/lit/ - Literature

For a proper introduction to Platonic metaphysics, philosophy and it's historical background that isn't butchered by academic caricatures:
>Eric D. Perl - Thinking Being
>Algis Uždavinys - Orpheus and the Roots of Platonism
>Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie - The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library
>Lloyd P. Gerson - From Plato to Platonism

Middle Platonism:
>Stephen Gersh - Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism

Neoplatonism:
>Porphyry - Launching-Points to the Realm of Mind
>Llyod P. Gerson - Plotinus
>Gregory Shaw - Theurgy and the Soul
>Radek Chlup - Proclus
>Sara Rappe - Reading Neoplatonism

Christian Neoplatonism:
>Eric D. Perl - Theophany
>Eric D. Perl - Methexis
>Deirdre Carabine - The Unknown God
>Stephen Gersh - From Iamblichus to Eriugena
>Fran O'Rourke - Ps. Dionysius and the Metaphysics of Aquinas
>David Albertson - Mathematical Theologies
>Michael Allen - Ficino

Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe is a great read too.

When reading Plato's Dialogues, a good practice would be to read them alongside Proclus' or Marsilio Ficino's commentaries.

Resources & notes:
If you can get the Loeb print of a text, opt for that. the Cooper transl. of Plato is fine.
Plotinus' Enneads + Commentary
>https://www.parmenides.com/publications/publications-plotinus.html
Proclus' Elements of Theology w/ Dodds’ commentary.
The Classics of Western Spirituality Series is good but with Ps. Dionysius, read the Rev. John Parker transl. instead:
>https://sacred-texts.com/chr/dio/index.htm
The only good print of Eriugena's Division of Nature:
>https://books.doaks.org/catalog/book/periphyseon
Wayne J. Hankey's publications:
>https://independent.academia.edu/WayneHankey
Gregory Shaw’s publications:
>https://stonehill.academia.edu/GregoryShaw
Intro to mathematical Platonism:
>https://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.com/2016/04/prelude-to-mathematical-neo-platonism_42.html?m=1
Ancient Commentaries on Aristotle
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentaria_in_Aristotelem_Graeca

>>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

>>18385968
>Plato? I’ve never heard of him. I make up my own philosophies.

>>18385968
anime posting is getting a tad out of hand it seems

>>18385994
None that are any good if they don't cover some affections he's made

>>18386000
I waited patiently to post but I also wanted to make sure the discord was included. I put st augustine in since he's my favorite platonist

>>18386009
this, if has been thought of, it was either plato who thought it, or the plato who first refuted it

>>18386018
Well thank you for putting it up, best thread on /lit/ in my opinion

>>18386025
Didn't know fashwave still existed or nazbol ig

This is the history of philosophy I recommend any platonist

>>18386037
>Didn't know fashwave still existed or nazbol ig
it doesnt except ironically. thanks for the rec

>>18386032
I don't have discord so I hope the server is doing good

Were Muslims really into Plato or only Christians?

Anime shit is gay, keep it out of these threads.

What do you all think of Butler?

>>18386049
Ironically is good. I'm still recovering from a political blunder reading Plato more closely would have helped me skip.

A full platonist school would be pretty dope one day.

>anime
>discord link
Well, i guess a Plato general was too good to be true anyway.

>>18386076
>>18386058
Eat shit. Either start the next general yourself or not. If I post it again I'm going to post anime versions of augustine. You're on an anime website

>>18386072
>I'm still recovering from a political blunder reading Plato more closely would have helped me skip.
I know the feeling well

>A full platonist school would be pretty dope one day
we can only hope, but this is probably as close as its going to get. Discussion here is pretty good anyway

>>18386056
I believe both Muslims and orthobros lorded him over westerners but Aristotle was deffo a favorite among islam too

>>18386056
>>18386103
This, also Plotinus was quite popular as well, but they didnt know it was Plotinus' works they were reading, they often thought they were mystical texts of Aristotle

>>18386097
Yeah discussion is good to bounce ideas back and forth. If I was a full platonist I would dive into it but I'm more parmenidean when they're both compared.

>>18386113
>I'm more parmenidean when they're both compared
how come?

>>18386126
I don't differentiate an ideal world from reality. His concept of forms is a little shallow to me (if an ideal chair really existed it wouldn't be substantial) and I think predicational monism lends itself to a better metaphysical structure which wouldn't derive tripartite soul etc.

>>18385935
Platobros... We got too cocky...

>>18386076
I like frogs but god knows how much shit that'll get. It's the content that matters

>>18386179
Someone needs to make a liberal containment thread and throw the anarchists in there too

Utter disaster of a thread, most of the "platonists" are just christfags. Go make a christfag containment thread why don't ya.

