his view, and he seems to think that the divine nature is fundamentally relational, God thinking himself. So God qua thinking himself is the father, God qua being thought by himself is the Son, and the conjunction of the two is the Holy Spirit. But this is just one view, I don't think there is a consensus.
But I don't know what's the relevance of this question. You said that Christians have no reason to think God is ineffable. I say the reason is divine simplicity. What's your response?

>>16066855
I believe Iraneous said the holy spirit was the wisdom of god but who am I to question, there's also the thing in Isaiah about the spirit of wisdom and then the church connotation of that with one of the seven 'spirits' of God.
Again, "God" is the Father not the trinity, the trinity isn't some meta-entity. The Son is God through participation in the Father's nature, and holy spirit is a spook.
>>16066864
as in: to say anything comes from the the son or spirit is to imply polytheism, since the ancient greek word for monotheism was monarchy, as mon (one) arche (principle). Thus to say the spirit come from the father and the son negates monotheism, because the Father is the Sole Arche.
Like did the Oriental Orthodox and EO, who split 500 years before the filioque became a thing, conspire to change the original creed into not having the clause? because the OOs don't, in none of their languages. Much strange such mystery.

>>16066925
>God qua thinking himself is the father
then that contradicts divine simplicity since thinking is complex
>>16066869
everything is rooted in emotional appeal if you go deep enough, there's no such thing pure reason, every act is rooted in presupposed emphatic beliefs.
And perhaps you missed part about empirical relativism, which doesn't even capture it truly.
as in >>16065513
I'm adjourning my participation in this thread, I have to sleep.

>>16066864
>the thought I have of myself is another me

>>16066928
>The Son is God through participation in the Father's nature, and holy spirit is a spook.
There is no participation in any way.

>>16066958
You're confounding Hypostasis with Ousia.

>>16066962
yes, that's the foundation of plotinus
or rather,
>in thinking myself I am someone else

>>16066986
hypostasis and ousia is two sides of the same coin
the triad is not triune, nor are there four itnesses, the ousia is not a thing in itself

>>16066958
>then that contradicts divine simplicity since thinking is complex
I mean I basically agree but the proposition I was defending is that Christianity has a reason for saying that God is ineffable. Whether trinitarianism can be made coherent is a different topic.

>>16066998
so i am neither who thinks nor who is thought? how does any of it implies two substances when thought is self-conversion?

>>16067017
>hypostasis and ousia is two sides of the same coin
yes
>the triad is not triune
yes
>the ousia is not a thing in itself
the ousia is inscrutable

>>16066525
Fuck it I'm finally going to read some Gerson.

What's with all the comfy neo-platonism threads lately?

>>16067032
I was obviously being hyperbolic.
The claim was more about Christian reformulations into less coherence because they panic when any form of the slightest hint of "subordinationism" might be implied, yet they have no problem subordinating the Spirit. I guess he needs to be DPd, according to them not me, I'd never blaspheme the hypothetical Eros-similar idea of a holy spirit.

>>16066958
>I'm adjourning my participation in this thread, I have to sleep.
fine but I will reply anyway
>Anyway, without the one and the forms, there's no object-identity, especially not identity over time, aka objects do not objectivity exists this includes the enclosed thing that presuposedly is 'My Self' and everyone else's self, since these are objects, and objects don't exist without Platonism, nothing now exists. This is what I mean by Naturalism leading to nihilism, all the things of the world are only intersubjectvely agreed upon to be where the delimitations of that and this is made. I can conjure any combinations of area of spacetime and call it a thing, doesn't make it real, nor is my sense of sense objective. Naturalism leads to radical monism, no not even that, since the whole too is a object of opinion, from where comes the unity of the infinitely divisible spacetime, why should it be 'one' universe? We (who?) can argue, whatever that means, that we can't deny ourselves but surrender onto faith that I am distinct and now we put FAITH in our axioms of thought, behold your god.
I have no idea how you derived these conclusions from naturalism, or even if we mean the same thing by naturalism. Strictly speaking there are no substances existing through time, just exactly alike collections of properties that can be found in t1, then t2 etc. I don't see what's the problem with that kind of ontology. And I especially don't see how the external world turns out to be made up.
I guess you can post which book did you got all this from if you want to.

very interesting discussion

The most important question is, since Christianity destroyed Evropa, can Neoplatonism revive it?

