/lit/ - Literature

>>18320313
>Pre-socratic prereading to Plato
>>18325754
>A comprehensive introduction to Platonism
>>18314054
>Who does the Platonic tradition include?
>>18315469
>The order of Plato's Dialogues
>>18318678
>Essential Neoplatonic texts

platonic chads

>>18371062
Based asf, is fractal geometry platonist or is there a lack of order?

>secondary texts
Yikes

>>18371079
pretty sure it is platonist

>>18371087
Plato said he didn't like writing because it was in effect an image of speaking as in it's derivative. You can't speak to a book, it's less ideal communicator but after communication has devolved to books what platonist justification exists to say secondary is bad?

>>18371098
Is it in line with his hierarchy of forms? What's "the good" in fractal and what's in the cave?

>>18371062
This picture is strongly reminiscient of DMT breakthrough visuals. What would Plato have thought of such experiences, dumb druggie memes aside?

Cast off your impurity for Atum in On and go down with him; assign the needs of the Lower Sky and succeed to the thrones of the Abyss. May you come into being with your father Atum, may you go up on high with your father Atum, may you rise with your father Atum. . . .
Go up, open your way by means of the bones of Shu, the embrace of your mother Nat will enfold you. Be pure in the horizon and get rid of your impurity in the Lakes of Shu.

Ascend and descend; descend with Re, sink into darkness with Nu.
Ascend and descend; ascend with Re, rise with the great Float-user.
Ascend and descend; descend with Nepthys, sink into darkness with the Night-bark.
Ascend and descend; ascend with Isis, rise with the Day-bark.

Come into being, go up on high, and it will be well with you, it will be pleasant for you in the embrace of your father, in the embrace of Atum.
O Atum, raise this king up to you, enclose him within your embrace, for he is your son of your body forever.

>>18371107
Your point doesn't hold up. Primary texts should be the focus and secondary lit should honestly be secondary. After engaging in these threads it actually seems like most people haven't even read Plato. Kinda disheartening desu.

>>18371053
>>18314054
>Other writers in the tradition that aren't doing explicitly philosophical treatises include:
>>St. Hildegard von Bingen
>>Dante Aligheri
>>Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Why would the platonic tradition include Dante? If he should be assigned to any philosophical tradition it would be aristotelianism.

>anime
Yikes!

>>18371044
What does /lit/ think of Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis? It sounds like it's basically Neo-Platonism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

Redpill me on Iamblichus and Damascius.

>>18371272
I didn't write that but I assume because of the layers of hell. Christianity is fundamentally platonist anyways. I don't have a hot take but that's my takeaway

>>18371239
Many secondaries are more illuminating than the primaries which is why second and third editions come out. It doesn't seem realistic but I don't see how that would follow as platonist dogma anyways. Keep in mind I like the primaries but because you engage with it in the same philosophical sense Plato does. I think secondaries can be more elucidative and can be a good primer before you tackle it.

>>18371287
I'm a bit more of a logicist so a mathematical platonist in those terms. I think it's a bit weird to say ome can derive ontology or ethics or metaphysics from just math but I haven't read the book. Just peeked inside

>>18371280
>based Heisenberg
Lost generation was based asf. Literally most influential generation in raw terms

>>18371534
I agree. I am no stranger to secondary sources however as a Platonism general the focus in here seems way out of balance. In the OP there should be some of Plato's main ontological texts pinned first on foremost. Ones dealing with the forms, the soul and so on. I think that would be reasonable.

>>18371376
Plato:
“Insofar as it has a property the same, it has a property that is not of another kind; and if it has a property that is not of another kind, it is not unlike; and if not unlike, it is like. But insofar as it has a property other, it has a property that is of another kind; and if it has a property that is of another kind, it is unlike.”—“That’s true.”—“So because the one is the same as the others and because it is different, on both grounds and either, it would be both like and unlike the others.”—“Certainly.”
“So, in the same way, it will be like and unlike itself as well. Since in fact it was shown to be both different from itself and the same as itself, on both grounds and either, won’t it be shown to be both like and unlike itself?”—“Necessarily.”

Plotinus:
God is cause of Himself; for Himself and of Himself He is what He is, the first self, transcendently The Self. Lovable, very love, the Supreme is also self-love in that He is lovely no otherwise than from Himself and in Himself. Self-presence can hold only in the identity of associated with associating; since, in the Supreme, associated and associating are one, seeker and sought one the sought serving as Hypostasis and substrate of the seeker—once more God’s being and his seeking are identical: once more, then, the Supreme is the self-producing, sovereign of Himself, not happening to be as some extern willed but existing as He wills it.

Iamblichus:
Prior to the true beings and to the universal principles there is the one god, prior cause even of the first god and king, remaining unmoved in the singularity of his own unity. For no object of intellection is linked to him, nor anything else. He is established as a paradigm for the self-fathering, self-generating and only-fathered God who is true Good; for it is something greater and primary, and fount of all things, and basic root of all the first objects of intellection, which are the forms. From this One
there has autonomously shone forth the self-sufficient god, for which reason he is termed “father of himself” and “principle of himself”; for he is first principle and god of gods, a monad springing from the One, pre-essential and first principle of essence. For from him springs essentiality and essence, for which reason he is termed “father of essence”; he himself is pre-essential being, the first principle of the intelligible realm, for which reason he is termed “principle of intellection.”

Damascius: pic related.

>>18371579
That's a good idea actually. Too be honest a year ago I was trying to make a meme which defined his metaphysics foundationally (like objective truth/justice in Republic derives his rhetoric Socratic dialogue in Protagoras) in a realistic way so you can see his core ideas and what naturally follow from them. So I agree with your sentiment. If you make the next general you should add at least a few ways to read primary maybe with some light commentary. The only issue I have with reading his primary is that I read it like a play. I get he wants ppl to but I need some dense stuff to pour over.

METAPHYSICA BOOK N - THE PRINCIPLES CANNOT BE CONTRARIES.
Did Aristotle btfo Platonists?

>>18371717
What's a contrary form?

>>18371534
>Many secondaries are more illuminating than the primaries
Definitely not. Secondary literature is just easier to digest when it's written with a modern sensibility.

>>18371044
Half of you cunts read like /x/ schizos.
I love it.

>>18371733
Aristotle is probably referring to the One and the Dyad.