>>18386215
Christianity is platonist, you're just not ready for that yet

>>18386258
I asked this in another thread but got no answer: how do you go from platonism to christianity? Platonism makes sense, but christianity requires a belief in a set of highly specific events that just don't seem true to me.

>starting with the greeks
and I just finished phaedo
some it was engaging and interesting but I find that I too often can't engage with ideas raised because they're predicated on slave mentality and the existence of god(s)

>>18386262
Because you have a libero-historic metaphysical framework?

Accepting there is a God and developing on the ontological nature and relationship of him with us metaphysically broadened platonist ethics to allow Christianity to supplant other philosophies. Analytically, in the sense it can be quantified and shown to be more broad, ethics superseded platonist ethics.

In terms of God, you need a foundation for platonism to work to derive things from. Plato put in the image of the good in its place but he most certainly would have put God. It's an obvious marriage.

>>18386265
You shouldn't be looking for particulars. The socratic dialogue is derived from objective truth but this isn't analytically shown to be true. If objective truth exists and we know the soul is immaterial it's a natural conclusion the soul has innate knowledge. In linguistics Chomsky showed this.

>>18386300
>It's an obvious marriage.
But not a necessary one.
Being a platonist is self-evident, believing in Christ isn't.

>>18386300
Not that anon, but I don't see how this answers his question of going from platonism to Christianity. Christianity requires a belief in Christ, in him being the son of God, in the holy nature of the Bible, etc.

>>18386329
Believing in a monotheistic god is necessary, you'd accept that no?

>>18386341
>Believing in a monotheistic god is necessary
Why? prove it

>>18386341
Yes, but believing that God to be Yahweh isn't.
Also, I hope that by "monotheistic god" you're not implying "personal god", because then I'd have to disagree.

>>18386333
It could be any monotheistic religion. I haven't metaphysically mapped christianity yet but the appeal is overwhelming particularly a unitarian framework imo

>>18386343
What else would be prior to the form of good or equivalent to it? If good has no creation power then it can't be the foundation. A monotheistic god fits in the structure as a foundation and answers every crack in platonism.

>>18386350
I don't know about your metaphysical mapping anon, but to be a Christian you have to believe in the Bible and Christ, and there's nothing in Plato that requires this step at all

>>18383778

>>18386363
>What else would be prior to the form of good or equivalent to it?
nothing
>If good has no creation power then it can't be the foundation.
prove it has no creative power. define "creative power".
>A monotheistic god fits in the structure as a foundation and answers every crack in platonism.
there are no cracks in platonism

>>18386349
Why not yahweh?

No, even though Socrates speaks of hos daemon I think it necessarily has to be an ideal form more universal than good which leaves no real room for a personal god but I'm open to being criticized on that

>>18386378
>Why not yahweh?
Yahweh is a personal god and it's just not a compelling depiction of divinity in my mind.

>>18386370
Yes well that christ shows material truths are the cave and literally dies to allow all spiritual (read ideal) salvation is perfectly marriagable. It's not perfectly closed but it's not at all foreign

Are you guys the same ones with Guenon posters? What do you think about Guenon?

>>18386076
>implying frogs are any better

>>18386375
How does one get anything from good? You need something which can map the relationship from good to other forms then eventually matter. That doesn't seem present in the form good but it is in a god who we can derive good from and maintain everything else without sacrificing anything from either metaphysics.

>>18386386
I think considering the abrahamic god to be personal is a matter of interpretation. I certainly don't think God is and I allow anyone to grow in their relationship with God but not in a personal manner except maybe one way (you to him)

>>18386402
Based

>>18386415
You have not read Plato. Stop reading fucking Aquinas or whatever you waste your time with. Read the Symposium, the Republic, the Parmenides, the trilogy Theaetetus-Sophist-Statesman, your questions are so trivial they show you haven't read the books you're in the thread for. Why are you here? You're wasting everyone's time shilling your shitty religion. Fucking annoying.

>>18386374
Anyone? I'm new to Plato.

>>18386652
You should take truth in it if it aligns with how you view the world. The important thing about it in this sense is he derived it from his metaphysics. His metaphysics has wide application even today in math (computers come from mathematical platonists). It's not perfect certainly but any conclusion he has has some degree of application if it's derived from his metaphysics.

>>18386447
What inference rule do you use which is inherent in the form good that can derive everything?

>>18386726
>how you view the world
Well, it does, although I was expecting it to be a "proof" of anamnesis and the soul. I understand platonic metaphysics (on a surface level for now) and agree with them, but I expected the dialogue to be more of a demonstration.
Either way, what I got from Phaedo personally was this sense of skepticism which permeates the other dialogues I've read, and it surprised me since Phaedo is usually recommended to people to have doubts about religion, death and so on.