>>16067146
You can derive it from Sophist, Euthydemus, and Protagoras. Or the first proposition of Proclus Elements of Theology

>>16061881
>>We endeavour therefore to know the unknown nature of the first principle, through the things which proceed from, and are converted to it; and we also attempt through the same things to give a name to that which is ineffable. This principle, however, is neither known by beings, nor is effable by any one of all things; but being exempt from all knowledge, and all language, and subsisting as incomprehensible, it produces from itself according to one cause all knowledge, every thing that is known, all words, and whatever can be comprehended by speech. But its unical nature, and which transcends all division, shines forth to the view dyadically in the natures posterior to it, or rather triadically. For all things abide in, proceed from, and are converted to the one. For at one and the same time, they are united to it, are in subjection to its union which is exempt from the whole of things, and desire the participation of it.


rationalism was a mistake

>>16064566
Where have you learnt about this? Also links and sources about that image I'm very interested in learning more.

>>16070342
Egyptian mythology, Philolaus, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Plutarch, Alcinous Handbook of Platonism, Aelius Aristides, Maximus of Tyre, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Dexippus, Eunapius and Philostratus, Julian, Themistius, Synsesius, Syrianus, Hermias, Proclus, Ammonius, Damascius, Pseudo-Dionysius, Simplicius, Priscian, Olympiodorus, David and Elias, Boethius, Al-kindi, Eriugena, al-Farabi, Avicenna, Averroes... Schopenhauer?
The passage in OP is from Thomas Taylor.
Modern eminent Platonists are Dillon, Gerson, Finnamore, Uzdavinys, Polymnia Athanassiadis, Boys-Stones, james wilberding, that woman who translated Damascius...

>>16070342
i believe in diagram is from Living Theurgy: A Course in Iamblichus' Philosophy, Theology and Theurgy

>>16064566
Noeric appears to not be a word

>>16070848
νοερός
it means intellective, or 'intellecting'.
The Noeric only is the very act of thinking about something, in the case of the theology of neoplatonism it is the same as Intellect itself and Epistrophe/Returning; one could even say that this is Energia itself, this act is what produces Soul and unites the triad.
While Noetic-Noeric ccan be viewed as Power.
And Noeic Only is Ousia/Being.

>>16070950
so noeric influences are literally the activity of mind daimons?

>>16061881
>We endeavour therefore to know the unknown nature of the first principle, through the things which proceed from, and are converted to it; and we also attempt through the same things to give a name to that which is ineffable. This principle, however, is neither known by beings, nor is effable by any one of all things; but being exempt from all knowledge, and all language, and subsisting as incomprehensible, it produces from itself according to one cause all knowledge, every thing that is known, all words, and whatever can be comprehended by speech.

Following so far, but

But its unical nature, and which transcends all division, shines forth to the view dyadically in the natures posterior to it, or rather triadically. For all things abide in, proceed from, and are converted to the one. For at one and the same time, they are united to it, are in subjection to its union which is exempt from the whole of things, and desire the participation of it.

He literally pulls all of this out of his ass. For example, How does he know of the first principles 'unical nature' if he just said its unknowable?

>>16071071
Knowing Proclus, he autistically argues for each one of these claims elsewhere.

>>16071071
Well, unlike most philosophies, Plato and the Platonism claimed to be revealed. Such a Plotinus 'Henosis', all the main Scholarchs (Iamblichus, Proclus, Damacsius) talked about direct "experience" of the One.

>>16071141
I haven't read the Platonists yet, but I have read lots of Plato, and I don't understand why you say that Plato's philosophy is revealed.

>>16071141
And you can't engage in them if you aren't familiar with Plato's difficult dialogues: Phaedrus, Republic, Parmenides, Theaetetus-Sophist-Statesman, Timaeus-Critias, and also Laws. And Aristotle's main works: Categories, Physics, On the Heavens, De Anima, Metaphysics.

One can distinguish between simplified Platonism and Platonism.
Proclus most of the time talk about a simplified Jay Dyer understanding of 'the One' as the stereotypical Monad above Being. While he does go in logical conundrums about this simplistic view, it isn't until Damascius where you go in depth in the Problems and Solutions (literally) regarding the logical conclusions about every 'hypothesis'. As aggressively dissected in Plato's Parmenides. To some problems there are no real answers, and this is because Faith and Intuition stands above Logic and Reason. Pure Logic either refutes itself or one must arbitrarily choose one conclusion above another, which objectivity cannot do, only bias can do such a thing (like Absolute Divine Simplicity). As OP addresses, Proclus later works do indulge in the irreconcilable concepts of the One, unlike in his earliest work the Elements of Theology where he basically follows ADS.
Simplicius and Olympiodorus also mostly only talk about this simplistic idea of the One.