>>18371740
I imagine the actual platonic academy felt similar

>>18371579
They promised would change the OP in the last thread to have more primary and less secondary sources

>>18371672
This is my note-taking method, it may help: I keep a notebook next to me when I read, and pause after each sentence to reflect whether I've understood it, then pause again after each paragraph. I'll reread frequently, when I don't find on reflection I've understood it. I usually take a note on the notepad, briefly summarizing what I've understood, for each paragraph. Sometimes a note will cover multiple paragraphs, sometimes multiple notes per paragraph, it depends on how dense the text is; basically I take a note for each crucial point covered in the text. If the text's editors give no other guidelines for references, I'll number each note with a [page].[paragraph] notation. When I'm done a section of text, I'll go back over my notes, and I'll review the text for any note I read that doesn't make sense to me, appending the note if needed. Then I'll try to organize the (roughly) paragraph summaries on my notepad into groups, describing the major divisions of the argument in the text, and make marginal notes on my notepad grouping together multiple lines of my notes as a division of this sort, and making a brief marginal note summarizing what goes on in this division. If the text is sufficiently long or complex, or I'm working with it a lot, I'll start a second version of my notes, where instead of (roughly) paragraph summaries on each line, I write a summary of these divisions of the argument, and then in the margins of this set of notes I'll organize these divisions into groups (super-divisions, if you like) in the same way. Ideally, I'd like to be able to give a statement of the text in (roughly) one sentence, to be able to expand that out to a statement of the major divisions of the text in (roughly) a quarter page (for an article) or half page (for a book) or full page (for a long book), to be able to expand that out to the (roughly) paragraph summaries I take while reading, and expand that out to the actual text. If I find that the overall argumentative structure of the text does not match its written structure, I'll make an additional version of notes which depicts its argumentative structure. Often this will involve diagrams rather than just written notes, and I'll label the diagrams with page/paragraph references based on the notes I take while I'm reading. And if I'm working closely with a particular section of the text, I'll make another version of notes, which tries to model the argumentative structure of the section I'm working with in a more formal premise/conclusion way. Here there may be several notes per paragraph if the text is particularly dense.

>>18371737
Then neo platonism has no value? Do Plato's later dialogies have less value than his earlier ones? It follows that later editions can advance upon earlier ideas.

>>18371765
>the entire platonic academy was actually a schizo production machine
Really makes ya think

>>18371787
I read that in another post. I simply don't have the luxury of that much time and I need a very dense work to be taking that much notes.

>>18371801
>Secondary source != further editions of an original work
The ancient commentators are different because they used their works to formulate their own philosophy

>>18371801
I didn't say secondary lit has no value, but a scholarly exercise is very different from reading for enlightenment, and secondary lit almost always falls into the former. Also, Neoplatonism isn't Plato, even if it is derived from him.

>>18371836
>formulate their own philosophy
I'm seeing an alteration in differing degrees but an alteration nonetheless. I'll go one further, as has been mentioned before, I think you should read Plato before reading Parmenides' poem. It covers more bread and depth of Parmenides and allows better interpretation that is lost on the reader full poem or not.

>>18371717
>subduing God to bare-bones logic
Ishiggydiggy
Aristotle couldn't see beyond Nous, while what he saw was true, to proclaim this as the apex was nothing but arrogance.

"To this one may respond that those men do not in fact employ as their first principles contraries of such a sort as to be insubstantial in the
sense of being inferior to substantiality, but if anything, in the sense of being superior; for the first principles of substantial reality must necessarily be supra-substantial. And in general, those men did not take their start from opposites as such, but they had knowledge of what was beyond the two tables of opposites, as Philolaus bears witness to when he says that God established Limit and Limitlessness, by ‘limit’ indicating the whole sequence of opposites more akin to the One, while by ‘limitlessness’ he indicates the sequence inferior to this, and prior again to these two principles they situated the unitary and completely separable cause, which Archaenetus declares to be a ‘cause above a cause’,while Philolaus asserts that it is ‘cause of all things’, and Brotinus as ‘surpassing all intellect and substance in power and dignity’.398 Taking his start from these, the divine Plato also, in the Letters, in the Republic, in the Philebus, and the Parmenides,399 utters the same sentiments on the same topic. So then, his premisses are not sound, since that one which states that ‘contraries inhere in a substratum’ is false (for if one is to call entities above the level of nature ‘contraries’, they are at all events not insubstantial), and also that one which states that ‘principles are substances’ (for the principles in the proper sense and the principles of all things are actually supra-substantial); nor does the conclusion refute any doctrine maintained by those men; for they did not take their start from opposites as such, but ranked as prior to these the One which transcends both the principles and the columns of opposites."

Also, Aristotle was a Platonist, just autistic about it, like the Stoics after him.

>>18371847
Enlightenment is probably a good point but I don't have an opinion on that. I can see primaries being better for that than secondary but I don't read based on that.

>>18371847
>>18371879
I'm interested what enlightenment reading would entail in an epistemology. It wouldn't be rationalism right? It's certainly not the same rationalism as "scholarly exercise".

>>18371847
>Neoplatonism isn't Plato

>>18371875
He literally says how logic and reason will be dependent on (and necessarily lead to) pure intuition, supra-logical principles.
You did not answer convincingly the dialectical necessity in the One in relation to itself and Dyad.

>>18371879
This quote convinced me

>>18371897
The problem here is that Plotinus, Iamblichus, Proclus, Damascius... are themselves inspired guided kings of thought.

>>18371879
>but I don't read based on that
It's the entire point of philosophy. Otherwise, you're just gathering petty facts about philosophers.

>>18371889
You're only gypping yourself if you think reading the Neoplatonists effectively substitutes for reading Plato.

>>18371897
Yes but it's necessarily putting the original as fundamental and commentaries as derivative. Sometimes the original insight contradicts itself or is literally just pulled from the author's ass and a posthumous correction should be made (I'm thinking more Kant). I definitely find value in primary but not in some inalienable way. It's beneficial in value to reality and objective truth. Where it falls short another work can elucidate it better.

>>18371940
I rigorously system build

>>18371940
Plato didn't write his most important doctrines. I just want to remind you this.

>>18371931
I didn't make the argument that reading Iamblichus or whoever is worthless

>>18371998
I feel like I'm not quite getting what you're trying to say in the second sentence, would you expand on that? As for reading secondaries in order to better understand minute points of a work, I think pic related does a nice job of refuting that notion

>>18372010
Sure, but now we're talking about Aristotle, Hermodorus, etc. That's not really secondary lit.

>>18372010
Source?