>>18386772
It's definitely a platonist dialogue so it's not formal and you have to philosophize and put the two together yourself.
What came off as skepticism btw? If it makes you feel more at ease the platonist school went skeptic when carneades became head. We have a lot more insight now and applications so it's easier to get something formal out of it.

>>18386341
>Believing in a monotheistic god is necessary
Why is it necessary?

>>18386808
Because there's nothing in the form of good which implies existence. How does one get existence from good?

>>18386791
I didn't express myself very well, Phaedo isn't really a skeptic dialogue, it's not aporetic, I'm saying that it made me skeptical instead of comforting me in some idea (as I expected it to). Your post made me realize I went into it expecting to be more or less spoonfed since I was and still am struggling with existential questions, so that's on me.
>it's easier to get something formal out of it
You mean like mathematical Platonism?

>>18386808
>>18386819
Also I don't get the big hangup about this. Almost every religion boils down to a single creator

>>18386822
I mean an analytic platonism which includes mathematical platonism.

>>18386842
Have any recent philosophers tried to formalize Platonism in that manner?

>>18386855
I'd have to look but yeah

>>18386819
>Because there's nothing in the form of good which implies existence. How does one get existence from good?
How is practical knowledge and not just sophistry?

>>18386370
>and there's nothing in Plato that requires this step at all
Related to this, one thing I've been thinking later is about miracles. The One or the Good is stated by platonists to generate everything else in a logical and causal chain by necessity. The One then is responsible for the laws of the universe being what they are, and they're the best ones possible. So there is no chance at all the One would break his own laws to display his power to humans, be it walking on water, turning water to wine or raising the dead. Those things break the natural law and therefore go against the One. Miracles are impossible then.

>>18386855
>>18386858
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism#Modern_Platonism

>>18386882
How is English

>>18386883
That would seem to imply God himself can't come down but Jesus is the son of God. I'm unitarian so miracles and even operating in this world doesn't make sense to me particularly for God but you're looking at particulars, these objections don't preclude christianity much less monotheism.

>>18386892
Thanks.

>>18386911
>How is English
I don't know - you tell me?
How is anything you say of practical value? You're just a sophist nobody has to give a shit about. You're just making up loaded statements without articulating your point.
>I'm unitarian
Yeah, that explains your retardation. Nominalism superseded that Christian non-sense that a long time ago.

>>18386883
I highly doubt this is the only universe that exists or that the laws of physics that exist here are the only ones. The laws we have here aren't necessarily the best possible, just the best for this particular world

>>18386945
>you tell me
I suppose I could.

I'm not sure what's so personal about it for you but it has very practical value. I brought up points to dive deeper into it. I'll say for being able to explain the relationship between good to everything else implies the ability to apply platonism in every field and, assuming one thinks plato's metaphysics is fantastic, will help further the fields tremendously. Not only that it sheds light on what Plato meant. Formalism in metaphysics was developed just after Plato and the megarian school among other socratic followers, were very formal so it follows him anyways.

>>18386945
>>18386987
If you need credentials then I could show you but I'm not pulling anything out of my ass to give you a hard time. I'm very rigorous and it's only by being very formal that one can meaningfully speak about a subject. It's kinda like coding. People say "the code isn't working" a lot and you look at it and it's doing exactly what you're telling it to do.

>>18386037
Based. This book single handed got me interested in philosophy.

Honestly, this general is what I foolishly expected the board to consist of when I found /lit/ years ago: actual discussion of worthwhile books. For the most part, I didn’t come here that often because the catalog was filled with threads about the milk and honey ‘poet’ and other stuff that disinterested me, personally. So thank you, original original poster for making the first thread. Hopefully /sci/ and /his/ will have at least one worthwhile like this of their own, as well.

>>18386892
>Contemporary analytic philosophers who espoused Platonism in metaphysics include Bertrand Russell
How is this retard included among people who espoused Platonism in metaphysics? The retard was a braindead materialist atheist.

>>18386056
Theology of Aristotle, baby!

This is a nice thread

>>18387843
>>18386892
>>18386855
>>18386842
frege's argument for mathematical platonism

>>18387843
His principia carried on frege's work trying to establish numbers actually exist. He tried a few methods and ended up with a type theory (starts at a particular then works up)

>>18385968
Bros... When should I start Nicomachean Ethics, after I finish the collection, or is there other stuff I need to know first?

So as I understand it:

The One: Absolutely transcendental source of all being. Everything that has being derives it from the One and for that reason the One is necessarily above Being. Nothing can be said of the One except what it isn't, and even that is saying too much.

The Nous: Intellect, where the Platonic Forms reside. Eternal, unchanging, it emanates from the One and thinks about the One producing the multiplicity of forms each a small finite shard that represents in an analogical way the essence of the One. The sum total of the intellects form the Nous as a hypostasis, which each form being an intellect in itself.