PROP. 1. Every manifold in some way participates 1 unity.
For suppose a manifold in no way participating unity. Neither this manifold as a whole nor any of its several parts will be one j each part will itself be a manifold of parts, and so to infinity; and of this infinity of parts each, once more, will De infinitely manifold; for a manifold which in no way participates any unity, neither as a whole nor in respect of its parts severally, will be infinite in every way and in respect of every part. For each part of the manifold take which you will-must be either one or not-one j and if not one, then either many or nothing. But if each part be nothing, the whole is nothing j if many, it is made up of an infinity of infinites. This is impossible: for, on the one hand, nothing which is is made up of an infinity of infinites (since the infinite cannot be exceeded, yet the single part is exceeded by the sum) j on the other hand, nothing can be made up of parts which are nothing. Every manifold, therefore, in some way participates unity.

>>16070950
For a system so concerned with apophatic theology and divine simplicity they sure as hell went full on autistic mode in their millions of classifications. Might be more autistic than Buddhism.

>>16071364

It's one of the prevailing tendencies within Neoplatonism. It was held in check by some of the Neoplatonists though. Take a look at Dionysius' recasting of Procline metaphysics for example. A more radical example would be Damascius who calls all of these levels of reality into question, threatening to scuttle the whole vast edifice. You might also make the case that Plotinus deliberately kept things relatively simple.

>>16071399
So I should focus on Plotinus and Damascius if I want to avoid all the excessive theories on the levels of being?

>>16071150
I guess if you read all the myths as nothing but midwit rhetorical devices, or ignored all his passages about mystic visions, or that Socrates Daemon is solely his conscience...
The Philosopher-Kings' wisdom and authority is supposedly meant to come from them Grasping the Good.
Even chrisitans talk about the 'Divine Plato', the name is a reference to him having divine inspiration.

>There, Phaedrus my friend, don’t you think, as I do, that I’m in the grip of something divine?
PHAEDRUS: This is certainly an unusual flow of words for you, Socrates.
>SOCRATES:Then be quiet and listen. There’s something really divine about this place, so don’t be surprised if I’m quite taken by the Nymphs’ madness as I go on with the speech. I’m on the edge of speaking in dithyrambs as it is.
Also Ion indirectly proclaims Plato's inspiration, since what wrote can only be argued to be art.

>Now when he had made many into his lovers and had benefited large numbers of them, he dreamed as he was on the point of death that, having turned into a swan, he was moving from tree to tree, and in this way was causing extreme toil for the hunters. Simmias the Socratic interpreted this dream as follows: that Plato would be difficult to grasp for those succeeding him who wished to explain him: for the commentators who attempt to pursue the concepts of the ancients are like bird- catchers, and Plato is difficult to grasp since it is possible to interpret his words on the level of natural philosophy, ethics, or theology – in short, in many different senses – as is also the case with the [words] of Homer. For these two souls are said to have embraced every mode, which is why it is possible to take the words of both of them in all manner of ways. When he died, the Athenians buried him lavishly, and inscribed upon his tomb:
Two did Apollo bring forth, Asclepius and Plato,
The one to keep our soul healthy, the other our body.

>>16071364
both apophatic and cataphatic are inherent in theology itself, and this is the same in christianity, buddhism, hinduism.

>>16071422

I wouldn't recommend starting with Damascius for a number of reasons. Whereas most Neoplatonists comment on Plato, Damascius comments on the commentators. It often feels that way anyways. This makes Damascius a lot more challenging unless you already have a good grasp of Proclus and the rest. There's also the matter of his work not having good English translations yet.

Plotinus is a great starting point, and can provide a stable base from which to explore later currents. It's important to understand that Iamblichus deviated from Plotinus in various ways. Later Platonists, all of them really, took their starting point from Iamblichus, and not Plotinus. This being so, a second object of research might be what these later Platonists objected to in Plotinus. It's a lot more fruitful to investigate points of deviation than commonalities.

Note too that the elaborate metaphysics of Proclus aren't at the forefront of all his writing. Take his writings on the nature of evil for example. These are really really good, and barely touch on his arcane metaphysical hierarchy.

>>16071475
You forgot to cite the Life of Plato:
>Now they say that a vision of Apollo coupled with his mother Perictione, and appeared to Ariston in the night, instructing him not to have intercourse with Perictione until she gave birth, and he acted accordingly.