>>18371895
Nobody said The One and the Dyad are the principles in any sense of equality o each-other. That's what Syrianus critiques, Aristotle refutes a strawman that yet did not exist (duaism).
The Dyad is contrary the One (the Monad with herself) but the One is not Contrary to the Dyad.
>>18371940
I'm not the one who says, which I don't think anyone has, that they substitute Plato. They Dialogue Plato and each-other.
>If there is someone who is the least bit more advanced in
virtue than ourselves, he is to be cherished.

>>18372049
Phaedrus, Republic, Letter VII, Aristotle, Sextus Empiricus, Speusippus, Plotinus...

>>18372043
Yet many failed to see, reconstruct and interpret Plato with this in mind. Also you were disregarding neoplatonists when they are a valuable source likewise on what Plato did not write.

>>18372052
They are not equal, but what makes the One Good? Isn't it what the One is? Limit? Definition? Unity? How does the One ''actualizes'' what it is?

>>18372073
>Phaedrus, Republic, Letter VII, Aristotle, Sextus Empiricus, Speusippus, Plotinus.
Anon, you just cited tens of volumes of books and even an author whose works have been completely lost. Where is this said exactly?

>>18372100
None of what I cited was completely lost, just do the basic and do a research.
You never read Phaedrus? The second part of it?

>>18372049
Aristotle.
And Plato himself, also dunks on that Schelling quote, even if it can be true it shouldn't be relied on.
>SOCRATES: Well, then, those who think they can leave written instructions for an art, as well as those who accept them, thinking that writing can yield results that are clear or certain, must be quite naive and truly ignorant of Ammon’s prophetic judgment: otherwise, how could they possibly think that words that have been written down can do more than remind those who already know what the writing is about?
SOCRATES: You know, Phaedrus, writing shares a strange feature with painting. The offsprings of painting stand there as if they are alive, but if anyone asks them anything, they remain most solemnly silent. The same is true of written words. You’d think they were speaking as if they had some understanding, but if you question anything that has been said because you want to learn more, it continues to signify just that very same thing forever. When it has once been written down, every discourse roams about everywhere, reaching indiscriminately those with understanding no less than those who have no business with it, and it doesn’t know to whom it should speak and to whom it should not. And when it is faulted and attacked unfairly, it always needs its father’s support; alone, it can neither defend itself nor come to its own support.

>So much at least I can affirm with confidence about any who have written or propose to write on these questions, pretending to a knowledge of the problems with which I am concerned, whether they claim to have learned from me or from others or to have made their discoveries for themselves: it is impossible, in my opinion, that they can have learned anything at all about the subject. There is no writing of mine about these matters, nor will there ever be one. For this knowledge is not something that can be put into words like other sciences; but after long-continued intercourse between teacher and pupil, in joint pursuit of the subject, suddenly, like light flashing forth when a fire is kindled, it is born in the soul and straighway nourishes itself.
Of course Plato's Dialogue are ironically a pseudo-exception to this, but they still need guidance and interpretation, from those who were taught, but ultimately it's only by God's grace lifting you up that you can receive "visions", which are more like glimpses through a fog for anyone not perfectly virtuous.

I don't understand shit to what's being discussed in this thread

>>18372159
Read 'First Alcibiades'.

>>18372178
I was about to start Phaedo tonight

>>18372121
>Speusippus

>>18372038
It's how you're wording it. Maybe we take different reading metaphysics. I read to try and take the wisdom of the book to understand reality more. It applies to all reading, instructional, if I'm reading to get a comedic or lighthearted perception of reality it's the same process for me so this is fundamentally reading to me.
So say I'm reading Plato. I don't consider him necessarily 100% correct at the very least because no human has complete epistemic certainty so there are more fundamental truths to be had. I try to match up what any author says with it being a fundamental truth and where it's lacking I assume a better argument exists than it. It can come from some different original primary or it could be a direct or very indirect commentary on the work.

>>18372127
the reason why Plato's works transcend this limitation of normal writing is that the Dialogue form and Aporia begets this, he in a way trolled humanity by not giving the answers to the highest question (although Damascius will show you how he did):

SOCRATES: By making the point that it is through discourse that the same
thing flits around, becoming one and many in all sorts of ways, in whatever
it may be that is said at any time, both long ago and now. And this will
never come to an end, nor has it just begun, but it seems to me that this
is an “immortal and ageless” condition that comes to us with discourse.
Whoever among the young first gets a taste of it is as pleased as if he had
found a treasure of wisdom. He is quite beside himself with pleasure and
revels in moving every statement, now turning it to one side and rolling
it all up into one, then again unrolling it and dividing it up.

His dialogues almost asks one to do this^

>>18372188
>completely
we have fragments of his lost works and accounts from other people about them.

>>18372182
I like to imagine that whatever dialogue I most recently read is the one Socrates dreams about before waking up in Crito.
Are these tears faith?

>>18372127
Those passages you just cited contain sublime thoughts and beautiful phrases, and the ending of the second paragraph is probably the reason for why Pythagoras did not write anything down. But, I think the very last sentence proves Schelling right, he doesn't deny the practicality of having an engaging teacher. The flash of which Socrates is speaking is the same flash that Schelling refers to when we read original primary texts, instead of the latest academic filler.

>>18372225
We have testimonia for pretty much every ancient philosopher we know, otherwise they would be completely forgotten. Which fragment of Speusippus' words refers to the notion of unwritten teachings?

>>18372284
Now you are quibbling about what has nothing to do with my original post. First, we have accounts from him about the unwritten doctrines and we have fragments of lost works so they are not completely lost as you said.

>>18371062
>platonic chads
>most of them using anime child pictures

>>18372345
First, we have accounts from him about the unwritten doctrines and we have fragments of lost works so they are not completely lost as you said.
Where can I find those fragments

>>18372360

>>18371107
Yet there is a lot of proofs that plato's texts were rewritten on his own---alive---time. Platonism is aristocratic, but is far from being true or useful irl.

>>18372362
>References will be to the primary sources; the two most recent collections of the fragments (Isnardi Parente 1980, Tarán 1981) have indices that will enable the reader to locate the texts (Lang 1911 does not).
https://www.amazon.com/Frammenti-Italian-Fragments-Speusippus-Marcelo/dp/B001MHGD2O

Now just shut the fuck up you insufferable bullhead.

>>18372372
>mathematical platonism didn't lead Godel to incompleteness and, via Turing, to computers

>>18372360
Anime is based

>>18372382
>$200 for some bits and scraps
Thanks, I just have to wade through 200 pages of text in a language I can't read. Why are you so mean? Please just tell me where Speusippus talks about the unwritten doctrines I NEED TO KNOW

>>18372372
>Platonism is aristocratic, but is far from being true or useful irl.
What the fuck are you talking about

>>18372416
>>18372371
>>18372360
>Having defined ‘solid’ that which is material, it is evident that he does not want to define the eternal vehicle of the soul as ‘solid’, because it is not three-dimensional, but flat, because it is thin and immaterial, and this is the reason he urges us to ‘not deepen the surface’ and not to make it earthly and damp through a filthy life.