The Soul: Vital principle of the cosmos, it introduces dynamism and movement, Soul exists within time. It is a reflection of the Nous in the same way the Nous is a reflection of the One. Soul takes the Forms of the Nous and further introduces multiplicity by creating a variety of particulars from the universals. Contains two parts, the higher Soul that interacts with Nous and contemplates the forms and the rational Soul that merely experiences consciousness.

Matter: Nothing in itself. A mere substrate that the Forms work upon to create material things. A shadow of Soul.

How close am I Plato bros?

>>18388455
Yes.

>>18386088
>anime website
Your on a literature board about platonism.
Its plebeian and infantile. Stop.

>>18388455
It's good on its own. Rhetoric is supposedly boring but to compare socratic dialogue with aristotle's rhetoric off the bat seems enticing.

>>18389744
Anime is sin

>>18388455
Ethics is good as a standalone work, but if you want to get more out of it you can read his other stuff like Rhetoric, or his Metaphysics. :3

>>18389744
I'm in a platonist thread and the concept of ideal character traits (the ideal form of friendship, love, betrayal etc) are transferable to Platonism with few additions.

>>18386341
Not at all. Henotheism or monolatry is more accurate. That said though, all that's necessary is understanding there is a metaphysical hierarchy with The One at the top. Abrahamic monotheism IS retarded. Ethics come from human reason (as self generated by our inner divine spark), not some angry jew in the sky telling us what is wrong and right.

>>18388069
Do you think Frege would still use axiom proofs instead of trees if he started today?

>>18389813
Ethics isn't meaningfully separate from action.

Either way, would the good or the one not inform what good ethics were (that is, do ethics not have to be good)?

>>18386341
Plus God being outside time and somehow creating time (at some point in time) is retarded. The One is and has been forever emanating the multiplicity of the world that will exist as it is eternally. Believe what you want about the afterlife, the Phaedo does make good arguments, but don't claim to know.

>>18386363
A monotheistic god answers all the cracks in everything. Faith will do that. Are you a teenager?

>>18386402
Alright. Pretty interesting. Misses some stuff. Shills pretty hard for a trash tradition like Islam.

>>18389836
To be honest it doesn't bother me how you inderstand and grow in a God but that you do.

>>18389845
I haven't heard good arguments for why fideism is a good epistemology. I simply mean ontologically. Ethics becomes negative complete with God and a promise of salvation. You can do ethical actions which may be negative to you and still be practicing the ethics. Stoicism needs the end result to be positive while Christianity doesn't. Whatever platonism is, it didn't have that. In fact platonism couldn't even maintain its ontological claims and went skeptic for centuries.

>>18388711
This is Plotinus as I understand it.

>>18389804
>no, the shadows are more real than the things that cast the shadows.
Fucking zoomtastic.

>>18389826
It is tard. Its possible to make ethical considerations separately from acting. Why do you think the main question for Socrates was: what is the good life? Presumably in order to determine that we have to first think, then reach conclusions before we start to act.

Our own notions of goodness inform our good ethics. Not as a result of god forcing their standards on us with threats of eternal punishment.

>>18389975
So good ethics is relative?

>>18390017
>retarded logic leaps
>anime
>christfag (probably)
I'd put money on you being a teenage seppo.

>>18390037
>Our own notions of goodness inform our good ethics. Not as a result of god forcing their standards on us with threats of eternal punishment.
Is your own notion of good not relative? If it's objective then why not just say the good is what informs the ethics and we attempt to understand it through our notions - not that our notions define it.

>>18389953
Fallacious reasoning

>>18385968
The likely reason Laws and Republic weren't taught is that they each alone pretty much the size of all the other 10 in the curriculum.

>>18386149
>ideal chair

>>18390037
It's probably Arruuus.
>>18388711
Skips the notion of the indefinite.
Intellect was first mystically one, this i later Platonists Father/Being; then Plotinus' intellect became the indefinite Dyad, or 'two', what later Platonists call Life or Dynamis; the two become One in reversion to the the One as true Intellect/Nous.
Plotinus barely even touches on this, but it's there, and to suppose that the Intelligible Triad was a raw invention of Porphyry would just be embarrassing, no offense to him.

>>18390119
Nice Ina image.

>>18386111
Same with Proclus. Some cheeky anonymous Neoplatonists edited them to appear like being directly from Aristotle. Likely done with the wisdom that this might have been the only way to preserve true Philosophy.

>>18390119
Where does Ina, or the rest of Hololive EN stand in plato’s teaching?

>>18386341
Platonism is Polytheistic Monarchianism

>>18390427
Is the good pluralist? Also monarchy? Monarchy isn't what defines the structure.

>>18390373
Forms? Anon is probably just a weeb though.