>>16071475
>I guess if you read all the myths as nothing but midwit rhetorical devices, or ignored all his passages about mystic visions, or that Socrates Daemon is solely his conscience...
Ignoring the first jab, the daimon can be explained in purely rational terms, as it is done in Timaeus (with the metaphor of the circles of sameness and difference). The only required datum is our own being in the world as human beings, everything else can be derived from it.
>The Philosopher-Kings' wisdom and authority is supposedly meant to come from them Grasping the Good.
Maybe it was just a misunderstanding. Usually by "revelation" or "revealed datum" is meant something along the lines of "datum given through purely mystycal experience, or by sacred texts". My puzzlement stems from the fact that every element in Plato's philosophy seems to be ultimately deducible by rational means.

>>16071422
>>16071364
The problem is more the choice of names, like Intelligible; Intelligible-Inellective; Intellective.
But if you change these into Being, Life and Intellect it makes more sense.
Compare >>16064566 and >>16067131
and you see better how the triad is the ennead
Damascius does reflect on this complexifying character of Platonism.
The Irony is that Proclus, like >>16071100 said, does indeed so logically and rationally (aka autistically) defend all ever every distinction he makes. A real distinction is a real distinction. And it's also related to Divine Simplicity: if something is Simple then it can't be doing do two things.

Dillon somewhere did make the remark that it's better to imagine these triads as modalities of the same Subject, each triad being one Subject/hypostasis (except it's rather a meta-subject).
I personally don't bother with the Hyperscosmic, Hyper-Encosmic, and Encosmic.
Another reason is because it's the Chain of Being, everything overlaps, and this is one way in which all is one.
It's also related the Orphic Hymns with the series of Divine Kings (Phanes, Ouranus, Chronos, Zeus, Dionysus etcs,.) I'd suggest reading Thomas Taylor's explanations of Greek theology, or pic related. It all makes more and more sense the more you understand them.

>>16071572
>every element in Plato's philosophy seems to be ultimately deducible by rational means.
this is still true, hence the copious amounts Commentaries by the late ancients logically showing with 300IQ arguments the simultaneously rational and self-contradictory nature of Nature.
<Here's a little prefiguring of one of Aquinas ways, except MUCH superior of course.

>>16071651
the rest of the text in that pic

>Therefore the cause that makes the All by its very being is primarily what the cosmos is derivatively. If, then, the cosmos is a plenum of Forms of all sorts, these forms will exist also primarily in the cause of the cosmos. It is the same cause that gives substance to sun and moon and man and horse and in general all the Forms in the universe. These, therefore, are in an eminent degree in the cause of the universe, another Sun besides the one we sec, and another Man, and likewise for each of the Forms. Consequently, the Forms exist prior to sensible things and arc their demiurgic causes, preexisting, according to the argument just given, in the single cause of the entire cosmos.
If someone should say that the cosmos indeed has a cause, not, however, an efficient but a final cause, and that all things are thus related to that cause, he is right in making the good preside as cause over the whole. But let him say whether the cosmos receives anything from that good or receives nothing from it that corresponds to its desire. If it gets nothing, its striving would be in vain for a being that never enjoys at all the object of its desire. But if it receives something from it, that cause is surely and eminently the good which it bestows upon the cosmos, particularly if it not only gives good to the cosmos but also does so in virtue of its essence. And if this is true, it will be what establishes the universe, since it will first be the cause of its being if it is to give it its good in virtue of its essence. And so we arrive at the same doctrine as before; that cause will be not only a final, but also an efficient, cause of the All.

>>16071744
whoops
have my windows

Wonderful thread, thank you based Neoplatonist/Gerson poster. I’m assuming it’s the same you since I doubt two people have the same extensive knowledge and recommendations.

>>16071651
nobody saw that
didn happen, simple as

>>16071749
you'll recognize me by my frequent reuse of the same images together with my effort posts

>>16071840
You're a quality poster.

>>16061881
delete this thread faggot

>>16071492
>>16071592
Thanks for clarifications and recommendations. Currently reading "Thinking Being: Introduction to Metaphysics in the Classical Tradition" by Eric Perl.

Dunno if anyone here have read it. Gonna have to reread it after I finish it though because I find it all quite difficult, even though I think he have a good way of explaining things. Just a bit much in one go.

>>16072398
>Currently reading "Thinking Being: Introduction to Metaphysics in the Classical Tradition" by Eric Perl.

I love that book. Much to think about in it. He does a good job of re-orienting our minds away from the sort of facile dualism that keeps creeping into Platonic scholarship.

>>16072398
make sure to read his Theophany, if that's the same author I'm thinking of. He is brilliant.

I’m curious what some of your thoughts are on Leibniz. How compatible are his metaphysics and “monads” with Neoplatonism?

Is the One lonely?

dyad?

>>16075023
hi dad

>>16064566


Good goodposting. Ιθι χαιρων