>>18372431
Plato confirmed weeb.

>>18372424
I found the passage, it's from Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Physics Book I pg 151, 6-7. It says:
>Alexander says that 'According to Plato the principles of everything, including the Forms themselves, are the One and the indefinite Dyad, which he called the great and the small, as Aristotle also reports in his "On the Good"
>One can get this information from Speusippus, Xenocrates and the others, who were present at Plato's lecture on the Good; all of them wrote down and preserved his view, and they say that he treated those as principles.

>>18372465
I was wrong to claim that *all* of the writings of Speusippus have been lost, my bad. The point of naming him was to add support to the notion of unwritten teachings. Anyways, here's his letter to Philip II: https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2005/2005.03.03/

>>18372424
Holy shit dude just read books on the unwritten doctrines and you will see how Speusippus is often cited as a source. You have never read Aristotle? He attests for Speusippus' accounts on unwritten doctrines, like in Metaphysics 1091b 15-30.
Google Speusippus unwritten doctrines, read his wikipedia page, whatever, you can find information about his accounts and opinions concerning plato's protology.

>>18372481
You would do well to familiarize yourself with his works then

>>18372507
Why did it take so long?

bump

We could have a /lit/ official platonism discord server couldnt we? Just saying just saying.

>>18374174
Yeah but someone would have to make it

>>18374344
https://discord.gg/nNgfFT46

>>18374356
It's official. We have to put it in the copy-paste

>>18374356
Okay but in this vein and I'm shitposting but what would a platonist crypto look like? Like how does one accrue value in platonism?

>>18374174
only if we start promoting namebros in this board

>>18372431
Wait until I tell you about a certain Islamic geometry book that says the higher planes are two-dimensional.

>>18374427
You rang?

>>18374475
based Euthyphro!

>>18374174
Discussion here on /lit/ is so slow a thread can be up for days. What need is there of a chat room with namefags?

>>18374589
>alcebiades being cringe again
not base like fedon!

>>18374589
we don't have these generals permanently, the server would serve as a fixed place and from where we can organize next PG here on lit

>>18374589
>>18374644
Well it's not just that but a discord lends itself to fast discussion

>>18372203
Do you think Aristotle's rhetoric is deficient compared to Plato's? Do you think the scientific method is more comparable to Socratic dialogue or is there a better avenue to do platonist science?

>>18371272
>>18371514
cosmology was very neoplatonic, especially the arrangement of the heavens
hell having layers wasn't what was really novel Dante got that from Aquinas
>>18371079
very platonist
>>18371087
it was supposed to be the first part of a far longer list that got truncated into that first reply
>>18371276
you have to go back
>>18371287
yea its pretty based
>>18371740
how else are we supposed to achieve our redeeming gnosis that allows our noetic activity to realise its true place in the thearchy?
>>18371717
no, its the resolution of contraries into distinct priori and posterior principles that neoplatonism works from
Aristotle was the first Platonist
>>18371889
based gerson poster
>>18372159
just cruise through the Symposium and Alcibiades I
>>18372431
BASED

I think that everyone seems from previous thread and in this one too not to understand the point of contemporary secondary sources.
You don't read a modern academic on say Plato to understand what Plato is saying in any manner better than if you were to just read Plato. Rather, you read the scholarship to see how its situated. Which dialogue do I read first? What did the Neoplatonists suggest in their academy? Who is Plato drawing on? How was this received later in history? Thus the point of secondary sources is to answer all these, nonetheless pertinent, extraneous questions. Gerson, Shaw and Perl won't give you intellectual enlightenment, but they are useful as primers, tools for organising thought, and for figuring out where to go next in your reading.

>>18374890
How is fractal geometry platonist? I don't get a clear hierarchy in it of forms

>>18374890
the resolution implicates the dialectical necessary correlation.

>>18374475
lol

>>18371044
Ok, finally we got a Pastebin going for the order of Plato's dialogues.
Basically merged the Neoplatonic curriculum from the Anonymous Prolegomena with Cooper's order + good recommendations from anons in previous threads.

https://pastebin.com/fMD6qsQj
>https://pastebin.com/fMD6qsQj

>>18371044
Ok, finally we got a Pastebin going for the order of Plato's dialogues. Basically merged the Neoplatonic curriculum from the Anonymous Prolegomena with Cooper's order + good recommendations from anons in previous threads.

https://pastebin.com/S8Xv3eec

>>18375365
Can we put previous thread at top mate so it doesn't get missed

>>18375041
The Parmenides is a fractal of The One through Being.

>>18375493
How does one get from being to fractal math. Even more, how does one get calculus from fractal geometry?

>>18375365
When I said read the first five books of Laws early on, that wasn't exactly what I meant (it's always preferable to read an entire dialogue from start to finish), but I guess people don't want have to re-read do that's 'fine', although reading Book X out of nowhere seems like an undeserved cheat. Like watching good scenes of a movie or show that you haven't watched, sure Laws has fillers, but even if you "get" the characters from only those few scenes, there's something missed which you can't know.

>>18375519
>although reading Book X out of nowhere seems like an undeserved cheat. Like watching good scenes of a movie or show that you haven't watched
ok this is a fair critique hahaha
>>18375475
absolutely

>>18375507
I'm not the guy you spoke to previously, I only pointed out that the chain of being in Platonism is a fractal.
Also the idea that the individual soul has all the forms within their heart, and also that each Form inheres in every other but itself primarily (the Great is Small, and the Small is Great, but it's like Great-Small and Small-Great) this might be quite advanced. Christians got their perichoresis from this.

>>18375536
No I don't disagree I'm just curious mechanically how that works. Like proof rather than assertions that fractal geometry falls out of plato's metaphysics and that it can found math vs say logic etc.

>>18375543
You're asking for something I can't prove in 30 min.
But here are some ""useful"" graphs.

>>18374174
Discord is absolute cancer

>>18375600
based chlup proclus poster

>>18375600
Yeah, I think it would lend a lot of creedence to universities adopting the platonist education framework if it can be worked out a functioning math/logic/science/ethics etc from platonism. If it's said to be better than the metaphysics we use now then it would be insanely helpful to all fields. It's certainly a project though but I imagine the most important one.