>>18385968
I'm surprised Republic isn't considered a must-read in that list. It seems to be the mpst informative of his metaphysics, even sacrificing his rhetoric a bit to do so.

>>18390890
I think that's just the order to get into them not the rankings of the best to worst.

>>18390307
There are forms of physical things like chairs. Keep up.

>>18390896
I like Gorgias > Protagoras > Republic. Sets the scene well enough into what he does then presents himself properly.
I would love to see a marxist come and debate platonism as a value theory.

>>18386341
The question of monotheism is absolutely besides the point even on scriptural grounds:

>Ps. 136:2 | Give thanks to the God of gods. His love endures forever.

St. Augustine talks about this in the City of God. If the Platonists want to call angels, "gods", then its just a difference in name.
>>18386333
Yea Christian Platonism is one where Platonism is seen as the best rational hand-maiden to the Christian faith.

>>18391173
Yeah agreed, it loses nothing fundamentally but gains more ny adopting it.

>>18390427
>Monarchisnism
Isn't that the Christian anti-trinitarian heresy?
I mean the trinity is an article of faith so no rational proposition can really touch it if you accept the deposit of faith. All that trinitarian theology has to then do is demonstrate that reason and faith aren't at fundamental odds with each other (the absolutely simplicity of the Godhead and the trinue persons are reconciled through relation and circumcession).
>>18391182
Absolutely
>>18386855
Not any recent ones that I can think of, but Proclus' Elements of Theology serves a similar purpose, and Ficino's Platonic Theology to a somewhat too.

>>18391173
Plotinus calls the Sun, Moon and Stars "gods", but he was clearly aware of the huge difference between "gods" as in powerful beings within creation and big G God (The One) which is the source of all being. I'd be wary of it myself since if you start calling things gods it muddies the waters a bit, but as long as we're all clear about the difference between gods and the One then technically there's nothing wrong with it, it's just a terminological issue.

>>18386386
YHWH means aseity. It's beyond merely personalism. It is linguistically derived from hawa, a related form of haje = to be.
Uncaused because He is the "to be" of beings. The Being of beings, but not a being amongst beings.
Another way to think of it is in relation to the broader context of Ex. 2:14.
God says that, in response to the question of what his name is, that "I AM WHO I AM".
Which is to say that, he avoids naming entirely. If you met a man in the dark at a bus stand and asked "who are you?" and he replied: "I am who I am." he's evading your question. But for YHWH, as he is both what beings are derived from hence the first reading of his name, and none of them (all things in all things and nothing in any) is also properly speaking ineffable and truly beyond names.
>>18391192
Sure yea, then the real question is about veneration. If you're sacrificing to "gods" that would violate the first commandment. If the sacrifice is just to God himself, it doesn't.

>>18391192
All the gods are symbols of the One, to praise them is to praise him.

>>18391217
I'm going to steal that to be of God thing. It means writing Go's existence is superfluous w God

>>18391276
Yup the jewish attitude to the tetragrammaton is just sheer nonsense.
Here's a more direct source on the YHWH etymology stuff. It's from Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Fantastic book.

>>18386088
>anime versions of augustine
pls post

>>18391275
That doesn't fly for Christianity. It's idolatry to direct worship at anything other than God Himself.

>>18391284
Love Ott. I admit Catholic manualism appeals to the autist in me.

>>18391284
>Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Fantastic book.

I want this so bad but it's too expensive and hard to find.

>>18386088
Stop getting so butthurt, someone just didn't like your cringe weabishness. Honestly I don't care if someone posts anime, but posting anime in the Platonism general Op does seem quite juvenile and misplaced.

Any good Platonists podcast episodes/lectures I can listen to while cleaning?

>>18392005
Seconding

>>18385968
Don't join the server, the owner is a pedo.

>>18393112
Well whoever makes the next general take it out ig

>>18386262
How?
By pragmatically negotiating with the physically present masses of people to whom it does seem true no matter how untrue it obviously painfully seems.
Christianity.exe can be reverse Inverse Judaism. Conversations are porous such that you drag your finger over the normie command you wish to execute in the bible's page and they will not be aware of the contradiction in the next heading. This is convenient for apparent authority.

>>18389802
>black sun
>On a Jewish whore
Yeah uh thanks Rabbi see you at the Reich

>>18393331
I read this in my head in a really edgy voice

>>18393338
>Jesus's mom is a whore
I see that you are Talmudpilled, thanks for the help, goy!

>>18386265
You don't have to buy into the ideas to engage with them. The Phaedo is easily one of Plato's more compelling dialogues in terms of style, content and overall importance in the canon.
I'd recommend giving it another go!

>>18393538
What order would you recommend for first two or three dialogues one should read of plato?