>>18371044
>>18371053
Can we please not with the anime pics.

>>18376206
Why does anime make /lit/ seethe so much

>>18375600
This seems like a downgrade from the elegance of Plotinus' system. I think Occams Razor applies here (the real Occams Razor, not the commonly understood one, don't multiply entities unnecessarily). There is little point in the henads except to try and salvage a polytheistic religious system.

>>18371847
>Also, Neoplatonism isn't Plato
Platonism is a tradition. Plato was just one Platonist of many.

>>18376280
Because its a fucking literature board.

>>18376338
But anime isn't being discussed, it's just a picture

>>18376338
Plato would've been into anime since it's the ideal form of beauty that real women cannot instantiate

>>18376348
It's closer to the ideal, but it's not the ideal itself

>>18376339
A relevant image like the last few threads would make sense.

>>18376363
Not if it doesn't make you seethe. Anime site, anime board. The reason you have this board is because anime

When you lack God in your worldview, everything inevitably falls into dialectical tension and conflict because you do not see the Logos that holds everything together in its proper order and context and transcends the "problem" of multiplicity vs unity.
Platonic Forms are quite literally real and they exist in the Logos, the mind of Christ, the second Person of the Trinity.
https://youtu.be/rBG2pPFshVQ

>>18376433
Please shut the fuck up

>>18376433
meow

>>18376433
What a content looking kitty

>>18376441
No, I will not.
We are not all one. Monism is a lie. God created different types of objects. Distinctions are real and good. Distinction does not necessitate conclict, but midwits assume that there must be conflict because they do not have God in their worldview. God created different things to exist together in harmony.

>>18376433
I agree with you but the guy you linked is an insufferable pseud and Jay Dyer ball licker.

>>18376469
Sure. No reason to become a Christian though.

>>18376473
What if he's a ball licker?

>>18376469
Notice you keep saying GOD. There is clearly an order based on God. You can't deny order otherwise we're all the same as God. Pr is a good example of order >>18375600

>>18376473
What do you have against him and Jay Dyer

>>18376487
They don't stfu and talk to ppl you pontificate annoyingly then shift to emotional anecdotes when the time is right trying to pepper in hate towards catholics, jews everything you're against

>>18376504
>shift to emotional anecdotes
No they don't.
>pepper in hate towards catholics, jews everything you're against
That's based.

>>18376487
Convertdox whose faith serves the sole purpose of getting into arguments with Catholics

>>18376521
Holy shit if I haven't heard men beyond middle age whine and bitch about complete random anecdotes in order to say catholics deserve to be skinned slive in hell before.
Y'all are second on my list of people it is almost always a negative experience to debate. Like stfu in discord and let other people speak and you may be wrong believe it or not.

>>18376533
>Y'all
gross

>>18376540
>texas supremacy invading pop culture and making yankees seethe
Yah love to see it happen. Wait till y'all start saying fixing to.

>>18376330
Plotinus system is less coherent but expresses the same stem (Father>Life>Intellect = One-Being = the Primary Intelligible > Soul) Plotinus mentions how if the forms are self-caused how much do isn't the One? This hints at the superessential Henads.
Henad is used once by Plato in Philebus, which could be said to be the finale of all his dialogues (even if Parmenides is more advanced and Timaeus more important), if we hold that every detail in Plato is intentional, why did he use Monads and Henads in the same dialogue (Philebus) and not just either of the two? Clearly there's a distinction implied.

>>18376544
It is filthy liberal leftists who talk like that. They also say "folks".

>>18376552
Plato was just a philosopher. He wasn't divinely inspired and the dialogues are hardly rigorous philosophical expositions of his own views.

>>18376469
Are you trying to imply Platonism denies real distinct and real difference and real division? We even, as you can see, recognize more than one type of difference.
Logoi - Logos doctrine is literally what sat Plotinus apart from most middle Platonists and ushered in the unity of Philosophy that was Late Platonism. That God as One-Being is One-Many, likewuse Soul is One and Many.

>>18376552
Christianity is the obvious true heir to Neoplatonism and cut all this chaff out for a reason. Dionysius fixes Proclus and brings him back in to line with divinely revealed truth.

>>18376571
Folks is what you call the cops down south. I can't help it if we kick ass at language and know how to make effective and comfy words. In Texas we call the cops the law. You say the law is coming and everyone runs.

>>18376578
>Are you trying to imply Platonism denies real distinct and real difference and real division?
No! I implied no such thing. Platonic Forms are literally real. I already said that.

>>18376573
>He wasn't divinely inspired
wrong

Nominalism is reddit tier. If there are no universals, no essences, then you inevitably fall into the faggy "social construct" retardation of modernity.

>>18376607
The question is how you set up your universals. I don't see a trialism composong everything. It doesn't make sense.

>>18376584
In Australia we call them coppas. Or equally as common, coppa cunts.

>>18376617
No one cares you don't exist. Nice people but not a real country.

>>18376617
Will you critique my australian accent? https://voca.ro/1kvZvq8Zpu91

>>18376573
>hardly rigorous philosophical expositions
>T. hasn't read Parmenides, Sophist, and Philebus

>>18376582
This reminds me to actually write down my list of internal contradictions and logical problems in Orthodox dogma.

>>18376330
also it's a shallow representation of Proclus system

>>18376433
Retard alert. Dyer fags need to gtfo. Presupp is dead on arrival because it commits the fallacy of begging the question, and then in order to justify that it commits the fallacy of special pleading.

>>18376348
material things are closer to the ideal forms than objects from a man's mind

>>18376487
He’s a total fucking retard. It’s hilarious to watch him fail to put his argument into a syllogism because it lets you see how horrible it is as an argument and he actually thinks ad hoc is a fallacy (it’s not it’s just frowned upon). Also he is a young earth creationist, so not only is he a retard because he thinks ad hoc is a fallacy, he’s also a retard because be believes in an interpretation of the evidence that is literally only possible through ad hocs.

i have a personal crusade against all expressions of monism. i'm coming after you, crypto buddhists

>>18377106
Here is the list.
>

>>18377263
>>18377308
You sound really mad but I have not seen any arguments to defend your own position. Only strawmanning Jay's argument. Hmmmmmm

>>18377468
>i have a personal crusade against all expressions of monism.
Based. Me too.

orthodoxy is schismatic. why bother talking about it. they prefer union with anglicans

>there is hierarchy in everything... except on authority. let us forget the figure of the high priest of jerusalem

>>18377308
Do you deny that logic exists, and if so, then why are you trying to use it right now???