Sophists > Plato

just finished Parminedes today
was pretty good.
thought it was a thorough dialectical extrapolation of what Parminedes and Heraclitus did.
covered all the bases in a technical, platonic way but missed all the magic and illusion of Parmenides poem.

>>18394585
Well read mourelatos' route of parmenides and put away that magic

>>18394500
Now you've done it

>>18394614
i'm halfway through patricia curd's eleatic monism.
she references him a bunch

my impression from her, and how she frames her contemporaries' analysis, is that they read Parminedes narrowly in pursuit of some "literal" interpretation of what he did. or what he was supposedly "saying." even Plato doesn't do this. there are so many backdoors in the philosophy put forth in Plato's Parminedes. and obviously the poem itself by Parminedes is more akin to a magic spell that sparks metaphysics itself.

why fuck with that?

>>18394662
For real ignore curd. I rewent over predicational monism with a bad taste in my mouth from her until I read mourelatos treatment. I had to do a double take but there's are significantly different.
She writes good books but I dislike her take on parmenides.

>>18394662
>>18394774
Inspiriation isn't a real epistemology. I wouldn't mind it being formalized and if you're looking for that spark then sure. I'm not knocking it but it feels childish to me but I used to sorta treat that as an exercise for my brain but I stopped when I realized some of it can be over something almost objectively retarded and it usually gets in the way of me studying anyways and incapacitates me for the hour or two it's happening and I'll be too tired for the rest of the day.

>>18394774
i'll give mourelatos a crack. i think i printed out an essay of his a while back that was pretty decent.

i'm only haflway through curd's take so i may be wrong on this but here goes: it seems like she only proposes predicational monism - never actually fleshes it out. (perhaps she does in the second half but it doesn't look like its going there.)

predicational monism is a sound component of metaphysics.Plato validates it in his Parminedes as he opens it up as "the others" that exist beside "the one" and i'm guessing this is where Curd gets it from. the problem is that it is only a component of metaphysics and not the sum total functioning. Parminedes himself never claimed to be a "monist", this is just the misunderstanding applied to him similar to the way people have described him "contra" Heraclitus.

Curd mentions about a half dozen other "x monisms" that have been claimed by recent philosophers. they all seem valid, helpful even, but lacking. again, a narrow, literal take on Parminedes

>>18394792
did you just say inspiration seems childish?
i guess it can seem useless if you're not producing. and sure it can get in the way of studying as studying is just active consumption - not production.

but if you are a writer or an artist, you're just flat out not doing shit unless you kneel and prostrate your life before the muses.

>>18393338
>i'm gonna btfo the kike on a stick worshippers by... agreeing with the kikes
are you retarded or something

>>18391535
lmao speaking of - manualist autism and proclean rationalism just went perfectly hand in hand for me
>>18391884
try abebooks, its where I got my copy for a fairly decent price
or if you want a pdf try zlibrary:
https://au1lib.org/book/3719376/651eee

>>18392005
Between Athens and Jerusalem has been the best one I've found so far.

>https://betweenathensandjerusalem.libsyn.com/

>>18394870
To be honest heraclitus/parmenides works could be fabricated entirely but it's what they ontologically represent which is important.

What do you think are the other components? It's not formal but I think predmon is closed downwards in interpretations.

>>18394886
I'm completely against inspiration. It's like a deadend last resort epistemology that doesn't always work. Tbh I'm mostly against the human experience and I've grown more in every facet by not worrying about people or their experiences as more fundamental to reality

>>18394969
This nigga really calling himself Hermes

>>18395010
i'd have to disagree with this first part. historical provenance and the accuracy of such is pretty critical. to get a head start on your question: history is an essential component of metaphysics. it not only critically matters the ordering of philosophy but is likewise delightfully baffling and confounding.

there are, of course, what seem to be exceptions to this idea. for instance, the very real possibility that Jesus Christ is a fictional character and that all four of the gospels are completely fabricated is entirely believable. however, in the case of Christ and Christianity, i am of a mind that the fictionality of Christ is the true strength of Christianity. the consummation and historical pinnacle of the philosophical idea of belief in it's proper domain: that of religion.

as for the other components of metaphysics, gosh there are probably thousands. or probably only a handful. i really haven't thought it through enough.
even if you were to come up with a handsome list, there would be many that comprise the functioning that don't lend themselves to tidy terms - or at least ones all of us living now have come up with. there's, at root, that fundamental machination of metaphysics that belies a tidy ordering of parts or components. just when you've seemingly affixed all of the cogs and gears in their proper places you set the beast in motion only to realize the beast itself is that of transformative, transvaluative elusive being. i mean, is there even a short definition of metaphysics that is at all satisfying?