>>18377504
I have never seen any Orthodox Christians talking about uniting with Anglicans. Orthodox are always very strongly AGAINST ecumenism.

>>18377468
What's your justification? I'm a predicational monist

>>18377512
>ORTHODOX AND ANGLICANS IN DIALOGUE
https://publicorthodoxy.org/2020/10/02/orthodox-and-anglicans-in-dialogue/

>ORTHODOX ANGLICANISM AND CHRISTIAN REUNION
https://orthochristian.com/59798.html

>FOUR HUNDRED YEARS OF DIALOGUE

>>18377263
>>18377308
In his video on the transcendental argument for God, Jay explains very clearly that ultimately, any worldview is grounded in a circular argument. Either you believe that God exists, or you believe that somehow, logic just exists on its own independent of anything else because it just does and that's that.
Or you also reject logic, but if that is the case then you are a hypocritical fool to even be arguing in the first place.

>>18377532
monism leads to arrogance, impenitence and indifference, the contrary of a humble and charitable life, i see it as pure evil. matsumoto's shiro critique of zen apply very well to this

>>18377549
Dualism is more sane than monism, what a weight off my shoulders it was to finally just accept Evil is a real and existent thing unto itself.

...but Plato was a retard?

>>18377609
No and you talk like reddit.

>>18377542
>any worldview is grounded in a circular argument.
well, you have 2 other options:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

>>18377549
Monism leads to arrogance etc? Are you pulling that out of your ass? Here which one of your Gods is that which indifference comes from smarts?

>>18376469
based as fuck

>>18376476
This

>>18377549
>matsumoto's shiro critique of zen

thank you for this rec

http://kr.buddhism.org/zen/koan/Shiro_Matsumoto.htm

>>18377468
where is this from?

You should make this into ancient greece general so it survives

>>18377468
I don't like Buddhism but only because it denies the existence of the soul and effectively amounts fo crypto-physicalism.

>>18378186
Antisthenes, Aristotle, Pyrrho, and Zeno, were all derivative versions of Socrates/Plato.

>>18378212
>seething bald tattooed fatty when he reads this

>>18378016
there is also this https://www.jstor.org/stable/3270201?seq=1

>>18378021
memory in plotinus
https://www.jstor.org/stable/637918?seq=1

>>18378212
This is why new age hippy dippy retards shill Buddhism so hard. They think a vaguely ""spiritual"" version of materialist atheism is so cool and enlightened.

>>18378277
buddhism is scientific!

>>18377468
absolutely based
join my discord
https://discord.gg/HDWRzKehHS

>>18378021
an easily derived truth by simple reading Plotinus' 4th Ennead

>>18377296
>drawing of a triangle closer to the real thing than objects from man's mind
retard cope

>>18378307
triangle in nature (if it was possible) would be a better image of the triangle form than a triangle conceived by one's limited knowledge. anime directors/design do not contemplate on womanhood, they just play with stereotypes

>>18378328
Both of these statements are laughably wrong

>>18378332
>anime characters are more real than real women
ok do not ever again reply to my posts

>>18378338
"Real" women are real shit

>>18378340
you are in the cave watching anime projected on the cave wall

>>18378346
>>18372416

>>18377468
so the way I understand this is that you still have your memories, only they're not accessed in the same analog sort of manner that we access them here?

If illusions are part of our real world experience then aren't illusions real?

What are some key dialogues from the middle/ late period excluding Phaedo, Gorgias, Reupblic, Timaeus, Parmenides?

>>18379047
>middle/ late period

>>18379062
Well ive read all of these plus the majority of the shorter, Socratic dialogues. Should i just move on now or am i missing anything?

so why do we allow ourselves to ignore Aeneas of Gaza?

hes never mentioned here.

>>18379123
Don't think he's been ignored. If you want something talked about, spark up a discussion.

>>18379123
I mentioned him (along with Victorinus) in the previous thread, he's pretty much ignored here

>>18378212
Buddhism is just the path of absolute annihilation. This statement makes bugmen gesticulate but it's true, look at how the Buddha's philosophy is so inconsistent that he refused to answer a bunch of questions. They don't care about truth, they only want to erase themselves. I have as much respect for Buddhists as I do for the average reddit nihilist

What do we think of Ibn Arabi aka Ibn Aflatun (son of Plato)?

>>18380854

>>18380858

>>18380868

>>18380902

>>18380910

>>18380917

>>18380925
and I'm done.

>>18377468
This is really close to truth and I’m glad Plotinus knew it. I just think that you don’t become literally the Nous, you partake of it in an intimate way in the christian sense of Logos and Christ. And the personal memories are retained but clarified through the light of Logos, giving them their real meaning for we have intuition in creation leading to God, whatever contemplation and power our soul manifests down here, in whatever degree, they are not in vain for they are pure and divine.

>>18380404
Buddhism is fundamentally life negating. It's the opposite of western philosophy which is life affirming.

>>18381761
>retard American conflating desire with life again

>>18381767
Rocks desire nothing thus they are the ultimate Buddhist. The soul is a principle of vitality and ever changing. Desire for the good is what propels people toward the Nous, denying desire means denying the means of attaining actual transcendence and in the process you deny your very being.

>>18381781
This. Those idiots cant see how Will is primordial and fundamental.

>>18381471
Agreed. Plotinus is for many a stepping-stone to Christianity. You realize the ambivalences in Plotinus are resolved by Christian trinitarianism, and you thank God we got a religion this good.

>>18381814
Any formal proof of trin ironing out these inconsistencies?

>>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.

>>18377535
you sound like an aboriginal

>>18365151
Okay, anon. First of all, you retard, all of these emphasis on bringing back ceremonial practices and mysteries is because it solves every epistemological problem or conflict between becoming and being. Philosophy came out of poetry, and will return to it

>>18376348
Fucking retards. Anime and shit thats on a screen is the zenith of the shadows on the cave wall. Plebs get out of my thread.

>>18376573
>he didn't read the phaedo where Socrates talked about initiation and magic wands

>>18377554
Doesn't this contradict Socrates who i thought suggested that people only ever have the good in mind when they act and the problem is their ignorance about what they think is good.

>>18378507
A reflection is real as is the thing it reflects as is the eternal Idea of the thing that is reflected.
I dont find illusion to be a useful concept.

>>18378507
“Man, Sub-creator, the refracted Light through whom is splintered from a single White to many hues, and endlessly combined in living shapes that move from mind to mind. Though all crannies of the world we filled with Elves and Goblins, though we dared to build Gods and their houses out of dark and light, and sowed the seed of dragons — `twas our right (used or misused). That right has not decayed: we make still by the law in which we’re made.” (Tolkien, On Fairy Stories 74)

>>18382452
Wrong

>>18382441
If God is fundamentally of which everything derives, how do you call yourself a non-monist?