>>18395010
this second part makes little to no sense to me.

firstly, i don't believe inspiration is even an epistemology, although it's quite clever to describe it as such and certainly the contrast will help inform what epistemology is.

to borrow from the terming of "metaphysics," inspiration seems to be "before" or "after" or "aside" epistemology. it is not epistemology as such but rather something that travels a similar path for part of it's journey.

this is not entirely true, but epistemology lends itself to retrospective knowledge. how do beings "know" something. knowing being a present tense verb regarding past information or experience. inspiration does quite the opposite. it divines future knowledge before it has arrived. it ascribes truth as or before it appears. it creates, it does not analyze.

and yes it always does work. always. it's shortcoming is that it is not universally historically celebrated. but every moment of inspiration, and it's product, is always true. always real. just more often cheap and discardable. but that's life.

and what are you saying "i'm against human experience?"
there literally is nothing else. you can grow from nothing other than human experience. what are you saying? reality IS human experience. check out some Heidegger.

Can there be such a thing as a Muslim neoplatonist of a sort? Or will even the Sufi turuq reject that?

>>18385978
Thanks man, reading Perl now and all finally started falling into place.

>>18395173
History is a component of metaphysics makes history less important than metaphysics by definition. I'm asserting it's not even a component.

Religions are metaphysics so it would apply still.

>is there even a short definition of metaphysics that is at all satisfying
Yes or at least it would have to be on some level for it to be comprehensible enough to study

>>18395211
It's certainly a manner of learning about the world so it would have to be couched as a subepistemology of another (like falsificationism) at least.

Fideism is an epistemology and kierkegaard had some form of that in some spiritual revelationist manner.

If it always works then why isn't every idea that is come about through inspiration a gold mine. Sometimes it's a cope. I think we would have to treat it as an epistemology to analyze it.

Human experience isn't fundamental to reality. We are humans but how reality works is understood outside human experience. We don't have epistemic certainty.

>>18395349
i think we have two drastically different world views to be able to come to a consensus.

i don't think what you are saying is wrong outright, i just think it is missing some very beneficial context that i, personally, find valuable.

have you read any existentialism beyond kierkegaard? i feel like some nietzsche or heidegger would enliven your perspective on inspiration.

>>18395396
I've read some nietzsche. I like his apollonian/dionysan hostoricism is interesting.
I think if a viewpoint requires personalized context it fails to be universally applicable. If you can describe a realist framework versus an existential one I think we'd be more communicable. I don't deny inspiration exists I just don't think it's a universally good epistemology to apply. I dom't even think it's a real thing desu. I'd probably couch it under empiricism in that it solely feels like you discovered something but doesn't dictate you did.

>>18395229
Ismaili are the most openly neoplatonist. For sufis, it will vary quite signifcantly, as some are much more rigid in thier outlook than others. However, many of them recognise that histroical, some of the greatest muslim scholars and mystics have looked to other Traditions, particularly that of the Greeks, as they explained aspects of the cosmos and our relation to the Divine in a way that was excellently explained, as well as not incompatiable with an islamic perspective, if interpreted in a specific light. Regardless, for both the ismaili and sufis, they argue that such concepts are not found totally in the other Traditions, but also within the Quran and hadiths (although these often require the use of skillful exegesis) as well, so they have an islamic basis. There also strains of neoplatonic thought in twlever shia islam, most clearly in the form of mystic thinkers such as Mulla Sadra, who I can highly recommend.

>>18395537
i'm guessing you identify strongly with rationalist or positivist practicalities, am I correct? they're useful, for sure, but not the whole picture by any stretch of the imagination.

>I think if a viewpoint requires personalized context it fails to be universally applicable

This statement is so problematic. You realize that a viewpoint, understood in it's most literal context, IS ONLY a personalized context, right? A viewpoint, by definition can never be a universal or be universally applicable.

I feel like I can safely assume that you are not a creator of any sort. You are not an artist or a writer, am I correct? This pretty much tells me where you're coming from. Your interest in philosophy is academic. It is not application based. That's where our worldviews diverge. You are looking for a complete and satisfying picture of "reality." I would rather have reality be, in part, it's essential unknowability and have that commuted and interpolated through the actioning I partake in when I create. This is an example of a realist framework vs an existential one.

You said here >>18395349 that "how reality works is understood outside human experience." This is false. Although I would switch "human" with "life," understanding itself does not exist outside of the human (life) experience. Understanding is a phenomenon that only occurs through living beings. Now, there is a very valid argument that all of the cosmos is a living substrate, but this does not rescue your claim. If all matter is a being that has a living experience, "human understanding" is commutable to this as well and thereby negates your proposed epistemic uncertainty. The understanding that exists through living beings is the actioning of "reality working." Reality is not some sterile, disinfected causal scientific ordering that is resolutely determinable. Reality is as chaotic, ahistorical, and sacred/profane as living experience. There is no void outside of life that life does not partake in. There is no vacuum of matter that floats in suspense indefinitely before or after consciousness. Reality is the disgusting, noble beast of life.

>>18395675
We're definitely on different sides of the spectrum.

I don't care for epistemologies particularly. I think they all have their place and I'm a metaphysical realist not a positivist.

I write surreal fiction when I can. I also write essays, debate and like applying metaphysics into other fields like math/science etc. I'm definitely into application but particularly as a necessary derivation of a metaphysical assertion or assertion in general.

I'm interested in knowing how any human's viewpoint alters that two hydrogen atoms mix to create a helium atom? For a more creative endeavor, I'm interested in knowing how a decently universal metaphysics-derived historicism can't compare universal application between historicisms. Even that, how a metaphysics can't derive new genres in whichever media.

In any attempt to speak or relate about anything we must use external objects to do so. How a human interprets something is solely in whether it's properly mapped to reality and, if not, by how much it is.

>>18395555
Salam bro.

I had no idea there were other neoplatosnist Shia's around here. Saw you guys talking in the archives. I would like to get more aquanted with you guys if possible so we can discuss some ideas. Where can i find you guys?

>>18395076
yea lmao bit of a larp
>i am of a mind that the fictionality of Christ is the true strength of Christianity
Wait what?
Bro if he was not risen the entire religion is in vain.
Obviously, he was a real person - from Africanus, to Tacitus, to the myriads of witnesses, to the archaeological evidence (Shroud of Turin etc.,) to the Babylonian Talmud he was definitely real, and given the fact that the Gospel of Mark was written from Peter's testimony and that the Gospel of John gets even the most excruciating geographic details right there's a highly likelihood that the gospels are eyewitness testimony.
See Richard Bauckham and Brant Pitre.
Is history an essential component of metaphysics? Not essential, as metaphysical truths should persist as true throughout all such historical conditions.

>>18397111
>Shroud of Turin

>>18397257
Yup, it's real and the carbon dating took contained samples and proclaimed it to be forged on that basis.
The historical evidence for the shroud prior to Medieval France is pretty hard to pass up too, and it explains the developments in artistic depictions of Christ (early romans didn't have the shroud [pic related] but the more eastern Christians did and their depictions match the shroud details - see Pantokrator).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNp0K6mOaHw&

>>18397287
*took contaminated samples

>>18391524
All saints are deified channels of God's grace, participating directly with his Power.

>>18397287
I was skeptical but after looking at all the evidence I'm Shroud-pilled. It looks legit, either that or an absolutely amazing string of coincidences resulted in the creation of something beyond even our current technological capabilities.

https://youtu.be/c4d6-5QBJb8

What is the best exampe of anti-platonism? Stirner?

>>18397419
Kant is the antithesis of Platonism and the one who put an end to metaphysics being an important prerequisite for understanding the world.

>>18397456
>Kant is the antithesis of Platonism
How?

>>18397456
Kantian mathematics failed and was replaced. Essentially if you want your metaphysics to do math you're going to have to put in a lot of legwork to make kant compatible if you accept his metaphysics

>>18398022
In Platonism all true knowledge is apriori and comes by noetic contemplation of the forms. Kantianism is the opposite and denies synthetic apriori knowledge, instead dealing with it by claiming nothing can really be known about things in themselves so they're really just judgements on appearences.

>>18398090
Damn man. I hadn't thought about looking for a metaphysics which says we can't know. Sounds like it'll help me on my day-to-day journey and give me an easy out in debates I'm losing. "Just don't know", wow, very interesting.

>>18398090
>>18398099
Also I had a friend ask me to help w something. I realized if I just say true or false it's informative enough for him to begin and know where to go. So just saying we can or cannot know is beyond amazing.

>>18397409
blessed
also kinda cool that the Shroud of Turin confirms that Jesus Christ was actually very handsome - should not have expected less of the Son of God I guess
>>18391524
Worship is defined by sacrifice - so it'd be a violation of the first commandment to burn incense to idols for an example, but it is not a sacrifice to pray to angels or saints for intercession. However, obviously, for us prayer for intercession is explicitly for them to intercede through the power of Christ.
>>18398090
Yea Kant got filtered by Plotinus in like the 3rd Century. Representationalism is a total farce.

>>18397409
I don't get how that pic proves the resurrection happened

>>18398118
It should really be a supplement to the historicity and reliability of the Gospels but it does prove that Christ suffered, was crucified died and was buried. It strongly indicates that the tomb was empty, and its inexplicable properties aren't explainable as the work of human hands. If not by the work of human hands, it is by the work of suprahuman hands.

>>18397111
>to the archaeological evidence
>Shroud of Turin
Anon, you know that shit is fake, right?