>>18382702
I dont understand this antimonism as well.

>>18380404
>>18381781
I am convinced that those who say there is no soul are right in a sense, because they don't have one. It's so intuitively and viscerally obvious that you would have to be completely spiritually barren to deny such a simple truth. Same with the existence of God.

>>18383060
I think this helps prove consciousness at least isn't neurons https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-free-will-collides-with-unconscious-impulses/

>>18383068
At this point anyone who's still a materialist is a guaranteed brainlet. Donald Hoffman makes a pretty convincing case too.
What baffles me is that Buddhists aren't materialists per se but still deny both God and the soul.

>>18383099
I see physicalists regularly but materialism hasn't been academically considered regular for a century at least.

>>18383110
Sorry, I tend to use both terms interchangeably even though they're not the same thing.

>>18382702
>>18382943
Just because God is the efficient cause, it does not mean that what is caused partakes univocally in the very substance of God such that distinctions between God and the given thing are either merely conceptual constructions and/or illusions.
A good way to think of it is as Dionysius did: the Godhead is the enfolding and unfolding of all things - complicatio/explicatio. This avoids not only monism and dualism but also pantheism and the trappings of regular theism.
God is "in" all things, as their constitutive and sustaining cause, but the differentiated being is delimited while He is not. He is "all things in all things and nothing in any." His utter transcendence and otherness to beings (his infinitude/unconditionedness vs their finitude/conditionedness) and his utter immamence (present to all as cause) are one and the same. Without the transendence he would be a being among beings, and thus within the total set of beings we call "all things" and we would have an infinite regress to try and explain "all things". What monism gets right however is that his immanence is total. What it gets wrong however is that to be is to be intelligible, and thus to be this or that thing, and thus being is difference and so mind-independant.

>>18383179
That's predicational monism you just described. There are different kinds of monisms. There isn't a justification for or against other ontological dimensions but at least in terms of object relationships of one cause one effect (in general) and efficient cause by God is certainly monism of some sort

>>18383111
They may as well be. Materialists just shifted the goal posts to physicalism.

>>18383208
Physicalism acknowledges immaterial things but suggest they fundamentally come from the material substance (like Aristotle). It is a lot more operable but it's terrible.

>>18383198
Ok you're using monism in the more academic, "priority, "numerical, "substance", "material", "predicational" monism type thing.
Well yea ok material/substance/numerial monism are all false. Predicational (plurality of one-beings as to be is to be unified) and priority monism (all are derived from God in some manner) are correct.

>>18383242
Yeah I agree, I'm not a pantheist or anything but translating every real phenomenon into predicational monism has been a boon for me as a structure going into any subject.

>>18383242
>>18383277
On that, though, would you accept a sort of immaterial atomism of which perhaps God is the atom of some sort? I work from the opposite direction in which atoms are necessarily particular and don't dictate any real structures but what do you think?

>>18377619
>platolet posts something retarded
Shocking!

Reddit doesn't use words like retard you retard lol

Plato's dialogues are based for the questions they raise but Platonism is cringe.

I think /lit/ has some of the most intelligent posters of the website...

...but I don't think you'll find them in the Platonism thread.

>>18383519
Where would you find them?

>>18383538
Waifu threads around the site

>>18383544
Surprisingly based.

>>18383060
Some souls enter the world without a guardian Daemon, as punishment.

>>18383555
Punishment for what?
What is the purpose of a Daemon and how do you know if you have one? I think I don't.

>>18383562
You wouldn't ask that question if you didn't.

>>18383568
That only raises more questions.

>>18382441
You've convinced me to read Dionysius.

>>18383555
Is there a way to contact it for guidance, without being misled by other entities?

Monism is a lie, but it is the perfect religion for the global homo system, which is why it is shilled so hard in the modern age.
>dude, distinctions and boundaries aint real bro, we're all one, don't you get it? Gender and race are social constructs, let us take away your national borders and flood your land with immigrants.

>>18383763

To be fair you can do this with absolutely any religion

Is it normal that reading Phaedo has only convinced me to be utterly skeptical of every afterlife doctrine and religious dogma, or did I read it wrong?

>>18383776
What do you mean?
A religion that teaches that there are distinct essential differences between different things is antithetical to global homo system, which wants everything to become one big gray, formless, vague, ambiguous blob of nothingness.

>>18383786
>>18383763
You're confusing politics with reality. Evolution is based off essences and whichever degree of permeability between them. Chemistry is similar. Dark/cold are absence of light/heat work off this. Evil is the absence of good is privatio boni. It's a workable framework is my point.

>>18383811
>privatio boni.
Not him but I don't understand this. It's always more difficult to do good than to do evil. If I punch you in the face that's an active process, it didn't happen because I passively chose to not be good, I deliberately chose to do evil. Not sure if that makes sense

>>18383811
Modern politics are the opposite of reality, but what I am saying is that everything, including one's political framework, SHOULD be in line with reality and form one coherent, consistent worldview. Modern liberal politics are bad precisely BECAUSE they are total opposite of what is natural and true.

>>18383817
What exactly is deduced from evil as an ontological unit which can derive punching people in the face? Surely that can be good if saving a life no? Even indiscriminately you may do this.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by active vs not though

>>18383824
Sure but you said one worldview not 2 or more.

>>18383763
>Monism is a lie, but it is the perfect religion for the global homo system, which is why it is shilled so hard in the modern age.

This. Look up non-dualism on youtube and you can see tons of boomers promoting it. There's also the paid shill Guenonfag who can't stop spamming his and promoting what is probably his publisher's books.

>>18383817
>>18383831
Evil has no ontological substance in itself. God created everything good. Evil is simply this: when a created being with free will chooses to move away from God.

>>18383847
>humans, including the majority can be right or wrong
Interdasting

>>18383853
Yeah I agree

>>18383831
>not sure exactly what you mean by active vs not
I'm just thinking that if evil is only defined in relation to good as an absence of the latter, then shouldn't evil be a "default" state of existence?
>>18383853
Then evil is a matter of distance?

>>18383863
There's no nothing state which would be analog to evil as you've described

>>18383862
>>18383863
A lot of people have this view that good and evil are both inherent, natural components of reality, one cannot exist without the other, and they have to form a "balance" like a Taoist yin and yang or something.
This is absolutely wrong. If evil is just as natural part of reality as good, then is evil actually even evil? If it needs to be there then isn't it good, just like good is? That is the problem with these new agey, wishy washy spiritualists who talk about balance. They don't see the inherent flaws in this. They are just condoning evil.

>>18383786
catfag is sperging about "global homo system" and "monism" again. top kek! you know what at this point you don't have to avatarfag, everybody knows you just by the three buzzwords in your bullshit retarded vernacular, you dumb bitch. of course you love to overuse them because you do not have an actual fluid vocabulary. you are worse than butterfly.

>>18383881
I 100% agree. Also I'd be curious what a non monist causation narrative would look like. Would there be two opposite effects to a single cause? Or is it reverse where two causes have one effect? People generally couch their ontdims in monist causation narratives.

>>18383786
Non-dualism doesnt necessitate that a state of duality does not exist.

>>18383847
Look up anything on youtube and you'll find people trying to make money from it.

>>18377468
>>18377549
>>18381814
lel of course you're a christcuck. Sorry sweetie but no amount of moralfaggotry will change the fact that monism is true and ethics is but a steppingstone the fuller realization that is beyond good and evil.

>>18383917
take meds

>>18383917
Take meds

>>18383886
Literally not a hint of argument to be found in this terrible post

>>18383917
Monism is true, alright...truly satanic.

>>18383950
>satanic
Oh yes, yes huhuhuhu

>>18383946
idc about your argument i just despise that faggot

>>18383587
I would like an answer to this question please

>>18383975
Unironically pray to Christ or one of the archangels.

>>18383984
I'm not a Christian, I'm not even baptized. Isn't a belief in the divinity and resurrection of Christ necessary for such a thing at the very least?

>>18383989
Start believing or venture out blind. Not being mean thats just the options you have.

>>18383930
>>18383935
>>18383950
>monism is satanic!

>>18384001
How do you just choose to believe in something? Belief has always been spontaneous and automatic for me, not something that is attained.

>>18383965
Begone you devil.

>>18380868
>the body provides a vehicle for the soul developing into the particular individual
I agree, do you assume that consciousness is universal until a bit gets particularized into the material vehicle?

>>18378212
How can the soul be immortal if it can change? If it cannot change, then how are we here?

>>18384284
Not sure, I am not Ibn Arabi but sometimes he says based things.

>>18384284
the object of consciousness, before the body, is universal

>>18385140
I think so too desu that just makes sense

>>18380868
>>18384284
Here's Plotinus.

In this way, then, though soul is a divine being and derives from the
places above, it comes to be encased in a body, and though being a god,
albeit of low rank, it comes thus into this world by an autonomous
inclination and at the bidding of its own power, with the purpose of
bringing order to what is inferior to it. And if it extricates itself
promptly, it suffers no harm, acquiring a knowledge of evil and learning
the nature of vice, while bringing its own powers into the light and
exhibiting deeds and productions which, if it had remained inactive in
the incorporeal world, would have been useless, as never coming to
actuality; and the soul itself would never have known what capacities it
had, since they would never have been revealed or developed. This is so,
if indeed in all cases actualization reveals the potentiality that would
otherwise have been entirely hidden and in a way blotted out and non-
existent, since it never would truly exist. As it is, however, everyone is
brought to wonder at what is inside it by reason of the variegation of
what is outside, reflecting on what sort of a thing it is from the obser-
vation of its sophisticated acts.

>>18384529
a mouthful, but Late Neoplatonism taught that the Soul indeed changes in her very essence as soul.

>>18385160
although, of course, for me, there's more than the physical body, soul always has a body. And with the pneumatic vehicle, the soul has realized itself as all-together with every self, each in each but itself primarily; just like every form to each form, so each soul is to each soul, and That is Soul itself, the unified will and love of all souls. That higher Will and Love is always there in each of us, but it is "asleep" for us, and this relates to >>18385176 the powers of the soul (Nous/Wisdom, Logos/Dianoia, the Virtues, Health, etc,...) are unchanging, but the Center of the self moves itself up-and-down through itself, climbing this 'ladder of love' is Philosophy.

it's nice when this happens

>>18384529
plato taught the soul can change and acquire scars

>>18385271
plato taught that you'e gay

>>18385271
If it can change, it can be destroyed

>>18385275
epic trolling

>>18383213
>like Aristotle
Whaaaat

>>18383060
Based. We are permitted to kill atheists with impunity because they lack a soul.

>>18383889
>>18383881
>>18383853
Evil comes from God. It is the primordial Will willing to somethingness but also being pure Will. It is the suffering of God, his own emptying out of himself, in the same way creation is a constriction of the Godhead, darkness and Void in the Light.

>>18385430
let's see a source for that

>>18385453

>>18385453
>>18385479
Oh forgot to add Kabbalah to the source (and Plato in a sense).

>>18385375
Uhh everything is derived from substance from aristotle. He doesn't formally define it but we get a good grip of it partocularly on what he uses it for and what he says it's not. Everything else is building around that like his logic.

>>18385430
Yeah that holds up in no math. You can't derive a functioning math with that

>>18385572
So you have read only his Categories?

>>18385479
Boehme said Eckhart ripped off Ibn Arabi? Why haven't I heard of this before?

>>18385638
His physics works like this too. The elements go with the same elements. I believe the elements are derived from the substances themselves and his ethics is substance based. Correct me if I'm wrong over me skimming him but that was what they said iirc

>>18385812
In Physics he says Form is more nature than matter, he acknowledges the compound of matter and forms in natural things.
>>18385811
Where? I haven’t read about this.

>>18385830
Yes but form is derived from substance and is understood in a relationship of actuality/potentiality where potentiality is substance which is gotten to by his logic.

Socrates (substance) is a man (potentiality to more actuality)
Man is mortal (to more actuality)
Therefore socrates is mortal.

In this he can get form but it's from substance.

>>18385830
>>18385845
https://www.britannica.com/topic/form-philosophy

>>18385830
>>18385845
>>18385885

>>18385830
>>18385845
With his syllogistic logic he can operate through his metaphysical structure (a reverse foundation of substances as the reverse foundation with a regular foundation (actuality/potentiality) over it). What makes his logic well is he can use it in every field and derive any truth from it. It's not perfectly formal but it may be the most complete metaphysics of any philosopher in history. You can derive anything from his but it obviously has some holes (at the very least in a conjunction of two metaphysical structures).

New thread >>18385968

>>18385845
>>18385845
Ah yes but the substance as potential is qua natural thing, forms are per se actual. That is why he’ll say compounds (natural things, natural substances) are potential and actual.